HOMESTEAD: Baby bonds and COG

["Thomas Brandt" <TBrandt@dbedt.hawaii.gov>]

Alan,

Thanks for the reply.   After putting more thought into this, I realized
that objections to Soc Sec might have been considerably less than they
might be to baby bonds, but not just because most recipients had to make
contributions to SS before they received benefits.   Even though initial
recipients of SS didn't have to contribute anything, I think complaints
about this from those who had to contribute may have been muted by 1) the
fact that the SS tax was relatively small at first, and 2) SS benefits
reduced the burden for many who had to otherwise provide most or all of the
financial support for aging relatives.   If so, I think the people with the
greatest reason to complain about Soc Sec might have been  those who died
before it started, while most of those who don't benefit from baby bonds
will still be around for a long time.

As a result, the creation of baby bonds may be more politically difficult
(because I don't think the votes of parents whose kids will benefit will
outnumber the votes of those who might oppose this).    And even if they
become a reality in the U.K. and elsewhere, I don't think it would
eliminate the need to broaden capital ownership in other ways due to the
simple fact that most people won't benefit (at least not immediately and
directly) from baby bonds (and even though I agree that society at large
could benefit from them in the long run).   But I'm not opposed to baby
bonds, and I think debate about them presents another window of opportunity
to get other COG ideas on the political radar-screen.    In fact, I think
that combining other ways to broaden cap ownership with baby bonds might
enhance the appeal of both.

I would like to know what you and others think.



                                                                                
      
                    IPGmail@aol.com                                             
      
                    Sent by:                  To:     ownership@cog.kent.edu    
      
                    owner-ownership@co        cc:                               
      
                    g.kent.edu                Subject:     Re: OWNERSHIP: 
Blair,      
                                              Ackerman & Alstott                
      
                                                                                
      
                    05/04/01 08:48 PM                                           
      
                    Please respond to                                           
      
                    ownership                                                   
      
                                                                                
      
                                                                                
      




In a message dated 5/4/01 TBrandt@dbedt.hawaii.gov writes:

> similar objections were probably raised
>  about Social Security and, if so, they obviously were ovecome.

A significant difference was that in SS, you have to pay something in
before
you get something out.  It's true that the first retirees paid very little
in, but those hitting retirement age before them had paid nothing in and so

their right to complain was maybe a little less compelling.  With these new

proposals for kids, though, the gov't is paying in, so the parents of those

born a year or two earlier could legitimately ask, why their kids and not
mine?

Alan Zundel
For the Public Good
http://www.publicgood.org