While we're on the topic of SS let me clear up a common misconception, one that is often espoused by politicians. SS program is NOT a retirement savings program. It is not, never has been, and never will be. It IS an insurance program.
The official title is Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance program. Like all insurance programs it operates on the principal that all current contributors into the fund are the ones who pay the benefits that the beneficiaries are currently receiving. And, like all insurance funds, if the income exceeds the payout, the surplus is invested to cover future shortfalls, or is returned to the payers. Of course, with SS the latter never happens. As with all insurance funds you must satisfy the requirements for receiving a benefit. For fire insurance you don't receive a benefit unless your home burns down. For car insurance you have to have automobile damage to receive benefits. A primary requirement for all insurance funds is you must be currently contributing to the fund in order to receive benefits. Note that employment taxes that you see taken out of your paycheck are taken in accordance with the Federal Insurance Contributions Act, or FICA. It's not called a retirement fund!
In order to collect SS benefits you must have, 1) contributed into the fund for at least 40 quarters of credits, or be the spouse of one who has; 2) and have reached the specified retirement age; or, 3) be disabled in accordance with certain criteria; or 4) be a surviving unremarried spouse of a worker who is deceased; or 5) be a child of a deceased worker under the age of 16 (18 if a student) or be disabled. There are variations of these beneficiary qualifications. In short, no one is entitled to SS benefits UNLESS they meet the established criteria for receiving benefits. You have no claim on the contributions you made while working. When you pay it in it's gone, being used to pay benefits for current beneficiaries.
When SS was established in 1935 most families had only one income earner with all the members dependent upon that income. That is why the survivors provision is a part of it. Since the '60s many families have become 2 income households. SS benefits are determined for each earner according to their individual incomes, but always increased (never decreased) if the benefit as a spouse would be greater. No one collects full benefits under both earnings profiles, as a spouse and as a worker. This aspect of SS benefits does run contrary to the current reality of family earnings. But if the benefits were restricted to only the earner, then how do you provide for surviving spouses or children of a single income family? If SS were a retirement fund then a beneficiary could collect on both income contributions, but since it's an insurance program they collect from the fund as a whole only. Are the rules for collecting benefits fair? If you visualize it as a large tank of water that only beneficiaries are drinking from, and non-beneficiaries are the ones pouring water into it, then the only fairness question is, "Does the water being poured in equal or exceed the amount of water being drunk." That was the question the Reagan administration addressed back in 1984.
Originally, the Social Security Act included unemployment insurance. That was later moved into its own program as all states passed unemployment insurance laws.
