Is there an election tomorrow? Really? You don’t say. Here I thought those ads on the radio with the quivery-voiced seniors were part of some national pro-euthenasia campaign. After hearing the ads 392,903 times you’re ready to send Grandma to the Soylent plant. One ad has the seniors worrying that the politicians who “wrecked the economy” (seriously, that’s what they say) are “talking about privatizing Social Security again.” Gah! Issues are being discussed! Alternatives proposed! I almost expect them to say “let’s keep our grandkids in bondage in perpetuity, and vote for Patty McWislblauer; she’ll protect our claim on the income of America’s youngest workers."
This is one of the reasons I am not optimistic for the short term: we cannot even bring up the matter of letting younger workers voluntarily exert private control over the property they are required by government to relinquish. Apparently the mere discussion of the subject leads directly to seniors hoarding tins of Fancy Feast.
Like many, I’m resigned to losing most everything I’ve put into Social Security, or seeing the promised returns whittled away to farthings and ha’pennies. So I save for my family, and invest. I have fixed goals. If my taxes go up, I will still save and invest in the same amounts; I’ll just cut back elsewhere – either in spending, which of course is great for the economy, or in charity. Really: charity ought to be the first to go. If I have a moral obligation to pay more taxes to redress income inequality, then that ought to count as my charity. Currently I donate to two programs; one gives livestock to people in impoverished countries, and the second corrects cleft palates for children in the 3rd World. Am I morally obligated to continue those contributions at the expense of my family? |