The National Debt And Social Security – Should Seniors Sacrifice Something?

It’s human nature, down through the centuries, that once someone has become accustomed to receiving a certain benefit, whatever that might be, they are quite displeased whenever there is any discussion about reducing or even (gasp!) eliminating said benefit. Lyndon Johnson, far more of a disgrace as a president than is generally recognized, is largely responsible for creating what we see now as the modern welfare state. Under welfare programs created on LBJ’s watch, several generations have been raised on welfare and fully expect that gravy train to keep on rolling. And what Johnson didn’t do, his hero and predecessor FDR did in establishing the Old Age Survivors and Disability Insurance Program, commonly known as Social Security.

One of the easiest ways to pick a fight (at least a rhetorical one) these days is to question one’s right to the level of Social Security benefits they are receiving or plan to receive when they retire. The all-too-familiar refrain, “I paid into this program and I’m entitled to my full benefits!” ignores some fundamental flaws in that thinking.

1. First, Social Security is not a needs-based program (as perhaps it should be, as it takes a page from Socialism 101). Therefore, the amount of Social Security I receive monthly, as a retired working professional who made a decent salary, is higher than what I really need to live on. Of course, as a senior, I can always default to the many “what-ifs” that accompany old age and may cause a raft of unexpected expenses that will cause me to need that money after all. But the fact is, if I ignore the time value of money, I’ve already earned back whatever I paid into Social Security in my sixth year of retirement and am now collecting amounts my employers paid into it on my behalf. 
2. Second, if Social Security was conceptually sound according to socialist principles, there would be no limit placed on the amount of income subject to the tax. Imagine how much more income would come into the federal coffers if millionaires, entertainers, and athletes in particular, were required to pay the infamous FICA tax on every dollar they earned instead of “only” the first $120,000 or so. As it is, Social Security is living on borrowed time and could flat-line as early as 10 years from now unless some drastic actions are taken.

It was then-Senator Joe Biden (who else?) who championed a tax on at least a portion of the taxpayer’s social security benefits. One could argue that this is a case of double taxation, since our Social Security benefit is being paid out of taxes that we and our employers paid in. Now, although the “trust fund” for Social Security is essentially bankrupt, the “big, beautiful bill” removes taxation from SS benefits. Politicians are so deathly afraid of making fundamental changes to “save” Social Security that they are playing at the margins to win popularity contests.

Democrats have won many elections over the last 90 years or so by playing the class-warfare card. By stoking resentment of the rich, the Dems have created a caste of ultra-liberal billionaires (Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, etc.) who have been guilted into voting for Dems while practically begging the government to, “Tax me more – please!”

My (Baby Boomer) generation has been labeled as selfish and entitled. No doubt, there is perhaps a more visible and vocal cohort of such people in our generation than in generations past, but this is, at least in part, a function of the shame that governed misbehavior in previous generations that has all but disappeared in today's culture. However, there seems to be a smoldering resentment of us seniors by younger generations who believe we’ve “stolen” their futures. Common-sense solutions to the national debt and the looming insolvency of the Social Security program have been put off by politicians who are more fearful of losing their seats of power than they are about the nation’s future.

With all of this in mind, what should we seniors do, if anything, not just to protest the huge national debt but to make some sacrifices in our levels of benefits so that future generations may have something left for them? The old saw that parents always wanted their kids to be better off than they were – that was all well and good 60 years ago, when the possibilities for increasing prosperity seemed endless. Now? I couldn’t possibly look my grandchildren (all adults now) in the eye and tell them they have a better situation than I did when I was their age. Yes, I made the most of the opportunities I was given – but I had to have them in the first place. 

I’m not suggesting we turn in a portion or even all of our Social Security checks back to the government – a government that, even with President Trump and a Republican Congress in office, we still need to doubt in fiscal matters. If we do decide to sacrifice, even just a little, let it be for our families – our children and grandchildren - so that when we pass to the next life we’ll have the peace of knowing that we truly did our best for them. And continue, as we are able, giving to those charitable causes we are passionate about.