New York Times article on "We are all dependent on entitlements now."
Strange conclusions will be drawn from this article, I predict. People on the left will say, "See? Everybody gets benefits from government. They are hypocrites."
Well, wrong. If a thief takes my stuff, and then offers a small amount of it back to me, this article would imply that I should be charged with knowingly receiving stolen goods. It matters it was taken from ME. Trying to get back some of the huge amount of money I pay in doesn't make me a hypocrite.
I would say, once you establish the budget as a giant commons, then it makes sense for each person to try to take as much as possible. It's a Ponzi scheme, of course, since we are depending on other people, people now too young to vote, to put the money back. The problem with this Ponzi scheme is that it is MANDATORY. You have to put money into it, because of taxes. Your only choice is whether to try to get some of that back, in the form of entitlements. The fact that I take some of the money back is NOT a sign that I approve of the Ponzi scheme. I'd bail if I could. Keep your entitlements, and I'll keep my taxes. And let's not make the YYM and the EYM responsible for paying off that deficit.
You can't have a system where everyone takes out more in benefits than they put in in taxes. Unless you want to get all covered in Greece.
Nod to EC
9 comments:
Thanks for posting your thoughts on this topic. I always wonder about your views are on this given that, I'm guessing, significant funding for your research/job and the research/jobs of your colleagues (that you, in at least some cases, I'm guessing, desire that they keep their jobs) comes from public sources.
-JD Cross
Objecting to righties taking benefits that are the results of standard formulae seems as unreasonable to me as complaining that lefties don't voluntarily pay extra taxes by donating money to the IRS.
- JD
So what if some of Mungowitz's income is derived from public sources? That train of logic is like saying: It's funny how one rails against taxes, yet still drives on public roads.
Current circumstances are as they are, and the bills still need to be paid. It doesn't mean one cannot call out the system for what it is and hope for something better.
Apparently Hayek ended up on the Social Security dole near the end of his life (not sure of the details). I've had this thrown at me as an indication of hypocrisy, etc. Frankly, it simply proves (yet again) that people respond to incentives. If the system offers something, why wouldn't I take it (regardless of whether it was stolen from me or not)? This is why it is so critical for the system to regulate itself and limit its actions. Like having a set of rules defining what it does and does not do. Too bad a document like that or a constitution doesn't exist anymore...
The left likes to scoff at the idea of media bias, unless of course you're talking about Fox News, which we all know is biased. So is this article an example of "media bias" from the left?
The story arc is very pro-Big Government. The first two profiles are of people who look like the biggest hypocrites and have a hard time responding to the reporter when he traps them with his questioning. Somewhere near the end of the middle, where people are least likely to read, they throw in the profile of the guy who makes a good case about waste in the programs (being objective and all, you have to include something from the other side, right?). And then they close it with the enlightened poor guy who knows his place and votes democratic.
@JT: why not call out the Left for not taking care of the less advantaged with resources which they own? It's not particularly altruistic to demand that the less fortunate are to be taken care of with everyone's tax dollars. What if I wish to discriminate as to who gets my aid? What if I want to have an intermediary that I trust dole of portions of my charity based on criteria that I know that they'll investigate? I should have the right to make sure that my contributions are going to people with character or circumstances that I can agree/sympathize with. Why is that wrong?
I believe the article was trying to display the cognitive dissonance displayed by many people with regard to government. Kind of like the oldsters yelling get your government hands off my Medicare. Mike I believe you have never had a job that was not enriched by the government teet, so your ability to generate money to keep without government involvement would be likely heavily reduced. If the education industrial complex had market pricing either the pay and facilities would have to be greatly reduced or the demand would drop so low that likely most of the people who currently teach at the university level would have to find other employment.
Jayson
Duke University ain't exactly like being at the public trough. Like say, UNC. Better yet, our local diploma mill, ECSU.
Most of the education system exists because of public financing of education loans. Take away federal and state funding, and public financed and subsidized student loans and most of the existing higher education industry would be like a fart in the wind.
Post a Comment