Millennials, Gen X and Gen Z say the system needs reform, an exclusive Newsweek poll found, amid fears the benefits won’t exist when they come to retire
Younger generations in the U.S., including millennials and Gen Zers, are much more likely to believe that the Social Security system needs reforming than those in their 60s and 70s, according to a recent survey conducted by Redfield & Wilton Strategies on behalf of Newsweek.
…
Some 40 percent of respondents said they believe that the Social Security program currently pays out more to retirees than it is receiving in Social Security tax payments, while 26 percent disagreed with this statement.
Gen Zers (ages 18-26), millennials (ages 27-42) and Gen Xers (ages 43-58) were more likely than boomers (59 and older) to think that Social Security should be reformed.
This is a propaganda article. It’s meant to start the idea that social security change should happen; Social Security had a surplus and was on track to support Gen Z with boomer level benefits until George W Bush drained the fund to pay for the Iraq war. A 100 billion+ surplus (which would have been 2T by 2011) was sucked dry at a billion dollars a day for a war that brought nothing but misery. This current crisis is brought to you by the Republicans.
Social Security is currently facing an uncertain future as it is expected to face a 23 percent across-the-board benefit cut in 2033, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, unless something changes until then.
Some bullshit conservative think tank is trying to spin up the idea of cutting benefits to prevent taxing billionaires. Don’t let the rich lie anymore. Make the rich pay!
Man, wish we could have put that money in some sort of locked box…
Oh yesh, the “locked box” tag lines. Again and again and again during speeches, debates, and articles. Back when news cycles and ongoing stories were measured in weeks rather than hours.
Social Security should be reformed. The surplus should be given back and laws passed that forbid touching it. Further:
- The amount paid out should be significantly increased (after decades of working I would make less than $3,000/mo on SSDI, for example, which isn’t enough for me to live on my own even)
- There should be no income cap for taxation purposes
- The retirement age should be lowered to 60 and taxes/formulas modified accordingly.
- It should not take years for anyone to make it through applying for disability.
Honestly, Social Security should also be responsible for paid sick/family leave, short term and long term temp/perm disability, unemployment, etc. We in the US could have it so much better…
Yeah and it should be allowed to hold companies that are bailed out as long as its financial advisers choose.
Hell when it’s time for UBI this is the administration to do it
Your forgetting Ronald Reagan was the one who started borrowing from it and saying here is an IOU
There has never been a separate fund. The “money” is still there, its in IOU’s.
Yeah it’s not enough to live on. I want to be able to survive on social security when I’m old, so I’ll fight for old people to be able to survive on it now. And a little something for a surplus.
Taxes aren’t why you’re poor, shit pay is
Also social security for all is UBI, we can demand that
deleted by creator
And yet
- social security has enough support that politicians are afraid to touch it, even to fix it
- even the doom date we’re all worried about, means it can still pay 80%, assuming no fixes
- if we get past the next two decades, demographics once again favors the current approach
Fixing it should we quite doable, if politicians look ahead. However the longer we wait, the bigger impact from adjustments, and we all know the reality of politics.
If you’re under 40, I agree that you need to focus on retirement savings, since that’s the only part you can control
Just put all your money in a 401K. Do your fiscal duty and grovel at The Shrine of Captialism, peasant. You’re lucky you’re allowed to live and serve.
deleted by creator
Only because we keep letting it die
That’s defeatist. Of course if you give up fighting, then it won’t be around.
deleted by creator
Bold of you to assume we will live to retirement age.
That is by no means guaranteed. That is Republican propaganda. If you let them get their way, that is what will guarantee it.
deleted by creator
Okay, well then I guess we should just give up on social security since a Republican might get into office one day. Probably should forget about every single other progressive idea too. Because Republicans exist. In fact, let’s just all vote for them and get it over with!
deleted by creator
George W Bush drained the fund to pay for the Iraq war
Not really. Bush ended Clinton’s budget surplus and replaced it with a budget deficit, and I won’t argue if you hold the wars responsible.
But SS is not part of the normal budget. It was running a surplus in the Bush years. There was a debate over what to do with the surplus.
Keeping it “stuffed in a mattress” would be irresponsible for the same reason most of us don’t keep our life savings in a checking account. Bush wanted to invest it in the stock market, but the public rightly thought that was too risky. So it was invested in the most risk-free asset: Treasury bonds.
That means that the government could spend the surplus, but they are required to pay it back with interest. Failing to pay back SS would trigger a default, no different than crashing through the debt ceiling.
