Not sure I would have ever believed it - although I guess I never thought of including Medicare - nor do I think I have the wherewithal to prove or disprove it. Thoughts?
Yes, why stop at those who turn 65 in 2030 (my age, currently 45)? Is it because they don't feel confident about the data after that point, or because it will no longer support the author's thesis?
If you do a quick calculation of (benefits received / taxes paid), you will see a very consistent pattern: as you get younger, the "return on investment" (if you want to call it that) gets steadily worse.
For example, look at the first table, using a single man earning $43,100 in 2010 dollars)
Born in 1895 (65 in 1960): $125,000/$17,600 = 710% (610% ROI)
Born in 1915 (65 in 1980): $257,000/$102,800 = 250% (150% ROI)
Born in 1945 (65 in 2010): $417,000/$345,000 = 121% (21% ROI)
Born in 1965 (65 in 2030): $569,000/$476,000 = 119% (19% ROI)
Hope I'm not supposed to get excited about an "investment" that returns a total of a real 19% over my lifetime of contributions (and yes, I recognize there are other benefits than just the old age pension component and that one also has to consider life expectancies or the chances of reaching 65 in each era). But if someone is going to write about it as an "investment," then it's fair to evaluate it as such in rebuttal.
But the real problem is that the deal gets worse for each new generation, and somehow each new generation has to be "sold" on preserving something that gives each successive generation a worse deal than their parents' generation.