Milton Friedman on social security
What Friedman said about Social Security as a tax and transfer program rather than the insurance scheme it was sold as.
Let 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 itThe 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 sourceTo preserve the fiction that Social Security is insurance, however, federal government interest-bearing bonds of a corresponding amount have been deposited in a so-called trust fund. That is, one branch of the government, the Treasury, has given an interest-bearing IOU to another branch, the Social Security Administration. Each year thereafter, the Treasury gives the Social Security Administration additional IOUs to cover the interest due. The only way that the Treasury can redeem its debt to the Social Security Administration is to borrow the money from the public, run a surplus in its other activities, or have the Federal Reserve print the money—the same alternatives that would be open to it to pay Social Security benefits if there were no trust fund. But the accounting sleight of hand of a bogus trust fund is counted on to conceal this fact from a gullible public.
Context. From an article on President Clinton’s proposal to invest part of the Social Security funds in the stock market. Just before, he explains that Congress has collected more in Social Security taxes than current benefits required, though less than the future liability it was incurring, and that “the excess revenue has been spent in the ordinary course of government business.”
Social Security SocialismColumn, 1999, The Wall Street Journal, January 26, 1999; reprinted with minor editorial changes in Hoover Digest 1999 No. 2Checked against the sourceRead the sourceSocial 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.
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 transcriptIn 1964, Barry Goldwater was much reviled for suggesting that participation in Social Security be voluntary. I thought that was a good idea then; I still think it is. I find it hard to justify requiring 100 percent of the people to adopt a government-prescribed straitjacket to avoid encouraging a few “lower-income individuals to make no provision for their old age deliberately, knowing that they would receive the means-tested amount.”
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 words he quotes at the end are Martin Feldstein’s second reason for making contributions mandatory: that a means-tested program for the aged might encourage some lower-income individuals to make no provision for old age deliberately.
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 sourceAs these remarks indicate, the Social Security program involves a transfer from the young to the old. To some extent such a transfer has occurred throughout history—the young supporting their parents, or other relatives, in old age. … The difference between Social Security and earlier arrangements is that Social Security is compulsory and impersonal—earlier arrangements were voluntary and personal. Moral responsibility is an individual matter, not a social matter. Children helped their parents out of love or duty. They now contribute to the support of someone else’s parents out of compulsion and fear. The earlier transfers strengthened the bonds of the family; the compulsory transfers weaken them.
More generally, the fraction of a person’s income that it is reasonable for her or him to set aside for retirement depends on that person’s circumstances and values. It makes no more sense to specify a minimum fraction for all people than to mandate a minimum fraction of income that must be spent on housing or transportation. Our general presumption is that individuals can best judge for themselves how to use their resources. Mr. Feldstein simply asserts that in this particular case the government knows better.
Context. From an article on proposals to replace part of Social Security with individual investment accounts, written while the federal budget was in surplus. He is answering the economist Martin Feldstein, who had argued in 1995 that contributions to a privatized system must be mandatory, first because some individuals are too shortsighted to provide for their own retirement.
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 sourceI have often speculated that an ingenious way for a socialist to achieve his objective in the United States would be to persuade Congress, in the name of fiscal responsibility, to (1) fully fund obligations under Social Security and (2) invest the accumulating reserves in the private capital market by purchasing equity interests in domestic corporations.
Context. Written after President Clinton proposed that a quarter of the funds set aside for Social Security be invested in the stock market. Just before, he contrasts Margaret Thatcher, who reversed Britain’s drift to socialism by selling off government-owned enterprises, with a plan for the U.S. government to buy private equities.
Social Security SocialismColumn, 1999, The Wall Street Journal, January 26, 1999; reprinted with minor editorial changes in Hoover Digest 1999 No. 2Checked against the sourceRead the sourceThe payroll tax is a bad tax: a regressive tax on productive activity. It should long since have been repealed. Privatizing Social Security would be a good occasion to do so.
Context. From an article on proposals to replace part of Social Security with individual investment accounts, written while the federal budget was in surplus. Just before, he argues that the debt created by funding Social Security’s promises to every participant could be paid, like any other government debt, by taxing, borrowing, creating money or cutting other spending, so there is no more reason to pay it with a payroll tax than any other part of the debt.
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 source
Looking for something he said on this that is not here? Tell us, or ask the archive in your own words.