Milton Friedman on Social Security
Social Security, as we call it, is a combination of two separate programs, neither of which would have a chance of being enacted on its own. One program is a program of a flat-rate tax on wages up to a maximum: a regressive tax imposed at one of the worst places in the economic structure, where it introduces a gap between what the worker receives and what it costs the employer. You cannot conceive of that tax being enacted by itself as part of a financing program. The second component is a system of payments of subsidies, which, again, I cannot believe could have been enacted by itself. It is a system in which the amount a person receives depends on a whole variety of circumstances, some of which may be relevant and some of which may not be relevant to what you would like to have a subsidy program do. But you would never enact a subsidy program in which the largest subsidies go to the people who have earned the highest incomes. Yet when you tie the two together you have a sacred cow. I have always said it is one of the greatest marketing miracles of this century.
Context. From an August 1998 interview in Barron’s, reprinted in the Hoover Digest as “Mr. Market.” Asked whether the United States should privatize Social Security as Chile had done.
Where this comes from
Checked against the sourceThe wording was checked against the work itself.
Cite this passage
Milton Friedman, “Mr. Market” (Interview in Barron’s, August 24, 1998 (the questioner is identified only as Epstein); reprinted in Hoover Digest 1999 No. 1, 1998). https://miltonfriedman.org/quotes/social-security-two-programs-marketing-miracle-1998
Quoted for commentary and research. Rights in the underlying work remain with its rights holder, so cite the work itself, not only this page.
Topics
He also said
The link between the payroll tax and benefit payments is part of a confidence game to convince the public that what the Social Security Administration calls a social insurance program is equivalent to private insurance, in that, in the Administration’s words, “the workers themselves contribute to their own future retirement benefit by making regular payments into a joint fund.” Balderdash. Taxes paid by today’s workers are used to pay today’s retirees. If money is left over, it finances other government spending—though, to maintain the insurance fiction, paper entries are created in a “trust fund” that is simultaneously an asset and a liability of the government. When the benefits that are due exceed the proceeds from payroll taxes, as they will in the not very distant future, the difference will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing, creating money, or reducing other government spending. And that is true no matter how large the “trust fund.” The assurance that workers will receive benefits when they retire does not depend on the particular tax used to finance the benefits or on any “trust fund.” It depends solely on the expectation that future Congresses will honor promises made by earlier Congresses—what supporters call “a compact between the generations” and opponents call a Ponzi scheme.
Context. From an article on proposals to replace part of Social Security with individual investment accounts, written while the federal budget was in surplus. The quotation inside the passage is from the Social Security Administration.
The Biggest Ponzi Scheme on EarthColumn, 1999, The New York Times, January 11, 1999, as “Social Security Chimeras”; reprinted with minor editorial changes in Hoover Digest 1999 No. 2Checked against the sourceRead the sourceLet me take the example which today is the greatest sacred cow of them all, Social Security. Was there an overwhelming demand for Social Security in the 1930s when the law was adopted? Far from it. There was no public demand for it. It had to be sold. How was it sold? By the slickest devices of Madison Avenue, by imaginative packaging and deceptive labeling. Social Security was sold as an insurance scheme. It is not an insurance scheme. There is very little relationship to the amount of money any one individual pays and the amount of money he is entitled to receive. Social Security is a combination of a bad tax system with a bad way of distributing welfare.
Context. From his 1977 lecture “Myths That Conceal Reality.” Just before, he says that the measures that expanded government were adopted without any underlying public demand; the demand had to be created.
Milton Friedman Speaks - Myths That Conceal RealitySpeech, 1977, at 26:02Checked against the sourceWatch itIf you are going to get the profits, you have to take the losses. I have always said the essence of a free-market system, which tends to be called a profit-and-loss system, is that the loss component is more important than the profit component. You need the discipline of the loss in order to keep the system going.
Context. From an August 1998 interview in Barron’s, reprinted in the Hoover Digest as “Mr. Market.” Discussing the 1995 U.S.-led rescue of Mexico, which he says bailed out New York bankers who had lent there, and which he opposed.
Mr. MarketInterview, 1998, Interview in Barron’s, August 24, 1998 (the questioner is identified only as Epstein); reprinted in Hoover Digest 1999 No. 1Checked against the sourceRead the transcript
Think this quote is wrong, misattributed, or missing context? Report it and it gets fixed, not argued with.