Social security is not an account you individually pay into and then draw from later, it is a wealth transfer program that taxes presently working individuals to support presently retired individuals.
You are correct. Nonetheless, those paying in to the system today acquiesced to the plan under the assumption that they would one day be able to take their place as beneficiaries. They gave up significant amounts of money which could have been invested toward their own retirement to pay those SS taxes. Simply ripping it away without compensation is neither fair nor realistic.
I didn't mean to imply there was anything like voluntary consent involved. I'm on your side here. But there is popular support for this program which wouldn't exist if it were presented purely as a wealth transfer with no upside for those forced to pay in. They gloss over the fact that paying SS taxes doesn't formally entitle you to any future benefits, but in practice cancelling it without offering some compensation to those who paid so much in would amount to political suicide.
This brings up and interesting question: If more people enter the work force and pay taxes every year, how is SS (as im told) "drying up"? I don't doubt that it's dwindling, however, what happened?
In 1945 there were 42 workers paying SS taxes for every retiree collecting benefits. For equal pay / retirement income after SS taxes, each worker only needs to provide 2.3%.
Today (actually since 2009) that ratio is three workers per retiree. Each worker has to provide 33%. By 2050 the ratio is projected to fall to two-to-one.
Mostly people are living longer. When SS first started only 55% of males and 60% of females who made it to age 21 would have survived their working-age years to retire at age 65 in 1940. By 1990 that figure had risen to 72% and 83%, respectively. Life expectancy after retirement also increased, from 12.7 (M) or 14.7 (F) years in 1940 to 15.3 or 19.6 years in 1990. (https://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html)
yes and no. that is how it's actually implemented, but from the outside it does look similar to a defined contribution plan. you pay into it during your working years and then receive a monthly payment in retirement. the payment amount is related (albeit not directly proportional) to the amount you paid in.
in any case, I feel pretty confident saying that most people see social security as a deal where they pay in now to receive benefits later during retirement. they may or may not think very hard about the fact that they might be far better off if they had the option to put the money in a 401k/IRA instead, but they surely would not be happy to pay now without the expectation of getting something later.
that's all just to say that it's not a "haha gotem" moment when you find someone close to retirement who "opposes socialism" but doesn't want to see social security go away (for them).
>that's all just to say that it's not a "haha gotem" moment when you find someone close to retirement who "opposes socialism" but doesn't want to see social security go away (for them).
It wasn't an attempt at a "haha gotem," sorry if it came out that way. It was more of an example of the irony of being for and against the same concept by having different understanding of the meaning than someone else.
SSI was probably a bad example, anything useful will fit. "Socialism bad," but "please fix the potholes in my road, pick up my trash, put bad guys in jail, put out that forest fire, keep the shipping lanes clear, etc. etc." All those a person could like and they are socialistic, but ask that same person what their opinion on socialism, he thinks Castro nationalizing US industry in Cuba, not all the service he finds infinitely useful day to day.
I guess that's the complicated way of saying we should talk about political ideas in a much more narrow sense, like "lets lower the medicare age to 55; we're already paying for the most expensive demographic," rather than "Socialism good."
