354
submitted 1 year ago by narwhal@lemmy.ml to c/usa@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Eldritch@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago

Actually, it kind of literally was. Though it's frustrating how common it is for people to share that misconception.

[-] AdolfSchmitler@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

AFAIK it literally wasn't. It was meant to be "one leg" of a "three-legged stool". One leg was Social Securty, one leg was company pensions, and the third leg was personal retirement savings.

[-] Eldritch@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

The thing is. Not every company had pensions. And almost none do today. The concept of personal retirement savings is not something that has ever been reliable adequate or common throughout most of human history. Both are literally the reason Social Security was enacted. It is literally a retirement syatem/social safety net. To make sure that the elderly do not starve die or fall to homelessness in their old age.

Check out question 4 on this page on the actual Social Security Administration website.

Q4: Is it true that Social Security was originally just a retirement program?

A: Yes. Under the 1935 law, what we now think of as Social Security only paid retirement benefits to the primary worker.

I don't blame anyone for thinking that it isn't though. Fascists/capitalists in the United States have spent decades upon decades. Honestly nearly the last 100 years trying to destroy/raid the fund for their own benefit. And gaslighting everyone else.

this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2023
354 points (99.7% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7326 readers
219 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS