Most people recognize the expression "skin in the game" and accept that it means those persons who have something of value at risk have purchased a specific privilege or right deemed worthy of the gamble. Those without "skin in the game", non-players in effect, are not entitled to the same privilege or right. If you have ever played poker with your buddies you know you are not entitled to be dealt a hand and perhaps rake in a pot or two without having met the requirement to "ante up".
It is speculated the phrase "skin in the game" draws its origins from William Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice in which the antagonist, Shylock, stipulates that the protagonist, Antonio, must promise a pound of his own flesh as collateral, to be exacted by Shylock in the event that Antonio's friend Bassanio defaults on the loan to which Antonio is guarantor. (Wikipedia)
Your friendly poker game, or the uber-grizzly condition attached to the collateralized debt obligation described above, are not the only situations for acceptable use of the phrase "skin in the game". Here is an outrageous example to make the point.
A man prayed to his God every night to win the weekly lottery, always valued in $millions. Months went by without any financial reward to the devout worshiper kneeling at his bedside. Finally, one night the man asked his God why he had forsaken him. Miraculously, a voice emanated from Heaven above, whispering a valuable tip, "Meet me half way on this . . . buy a ticket." God knew it was necessary to have skin in the game to even have a chance at the pot of gold at rainbow's end.
In my lifetime the right to vote was, in some jurisdictions, limited to property owners and taxpayers, i.e. people who had skin in the game. Their property values and cash paid to their government for needed services were at risk. The privilege purchased in this instance was the right to vote into elected positions those pols who would employ their best efforts to preserve property values and deliver the services required. Renters and non-taxpayers, those without skin in the game, were forbidden to vote.
Fast forward to the present. This week a judge in Ohio, perhaps spurred by the effort of self-described socialist contender for POTUS Bernie Sanders, granted seventeen year olds the right to vote in the upcoming primary election in that state, with the proviso that such teens will reach the legal voting age of eighteen on or before election day this November. Bernie's prayer, or reward, is teens casting votes for the socialist society he espouses. I seriously question the knowledge of teens to fully comprehend the probable result of their votes if their guy wins. It is highly likely such teens are solely focused on the promise of free education, the absence of student debt, a main plank in Bernie's platform, for as long as they remain in school. Some would make a career out of learning at the expense of real taxpayers. Bernie's competitor, Hillary Clinton, not to be out-promised, added a similar plank to her platform.
Do civics and history classes still teach the early lesson the pilgrims learned almost immediately? Collectivism, where everyone donated the results of their labors to a common pool to be allotted to constituents by the state, didn't work. Slackers reduced the volume of food and goods produced and share allotments were insufficient to sustain life. The pilgrims almost perished from starvation before a wiser voice recommended an allotment of arable land be given to each family to tend and feed themselves. Private property was a success. It still works. Statism sounds cool to the uninformed until reality sets in at a later dire date.
It is highly unlikely any 17 year old voter has skin in the game. Nevertheless they have been given a valuable privilege . . . the right to vote. Of course the same can be said for anyone, regardless of age, who can vote without having anything of value at risk. I submit for debate the issue of universal suffrage, i.e. the right to vote by anyone of specified age and legal citizenship.
The justification for disallowing non-contributors to vote
The justification for disallowing non-contributors to vote.
With certain exceptions, people who pay no taxes, and people who receive cash or equivalents from the government, should not be allowed to vote. They have no skin in the game. Exceptions would include those who have placed their lives at risk via military service. Like Shakespeare's Antonio, those folks have real skin in the game.
Politicians know the best way to secure votes is to make enticing, persuasive promises to the electorate. Politicians also know the best way to be reelected is to deliver on at least some of those promises. Unfulfilled promises are regularly used in the next campaign under the caption "We still have work to do!" And to low information voters and those "on the take" it still sounds good. Promises are made and somewhat fulfilled to people who may never have skin in the game, but the cost of those handouts is borne by taxpayers, people with skin in the game.
