Nathan Newman wrote:
> Michael, I think you and Louis have the politics of this one exactly
> backwards. Preserving the earnings test is not just about redistribution,
> it's about maintaining Social Security as a pension system, not an
> investment vehicle.
The problem is that the logic of the earnings test can be pushed further. Once
the majority of people no longer benefit from the program and it becomes method
for helping the poor, it becomes a welfare program and looses all support.
I sympathize with much of the rest that you wrote, except for your defense of
the Democrats. I will not go into that space because we have already rehashed
much of that discussion.
> how is this different from a government 401K plan? The latter is exactly
> what the Right wants to convert Social Security into.
>
> And redistribution of income is the only justification for the savage 15%
> wage tax that FICA imposes on low-income workers. This new payout to
> upper-income older wage earners is going to skew the somewhat redistributive
> nature of Social Security towards regressivity. I'd be curious to know if
> Citizens for Tax Justice or EPI have run the numbers on this. Max?
>
> Worse, if this reform encourages a lot more upper-income folks to keep
> working into their late 60s, it will create broader political support for
> increasing the retirement age, another goal of the Right on Social Security.
> This will be fine for richer workers who will have 401Ks etc. if they really
> want to retire early, but will savagely hurt many working class folks,
> especially in more strenuous or physically damaging jobs in blue collar and
> pink collar occupations, where later retirement is a horrible burden.
>
> Why the Democratic Party's capitulation to a long-time conservative goal is
> praiseworthy is beyond me. It seems, though, that the chance to bash a
> labor-aligned liberal like Rorty is more important than criticizing the
> triumph of a decades-long rightwing goal to undermine Social Security and
> benefit rich folks at the same time.
>
> Social Security survived for sixty-five years with the earnings test, so it
> is more likely part of the reason for its resiliency not a hindrance as
> Louis's and your argument seems to argue.
>
> -- Nathan Newman
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chico, CA 95929
530-898-5321
fax 530-898-5901
