 |
| For Social Security |
Eduardo Porter writes in the Economix column at the New York Times that this chart shows that Social Security is regressive, that instead of helping poor people it hurts them because wealthier people live longer. The problem with Porter's argument is that he's basing it on race-ethnicity. The average age of whites is 41, African-Americans 30 and Hispanics is 27. What this chart does show is that the Republican party, which has become the de facto "white people's party", isn't likely to support changes that would cut Social Security. Only in theory and then they have to refer to "entitlements" rather than Social Security. People tend to think that "entitlements" are government benefits that go to someone else. They know that Social Security goes to everybody.
2 comments:
I have not read the article as of this comment.
But have posted before about the republican party and race issues.
The problem is many young black/hispanics may or may not benefit.
So many young black/african americans are engaged in illegal behavior that may or may not shorten lifespan and potential.
The same issues maybe said for white people but perhaps to a lesser degree.
According to Dean Baker "This methodology compares the benefits that each group receives by decade, starting in the 1970s, with the taxes they pay into the system. It ignores the taxes that they paid into the system in prior decades. The result is that whites, primarily because they are older, receive more back relative to what they pay in each of the decades from the 1970s to 2030s."
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/the-stock-market-redistributes-from-non-whites-to-whites
So the methodology is flawed, in addition to your point that within races Social Security is not regressive.
Post a Comment