• Eldritch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        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.