Bryan - a couple commenters have already alluded to the elephant in the room: the elderly worker has been contributing to the SS system for decades while the teen mom likely hasn't paid any taxes (or very little from a menial job).
Now we can quibble about whether or not the current benefits outstrip the original contributions - that's a mechanical question - not a moral one.
People don't exactly contribute to unfunded pension systems and old age transfers. They are funded by present taxation, and therefor are not actually earned or accrued in any meaningful sense. Once you abandon the mythology of it being earned, it gets tough to believe in.
I am 58 and have paid ss since I was 16. I absolutely earned my future ss payments. If they hadn't taken them I could have invested quite a bit myself with that money. The promise was always that it would be there for me. It was supposed to be even younger but the government bumped the age up.
If you get disability and never worked that is different. But many of us have paid into it for decades.
There are no accounts or funds, just transfers. Compare to Singapore or aspects of Chilean, Australian, and Canadian systems. I don't mean to suggest you have not worked hard or not contributed to society, but rather that pay-as-you-go systems like SS are not savings vehicles.
I think it's not so much about who is more irresponsible but just the single mom can put the kids in daycare and GIT A JOOOOB!
A 75 year old with advanced Alzheimer's might not have that option. So not providing them with social security leaves them with only one option: starve and die. (Assuming family and charity won't help)
That being said, I think the idea of all healthy people being able to retire at 65 and expect a certain income as an entitlement is an unnecessary luxury.
Perhaps instead of retirement benefits, we just have disability benefits. If you're 72 and able-bodied and you haven't saved for retirement... you can work.
Why do we then pay a retirement check much bigger than SS to the retired military and NOT penalize them with loss of retirement if they are handed a cushy no work job at a military contractor or Depot?
Lovely. So what about all the folks who already paid I to social security?
The idea ANY 75 year old can work full time is pretty far out. The body wears down.
But if we are going to force people to get qualify for disability to claim ss, then every elder will have to have a primary care who is willing to do the disability paperwork. Considering no menopause symptoms counts as disability or even as an illness, because it is “a normal part of aging” ,how many doctors will give a 75 year old a disability diagnosis when the aches and pains and forgetfulness ( not dementia) and easy exhaustion are a “normal” part of aging.
What will happen is employers will let the elderly go and find a way to make it not be about age. Then they will be fired and then what?
Teenage single moms BECOME moms IN ORDER TO collect welfare payments. And many bother little to raise their children (sometimes, their own mothers do it).
We can argue all day about what we SHOULD do, but what are we actually going to do? My guess is, Congress will do NOTHING until it becomes a crisis, which, the way things are going, will coincide with a much larger budgetary/financial crisis. I am 72 and collect SS, but I am also looking ahead and trying to prepare for the day when my SS could be greatly reduced, or even stopped. If that were to happen, it would be in conjunction with many other crises, and it might even be that the USA would cease to exist as a functioning nation. I don't expect that, but I do see it as a possibility. The more likely outcome is a massive sudden inflation, without adjustments to SS, such that people who are just getting by would suddenly find that their monthly check is good for perhaps one tank of gas. In any case, I know that all my SS contributions over my working career have already been spent (NOT invested), and whatever I may continue to receive is taken from those still working.
There is merit to your main point about the irresponsibility of failing to save for retirement. But...
1. How much to save for retirement is a much more complicated question whether or not to have sex.
2. Old people *appear* more helpless than young people when viewed *as a class* and therefore evoke more sympathy.
3. The political reality is that old people are much more likely to vote than young people, which explains the fact that social security benefits have actually *increased* despite the precarious nature of the program.
All that being said, I'm all for the automatic cuts (of about 25%) kicking in when the trust fund runs out in a few years
But of course you didn't invest. You just paid for other people's pension income. Unfunded systems are unfunded. It is just taxation and income transfers under a different name. These systems are clearly nor sustainable, particularly given people are electing not to have lots of children.
