Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
The downside of having the government do things for you
Published on February 15, 2004 By Draginol In Politics

When I speak on-line on various sites, including JoeUser.com about the role of government, it becomes apparent quickly that many people think of the government as some sort of independent entity that is not connected to us.  Those people tend to favor having the government solve all kinds of problems, including problems better left to individuals to solve for themselves.

People like me, as I discussed in the philosophies of the left and the right are wary of having the government do anything that we could be doing for ourselves. The reason for that is because we recognize that the government is us. When the government does something, we're basically paying money to have someone else do it. In an episode of The Simpsons, Homer runs for sanitation commissioner. His campaign slogan is "Can't someone else do it?" He promises that the garbage men will take care of everything from emptying the litter box to changing diapers. Of course, after he's elected he puts his program in action and quickly runs out of money. It was hilarious and yet it had a point - no one is going to be as efficient at taking care of you as you are. Sure, we can pay someone else to change our litter box but it'll cost a lot more for the government to do it than it would for you to do it yourself.

In a country in which half the adult population effectively pays no federal taxes, it becomes pretty tempting to vote in programs that take care of all kinds of things we could do ourselves. Programs that involve literally giving money to other people are, in essence, asking other individuals to pay for something for someone else. When people demand universal coverage to be paid for by "the government" what they are really asking for is their neighbors pay for their health care. Oddly, I have seen few movements to try to start health care charities. How many people who support government health care would be willing to go door to door asking their neighbors to chip in to pay for their own health care?

Or let me be even more explicit: Federal taxes represent days of the year that you work exclusively for the federal government.  Let's say you pay 30% of your taxes to the federal government.  That's about 120 days. 4 months. January, February, March, April . Those are the 4 months that you work exclusively for the federal government. When you start looking at it like that, you start to view things a bit differently.

When someone throws up their hands and says "let's have the government do this" they are really asking the 50% of the adult population who pays taxes to do it for them. We already, for example, work 2 weeks each year just paying the interest on the debt. Isn't that nice?  And because the government is so wasteful, the 50% who pay taxes end up working more days for the government than would have been necessary otherwise.

You say you like Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare? Well, if you're like me, you are already working 50 days each year to pay for it.  Imagine what you could do if those 7 weeks of income were instead put into some sort of private saving's account or a mutual fund or heck, saved towards buying a house? But instead, it goes to social security and unfortunately, it's a rotten investment for most of us. How rotten, how about this: If you were to pay say $5,000 per year from age 20 to 30 and then never pay another cent after that into savings, at an annual investment rate of 7% (a little less than the S&P 500 average) then at age 65 you would have around $600,000. Let's say you you received payments over the next 30 years (until you were 95) from it.  That would be over $20,000 per year for 30 year! And remember, this is with eliminating saving even one penny more after you turned 30. Most people would likely continue to save something for retirement, this just illustrates how extremely wasteful Social Security et al is.  Instead, we pay and pay and pay and for what? A bunch of little checks that had made no interest at all. And why? Because a bunch of people successfully argued that we should just throw up our hands and let the government take care of retirement for us. And so now we work 2 months each year for the government for the rest of our non-retired lives so that we can get a bunch of little checks.

Of course, the counter to this, which is valid, is that these programs help the sick, the poor, and the unfortunate. I think most people are willing to work several days each year to help them. Unfortunately while supporting the sick, poor, and unfortunate we also support the lazy, the foolish, and the unscrupulous. And it is very hard for the government to make a distinction between the two groups.  Which is precisely why so many Americans, such as myself, oppose programs that replace individualism with collectivism. If it's something we could really do for ourselves, then it's probably better to do ourselves. And to protect the sick, the poor, and the unfortunate private institutions or at worse the state and local governments are better off doing that -- because they are much better equipped to tailor their programs to the needs of their constituents than some far off bureaucrat.

I am okay with the current tax system - if I make more, I can afford to pay more. I'm fine with that.  What I am against is a system in which we give up personal responsibility to ourselves and our community to some far off government bureaucrat who will never be able to do the job as efficiently as we could do for ourselves.


