The EU

Google says the EU requires a notice of cookie use (by Google) and says they have posted a notice. I don't see it. If cookies bother you, go elsewhere. If the EU bothers you, emigrate. If you live outside the EU, don't go there.

Monday, January 6, 2014

Is Social Security Discriminatory?

For John, BLUFMost Government projects are driven by multiple inputs.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

Here is a lesson in why we need to keep asking questions and testing assumptions.  Over at the International Liberty blog Mr Daniel J Mitchell says "Government-Run Social Security Is Bad News for Blacks and other Minorities".  The reason is that Social Security is about transfers of money.  Check the charts at the link.

This is not a reason for terminating Social Security, but it is a reason to ask if there is a better way.  Change is hard.  Asking questions is a necessity for progress.

Hat tip to the Instapundit.

Regards  —  Cliff


Neal said...

there seems to be an element of "victimization" in this research and its conclusion. There are other possibilities other than white oppression. When the Social Security system was brought into place, there were a disproportionately higher number of white workers in "institutionalized" employment, that is, employment where SS tax was collected. Thus, when one considers the accumulated amounts of inputs and receipts, whites would necessarily be greater than blacks (seems to be the REAL target of the research). That family stability is a factor in benefits derived from SS is not an issue of SS but rather a consequence of a much more complex sociological problem that has endured for centuries in the US. In fact, the fatherless or motherless black family is on the increase today, in some part because of the futility imposed by a sense of victimization.

Having said all that, Social Security IS a bad deal made worse since LBJ managed to weasel the government's way into accessing the funds for decidedly non-SS kinds of spending. Moreover, it makes the whole society dependent on the government handout which discourages individual initiative and reward for hard work...a pioneer spirit if you will in which each person is responsible for his or her own success...or life. The 401k approach engenders that sort of philosophy by forcing people to focus on planning and working for their future.

The problem with safety nets is that it discourages risk..and risk provides reward. Amazingly, if you tell an individual that if they don't provide for themselves, they will starve to death....etc......they will generally get off their duff and do order to put a roof over their heads or food in their tummies. It's been happening since the dawn of mankind.

Mr. Lynne said...

"America desperately needs genuine entitlement reform to avoid a Greek-style fiscal future."

They guy lost me at the first sentence.

Oh yeah, the straw-manning is obvious too: "America desperately needs genuine entitlement reform to avoid a Greek-style fiscal future."

That said, his issue with the lopsided burden with regard to class is actually a pretty good argument for progressive taxation (not that he'd notice).

Neal said...

Here's an addendum. Since SS is contributory and the basis of the contribution is based on the income being TAXED, there is a relationship between the classes and who contributes more and gets more out of SS.

Columnist John C. Goodman: "In a study for the National Center for Policy Analysis, David Henderson found that there is a big difference between families in the top 20 percent and bottom 20 percent of the income distribution: Families at the top tend to be married and both partners work. Families at the bottom often have only one adult in the household and that person either works part-time or not at all: In 2006, a whopping 81.4 percent of families in the top income quintile had two or more people working, and only 2.2 percent had no one working. By contrast, only 12.6 percent of families in the bottom quintile had two or more people working; 39.2 percent had no one working. ... Having children without a husband tends to make you poor. Not working makes you even poorer. And there is nothing new about that. These are age old truths. They were true 50 years ago, a hundred years ago and even 1,000 year ago. Lifestyle choices have always mattered."

But then the whole argument being waged today about "entitlement reform" is simply pitching a form of Robin Hood economics, aka, Marxist socialism. You decadent WHITE folks need to come off of a big chunk of that money you make and redistribute it to those who aren't as fortunate....or as ambitious.......