Poll: American understanding and attitudes about Social Security

[cpwill]

This is depressing.

55% of Americans don’t know how Social Security is funded

...A majority of Americans (55%) believe the main purpose of Social Security is to replace seniors’ income. Less than half, 45%, believe the program is to ensure that seniors don’t fall below the poverty line, which is how the program was originally intended. ... An overwhelming majority of nonretired adults (79%) do not believe they will receive their full scheduled Social Security benefits when they retire. About one in ten (13%) go even further, saying they expect to receive nothing at all. ...

Most (60%) understand that workers who paid more into Social Security get higher benefits than those who paid in less. Fifteen percent think all retirees receive the same benefit, and 25% aren’t sure. However, there are considerable knowledge gaps pertaining to the actual amounts disbursed. Ninety-one percent of Americans did not know that the highest annual Social Security benefit can reach $60,000 a year. When it comes to estimating the average benefits Americans receive, only 25% correctly answered that the average benefit is $20,000–$29,000 per year.....




To avoid tax hikes or benefit cuts, a plurality (38%) of Americans would support switching to a flat Social Security benefit of about $1,800 a month for all retirees regardless of their prior earnings. This would require lowering benefits for high earners and increasing benefits for low earners compared to what they get now. A little more than a quarter (28%) would oppose this change, and 34% aren’t sure either way. Support declines when framed in terms of equality of benefits. Slightly more oppose (35%) than support (32%) switching to a flat monthly benefit when framed as giving everyone the same benefit regardless of how much they contributed to the system. The results suggest Americans may be open to replacing Social Security’s earnings-based formula with a flat benefit for all. However, support for this change appears conditional; many are skeptical unless the alternative is broad benefit cuts or tax increases.....​

That's interesting. So is the Generational Divide:

 

[aociswundumho]

Shouldn't you need to get their explicit permission first?

 

[Loulit01]

View attachment 67583850

Shouldn't you need to get their explicit permission first?

Sure. And if they refuse they can't collect Social Security, right?

 

[Individual]

If we're not going to permanently fix Social Security why not just make the FICA tax a progressive tax rate like the income tax?

 

[Nickyjo]

If we're not going to permanently fix Social Security why not just make the FICA tax a progressive tax rate like the income tax?

Or lift the cap on income. But we need to face reality: Social Security was established under the New Deal philosophy that we are all in this together, that it is a good thing that we provide for one another. The opposing philosophy is that we are all in this separately, that all men are indeed islands, despite what John Donne said. Most of the world rejects the latter belief, but in the US we still have to deal with some bitter-enders who want to repeal the reforms of the 20th and 21st century, from anti-trust to Obamacare. Their nirvana is the 1890s, when children worked and some women had to trade sex for jobs.

 

[Individual]

Or lift the cap on income. But we need to face reality: Social Security was established under the New Deal philosophy that we are all in this together, that it is a good thing that we provide for one another. The opposing philosophy is that we are all in this separately, that all men are indeed islands, despite what John Donne said. Most of the world rejects the latter belief, but in the US we still have to deal with some bitter-enders who want to repeal the reforms of the 20th and 21st century, from anti-trust to Obamacare. Their nirvana is the 1890s, when children worked and some women had to trade sex for jobs.

We can continue kick the can again and again, or we could just permanently resolve the issue.

 

[Nickyjo]

We can continue kick the can again and again, or we could just permanently resolve the issue.

We could go a long way to resolving the issue by removing the income cap governing contributions.

 

[Individual]

We could go a long way to resolving the issue by removing the income cap governing contributions.

Why not go ALL the way and resolve it completely, without raising the benefit payments to high income earners?

 

[ttwtt78640]

We could go a long way to resolving the issue by removing the income cap governing contributions.

That would give those who don’t need any retirement supplement a larger public subsidy.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Why not go ALL the way and resolve it completely, without raising the benefit payments to high income earners?

Going “ALL the way” would give everyone the same ‘retirement/disability’ monthly benefit amount regardless of their prior ‘contribution’.

 

[Individual]

Going “ALL the way” would give everyone the same ‘retirement/disability’ monthly benefit amount regardless of their prior ‘contribution’.

Why would it?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Why would it?

