[PeterPrinciple]

To be fair, it is social security insurance, not a retirement plan. It began as an insurance program following some of the principles of life insurance. Where it went wrong was not following the guidelines required of private life insurance. It is interesting that they even had a death benefit.

Again from our view we compare it to a retirement plan, but the original setup was insurance and that was how it was sold and modeled.

[mo]

“....but the original setup was insurance and that was how it was sold and modeled”

any decent con has just enough truth to it to sell it....

[Reily]

I don't know how you can say that it was not ever set up in an actuarial sound fashion. In fact the insurance executives who testified to Congress regarding the SS bill predicted it's current state of financial catastrophe. Of course then just like today Congress was convinced it could simply repeal reality as long of the consequences appeared on some future Congress later watch.

[SampleMan]

I question the idea that it was ever an insurance plan, unless the associated risk was living.

The progressive movement took its model from the European state pension systems, which were more or less general treatury items.

That SS ever took in more than it paid out was a bit disengenious, in that Congress has always treated the SS surplus as a money cupboard.

It was always a Ponzi scheme in that it required an ever expanding base of payers to avoid bankruptcy.

[DB]

Lets talk “insurance” then.

Insurance is supposed to be about things beyond your control.

Social security is means tested and they are trying to further means test it.

So the “insurance” pays if you spend all your money before you qualify for social security. It doesn’t pay (or at least as much) if you don’t. So the incentive is to be broke the day you qualify for social security... Brilliant “insurance” plan... In fact that isn’t insurance at all. Its welfare.