Old-age Security Without the State
Many people cannot imagine old-age security without the state, says Oskari Juurikkala. This is particularly the case in continental Europe, where few people have private pension plans. But of course there can be food, houses, cars, and even music and literature without the state. There will be all of these in much greater abundance, when people are left free to pursue their own ends and satisfy their needs through individual responsibility, joint effort in local communities, and mutually beneficial exchanges in the marketplace. The same holds true for old-age security. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (20)
The 'FULL ARTICLE' link is not working but the 'link post' link works :-)
Published: March 22, 2007 9:36 AM
Regardless of popularity, social security programs will have to be scrapped for the same reason private defined benefit plans eventually have to be scrapped: Eventually you get to the point where it simply doesn't pay to live in that country, where you'll be massively taxed for little benefit, next to another that won't treat you that way. Then it enters a positive feedback loop, where tax base erosion accelerates.
I'd estimate that at the current rate, a young worker would come out ahead if he exited the SS system any time before age 55. Think about it.
Published: March 22, 2007 10:49 AM
Fine ideas from Mr Juurikkala, but it's almost impossible to change present systems.
First there are many middle-aged workers who have paid SS taxes over several decades and most of these have been used as an pension payments for original retiree generation which didnt have enought resources to retire when SS system was originally implemented. So SS funds in most countries contains little or not at all money to pay for all future retirees.
So if system is changed to the one where each citizen is responsible for his/her own saving for individual account then at least few questions arises;
1) What to do for those who paid money for SS taxes earlier but who in new system would have very little amount in individual accounts.
2) Are younger workers responsible for older workers (so they save for their own retirement plus must pay extra taxes to retire SS fund debt).
Published: March 22, 2007 11:24 AM
A very well written article and off-hand looks as if all the bases are covered for non governmental intervention in the public welfare system.
HOWEVER as long as governments control and manipulate the monetary system at will, all paths suggested in the article will be overwhelmed and come to naught as a result.
There are innumerable special interest groups that benefit from the present corruption and will do whatever is necessary to maintain the status quo. Change will come as it eventually must, but not before much needless pain is inflicted throughout.
Published: March 22, 2007 11:33 AM
Social Security will inevitably collapse of its own inherent structural flaws. Whether "reforms" postpone that date by a few years is of little consequence. A "buyout" of Social Security is the only alternative to letting it eventually collapse of its own accord. A buyout will be very expensive, but the sooner a buyout occurs, the less catastrophic it will be for the economy as a whole. The longer we wait, the higher the price. That all said. A buyout will never happen, of course, politics being what it is. The people that will be hitting retirement age at the time of Social Security's collapse are really going to be hating life, unless they do some serious saving.
Published: March 22, 2007 11:37 AM
I think its great. The greatest civilization to ever exist will not be crushed by terrorists, communists or facists, but by a bunch of old people where were fed the ultimate lie: Life does not change. Life is change and it is sad that most people don't know it.
There is a ray of hope. During a lecture by our 401K provider, a person of Progressive leanings said the social security system was fine. The people in the crowd under 40 laughed the loudest. And noone agreed with her. I wonder why?
Always ask: If Social Security was so great then why do we threaten those who want out with property confiscation, imprisonment and even violence?
Published: March 22, 2007 11:42 AM
The key issue in the article is stating that real support that is economically sound can only arise from associations that have some bond involved, family or fraternal organization. Once that is sundered, and resources (i.e. taxes) are taken and distributed in a double-blind fashion, real valuation is broken, and the system is ultimately doomed.
As for what to do, it's not really an option. The accrual basis national debt is now estimated at roughly $50 Trillion dollars, or about the collective wealth of the U.S. citizenry. That is the amount that would have to be sunk now to pay off the hard debt and the transfer programs as defined currently (i.e. the elderly retirement and health programs). The bomb will go off, and we can either do something about it, or let it go off and ruin the economy. It WILL reset one way or another.
So what to do? Perhaps tax the "Greatest Generation" that spent the real equity built up by their ancestors, blew their whole stack, and mortgaged the future. They are the wealthiest sector of society, their equity is what really should back the loans and promises, not the younger generation's labor. If these plans are unfunded, that means the equity resides in the hands of people who lived through the generations when the promises were made. I say have a fifteen to twenty year generation surtax based on net worth. Perhaps some clean-up will be necessary through general purpose taxes later for the "stragglers", but the generation that built the ponzi scheme should be the one to retire it.
Published: March 22, 2007 11:44 AM
Oh, yeah: You have the incorrect definition of PAYGO. Paygo means that if you don't PAY then you GO to prison.
