Skip to main content

Sign up for our newsletter.

Quality journalism. Progressive values. Direct to your inbox.

Activists participate in a rally calling for the expansion of Social Security benefits in front of the White House July 13, 2015 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Report Details How Social Security Has Become Rigged for the Wealthy While Leaving Behind Those It Was Designed to Help

"The program's become less progressive," said Jim Roosevelt, a former Social Security Administration official and grandson of FDR.

Jake Johnson

The benefits of Social Security, a program designed to help vulnerable and low-income people, have since the 1980s become increasingly skewed toward the wealthy due to demographic shifts and soaring inequality, according to a new report.

Proponents of Social Security expansion, responding to the report (pdf) by Boston College's Center for Retirement Research, said the New Deal-era program's increasing regressivity was not inevitable, but the result of lawmakers' refusal to enact basic progressive reforms such as lifting the cap on income subject to the Social Security payroll tax.

"We have to expand the system. Social Security is extremely important to low-income people. They're less likely to work in jobs that have private pensions, so it's more likely to be their only retirement income."
—Nancy Altman, Social Security Works

"The program's become less progressive," said Jim Roosevelt, a former associate commissioner for retirement policy at the Social Security Administration and a grandson of former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who signed the Social Security Act into law in 1935.

"It doesn't take care of the people at the lower- and middle-income levels as well as it was intended do, and it needs to be updated," Roosevelt said of Social Security in its present form.

According to the Center for Retirement Research report, which was published late last month, longer life expectancy among high-earners has allowed the wealthy to delay claiming their Social Security benefits, resulting in a larger payout. Lower-income people, by contrast, often cannot afford to delay claiming their benefits.

"Those who take the option of collecting early can claim benefits as early as 62, but they receive 5 to 6.6 percent less each year—a kind of early retirement penalty—depending on their age when they begin drawing payments," the Boston Globe reported Monday. "Those who delay collecting until beyond their full retirement age get a credit of 8 percent each year up to age 70, the maximum age of eligibility."

Anqi Chen, co-author of the study, told the Globe that "lower earners were supposed to gain more from Social Security."

"But those who can't wait to collect at their full retirement age are now getting penalized," said Chen.

Nancy Altman, president of progressive advocacy group Social Security Works, said the new report is further evidence that "we have to expand the system."

"Social Security is extremely important to low-income people," said Altman. "They're less likely to work in jobs that have private pensions, so it's more likely to be their only retirement income."

Altman has voiced support for Rep. John Larson's (D-Conn.) Secure 2100 Act, which was introduced on FDR's 137th birthday in January.

The legislation, which has over 200 Democratic co-sponsors in the House, would subject all income above $250,000 to the Social Security Payroll tax and expand the program's minimum benefit.

"When President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act of 1935 into law, he stated that the legislation represented 'a cornerstone in a structure which is being built but is by no means complete,'" Altman said in January. "Were he alive today, FDR would be gratified to see that Rep. John Larson and the over 200 Democratic co-sponsors are honoring his wishes by building on the foundation of Social Security."


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.

Despite Housing Crisis, Mississippi May Return Up to Millions in Federal Rent Aid to DC

"For them to suggest people like me aren't working? It's a slap in the face," said one woman affected by the end of the pandemic assistance program. "It's very insulting and degrading."

Brett Wilkins ·


80% of US Voters Across Party Lines Support Expanding Social Security

"With Republicans threatening to cut benefits—and worse, eliminate the program entirely—Dems need to make clear they're fighting to protect and expand benefits."

Jessica Corbett ·


Rich Nations Again Accused of Vaccine Hoarding as UK OKs Moderna Omicron Booster

"While countries like the U.K. buy updated vaccines for their fourth doses, people in low- and middle-income countries are fighting today's variants with yesterday's vaccines."

Brett Wilkins ·


With Trumpian Claims of Cheating, Starbucks Demands Halt to Union Elections

"Unfortunately, it's now in vogue for the losers of some elections nationwide to attempt to reverse elections by any means they think are necessary," said Starbucks Workers United.

Jake Johnson ·


Richest Country on Earth to One of Its Poorest: We're Keeping the Money We Stole From You

A foreign affairs columnist called the move by the Biden administration a "shortsighted, morally unconscionable, and potentially calamitous decision for a country on the cusp of universal poverty."

Julia Conley ·

Common Dreams Logo