Social Security Is a Promise, Not an Entitlement. Stop Calling It One.

Words matter. The words we use to describe things shape how people think about them. And there is no better example of this than the word “entitlement” as it is applied to Social Security.

Every time a politician, a news anchor, or a budget analyst calls Social Security an “entitlement,” they are doing something dangerous. They are turning a promise into a handout. They are reframing something you earned into something you are begging for.

I have been writing about workforce and retirement policy for years, and this language trick has bothered me for just as long. It is time to call it what it is: a deliberate strategy to weaken public support for a program that tens of millions of Americans depend on.

You Paid for This

Let me state the basic facts, because they seem to get lost in the political noise.

If you worked in the United States and earned a paycheck, you paid into Social Security. Every single paycheck, from your first job to your last, had a Social Security tax taken out. Your employer matched that amount. Over a 40-year career, most workers and their employers pay hundreds of thousands of dollars into the system.

This is not a gift. This is not welfare. This is not some generous act by the government. You paid for it. You and your employer paid for it every pay period for your entire working life.

When you reach retirement age and start collecting benefits, you are receiving money from a system you funded. You held up your end of the deal. Now the government must hold up its end.

That is a promise. Call it what it is.

The “Entitlement” Trick

The word “entitlement” has two meanings, and opponents of Social Security exploit the gap between them.

In a technical, government-budgeting sense, an “entitlement” simply means a program where spending is determined by eligibility rules rather than annual budget decisions. If you meet the criteria, you get the benefit. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security all fall into this category. So do veterans’ benefits and federal employee pensions. In this sense, the word is neutral. It just describes a type of program.

But in everyday English, “entitlement” carries a very different tone. It suggests someone who thinks they deserve something they have not earned. An entitled person is spoiled, demanding, ungrateful. When people hear “entitlement reform,” they do not think of neutral budget categories. They think of cutting benefits for people who want too much.

This is not an accident. Political strategists chose this framing on purpose. By lumping Social Security into the “entitlement” category alongside programs funded entirely by general tax revenue, they blur the lines. They make it easier to argue for cuts. They make it sound like reducing your benefits is simply trimming government waste.

It is not. It is breaking a promise.

Before we talk about the politics, let us remember what this program does in real life.

Social Security provides monthly income to roughly 67 million Americans. That includes retirees, disabled workers, and the surviving spouses and children of deceased workers.

For about 40% of older adults, Social Security provides the majority of their income. For roughly 14% of older Americans, it is their only source of income. Without it, the poverty rate among seniors would be several times higher than it is now.

These are not abstract numbers. These are your neighbors, your parents, your friends from church. The woman down the street who worked as a teacher for 35 years. The man at the hardware store who spent his career in construction. The widow living on her late husband’s survivor benefit.

Social Security is the most successful anti-poverty program in American history. It has kept tens of millions of older adults out of poverty for nearly a century. And it works because it is universal. Everyone pays in. Everyone benefits. It is not charity. It is insurance.

The Real Financial Picture

Critics of Social Security often describe it as “going broke.” This is misleading at best and dishonest at worst.

Here is the actual situation. The Social Security trust funds are projected to be depleted in the mid-2030s. If nothing changes by then, the program would still be able to pay about 80% of scheduled benefits from ongoing payroll tax revenue alone.

That is a real problem that needs a real solution. But “we need to make adjustments to keep the program fully funded” is very different from “the program is bankrupt and cannot survive.”

There are straightforward ways to close the funding gap, and most of them do not require cutting benefits for current or near-retirees.

Raise or eliminate the payroll tax cap. In 2026, Social Security taxes apply only to the first portion of earned income, roughly $170,000. Every dollar above that is tax-free. This means a person earning $170,000 and a person earning $5 million pay the same amount in Social Security taxes. Lifting or removing this cap would bring in substantial new revenue.

Adjust the cost-of-living formula. There are ongoing debates about whether the current formula accurately reflects the expenses older adults face, particularly health care costs. A more accurate formula could actually increase benefits for some recipients.

Gradually raise the full retirement age. This is already happening slowly. Further modest adjustments, with protections for physically demanding occupations, could help.

Increase immigration. More workers means more people paying into the system. This is an economic fact, whatever your views on immigration policy.

The point is that solutions exist. Social Security is not an unsolvable problem. It is a math problem with multiple reasonable answers. The only reason it has not been fixed is political will.

Who Benefits from the “Entitlement” Frame

Ask yourself: who gains when Social Security is called an entitlement?

Not retirees. Not disabled workers. Not surviving families.

The people who benefit are those who want to cut the program, privatize it, or redirect its funding elsewhere. When Social Security sounds like a handout, it is easier to argue for “reform” (a polite word for cuts). When it sounds like welfare, it is easier to turn younger workers against it (“why should my taxes pay for their retirement?”).

Wall Street has eyed Social Security for decades. Privatization would mean trillions of dollars flowing into investment accounts that generate fees for financial firms. Every percentage point of Social Security that gets diverted into private accounts is a revenue stream for someone.

I am not a conspiracy theorist. I am pointing out that language serves interests. And the “entitlement” label serves the interests of people who want to dismantle a program that works.

What We Should Call It Instead

Social Security is social insurance. You pay premiums (payroll taxes) during your working years. You collect benefits when you meet the criteria (retirement age, disability, or survivor status). It pools risk across the entire population so that no one faces old age or disability with nothing.

Insurance is the right word because that is exactly how the program functions. You do not call your home insurance an “entitlement” when you file a claim after a fire. You paid your premiums. You met the terms. You are owed the benefit.

Social Security works the same way. You paid in. You met the terms. You are owed the benefit.

Some people call it an “earned benefit.” I think that captures the truth well. You earned it. Through decades of work and mandatory contributions. It is yours.

What I Want You to Do

I am not writing this article to make you feel good. I am writing it to make you speak up.

Correct the language when you hear it. When a news report calls Social Security an “entitlement,” say something. Write a letter to the editor. Post on social media. Tell your friends. Language changes when enough people push back.

Contact your representatives. Tell them that Social Security is not on the table for cuts. Tell them you expect them to strengthen the program, not weaken it. Be specific: support lifting the payroll tax cap. Oppose raising the retirement age for people in physically demanding jobs. Oppose benefit cuts for current and near-retirees.

Talk to younger people. One of the most effective attacks on Social Security has been convincing younger workers that the program will not be there for them. That becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy if they stop supporting it. Tell them the truth: Social Security can be there for them if we make the political choice to fund it.

Vote on this issue. When candidates talk about “entitlement reform,” ask them what they mean. If they mean cutting your benefits, vote accordingly. This is not a partisan issue. It is a promise that both parties have made for nearly 90 years.

The Promise

In 1935, President Franklin Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law. He called it “a law that will take care of human needs and at the same time provide the United States an economic structure of vastly greater soundness.”

That was a promise. A promise that if you work hard and contribute to this system, the system will be there for you when you need it. Every generation since has renewed that promise through their payroll taxes.

I paid into Social Security for 42 years. So did my wife. So did tens of millions of Americans reading this. We kept our end of the bargain.

Now it is time for the government to keep its end. Not as a favor. Not as charity. Not as an “entitlement.” As a promise. A promise earned, a promise owed, and a promise that must be kept.

Stop letting anyone tell you otherwise.

Robert A. Williams is a workforce policy advocate and former corporate operations director based in Chicago. For corrections or updates, please contact us.