Yep. It was intended to be a very minimal amount to support an elderly person who didn’t or couldn’t save for retirement after a working career. Hence, the age for payout tended to mean a lot of folks wouldn’t be drawing anything out of it, or very little. They would be dead before or shortly after the end of their working career. But it made it affordable. The intention was however, that any worker who’d put money into the system could count on receiving benefits when they retire.
Then life spans extended, folks were able to retire earlier, other programs were tied to SS where folks could draw from it. And the government was never setting aside the employee or employer contributions anyway. Accounting gimmicks and spending the money, paying today’s recipients with money from todays contributors. The baby boom and bust, and eventually there’s far more drawing money than putting it in. It became a part of people’s retirement planning. And they don’t view it as an entitlement, they don’t view it as welfare, because its something they contributed to their whole working careers (in the US). They become quite understandbly angry when anyone suggests reducing benefits because they see it as their money, their contributions, a commitment from the government.
But it can’t continue this way. It’s unaffordable. Even our great-great grandchildren giving every dollar they earn to us in the older generation won’t balance the books. Hence my statement above-- in the US the system is very likely to become means tested. Even though you put in the max your entire working career, if you were prudent in investments and have other source of income you’ll receive nothing. The available funds will go to those who through misfortune or poor planning aren’t as adequately prepared for retirement. Morally, I think it will be the right thing to do ---- if it’s part of an overall plan to fix our countries financial situation. If it’s an excuse to just divert and spend money on some worthless effort vice reduce debt, there’s no point.
It’s funny, greed depends on perspective. Somehow corporations and folks working hard to produce are greedy, those who are dependent on others for charity-- but expect, even demand it be provided aren’t. A lot of countries run on greed and envy of what others have produced through hard work and sacrifice. Every rich person I know took risks and chances I wouldn’t be willing to in order to start and grow their businesses. Lived on a pittance for years, time away from family, prioritizing paying employees over themselves, mortgaging and risking their homes — years and years before starting to see a good profit and improvements in living conditions. And having risked complete failure and bankruptcy with no guarantee they’d ever see success, just the drive to pursue an idea, and at the same time employ and provide a good living for many others.
