The USSCT, in upholding the constitutionality of the Social Security Act, held that it is not insurance.
I say this tongue in cheek, since we all know it is. For example, in order to get many of its benefits, you have to pay in certain sums of money (i.e., be insured).
That aside, SSA was enacted as a fail safe mechanism, not as the sole means for savings. Actually, married people with large families make out quite well inasmuch as not only the wage earner, but his spouse (if over 60) and his minor children all collect benefits on his (or her) earnings record. As a single person, I’m one who is not going to do that well.
Other than retirement benefits, as noted in prior postings, SSA also pays disability benefits, if one is “disabled” as defined in the Act and regulations.
Don’t forget Medicare. In order to get Medicare, you have to reach full retirement age (now 65) plus be “fully insured,” which normally means just 40 quarters of coverage. Now, you can collect SS benefits if you still work (with no limitations on earnings) if you are age 65 or over. Prior to that recent amendment, you still could get Medicare even if your earnings precluded SS benefits. You are also entitled to Medicare if you are “disabled” for at least two years. So, Medicare is predicated upon SS.
SS also takes care of the indigent. Even if a person never worked and never paid into the system, if he or she reaches age 65 (currently) or is “disabled” and meets certain poverty criteria, he or she can get Supplement Security Income, which also enables benefits from Medicare.
The Act also provides for state benefits (with contributions from the fed gvt) for the indigent who otherwise meets the disability criteria.
So you see, SS is a lot more than retirement benefits. There’s a lot to be said, however, not in eliminating SS, but to allow people to invest a certain percentage in a portfolio. If I were allowed to do that when I started working, I’d be much better off. ** MUCH ** better off. Nonetheless, it was meant to be a fail safe mechanism. Allowing people to invest would negate that aspect.
SS should definitely NOT be eliminated. Perhaps, just perhaps, people should be allowed to invest the funds in a portfolio. That would be a topic of another debate, or a subsidiary debate in this topic. I’m equivocal about that.