2 ms·

Why is it called "social security" then? It's meant to be a form of life, disability, health, and income insurance: https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/ https://www.ss

Why is it called "social security" then? It's meant to be a form of life, disability, health, and income insurance: https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/ https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/

wahern 8y ago
Because it does provide social security, just a particular kind of social security. Like a company pension or life insurance annuity (and unlike a 401k or IRA), you can't outlive your monthly benefit. The contribution and benefit formulas use actuarial tables so that contributions from beneficiaries who die earlier than expected are used to pay beneficiaries who live longer than expected. (And if you look at actuarial tables from the 1920s and 1930s, they literally nailed life expectancies up to, at least, the 1990s. What they didn't do was bake those actuarial tables into the legislation, instead expecting Congress to periodically adjust age limits.) Because it's mandatory, you don't end up with a large population of people who chose not to save for retirement living on the streets and otherwise being a burden on society--by their presence if not because of actual welfare payments. Disability and survivors benefits are a form of income insurance, they're just predicated on the head of the household having actually worked and made minimal contributions. The income cap and benefit formulas are just progressive enough to bridge the gap between providing minimal benefits and what could be reasonably funded through contributions, considering political realities. Back then healthcare wasn't much of a concern. Medical science was nascent, care was much more affordable, and expectations were generally very different. Medicare was passed decades later, and of course we're still trying to figure out how healthcare should work. To reiterate, the specter of socialism meant it was all tied to having actually worked and it was not intended to substantially address wealth inequity. Social security and social justice are not synonymous. You and I may think they mostly overlap, but at least half the country votes otherwise--today and 90 years ago. In any event, we have other programs to address those issues.

Why is it called "social security" then? It's meant to be a form of life, disability, health, and income insurance: https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/ https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/

wahern 8y ago

Because it does provide social security, just a particular kind of social security. Like a company pension or life insurance annuity (and unlike a 401k or IRA), you can't outlive your monthly benefit. The contribution and benefit formulas use actuarial tables so that contributions from beneficiaries who die earlier than expected are used to pay beneficiaries who live longer than expected. (And if you look at actuarial tables from the 1920s and 1930s, they literally nailed life expectancies up to, at least, the 1990s. What they didn't do was bake those actuarial tables into the legislation, instead expecting Congress to periodically adjust age limits.) Because it's mandatory, you don't end up with a large population of people who chose not to save for retirement living on the streets and otherwise being a burden on society--by their presence if not because of actual welfare payments. Disability and survivors benefits are a form of income insurance, they're just predicated on the head of the household having actually worked and made minimal contributions. The income cap and benefit formulas are just progressive enough to bridge the gap between providing minimal benefits and what could be reasonably funded through contributions, considering political realities. Back then healthcare wasn't much of a concern. Medical science was nascent, care was much more affordable, and expectations were generally very different. Medicare was passed decades later, and of course we're still trying to figure out how healthcare should work. To reiterate, the specter of socialism meant it was all tied to having actually worked and it was not intended to substantially address wealth inequity. Social security and social justice are not synonymous. You and I may think they mostly overlap, but at least half the country votes otherwise--today and 90 years ago. In any event, we have other programs to address those issues.