Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Romina Boccia's avatar

I also understand that looking under the hood and feeling duped makes people angry. So I am not surprised about your reaction. It’s still important that we face the facts even if this makes us feel bad initially. We can’t afford to keep pretending Soc Sec is something that it is not.

It is not a savings program. It is not an investment. It is a government redistribution program and the only thing distinguishing it from all other welfare is that it has a dedicated funding source on paper that limits its borrowing authority in statute and applies limited meanstesting.

Government can keep seniors out of poverty as FDR promised but should otherwise leave Americans free to save and invest for their own retirement (which is something most rational people can plan for). A true social insurance program would insure against an unexpected event…like the disability program does. Getting old isn’t something that we can’t foresee although we may not know exactly for how long we can work as old age increases the incidence of disability.

Expand full comment
Bob's avatar

Perhaps it would help to emphasize that Social Security has _always_ been a transfer from current workers to retirees. That’s not how it was sold. It was fine when the ratio of workers to recipients was 30 to 1. Last time I checked it was 3 to 1, and headed south.

The social security surplus was never invested. Congress wrote IOUs to itself and spent the money. The special T-bills in the filing cabinet in Virginia are worthless. President Bush was excoriated for pointing that out.

It’s as if you’re saving up for a new car. Every payday you write yourself an IOU, and spend the money you planned to save. When it comes time to buy the car all you have is a stack of worthless paper.

Expand full comment
31 more comments...

No posts