Social Security Myths are Pervasive
In my efforts to explain Social Security to those who ask questions, it is often necessary to provide information contrary to the questioner’s understanding of how Social Security works. Some folks who write us possess what might be considered “alternative facts,” usually obtained via the internet, about how Social Security operates, and, more often than not, these “alternative facts” are merely internet myths. Fact is, Social Security is a very complex program consisting of over 2,700 rules codified in over 100,000 pages of Social Security documentation, designed to handle myriad personal circumstances. Unfortunately, many of these rules can be easily misinterpreted and, thus, become persistent internet myths which, it appears, are exceedingly difficult to refute. After all, if “alternative facts” are repeated often enough, they are perceived as truth. Such is the case with the persistent belief by many that the Social Security payroll taxes one pays while working are deposited into a personal account, from which that person’s eventual Social Security retirement benefit will be paid. And that is, simply, incorrect.
Admonished for Correcting the Myth
Here at the AMAC Foundation’s Social Security Advisor Service we have, many times, explained that the SS payroll taxes paid by workers do not go into a personal account for them but, rather, go into the Social Security Trust Fund from which benefits to all recipients are paid. I’ve also published numerous articles explaining this, which sometimes causes some to think I’m misinformed and they take me to task for providing incorrect information. One such recent interaction chastised me for a different reason – when I explained that the payroll taxes they paid while working weren’t used to pay their current SS benefit and that their SS benefit is actually being paid by others now working, they suggested it was insulting and wrong to imply that others are now paying for their SS benefits because they earned those benefits by previously paying into Social Security.
The description of how benefits are earned is, of course, true. The payroll taxes each person pays earn “quarter credits” which, after 40 credits are accumulated, entitles the person to Social Security retirement benefits. In that sense, it is, indeed, the person’s own payroll contributions which entitles them to Social Security benefits. But the fact is that the Social Security benefits now being received by this person are being funded by others who are currently working and contributing to the program (current benefits are not funded from the recipient’s previous individual payroll contributions). Indeed, the actual monetary contributions each person makes to Social Security would likely be insufficient to pay their full SS benefits for a lifetime due to ever-increasing life expectancy. Each person rightfully earns their own Social Security retirement benefit by working, but payment of those benefits is funded by those currently working and contributing to Social Security. That isn’t meant as an insult, it is merely a fact.
Other Social Security Myths
This is only one of the multiple myths about Social Security which our Social Security Advisory Service deals with every day. Several other persistent myths are:
- Myth: Politicians have “stolen” Social Security money for other purposes. The most persistent example of this assertion is that President Lyndon Johnson took Social Security money to fund the Vietnam War, but many other similar incorrect assertions exist as well. Fact: No Social Security money has ever been used for any purpose other than paying Social Security benefits.
- Myth: “Full” Social Security benefits are available at age 65. Age 65 is no longer Social Security’s “Full Retirement Age” (FRA). FRA today is somewhere between age 66 and 67 depending on when you were born. Fact: Claiming Social Security at age 65 will result in a smaller monthly benefit than if claimed at the person’s actual FRA.
- Myth: Benefits are based on the last 5 (or 10) years of work earnings. Social Security benefits are based on each person’s lifetime earnings. Fact: Lifetime annual earnings are adjusted for inflation and the average of the highest earning 35 years is used to calculate the person’s Primary Insurance Amount (which is the amount they receive at their FRA).
- Myth: A Spouse always gets 50% of their partner’s Social Security benefit. Fact: Spouses can get a maximum of 50% of their partner’s full retirement age amount, but only if they claim SS at their own FRA, and only if their own SS retirement amount is less than half of their spouse’s FRA entitlement. Spouse benefits are always based on FRA amounts regardless of the age benefits are actually claimed, and always reduced if claimed before the full retirement age.
- Myth: Congress only needs to pay back what was borrowed from Social Security to make the program solvent again. Social Security’s solvency issue is much more complex than that. Fact: Paying back what Social Security has invested in “Special Issue Government Bonds” would actually exacerbate the program’s insolvency because of the loss of interest on Trust Fund reserves. A much more robust solution to the insolvency issues is needed, as in AMAC’s Social Security Guarantee proposal .
Learning the truth
There are other myths, as well, which sometimes confuse those who contact us. But rest assured that the AMAC Foundation will ALWAYS provide accurate information about Social Security, tailored to your specific circumstances. Just email us at [email protected], or call us at 1.888.750.2622, for a personal evaluation of your Social Security options. And we’ll clarify any misunderstandings you might have about how Social Security really works.
And the ILLEGALS who are receiving $$$from SS ..Did not work 1 day to fund it… MILLIONS allowed to receive benefits , that are NOT a U S Citizen… harris /biden…did that imo
You forgot the myth aka lie of “Republicans want to steal your SS” I’ve been hearing since Reagan.
