Is Social Security Fair to Young People?

Reader Comments
Back to blog

"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

DON'T BE MISLED BY FEAR TACTICS. ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS A COUPLE OF ADJUSTMENTS AND SOCIAL SECURITY IS SECURE TO MAKE IT THROUGH TO YOU RETIRE. IT IS POLITICAL TACTICS TO SCARE YOU. THE POLLING OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE STRONGLY FAVOR SOCIAL SECURITY.
RAISE THE RETIRMENT AGE AND LIFT THE PAYROLL CAP COVERS MOST OF THE ADJUSTMENT. I AM 65 AND PLAN TO WORK THROUGH MY 70'S AND POSSIBLY LONGER, SO THAT I WILL HAVE PAID FOR OVER 50 YEARS AND GLADLY BECAUSE I NEED IT, THE WORKING POOR NEED IT AND WE ARE IN THIS TOGETHER.
LIFE HAS INSECURITY IN HEALTH AND INCOME UNDER OUR SYSTEM AND NOT EVERYONE HAS AN EASY RIDE, THAT IS SOCIAL SECURITY. BY THE WAY, I PAID FOR MY MOTHER'S GENERATION WILL PROBABLY END UP PAYING FOR MY OWN AND YOUNGER GENERATIONS, GLADLY.

KATHLEEN ROBERSON of NY 1:12PM June 22, 2009

What? No mention of why social security is destined to go broke? Just in case you didn't know it is because the US government raided those funds years ago. The little IOU plan. We have this money sitting there, just think of the social programs we can fund, ha. The joke was on us, the people that will never be able to retire.

Wade of CO 10:04PM June 19, 2009

I am 27, put myself through both a Bachelor's and a Master's degree and I make a good living. I worked hard for it, and I lose almost $1,000 a month to payroll taxes. Who said retirement should be guaranteed? My grandmother's mother never got to retire. This is an advent of the post WWII world where people feel ENTITLED to stop working just because they reach a certain age. Social Security is the single worst thing (aside from FDR himself) that happened to this country.
Why should I pay for someone else's future when I have my family's to worry about? If they spent every dime they made while working, then that is their problem. Why should I have to pay for someone else's bad decisions when I make good one's for the benefit of me and my family (including my parents who are boomers, who planned for their own retirement - they don't rely on SS and we never went on vacations or had fancy things - because they saved for their future as well as me and my sister's).
The government should not mandate that we support certain groups in society who were lazy or who mismanaged their money. I can't get over this stupid attitude in our society that people DESERVE something for nothing just because someone else chose to WORK HARDER and be MORE RESPONSIBLE and have more as a result. Entitlements will kill our society. I am so sick of the poor me poor me's.
People need to learn how to be responsible for themselves and take care of themselves. All this does is breed apathy and laziness because more and more people will just expect a handout. Why should I bust my butt working 60-70 hours a week and lose almost half of my income to pay for people who had the same opportunity but made poor choices? We (productive people) pay out so others have a "fair" shot - but it isn't FAIR to us now is it? Life isn't fair - but don't punish those of us working our tails off so people who didn't plan their futures can live off of our labor. SS is a huge drain on society and is in no way fair - my parents will never get out of it what they put in.
Anyone who believes in distributional economics obviously has not studied world history - it put Russians into poverty, Cuba's citizens live in poverty, Chinese live in poverty, SEE A PATTERN? What happens when so many people stop being productive that you run out of money? Then the government will force labor, and then we are no longer free. Think about it.
If you want to retire, plan accordingly. Save. Don't spend every dime you get. That new Plasma Flat Screen is NOT a necessity. Retirement is NOT an entitlement, it is a privilege to those who are disciplined enough to work and plan for it. You make your own bed, you have to lay in it. I should NOT have to be responsible for other's bad decisions. If our elder's love their childrean, they shouldn't want to burden them. I don't want my children burdened by me - I will have my ducks in a row out of respect for them and their generation.

