At least you're not overselling your idea.
Tell me, do you really think there will be ANY incentive to do away with SS tax once the government has adopted Lindsey's plan?
On the contrary, once they've converted it to a pure welfare program it will be even more difficult to reform, now that it will have become better suited to the statists' favorite style of political demagoguery.
>At least you’re not overselling your idea.
Anyone who has expectations beyond my sales pitch is fooling themselves.
>Tell me, do you really think there will be ANY incentive to do away with SS tax once the government has adopted Lindsey’s plan?
>On the contrary, once they’ve converted it to a pure welfare program it will be even more difficult to reform, now that it will have become better suited to the statists’ favorite style of political demagoguery.
Your premise is predicated on the assumption that welfare programs are extremely popular and that the public demands them to grow. This is false. As long as the public in question is not directly benefiting from those programs, they tend to be quite amenable to having them adjusted and cut.
It is middle class entitlements which end up set in stone and untouchable. This was the devious understanding of FDR when he put us on this ruinous course.
He knew that if he tied the middle class into the program, and made it so that their parents were provided for by the government instead of them, they would buy into it. It would seem like free money. He understood that making a large enough constituency dependent would ensure the long term survival of the program, and he figured that this would favor the Democrats because it was assumed the GOP would keep opposing it. He assumed more principle out of the Republicans than they were willing to hold.
Whenever means testing of Social Security comes up, it has always been primarily the Democrats, with very few exceptions (Bruce Babbitt), that have opposed it.
"You could look it up."