United States Supreme Court ruled in Flemming v. Nestor (1960) that the Social Security system is neither a pension nor an insurance program and that no one has an accrued property right to benefits from the system regardless of how much that person may have contributed. FICA therefore behaves as a tax for all practical purposes, earmarked for particular uses by Congress but fully subject to Congressional authority, including redirection.
I have found this information given by AMAC concerning these benefits to be very clarifying in explaining the technical questions I can’t get answered properly dealing with representatives at the local Social Security like explaining how spousal benefits are determined and the classification of why Social Security benefits are taxable up to 85% if your total retirement income is over $25,000 in taxable income. The FICA tax funds Social Security and Medicare funds, but an adjustment is needed to eliminate the caps on income paid into this fund because too many people in today’s world are trending towards lowering the income earned as tax-liable income despite earning high income. Adjustments are needed to reflect today’s world trends in earning without depleting the funding sources. Everyone wants to have security knowing that they don’t have to work forever until the day they die and should be able to live comfortably with their retirement income without being given more taxation costs in their golden years
Social Security is a complete mess because politicians keep using it (i.e. expanding it) for purposes it was not originally intended for; all of the “…2,700 rules codified in over 100,000 pages of Social Security documentation, designed to handle myriad personal circumstances.” is evidence of that. It’s very complicated nature creates fertile ground for all of these myths to pop up, and also for confusion, so people don’t necessarily get what they deserve. The entire point (aside from inserting some socialism into our system) was to allow people to retire without becoming destitute, but now is used in many different ways. (And, if the socialists win, Social Security will likely become the vehcle for “universal basic income”.) Social Security is in desperate need of reform and simplification, but unfortunately, due to the political toxicity of the program, that will not only not happen but is likely to continue to become more and more Byzantine over time.
Enlightening to some extent. I have a couple of questions though. For persons that paid into SS for several years and passed away without any survivors and never collecting themselves, why isn’t there a surplus in the SS “trust”? Second, how could I work for 48 consecutive years, paying into SS and Medicare, only to have to retire at 62 on SSDI and find out I needed to wait 2 1/2 years to receive Medicare? BTW, I contracted polio at the age of 2 and was disabled since. I began working when I was 14 by lying about my age and worked manual labor jobs for about 30 years. It’s difficult enough to have to walk away from a career you really love, but then to be told you’re eligible for permanent disability, but not Medicare.
In your proposal:
“Modify the current COLA methodology to increase benefits by the same dollar amount for all eligible beneficiaries, where the annual dollar increase is equal to the average benefit amount adjusted by inflation.”
I’m not clear on this. Are you saying that each SS recipient would receive the same COLA increase regardless of the actual monthly payment? So, someone receiving $1000 would get the same $39 or $58 (or whatever) monthly increase as another person getting $2100/month?
What is the average SS payment? Is your proposal designed to give SS recipients who are getting smaller payments more dollars/month? And, while those currently getting lower payments will jump for joy, will those getting higher than average SS payments call that unfair?
In the past here at AMAC, we’ve commented on raising the age of eligibility. That makes sense for now because people are living a lot longer and working longer. But I don’t see it mentioned in your proposal. With the number of millennials (if they’re working) exceeding the number of SS recipients (with natural “loss” of our seniors), are these methodologies fluid…subject to Congressional updates or will they automatically kick in as demographics evolve? Every time any little detail is changed, it sparks political division.
Thanks for the article!
The only person’s on Social Security are the persons that are eligible to draw it.
I am a recipient, I payed into it all my working life.
The US Government should keep the fund secure for the benefactors.
Do the taxes that you pay on SS benefit checks go back into SS Trust Fund or do these taxers go to the IRS? I have read these taxes go back to Trust Fund, so if Trump stops this tax, won’t that shorten life of SS benefits even more than year 2034/
Good article, but did not cover several items such as 1) Trust Fund surplus at end of 2023 is huge 2) Federal Govt. has borrowed money from fund & is paying how much interest a year back to fund ? and is Fed still borrowing? 3) Congress must act on SS fund & the last time was 15-20 years ago or how many? 4) Why not raise the payroll taxes a little at a time & raise the earning limit ceiling a lot higher such as $ Million 5) Did not mention how millions of retirees that depend on monthly SS benefits as the main source of income to live on & will point out that AARP puts out this number every year.
The problem with SS is that Congress only invested in government. Had the excess collected early on been invested in the top 1500 or so stocks with non voting shares, SS would not only be solvent but self perpetuating. By now no one would have to contribute to SS in order to receive it..
However this would not work if government was allowed to have voting shares. That would be a nightmare…
The story of Social Security money being raided for other purposes was introduced to me from the Doonesbury newspaper strip which of course was very liberal. Explains a lot actually!
Trump had plan in 2019 to roll the fund into the General fund if he won he 2020 & now he says he will stop taxes on SS benefit checks if elected in 2024. It is my understanding that the taxes on SS benefit checks go back into the trust fund & if that is correct if you take away that taxes then you will shorten life of fund even worse & is that true that taxes do go back into the Trust Fund or not?