Looking at how Social Security is funded and distributed fits typical definitions of a welfare program.
I disagree. Typical definitions of a welfare program have money going to poor people as a central feature. That doesn't describe Social Security.
Social Security pays a disproportionate amount to those who are well off. There are two factors. The amount you get paid out depends on how much you put in, and your life span. People who are better off generally wind up paying in more, and then live longer to collect benefits. Overall Social Security represents a wealth transfer from young to old, and from the poor to the top 20% of the population.
Oh right, and in recent decades it has been a net source of working revenue for the federal government, through the form of buying Treasury bonds. But now it is considered broken because the federal government does not have any way to pay back to Social Security money that is owed it from general funds...
Social Security pays a disproportionate amount to those who are well off.
I agree with this criticism of Social Security and this basis for saying that Social Security is distinct from welfare. The reason I tend to regard Social Security as a welfare program is that it is, I think by general agreement, an ENTITLEMENT program, in other words a program that a subsidized recipient can draw from with only minimal reference to individual characteristics of the recipient. (You disagree with me on that point, in part, but the degree to which Social Security payments to recipients are linked to taxpayer "contributions" to a Social Security account is only partial, not on exact actuarial principles.)
Well obviously Social Security is an entitlement program. So is Veterans Benefits and Services. That doesn't make either welfare.
Anyways most of this is a terminology argument. You're defining welfare broadly as any government spending for the purpose of helping (mostly poor) people. The researchers defined welfare narrowly as the federal government's contribution towards the cost of sending people welfare checks. (That would be money spent on TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families).) Reasonable arguments can be formulated for either definition. The fact that they use a more narrow and technical definition doesn't make their definition wrong. Nor does it indicate any dishonesty on their part.
I disagree. Typical definitions of a welfare program have money going to poor people as a central feature. That doesn't describe Social Security.
Social Security pays a disproportionate amount to those who are well off. There are two factors. The amount you get paid out depends on how much you put in, and your life span. People who are better off generally wind up paying in more, and then live longer to collect benefits. Overall Social Security represents a wealth transfer from young to old, and from the poor to the top 20% of the population.
Oh right, and in recent decades it has been a net source of working revenue for the federal government, through the form of buying Treasury bonds. But now it is considered broken because the federal government does not have any way to pay back to Social Security money that is owed it from general funds...