Posted on 01/24/2007 8:05:08 AM PST by billbears
"Kinder haben die Leute immer — People will always have children," assured Konrad Adenauer, the German Chancellor, in 1957. He was convinced that the future of the brave new pay-as-you-go social security system would not be undermined by demographic changes.
Adenauer was as wrong as ever. Social security schemes around the developed world are facing a major crisis due to greater longevity, declining retirement ages and — lo and behold — below-replacement fertility rates.
What the good statesman did not realize is how the new system would affect the incentives of individuals to work, to save, and to have children. Labor force participation rates among older workers have declined dramatically since the 1960s throughout the Western world. The rules of social security benefits in most countries mean that working just does not pay off. In this way, pay-as-you-go social security schemes contribute to their own bankruptcy.
(Excerpt) Read more at mises.org ...
Family Socialism
Enter public social security. Instead of caring for their own parents and close relatives, those of working age are compelled by force of law and gun to pay for the retirement of everyone else. To put it plainly, social security replaces children and the family as the main support in old age by literally socializing the traditional duties of the family. Why have children when the state will take care of you in your old age?
The effect of social security on fertility is seen clearly in empirical data. The figure below shows cross-sectional data from over 100 countries in 1997.[4] In this data, all countries with large pension systems have fertility rates below the replacement level. No country with pension payments above 4 per cent of GDP has a fertility rate above 3.
Compared to last night's declaration by Bush
And, finally, to keep this economy strong we must take on the challenge of entitlements. Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid are commitments of conscience, and so it is our duty to keep them permanently sound
Unfortunately Social Security is destined to fail. And it is ever more apparent the Republicans nor Democrats plan to do anything about it. Committment of conscience? Duty to keep it sound? That's a joke. I can't wait to see the next plan....
"And, finally, to keep this economy strong we must take on the challenge of entitlements. Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid are commitments of conscience, and so it is our duty to keep them permanently sound"
So this is the reason to give millions amnesty? Save SS?
I think the entire welfare-state construct will fail, as the recipients come to outnumber the contributors by a greater and greater margin. It's just a question of the different ways it will fail in different societies.
On the contrary, it makes children very valuable. Did the writer forget that the foundation of a Ponzi scheme is a never-ending supply of new players? Seniors might not need to rely solely on their children for hands-on support in their old age, but they certainly need to rely on them for financial support when looking for the check.
Except the historical data at the link clearly shows that not to be true. Why would I want to have kids if I know that if I had kids or not, I'll be taken care of in some fashion?
Well, I think a lot of the kids are probably glad they don't "have to" support their parents, when they're busy supporting themselves and their OWN kids. (Now, why did you put an apostrophe in a simple plural, in the headline?)
Yes, but even if old people eventually see the connection, it's too late at that point for them to have children.
Clearly, when they are at the stage in life to have children, they don't make a connection between childrearing today and retirement 30 or 40 years later. This is demonstrated by the decline in birthrates. The lack of a personal economic return from one's offspring is not the only reason for the decline in reproduction, but it's one of the reasons.
SS is unsustainable as currently structured. It is a Ponzi scheme. The SS "surplus" starts declining in 2008 and payouts will exceed revenue. It is a pay as you go system. The politicians must do something, but I fear that they will kick the can down the road like they did in 1983 with P.L. 98-21, (H.R. 1900) That fix was supposed to last 70 years.
The only way to keep SS solvent in the long term is through Personal Accounts. The UK and Chile did it with their retirement schemes. "Saving" Social Security without individual accounts could require a 50% increase in Social Security taxes or a 27% cut in benefits. I suspect that Congress will again cut benefits, raise taxes, and increase the retirment age for full benefits. The ignorance of the American people about SS is astounding and the politicians of both parties like it that way. But like Joe Louis said, "He can run, but he can't hide." Eventually, we will have to pay the piper and the longer we wait to really solve the problem, the higher the price.
Well, I think a lot of the kids are probably glad they don't "have to" support their parents, when they're busy supporting themselves and their OWN kids. (Now, why did you put an apostrophe in a simple plural, in the headline?)
But instead, they are supporting other people's parents through cofiscatory ss taxes. And the parents do not feel that they need to contribute to their grandchildren's upraising. The state melts normal family connections.
payouts will exceed revenue in 2017.
And distributes and disguises the costs, so that ignorant people think they're getting a real deal!
And distributes and disguises the costs, so that ignorant people think they're getting a real deal!
You aint kidding TC. All that SS does is grow the government blob.
So... support in their old age is the only reason people ever had kids? I sure see a lot of kids around.
And Medicare, Medicaid, day care, schools, college aid ...
Once Upon a Time, people handled all these things for themselves and their families, with help, if necessary, from voluntary community support. Now, they fool themselves into believing that everything can be given them "free" by the government.
So... support in their old age is the only reason people ever had kids? I sure see a lot of kids around.
There arent as many as you think. And people have children for many reasons. Families are a web of commitments and expectations. Not all are fullfilled. The state has been cutting the cords of the web for a long time.
Once Upon a Time, people handled all these things for themselves and their families, with help, if necessary, from voluntary community support. Now, they fool themselves into believing that everything can be given them "free" by the government.
School based clinics
Child Development Services
Government sponsered day care
Government sponsered preschool
Government lunches
Government breakfast
Government healthcare...the list goes on.
And all FREE!
--(Now, why did you put an apostrophe in a simple plural, in the headline?)--
BB didn't. It was in the link. Doesn't look like a 'simple plural' to me but then I am not an English teacher.
And all FREE!
Free my eye! They cost me and every other taxpayer in the country BIG dollars.
As in all socialist schemes, it fails to overcome the natural human tendency to be lazy and expect some one else to do the work. The system becomes overwhelmed by freeloaders.
In this case the freeloaders are people who chose to have only one or no children.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.