The War on Social Security:

A Thought Experiment on America’s Future

America stands at a crossroads. There are those—immensely wealthy, politically connected, and utterly indifferent to the suffering of others—who seek to dismantle Social Security, not because it’s failing, but because it represents an obstacle to their insatiable accumulation of power and wealth.

For decades, Social Security has functioned as a stabilizing force, preventing millions from slipping into abject poverty in their later years. Yet, in backroom meetings and billionaire-funded think tanks, there’s a growing movement to gut the system under the guise of “fiscal responsibility.” They want to seize the revenue streams currently earmarked for America’s retirees and redirect them into the pockets of hedge fund managers and private equity vultures.

As voters, as Americans, we have a responsibility—not just to ourselves, but to our country—to make the best decision for the nation as a whole. So let’s take a look at what Social Security is, what it has done, and what the future holds with and without it.

The Origins and Function of Social Security

Social Security, established in the United States in 1935 under President Franklin D. Roosevelt as part of the New Deal, was created in response to the dire economic circumstances of the Great Depression. Prior to its implementation, elderly Americans faced significant hardship. Even before the depression, it was common for older individuals to experience poverty due to limited or nonexistent pensions, savings, or family support. Unsupported elderly often relied heavily on charity, family members, or faced life in poorhouses, institutions known for harsh conditions and social stigma. This lack of systematic support meant many older adults endured significant financial insecurity and a diminished quality of life.

The idealism behind Social Security was rooted in the belief that society has a collective responsibility to provide basic economic security for its citizens, especially the elderly, disabled, and survivors. It aimed to offer dignity and independence to retirees and lessen economic vulnerability through guaranteed income support funded by payroll taxes from current workers.

Social Security functions primarily through contributions deducted from the payroll of working Americans. These funds are pooled and distributed to current retirees, persons with disabilities, and survivors of deceased workers. This pay-as-you-go model relies on the ongoing contributions of active workers to sustain benefits for beneficiaries, creating intergenerational dependency and solidarity.

The Future: Two Divergent Paths

Now, let’s take this thought experiment further. What happens if we expand Social Security? And what happens if we eliminate it entirely?

Scenario One: Expanding Social Security

One of the most common proposals for strengthening Social Security comes from the progressive camp: removing the earnings cap on payroll contributions. Right now, Social Security taxes are only applied to income up to $168,600 (as of 2024). Any earnings beyond that? Tax-free as far as Social Security is concerned.

If we lifted that cap and applied Social Security taxes to all income—especially the millions and billions earned by CEOs, hedge fund managers, and sports stars—Social Security could be fully funded for generations. Not only would this sustain the program, but it could also increase benefits for retirees and those with disabilities. Imagine a future where:

• The average Social Security check rises, providing a truly livable retirement income.
• Cost-of-living adjustments (COLA) fully match inflation, ensuring seniors never see their purchasing power eroded.
• Disability benefits become more robust, covering medical expenses and reducing financial insecurity.
• The system remains solvent indefinitely, with more people paying in at fair rates.

This scenario sees a world where retirees no longer have to choose between rent and medication, where seniors don’t take low-wage jobs just to survive, and where aging with dignity is an expectation, not a luxury.

Scenario Two: Eliminating Social Security

Now let’s consider the other extreme: What happens if Social Security is abolished?

• Immediate Economic Shock: Overnight, millions of seniors and disabled individuals would lose their sole source of income. The number of homeless elderly would skyrocket.
• Strained Families: The burden of elder care would fall squarely on families, many of whom are already struggling with stagnant wages and rising costs.
• Bankrupt Retirement Dreams: The private sector does not offer a viable replacement. 401(k)s and IRAs depend on the stock market—an inherently unstable vehicle that has crashed multiple times in the last two decades. Those who worked low-wage jobs, or jobs without retirement benefits, would be left with nothing.
• Local Governments Overwhelmed: Without federal safety nets, the burden would shift to state and municipal governments, many of which are already cash-strapped. Property taxes would rise, public services would collapse, and economic inequality would deepen.

Ultimately, a nation without Social Security would look like a dystopian nightmare where the elderly are discarded, forced into destitution or reliance on overburdened relatives. It would be a national disgrace—a betrayal of generations who paid into a system that was ripped out from under them.

The Choice We Face

So here we are, staring down two futures. One where we invest in the well-being of our elderly and disabled citizens, ensuring economic stability and dignity. And another where we strip away the last lifeline for millions, creating an economic and social disaster that benefits only the wealthiest elite.

It’s not just a matter of left versus right. It’s a question of what kind of country we want to live in. A society where people work their whole lives only to suffer in poverty? Or one where we recognize that ensuring basic security for all citizens is not just a moral obligation, but a practical necessity?

The war on Social Security is a war on us. The question is whether we fight back—or let them take everything we’ve built.