Wasn’t the “go ALL the way” idea to base benefits on need rather than ‘contribution’ amount?

 

[Individual]

Wasn’t the “go ALL the way” idea to base benefits on need rather than ‘contribution’ amount?

No, just to resolve it to where it never again becomes a solvency issue needing attention.
Though I would have no problem with making some changes to how the benefit amount is determined as well.

 

[Nickyjo]

That would give those who don’t need any retirement supplement a larger public subsidy.

Fine with me if they pay up and put the program in more solid ground. As things stand now, someone making less contributes a higher % of their income to the fund than those making far more.

 

[Helix]

Raise the contribution ceiling.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Fine with me if they pay up and put the program in more solid ground. As things stand now, someone making less contributes a higher % of their income to the fund than those making far more.

Those making (thus contributing) less get a better return on their SS ‘investment’.

Social Security is designed to be progressive meaning that it replaces a larger percentage of previous earnings for low earners compared to high earners.

Progressive Nature: Although high earners receive larger absolute benefits, these benefits replace a smaller percentage of their lifetime earnings compared to lower earners. This is designed to help ensure a minimum level of income for those who may have limited other retirement resources.

*above quote is from Google’s AI Overview.*

Social Security retirement benefits are designed to replace part of a worker’s earnings from work. The formula used to calculate these benefits takes into account lifetime earnings over 35 years. Social Security benefits replace a larger share of past earnings for low earners. While high earners receive larger benefits, their benefits replace a smaller share of what they had been making.

For example, a 65-year-old who retired in 2017 with a lifetime of “medium” earnings (about $49,366 in 2016) would receive about $18,971 a year, which would replace about 38 percent of past earnings. A “low” earner who made about $22,215 in 2016 would receive about $11,517, which would replace about 52 percent of prior earnings. A worker who always earned the “maximum” taxable amount (for a career-average taxable earnings of $120,418 in 2016) would get benefits that replace about 25 percent of prior earnings.

How Do Benefits Compare to Earnings? -

Social Security retirement benefits are designed to replace part of a worker's earnings from work. The formula used to calculate these benefits takes into account lifetime earnings over 35 years. Social Security benefits replace a larger share of past earnings for low earners. While high earners...

www.nasi.org

 

[CimpleMan]

Realize fixing is considered third rail issue.

Going to have to tackle.

Raise thresholds of income not subjected SS taxes.

Have ways to tax income not subject to SS taxes.

Some means testing. Maybe offer tax deductions for those who get reduced benefits because of assets that exceed thresholds. Controversial I know, but would rather those who have no other income streams to have full benefits than to have all recipients get reduced payments to keep SS solvent.

 

[Ahlevah]

This is depressing.

55% of Americans don’t know how Social Security is funded​

​

...A majority of Americans (55%) believe the main purpose of Social Security is to replace seniors’ income. Less than half, 45%, believe the program is to ensure that seniors don’t fall below the poverty line, which is how the program was originally intended. ... An overwhelming majority of nonretired adults (79%) do not believe they will receive their full scheduled Social Security benefits when they retire. About one in ten (13%) go even further, saying they expect to receive nothing at all. ...​

​

Most (60%) understand that workers who paid more into Social Security get higher benefits than those who paid in less. Fifteen percent think all retirees receive the same benefit, and 25% aren’t sure. However, there are considerable knowledge gaps pertaining to the actual amounts disbursed. Ninety-one percent of Americans did not know that the highest annual Social Security benefit can reach $60,000 a year. When it comes to estimating the average benefits Americans receive, only 25% correctly answered that the average benefit is $20,000–$29,000 per year.....​

​

View attachment 67583841​

​

​

To avoid tax hikes or benefit cuts, a plurality (38%) of Americans would support switching to a flat Social Security benefit of about $1,800 a month for all retirees regardless of their prior earnings. This would require lowering benefits for high earners and increasing benefits for low earners compared to what they get now. A little more than a quarter (28%) would oppose this change, and 34% aren’t sure either way. Support declines when framed in terms of equality of benefits. Slightly more oppose (35%) than support (32%) switching to a flat monthly benefit when framed as giving everyone the same benefit regardless of how much they contributed to the system. The results suggest Americans may be open to replacing Social Security’s earnings-based formula with a flat benefit for all. However, support for this change appears conditional; many are skeptical unless the alternative is broad benefit cuts or tax increases.....​

That's interesting. So is the Generational Divide:

View attachment 67583843 View attachment 67583844

I especially loved this part:

To avoid tax hikes or benefit cuts, a plurality (38%) of Americans would support switching to a flat Social Security benefit of about $1,800 a month for all retirees regardless of their prior earnings. This would require lowering benefits for high earners and increasing benefits for low earners compared to what they get now.

