Democrats in Congress have moved into full swing on the issue of Social Security, offering two mega-proposals to finance the program for decades into the future.  Sounds too good to be true.

It depends upon who you are.

Back in May, Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) announced legislation under the "Social Security 2100 Act" brand that would raise $22 trillion in new taxes on the rich, according to the Social Security Administration.  More recently, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.) introduced the "Medicare and Social Security Fair Share Act" in both houses of Congress, prospectively raising $26 trillion. 

Theoretically, fixing Social Security through tax hikes would be easy.  The far harder part is getting younger workers to accept less and less in the way of government services.  In reality, these changes represent trillions of dollars that would be unavailable for things like free health care, student loan forgiveness, and a universal basic income.

The common theme is "tax the rich."  That strategy doesn't bother me because I am not rich, but both of these proposals introduce a radical new concept to Social Security: a contribution without benefit.  That does concern me.

This aspect of the proposals worries policy experts as well because the change would erode the historic character of the program: that benefits are earned by contribution.  At times, policy experts may talk about the character of the program or its founding ethos.  In layman's terms, Social Security, by design, is not welfare. 

These proposals make the program welfare, where the rich pick up the tab for workers who didn't contribute enough over their working lives.  President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the godfather of Social Security, didn't want Social Security to be another welfare program because he wanted to pre-empt the annual debate about who needs benefits and who doesn't.  Once we break the foundation of the program, there are no more earned benefits. 

I am also concerned because I sense that FDR was right about payroll taxes and politicians.

The marketing side of the politics selling these changes concerns me as well.  Contribution without benefit is another way to say "bailout."  In lieu of the accurate term, politicians package the changes in the terms of "fairness."

It is pretty important that voters understand the meaning of "fair."  In the original version of Social Security, "fair" meant you would be paid based on what you contributed as an individual.  In this context, "fair" means that you pay based on what you have and receive based on the generosity of Congress.

The final concern that I see in all the proposals coming from the blue side of the aisle is that every plan depends upon future workers contributing more than current workers.  The bailout embedded in the fine print of the legislation increases with time because the thresholds are not indexed for inflation.  We are depending upon our children and grandchildren paying the taxes that we didn't. 

Of course, $400,000 of retirement income sounds like Saudi Prince–type money today.  With inflation of 2.4 percent, however, our children and grandchildren will pay 12.4 percent of their investment earnings to pay our bills.  That tax will hit them at $65,000 in their lifetime, and that is where the money is.

This tax isn't about billionaires.  This isn't Elon Musk.  It is the Dave Ramsey millionaire who drove used cars and packed his lunch.  The money is coming from savers, which sounds as though we are going to make those who prepared for retirement pay for the retirement of those who didn't. 

That concerns me a lot.

Brenton Smith (think@heartland.org) is a policy adviser with The Heartland Institute.