While I share your ignorance about how things are done in Australia and your general description of Social Security I think a couple of points might be worth considering. First, Social Security is not a UBI or even supposed to be sufficient to support someone in retirement. It is a supplemental income program that, that people pay into. I agree that there is a rather large disconnect between what you pay in and what you can expect to take out based on your personal situation.
That said, it also seems to share some of the same concerns that OP makes. Many question if those paying in now will actually be able to collect, solvency issues. While I don’t think any talks about this (but I don’t look so it could be well known and discussed in some circles) there seems to be a very clear bias towards the “haves” actually being able to pull the most out compared to those most needing it. Look at the payout schedule for delaying your payment until 70. Those that need cannot wait. My supposition is that this incentive to delay for a few years is largely about cash flow issues related to the whole question of solvency. But clearly that introduces some, arguably, undesirable distributional effects.
I would also point out that while you can start collecting at 62 you will not be collecting what is considered your full monthly supplemental income. You get penalized for taking payment early (full age and full payment depends on when you were born—for me I have to be 66 1⁄2 to collect a full payout) just as you get a premium for waiting.
I think one can find plenty of similar points of contention related to Social Security as is raised in the OP.
Edit to add a small pointer to Alaska. That State, unless it’s changed, has something of a UBI type payout. It’s based on the royalties one mineral and oil leases on State land. All Alaskan citizens get their share (not sure if it’s uniform or proportional to some factor). Perhaps some make similar complaints about that program as are raised in the OP but if not then it might be something of a compare and contrast option.
I think the intention of Social Security is to provide enough money for you to survive, but not neccesarily live comfortably, which matches how UBI’s are marketed. It’s possible with inflation it’s not even good enough for that, but I suspect if it actually caused major problems it would be fixed, since it’s a very popular program.
I don’t think solvency is a real problem for Social Security necessarily. For historical reasons we pretend that workers pay in and then get benefits and Social Security supports itself, but that’s not true and hasn’t been for a while, but the program is still popular. I expect that if Social Security’s surplus runs out, the funding from general taxes / printing money will increase to compensate.
Note that really the only argument I’ve heard against Social Security is that it’s too expensive, but that argument will have much less power if we’re living in a world of such extreme abundance that most people don’t need to work.
While I share your ignorance about how things are done in Australia and your general description of Social Security I think a couple of points might be worth considering. First, Social Security is not a UBI or even supposed to be sufficient to support someone in retirement. It is a supplemental income program that, that people pay into. I agree that there is a rather large disconnect between what you pay in and what you can expect to take out based on your personal situation.
That said, it also seems to share some of the same concerns that OP makes. Many question if those paying in now will actually be able to collect, solvency issues. While I don’t think any talks about this (but I don’t look so it could be well known and discussed in some circles) there seems to be a very clear bias towards the “haves” actually being able to pull the most out compared to those most needing it. Look at the payout schedule for delaying your payment until 70. Those that need cannot wait. My supposition is that this incentive to delay for a few years is largely about cash flow issues related to the whole question of solvency. But clearly that introduces some, arguably, undesirable distributional effects.
I would also point out that while you can start collecting at 62 you will not be collecting what is considered your full monthly supplemental income. You get penalized for taking payment early (full age and full payment depends on when you were born—for me I have to be 66 1⁄2 to collect a full payout) just as you get a premium for waiting.
I think one can find plenty of similar points of contention related to Social Security as is raised in the OP.
Edit to add a small pointer to Alaska. That State, unless it’s changed, has something of a UBI type payout. It’s based on the royalties one mineral and oil leases on State land. All Alaskan citizens get their share (not sure if it’s uniform or proportional to some factor). Perhaps some make similar complaints about that program as are raised in the OP but if not then it might be something of a compare and contrast option.
I think the intention of Social Security is to provide enough money for you to survive, but not neccesarily live comfortably, which matches how UBI’s are marketed. It’s possible with inflation it’s not even good enough for that, but I suspect if it actually caused major problems it would be fixed, since it’s a very popular program.
I don’t think solvency is a real problem for Social Security necessarily. For historical reasons we pretend that workers pay in and then get benefits and Social Security supports itself, but that’s not true and hasn’t been for a while, but the program is still popular. I expect that if Social Security’s surplus runs out, the funding from general taxes / printing money will increase to compensate.
Note that really the only argument I’ve heard against Social Security is that it’s too expensive, but that argument will have much less power if we’re living in a world of such extreme abundance that most people don’t need to work.