KB of CO 2:00PM June 19, 2009

The article is correct as far as it goes, but misses some critical information. First, identical to the demographic curve, once the bulge in the demographics passes and us old fart baby boomers start to die off in 2050, all projections are that SS will once again have enough revenue to pay existing benefits. Second, whether we like it or not, recent immigrants are having a lot more children (read workers) to pay into SS. In addition, SS benefits are based on your long term income over many years. Considering my payments, when I take them, also account for the massive 1.00 per hour I was paid at McDonalds when I started working, that doesn't provide much and I doubt many of the current 20 or 30 something can imagine working for a dollar an hour. My mother, during the Depression, made a whopping 10 cents an hour at Woolworths. A a retired boomer with a still working boomer spouse, we would gladly pay extra SS taxes and means test recipients to alleviate the problem since we never counted on SS for retirement income. SS was NEVER meant to be a person's entire retirement income but to help those who did not have enough resources in retirement. Get a grip younger workers. Life is not as bleak as the article thinks it is and you need to start saving now and not rely on SS.

tom of ND 8:22AM June 19, 2009

"Fair"? Sure, say its not "fair," but first provide an exact definition of the word. Make clear exactly what you expect "fair" to provide, to all. And, perhaps, tackle the really big question: is it up to the government to make everything "fair"?
I, however, am totally incapable of doing that.
You, as a younger worker, may very likely have to pay a higher rate of FICA tax than current retirees. That's because people live longer, that's because the population is aging. Is it "fair" for modern medicine to extend people's lives (as that does create a situation in which FICA taxes must be raised in order to keep Social Security self-supporting)?
Or, answer this: is life "fair"?

not-humble-enough of WI 10:44PM June 16, 2009

My understanding is that the 1983 Greenspan Commission raised SS contributions to a level well above then current distribution requirements. They did this as a proactive compensation for presumed future increases in wage income. There has been no real increase in anyone's income (except that top 1%) since that time and all of our payroll tax contributions have gone straight into the general fund to help pay for all federal expenditures. In other words, those paying since 1983 have been overpaying since that time and therefore subsidizing the nation as a whole. I don't see how this constitutes unfairness to young people.
Muser from NM is correct. Problems with SS should not be approached as a generational conflict. They should be seen as the result of long term mismanagement, and to some extent duplicity, on the part of the Federal government. The right thing to do is to thoroughly study issues around providing adequate economic support for Americans and then push Congress to make the necessary changes. This would be a very useful change for younger people to work towards.
One more thing to think about: When all those retirees receive their SS checks, they're going to spend it in all manner of businesses here in the U.S. Presumably that will be a major source of income for younger Americans who own or work in those businesses. Dollar bills are not single-use gift cards. They circulate. And the more they circulate, the more folks who benefit from them.

Larry of MN 10:03PM June 16, 2009

The money that we pay to SS is not guaranteed by anything, nor does it belong to us, as in, it isn't portable. Kim correctly identifies this as being a serious misconception about SS, because it is and always has been a wealth-transfer program, not a retirement program. Unfortunately, like most government entitlement programs, it has become to be perceived as a basic human right, and any suggestion that it is insolvent (it is) or ridiculously inefficient (it is) is met with a howl of protest.
The fact is that if one set out to figure a program wherein the maximum number of people could pay in the maximum amount of money while transferring the smallezt possible benefit to the recipients on the other end, Social Security would be a very good design to accomplish that. The financial gap between what is being paid in and what will EVER be paid out is staggering. It beggars the imagination.
But now let's try this with health care as well, and see if there is any part of the economy that the government cannot make even more wasteful and inefficient. I predict we will fail to find one. But I also predict that we will go on trying until we kill our economic engine once and for all.
YES, Social Security is unfair to young people. Heck, it's unfair to OLD people.

Chris Jones of UT 4:21PM June 16, 2009