The vows one has taken as a priest, including poverty and chastity, are
not for everyone. Others have a vocation to be fathers and mothers and thereby
provide materially for their families and communities. When the government
takes their wealth away and on the other hand, discourages them having
children, this vocation is artificially impeded.
We know well that government reduces people’s wealth through taxation and
inflation. Thanks to programs like social security, children and the extended
family have lost much of their economic value.
Once there was an implied contract between generations. Parents would
take care of helpless children who in turn, would take care of the parents when
the parents could no longer earn a living. Each would be cared for during the
vulnerable years. Today many parents are horrified at the idea of relying on
their children, and the children even in times of dire need, often resent
having to help parents. Let the government do it.
While many younger adults wash their hands of responsibility for their
parents, they also doubt they will receive a dime from social security
themselves. They are probably right. Demographics bear them out. By this decade
of the new millennium, taxes won’t keep up with benefit demands.
It’s time to stop talking pure economics and introduce a moral element
into the debate. For lack of strong moral arguments on the side of the
reformers, last year’s efforts at reforming the welfare system broke down.
Radical reform requires a strong moral argument to back the economic one.
Otherwise, demagogues and egalitarians dominate.
Can we make a moral argument against the current Social system? Of
course. Social Security was set up to act as an economic exchange akin to the
savings account. The wage earner surrenders some of his income now for security
later in life. This is the promise. The cynical breaks it.
Thus, there is a powerful moral argument for privatizing social Security.
When the market provides services, people are free to enter and exit the
program. The fund’s caretakers have the incentive to deliver a good deal and
keep their word. In economic life, the free marked rewards people who live up
to their word. People who do not, lose business.
Not so with the government. It relies on a non-voluntary or coerced
exchange. There is precious little incentive to keep promises this is why the
government can stuff the system with government IOUs while using proceeds to
pay current government expenses. It’s not without reason that Social Security
has been called a Ponzi scheme.
Workers have no way to opt out of this system, even though they know it
is a fraud. The “promise” has ceased to resemble a contract and has become
system based on intergenerational plunder, with the loot diminishing over time.
We may soon be stuck with either breaking the promise or bankrupting future
generations to keep it.
A story from the Bible underscores the moral urgency of reform. In the
Parable of the talents, a caretaker who was entrusted with a sum of money
returns it to his master. “Here it is back, “the man says. But the master
rebuffs him. “Should you not then have put my money in the bank,” the master
demands to know, “do that I could have gotten it back with interest?”
Today’s younger people not only won’t get any interest, they may not even
get their principal back. Nor will they be able to count on their children to
help them in old age. The link between generations has been broken. Unless
something is done, we will see more intergenerational fighting and
recrimination. Without Social Security, the young would again be reminded of
their obligation to repay the debt they owe to their parents. We would plan for
our futures rather than rely on coerced obligation and government programs. The
generations would begin to rediscover the value of each other.
The morality of the market is that contracts are honest and promises are
kept. Governments are bound by no such morality. We need security that lives up
to its name.
18.
The author gives a clarion call to
A.
Stop contributing to social security system
B.
Have a
moral element in the social security debate
C.
Reject the current social security system
D.
Re-evaluate one’s options.
19.
Which of the followings best describes the
author’s attitude towards the current social security system?
A.
Disenchantment
B.
Indifference
C.
Difference
D.
Slight optimism
20.
Which of the following is not a point of
difference between the market and the government?
A.
People meeting promises get rewarded by the
market.
B.
Voluntary participation and exit from full
market services.
C.
Market men would like to deliver decent returns
to stay in business.
A.
A only
B.
B only
C.
C only
D.
None of these
21.
It can be
genuinely inferred from the passage that the term “Ponzi scheme” means
A.
A scheme started by a man named Ponzi
B.
Probably a fraudulent scheme
C.
A scheme run by the government
D.
A scheme full of IOUs
22.
You would like to title the above reading
selection as
A.
Social Security: No, Thanks!
B.
Revisiting Social Security
C.
Intergenerational Loot: who will stop it?
D.
Securing Social security
Answer:
18.
B “…. And introduce a moral element into the
debate…..”
19.
A Here
and there, the writer has expressed in many ways his displeasure with the
current system.
20.
D All
these are duly mentioned in the passage.
21.
B “….
It’s not without reason that Social Security has been called a Ponzi scheme ….”
Option a, though factually true, is not inferable form the passage.
22.
A the
author is critical of the existing form of social security and seeks an urgent
improvement in the same. Unless its form is modified, he prefers to stay away
from it. Hence A.
No comments:
Post a Comment