Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Sims
Declaring something an excessive entitlement and reducing it after it was awarded and agreed upon legally and in good faith is a slippery slope. All fortunes and property of any consequence depend on the civilization and infrastructure in which we exist. The "self made man" is a myth if one is referring to anything of significance - "no man is an island." For example Pelican Parts couldn't exist without the external physical infrastructure we all paid for/subsidized. Therefore, it can be argued that anything can be renegotiated (or effectively confiscated). Nothing really belongs to anyone, if society decides otherwise. It could be decided that the true cost of Moses's medical education was only a fraction of what he paid and therefore he suddenly owes three million more dollars to pay for the full share. There are myriads of other examples from the value of military flight training when one leaves the service to the fortunes made in real estate or the financial markets. It isn't one guy all by his lonesome making the fortune. The argument of reducing retirement benefits due to other income could be extended to all income - why does anyone need more that $50K (or $100K or whatever amount) to live? Why not tax anything above that amount at confiscatory levels. Be careful what you propose for others; it could be applied to you.
|
Great post.
These are precisely the sorts of difficulties you get into when you start to re-negotiate contractual entitlements. What about the guy who inherits big, or wins a lottery? Do you cut his entitlement because he doesn't need it anymore?
Once you go down this road you will get into endless absurd situations where everyone has to fear that someone will make a grab for their fixed income.