Millennials, Gen X and Gen Z say the system needs reform, an exclusive Newsweek poll found, amid fears the benefits won’t exist when they come to retire

Younger generations in the U.S., including millennials and Gen Zers, are much more likely to believe that the Social Security system needs reforming than those in their 60s and 70s, according to a recent survey conducted by Redfield & Wilton Strategies on behalf of Newsweek.

Some 40 percent of respondents said they believe that the Social Security program currently pays out more to retirees than it is receiving in Social Security tax payments, while 26 percent disagreed with this statement.

Gen Zers (ages 18-26), millennials (ages 27-42) and Gen Xers (ages 43-58) were more likely than boomers (59 and older) to think that Social Security should be reformed.

  • ChicoSuave@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    235
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    This is a propaganda article. It’s meant to start the idea that social security change should happen; Social Security had a surplus and was on track to support Gen Z with boomer level benefits until George W Bush drained the fund to pay for the Iraq war. A 100 billion+ surplus (which would have been 2T by 2011) was sucked dry at a billion dollars a day for a war that brought nothing but misery. This current crisis is brought to you by the Republicans.

    Social Security is currently facing an uncertain future as it is expected to face a 23 percent across-the-board benefit cut in 2033, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, unless something changes until then.

    Some bullshit conservative think tank is trying to spin up the idea of cutting benefits to prevent taxing billionaires. Don’t let the rich lie anymore. Make the rich pay!

      • azimir@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        28
        ·
        10 months ago

        Oh yesh, the “locked box” tag lines. Again and again and again during speeches, debates, and articles. Back when news cycles and ongoing stories were measured in weeks rather than hours.

    • eek2121@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      10 months ago

      Social Security should be reformed. The surplus should be given back and laws passed that forbid touching it. Further:

      • The amount paid out should be significantly increased (after decades of working I would make less than $3,000/mo on SSDI, for example, which isn’t enough for me to live on my own even)
      • There should be no income cap for taxation purposes
      • The retirement age should be lowered to 60 and taxes/formulas modified accordingly.
      • It should not take years for anyone to make it through applying for disability.

      Honestly, Social Security should also be responsible for paid sick/family leave, short term and long term temp/perm disability, unemployment, etc. We in the US could have it so much better…

      • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        Yeah and it should be allowed to hold companies that are bailed out as long as its financial advisers choose.

        Hell when it’s time for UBI this is the administration to do it

    • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      George W Bush drained the fund to pay for the Iraq war

      Not really. Bush ended Clinton’s budget surplus and replaced it with a budget deficit, and I won’t argue if you hold the wars responsible.

      But SS is not part of the normal budget. It was running a surplus in the Bush years. There was a debate over what to do with the surplus.

      Keeping it “stuffed in a mattress” would be irresponsible for the same reason most of us don’t keep our life savings in a checking account. Bush wanted to invest it in the stock market, but the public rightly thought that was too risky. So it was invested in the most risk-free asset: Treasury bonds.

      That means that the government could spend the surplus, but they are required to pay it back with interest. Failing to pay back SS would trigger a default, no different than crashing through the debt ceiling.

    • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Yeah it’s not enough to live on. I want to be able to survive on social security when I’m old, so I’ll fight for old people to be able to survive on it now. And a little something for a surplus.

      Taxes aren’t why you’re poor, shit pay is

      Also social security for all is UBI, we can demand that

          • Moira_Mayhem@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            I already vote blue every election and mildly frequently write my reps, it’s all well and good to use the ‘fight’ metaphor but until we are rioting in the streets we are just going to have the slow slide down till it gets gutted completely.

        • AA5B@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          And yet

          • social security has enough support that politicians are afraid to touch it, even to fix it
          • even the doom date we’re all worried about, means it can still pay 80%, assuming no fixes
          • if we get past the next two decades, demographics once again favors the current approach

          Fixing it should we quite doable, if politicians look ahead. However the longer we wait, the bigger impact from adjustments, and we all know the reality of politics.

          If you’re under 40, I agree that you need to focus on retirement savings, since that’s the only part you can control

          • Illuminostro@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Just put all your money in a 401K. Do your fiscal duty and grovel at The Shrine of Captialism, peasant. You’re lucky you’re allowed to live and serve.

          • Moira_Mayhem@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Excellent sentiment and I hope you are right but I don’t think the existing support can survive even one moderately planned out mass media campaign from the GOP.

    • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      This current crisis is brought to you by the Republicans.

      It’s probably important to consider that the Iraq war was enthusiastically bipartisan with one glaring exception: Bernie Sanders. Therefore, it’s not entirely honest to (rightly) fault the Iraq War as a starting point for the problems with SS and not also fault Democrats for their role in making those decisions.

      Make the rich pay!

      This is the only way to fix the problem, but it’s never going to happen. Every two years we vote for legislators who are fabulously wealthy and have made all manner of corruption legal for federal legislators. (ie, loaning your campaign money at interest, insider trading, using classified briefings for stock moves, etc.)

      Now’s a good time to repeat what I do every campaign season: Don’t give candidates your money. Put it in your investments, and then no matter who is elected, you will have some representation as both parties care more about the stock market than they do about you.

      • ripcord@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        10 months ago

        It’s probably important to consider that the Iraq war was enthusiastically bipartisan with one glaring exception: Bernie Sanders. Therefore, it’s not entirely honest to (rightly) fault the Iraq War as a starting point for the problems with SS and not also fault Democrats for their role in making those decisions.

        I mean…126 democrats in the house voted against it. Only 6 Republicans and one Independent (Bernie) voted against it. Democrats did play a role, but it’s not nearly so “both sides!!” as you’re trying to make it here.

    • Scotty_Trees@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Damn, good to know I was fucked before I was even able to vote. And here I thought me and my generation were the problem…