How else would one view the Social Security program that you are paying into?

You can even go into SSA.gov and see how much you have "earned".

>How else would one view the Social Security program that you are paying into?

I'm certainly no expert, but that sounds more like a description of an IRA or 401K, I think.

As far as I know, the social security program in the US isn't actually structured in such a way that each person's SS taxes are going into an individual investment account under their own name (despite the "how much I've earned" statements which might seem to suggest this).

In fact, the SS taxes being collected right now from you and the entire current generation of earners, are going directly to the current generation of retirees.

So rather than being a career-long savings/investment scheme where your own money comes back to you at the end, it is actually implemented as a wealth transfer scheme from the current generation of earners to the current generation of retirees.

Some years the fund might book a surplus (more taxes raised than benefits paid) and in some years a deficit.

But I agree that it seems to be a common view (or perhaps just metaphor) that people's own SS taxes are being accrued against their name for later payback as benefits. But as far as I can tell, social security has never worked that way and wasn't designed to.

> As far as I know, the social security program in the US isn't actually structured in such a way that each person's SS taxes are going into an individual investment account under their own name (despite the "how much I've earned" statements which might seem to suggest this).

It's not structured that way, but you do need to 'earn credits' to establish eligibility for benefits, and the benefits are calculated with a formula based on the amount of your wages that were subject to social security tax; and the official name is old age insurance. It certainly feels like it's retirement insurance that you pay into while you're working, and get the benefits should you live long enough.

It's interesting looking at the US Social Security system coming from a country (Australia) where the social security system doesn't have the facade of being a contributory system and is funded entirely out of general tax revenue - there's no such thing as "paying in" to the social security system. There's still a bit of an attitude of "I've paid my taxes, now I deserve my pension", but the system doesn't act as a piggy bank for you to save up over time. (For that, we have a mandatory minimum 9.5% superannuation/401k-equivalent contribution that you invest in shares/property/bonds etc.)

In my mind, this is fairer than the US system, but there is a good case to be made that keeping elements of a "contributory" system helps to maintain political support for the welfare state among people who are a bit more, um, selfish.

(An interesting piece I read a while ago that describes how the "contributory" nature of Australia's social security system in the 1940s was actually just a cover for a general tax increase: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-27/berg-chifleys-politica...)

> where the social security system doesn't have the facade of being a contributory system and is funded entirely out of general tax revenue

So I'm curious: can you move to Australia at 64, work for one year, retire, and receive a full income from social security?

Not certain about Australia, but here in NZ we call it "NZ Super" (or just "the pension") instead of "social security". It is a universal superannuation which kicks in at age 65, is not means-tested, and is paid in the same amount to everyone who qualifies. The money that the fund invests/disburses comes from an annual government contribution to the NZ Super Fund, determined by some legislated formula. Individual workers/earners don't "pay into" it in any way that is separately taxed or monitored.

To collect the pension you simply need to be lawfully living in the country (e.g. citizen or permanent resident status), have made NZ your primary/main country of residence (usually by living and working here), and you must have lived in New Zealand for 10 years since the age of 20, of which five of the years must have been since the aged of 50 years.

If the above applies to you, you should sign on and start getting your $792.34 per fortnight :-)

Over in Australia, "social security" is merely the technical name for all of the government welfare programs handled by the Department of Human Services, including Age Pension, Youth Allowance (study benefits), Newstart Allowance (unemployment benefits), Disability Support Pension and so on and so forth. No-one really uses the term "social security" unless you're reading the legislation. With no further qualification, "the pension" means the Age Pension.

What we call "super" you'd call KiwiSaver, except over here it's mandatory. I suspect the NZ use of the term "superannuation" is probably closer to the original/traditional use of the term.

There is a residency requirement. But no requirement that during that residency period you actually need to be working or otherwise "contributing" to the system.

As a wealth transfer from the young to the old.

I don't think any Millennial pays into Social Security under the delusion that they will ever get anything back. The program is on track to be insolvent once it's done serving the generation currently in power.

Agreed. I see thousands of dollars go into SS that I will never see come back.

Except that it won't be around when I qualify. World's biggest ponzi scheme.