The fact it appears to have been a ponzi scheme is irrelevant. We were told it was to keep us afloat even if something happened in our old age. We were absolutely investing in our future.
Ok well there is no account, no fund, etc. If you are kept afloat, it will be by transfers from other people. That may be entirely worthwhile, but it isn't the same as saving and investing. Just compare to any fully funded, investment based system (i.e. Singapore's CPF) and it is clear. I blame politicians for promoting pay-as-you-go systems as if they function like Singapore's when they do not.
Isn't the main problem overcoming the "hey, but I paid for this?" To make the reasonable option you'd have to balance the books 40 years ago before aging crises and lower social security taxes AND the eventually promised benefits. Of course now we'll be forced to anyway or have further budget crises and collapse of the state.
This is the #1 reason why FDR was such a snake, even by politician standards. SS is the only tax that is advertised as transactional. Income taxes aren't transactional. Property taxes aren't transactional. Sales tax isn't transactional. Medicare isn't transactional.
They are all transactional. Property taxes pay for schools and roads. Income taxes pay for the military and federal government. Medicare is taken out of my paycheck to fund medical care for future.
Everything the government takes is with the idea we will get something in return.
I didn't say people don't get anything in return, I said taxes aren't transactions, because they aren't. If you pay more in property taxes than your neighbors, you don't get to use the school system or the roads more. If I pay more in income tax than you do, I don't get to use the military more.
But the benefits one receives from social security is determined directly by how much you contribute. And those who contribute more receive more. It is categorically different.
That is the status quo, but imagine if instead developed nations had been building sovereign wealth funds, funded systems, or Singaporean style systems.
But they didn't. So stopping payments to those of us who paid involuntarily for 30, 40, 50 years, even when job loss, health issues and economic issues forced us to cut spending on everything but the basics of life will be devastating to us
Unless you plan to have legalized euthanizia as well.
And how exactly would Bryan advise the hapless Social Security reformers to deal with the societal outrage attending the inevitable racial/ethnic imbalance of those denied retirement funds for their "irresponsibility" to save while working? No need to rush out an ill-considered answer, I can wait a few years while he comes up with something...
The problem with saying people “paid into” Social Security is that the actual scheme is that each workers Social Security Security “contributions” go directly to current recipients. There is no “lock box” or “trust fund”, it is literally a Ponzi Scheme that is running short on new workers to milk.
As one of the guilty irresponsible (I have exonerating reasons,don't we all)I totally and absolutely agree. I found this in a random search for something else and I'm interested to explore this more. Btw my guilt is not teenage mumdom,at least I'd have someone to look after me if that was so,it's the saving for old age bit but in 1970 NO ONE would TELL ME ANYTHHNG even though I kept asking. No m'lud I thought that wouldnt stand up in court even though it's true!
I totally agree. There is one caveat: there are many times when boneheaded government actions cause people to exhaust their savings. the Great Depression, I would strong argue that was caused or at least elongated by the US federal government, is one issue. How does one save for retirement at 20% unemployment rates for better than a decade? How about government manufactured pandemics? Perhaps the government should shrink a lot so it does not have the power to be used by idiots. In this case, I am aligned with Dr. Caplan's perspective.
So, how would you amend Social Security given that the formula is so highly progressive, and that benefits are based on your highest 35 years of earnings on which you made "contributions" (paid taxes)? That is, is the SS formula "responsible" enough for you?
Or, perhaps, you would get rid of the spouse and survivor benefits since those are not based, in any way shape or form, on the spouse's or survivor's own earnings record.
It is a myth that social security is "highly progressive". It's absolutely a regressive program. High income people have more stable careers which means they consistently contribute to it more and they live longer lives so get more paid out to them. Not to mention it is funded by a payroll tax, which is regressive by nature.
The Social Security benefit is absolutely, positively progressive - relative to the funding (taxes, contributions, whatever you want to call FICA).