The Social Security Trust Fund is nearly $3T
Damn, good to know I was fucked before I was even able to vote. And here I thought me and my generation were the problem…
This current crisis is brought to you by the Republicans.
It’s probably important to consider that the Iraq war was enthusiastically bipartisan with one glaring exception: Bernie Sanders. Therefore, it’s not entirely honest to (rightly) fault the Iraq War as a starting point for the problems with SS and not also fault Democrats for their role in making those decisions.
Make the rich pay!
This is the only way to fix the problem, but it’s never going to happen. Every two years we vote for legislators who are fabulously wealthy and have made all manner of corruption legal for federal legislators. (ie, loaning your campaign money at interest, insider trading, using classified briefings for stock moves, etc.)
Now’s a good time to repeat what I do every campaign season: Don’t give candidates your money. Put it in your investments, and then no matter who is elected, you will have some representation as both parties care more about the stock market than they do about you.
It’s probably important to consider that the Iraq war was enthusiastically bipartisan with one glaring exception: Bernie Sanders. Therefore, it’s not entirely honest to (rightly) fault the Iraq War as a starting point for the problems with SS and not also fault Democrats for their role in making those decisions.
I mean…126 democrats in the house voted against it. Only 6 Republicans and one Independent (Bernie) voted against it. Democrats did play a role, but it’s not nearly so “both sides!!” as you’re trying to make it here.
Millennials and Gen-Z need to be fucking pissed about any one spouting the bs talking point that social security will just dry up by the time we retire so it’s best not to count on it. Social Security is something we’ve all paid in to, so it better fucking be there when we retire. That’s the deal. I realize there is a funding shortfall, but the fix is damn easy and simply involves removing the exemption the rich currently have.
I wonder who benefits from this bs. What’s even the goal?
For the rich? For corporations? Paying less tax. The rich can afford to retire. They don’t give a damn if you can. Actually, better for them if you can’t since you’ll just be another worker in the labor force up until the moment you drop dead or can’t work anymore and become a homeless elderly person.
If you’re under 50 and expecting to retire someday, I’ve got some bad news about the climate.
deleted by creator
Sure thing, Vlad. Just quit.
deleted by creator
Easiest and fairest way to fix this is to stop exempting high earners and investment income from SS tax.
Just for those unaware - the social security pay-in is a percentage of your income, but the maximum amount of your income subject to social security withholding is capped at a fixed level that increases annually. The last time I looked, the cutoff was somewhere around $138k. So if your cumulative income for the year hits $138k in, say, June, you are no longer subject to SS withholding and your weekly paycheck goes up by a couple of hundred dollars or so as a result. Most people don’t hit this amount, but enough do that were the cap eliminated, it would increase solvency and possibly allow for an increase in payouts.
On the flip side, your payout from social security is proportional to what your pay in was. It’s still capped, and it’s not really enough to live on. Those who hit the cap typically have multiple other sources of savings for retirement and could easily contribute more to the national program.
It’s 168k now for those interested: https://tax.thomsonreuters.com/news/social-security-wage-base-increases-to-168600-in-2024/
The tax cap exists because there is a limit to how much you can get paid out.
Yes. That is what I said. I think it’s not a valid justification.
By way of analogy, let’s say we move to a point of tuition-free public college, which I also support. My taxes which go to support those colleges would be far higher than those of most people, but my kids, were I to have any, would receive the exact same benefit from a financial standpoint as people whose taxes contributed far less to none.
My property taxes are somewhere around $25k per year. They go largely to support a public school system which, as a person without children, I receive zero direct benefit from. Should I get a lower property tax because I am a person without kids despite having a higher income and higher valued property? Or should I be taxed relative to my ability to support the community? Should a family that makes a quarter of what I do but have four kids pay more than me?
It seems pretty valid to me.
This doesn’t equate, if you get a proportion based on what you’ve put in, your kids would get a larger amount vs the poorer family. Assuming we’re equating to SS.
Would you be happy if you put in 30k every year for your life and you’re only getting 15k back every year during retirement?
Should I get a lower property tax because I am a person without kids despite having a higher income and higher valued property? Or should I be taxed relative to my ability to support the community? Should a family that makes a quarter of what I do but have four kids pay more than me?
Personally I think that the family of 4 that makes a quarter should probably not be having kids… it’s not good for the kid or the parent to be in that situation. I know because that was my childhood. Shit left quite a few scars well into adulthood.
