Social Security: The Foundation of Economic Security
Reading Time: 2 MinutesLast Updated: August 19, 2021
When President Franklin D. Roosevelt established Social Security in 1935, he saw the program as a fundamental way to advance economic fairness and social justice. Social Security has grown and improved to fulfill FDR’s vision, and we have just completed a year celebrating the 80th anniversary of this important program.
Today, Social Security’s insurance protection is the foundation of retirement security for almost all American workers and families. The average Social Security benefit is modest – about $1,340 a month – yet this benefit is the main income for most seniors. For two in three seniors who receive it, Social Security is more than half of their total income. That includes one in three where it makes up all or almost all of their income. Social Security is especially important for communities of color, women, and other vulnerable groups.
At the American Society on Aging’s Aging in America conference on March 23, I will be honored to share vital information about “The State of Seniors in Poverty,” along with the distinguished Kathy Greenlee of the Administration for Community Living.
For example, many people know that 10 percent of seniors, or 4.6 million individuals, live in poverty. Yet many don’t know just how important Social Security is in preventing seniors from falling into poverty. If today’s seniors had to rely on only their income from sources other than Social Security, fully 4 in 10 would be poor. Social Security is our nation’s most effective poverty prevention program; its retirement, disability, and survivor benefits keep 21 million Americans out of poverty, including 14 million seniors. So, keeping Social Security strong is one of the best ways that we, as a nation, can address senior poverty and promote economic security for all.
“But,” you might ask, “what about the future of Social Security?” Actually, Social Security’s finances are far stronger than many people realize. The program as a whole is sufficiently funded until 2034, and after that, it is about three-quarters fully financed. This is a good time to begin a national conversation about how to keep Social Security strong for the very long term – and there are many options available to lawmakers. According to recent public opinion research, including studies conducted by the Pew Research Center and the National Academy of Social Insurance, Americans understand Social Security’s enduring value and support preserving benefits for future generations.
Social Security has had a very successful first 80 years, and I am confident about its long-term future. We at the Social Security Administration look forward to the next 80 years, and beyond, of continuing to serve the American people and building on FDR’s vision of promoting economic security and fairness for the American people.
Did you find this Information helpful?
About the Author
Virginia P. Reno, Deputy Commissioner, Retirement and Disability Policy
Virginia P. Reno, Deputy Commissioner for Retirement and Disability Policy, Social Security Administration
Comments
Comments are closed.
David R.
A “63 year and 3 month old man” had two strokes and lost his ability to do his job and was terminated as a result. He went to the Social Security Office and applied for SSDI. The SSA SSDI receipt specified up to a 120 day review period.
Was there an advantage for this man to apply for SSDI instead of the SSA Retirement?
If he had applied for SSA Retirement would the payment be higher or lower than the SSDI payment?
R.F.
Thank you for your question, David. Disability payments are established at the highest rate possible. Retirement benefits in the other hand, are paid at a reduced rate, if you start receiving them prior to your full retirement age. This person can apply for early retirement benefits at age 63. We would pay retirement benefits while we consider his application for disability.
Keep in mind that Social Security pays only for total disability. We pay disability benefits to people under their full retirement age who are unable to work because of a medical condition that is expected to last one year or more or end in death. No benefits are payable for partial disability or short-term disability. If you or your friend have more questions, please call our toll free number at 1-800-772-1213. Representatives are available Monday through Friday, between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. We hope this information helps.
Hwa T.
*There is noticeably a bundle to know about this. I assume you made certain nice points in features also.
best-baby-strollers.com
Virgie G.
SS should pay all ss paid into ss for all widow and widowers that they have paid into ss.also no taxes we already paid We also should receive a living wage .Medicare should be free for low-income people. Just sayin
Floyd
THANK THE DEMOCRATES FOR THE TAXES ON OUR SS TAKE ALL OF THE NON QUALIFIED PEOPLE OFF SS THAT DID NOT PAY INTO SS THE SS PAYOUT SHOULD BE OVERHAULED NOW RICH PEOPLE DO NOT GIVE A DAMN ABOUT THE POOR AND HIS $$$ PROBLEMS JUST KEEP THE HELL OUT OF THEIR WAYWE OLDER ONES BELEIVED IN AMERICA FOUGHT THE WARS PAID OUR TAXES AND ARE GOOD CITIZENS SOME NOT BEING ABLE TO SAVE FOR RETIREMENT OR NOT BEING ABLE TO WORK FIND THAT YOU CAN BE “KICKED IN THE TEETH” BY YOUR OWN government BLESS YOU ALL
Stock t.
Your Article is providing a unique knowledge. Before Investing in share market visit Epic Research to get proper guidance.
John H.
Beware of faulty foundations.