Yes, you have to have qualifying earnings for 40 quarters to have a "vested" benefit. However, the qualifying amount per quarter in 2026 is $1,890, or $630 per month. So, you can have an annual income over ten years of less than $8,000 per year and still qualify for Social Security benefits.
The main reason the benefit is highly progressive is the benefit formula. For individuals becoming eligible for Social Security in 2026 (typically, those reaching age 62), the Primary Insurance Amount (PIA) is calculated using Average Indexed Monthly Earnings (AIME, over a 35 year period of the 35 highest years of earnings) with bend points set at $1,286 and $7,749.
The benefit formula is:
90% of the first $1,286 of AIME
32% of AIME from $1,286.01 to $7,749
15% of AIME over $7,749
So, for example, someone at the low end of the income structure, say consistently making the federal minimum wage over a 40 hour week, $15,132/year, would cause to be paid $1,876 in FICA taxes per year ($938 from their own paycheck, $938 in foregone wages due to the equal amount of employer contribution), and would receive a benefit of $13,618 per year or $1,135 per month - a pay replacement of 90%.
For comparison, someone at the top end of the income structure, say consistently making $184,500 (the 2026 wage base), would pay $22,878 in FICA taxes per year ($11,439 from their own paycheck, $11,439 in foregone wages due to the equal amount of employer contribution), and would receive a benefit of $4,369 per month, or $52,433 per year, a pay replacement of 28.4% (on the $184,500 income).
Both are paying the same percentage of covered compensation into the system - 12.4% of pay, 6.2% by the employee 6.2% from the employer.
However, the benefits they receive are dramatically different relative to their contribuions. Can't get much more progressive than that.
The tax is regressive because it starts on the first dollar of income, and among the poorest consumes a larger percentage of the money needed to live at a subsistence level. The theft weighs hardest on the poor who are least able to afford it.
Yes, once more, the tax is regressive. The only thing more regressive than the tax, are the benefits the tax is designed to fund. Otherwise, Social Security and Medicare would morph into welfare programs - a la Medicaid and Supplement Security Income.
Keep in mind that truly highly compensated and conservatives who are well off would like nothing more than to flip those programs into welfare plans, lower the benefits to a subsistence (poverty level) instead of having to pay more taxes in order to fill in the funding gap that starting with President Carter, Congress and successive administrations created by using the entitlements to buy votes - promising much more than they were willing to currently tax.
The deficits are in tens of trillions of dollars. Watch out for what you ask.
Now include life expectancy and tell me with a straight face that it's progressive. The average life expectancy of the poorest 20% is 76. The average life expectancy of the richest 20% is 85. As a share of income earned, sure it's "progressive". But if a rich guy retires at 67 he can easily collect checks for 20 years, twice as long as someone who is low income. But because the poor guy's monthly check is higher *relative to his income*, people have done the mental gymnastics that "actually this program is good."
Yes, life expectancy varies by as much as 20.4 years depending on demographics, including geography, race, urbanicity, income, homicide rate, sex and age group.
And, life expectancy variations by demographics have increased in recent years - however, income is just one of the factors.
I agree that life expectancy does make a difference. However, so do other factors that I did not highlight in my earlier comparison. For example, there is also a substantial difference in the number of hours worked and the number of years of employment - studies show higher paid workers average 500+ more hours of work compared to lower paid workers. Just as important, higher paid workers work an additional 5 - 10 years.
Myself, I am in my 56th year of wage employment, so, 21 of my working years I paid FICA taxes but they are not included in the determination of my benefit.
Similarly, since George W. Bush and EGTRRA 2001, approximately 40% of American households do not pay income taxes. So, when you layer in Medicare Part B, Medicare Part D, and Medicaid (which are funded by general revenues, mostly income taxes), and considering one in every five retirees is dual eligible because of lower incomes, benefits progressivity is much greater than I illustrated in my earlier comparison of FICA taxes and SS benefits.
