Immigration Watch International (2): Immigration’s Impact on Social Security and Medicare

Wednesday, April 12, 2023

Immigration’s Impact on Social Security and Medicare

A new analysis from the Center for Immigration Studies examines the impact of immigration policy on the solvency of the Social Security and Medicare programs. Rather than offer dollar estimates for the future, the new report instead explains conceptually the differing effects of different immigration policies.

The recently released 2023 Trustees Report on the projected financial status of the programs has lawmakers considering actions that might extend the life of the program and avoid substantial benefit cuts. Although immigration is often suggested as a boost to the programs’ finances, the reality is more complicated. Toleration of illegal immigration, amnesty for illegal immigrants, and increased legal immigration are distinct policy choices that should not be conflated because that have very different effects on the trust funds.

Although some of these choices have positive impacts, they are still no substitute for hard-headed fiscal reforms. Jason Richwine, the Center’s resident scholar and author of the report, said, “Rather than looking to immigration as an outside fix for the fiscal imbalances faced by Social Security and Medicare, policymakers should acknowledge that any practical solution will primarily involve a combination of tax increases and benefit reductions that encourage Americans to live within their means.”

Key points:

Illegal immigration unambiguously benefits the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, but amnesty (legalization) would reverse those gains and add extra costs.

The impact of legal immigration depends largely on age of arrival and income. Immigrants who arrive young and have high earnings will be net contributors to the trust funds, while later-arriving and lower-earning immigrants will be net drains.

Recent declines in fertility imply that legal immigrants who are net drains in their own lifetimes will not have enough children to make up the difference in the next generation.

A continuous inflow of working-age immigrants could appear to have a positive effect on the trust funds even as the immigrants are lifetime net drains. However, this Ponzi-style funding strategy would be difficult to sustain.

https://cis.org/Report/Impact-Immigration-Social-Security-and-Medicare-Conceptual-Primer

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.

Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.

The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:

1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.

2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.

3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.

4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.

5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.

6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.

I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.

Immigration Watch International (2)

Wednesday, April 12, 2023

Immigration’s Impact on Social Security and Medicare

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Other blogs

Blog Archive

Contributors