Tuesday, August 31, 2010

What would you do?

Okay, I know I mentioned posting something this week on Sharia Law but I have not completed my research on the topic enough to post anything. That being said, I have a hypothetical situation that I struggling with and seek guidance from my devoted readers; and others of course. Let's say one was born into a family of four that had a household income of $30,000. While one grew up within that household things were tight and there was not a lot of extra's to be enjoyed. After successfully completed High School and avoided any pitfalls one is faced with two options:

  1. To go onto college, earn a degree and obtain a career with unlimited upside potential.
  2. To skip college, obtain a minimum wage position and look for public assistance at every opportunity.


 

Now, I'd like to think that everyone would chose option A. Here is the caveat though, as one earns more money and improves their lot in life one is expected to shoulder more and more of the burden of paying for entitlement programs and other public assistance to ensure those that did not go onto college, or a trade school, are taken care of. A friend of my on Facebook is always spouting, "Spread the Wealth". What type of society will exist if we "spread the wealth"? I understand that many of the richest people in America are pledging to donate 50% of their wealth to charity upon death. Well, imagine how much more they'd be able to give if the inheritance tax doesn't back up to 50%. Generational wealth is one thing but what incentive do we leave our youth if they are given two paths: work hard, keep less or work less, get more?

Wealthy Americans are not the enemy and will not bring down the United States; rather they will simply move out your state or our country if we continue to use them as ATM machines. Now, I am not a member of the wealthy class but I aspire to get there someday. When I do get there, I want to be in control of my money and to whom it is doled out to. I read the demonizing of Wall Street for the excessive bonuses. What people fail to see is that these people are paid on performance of the company and some of the decisions they make will not be popular. Other's rail against them because of the bailouts and that is one to bring up. Our Government should not be in the business of bailing companies, union pensions, or any other public or private institution out. If these groups cannot prosper and be held accountable then why on Earth would anyone want to choose option A above?

Entitlements need to go. Public employee Unions need to go. I am not advocating that those that in the system now be completely shut off from them; rather I am saying we need to phase them out. The bulk of the money that was given states for "Race to the Top" is being funneled into Union pension funds. The bailout of Detroit was to ensure Union pensions. Don't get me wrong Unions have their purpose but they also hold companies and America hostage. So I go back to my original question above. Which option would you choose?