Published: March 22, 2007 11:45 AM
I was raised in a fast growing Christian sect that focuses a great deal on the importance of family. They operate one of the largest private universities in the US. I am surprised that they don't do more to oppose the welfare state that does so much damage to a human institution they call sacred. In fact, many of the members fully embrace this compulsory redistribution. Incedentally, they also operate a very large welfare and jobs program for its members, and do a pretty decent job of taking care of them.
Published: March 22, 2007 12:57 PM
Don't you know everything will be solved by youth in Asia with bird flu?
Published: March 22, 2007 1:36 PM
SS_Solutions, the proper spelling is "euthanasia".
Published: March 22, 2007 2:11 PM
What would you think about a group of individuals taht decide to form a State and live under its rules?
When will libertarians start to act and form a society free from the state instead of this perpetual waterfall of words?
Have you considered the possibility that the vast majority of people actually LIKES living under the state's rule?
Published: March 22, 2007 4:36 PM
Patience, Fernando. History doesn't always turn on a dime.
Published: March 22, 2007 4:56 PM
What would you think about a group of individuals [that] decide[s] to form a State and live under its rules?
A Club.
When will libertarians start to act and form a society free from the state instead of this perpetual waterfall of words?
Because the Thugs with Guns want their [tax] money. They will not let go.
Have you considered the possibility that the vast majority of people actually LIKES living under the state's rule?
Is it not supposed to be that the State is the rule of the people, and not the other way around? Or are you simply not beating around the bush, calling things by what they REALLY are?
Published: March 22, 2007 5:34 PM
There's something I wonder about. When you speak of children as being an investment in your future, is there a danger that you're treating them somewhat like means to your ends? It seems almost like saying that the act of raising your children imposes a positive obligation on them to make your care later in life the main responsibility of their lives, and might free you to plan and save less for the future. Do you see any ethical problems with that situation?
Published: March 24, 2007 11:00 AM
Christianliberty.org is working to create the avenue whereby others can exercise their
religious right to resign from the US Social Security program.
Published: March 24, 2007 2:33 PM
I'd like to think old-age security beyond the nanny state would work. And yes, it will come; the economic collapse cannot be averted indefinitely.
The U.S. national debt clock [last time I looked, at 8.8+ trillion dollars] is only the tip of the iceberg. Near as I can tell, the real total U.S. debt as of 2007 is 71 trillion.
Transition will be painful but perhaps such a wake-up call will change attitudes.
At this point in time, I am pessimistic.
I got my Social Security card in 1948. And believed the government lies then. Now I know better, and panicky baby boomers refer to us old geezers as "unearned eaters". Which is par for the course for a generation that bought into the 'greed is good' philosophy.
Over the past thirty-some years, I've seen the change in attitudes of the young. 'In the day' most could not wait to be independent, finish school, move out. Now, I see any number of freshly-minted young adults who are totally dependent personalities. They live at home, contribute nothing to the household, and still believe in the concept of "mommie as taxidriver".
In the past twenty years, I have not seen ANY case of one parent dying where the children did not start a family feud, and even fight amongst themselves for the biggest slice of the pie. Even including court action against the surviving parent. "I want what's coming to me and I want it NOW!"
Who would hope such 'children' would be a blessing in one's dotage?!
As for charity in general, that perhaps works on the small scale, region, town. Unfortunately, we've seen the rise of "charity as big business". What used to be voluntary ended up as indrect compulsion. I personally overheard United Appeal managerial types talking about the goal they WOULD reach in Cincinnati.
Sure, it was easy enough to predict, when companies bowed to pressure and passed on the edict to their employes: We've pledged 100% participation.
And one gets even more jaded to learn the administration overheads including top salaries leave little for those who need charity.
But the reality check is a'comin' ...
Published: March 24, 2007 7:11 PM
Regarding the obligation for children to care for their parents, the authority comes from the Ten Commandments. Teaching your children about their obligation to care for you, comes from the obligation to teach your children well. Demonstrating the principle yourself is the best teacher. Not only the family, but society at large benefits when any one of us does what is right. It is right to be fruitful and multiply. It is right to honor your father and mother. It is right to bring up a child in the fear and admonition of the Lord (and to do His precepts). When these right things are done, it happens to economically benefit the family and society. It conforms to the law of cause and effect.
Published: March 26, 2007 9:51 AM
I am Austrian economist because I believe that Austrian methodology is sound, but I dont need to have a supernatural justification for my economics. God is something which should stay away from econ analysis.
Mr Juurikkala has his own reasons to advocate ideas about which he was questioned. One reason might be that he is a member of Opus Dei organization. So economics might have somekind of natural law basis?
Published: March 26, 2007 1:39 PM
It is right to bring up a child in the fear and admonition of the Lord
This is obviously some new meaning of the word "right" of which I was not previously aware.
I'd call bringing up a child in fear "child abuse".
Published: March 26, 2007 8:10 PM