Academic

MEGAN MCARDLE ON FIXING SOCIAL SECURITY AND THE BUDGET. Megan?s thoughts are worth reading, but she?

By Glenn Reynolds

MEGAN MCARDLE ON FIXING SOCIAL SECURITY AND THE BUDGET. Megan’s thoughts are worth reading, but she quotes another commentator who argues against social security benefit cuts by noting that many young people oppose them: “That is, unless, your position is that young workers don’t know what’s good for them and it is up to us to safeguard them from themselves.”

Megan comments: “I’d suggest the data might be explained by recourse to the employment-to-population ratio for 18-24 year olds, which is under 50%. I don’t find it surprising that people who are not self-supporting would disproportionately break in favor of higher taxes to support a paternalistic program.”

But the other problem is that Social Security itself is based on the premise “that young workers don’t know what’s good for them and it is up to us to safeguard them from themselves.” If we felt otherwise, we’d leave it up to them to save for retirement, instead of levying upon them for social security. Right? It takes a lot of chutzpah to say that cutting Social Security benefits is somehow paternalistic . . . .

Full post as published by Instapundit.com on November 12, 2010 (boomark / email).