dizzle
December 23rd 2007, 04:52 PM
TANSTAAFL by Gary Demar (Gary DeMar gives permission that articles in Biblical Worldview - this is volume 23, numbers 10&11, October/November 2007 - in full http://www.americanvision.org)
The first rule of economics is TANSTAAFL: There Ain’t No Such Thing as a Free Lunch. While something might appear to be free (e.g., education, healthcare, etc.), there is always a cost to someone. Ignore this and all hell breaks loose. Of course politicians believe they can ignore and even break any law because they consider themselves to be gods. They believe they can create economic prosperity ex nihilo, “out of nothing,” simply by legislating it. Most Americans don’t care about these economic realities any more than the politicians who propose them because they are the first-in beneficiaries.
When Social Security was implemented, the maximum amount any one person paid into the system was $60 per year - a total of two percent from the employee and employers of a maximum $3000 per year. Today, the percentage is 12.4% on $97,500 per year because TANSTAAFL is coming due. Those who are receiving these benefits are not concerned because someone else is paying for them. Economic realities and ethics be damned. Yes, ethics. For example, families who are sending their children to the “free public schools” are using the money of their neighbors to pay for their children’s education. They assume since they elected people to do this it is morally acceptable. We’ve grown accustomed to this type of logic.
Consider Social Security. The Social Security Administration estimates that those born in 1877 (and retiring in 1942) got an average of 36.5 percent real rate of return on their Social Security contributions, while those born in 1950 (me) will receive on average a 2.2 percent return. Those born in 1975 will get 1.8 percent return. It’s even worse for future workers. The government should have seen this coming when Ida Fuller received her first Social Security check. She paid $22 in to the program and received more than $20,000 in retirement benefits.
In 1935, there were 45 people paying into SS for every person receiving benefits. Today, that ratio is about three to one. Is it any wonder that SS has been described as the “world [sic] biggest chain letter”?
If a private insurance company operated like the Social Security Administration and its accomplices in Congress, the directors would be arrested, tried, and sent to prison for a long time. Democrat fundraiser Norman Hsu was charged with a “massive Ponzi scheme.” One of the biggest beneficiaries of his contributions is Hillary Clinton. It’s Clinton who is proposing that every newborn should receive $5,000. Other politicians are pushing for some form of “universal health care.” Who will pay for this? The same people who are paying into Social Security to keep the Ponzi scheme alive: the most productive members of society. You and I know them as “the rich” who are already paying the majority of taxes. Hsu couldn’t keep the scam going because he couldn’t keep forcing people to keep contributing to pay later entires into his bogus investment schemes. Politicians can use the threat of imprisonment and confiscation of property to force all of us to comply.
Just because politicians can create economic programs does not mean they will work. Putting people in power so they can take money from you and me and give it to our friends and strangers does not make it right, whether they are Republicans, Democrats, or so-called independents.
The first rule of economics is TANSTAAFL: There Ain’t No Such Thing as a Free Lunch. While something might appear to be free (e.g., education, healthcare, etc.), there is always a cost to someone. Ignore this and all hell breaks loose. Of course politicians believe they can ignore and even break any law because they consider themselves to be gods. They believe they can create economic prosperity ex nihilo, “out of nothing,” simply by legislating it. Most Americans don’t care about these economic realities any more than the politicians who propose them because they are the first-in beneficiaries.
When Social Security was implemented, the maximum amount any one person paid into the system was $60 per year - a total of two percent from the employee and employers of a maximum $3000 per year. Today, the percentage is 12.4% on $97,500 per year because TANSTAAFL is coming due. Those who are receiving these benefits are not concerned because someone else is paying for them. Economic realities and ethics be damned. Yes, ethics. For example, families who are sending their children to the “free public schools” are using the money of their neighbors to pay for their children’s education. They assume since they elected people to do this it is morally acceptable. We’ve grown accustomed to this type of logic.
Consider Social Security. The Social Security Administration estimates that those born in 1877 (and retiring in 1942) got an average of 36.5 percent real rate of return on their Social Security contributions, while those born in 1950 (me) will receive on average a 2.2 percent return. Those born in 1975 will get 1.8 percent return. It’s even worse for future workers. The government should have seen this coming when Ida Fuller received her first Social Security check. She paid $22 in to the program and received more than $20,000 in retirement benefits.
In 1935, there were 45 people paying into SS for every person receiving benefits. Today, that ratio is about three to one. Is it any wonder that SS has been described as the “world [sic] biggest chain letter”?
If a private insurance company operated like the Social Security Administration and its accomplices in Congress, the directors would be arrested, tried, and sent to prison for a long time. Democrat fundraiser Norman Hsu was charged with a “massive Ponzi scheme.” One of the biggest beneficiaries of his contributions is Hillary Clinton. It’s Clinton who is proposing that every newborn should receive $5,000. Other politicians are pushing for some form of “universal health care.” Who will pay for this? The same people who are paying into Social Security to keep the Ponzi scheme alive: the most productive members of society. You and I know them as “the rich” who are already paying the majority of taxes. Hsu couldn’t keep the scam going because he couldn’t keep forcing people to keep contributing to pay later entires into his bogus investment schemes. Politicians can use the threat of imprisonment and confiscation of property to force all of us to comply.
Just because politicians can create economic programs does not mean they will work. Putting people in power so they can take money from you and me and give it to our friends and strangers does not make it right, whether they are Republicans, Democrats, or so-called independents.