Robin Hood

[KyleB]

Can the argument in favor of claiming benefits consistent of anything substantially different than "Since I had been plundered when I was young to support those who are old, I must be therefore be entitled to plunder those who are young now that I am old."?

it seems to me that if a person has $100,000 taken from him by the gov't with the promise (sort of) that it will be given back later (maybe), and then the gov't does eventually give back, say, $80,000, then that person hasn't been the recipient of any kind of welfare. He just got back his own money. Of course it's not the same money that he put in. Of course the money he put in was never in any savings account. Of course it was spent long ago. But still, he got back less then what was taken.

Thrombo, I agree in principle with what you are saying here. Let me be clear that I fully expect SS to be defunct by the time I ever reach an age where I might be able to receive payments. My family is currently eligible for many government programs (as we have chosen to have my wife stay home and home-school), but we have applied for none. I am not interested in becoming more guilty than I may currently be (tax deductions?) of taking government money that was extorted from others. I am also not in favor of the whole SS system philosophically speaking.

BUT, I also agree with what Singal says. If a person was forced to give some amount of their own money to a certain entity with a promise that they'll get it back some day, I can't fault them for accepting payments when their time comes. Yes, the particular system may be convoluted and doomed to implode. Yes, with a certain conceptualizing of the system one could argue that the old person is taking money from a current young person. But that is really the fault of the entity for mismanaging the funds they originally took, not the fault of the person who is just holding that entity to the promise that was made.

Personally, I could wish taxation was limited to those institutions necessary for punishing evildoers and praising those who do good, with the rest left up for each to do what is right in his own eyes. But that is neither here nor there.

[thrombomodulin]

Homer, KyleB,

Thanks for your replies.

I have difficulty seeing a conceptualizing of the system where one could argue that the old person is not taking money from a current young person. This is true because the program is bankrupt and funded by taxation. Yes, one does not draw benefits unless one pays in, but it is the case that participation is mandatory and there is not an option to avoid paying in, so the assessment does not appear to depend on whether or not it is not an insurance program. If I were to purchase insurance in the marketplace and found that the company became bankrupt and could not pay out my claims, it would seem ethically right to simply accept the failure to pay as a loss. It does not seem right to compel others to participate in the losses I incurred. I am not so much seeking to find any cause to blame those who accept payments now, as discern whether I should accept payments when I reach an age where it is legal to do so. If the answer is that I should not, it provides at least a slight reason to consider expatriation, in so far as relatively better tax circumstances exist elsewhere in the world.

But that is really the fault of the entity for mismanaging the funds they originally took, not the fault of the person who is just holding that entity to the promise that was made.

I agree.

Personally, I could wish taxation was limited to those institutions necessary for punishing evildoers and praising those who do good, with the rest left up for each to do what is right in his own eyes. But that is neither here nor there.

I agree.