2009? thats one year. an outlier.
Yes, it was an unusual year. But it resulted in those payments being permanently higher relative to costs.
I understand PAYGO - it's an insurance system (not welfare), always unequal pay outs and pay ins
It's both insurance AND welfare. It's insurance in the sense that you're insuring against a long life. If you live longer than statistically normal, you wind up taking a lot more out of the system than you paid in. If you die young, you take out less than you paid in.
It's welfare in the sense that the ratio of what you're paid out, relative to what you paid in, tends to be higher the less you earn.
Specifically, the SS formula effectively uses a bracketing system that applies tiered percentages to indexed monthly earnings, such as:
(a) 90 percent of the first $1,024 of his/her average indexed monthly earnings, plus
(b) 32 percent of his/her average indexed monthly earnings over $1,024 and through $6,172, plus
(c) 15 percent of his/her average indexed monthly earnings over $6,172.
So, obviously, if you earned just $1,024, you'd get a monthly payment at that 90% level ($921.60). If you earned $10,000, it would be about 31.4%. ($3,143). So, at any given lifespan, that richer person would pay in nearly ten times as much, but take out only a little over three times as much. In effect, the higher earner would subsidize the retirement of the lower earner.
In addition to the insurance aspect and the welfare aspect, there's also the inter-generational transfer of wealth aspect. At least for older cohorts of retirees, a significant majority get back more value from SS than they ever paid in. And that makes sense, since they got to pay in at lower levels for all or part of their careers (the current SS tax rates only started in 1990, and as recently as the late 1960's it was a full two points lower), yet still get the same payout as younger people who have had to pay in at higher levels their whole careers. Some also got earlier retirement ages... anyone born before 1960 has a lower full retirement age than the rest of us. So, in effect, today's workers are subsidizing the retirements of older people, by paying in at higher rates and working longer.
In effect, our gerontocracy voted itself inter-generational welfare: requiring younger workers to pay in at higher levels and wait longer to retire, without giving them enhanced benefits, all so the older people could be paid out at levels unsupported by their own contributions. I will have worked my whole career at these higher SS tax levels, and at best my full retirement age will be 67, because I basically will have worked to cover the cost of that old-age welfare for those who came before me. Add to that the fact I live in a higher-cost, higher-income area, where we tend to get lower payouts from SS relative to what we pay in, and that's two forms of welfare hitting me.
what you need to understand is generating statistics isn't going to help come Nov.
The Dems are screwed in November. We've got rock-bottom unemployment. When has that ever NOT been a disaster for Democrats? When things are going well, more people are worried about upper-class taxes, and fewer people are thinking they might need government assistance, and that plays to the Republicans' strengths. There's a reason that the Dems lost the White House in 1952, 1968, 2000, and 2016. Prosperity puts people in a pro-Republican mindset.