Aware readers of this publication probably know we are almost at the tipping point where more people are "on the take" from the government than those providing funds to the government. When that critical juncture is passed, the general welfare of the nation will decline at an even faster pace. Our present situation is like the proverbial slippery slope . . . and as the slope steepens the rate of decline quickens. The edge looms closer. The free fall is nigh.
Historians record that civilizations don't suddenly disappear . . . they die a lingering death.
Historians record that civilizations don't suddenly disappear . . . they die a lingering death. About 200 years is the expected duration of any society. The US is long overdue to match the timed collapse of past civilizations, no doubt due to the wisdom of the Founding Fathers who created a unique constitution for their fledgling country. But as good as it was, and still is, it can be trashed by ill-informed, non-contributing constituents and greedy, career politicians.
Consider the following startling statistics: About one third of the population is unemployed, matching the lowest number in almost four decades; about 95 million people who should be in the workforce are not; over 52 million people receive food stamps, about 20% of the population. (How those stamps are used or traded is the subject of another essay.) The majority of the forgoing persons will always vote for politicians who promise to maintain the delivery of free goods and services. This dangerous, undesirable condition will not change until the right to vote is appropriately restricted.
Economists caution the rate of growth in the economy is likely to under-perform for many years into the future. Transfer payments are a primary contributor to that unattractive probability. Current share prices, inflated by almost free money to borrowing investors and speculators, are valued on growth assumptions far greater than what is now anticipated. One source of my personal income, and perhaps yours too, comes from a retirement fund that distributes payouts based on an assumed earning stream from fund investments of about 8%. Where can one get that kind of return today without assuming huge risk of default? Ergo, to avoid default, fund managers must accept lower returns on fund investments, thereby reducing fund earnings. That means at a point in time payouts must be reduced, or in some instances, curtailed. Will I live until the point where the fund cannot maintain current payouts? To quote noted economist Herb Stein: "Things that can't continue, won't."
Do you want affordable, effective health care? Choose carefully from a long list of wants because you can't have it all unless all contribute. And they don't
You would think that a country with almost $20 trillion of debt would have spent that vast sum on worthy, needed projects such as the oft-referenced subject of infrastructure. Infrastructure can be defined as things that have a long shelf life, therefor the money logically borrowed and spent to create them can be repaid over a lengthy time period. But no. Politicians of all stripes promise to "repair the infrastructure". It shouldn't need repairing. The money that should have been spent maintaining roads and bridges, Obama's infamous but never gotten to "shovel-ready projects", has been spent largely on transfers of wealth between classes. There is no money to improve infrastructure. What can you live without to get better roads and safer bridges? Do you want a capable military? Do you want affordable, effective health care? Choose carefully from a long list of wants because you can't have it all unless all contribute. And they don't.
One needn't be a whiz at economics to know the faulty government practice of wealth redistribution has failed miserably. We don't have quality infrastructure . . . we do have a widening gap between wealth classes. Socialists, progressives, and liberals, attach your own label, just don't get it. Their ridiculous ideology, implanted via indoctrination, won't permit lessons of history to alter their view of the world. They will keep the status quo in place 'til the end. We will all lose.
Now for the closer. There must be increased incentive for the non-wealthy to participate in the good life and personal satisfaction that ingenuity and hard work can deliver. A logical incentive is the right to vote. If that precious right were denied to takers and reserved for providers, the former might make an effort to acquire the privilege to vote. If so, that effort would remove many from the terrible quagmire of government subsistence that enslaves recipients and removes all incentive to change conditions for the better.
At some point in the near future there will not be voting booths, or machines that create hanging chads. Every entitled voter will cast a ballot remotely, using modern technology. Just like media services that recognize your identity when you access on line sites that permit you to view their content if you have paid a fee, you will be allowed to vote if the record at the other end of the connection shows you are a taxpayer. A simple way to control voting to produce the desired result. The side benefit to remote voting is the absence of armed thugs at polling places threatening voters.
As John F. Kennedy in his 1961 inaugural address famously implored the populace, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." Amen. Would that all constituents actually accept and act upon the sage advice, even though it was plagiarized. The original notion was presented by George St John, the President’s former headmaster at the tony Choate School in Connecticut.
