Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site gargoyle.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes From: carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Re: Social Security vs Social Welfare Message-ID: <240@gargoyle.UUCP> Date: Sun, 10-Nov-85 17:56:25 EST Article-I.D.: gargoyle.240 Posted: Sun Nov 10 17:56:25 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 11-Nov-85 21:14:40 EST References: <756@whuxl.UUCP> <29200244@uiucdcs> <361@whuts.UUCP> <1270@mhuxt.UUCP> <784@whuxl.UUCP> <10936@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Reply-To: carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) Organization: U. of Chicago, Computer Science Dept. Lines: 43 In article <10936@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Rick McGeer writes: >Social Security may be the single most odious program the US Federal >Government runs. It is not so much a pension plan as a ponzi scheme, >and it is as singularly successful as the latter as it is >unsuccessful as the former. It is a poor social program, as well: it >transfers from the poor to the rich, from the working to the idle, >and from the young to the old. Milton Friedman points out that it is >a genius for political salesmanship that a program which consists of >a regressive tax and a welfare-for-the-rich scheme (neither of which, >obviously, would have flown alone) has been turned into the most >popular political program of the century. Friedman characteristically overlooks the possibility that the popularity of the program may be due to a widely shared consensus in favor of the ideal that Social Security represents, so he must invent imaginary political supersalesmen to explain its popularity. The ideal is communal provision of a subsistence for those who are not able to work or who have lost their source of support: the elderly, survivors, and the disabled. Communal provision was not invented by the New Deal; every society has practiced some form of it. Social Security was instituted during the New Deal years in order to facilitate this communal provision, since the need for it was acute. There are many serious flaws in its implementation, such as the regressive nature of the taxes. But by and large people are not aware of such subtleties, but only that it is supposed to provide "security" for persons who are deemed to be entitled to it -- as distinguished from welfare for the poor, who, according to the devout belief of most Americans, are not owed a living by anyone, certainly not by Joe Taxpayer. In other words, J. Taxpayer believes that the elderly and disabled *deserve* a portion of his income, while the poor in general do not, although he is sometimes willing to give charity to the poor, as God gives grace to us undeserving sinners. Anyone with a serious interest in the effect of government in the US on the distribution of income and wealth should read Benjamin Page's book *Who Gets What From Government*. This is outstanding: thorough and well written. It contains surprises for most readers, but especially for those who believe that government is engaged in some kind of massive transfer of wealth from rich to poor in the US. -- Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes