6 ms·

Social security is a pretty strange program in no small part because it doesn't know what it wants to be. It tries to be everything to everyone -- a mandatory s

Social security is a pretty strange program in no small part because it doesn't know what it wants to be. It tries to be everything to everyone -- a mandatory savings program for the middle class, an anti-poverty program for the elderly, a safety net for widows and orphans, and long term disability insurance. It could use a good healthy dose of the UNIX philosophy of do one thing and do it well. The woman profiled in this article is 79 years old. She gets $1200/month from social security and a $190/month pension. If we as a society think that $1390/month isn't enough to live on and that 79 years ought not to have to work to survive then we should have some program that gives her more than $1200/month. Maybe that should be a means tested program, though that comes with side effects, or maybe an elderly UBI. Or perhaps you disagree with one or both of the premises -- like that you think that $1390/month is plenty. That's okay too. My point is that social security with its strange formulas and conceptual inconsistencies isn't some fact of the universe like that the sun will burn out. It is something that we Americans picked and we Americans can change if we decide to.

maxerickson 9y ago
They are separate programs though. They just all happen to involve the same expertise and are managed together. (the things you call mandatory savings and anti-poverty aren't separate things, but it is mandatory because the anti-poverty funding is done on an actuarial basis with the broadest possible base; in any case, you receive benefits based on having paid in, not just because you is old)
- bradleyjg 9y ago
  You only partly receive benefits based on having paid in. You can also receive benefits based on a live, dead, or even ex-spouse having paid in. Or a live or dead parent. Given that some people don't qualify at all it isn't a particularly well designed anti-poverty measure. You can say that it isn't supposed to be until you are blue in the face, but that's certainly how it was and continues to be sold. Given that if you died at age 60 without a wife or children your estate gets nothing, it isn't a particularly well designed mandatory savings program. That is another way it was and continues to be sold. Given that there's no underwriting it isn't a well designed insurance program (annuity). Like our tax advantaged retirement savings options -- with its grab bag of different programs -- or Medicare with its bizarre A/B/D distinction (not to mention C) no one would actually set out to design a system like social security. People defend it because it is the status quo and they fear the unknown that admitting ought to replaced would open up.

maxerickson 9y ago

They are separate programs though. They just all happen to involve the same expertise and are managed together. (the things you call mandatory savings and anti-poverty aren't separate things, but it is mandatory because the anti-poverty funding is done on an actuarial basis with the broadest possible base; in any case, you receive benefits based on having paid in, not just because you is old)

bradleyjg 9y ago
You only partly receive benefits based on having paid in. You can also receive benefits based on a live, dead, or even ex-spouse having paid in. Or a live or dead parent. Given that some people don't qualify at all it isn't a particularly well designed anti-poverty measure. You can say that it isn't supposed to be until you are blue in the face, but that's certainly how it was and continues to be sold. Given that if you died at age 60 without a wife or children your estate gets nothing, it isn't a particularly well designed mandatory savings program. That is another way it was and continues to be sold. Given that there's no underwriting it isn't a well designed insurance program (annuity). Like our tax advantaged retirement savings options -- with its grab bag of different programs -- or Medicare with its bizarre A/B/D distinction (not to mention C) no one would actually set out to design a system like social security. People defend it because it is the status quo and they fear the unknown that admitting ought to replaced would open up.