es and no. It was never sustainable to have 7+ kids a generation and to expect that is foolhardy. In other words, there was too much money spent, because the entire premise of social security resided on a ponzi scheme.
Yea…..but you’re exaggerating. We’re at something like 1.6 to 1.8 children per family today (Lyman Stone would know exactly) and when the designers of SS and Medicare were doing their math, the expectation was that families would continue to have (IIRC) around 3. It was never seven. If Lyman reads this, he’ll probably know what the children per family in the early 60’s was off the top of his head.
The essential point is that social security resided on a status quo remaining and it was foolish to presume it would always remain (and yes, in fact, it changed within a generation). Since it was assumed, the money was spent rather than saved believing in that safety net.
Well….the money is there, just borrowed. But I agree with the first point. In retrospect, the payroll tax probably should have floated with some variable.