I have contributed social security taxes for more than five decades, from 1964 – 2015. A March 2, 2016 letter from SSA recommended that I soon apply for the benefits legally due me, and I did so. Those are benefits I have long incorporated into my own economic security planning, including waiting until age 70 to claim them. SSA has persistently refused to act on that application, putting those plans at jeopardy.
My application was received by SSA on March 21 and I received a call from SSA to discuss and complete it on March 22, all of which is confirmed in a letter sent from SSA on March 25. Since then, I have been checking my application status online, and getting nothing but, “As of today’s date, a decision has not been made on your application.” This in spite of the fact that my eligibility is no way ambiguous or problematic, a fact confirmed by my March 22 discussion with the SSA representative, a discussion in which I was told what my benefits would be, that they would start in July, and that, were I to receive, as I expected, a Medicare bill covering the period after July 1, I should not pay it because after July 1 Medicare costs would be deducted from my retirement payments.
After two months of the “no decision” message, on or about May 22, I called SSA to see why my application had not been acted upon (this after getting nothing at all from a query to the online help promised in My Social Security). The SSA representative with whom I spoke did some investigating while I held the line. She came up with nothing for me but the reckoning that it was unusual for application approval to take more than six weeks and that she had sent my request for information to the office handling my application which, she said, was obligated to respond to me “within 30 days.” In the meantime, I paid the expected Medicare bill for the 7/01/16-9/30/16 period, entailing who knows what problems once I get, as I certainly shall persist to do, my retirement payments, probably with duplicate Medicare payments deducted.
The 30-days obligation, if it ever really existed, was not met in any fashion; SSA continues to be totally unresponsive. Now, I am forced to imagine that someone at SSA might be engineering an illegal diversion of my benefits to a criminal confederate, or that they are selling my data to identity thieves (I now have to daily monitor the bank account put at risk by the information my application contains). Or is this a standard SSA ploy designed to avoid payments to those unable to get through SSA stonewalling to have the agency simply meet its legal responsibilities? Is it just due to laziness or apathy or increasingly costly, for what should have been a straightforward transaction, inefficiency? I don’t know and can’t find out. What I do know is that it is shamefully far from the successful provision of security described in Deputy Commissioner Reno’s blog.
R.F.
Hello Mr. Houghton, we apologize for this inconvenience. For security reasons, we do not have access to personal records via this blog. Please continue working with your local office and know that you can request to speak with the office manager to see how we can help to expedite resolution of your situation. Keep in mind that benefits are paid in the month after they are due. So, for instance, if your benefits begin with the month of July, you will receive your first benefit payment in August. The exact payment date is determined by your date of birth. If you are unable to visit your local servicing office, you may call our toll free number at 1-800-772-1213, representatives are available Monday through Friday between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. Generally, you will have a shorter wait time if you call later in the week. Thanks
Robin
Where’s the economic justice for disabled people? Still using amounts from the years1972 and 1989 for allowable unearned income, earned income and resources in 2016 is not justice. I suggest everyone contact your federal reps now and ask them to raise all amounts to a livable level. I just discussed the contexts of the minimum wages in 1972 and 1989 to show that all amounts were worth more in their own time, and it’s only right that we get a similar opportunity to have amounts raised in proportion to our current minimum wages to match expenses that have to be covered. The reps aren’t going to know it’s a problem unless we contact them. Whoever your rep is, contact them! Tell them we have to come into the modern age, that no one’s living in 1972 and 1989 anymore!!!!
Robin
2nd issue – the SSI allowable income resources. For an individual, $2,000. For a couple, $3,000. These amounts haven’t changed since 1989, which was 27 years ago.
The minimum wage in 1989 was $3.35. Thus the individual amount, $2,000, was 600 times the minimum wage and the couples amount of $3,000 was 900 times the minimum wage.
Update those ratios to today’s minimum wages, and it becomes more fair, in terms of having the money for a first/last/deposit for moving, or maybe for needed dental expenses or other uncovered medical expenses, etc.
Minimum wages vary around the country so I think it’s only fair to do the ratios for the area the person lives in and functions in. But at least it’s more modernized.
For example, to keep it simple, if the minimum wage for the area is 10/hour, then an individual’s resource amount is 600 times that, or $6,000. A couple’s amount is 900 times that, or $9,000.
And there is a senate bill now, S 1384, asking for $10,000 for an individual and $15,000 for a couple.
(Note – the rest of it is horrible – asking for only $111/month unearned allowed and $364/month earned allowed. No one can do that either. They need to get real about expenses that people have to cover.)
There is also the ABLE Act which passed in Dec 2014 allowing those disabled before the age of 26 to have a savings account up to $100, 000 which would not affect their benefits. There is now an amendment bill introduced March 2016 to include those disabled before the age of 46. And next hopefully will come the one that covers people disabled at any age, because, disability is not tied to one’s age.