That’s not what they’re saying. They’re arguing to remove the contribution cap but not the payout cap, similar to various other public services: rich people pay way more in taxes for public schools despite receiving approximately the same benefits. It’s a form of wealth redistribution, and conveniently would solve the social security funding issue.
I’m sorry but this disproportionately affects W2 workers who live in HCOL areas. I’ve paid into social security since I started working in HS. I’m now a 34 year old, and am expecting nothing during my retirement years as I’ve been told. Naturally I’m saving up with a 401k and Roth IRA, and you’re saying it’s okay to drain more from me because I am planning on there being nothing left for me?
I don’t agree with that. Why can’t we do a wealth tax first and see where we are, why must we hit W2 folks over the head every time.
Yes, it’s ok to take more from you because it’s how social security can be offered to everyone, including you.
You say you’re putting money away into retirement because you don’t think social security will be there. Then you say you don’t want to help make social security there for everyone. The whole point is that if millions of people like you were able to add a little more to the bucket, then it would make life better for everyone.
This isn’t increasing taxes to start a war, or to bail out billionaires, this is real, tangible benefits to every citizen.
No it won’t, the ratio of retirees to the workforce is getting higher and higher because of all the shit that this fucked up country does to burden the current generation for all the problems caused by the boomers. I’d much rather let the boomers experience the finding out phase after they’ve been fucking around so much.
What’s worse is that the life expectancy of those boomers is going to add unsustainable strain to the system. As society progresses you’ll eventually have less births, which means this problem might be getting even worse in the future. The only way it would be sustainable is that you have constant growth in both people and the economy. That’s literally not possible.
Yes, it’s ok to take more from you because it’s how social security can be offered to everyone, including you.
I’d much rather take my chances, take whatever you’ve taken from me I don’t want it back, but let me do my own investments and leave me with more disposable income. Fix the government before dumping more tax money into the money pit. I’ll happily vote for the guy who will try.
Fuck Milton Friedman.
I don’t like the fucker either, but you don’t have to be a libertarian to see that our government isn’t working right now. We need to find a way to fix our government in such a manner that bad faith actors cannot survive in it. Otherwise we’re just throwing money at them which they can then use to enrich their friends.
Yeah, it disproportionately affects W2 workers making over 140k per year or so. Thats fine. That’s the way things are supposed to be.
It’s not hitting “W2 folks” to extend withholding beyond $140k. It’s doing the appropriate thing and not giving them a free ride. If you want to additionally hit up the people who are living off of the various ways you can monetize wealth, that’s fine too. I’m in favor of a wealth tax. I think that’s also fair. I think Warren proposed a 2% tax on holdings over $4M. I support that. That’s still different than SS withholding.
Let’s say you’re making a whopping $150k. That means that you’ll pay (and I am probably overestimating) a few hundred dollars a year into the SS fund. It’s not a noticeable amount, whether you live in a HCOL area or not. It’s a nice dinner, stretched out over 365 days worth of payments.
It’s a trivial amount of money for an individual, which when spread over the population of the country, can make the difference to the majority of the population. I’m very much down with that.
As one of those high earners, yes. Absolutely. I’d even say do it like Medicare and above a certain income you pay a slightly higher rate that normal too.
deleted by creator
Some 40 percent of respondents said they believe that the Social Security program currently pays out more to retirees than it is receiving in Social Security tax payments, while 26 percent disagreed with this statement.
And who’s right? Do your fucking job, Newsweek!
The media doesn’t care about right and wrong anymore. Right and wrong doesn’t sell soap as well as giving you something you can agree with or disagree with to fit a certain ideology to keep your eyes glued to their channel or website.
They are. They’re defending the status quo, and trying to sway the opinion of young voters.
Yes it should be reformed in the way that the rich should be properly taxed and loopholes like bullshit charities shut down and forced to pay a living wage . I don’t think this is generational so much as classism and late stage capitalism. Im done caring about this stupid generational war between genz at boomers. I’m all about seeing Musk/bezos/Zuckerberg/Chesky cry rather than Mable who worked and paid taxes as a nurse all her life and just needs to retire. Let her. Move on. Let’s stop waxing on about how the boomers had a money fall way back in the 80s cuz it’s no longer the same damage at fucking over the system as these current generations that sucked up the Silicon Valley straw. They are still here. They are still doing the most damage in current day that is directly influencing the lives of the new generations with wage stealing and denying affordable let alone available housing would have direct impact on their social security.
