Max, this is a very informative post. Quite a few people complain about
paying school taxes because they do not have any children in school. Here
in Chico, we finally passed a school bond on the fourth try. But it was
close to failing again.
I worry that the same could happen to Social Security. Admittedly, we don't
hear much resistance since Peterson's "movement" in which young people
complain about paying Social Security taxes has disappeared.
I do appreciate the perspective that you offer in your note, despite the
muffled dig at your bete noir.
>>>>>>>>>>>
Thanks. I understand there is a school bond referendum
question in CA -- eliminating the requirement for a
super-majority. This strikes me as a pretty important
vote.
Re: Soc Sec, I've spent a lot of time defending the
idea of social insurance, criticizing means-testing,
and dissing Peterson. The earnings test has very
little relevance to all this, IMO, NN's breathless
forecasts notwithstanding. If anything, it goes
in the other direction -- making the program less
redistributive strengthens it. One might wish
otherwise. Insofar as people are worried
about retirement income, allowing a work option
that does not directly reduce benefits (there is
an indirect effect, thru the income tax) makes
benefit levels easier to live on. The other
option -- supplementing retirement income with
private investment income -- is much more of an
invitation to privatization.
Incidentally, Peterson's synthetic 'youth movement'
is not dead. The lack of furor over deficits and
privatization has forced it to ground, but they'll
be back. All he needs to do is write a few new
checks.
mbs
