Dear Liz: I encourage you to educate your readers about the real intention of Social Security, as well as the real problem facing it. Social Security was designed as a safety net to keep the elderly, disabled and orphaned from abject poverty. It was not intended to provide decades of benefits to individuals who are not at risk of living in poverty. It does no good to further the inaccurate notion that everyone is entitled to “their share” from a social safety net meant for the poor.
Answer: You’ve misunderstood Social Security’s structure and its history.
Social Security was deliberately created as a social insurance program, not as welfare assistance. Workers fund the system themselves through payroll taxes. They have to pay into the system a certain number of years to qualify for benefits. In return, they receive inflation-adjusted income that they can’t outlive and that isn’t vulnerable to market downturns.
Social Security benefits are progressive, which means they’re designed to replace more income for a lower-paid worker than a higher-paid one. But people who pay more into the system get larger benefits than those who pay less, and benefits are not means-tested.
Programs for the poor tend to be easy targets for politicians, but Social Security’s universal nature contributes to its widespread support. More than 1 out of every 6 U.S. residents, or about 62 million people, collected Social Security benefits in June 2018.
It’s been reported that social security will not be sustainable going into the future. I would like the politicians to adopt the following changes:
1. Do away with the cap on earnings as far as social security is concerned….total wages should be taxed or everyone.
2. Eliminate spousal benefit. Each individual receives benefits based solely on their work record. When one spouse dies the remaining spouse continues to receive the larger of the couple’s social security benefit. Say a wife has never worked and contributed to social security, why should she receive a social security check at all?