Finally, it is the lowest income retirees, those whose retirement is highly dependent on continued Social Security benefits who will be the most adversely affected by a termination of the program.
I certainly agree that statistics can be misapplied.
I often use the quote popularized by Mark Twain. "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" - a phrase describing the persuasive power of statistics to bolster weak arguments, "one of the best, and best-known" critiques of applied statistics. ... sometimes colloquially used to doubt statistics used to prove an opponent's point.
However, when you look at the totality of the program (as a government mandate that has been in place for 90+ years, the original intent was to lift old age Americans out of poverty, to provide a base on income once employment could not continue.
However, the program has been amended numerous times in various vote-buying schemes, especially by the Carter and Biden Administration).
I can agree that the program has not been "good" once it strayed from a participant-funded initial welfare program intent. That became abundantly clear with the 1970's Carter's amendments which set us on the path we currently have. Most recently, President Biden's vote buying scheme, the Social Security Fairness Act, pushed us further down the road to exhausting trust assets).
Well done. But for some folks, I suspect that 'progressive' refers to a person earning less and contributing less but later also receiving less than a higher earning person.
"Or, perhaps, you would get rid of the spouse and survivor benefits since those are not based, in any way shape or form, on the spouse's or survivor's own earnings record."
This is such an obvious first step. We should do this *now*.
Bryan - a couple commenters have already alluded to the elephant in the room: the elderly worker has been contributing to the SS system for decades while the teen mom likely hasn't paid any taxes (or very little from a menial job).
Now we can quibble about whether or not the current benefits outstrip the original contributions - that's a mechanical question - not a moral one.
I payed into Social Security since I was 17. I can’t control past decisions by elected officials to “borrow” for wars etc.
Your comment perfectly illustrates the moral hazard of having a government funded pension scheme.
People don't exactly contribute to unfunded pension systems and old age transfers. They are funded by present taxation, and therefor are not actually earned or accrued in any meaningful sense. Once you abandon the mythology of it being earned, it gets tough to believe in.
I am 58 and have paid ss since I was 16. I absolutely earned my future ss payments. If they hadn't taken them I could have invested quite a bit myself with that money. The promise was always that it would be there for me. It was supposed to be even younger but the government bumped the age up.
If you get disability and never worked that is different. But many of us have paid into it for decades.
How is the idea it was earned a myth?
There are no accounts or funds, just transfers. Compare to Singapore or aspects of Chilean, Australian, and Canadian systems. I don't mean to suggest you have not worked hard or not contributed to society, but rather that pay-as-you-go systems like SS are not savings vehicles.
I think it's not so much about who is more irresponsible but just the single mom can put the kids in daycare and GIT A JOOOOB!
A 75 year old with advanced Alzheimer's might not have that option. So not providing them with social security leaves them with only one option: starve and die. (Assuming family and charity won't help)
That being said, I think the idea of all healthy people being able to retire at 65 and expect a certain income as an entitlement is an unnecessary luxury.
Perhaps instead of retirement benefits, we just have disability benefits. If you're 72 and able-bodied and you haven't saved for retirement... you can work.
Why do we then pay a retirement check much bigger than SS to the retired military and NOT penalize them with loss of retirement if they are handed a cushy no work job at a military contractor or Depot?
Lovely. So what about all the folks who already paid I to social security?
The idea ANY 75 year old can work full time is pretty far out. The body wears down.
But if we are going to force people to get qualify for disability to claim ss, then every elder will have to have a primary care who is willing to do the disability paperwork. Considering no menopause symptoms counts as disability or even as an illness, because it is “a normal part of aging” ,how many doctors will give a 75 year old a disability diagnosis when the aches and pains and forgetfulness ( not dementia) and easy exhaustion are a “normal” part of aging.
What will happen is employers will let the elderly go and find a way to make it not be about age. Then they will be fired and then what?
