I was recently on a flight from Philadelphia to Hilton Head. Behind me was a couple in their 60s, and I couldn't help but overhear their conversation with their seatmate.

They were saying how much they loved retirement. They were talking about how the pension and healthcare benefits they were receiving from their former corporate jobs were allowing them to travel and see their grandkids whenever they wanted. And they were both excited to get to their vacation home — their third home! — which they boasted was being paid for entirely by their monthly Social Security checks.

Good for them. They earned it, right?

But come on — is this what Social Security is for? Is this what FDR intended when he established this program back in 1935? To fund a life of leisure and a vacation home for two upper-middle-class retirees?

I am 60 years old and a small-business owner. According to the rules, I will soon be allowed to start collecting Social Security and receiving Medicare benefits. If I were to begin collecting Social Security at the age of 62, my monthly payment would be about $2,500. If I wait until the age of 70, my monthly payment will be $5,000. This doesn't include the payments my wife will receive.

When we turn 65, both my wife and I will also be eligible for Medicare. That means that our hospital insurance will be free. And although we will pay a separate premium for doctor visits and prescription drugs, the premium will be significantly less — thousands less per year — than we are paying right now.

That's lots of extra cash coming in just a few years. Should we buy a vacation home in Hilton Head too?

That’s one way to look at it. But there’s also another way: It's people like us that are causing these entitlement programs to go broke.

The 2024

© The Hill