Social security makes up nearly a quarter of the federal budget.



There are a number of caveats but for the most part if you turn +66 and a certain networth threshold and you can get yourself Supplemental Security Income (SSI)

Imo these should be only reserved for people who either had some kind of missfortune or severe hardship like a terrible accident which prevented them from making money or being useful to society or maybe a veteran.
The people who have had +66 years to accumulate enough resources and wealth for their old age but chose not to should not be eligible. Maybe some food stamp at the soup kitchen so they dont starve but nothing more.

Why should we hand over 25% of our taxable income to people who were lazy or spent all their retirement money on instant gratification.
Which reminds me of one of aesops fables about the ant and the lazy grasshopper. An ant who was gathering food for winter while the grasshopper laughed and did nothing to prepare. But once the winter came the grasshopper was begging the ant to give him some of his food. I say let the grasshopper die in the cold.

Or is that too harsh let me know what you think.

This post was edited by addone on Sep 14 2025 03:57pm

Social Security is fundamentally an insurance program that people pay into, not a handout. Workers contribute 6.2% of their wages (matched by employers) throughout their careers, so the entitlement mentality isn't just psychological, it's contractual.

SSI and Social Security are different programs as well, with similar names.

• SSI (Supplemental Security Income) is a needs-based welfare program for disabled/elderly people with very limited income and assets
  
• Social Security retirement benefits are what most retirees receive, based entirely on their work history and contributions, there's no "net worth threshold" to qualify. A billionaire who paid into SS gets benefits just like anyone else.
  

People relying on SS as some kind of all inclusive retirement income instead of something supplemental to fill in the gaps is where the problem is, there are people who have no savings outside of their home, they haven't planned out retirement and are relying on SS to float them the rest of their life.

The change from pension-based retirements to self managed 401(k) and IRAs left a lot of boomers out of the loop and unprepared. Previous generations had defined benefit pensions that required no financial literacy, they were managed (poorly) and you could expect to be taken care of after retirement. The shift to 401(k)s happened mid career for many boomers, and these vehicles required some base financial intelligence that many people, even now are unaware of.

The deeper policy question isn't really about punishing the "grasshopper" it's whether we want a society where elder poverty is common. Before Social Security (1935), about 50% of seniors lived in poverty. Today it's around 10%. That's the program working as intended, providing a basic floor so people don't end up destitute in old age.

I think insurance based 401(k) and IRA are step towards financial security. Although I dont like the compulsory nature, optional is fine with me.
People have been riding the gravy train and became dependent on the state because it promised to take care of them. In truth it made lazy and entitled boomers who think that gaming the system and living off food stamps is a legitimate career path.

For long term solutions as to not leave these generations in the cold like the pensioners. One could implement a change of policy ahead of time say 30-40 years before retiring age starting today. One where the younger generation gets a sit down and serious talk about its future. Ideally schools and parents introduce a retirement plan and remind them that at some point they they won't be young and healthy.
This would start the wheel turning and make the individual more inclined to save, invest, keep a steady job, or at least think twice about making unnecessary purchases when they know winter is coming.

Remove the massively costly safety nets because they create dependence at least for the capable but not willing individual. Because they create drag on society instead of contributing. I think we lost that somewhere along the way.

pm he’s low income but on social security and got it figured out

its funny how the amish dont do social security and they are fine. what they do is have 6-8 kids starting at age 18. by age 40 the small army of kids can run the house, the farm and take care of their parents. they dont need a government safety net at all and thrive.

Well they are very traditional and don't rely on the government to spoon feed them. Social security is wolf in sheep's clothing. On the outside it appears to be a decent thing to have as a civilized nation, to take care of the poor and help out those in need. But on the inside it makes people lazy and worse yet dependant. Creating a vacuum where money can be siphoned into the pockets of various organisations like drug companies and big conglomerates.

Its like the department of education where the motto was "no child left behind" in reality "everyone else held back at expense of a small minority" social security doesnt solve hunger or homelessness it manages or even creates it at the expense everyone else. An ambulance at the bottom of a cliff.

Personally I think it should be drastically minimized with only the strictest criteria to be able to receive taxpayers help. And use those billions-trillions on problem solving/prevention instead.

you need to specific about the outcomes you want to achieve

what's important to you, keeping elderly folks out of poverty or making sure we don't accomodate lazy people?

It's either or thing it's both and.

Elderly who didn't save up for retirement or sit on their ass for +60 years shouldn't qualify. Only the ones who had their fortunes wiped out by some unforeseeable event or tragedy like a flood or a fire or blm riots etc. Veterans, disabled etc.. Aka the people who really need it, not lazy bums who feel entitled to free shit.

Let natural selection do its thing. And this will promote much more productive and financially literate individuals when they aren't getting bailed out by big daddy and mommy government. Because that's what it really is right now a bailout. You fucked up and the tax payer pays for your lax lifestyle.

No thanks I want my tax dollar going towards productive ends, change policy to those who deserve it not to anyone just because they turn +60

tangent

would you support eliminating access to healthcare or increasing costs for anyone who smokes or consumes alcohol?

Elimination - no
Restrictive - yes

This is a very Grey area since there are too many variables and difficult to quantify. If you occasionally sip some red wine vs an alcoholic who chainsmokes since they were 12.

I would for example be in favour of not subsidizing accidents related to the person who is found intoxicated. Let them pay out of their own pocket or increasing their insurance.

I would be in support for not paying for Healthcare to type 2 diabetes or morbidly obese individuals. That is 100% lifestyle choice no one is forcing them to drink mountain dew and eat super-sized tub of KFC every day. Let the walruses get naturally selected. I am not giving them my money lol.