I mention these last examples to show there is real work being done on the allowable resource levels, and we need it done now, because people are affected by it now being too low for economic needs.
Robin
Update – the bill number is 1387, not 1384. I called about it, and its companion bill, HR2442. The Senate one is in the Senate Finance committee and the HR2442 one is in the Ways and Means committee, Human Resources subcommittee. They told me they have not been hearing from people. How are they going to know that disabled people on SSI cannot afford to live via amounts from 1972 and 1989 unless they hear from people? Call/contact your federal reps and let them know disabled people cannot live with a low threshold allowed of $85/month because it dates from 1972 and HAS NEVER BEEN UPDATED TO MODERN TIMES!!!
Read the above analyses to understand the ratio, between this original equation of 20 unearned plus 65 earned = $$85/month allowed , and the minimum wage of its time, which was 52 times the $1.60/hour minimum wage – we need to update the modern amount to at least 52 times OUR minimum wages! And use the minimum wage of the job area. Nobody, including disabled people can live like 1972.
PEOPLE, YOU MUST SPEAK UP – YOU MUST CALL OUR CONGRESSIONAL REPS – DISABLED PEOPLE ON SSI ARE BEING SEVERELY HURT BY BEING STUCK WITH AN 1972 LOW THRESHOLD OF $85/MONTH ALLOWED BEFORE TAKING BACK THE MONEY DISABLED PEOPLE NEED TO LIVE ON!!! JUST BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE DISABLED DOES NOT MEAN THEY SHOULDN’T HAVE MONEY FOR BASIC EXPENSES LIKE HOUSING, FOOD, MEDICAL, SUPPLIES.
SSI EVEN SAID, IN REVIEW, THAT THEY DON’T LOOK AT EXPENSES. THAT’S AN INCREDIBLY INHUMANE WAY TO TREAT DISABLED AMERICANS. I’M BRINGING THIS INCREDIBLE, INSENSITIVE, MURDEROUS HURTFULNESS TO AMERICA’S ATTENTION. DISABLED PEOPLE HAVE A HUMAN RIGHT TO BE ABLE TO COVER NEEDED EXPENSES WITHOUT THAT MONEY BEING TAKEN AWAY AFTER A LOW THRESHOLD OF $85/MONTH ALLOWED, DATING FROM $1972. COME ON, AMERICA, WE HAVE TO UPDATE THE ALLOWABLE AMOUNT OF MONEY TO OUR TIME AND MAKE IT AT LEAST 52 TIMES THE JOB AREA’S MIN WAGE, JUST AS IT HAD THIS RATIO IN 1972.
Robin
There’s also SSI – supplemental security insurance, to supplement SSDI, for those who don’t have enough work history when they become disabled.
My question is, how come SSI’s economic rules haven’t changed at all since the inception of the program in 1972? Even the census is updated every 10 years. Why not SSI’s rules?
Here are the problems: allowable unearned monthly income is $20, and allowable earned monthly income is $65. The total of the two is $85, then the gov’t wants back 1 for every 2 dollars earned.
20 plus 65 may have worked in 1972 when the minimum wage was $1.60/hour. That was the context for these amounts. The 20 unearned amount was 12 times the minimum wage, and the 65 earned amount was 40 times the minimum wage, in 1972!
In 1972, TV was free, there were no computers, no cell phones, coffee was 10 cents, rent was what? 30, 40 dollars a month? Etc.
$85 is nothing in today’s 2016 economy. We are not living in 1972!!!! How come the amounts haven’t been modernized to our minimum wages? It should be, for each minimum wage around the country. The minimum wages vary greatly, so it can’t be just one figure. It should be to the minimum wage for the area the person lives and functions in. There’s a range, I think, of 7 dollars and some cents per hour, up to 15/hour, around the country.
Any minimum wage then, should be used as the base for the amounts. For example, let’s say one’s minimum wage is 10/hr, then 12 times that is $120 unearned allowed, and 40 times that is 400 earned allowed. The two total $520 before any giveback. That’s certainly a lot better than the $85 allowable total from 1972’s time that people are being subjected to today!! This is wrong!!
And perhaps many would think that that is still too low for today’s expenses. Do we think that people actually need double or even triple the ratios of 1972 in order to cover today’s expenses? Today’s expenses are a lot greater than in 1972.
In any event, why should anyone be subjected to economic rules from 44 years ago? That doesn’t work. Congress, where are you? Everyone says Congress makes the rules. Well, Congress hasn’t kept up with the economic changes, including minimum wage changes, expenses of daily living. Congress, it’s time to allow disabled people to cover their expenses!
oliver w.
Nice ideas . I was fascinated by the details – Does anyone know if I could possibly get a fillable a form example to complete ?
R.F.
Click here for Social Security forms.
WILNA H.
HOW DO I GET THIS