Social Security is a bad deal for blacks. Especially black men. But that didn't stop the NAACP from blasting President Bush's proposed Social Security reform.
See, blacks don't live as long as people of other races. According to the CDC, black men born in 2002 have a life expectancy of 68.8 years and black women 75.6 years. That being the case, why would the NAACP, an organization that purports to care about the "advancement of colored people" (that's part of their name, after all) want to force its membership to accept such a bad deal?
Think about it. A black, male child born in 2002 will not be able to begin collecting Social Security benefits until age 67. So, after having contributed to the Social Security pyramid scheme for more than 40 years (in most cases), the average black man born in 2002 can expect to collect Social Security benefits for a whopping 21 months! What's worse, he will not be able to leave any of his Social Security contributions to his heirs.
Why on Earth would the NAACP not support a plan that would allow citizens to invest the money, take advantage of the miracle of compound interest to provide a higher return than Social Security could ever hope to, and be able to leave whatever is left to their heirs?
Make your Investment wisely
1 month ago
Posts
2 comments:
The point is not whether its good or bad. Private accounts defined by the Bush administration is bad. Read the details.. No one inherits anything, no one but a very small group of people can gift their accounts to their heirs. Newsweek has a great article on this plan.
The point is that Blacks have a lower life expectacy than whites. The focus should be on raising the life expectancy for blacks across the board so that both whites and blacks can benefit equally from whatever plan (hopefully not Bush's) to secure SS.
Dear Anonymous,
Thanks for stopping by and commenting.
Well, first of all the details are what get ironed out when all sides get together to negotiate. Besides Bush's plan, several members of Congress have plans that feature private accounts.
Even if private accounts aren't transferrable (and I don't know that they aren't; for the sake of this post, I'll take your word for it), they still offer a better rate of return than Social Security. And they do so without resorting to an unsustainable pyramid scheme which takes money from a less well-off cohort of workers to transfer it to a better-off cohort of retirees.
Also, would you mind showing me where in the Constitution it says that the government's job is raising life expectancies? Also, which branch of government is responsible for that?
Alain
Post a Comment