I was reading a book last night and one of the Princeton mottos was included: "In the Nation's Service". I believe that motto has been around since 1902 when Woodrow Wilson assumed the presidency of Princeton. It is similar in many ways to JFK's "Ask not what your country can do for you.." inaugural address.
Today it seems we've moved to "Every man for himself".
I think we all agree that federal power has grown too large and has too much of an effect on the lives of ordinary citizens. Powerful enterprises working hand in hand with government can only lead to corruption.
Last night I was also thinking about wealth concentration and what it will mean in a couple generations. Will your grandkids be able to afford a home...or even buy a home? Will the rentiers own most of the housing? It has happened in big cities. Will future REIT's buy the best neighborhoods in your town? I don't know if it will happen, but it could happen. Continue to leave wealth in the hands of a few and it will happen. Just a matter of when. It has happened with farmland since the 1930's and many ag states have put in place laws protecting family farms....I guess that's a social policy though....
As Steve said, common ground. I think we agree on the problem. I'm not sure we necessarily agree on causes or solutions.
There is another factor here......pure greed. When is enough going to be enough.
Greed is a problem that can't be solved completely. The effects of greed are most augmented when greed infiltrates a powerful government. And that happening is inevitable. We should fear a government powerful enough to force us to buy a product from a private corporation. That is a crony capitalists wet dream.
Taxation is a policy, not necessarily an organization. We have to pay off the debt run up by unfunded wars and the Keynesian approach to the recession. I don't consider social security to be ideally suited to be in the hands of the federal system Better it was set up as a quasi-corporation with many more options to fund retirement. I'd like it out of the hands of the politicians. Do an actuarial valuation of the present obligations to those over 55. Fund any shortfall over the next 20 years and then set up a real semi-voluntary pension system (mandatory minimum contributions or we'll end up paying for those who don't participate, plus voluntary additional contributions for those who wish to do so and investment options for all voluntary contributions).
I have to say I'm pleasantly surprised by your ideas on how to handle SS.
Ideally, I don't believe that government is the right mechanism to involve itself in people's retirement. But stopping it altogether is not realistic. That's just not going to happen. So I'm very open to transitioning to something that works better, something that shifts more of the responsibility to individuals. And I actually like your idea a lot.