Feels like my brain was poked with sharp objects reading that stringing together of half-truths, misleading stats, and a bad faith argument for privatizing Social Security.
Somehow you forgot to mention that about 40% of older black males are married and their social security benefits will be paid out to their wives. Post pandemic figures show the average life expectancy of white males is 74.8 years and black males is 72.2 years. This is coupled with the reality of the money that is paid into the system. If black males earn less than white males on average in their lifetimes then the total amount of money (accounting for their percentage of the population) paid into the social security system is a small portion of the overall pool -- especially in context of percentage of the population, etc. Additionally from the payout perspective, black males tend to take social security earlier than white males -- thus their payouts are smaller monthly amounts. However until a person reaches a cross-over age of 78 years old or so (it varies per person) then taking social security early at 62 usually leads to greater overall payments over waiting for full retirement age (67) or age 70. Generally black males are selecting to take more years of social security payments at a lower amount per month. There are many factors that go into social security payments. Making a very simplistic case that black males live a couple of years less than white males and therefore would be better off with privatized social security simply does not hold water. There much more than income that impacts generational poverty than simply providing cash -- including personal attitude of a community towards money (immediately spending it rather than saving), systemic treatment of the group over time, and other factors.
The stat includes early deaths from violence, disease, and accidents. Black men who reach retirement age live nearly as long as white men. The whole point of Social Security is guaranteed income. Privatization introduces risk, market crashes, bad investments, and financial mismanagement could leave retirees with nothing. That disproportionately harms lower-income workers. “Why can’t SS contributions become part of an estate?” Because it’s insurance, not a personal savings account. Just like health or home insurance, some people pay in more than they get out, while others benefit more. If you want a system where retirement savings are inherited, that’s not Social Security, that’s just privatized accounts.
Privatization introduces risk Not true...Government Bonds are as safe as can be...Each year you buy a bond that matures when you turn 65.....The Fed would need to create this vehicle
None of the proposed social security privatization plans involve investing solely in government bonds. All the plans involve investing broadly across many assets classes and having the fund managed by Wall Street firms. Similar to how most state and local pension plans are managed today. And as we have seen a number of these pension plans are on the verge of insolvency.
While the idea sounds simple, it fundamentally changes Social Security from an insurance program into an individual investment scheme. Social Security guarantees income regardless of market conditions, whereas a bond system transfers all the risk, inflation, mismanagement, longevity, onto the individual. And there is an explosion of dementia...expecting retirees to manage complex financial decisions late in life is a recipe for disaster.
The individual would not have any control over the trust until they retire It would force the Government to stop borrowing against the SS fund
Oh... you mean like how state and local governments never borrowed against or diverted their pension program funds to general funds via various mechanisms. Good luck with that.
This is one of the dumbest posts I've ever seen on this site. Have you no ability to understand statistics at all ?