Email
PrintA case of buyers remorse?
Editor, Index-Tribune:
Like Mary Morrongiello, I too am consistent. That is, I consistently find myself educating the confused and misinformed about entitlement. Mary, in case you don’t know: Webster’s definition of the word entitle is, “To give a right or claim to,” such as title to your home. Nowhere does it define entitlement as “free,” which appears to be what confuses so many people.
That SSI deduction on your (or my) paycheck stands for Social Security Insurance. So does that also make your required car insurance welfare? Or your required homeowners fire insurance entitlement or socialism?
You do not stipulate as to whether you plan on filing a claim asking for “title” to the Social Security you have paid for to date (unless you live off your husband). Or, if you would file a claim to your auto insurance if you had a collision. Would you? There is no difference with any of these insurance plans.
Like a betting pool at work, if you don’t pay you don’t play. Just like filing any claim, the claim must be legitimate before funds are dispensed. There are no neighbors, no “magic money” involved.
Now, if you do not care for insurance, perhaps you would want to buy (nothing in life is free) an annuity?
You also stated, “If you pay people not to work, they won’t.” They also will not work when there are no jobs. There are no jobs due to several reasons, which include lack of loans for small business, both start-ups and expansion. Jobs have been shipped overseas rather than goods shipped overseas – goods which expand our economy. Sorry, this one is not due to inherent laziness. Where were the parts made for that truck you were standing in with your sign? Mexico or China, perhaps?
They used to be made here, in the U.S.A. that you love as dearly as the protesters do also.
Patricia Mount
Glen Ellen
Please note: Your full name will be published with your comment.
Patricia, I think the colloquial usage of entitlement is aligned with the definition. Government wealth transfer programs are born out of the mistaken idea that one's needs constitute a legal claim on the productive efforts or the property of others.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Phineas, I think you’re a little confused about what Social Security is, probably from all that tea you’ve been drinking. We’ve all been paying into social security all our working lives, and so that is our money. No government wealth transfer, no claim on the productive efforts or property of others that you are so worried about.
But you are right about that wealth transfer; but it’s been from the middle class to the super rich.
According to the CBO, the top 1% saw their incomes grow by 275% since 1979, while the rest of us had minimal income growth.
According to the Wall Street Journal, “Executives and other highly compensated employees now receive more than one third of all pay in the US. Highly paid employees received nearly $2.1 trillion of the $6.4 trillion in total US pay.
Another way of looking at it, our CEOs make $475 for every dollar earned by an average American worker. In Canada, the CEOs make about $20 for every dollar, and in France, $15. The CEO compensation is even lower in Scandinavian countries.
We have the highest inequality of wealth in the industrialized world. The gap between the top 1% and the remaining 99% has grown to a record high. The richest 1% owns as much as the combined wealth of the bottom 90%.
The colloquial “entitlement” is more in line with the top 1%, not with the average middle class, don't you agree?
Tom, how much did the first SS recipient receive compared to what they paid? And how much will the last recipient get compared to what they may pay?
Social Security is a wealth transfer plain and simple. Current workers pay for current retirees. Like fiat currency, it is a system designed to fail long after those responsible are dead and gone.
If it is such a great idea make it voluntary.
I don't see any teachers or legislators taking part in it.
Phineas, Social Security is not a transfer of wealth. Social Security is an insurance program that you and I pay into all our working lives. It does exempt the 1% from their fair share of payments though, because your maximum contribution is capped at $106,000, and income earned above that amount is not subject to Social Security contributions. So in a way, maybe you are right; but it’s a wealth transfer benefitting the rich.
Besides, if Social Security is so bad, why did Any Rand collect thousands of dollars from her Social Security from 1974 til 1982? She certainly thought it was a good thing, or she wouldn’t have collected it, right Phineas?