Teenage single moms BECOME moms IN ORDER TO collect welfare payments. And many bother little to raise their children (sometimes, their own mothers do it).
Teen pregnancy isn't an error; it's a STRATEGY.
We can argue all day about what we SHOULD do, but what are we actually going to do? My guess is, Congress will do NOTHING until it becomes a crisis, which, the way things are going, will coincide with a much larger budgetary/financial crisis. I am 72 and collect SS, but I am also looking ahead and trying to prepare for the day when my SS could be greatly reduced, or even stopped. If that were to happen, it would be in conjunction with many other crises, and it might even be that the USA would cease to exist as a functioning nation. I don't expect that, but I do see it as a possibility. The more likely outcome is a massive sudden inflation, without adjustments to SS, such that people who are just getting by would suddenly find that their monthly check is good for perhaps one tank of gas. In any case, I know that all my SS contributions over my working career have already been spent (NOT invested), and whatever I may continue to receive is taken from those still working.
There is merit to your main point about the irresponsibility of failing to save for retirement. But...
1. How much to save for retirement is a much more complicated question whether or not to have sex.
2. Old people *appear* more helpless than young people when viewed *as a class* and therefore evoke more sympathy.
3. The political reality is that old people are much more likely to vote than young people, which explains the fact that social security benefits have actually *increased* despite the precarious nature of the program.
All that being said, I'm all for the automatic cuts (of about 25%) kicking in when the trust fund runs out in a few years
OK, cut me off, but first pay back all my contributions, with interest. I have "invested" in SS way up into the six figures.
What I'm getting paid out from now until I die is never going to approach that number, of course.
Not my concern that my "investment" was pissed away already.
But of course you didn't invest. You just paid for other people's pension income. Unfunded systems are unfunded. It is just taxation and income transfers under a different name. These systems are clearly nor sustainable, particularly given people are electing not to have lots of children.
But...Al Gore assured me my SS taxes were in a "lockbox" :·P
The fact it appears to have been a ponzi scheme is irrelevant. We were told it was to keep us afloat even if something happened in our old age. We were absolutely investing in our future.
Ok well there is no account, no fund, etc. If you are kept afloat, it will be by transfers from other people. That may be entirely worthwhile, but it isn't the same as saving and investing. Just compare to any fully funded, investment based system (i.e. Singapore's CPF) and it is clear. I blame politicians for promoting pay-as-you-go systems as if they function like Singapore's when they do not.
Isn't the main problem overcoming the "hey, but I paid for this?" To make the reasonable option you'd have to balance the books 40 years ago before aging crises and lower social security taxes AND the eventually promised benefits. Of course now we'll be forced to anyway or have further budget crises and collapse of the state.
This is the #1 reason why FDR was such a snake, even by politician standards. SS is the only tax that is advertised as transactional. Income taxes aren't transactional. Property taxes aren't transactional. Sales tax isn't transactional. Medicare isn't transactional.
But SS? That's your money! (It's not).
It would have made so much more sense to have a slightly redistributive and patronizing national retirement/pension plan.
They are all transactional. Property taxes pay for schools and roads. Income taxes pay for the military and federal government. Medicare is taken out of my paycheck to fund medical care for future.
Everything the government takes is with the idea we will get something in return.
I didn't say people don't get anything in return, I said taxes aren't transactions, because they aren't. If you pay more in property taxes than your neighbors, you don't get to use the school system or the roads more. If I pay more in income tax than you do, I don't get to use the military more.
But the benefits one receives from social security is determined directly by how much you contribute. And those who contribute more receive more. It is categorically different.
That is the status quo, but imagine if instead developed nations had been building sovereign wealth funds, funded systems, or Singaporean style systems.
But they didn't. So stopping payments to those of us who paid involuntarily for 30, 40, 50 years, even when job loss, health issues and economic issues forced us to cut spending on everything but the basics of life will be devastating to us
Unless you plan to have legalized euthanizia as well.
