Don't "Meme" me Bro!

I'm really sick of the memes meant to spark outrage which are rife with falsehood and innuendo of malfeasance. People all too readily and frequently post these without seemingly ever simply asking themselves "Is this true or even reasonable?"   Below is a sterling example.

I wrote this is response to a posting on Facebook. part of the initial response by the poster was a complaint that SS cost of living increases failed to keep pace with actual cost of living and the implication that the payout, viewed as a return on investment, was too low.   I'll address these two issues at the end.

Social security isn't a tax. You don't get taxes back with interest! I totally agree SS shold be reformed. The use of the term "cut" is unfortunate, because I don't think what is considered, is a "cut" to the persons currently drawing SS , since that would be political suicide! There's a lot of "Yeah, fix it, just don't fix it in such a manner as to affect me!"  First, a little background, since I try to be a fact based writer .

 In 1936 when the law was passed, the average American didn't live to 65, so many who paid in would never draw it. The actual numbers are: (for 1940, and I will limit this discussion to Caucasian males and females since that's what we (you and I) are) :  In 1940, 59.12  was the average life span (males) , and 62.67 (female). The numbers are much lower for all other (non "white" females (49.5 in 1936, 78.2 in 2011)  In that sense, SS has always been a lottery where the long lived (good dna primarily) were the winners. What has changed is that the average life span,  is now 76.3 (males) and 81.1 (females). Almost 23.6% more white females now live almost 20 years longer!  Males, not so lucky, live a mere 17+ years longer. See a problem here?

 The system was designed at a time when the design made sense, No one forsaw the huge increase in life span or the impact of the baby boomers,  a huge "bubble" of persons now entering eligibility, while there are fewer workers paying in. In fact, there are many who would love to keep working past 65, (I did and would still be fine with teaching at 73)  but until full eligibility age, they are penalized for working, so they choose to retire so they can draw full SS. 

 By 1950, women were already living almost 10 years longer! When SS was incepted, a woman reaching 65( remember, many didn't) had about 13 years of lifespan left. in 2011, a caucasian female reaching 65 on average had 22 years left -  9 years longer! None of this is "The Government's" fault!

 If the full eligibility age had been increased by just one year every decade since the 1950s, by which time  it was obvious that the  "Boomers" and greatly extended life span would be an issue, full SS age would now be 71, and it would have been gradual, painless, and there would be sufficient to make sure SS kept up with the cost of living. Of course early SS could still be an option for those who needed to retire, but disability (an area rife with fraud, by the way) has always been there. Making early SS pay even a bit less would be both a deterrent and an option. The problem is that it needed to be done some time ago, but doing it now, if all current people in their last 10 working years (57 and up)  were "grandfathered'  would still be a viable approach. No politician I have ever heard has ever seriously talked of doing anything to the SS of those currently drawing it, and they'd be lynched if they did!. Of course, once the "Boomers" pass through the system, the financial crisis will subside and the net effect might well be an increased payout to recipients 15 years from now.

No one calls it a "gift" or a "handout" that I've ever heard. Calling it an "entitlement" is actually accurate. In like fashion, "Steal from your savings" is grossly inaccurate as well. You are. I feel completely accurate when you say SS needs to be fixed. It is unhelpful when "fixing" it, even if it is the right thing to do, is called  "stealing."  So many of these memes are aimed an inciting high emotion without bothering with facts.  

Along those lines, just as an "oh by the way," (here's another "be careful what you wish for") your comment that SS increase didn't reflect the actual cost of living increase is correct, but not as you think. It was just a tiny bit higher than that! The actual cost of living increase for 2014 (last full data year) was 1.6% On the other hand SS COLA was 1.7%! For 2015, based on the drop in fuel prices, it (actual cost of living increase) will perhaps be below a 1% increase. In the same manner, A average retired couple should expect to see about 4% ROA (return on investment) depending on lifespan (could be more or less) There is no bank in America paying a guaranteed 4% on available savings without withdrawal penalties at present! There is essentially no investment plan which is immune to market collapses (remember 2008-9?)