Following are my initial thoughts:
To begin, the idea of sociality is that a group of people come together and cooperate because it is in their best interest to promote each others welfare. Every society and culture is founded upon this notion. At its core, socialization allows individuals to become more human by cooperating with one another, not by withdrawing and separating. Unfortunately the effects of governmental insurance programs have been to separate people from those who are most interested in their success.
By turning to governments to fill needs in times of crises, people are actually made less social and relationships are destroyed as family coherence breaks down and the nuclear and extended family increasingly neglect their responsibility to care for their families needs (1 Timothy 5:3-4). Some may argue that my payment of taxes for such programs is proof of my concern for their welfare. Is that so? Show me when you visit these needy and neglected people. I have spent time in the retirement centers and those on social security are the neediest and loneliest of all people. Sending money is not the same are strengthening social bonds. Furthermore, the social function of the church is destroyed by taking from the church their God appointed place as those who care for the orphan and widow that others aren't caring for (1 timothy 5:5).
This is not to say that a government system can't coexist with a strong family and church social structure, the Amish are evidence that it can. What it does say, however, is that it is increasingly unlikely that in the midst of widespread government insurance for a family and church system to stand up and maintain integrity in caring for those under their care. Increasingly, denominations large and small, across the theological spectrum have encouraged their clergy not to opt out of social security claiming it is morally sound. Is it morally sound to destroy the social fabric of society for a few dollars?
That leads to my second thought. Is social security secure? As birth rates fall, and the older generations age, their are only three options for providing the required funds needed for the promises governments have made:Reduce the benefits these insurance programs pay, Tax the younger generations more, Inflate the currency. Historically, ruling authorities do not survive when they reduce benefits, and while taxing the younger generations may be a temporary solution, it cannot be a long-term sustained solution. As birth rates continue to decline, tax rates must increase in such a situation and there is a threshold which will inevitably be reached before revolution or black-markets take over, thus crippling the system even more. That leaves the third option, as the option most governments including our own have taken: Inflate the currency by printing more money. However this tack, actually penalizes the very people government has set out to help. As fixed income elderly and those in need, the very act of causing inflation is insecure, instead of secure.
Thus social security is neither social, nor is it secure for those who most need help. The answer, return to the primacy of the nuclear family and allow them to maintain as much of their income as possible in order to care for those the Word of God calls them to care for.
For a great book on the interrelation between governmental pensions, prosperity, population and family see
Juurikkala, O. (2007). Pensions, Population, and Prosperity. (Acton Institute:Grand Rapids, MI)
...Read more
To begin, the idea of sociality is that a group of people come together and cooperate because it is in their best interest to promote each others welfare. Every society and culture is founded upon this notion. At its core, socialization allows individuals to become more human by cooperating with one another, not by withdrawing and separating. Unfortunately the effects of governmental insurance programs have been to separate people from those who are most interested in their success.
By turning to governments to fill needs in times of crises, people are actually made less social and relationships are destroyed as family coherence breaks down and the nuclear and extended family increasingly neglect their responsibility to care for their families needs (1 Timothy 5:3-4). Some may argue that my payment of taxes for such programs is proof of my concern for their welfare. Is that so? Show me when you visit these needy and neglected people. I have spent time in the retirement centers and those on social security are the neediest and loneliest of all people. Sending money is not the same are strengthening social bonds. Furthermore, the social function of the church is destroyed by taking from the church their God appointed place as those who care for the orphan and widow that others aren't caring for (1 timothy 5:5).
This is not to say that a government system can't coexist with a strong family and church social structure, the Amish are evidence that it can. What it does say, however, is that it is increasingly unlikely that in the midst of widespread government insurance for a family and church system to stand up and maintain integrity in caring for those under their care. Increasingly, denominations large and small, across the theological spectrum have encouraged their clergy not to opt out of social security claiming it is morally sound. Is it morally sound to destroy the social fabric of society for a few dollars?
That leads to my second thought. Is social security secure? As birth rates fall, and the older generations age, their are only three options for providing the required funds needed for the promises governments have made:Reduce the benefits these insurance programs pay, Tax the younger generations more, Inflate the currency. Historically, ruling authorities do not survive when they reduce benefits, and while taxing the younger generations may be a temporary solution, it cannot be a long-term sustained solution. As birth rates continue to decline, tax rates must increase in such a situation and there is a threshold which will inevitably be reached before revolution or black-markets take over, thus crippling the system even more. That leaves the third option, as the option most governments including our own have taken: Inflate the currency by printing more money. However this tack, actually penalizes the very people government has set out to help. As fixed income elderly and those in need, the very act of causing inflation is insecure, instead of secure.
Thus social security is neither social, nor is it secure for those who most need help. The answer, return to the primacy of the nuclear family and allow them to maintain as much of their income as possible in order to care for those the Word of God calls them to care for.
For a great book on the interrelation between governmental pensions, prosperity, population and family see
Juurikkala, O. (2007). Pensions, Population, and Prosperity. (Acton Institute:Grand Rapids, MI)
Posts
Hey Scott - You nailed it as regards other programs as well with this statement "Unfortunately the effects of governmental insurance programs have been to separate people from those who are most interested in their success." But I would also want to argue that we need to build onto SS in healthy ways, not dismiss it. Maybe that is what you are saying.
ReplyDeleteRob - I would agree, but I believe that healthy means first and foremost limiting those recipients to the ones truly in need. Does someone making $85k a year need to draw benefits when they retire even if they have been paying into the system? While I don't want to make a hard and fast rule, (or be the one who has to determine the cutoff,) probably not, even with the taxes they have paid, the amount of money left over is significant, they are capable of funding their own retirement without government help.
ReplyDeleteMaybe the first place to begin is by eliminating those who don't need SSI from receiving it. Then the taxable amount everyone pays should decrease. The next step would be for church members to honestly consider their needs and their wishes. Do they need more stuff today, at the expense of being dependent on the government tomorrow? Or are those wishes which they could do without in order not to become a burden on others in the future? Interestingly as fallen humans, we are less inclined to 'impose on others' when we have real relationships with those we must ask for help, than when we can take from the nebulous pot in the sky. (This may be one of the good things that pride breeds into us, a desire to be productive and provide for ourselves. To work the earth and reap its benefit.)
These initial steps would not eliminate the need for voluntary societies or benevolence institutions, but it would shift the burden back to the individual and the nuclear/extended family first, before seeking help from others. We have reversed this when it comes to government pension schemes seeking 'guaranteed government money' first, and 'responsible family money' last.
These are my initial thoughts on your thoughts. What do you think?