French Workers Are Fighting Back-- Will Americans?
American conservatives are eager to raise the retirement age. The alternative is making wealthy people pay their fair share, anathema to conservatives. The Republicans are most eager to do it but know that the blowback from the public would wipe them out. So they’re demanding that Democrats do it in a “bipartisan” way. So far, the only “Democrat” to come forward is Angus King, conservative Maine independent. He’s joined with Bill Cassidy (R-LA) to raise the retirement age to 70 (from 67). Several Republican candidates for president have been campaigning on doing it, particularly Pence and Haley. It’s worth noting that if the retirement age is raised to 70, the result would be fewer people who paid in would collect any benefits because they would die first. According to estimates by the Social Security Administration, raising the full retirement age from 67 to 70 would reduce the number of people who receive Social Security retirement benefits by about 13%. This is because some individuals may not live long enough to reach the higher retirement age and others may choose to delay retirement in order to receive a higher monthly benefit. On top of that, raising the retirement age could also have negative impacts on individuals who are unable to work until age 70 due to health problems or job loss, as well as on those in physically demanding jobs who may be unable to work until an older age.
Demographically, average life expectancy varies pretty widely. Here are some numbers to consider:
Overall population: 76 years
Females: 80 years
Males: 72 years
White Americans: 78 years
Black Americans: 74 years (Black males- 71 years)
Hispanic Americans: 81 years
Asian Americans: 87 years
Native Americans: 73 years (Native American males- 70 years)
Northeast- 79 years
West- 79 years
Midwest- 78 years
South- 76 years
Lowest income quartile- 74 years
Second income quartile- 77 years
Third income quartile- 80 years
Highest income quartile- 85 years
Studies have shown that there’s a significant difference in life expectancy between insured and uninsured people. Generally, individuals who have health insurance coverage have better access to healthcare and preventive services, which can improve health outcomes and increase life expectancy. On the other hand, uninsured individuals are less likely to receive preventive care and are more likely to delay or forgo necessary medical care due to cost, which can lead to more serious health problems and lower life expectancy. According to a study published in the American Journal of Public Health in 2019, the life expectancy gap between insured and uninsured individuals in the U.S. is about 3 years. The study found that uninsured individuals have an average life expectancy of 76.1 years, compared to 79.4 years for insured individuals.
Hal, my AI pal wrote me a poem in the style of Langston Hughes to cover these factors in the debate. (Hal picked Hughes because his poetry often addresses social and political issues with a powerful and evocative voice.
Longevity in America, a tale of disparity
A life divided, between rich and poor
Each day a fight, for the chance to endure
White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native
A life expectancy, by race distinctive
Women living longer, men left to strive
A nation of many, each with their own drive
Income and region, factors of health
Access to care, worth more than wealth
The insured living longer, a chance to thrive
The uninsured struggling, a fight to survive
And in these times, we must take care
To understand and help those in despair
A future uncertain, we must work to prepare
For a world that's fair, and equally share
Let's raise our voice, and demand a change
Let's fight for health, and not let it estrange
A country of many, with the same right to live
A land of the free, where hope and joy give.
I also asked Hal his opinion of raising the cap on payroll taxes as an alternative to raising the retirement age. As you probably know, Hal is reluctant to voice his own opinions but this is what I coaxed out of him: “Currently, the Social Security payroll tax is only assessed on earnings up to a certain level, which is adjusted annually for inflation. For 2023, this cap is set at $147,000 per year. This means that individuals earning above the cap do not pay Social Security taxes on the portion of their income that exceeds $147,000. One proposal for shoring up the Social Security system is to lift or eliminate this cap entirely. Under this proposal, all earnings, regardless of how much they exceed the cap, would be subject to Social Security payroll taxes. This would increase revenue to the Social Security Trust Fund, helping to address the program's long-term funding shortfall. Proponents of lifting or eliminating the cap argue that it would make the Social Security system more progressive, as higher earners would pay a greater share of their income into the program. They also note that the earnings cap has not kept up with wage growth for high earners, meaning that a larger and larger share of earnings has been escaping Social Security taxes over time. Opponents of lifting or eliminating the cap argue that it would unfairly burden high earners and discourage economic growth. They also note that the earnings cap has historically been an important part of the Social Security system, as it provides a maximum benefit amount for retirees and helps ensure that the program is focused on providing retirement security for the middle class… It is a politically controversial issue and any changes to the system will likely require significant public debate and legislative action.”
As you can probably guess, conservatives argue that eliminating the cap would unfairly burden high earners— their base— and discourage economic growth, while progressives say that eliminating the cap is a fair and effective way to make the program more progressive and generate more revenue. There’s a political divide over the role of government in providing retirement security. Progressives believe that Social Security, the most popular social program in history, should be preserved and strengthened to provide a basic level of retirement income, while conservatives generally believe that individuals should be responsible for their own retirement savings and that government programs like Social Security should be scaled back or eliminated.
Polls show that the general public supports the progressive perspective. The National Academy of Social Insurance found that an overwhelming majority of Americans support eliminating the earnings cap for Social Security payroll taxes. In 2020 the Pew Research Center found similar support for raising the cap.
Today strikes across France brought trains and some airplane travel to a halt while protesters flooded the streets, some clashing with police (who are attacking demonstrators), after Macron again pledged to raise the retirement age (from 62 to 64). A strike by garbage collectors have left Paris with piles of garbage on the streets. What will Americans do when Fox's prediction comes true?
Comments