“Forgive me for being puckish, but everyone here who disclaims the label of “entitlement” for Social Security always say they paid more into the system than they got out. Were that universally true, Social Security would be solvent. In fact, it would be more than solvent - how much more, I leave to the spreadsheet wizards. “
Quite true, but I was not “allowed” to “opt out” of “Social Insecurity” when I started working or I would have more money today in retirement than I could spend. The other fact is that the Congress has, year after year, piled on “additional” but unfunded benefits to be paid to people who haven’t contributed a dime. The Congress is full of “Monty Halls” who are all just saying “come on down” to everyone with no real thought as to how the whole mess will be paid for. Face it, nearly all the governments of the world are broke or soon will be. Then, there will be no place to run. Then what?
I'm not disputing what you said in your first sentence. In fact, it makes sense. Social Security was designed to be collectively self-funding, but with a uniform payout. Logically, since financial circumstances vary with the individual, that means there had to be some people who paid more than they got in - just as there have to be some people who get more out than they paid in. Anyways, realization of that fact makes it very clear as to why Social Security has been compulsory. If the poker game can't stay solvent without the patsies, and is run by the government, it's inevitable that the patsies will be bound by law to stay in the game. What made it tolerable was the patsy earned more than the non-patsy, so the net beneficiaries benefited from sympathy for the fellow who has less and (to a degree) resentment of the fellow who has more.
But your second sentence is a quantitative statement. According to this link, the unfunded liabilities of Social Security alone (i.e., excl. Medicare) are $8.6 trillion over the next seventy-five years. If it were true that the shortfall was caused by piling on unpaid-for benefits, then the net present value of those unpaid-for benefits over the next seventy-five years would be equal to the $8.6 trillion shortfall. I don't have the exact numbers on me, but this 2010 report does distinguish between SSDI and regular Social Security. It says that SSDI "trust fund" is expected to run dry in 2018, which does add to your case, but it also says that the allocation reserved from regular Social Security will run out in 2041.
In other words, SSDI is only part of the reason behind the unfunded liability. Even if it were eliminated tomorrow, Social Security would still be heading towards the shoals albeit more slowly.
As I said earlier, I believe you when you say you paid more than you'll ever get out. But the way the numbers work, that isn't true of every Social Security recipient excluding SSDIers. It looks to me like good ol' human nature is kicking in, if you get my drift.
As a sidebar, you're experiencing life as part of a government-mandated collective. It's not all that coincidental that there's so much collective guilt floating around, given the number of purveyors of collective 'solutions' and collective 'justice'. Back in the day, rock-ribbed Protestants decried collective-guilt mongering as an excrescence of "Papism."