January 26, 2005
But Social Security Is Unfair To Blacks!
Eschaton:Missing: Bush administration initiatives to improve African-American life expectancy. Discuss.To recap, life expectancy at 65 is fairly close for blacks and whites (2 year gap roughly). Much of the difference is due to differences is infant, childhood, and for males, young adult mortality.
Such people pay little or nothing in social security taxes. Many of them, however, receive social security survivor benefits.
Bush has yet to address the high infant mortality rate of African-Americans. Discuss.
Anyone making the argument that social security is "unfair to blacks" without pointing out these facts is a liar. Studies have shown that overall the rate of return for African-Americans is as good or better than for the overall population, when disability, survivor benefits, and level of contribution are taken into account. Your mileage may vary, depending on your income, date of death, and other life circumstances.
This is an obvious dodge, and dishonest too. Nobody is suggesting that social security should be privatized in order to compensate for lower life expectancy among blacks. Just like nobody is suggesting it should be privatized so gays and lesbians can will their private accounts to their partners rather than having them abandoned by social security. These just happen to be positive side effects. So start your own topic on health care, but don't pretend it has anything to do with privatizing social security or makes anyone a "liar".
Life expectancy is lower for blacks. You've already sunk your case in the first sentence.
You also include disability benefits in you calculation, even though disability has nothing to do with privatization, as you well know.
Posted by: Pepik at January 27, 2005 05:12 AMI was quoting Atrios.
I would like to see how the life expectancy figures change once you factor out all deaths of all people who have paid no payroll taxes.
I don't see your point about disability having nothing to do with privatization. What do you mean?
Posted by: tunesmith at January 27, 2005 05:46 PMAnd, since a lot of people (and arguably, more african-americans) get social security benefits even when they *haven't* paid any payroll taxes, that would need to be figured in as well. I'm not sure if a "change in formula" would mean a reduction of the amount of money these beneficiaries would receive. For now, I'm assuming it would mean a reduction, but I really don't know.
Privatization wouldn't affect disability, so counting disability benefits in defending social security against shortchanging african americans is nonsense.
Posted by: Pepik at February 1, 2005 11:28 AM