Uncle Roger's Notebooks of Daily Life
My life is, to me, ripe with frequent challenges, occasional successes, spontaneous laughter, adequate tears, and enough *life* to last me a lifetime. To you, however, it surely seems most pedestrian. And therefore, I recycle the name I used previously and call this my Notebooks of Daily Life. Daily, because it's everyday in nature, ordinary. These conglomeration of events that are my life are of interest to me because I live it, perhaps mildly so to those who are touched by it, and could only be of perverse, morbid curiosity to anyone else. Yet, I offer them here nonetheless. Make of them what you will, and perhaps you can learn from my mistakes.
Sinasohn.Net
| Home | Notebooks | Photos | ||
| Contact | Notable |
Family
|
Dad Rachel Jared Sara |
Scotty Daniel Harry |
Stan Sellam Doug |
Business
TechSynthesis
Roger Louis Sinasohn & Associates
Jared Goes to College
Fun
Uncle Roger's Classic Computers
The Vintage Computer Festival
Northern California Rover Club
Atari Bay Area Computer Users Society
iStockPhoto (My portfolio)
Listology
Recent Comments
Adding on to Firefox [4]
I Hate Prop 8 (Guest Post by Jared, Age 7) [2]
Advertisers pull out of KRXQ [1]
Turning a New Page [3]
Take your pants off, ladies! [1]
|
An RSS Feed is also available.
Add it to your My Yahoo page.
|
Member of SF Bay Bloggers |
powered by blosxom |
Monday, February 28, 2005
I am quite sure that people such as those at the Cato institute have thought this whole idea of Social Security privatization through completely and are either certain that no one would ever end up with a zero balance when it comes time to retire or prepared to deal with it. Because I know that, if investing for my retirement were left up to me, I would end up with a zero balance.
That, however, is not what concerns me.
What bothers me the most about this is actually just an example of a larger problem. We, as individuals have zero concern for our fellow citizens or our community in general.
Social Security is a big community pot to which we all* contribute and from which we all* receive benefits. It's almost communistic, in a way, in that the idea of from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs applies. Everyone contributes while they are working and withdraws once they retire. As I understand it, benefits continue until you die, however long or short that may be. It all averages out in the end with the contributions of those who pass away at a younger age covering the needs of those who live longer.
Converting this group plan into individual ones means that everyone would mean that this community averaging would not occur. Someone who died young would leave the remainder of his funds to his heirs while someone who lived longer than average would soon run out. It's simply a case of screw you, me, me, me. Zero concern for others; it's all about looking out for number one.
* I know that "all" doesn't, in this case, mean all (I'm married to an exemption), but I'm far too lazy to be accurate when I know you know what I mean.
| [ Posted: 18:00 | home | print ] |