Social Security was always intended to be a regressive tax (6.2% up to a limit of $160,200 for 2023, then 0% above that) with a regressive payout (currently, payments are 90% of your Average Indexed Monthly Earnings, or AIME, up to $1115, 32% of AIME from $1116 to $6721, and 15% of AIME from $6722 up to the maximum taxable monthly earnings). It was never intended to be “Get paid back exactly what you paid in.”

Also, Social Security has zero connection to what you paid in income taxes.

As for Medicare being “free medical for the rest of your life,” that too isn’t accurate. It was always intended to provide reasonably affordable health coverage in your old age when buying private insurance becomes unsustainably expensive.

Both programs were designed mostly to provide a (laughably low) minimum pension and (relatively) affordable health insurance, both intended to reduce the level of poverty among the elderly.

Neither does enough toward those goals, but doing away with the programs would make things worse, not to mention breaking the agreement made with all of us who paid into the system.

And since the ratio of retirees to employees has consistently increased over the decades due to lower birthrates and increased life expectancy, the system hasn’t been able to continue bringing in enough revenue to cover the promised benefits.

In the early decades, the system took in more in payroll taxes than it paid out in benefits, with the excess theoretically going to a “trust fund.” I say theoretically because every administration since has looked at this trust fund as their pet piggy bank, spending the money on bloated federal budgets, and marking on a ledger that there are some make-believe bonds “paying” 2% interest (gee, thanks) as IOUs.

With the trust fund ledger set to hit zero in about 12 years, the sh!t is going to hit the fan pretty soon, so Congress will be forced to act. If they don’t, come 2035, Social Security will only be able to use payroll taxes collected to cover payouts, which means they’ll only have $0.77 or so on the dollar available, meaning they’ll be forced to cut benefits by 23%.

Does it make moral sense to do that evenly, to both those making $0 from anything beyond Social Security and those who (through hard work, frugal lifestyles, and prudent investing) managed to build up a multi-million-dollar nest egg that throws off $100,000 or more a year?

Personally, expecting to be in the latter category, I think it would be more moral to cut benefits more for people like me than for people trying to live on $1200 a month.

Do I want my benefits cut? Of course not. I’d rather Congress made some changes like:

• Start another gradual delay in full retirement age (FRA), say by one month each year until the FRA reaches 70 or 72 — with life expectancies so much higher now than they were when the programs were started, this seems to be a no-brainer
• Remove the maximum limit on income subject to payroll taxes — why should wages above $160,200 not be subject to the same taxes as wages below that number?
• Increase payroll tax rates for wages above, say, $100,000 (indexed for inflation)

Note that these changes I’m advocating would all increase the taxes I pay, and most would reduce the benefits I’ll receive. I’m not looking for things that would improve my finances.

I’m looking for things that would restabilize the system and enable it to continue providing as much as possible (which is already not very much) to the poorest of our elder population.