Neil Irwin at the New York Times thinks Social Security isn't fair. The rich get a much better deal than the poor.
I hate to point it out but Irwin's analysis like every other analysis that attempts to compute a rate of return on Social Security is deeply flawed since it fails to take into consideration dependent and survivor benefits. However, in this case I don't know that this flaw necessarily detracts from his point. Both rich and poor receive dependent and survivor benefits. I don't know that either gets a better return on dependent and survivor benefits. Just don't take the rates of return that Irwin is giving literally. They're useful in making comparisons but in absolute terms they're meaningless.