Yes that is the intention of SS. I don't know if I agree with your example figures. SS was meant to be self-funding, and lately it hasn't been. This is partial

Yes that is the intention of SS. I don't know if I agree with your example figures. SS was meant to be self-funding, and lately it hasn't been. This is partially because people are living longer. Furthermore, the decline of pensions and rise of the 401(k) has enabled Americans to blow their opportunity to save for retirement, often on things like housing and college tuition (but that's another topic). I think that either SS needs to be THE retirement plan, or it's the 401(k). As someone who maxes out their 401(k) each year, I do not want to participate into SS. I don't want it taken out of my paycheck, because that money would otherwise go into my 401(k) (technically), which I have more control over (where it's invested), which I can draw from in case of hardship, and which I can access at 55 1/2 instead of 65. I do think SS is a good safety net to have, and I don't necessarily want to be disqualified from it because I "opted" for a 401(k), but realistically SS payments are so low relative to the cost of living that if I found myself living on it exclusively, I'd probably be only slightly more-comfortable than if I didn't have it. It's a shitty retirement either way. You're definitely not traveling or eating out or anything like that.