And how exactly would Bryan advise the hapless Social Security reformers to deal with the societal outrage attending the inevitable racial/ethnic imbalance of those denied retirement funds for their "irresponsibility" to save while working? No need to rush out an ill-considered answer, I can wait a few years while he comes up with something...
This is not a matter of draining from SS, but it does speak to personal responsibility/family values…
The problem with saying people “paid into” Social Security is that the actual scheme is that each workers Social Security Security “contributions” go directly to current recipients. There is no “lock box” or “trust fund”, it is literally a Ponzi Scheme that is running short on new workers to milk.
As one of the guilty irresponsible (I have exonerating reasons,don't we all)I totally and absolutely agree. I found this in a random search for something else and I'm interested to explore this more. Btw my guilt is not teenage mumdom,at least I'd have someone to look after me if that was so,it's the saving for old age bit but in 1970 NO ONE would TELL ME ANYTHHNG even though I kept asking. No m'lud I thought that wouldnt stand up in court even though it's true!
I totally agree. There is one caveat: there are many times when boneheaded government actions cause people to exhaust their savings. the Great Depression, I would strong argue that was caused or at least elongated by the US federal government, is one issue. How does one save for retirement at 20% unemployment rates for better than a decade? How about government manufactured pandemics? Perhaps the government should shrink a lot so it does not have the power to be used by idiots. In this case, I am aligned with Dr. Caplan's perspective.
To each according to his ability. From each according to the winner's needs.
To he who has much, shall much more be given.
So, how would you amend Social Security given that the formula is so highly progressive, and that benefits are based on your highest 35 years of earnings on which you made "contributions" (paid taxes)? That is, is the SS formula "responsible" enough for you?
Or, perhaps, you would get rid of the spouse and survivor benefits since those are not based, in any way shape or form, on the spouse's or survivor's own earnings record.
Let us know
It is a myth that social security is "highly progressive". It's absolutely a regressive program. High income people have more stable careers which means they consistently contribute to it more and they live longer lives so get more paid out to them. Not to mention it is funded by a payroll tax, which is regressive by nature.
The Social Security benefit is absolutely, positively progressive - relative to the funding (taxes, contributions, whatever you want to call FICA).
Yes, you have to have qualifying earnings for 40 quarters to have a "vested" benefit. However, the qualifying amount per quarter in 2026 is $1,890, or $630 per month. So, you can have an annual income over ten years of less than $8,000 per year and still qualify for Social Security benefits.
The main reason the benefit is highly progressive is the benefit formula. For individuals becoming eligible for Social Security in 2026 (typically, those reaching age 62), the Primary Insurance Amount (PIA) is calculated using Average Indexed Monthly Earnings (AIME, over a 35 year period of the 35 highest years of earnings) with bend points set at $1,286 and $7,749.
The benefit formula is:
90% of the first $1,286 of AIME
32% of AIME from $1,286.01 to $7,749
15% of AIME over $7,749
So, for example, someone at the low end of the income structure, say consistently making the federal minimum wage over a 40 hour week, $15,132/year, would cause to be paid $1,876 in FICA taxes per year ($938 from their own paycheck, $938 in foregone wages due to the equal amount of employer contribution), and would receive a benefit of $13,618 per year or $1,135 per month - a pay replacement of 90%.
For comparison, someone at the top end of the income structure, say consistently making $184,500 (the 2026 wage base), would pay $22,878 in FICA taxes per year ($11,439 from their own paycheck, $11,439 in foregone wages due to the equal amount of employer contribution), and would receive a benefit of $4,369 per month, or $52,433 per year, a pay replacement of 28.4% (on the $184,500 income).
Both are paying the same percentage of covered compensation into the system - 12.4% of pay, 6.2% by the employee 6.2% from the employer.
However, the benefits they receive are dramatically different relative to their contribuions. Can't get much more progressive than that.