In other words, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” otherwise known as “communism.”

 

[ttwtt78640]

I especially loved this part:



In other words, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” otherwise known as “communism.”

More like: we know what you really need ($1800/month is the FTE of a $10.38/hour job) which is below the MW in many states. BTW, is that $1800/month before paying a Medicare Part B premium of $206.50/month?

 

[noonereal]

This is depressing.

55% of Americans don’t know how Social Security is funded

...A majority of Americans (55%) believe the main purpose of Social Security is to replace seniors’ income. Less than half, 45%, believe the program is to ensure that seniors don’t fall below the poverty line, which is how the program was originally intended. ... An overwhelming majority of nonretired adults (79%) do not believe they will receive their full scheduled Social Security benefits when they retire. About one in ten (13%) go even further, saying they expect to receive nothing at all. ...

Most (60%) understand that workers who paid more into Social Security get higher benefits than those who paid in less. Fifteen percent think all retirees receive the same benefit, and 25% aren’t sure. However, there are considerable knowledge gaps pertaining to the actual amounts disbursed. Ninety-one percent of Americans did not know that the highest annual Social Security benefit can reach $60,000 a year. When it comes to estimating the average benefits Americans receive, only 25% correctly answered that the average benefit is $20,000–$29,000 per year.....

View attachment 67583841


To avoid tax hikes or benefit cuts, a plurality (38%) of Americans would support switching to a flat Social Security benefit of about $1,800 a month for all retirees regardless of their prior earnings. This would require lowering benefits for high earners and increasing benefits for low earners compared to what they get now. A little more than a quarter (28%) would oppose this change, and 34% aren’t sure either way. Support declines when framed in terms of equality of benefits. Slightly more oppose (35%) than support (32%) switching to a flat monthly benefit when framed as giving everyone the same benefit regardless of how much they contributed to the system. The results suggest Americans may be open to replacing Social Security’s earnings-based formula with a flat benefit for all. However, support for this change appears conditional; many are skeptical unless the alternative is broad benefit cuts or tax increases.....​

That's interesting. So is the Generational Divide:

View attachment 67583843 View attachment 67583844

Well, thanks to Reagan I dont get the benefits promised.

 

[Ahlevah]

More like: we know what you really need ($1800/month is the FTE of a $10.38/hour job) which is below the MW in many states. BTW, is that $1800/month before paying a Medicare Part B premium of $206.50/month?

I would assume so, because not every Medicare beneficiary pays that. That’s also means tested through the Income-Related Monthly Adjusted Amount (IRMAA).

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

This is depressing.

55% of Americans don’t know how Social Security is funded​

​

A little depressing, but not surprising. Americans understand less about their government than they should, but there is just too much to know to expect people to really grasp SS and all of its intricacies.

A lot of the problem has been politicians making SS a political football, with those who oppose it falsely claiming that we can't afford it, etc. Just like many of the same people who like the ACA also hate Obamacare, people have been misled about SS and its funding.

All taxes, FICA included, go into the same pot, because there is only one pot, and all expenses, SS included, come out of that pot, which also includes deficit spending. The internal accounting around SS is just that, internal accounting, like putting some money from your right pocket into your left pocket. The legal basis for this can be changed. They should just eliminate the FICA taxes and make adjustments so that SS is no longer constrained by that internal accounting an instead is paid for out of the general pile, like most other expenses. Adjustments like raising the cap or lowering benefits is just another ploy to get more out of the poor, and it's regressive as hell.

 

[noonereal]

This is depressing.

