A balanced approach to social security

I landed my first real, albeit minimum wage job at the tender age of 15, and one of my lasting memories was how the paycheck came with a boatload of deductions, according to the Tribune News Service.

Money was withheld for federal and local income taxes, of course, but there was one category for which teen me was not prepared — some kind of “insurance” payment. I was curious.

Turns out this was my Social Security withholding, a percentage of my pay that would one day help finance my retirement. I paid a share, and my employer paid the same. Today, that percentage is set at 6.2% of wages up to $176,100 (as of last year). I still pay — but I’m a whole lot closer to finally getting a return on that investment.

Or am I? In case you haven’t heard, Social Security faces insolvency. If not addressed by 2032, Social Security benefits could be cut by 22%. Given the average retirement benefit is now slightly under $2,100 a month, that’s a pretty scary prospect.

The solutions are varied, but they really come down to two choices — reduce benefits or raise payroll taxes. There are pros and cons to both. But I’d like to modestly suggest one principle that should be followed when the folks in Congress get off their posteriors and address this important, if politically fraught, topic: no means testing for retirement benefits.

Not sure what that is? Good for you. You are probably closer to my innocent teen self and aren’t really paying close attention. But it comes down to this: Don’t rebalance Social Security by choosing to reduce or eliminate benefits for people who are above a certain income level. In other words, the rich deserve to get their $2,000 or whatever a month, too.

Still, you may be thinking: Don’t most government benefit programmes have means testing of some kind? We don’t give SNAP EBT cards to millionaires. And higher-income Social Security recipients are already paying more taxes for those benefits (just as they do on earned income). So what’s the difference?

A big one. There’s a reason why Social Security was set up under President Franklin D. Roosevelt as a social insurance program (whether for retirement or disability). Your contributions are premiums. It’s a protection against income loss in retirement. This is a vital distinction because it means we’re all in this together: If you paid, you are covered. And the more you pay, the greater coverage you have. It’s what has made Social Security such a beloved and universal program. We’re all in it together.

I’m not the only person who looks at it this way. AARP (the advocacy group formerly known as the American Association of Retired Persons) strongly champions this position. Their main argument is that it would erode public support for Social Security and its “principle of universality.”

That’s not to suggest the federal government should not expect greater sacrifice from the wealthy when it comes to financing government generally. One obvious Social Security fix is to raise the cap on high earners. That’s fair. Another might be to delay full retirement age beyond the current 67. And, naturally, the sooner these choices are made, the better.

The bottom line is that keeping the original Social Security compact and treating contributions as a form of insurance premium is essential. Let’s not break that promise — or turn the program into an administrative nightmare that might ultimately prove its undoing for all.