The tax is regressive because it starts on the first dollar of income, and among the poorest consumes a larger percentage of the money needed to live at a subsistence level. The theft weighs hardest on the poor who are least able to afford it.
Yes, once more, the tax is regressive. The only thing more regressive than the tax, are the benefits the tax is designed to fund. Otherwise, Social Security and Medicare would morph into welfare programs - a la Medicaid and Supplement Security Income.
Keep in mind that truly highly compensated and conservatives who are well off would like nothing more than to flip those programs into welfare plans, lower the benefits to a subsistence (poverty level) instead of having to pay more taxes in order to fill in the funding gap that starting with President Carter, Congress and successive administrations created by using the entitlements to buy votes - promising much more than they were willing to currently tax.
The deficits are in tens of trillions of dollars. Watch out for what you ask.
Now include life expectancy and tell me with a straight face that it's progressive. The average life expectancy of the poorest 20% is 76. The average life expectancy of the richest 20% is 85. As a share of income earned, sure it's "progressive". But if a rich guy retires at 67 he can easily collect checks for 20 years, twice as long as someone who is low income. But because the poor guy's monthly check is higher *relative to his income*, people have done the mental gymnastics that "actually this program is good."
The whole thing should be abolished.
Yes, life expectancy varies by as much as 20.4 years depending on demographics, including geography, race, urbanicity, income, homicide rate, sex and age group.
And, life expectancy variations by demographics have increased in recent years - however, income is just one of the factors.
I agree that life expectancy does make a difference. However, so do other factors that I did not highlight in my earlier comparison. For example, there is also a substantial difference in the number of hours worked and the number of years of employment - studies show higher paid workers average 500+ more hours of work compared to lower paid workers. Just as important, higher paid workers work an additional 5 - 10 years.
Myself, I am in my 56th year of wage employment, so, 21 of my working years I paid FICA taxes but they are not included in the determination of my benefit.
Similarly, since George W. Bush and EGTRRA 2001, approximately 40% of American households do not pay income taxes. So, when you layer in Medicare Part B, Medicare Part D, and Medicaid (which are funded by general revenues, mostly income taxes), and considering one in every five retirees is dual eligible because of lower incomes, benefits progressivity is much greater than I illustrated in my earlier comparison of FICA taxes and SS benefits.
Finally, it is the lowest income retirees, those whose retirement is highly dependent on continued Social Security benefits who will be the most adversely affected by a termination of the program.
When I refer to "mental gymnastics" to justify this stupid program, I am going to use this comment as an example.
I certainly agree that statistics can be misapplied.
I often use the quote popularized by Mark Twain. "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" - a phrase describing the persuasive power of statistics to bolster weak arguments, "one of the best, and best-known" critiques of applied statistics. ... sometimes colloquially used to doubt statistics used to prove an opponent's point.
However, when you look at the totality of the program (as a government mandate that has been in place for 90+ years, the original intent was to lift old age Americans out of poverty, to provide a base on income once employment could not continue.
However, the program has been amended numerous times in various vote-buying schemes, especially by the Carter and Biden Administration).
I can agree that the program has not been "good" once it strayed from a participant-funded initial welfare program intent. That became abundantly clear with the 1970's Carter's amendments which set us on the path we currently have. Most recently, President Biden's vote buying scheme, the Social Security Fairness Act, pushed us further down the road to exhausting trust assets).
Best to you.
Well done. But for some folks, I suspect that 'progressive' refers to a person earning less and contributing less but later also receiving less than a higher earning person.
"Or, perhaps, you would get rid of the spouse and survivor benefits since those are not based, in any way shape or form, on the spouse's or survivor's own earnings record."
This is such an obvious first step. We should do this *now*.
Nope, families are economic units.
So all the wives who were stay at home moms in the 70s and 80s because that what good moms do should do what?
Go live under a bridge?