In the debate on social security, I often hear this refrain: I paid into it, so it’s my money.  Ignore that SCOTUS has consistently stated there is no legal right to the money paid in. It’s still a fact that the money paid in by past generations was immediately spent.  Where was this money spent? It was spent on subsidizing government services for those very same people.  You know, the people that voted for the representatives that decided to collect less tax revenue from income taxes. Instead they “borrowed” those funds from the payroll tax.

It bears repeating that the people whose payroll tax contributions were used to fund borrowing for government services were the same people that voted for the representatives that decided this was a good policy.  They were also the same people that benefited from less income tax and, more accurately, goods and services that had less income tax cost embedded in them.

Of course, I’m not a collectivist and understand that many individuals saw this occurring. Furthermore, many voted against this sort of thing (or at least for representatives that didn’t support it). However, the notion that people that had paid into social security had their money taken by an external force, just isn’t accurate.  Does that mean I think social security should immediately end? That those that were forced to pay in should be left high and dry? Absolutely not. But does that mean that I would like to start modifying the program immediately? Absolutely. I’d start with wealthy retirees being cut off. 

As a start to this process, so the voting public can see more clearly to what these sorts of changes would mean, please read my post on Social Security and Medicare Clarity. Means testing, conversion to owned retirement assets, and/or making Social Security a safetly net only program are all good reforms.