Why shouldn't Social Security age be raised for future generations?

[dawg]

142. You know, you're the one who came up with the "no connection" bit.

All I said was that additional revenue streams could be tapped. Benefits could still be based on the Social Security wages earned by the worker over his or her lifetime, just as they currently are.

If you think current benefits are calculated in direct proportion to the amounts paid-in by individual workers, you are mistaken. There is already a significant redistributive aspect to Social Security - that's one of the reasons it is so hated by those on the right. Additional revenues could be folded into the benefit calculation at a very low replacement rate, or they could be ignored completely and used only to fund the redistributive and disability portions of the program. Either way, there would still be a relationship between worker earnings and benefits. It just wouldn't be identical to the one under current law.

Many of us will receive significantly less back in constant dollars than we paid in. That is the nature of the program. Social Security is not a savings vehicle; it is insurance against poverty in old age. I'll be happy if my return on Social Security is a poor one. It will mean I was prosperous and able to earn solid income right up to my retirement age. Others will benefit at my expense, but I would have been helped had I needed it. That is the essence of a safety net program.