IMO, publicly despairing that social security won’t exist in the future only serves to shift the Overton window, making it more likely that social security won’t exist.
Of course it won’t exist. It’s an asinine, regressive policy that uses trick after evil trick to convince voters that it’s not an unholy abomination.
I know my rhetoric sounds like a joke, but I’m 100% serious. You have the fake notion that “employers pay half” (no, the worker pays 100% of it truly), you have its regressive nature (poor people start working earlier and also die earlier, so it’s a redistribution towards the wealthy), you have the fact that it’s sold as a sort of insurance/retirement account when in actuality it’s neither.
Honesty, you’d be hardpressed to find a more awful government “safety net” program. I miss the days when I supported myself only on illegal income and got to avoid the whole issue. Alas, those days are gone.
>You have the fake notion that “employers pay half” (no, the worker pays 100% of it truly)
You have the fake notion that if we didn't have SS, employers would pay you more.
>you have the fact that it’s sold as a sort of insurance/retirement account when in actuality it’s neither.
It is in actuality neither. However, because of it, seniors were the age group who were least likely to be in poverty during the recent recession. During those years, it really acted well as a safety net.
I know my rhetoric sounds like a joke, but I’m 100% serious. You have the fake notion that “employers pay half” (no, the worker pays 100% of it truly), you have its regressive nature (poor people start working earlier and also die earlier, so it’s a redistribution towards the wealthy), you have the fact that it’s sold as a sort of insurance/retirement account when in actuality it’s neither.
Honesty, you’d be hardpressed to find a more awful government “safety net” program. I miss the days when I supported myself only on illegal income and got to avoid the whole issue. Alas, those days are gone.