Nope‼️
According to SSA actuaries and Congressional Budget Office studies:
- A typical medium-wage worker retiring at full retirement age (66–67) usually recoups their own payroll contributions within about 3–5 years of collecting benefits.
- If we include the employer’s 6.2% contribution as well, the break-even point is more like 6–9 years of collecting benefits.
A medium wage worker with a non-working spouse also collecting on the workers earnings will shorten the recovery period.
If workers received SS benefits based only on all FICA taxes they and their employers paid, their benefits would stop after 6-9 years. 🤔
Yeah, I know, inflation and all that, the time value of money, etc. But that is not the point. The point is there is no relationship between the taxes you paid and what you and dependents can receive in Social Security benefits.
QUINNSCOMMENTARY 
Clearly, Social Security deserves the name “Social”. It transfers wealth from those who are working to those who are retired, and from those with higher incomes to those with lesser incomes, as well as from those who worked and paid FICA for 50+ years to those who worked only 10 years and who paid FICA for only a portion of their working career.
LikeLike
I’ve read several articles, and it seems logical, that SS is not redistributive between higher and lower incomes due to the different life expectancies. Average lifespan of lower income is much less than higher income, so lifetime payout is much less.
LikeLike
Averages are deceiving. Higher income Americans clearly subsidize lower income Americans. Income does bear some relationship to longevity, but it is much more complex than that.
Life expectancy varies by as much as 20.4 years (2021 data) depending on demographics, including geography, race, urbanicity, income, homicide rate, sex, and age group. See: L. Dwyer-Lindgren, M. Baumann, L. Zhuochen, Y. O’Kelly, C. Schmidt, C. Searchinger, Ten Americas: a systematic analysis of life expectancy disparities in the USA, Lancet, 12/7/24, at: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)01495-8/fulltext
With respect to lower income Americans, the studies all line up to suggest that changes to Social Security should not increase the Full Retirement Age.
However, my preference would be to match changes in Full Retirement Age with life expectancy, while concurrently adding/enhancing the death benefit, phased in over 35 years, so that, the individual or their designated beneficiaries receive, at a minimum, the nominal amount of their contributions.
LikeLike
Definitely agree that there is no relationship between the FICA taxes I and my employer paid and the benefits I will receive. I’ve contributed for 50+ years, and only 35 years are in my calculation. But more importantly, had I contributed the same amount, with the same employer contribution (which was a reduction in my wages), and earned 6%, my benefit would be LESS THAN the investment earnings on the accumulated assets (@ 6%).
Again, this article is consistent with the famous saying, lie, damned lie, statistic.
LikeLike
I don’t see it that way at all. Can’t argue with the theoretical math, but in the real world people are not going to act prudently, plan forty years ahead, save diligent and consistently and avoid all possible adversity on the way to retirement.
I don’t see a small percentage of earnings as a wealth transfer although those taxes for workers are paying current benefits, mine included. I did the same for the previous generation. I see the benefit we collect on my earnings as a good investment regardless of what we might have accumulated or not.
Yeah, it is a social program in a society with 340 million people at each end of the spectrum of income and ability. Millions would be lost without society picking up the pieces, like it or not, right or wrong.
The current ideology is empowerment and individual responsibility. Nice theory, but totally unrealistic and impractical. People aren’t even saving sufficiently now for their portion of retirement income.
LikeLike
Agree. Not saying Social Security should be voluntary. Just reconfirming, once more, with feeling, that I agree that your benefits bear no relationship to the taxes you pay, monies you caused to be contributed, investment earnings, etc.
Some of us get much more from the “Social” in Social Security. Others, pay for it.
The government pays for NOTHING. We need people to stop lying about where the money comes from and where it goes. So long as we continue to do that, Congress will keep using Social Security benefits to buy votes – sending the bill to Americans too young to vote, and generations yet unborn.
LikeLike
Well, I agree. My blood boils when I read people saying they want something free paid by “the government.” And then there are those who claim taxes are a scam and government is stealing their money.
I just read someone saying if you die early SS only gives $250 and “the government” takes the rest of what you paid- no clue how insurance or annuities work, but it doesn’t stop them from spouting off.
LikeLike
Yes Sir, that’s a fact that the majority of the ignorant ppl won’t accept well stated!
LikeLike
Sure, if you only count what is contributed to a retirement plan, and not the earnings on investments over 40, 50, 60 or in the case of Social Security, 90 years, pension assets will also be exausted soon after commencement.
These are another example of the famous quote, lie, damned lie and statistic.
LikeLike