Have I Got A Deal, For You, O'Neill

Doubletalk, gobbledygook, and that hand in your pocket…

Karen DeCoster points to the supposed wisdom of Paul O’Neill, as published in a New York Times piece titled “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?." An apropos enough title for O’Neill’s piece wherein he expounds on his vision for the future of Social coercive Security. 

What gets me, as I read through O’Neill’s piece, is the lip service paid to the evils of taxation, coercion, and the immediate renunciation of the lip service just paid, and nod to coercion, all occurring in the same paragraph.

"The problem with the current arrangement is that our contributions are a tax, not savings. So we should begin by agreeing that we are going to require all Americans to save, individually, to provide for their financial security in old age. After all, if we don’t save on our own for our retirement needs, who will do it for us? Our neighbors? Our children? In a civilized society we have a responsibility to take care of our own needs so as not to be a burden on others."

Who wants to be a millionaire, indeed.

Posted by on 01/17 at 05:07 AM

  1. Agreed.  However, state employment and other similar federal jobs already force us to save for old age.  I have NO choice in the moneys I contribute to my retirement fund.  Don’t get me wrong - I’m thrilled to have and to have started it at my age, but watching $130 go out of my paycheck each month, with NO OPTION TO STOP IT, is irritating.  In some way, this guy is just modeling the idea of current employers.  Not as original as he would like you to think he is, eh?

    Posted by Ally  on  01/17  at  08:18 AM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


Next entry: Fork It Over, Schoolmarm

Previous entry: The State Can't Leave Well Enough Alone

<< Back to main