55% of Americans don’t know how Social Security is funded

...A majority of Americans (55%) believe the main purpose of Social Security is to replace seniors’ income. Less than half, 45%, believe the program is to ensure that seniors don’t fall below the poverty line, which is how the program was originally intended. ... An overwhelming majority of nonretired adults (79%) do not believe they will receive their full scheduled Social Security benefits when they retire. About one in ten (13%) go even further, saying they expect to receive nothing at all. ...

Most (60%) understand that workers who paid more into Social Security get higher benefits than those who paid in less. Fifteen percent think all retirees receive the same benefit, and 25% aren’t sure. However, there are considerable knowledge gaps pertaining to the actual amounts disbursed. Ninety-one percent of Americans did not know that the highest annual Social Security benefit can reach $60,000 a year. When it comes to estimating the average benefits Americans receive, only 25% correctly answered that the average benefit is $20,000–$29,000 per year.....

View attachment 67583841


To avoid tax hikes or benefit cuts, a plurality (38%) of Americans would support switching to a flat Social Security benefit of about $1,800 a month for all retirees regardless of their prior earnings. This would require lowering benefits for high earners and increasing benefits for low earners compared to what they get now. A little more than a quarter (28%) would oppose this change, and 34% aren’t sure either way. Support declines when framed in terms of equality of benefits. Slightly more oppose (35%) than support (32%) switching to a flat monthly benefit when framed as giving everyone the same benefit regardless of how much they contributed to the system. The results suggest Americans may be open to replacing Social Security’s earnings-based formula with a flat benefit for all. However, support for this change appears conditional; many are skeptical unless the alternative is broad benefit cuts or tax increases.....​

That's interesting. So is the Generational Divide:

View attachment 67583843 View attachment 67583844

Let's face it, it was the Silent Generation that made out like bandits.

Paid in little, got the top benefits the program has had.

 

[cpwill]

In other words, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” otherwise known as “communism.”

The program is meant to be a hedge against poverty in old age, not an income replacement.

If boomers wanted more money out of it, they should have funded it better, more wisely, and accepted reasonable cuts to benefit growth rates. They refused to do all those things - and killed off like a quarter of their kids, most of whom would otherwise be paying taxes into the system - and that is going to have consequences.

And, like with every other decision they've made, our most selfish and self-unaware generation will do their best to put the consequences for their decisions onto their children and grandchildren

 

[madman]

This is depressing.

55% of Americans don’t know how Social Security is funded​

​

...A majority of Americans (55%) believe the main purpose of Social Security is to replace seniors’ income. Less than half, 45%, believe the program is to ensure that seniors don’t fall below the poverty line, which is how the program was originally intended. ... An overwhelming majority of nonretired adults (79%) do not believe they will receive their full scheduled Social Security benefits when they retire. About one in ten (13%) go even further, saying they expect to receive nothing at all. ...​

​

Most (60%) understand that workers who paid more into Social Security get higher benefits than those who paid in less. Fifteen percent think all retirees receive the same benefit, and 25% aren’t sure. However, there are considerable knowledge gaps pertaining to the actual amounts disbursed. Ninety-one percent of Americans did not know that the highest annual Social Security benefit can reach $60,000 a year. When it comes to estimating the average benefits Americans receive, only 25% correctly answered that the average benefit is $20,000–$29,000 per year.....​

​

View attachment 67583841​

​

​

To avoid tax hikes or benefit cuts, a plurality (38%) of Americans would support switching to a flat Social Security benefit of about $1,800 a month for all retirees regardless of their prior earnings. This would require lowering benefits for high earners and increasing benefits for low earners compared to what they get now. A little more than a quarter (28%) would oppose this change, and 34% aren’t sure either way. Support declines when framed in terms of equality of benefits. Slightly more oppose (35%) than support (32%) switching to a flat monthly benefit when framed as giving everyone the same benefit regardless of how much they contributed to the system. The results suggest Americans may be open to replacing Social Security’s earnings-based formula with a flat benefit for all. However, support for this change appears conditional; many are skeptical unless the alternative is broad benefit cuts or tax increases.....​

That's interesting. So is the Generational Divide:

View attachment 67583843 View attachment 67583844

The Cato Institute is an American libertarian think tank

a biased REPUBLIKAN source.