No, its billionaires who absolutely hate paying any amount of taxes. But they have no problem bribing anyone to get their way.
We need guillotines.
deleted by creator
Wait for the United Auto Workers to line up all their contracts so they end at the same time. Sympathy strikes are illegal in the US because they’re too powerful. They’re legal in Nordic countries like Sweden and currently being used to wipe the floor with the richest man on Earth.
Hopefully this loophole will stay legal. But the great thing is, it doesn’t matter if it’s legal if enough people take part. No industry can just fire everyone at once.
deleted by creator
Lol. You’re trying too hard to be a badass.
No one gets arrested for “striking”. You can’t be forced to go to work. An “illegal strike” just means that you aren’t protected by labor laws and can be fired for it. Normal strike actions are protected by labor laws and you can’t be fired for that reason.
I suggest you stop trying to be tough and learn more about what you can do legally. Organizing a union is a lot harder and more useful than just randomly being arrested.
deleted by creator
One easy way to make social security fund on better footing is to allow more immigrants into this country who will be paying SS taxes.
If you change nothing else you will still run out of money in the fund if the population ever starts to stagmate or decline again. It is basically a pyramid scheme. Importing more people is only a short term fix.
I don’t think our country will ever struggle with immigrants wanting to move here
You’re right, but for this to work you have to increase immigration numbers year after year to keep up.
Run out of money?
You can just make more money, seriously.
All countries can just go into a bigger and bigger debt. It doesn’t matter, money is made up.
Money isn’t “made up”. It’s valuable because a government will only accept it to pay taxes. You can’t pay taxes with anything else. Businesses keep local currency and accept payment in it (but not foreign currency) for this reason.
There’s no reason to run up debt when corporate or income taxes can be raised. The US has some of the lowest taxes in the developed world. Increasing them is only a political problem, not a financial one. This may become more obvious when the Social Security trust fund gets lower in a few decades.
No doubt you can increase taxes, sure.
You can just print more money though and give it out as social security.
You seem to understand economics at an elementary-school level.
Please elaborate on what I don’t understand.
Money is made up, Government is made up, Religion is made up, its all made up, lets not get lost in our own hubris of humanity on this.
We as human beings happen to have the intellectual evolution to make up all of these variously complex systems of organization. The scientific method itself is such an improvement on our made up bullshit because it created a system to test the viability of the ideas for systems we make up. Your perspective mandates all suspension of disbelief to accept it at face value without any room for nuance.
At the end of the day, a phrase itself which is just the made up concept to describe the period of our planets revolution in which light from our star is no longer visible from our line of sight perspective, stacking economics and government spending on top of imaginary debt has an instinctual feeling of wrongness even before trying to systemize that feeling into our made up definitions of ethical/morality/legal systems.
Welcome to humanity, where everything is made up and the points dont matter unless you perceive them in a way that matters. I swear I’m not high right now.
So the generations that have heard all their life that their will not be any social security for them when they get old think it should change and the people currently getting it do not think it should change?
There just recently was a good episode on citations needed on this kind of fearmongering
Came here to post this. Citations Needed completely changed how I view issues like this.
reframe[s] the conflict between rich and poor as one between young and old
TL;DR
GenX here, we got mentioned twice - yay? Yeah, we don’t exist…and I think we’re mostly ok with that.
Par for the course, who even wants to exist anyway?
I agree with what others have said though, ultimately there’s no war but class war, the haves and the have nots.
Boomers really are the generation of “Got Mine, Fuck You”
it says here.
it says here
that the unions will never learn
it says here
that the economy is on the upturn
and it says here
we should be proud that we are free
and that our free press reflects our democracy
- Billy Bragg (a boomer)
How old was he when he wrote this? Betting it was before he was 65.
Social Security is not going to run dry.
Our generation is going to have less children, so who’s going to pay into it when you’re too old to work?
There are literally people sneaking into this country that would love to pay into SS
Same as before.
GDP can continue to increase even if the population decreases, as long as increased productivity makes up for the difference.
But if GDP falls, then we can choose between slightly lower SS payouts or slightly higher payroll taxes. Either way it’s not the end of SS.
Tl;Dr: 26% of the respondents simply don’t know what they’re talking about.
Honestly I’m surprised it’s that low
Are you guys not happy for them?
This same shit gets pulled in the UK… people complain that the state pension won’t exist when they retire. Thats just bullshit, with no evidence that something like that will happen, because it would never gets passed in the commons.
