Americans Are Not “Full Baby Boomer Extravagant Communists”

A curious debate has emerged within a specific segment of the right, suggesting that Social Security is somehow a representation of “Full Boomer Luxury Communism.” The argument posits that it needs to be cut to prevent generational decline—a position highlighted in a recent piece from American Mind and reprinted in Free Press, which portrays Social Security as an unsustainable pyramid scheme where boomers prioritize their own benefits at the cost of younger workers and genuine capital growth.

However, there’s a significant discrepancy here. Many real Americans, including conservatives and younger individuals, actually believe that the Social Security benefits are too low, not excessively high.

A new poll from The Economist and YouGov shows an intriguing bipartisan consensus on this issue. When asked about federal Social Security funding, an impressive 67% of Americans prefer an increase—39% advocating for a substantial rise and 28% suggesting a slight increase. In stark contrast, only 6% support any cuts, and just 21% want to maintain current funding levels.

The partisan divide challenges the notion that a conservative base is keen on reducing Social Security. Among those who voted for Trump, 62% are in favor of an increase (33% majorly, 29% slightly), while merely 9% support cuts. In comparison, 82% of Biden voters back an increase (54% significantly, 28% slightly), leaving only 1% in favor of reductions. Interestingly, 61% of conservatives also support tax increases, with just 11% seeking cuts.

Even within the Republican party, 62% desire an increase, compared to 9% who want reductions. Just 5% advocate for significant cuts to Social Security, and only 4% support smaller reductions.

American Workers Are United

Surveys indicate that opposition to cuts in Social Security transcends income levels. A mere 4% of individuals earning under $50,000 annually want to see cuts, while that figure is 6% for those earning between $50,000 and $100,000, and just 7% for those above $100,000. The differences across income brackets are negligible.

In fact, interest in increasing benefits is evident among all income groups. Among those earning less than $50,000, 73% support an increase, compared to 65% of middle-income earners and 62% of higher income individuals. Even at the top income levels, almost two-thirds want to see Social Security benefits rise. Overall, a supermajority from all income brackets backs an increase in benefits.

This trend implies that the discussion surrounding Social Security adequacy isn’t mainly driven by redistributive views or class conflicts. Higher earners might show a little less enthusiasm for bigger benefits due to less reliance on the program, yet they do recognize the reality of insufficient benefits, so cuts aren’t on the table for anyone. No political coalition exists at any income level seeking to cut Social Security.

Support Is Not for Baby Boomers

An unexpected finding in this poll is not just that older individuals want more benefits, but also that young individuals, who some argue are suffering from intergenerational unfairness, show minimal enthusiasm for cutting Social Security.

Among those aged 18 to 29, only 8% support cuts. In fact, around half of them favor increasing spending, while 31% want to keep it the same, and 12% are unsure. Consequently, 81% of young people either support maintaining the status quo or increasing benefits.

This undermines the pitch of “baby boomer communism” advocates, who claim that younger employees could be convinced to accept cuts in exchange for “saving the system” or lowering their tax obligations. There simply isn’t a base of support for such deals. Young workers haven’t demanded their contributions back or a reduction in what they receive; across all ages, support for benefit cuts is essentially nonexistent.

The Pseudo-Populist Trap

What’s noteworthy in the American Mind discourse reflects a trend within certain conservative circles, blending elite fiscal responsibility with intergenerational conflict rhetoric, draped in populist language. However, dressing austerity as populist doesn’t make the proposal to cut Social Security genuinely populist. Hence, it’s unlikely that pieces in online publications will evolve into a national party platform or actual policy.

Maybe America could adopt a truly populist approach to Social Security—one that starts with what average Americans, across the political spectrum, are expressing: benefits should be increased. The focus should shift to how to make this system more sustainable and accommodating.

Facing the financial challenge of Social Security centers not on funding but rather on genuine resources. Future society will need to support a growing population of retirees while managing demand without necessarily boosting economic output, which can induce inflation or suppress demand through higher taxes and benefit cuts.

Neither of these options sounds very appealing, which is why significant change seems unlikely. The alternative is to empower future workers to produce enough goods and services for themselves and the older generations.

If the narrative begins insisting, “This is a luxury we can’t afford,” it aligns with the 6% pushing for cuts instead of the substantial coalition that includes most Trump voters, conservatives, and majorities of all demographic groups. In essence, America needs to: reform taxation, trade policies, and regulations to boost domestic productivity.

If you’re curious about likely Social Security reforms in the near future, keep an eye out for initiatives designed to spur growth and increase production.