Comments (Page 3)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Feb 18, 2004

Ahh, but it's not getting something for nothing, not any more anyways, very few people are still alive, in fact it's possible that no one is still alive who never paid anything into social security.

If I pay a penny into a pot and get $100 in return, that is welfare. Your position on this is precisely why I'm against more programs like this. As long as people pay even a token amount into a given program they are going to feel entitled to the full benefit which is largely paid for by the rest of society.

on Feb 18, 2004
You and I both know it's not as drastic as that.

Cheers
on Feb 19, 2004
Brad,
is everything just about cash to you? How about someone who pays $50 dollars into the pot, get $100 dollars in return, but has spent the past year doing charity work in Iraq? How about some who puts $20 dollars into the pot, gets $100 dollars back, but runs a soup kitchen in New York for the homeless? How about someone who puts $95 into the pot, gets $100 back and spends most of her time raising her kids?

There is far more to life and government than just cash Brad. I do not consider any of the above as welfare. They are all contributing to America in different ways. Perhaps some formalised agreement between them and the government as to the value of their contribution may be desired, but without such people the country would be so much less.

Paul.
on Feb 19, 2004

Jeb says: You and I both know it's not as drastic as that.


No, not quite that drastic but it is pretty drastic.  The point is that if people are getting out more than they put in then it is welfare.


There is far more to life and government than just cash Brad. I do not consider any of the above as welfare. They are all contributing to America in different ways. Perhaps some formalised agreement between them and the government as to the value of their contribution may be desired, but without such people the country would be so much less.

Solitair wrote: is everything just about cash to you? How about someone who pays $50 dollars into the pot, get $100 dollars in return, but has spent the past year doing charity work in Iraq? How about some who puts $20 dollars into the pot, gets $100 dollars back, but runs a soup kitchen in New York for the homeless? How about someone who puts $95 into the pot, gets $100 back and spends most of her time raising her kids?

What the heck does this have to do with anything?  How about come back to the reality that whether you like social security or not, it is a welfare program. And the problem with welfare programs is that they suck out the capital from society taking away its ability to make its own decisions on what their destiny is.

So that's what your argument boils down to? If I'm against the federal government sucking out the capital from society and redistributing it I'm basicaly greedy? Sheesh, I'd expect more from you. How about this radical concept: People helping each other. Directly. Children helping their parents. Neighbors helping neighbors. Community volunteering. These are things I do. And it's much more effective as a way of providing real help.

But no, you'd just throw up your hands and say "Let's let the government suck out 15% of our income and spread it around halfhazardly!"

The very people who scream about religious charities getting any support are the same people who tend to want the government to control everything. Try dealing with the government in some significant way. Any department will do. You will find it is immensely incompetent.  Ever deal with a monopoly even? Like the phone company? Monopolies tend to be incompotent because they don't have to compete for the dollars of individuals. Governments are the ultimate monopoly.

Every penny that the federal government gets is a penny out of the hands of individuals to make their own decisions with. It has nothing to do with greed. It has to do with the freedom and dignity of our people. 

As a society, I am convinced that social security has done more harm than good. Instead of social security, they should have created some outright welfare program to help those people who really need it while allowing everyone else to invest their money in other ways.  Did you know since the foudning of social security the S&P 500 has averaged roughly a 9% annual return? Imagine if Americans had been given that choice?  Trillions of dollars would have been fed into the market which in turn provides raw capital for new companies to start up.

Instead, those trillions went to the government and did nothing but get distributed out piecemeal to everyone.  Social Security, IMO, has created more poverty than it has helped. 

on Feb 19, 2004
But what about during the 80s when the market crashed? or in the late nineties when the market crashed? The problem is, companies don't always have ethics, and when they don't the people who invest suffer.

