> In the original Act benefits were to be paid only to the primary worker when he/she retired at age 65. Benefits were to be based on payroll tax contributions

> In the original Act benefits were to be paid only to the primary worker when he/she retired at age 65. Benefits were to be based on payroll tax contributions that the worker made during his/her working life. Taxes would first be collected in 1937 and monthly benefits would begin in 1942. (Under amendments passed in 1939, payments were advanced to 1940.) That's from https://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html https://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html - so generally, the old were financed by the younger at inception, and that's basically continued ever since. Nobody funded their own SSN fully between 1937 and 1940. That sort of insurance is still a good idea. The "house" part of the person you're replying to's post is interesting: "Giving old people money for free when their 10x more valuable houses inflate the market" By definition, anyone whose house is 10x more valuable than it was when they bought it is not inflating the market. The people buying at the new price are the ones driving the current valuation of that house. But constrained supply does also come into play; and other forms of social assistance are conditional on income levels and such; it wouldn't be totally unreasonable or unprecedented to make some benefits conditional on assets in cases like that - if you're sitting on a 900k asset, maybe leverage that first if you don't otherwise have any savings? And in doing so, open up that spot for a younger generation that still has to commute, etc?