Thomas Sowell notes that money with strings attached is less valuable – in many cases, a lot less valuable – than money with no restrictions on its use.
Suppose someone left you an inheritance of a million dollars -- with the proviso that every cent of it had to be spent on tickets for you to go watch professional wrestling matches. If you happened to be a professional wrestling fan, you would be in hog heaven. But what if you were not? How much would that million dollars be worth to you? Certainly a lot less than a million dollars.
What if there was a clause in the will which said that you could forfeit the million dollars and instead receive a cash amount of $100,000 to spend as you pleased? Many of us would take the hundred grand without strings, even if that was only ten cents on the dollar compared to the million for watching wrestling.
Some of us, of course, might look for loopholes. Can they be professional wrestling matches in places I've always wanted to travel? What sort of ancillary expenses will pass muster? If I take a cruise to Australia to watch a match in Sydney, does that count, even if the fraction of the time I spend actually watching the match is very small? Can I bring a friend? Nevertheless, I think his point is valid.
Many of us who receive money from Social Security or other government programs are learning the hard way the difference between money with strings and money without strings. For example, Social Security recipients have to be enrolled in Medicare, whether they want to be or not. "Universal" coverage means compulsory coverage, just with prettier political spin.
No comments:
Post a Comment