Cheers
on Feb 19, 2004
is everything just about cash to you? How about someone who pays $50 dollars into the pot, get $100 dollars in return, but has spent the past year doing charity work in Iraq? How about some who puts $20 dollars into the pot, gets $100 dollars back, but runs a soup kitchen in New York for the homeless? How about someone who puts $95 into the pot, gets $100 back and spends most of her time raising her kids?


People who do charity usually aren't paid for doing charity. That's the whole point of charity. If they were paid for charity, then it's not charity, but a job.

Sure, social security might help those too incompetent to invest for retirement, but why hinder everybody else in the process?
on Feb 19, 2004
Actually, I'm going to have to partially agree with Brad here, as much as it pains me to say it, but no one is actually "benefited" from social security. I wouldn't say it was from incompetency Messy, that's just plain lacking in comprehension. Until you really understand how the economy works, I think you should keep your mouth closed. People who are "poor" aren't necessarily being lazy, incompetent, or stupid. They just work at jobs which don't pay enough to support themselves. Why do they work there? Because of a variety of reasons, I know some people who graduated from college the first time with me who now are managers at fast food restaurants. Sure they make more than the burger flippers and sure they probably make above the poverty line, but they don't make enough to save a great deal. These are COLLEGE EDUCATED people here, not high school dropouts, and not teenage mothers. There will always be poor people, it's the way an economy of this scale works. Since one person can produce alot of goods, fewer people are needed to make the goods. The lowest possible, in the case of the US the government mandated minimum, wage will ALWAYS be insufficient to support a family. Don't believe me? Take intro to Econ at your local Community college and you'll see what I'm talking about. As for "hindering" everyone else, how much do they take out of your pay check for social security? Sure, it seems like a lot, but the amount you get back, in theory, is what you've put in. Why is the theory wrong? Because people are living longer than they're supposed to. When the theory was set up people were expected to live to 70sish, not past 80, and not to 100 like some people do now.

Cheers
on Feb 19, 2004
Actually, in 1935, the life expectency was 60s rather than 70s. So the whole thought of being paid past age 60 back then didn't really mean much.

I'm in agreement with jeb, just saying that it is even more extreme a difference than he stated.
on Feb 19, 2004
Thanks for the clarification Jill!

Cheers
on Feb 19, 2004
As for "hindering" everyone else, how much do they take out of your pay check for social security? Sure, it seems like a lot, but the amount you get back, in theory, is what you've put in. Why is the theory wrong? Because people are living longer than they're supposed to. When the theory was set up people were expected to live to 70sish, not past 80, and not to 100 like some people do now.


So if it's not working as the theory stated, why not have people do their own planning for the future? After all, they're not incompetent, and they aren't going to have enough on which to live by the social security they pay working at McDonald's.
on Feb 19, 2004
It's not working as the theory stated not because the theory is wrong per se, but because people live longer.

Cheers
on Feb 20, 2004
Brad,
I think you missed my point. The state gains in a number of ways from it's citizens. The only way you seem to consider of merit is by paying taxes. I'm saying that there are other ways for people to contribute to the state. If the state rewards their contributions with cash then I don't see that as welfare. I see that as paying for services rendered.

Paul.
on Feb 20, 2004
No, Solitair, you're missing my point: I don't equate the state with society. I would prefer the state to keep the heck out of the way of the lives of Americans and do only the things that Americans can't possibly do for themselves (police, defense, roads, monopoly regulation, etc.). We can all contribute to society in our own way. I don't want to contribute to the government other than for it to perform the specific services it needs to perform. I get tired of having people tell me how I'm greedy simply because I would rather help society in other ways than send hundreds of thousands of dollars to the federal government that is largely wasted.
on Feb 20, 2004
I think you missed my point. The state gains in a number of ways from it's citizens. The only way you seem to consider of merit is by paying taxes. I'm saying that there are other ways for people to contribute to the state. If the state rewards their contributions with cash then I don't see that as welfare. I see that as paying for services rendered.


That sounds like being a government employee, which means that they should pay income taxes on the money they receive from the government. Otherwise, it's a handout.
3 Pages1 2 3