People tell me that Social Security is a program people pay into when they're young, and get paid from when they're old. It's more accurate to say they get paid from if they're old.
Much of the logic underlying arguments for social security is based in compassion for the vulnerable. I think of this guy from the Simpsons:
 |
| This guy never hurt anybody, he DESERVES Social Security |
He's frail, kind, and unlike Mr. Burns doesn't seem particularly wealthy. He seems like just the kind of guy you'd want to help. But once you realize that the wealth and age are highly correlated, Social Security starts to look regressive. It takes from the poor young and gives to the rich old.
But poverty isn't the only metric one becomes a vulnerable member of society. People who die young will pay into social security and never receive a benefit. That seems just wrong to me. Throw in that the people who are more likely to die younger are poorer anyway, and we have another regressive aspect.
Just because we've had something a long time doesn't mean it's good. Humans are very susceptible to status quo bias, and will rationalize unendingly in defense of programs they can't imagine life without. I think that's why we don't give Social Security a good hard look and ask whether America's #1 expenditure is as valuable as we think.
---
Extra notes
1. Some people retire before 67, so a few more people than stated will receive social security before they die
1. Some people retire before 67, so a few more people than stated will receive social security before they die
2. I used % of population that will die before 65 for the availability of the statistic, so a few less people than stated will receive social security before they die.
3. Much of the wealth of the elderly is held in their homes. They should put their house up for sale, making housing cheaper for new homeowners, and live off the wealth.
4. It seems like society already have a built-in retirement program, it's called a mortgage. You get a home to raise kids in when you're young, you get retirement money and a 1 bedroom apartment when you're old.
5. So you're saying that after spending 25 years paying off their homes, they should just turn around and sell it? Yes.
5. But what about the elderly in need? I didn't say we should ignore them, we could replace social security with something actually progressive.
6. I also didn't even say we should get rid of social security. I'm just saying that because it's the holy grail of public opinion, we're unable to see that in terms of helping the vulnerable it's not as useful as we assume.
7. Social Security is paid out to your spouse if you die, if you have a spouse and if she lives that long. It's probably more fair than paying nobody, but it's less fair than paying the person who's life was taken from them.
