It’s a subtle difference but I always heard it presented like it was a federal retirement account but is actually insurance for getting old.
An aspect of the “survivors and disability” part is for when you die before you can take out your payments but you have disabled children who need support. You can sign away your-never-to-be-used-otherwise-benefits to your disabled children to take care of them.
That’s the survivors part. The disability part is if you become disabled after working for some time and have contributed enough to the Social Security fund, you can file for SSDI and start receiving a monthly benefit (reduced from what your retirement benefit would be) prior to retirement.
Also your children do not have to be disabled to qualify for survivor’s benefits
That’s cool.
Also your spouse may be entitled to a portion of your payout.
Cynically, this is because it allows the recipients to feel entitled to it without having to also hold a positive view of taxation. This means a typically conservative demographic (the elderly) can be convinced to vote for things that hurt them (i.e. for tax cuts).
For me it sunk in that we really need both. Insurance against the inability to work due to just getting old and retirement to allow for enjoyment and experience a life beyond the grind.
Seems reasonable.
