Is Social Security Fair to Young People?

June 16, 2009 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (14)

I first got the idea to write about whether the Social Security system is fair to young people back in October, when the Social Security Administration announced that current beneficiaries would receive a 5.8 percent cost of living increase for 2009, the largest bump since 1982. The reason? The high inflation of 2008, as measured by the Consumer Price Index.

My first reaction: That's not fair to people like me. Current workers, who are funding the Social Security system through payroll taxes, face the same high inflation, but we're dealing with a weak labor market where we're lucky to keep our jobs, let alone receive any sort of raise. Why should retirees be guaranteed such an increase at time when those of us paying into the system are struggling through one of the worst recessions in decades? The fact that current 20 and 30-somethings aren't even guaranteed to receive the full Social Security benefits by the time they retire underscores the inequity of the situation. (The Social Security trust fund is scheduled to run out in 2037, at which point retiree benefits will be funded by current workers, who are estimated to be able to fund only three-quarters of the currently scheduled benefits.)

Some groups, such as the AARP, which represents retired people, dismisses those concerns because reform is likely to come well before any current 20-somethings retire. But that reform will likely involve either increased taxes for current workers or decreased benefits, perhaps through a delayed retirement age, so that isn't exactly good news for current workers, either.

I can't help but think that we -- by which I mean 20 and 30-somethings -- are getting the raw end of the deal here. Still, there are some strong counter-arguments in favor of leaving the system the way it is. As you can see in the article I wrote on the subject, published today, Social Security was never intended as an investment program. The goal is to transfer wealth to the needier members of society, including the elderly and low-income. And senior Americans are particularly vulnerable to poverty. Plus, the older generations transferred their innovations and advancements to us, so shouldn't we be willing to fund them in their old age?

I understand all those agreements, and for the most part agree with them. But still, I can't help but wonder: Where is my 5.8 percent raise?

For more, see:

Tags:
personal finance

Reader Comments Read all comments (14)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

"the older generations transferred their innovations and advancements to us, so shouldn't we be willing to fund them in their old age?"-

Are you kidding???? the destroyed the economy and resources, and rode a wave a prosperity till it hit landfall only to create a real estate boom that screwed over the entire country.

and as a side note, Anyone over 65 that laost there house... HAHA!!!! go live in a home where you';; get beat by the mexican lady who you never thought you would need to trust and shat on when her family cleaned the yard of your mcmansion, pig.

They refuse to let go of jobs, congressional seats, and anything else that lets younger counterparts move ahead and maybe get a piece of the American dream they were able to snatch and hold onto like the bloodsuckers they are. and now they want us to pay for it. Innovations??? You think all the great ideas happened in America? When everyone retirement age was 35? Gimme a break, there is no excuse for the menace that is the baby boomer, stuff em in a home and throw away the key. All of them!

James of MA 9:40AM May 14, 2010

It frustrates me that my husband and I pay over 1200$ a month in social security taxes, we are in our mid 30's with two children, and we are being told when we retire we will only be guaranteed 75 % of what we are due. I do not mind paying the tax to help others but paying it and not being given the same due when we get older seems wrong. What we give to Social security is more than we spend to educate our children ( in a modest catholic school) and more than we spend on our own retirement accounts on a monthly basis. $1200 dollars a month is alot of money. If we are guaranteed our benefits, I would rather use that money to fund our own retirement and help out my grandparents ourselves.

In fact, my grandmother - get this- does not receive social security at 78. Unfortunately for hr she worked for a decade as a secretary and then went to work for the federal governmnet defense department in the 1950's- she worked for the defense department for 30plus years- all the while paying her "pennies in" lik everyone else as she likes to put it. Right before she was due to retire a law was passed that made it so that federal employees no longer pay SS and thus do not receive benefits. The program did not take into account those like her that had paid in to the system through the fed and through previous private sector work- ultimately she paid for ss for over 40 years and does not get benefits. My grandfather did receive benefits and passed away this year- she was listed as the person to receive his survivor benefits and they have told her she cannot receive them because she was a federal employee. SHe is currently seeking legal advice- this is ridiculous- they were his benefits to go to his surviving wife- it should not matter that she receives a government pension. WOmen who were stay at home wives and never worked can receive survivor benefits. I would rather give her my portion of the ss money that ake form me- than have the government take my money too and not guarantee me benefits. WHose to say we wont get to the brik of retirement and they will cancel the whole program altogether- or tell us we have to be 90 to receive our benefits.

Deidre of TN 8:28PM September 19, 2009

why staying when they are being penalized for the lack of financial discipline of the old? moving to a country that's not financially illiterate and with good demographics is a no brainer for a smart and entrepreneurial youngsters. also, why would they stay to pay for pensions they will not receive themselves?

jean of NY 1:37AM June 30, 2009

Alpha Consumer

Kimberly Palmer, senior editor for U.S. News & World Report, writes about making smarter financial decisions. She’s the author of Generation Earn: The Young Professional's Guide to Spending, Investing, and Giving Back.

advertisement

Latest Video

advertisement