“Forgive me for being puckish, but everyone here who disclaims the label of “entitlement” for Social Security always say they paid more into the system than they got out. Were that universally true, Social Security would be solvent. In fact, it would be more than solvent - how much more, I leave to the spreadsheet wizards. “
Quite true, but I was not “allowed” to “opt out” of “Social Insecurity” when I started working or I would have more money today in retirement than I could spend. The other fact is that the Congress has, year after year, piled on “additional” but unfunded benefits to be paid to people who haven’t contributed a dime. The Congress is full of “Monty Halls” who are all just saying “come on down” to everyone with no real thought as to how the whole mess will be paid for. Face it, nearly all the governments of the world are broke or soon will be. Then, there will be no place to run. Then what?
daniel—There are a lot of people who make no claim that they paid more in than they go out. Spouses and children who get benefits often paid nothing in. Those who get disability payments are more likely not to have paid as much in.
That said, considering payments from workers of 6+% and a like amount on their behalf from the employer, with a reasonable interest component over an average working life, I imagine most people DO pay more in than they receive in benefits. If the funds had in fact been set aside and conservatively invested (even in money market accounts) solvency would not be an issue.