Americans Are Not ‘Total Boomer Luxury Communists’
A curious argument has emerged in a small but loud corner of the right: that Social Security represents “total boomer luxury communism” that it must be cut to save America from generational plunder. The thesis, articulated in a recent American Mind piece (and reprinted in The Free Press), frames Social Security as an unsustainable Ponzi scheme where boomers vote themselves benefits at the expense of younger workers and genuine capital formation.
There’s just one problem: actual Americans—including actual conservatives and younger Americans—think Social Security benefits are too low, not too high.
A protester demonstrates against a Bush administration plan to privatize Social Security on June 18, 2001, in New York City. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
A new Economist/YouGov poll on Social Security spending reveals a remarkable bipartisan consensus. Asked whether federal spending on Social Security should increase or decrease, 67 percent of Americans favor increases (39 percent “a lot,” 28 percent “slightly”), while only six percent favor any cuts at all. Support for keeping spending the same reaches just 21 percent.
The partisan breakdown undermines any notion that there’s a conservative constituency for cutting Social Security. Among Trump voters, 62 percent favor increases (33 percent a lot, 29 percent slightly) while only nine percent want cuts. Among Harris voters, it’s 82 percent for increases (54 percent a lot, 28 percent slightly) with only one percent wanting cuts. Self-identified conservatives show 61 percent favoring increases with only 11 percent wanting cuts.
Even among Republicans, 62 percent want increases versus nine percent wanting cuts. Only five percent want Social Security spending cut by a lot, with four percent saying they support smaller cuts.
Workers of the U.S. Are United
The poll also reveals that opposition to Social Security cuts transcends income levels. Among those earning under $50,000 annually, only four percent want cuts. Among those earning $50,000 to $100,000, it’s six percent. Among those earning over $100,000, it’s seven percent. The differences are trivial.
The income gap appears primarily in enthusiasm for increases, not in willingness to cut. Those earning under $50,000 show 73 percent support for increases, compared to 65 percent for middle earners and 62 percent for those making over $100,000. Even among the highest earners, nearly two-thirds want Social Security spending to be increased. There’s no real class divide: supermajorities across every income group favor increased benefits.
This pattern suggests that debates about Social Security adequacy aren’t primarily driven by redistributive preferences or class conflict. Higher earners can afford to be slightly less enthusiastic about increases because they’re less dependent on the program. But even they recognize that the benefits are inadequate, and cuts are off the table. The political coalition for cutting Social Security doesn’t exist at any income level.
Support Isn’t a Boomer Thing
The most striking finding in the poll isn’t that seniors want more benefits—of course they do. It’s that young people, the supposed victims of generational plunder, show almost no interest in cutting Social Security.
Among 18-29 year-olds, only eight percent favor any cuts (four percent slightly and four percent a lot). Half want increases, 31 percent want to keep spending the same, and 12 percent aren’t sure. That means 81 percent of young adults support either the status quo or higher benefits.
This demolishes the “boomer communism” technocratic pitch for benefit cuts: that younger workers could be persuaded to accept reductions in exchange for “saving the system” or reducing their tax burden. The constituency for that bargain simply doesn’t exist. Young workers aren’t asking for their money back. They’re not demanding cuts to what they’ll pay in or receive. Across every age group, support for reducing benefits is essentially nonexistent.
The Pseudo-Populist Trap
The American Mind piece represents a particular strain of half-baked conservative sentiment that has adopted the elite fiscal-responsibility framework and tried to dress it in populist language by adding generational-conflict rhetoric. But disguising austerity in populist rhetoric doesn’t make the proposal to cut Social Security actually a populist proposal. Which is why it is unlikely to ever make the journey from an online magazine article to a national political party’s platform, much less actually become actual policy.
More likely, America will undertake a genuinely populist approach to Social Security that will start with what ordinary Americans across the political spectrum are actually saying: benefits should be higher. The question would then become how to make the system both more generous and sustainable.
This realization will likely require confronting the fact that the real fiscal challenge facing Social Security is not about finding the dollars to pay for things. The binding constraint is real resources not financing mechanics. In the future, we’ll have to support a large number of retirees who are not adding to economic production but are continuing to consume. This could result in inflation—too much demand chasing not enough supply—or the suppression of demand through higher taxes on workers or benefit cuts.
Neither of those choices is appealing—which is why they are unlikely to be what America chooses. The third way is to do everything we can to ensure that the workers of the future produce enough goods and services to provide a bountiful life for themselves and their parents and grandparents.
Starting from “this is luxury we can’t afford” puts you on the side of the six percent who want cuts, not the supermajority coalition that includes most Trump voters, most conservatives, and overwhelming majorities of every demographic group. Which means the U.S. needs to reform our tax system, our trade policies, and our regulations to super-charge domestic productivity.
If you are wondering what sort of Social Security reforms are likely to be adopted in the coming years, look for policies that accelerate growth and production.
