It seems like about 19% of all Americans have zero net worth, and something like 44% of single American retirees are dependent on Social Security for 90% or more of their income, implying they saved very little throughout their entire lifetimes.
In the same way, should pensions be counted as part of savings?
And if you run the calculations that way, what does it do to the distribution of wealth?
Note well: I am not saying that this is the right way to run the calculations. But I think it could be a somewhat informative alternate way to do them.
Therefore, that is subject to change at the whim of those in charge of changing the laws. Sure, it's politically ugly to reduce/eliminate, but a severe recession could easily change that.
Yes, it's a tax (though they don't call it that). No, it's not a savings account. And yet...
This is why some people call social security a pyramid scheme - built into the system is an assumption that the number of workers will always increase or that interest rates will make that moot.
... but the trust fund is spending more than it's taking in. So current taxes are generating less than current recipients receive. Clearly that is unsustainable. And when the trust fund runs out of money, current taxes will have to equal current benefits, and one side or the other will have to give.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superannuation_in_Australia
The pros are obvious but the cons are significant; it can be a very poor investment for some people. It's also criticised for locking up a lot of savings in an unproductive way.
Some people have other interests that gathering power and money. So why is it fair we build a world only for the powerfull and wealthy?