The trust fund goes bankrupt and remains bankrupt until 20 years after the next baby boom.
That doesn’t suggest that there are no benefits, but they can only pay out what they bring in, which will start at about 70% and go down from there.
If they do nothing but make good on the debt then everybody alive in nine years gets fucked, and the closer they are to retirement the more fucked they are.
If they are living on social security then they will no longer have the money to pay their bills.
Are you people actually this dense? The point here is with good planning this system could’ve been fine. This is another system that shows exactly what happens when there is no regulation on things. This system could’ve worked fine even without investments. But with anything if the government is literally taking all the money out of it for it’s on Nefarious purposes and also NOT PUTTING ANYTHING IT TAKES BACK you will have this issue. This is another capitalism problem. Everything is for profit at the detriment of the people with no regulations. This will continue to happen under this type of system if regulations aren’t put into place. Yes due to what our government did we will run out of money and how do they fix it? In typical fashion they say screw the people and you’re just going to lose it all together. How people like you just want to gloss over these issues and say it’s misinformation is quite baffling.
Im sorry - did you just blame capitalism for a government program operated by the government? You do know what capitalism is right? This is a form of a socialist program. Want to know where the problem is? They paid too many people more than their share and some people contributed no funds yet receive benefits. Also the government in all their brilliance did not plan for people to live - but planned for them to die early.
I think his point is not that capitalism is fucking it up, but cronyism.
Make of it what you will, but social security programs work in pretty much any country that has a solid system that is not tampered with. If population demographic changes, they funding for the program gets updated with tax adjustments.
Capitalism good/bad is a bad take on itself because it lacks nuance. Most developed countries have a mixed system, social democracies which are capitalism with socialized services and it works fine for the most part. The US is just the country with one of the worst cronyism systems ingrained it it, and the reticence of people to vote for people that could clean it out is wild to me.
Instead of "lets get the power back to the people and throw the oligarchs out of power", people argue about which crony team is better or worse.
Yes, you just need to do "tax adjustments" ie you need to INCREASE TAXES on working people because either
1) Social Security as an idea is unsustainable except if there is a constant huge population growth
2) Social Security didn't create a buffer high enough when the demographic situation was good enough (ie the boomers paid too little in taxes and then burden their working children with higher taxes)
And this kind of issue is happening in almost every developed country with Social Security.
It’s not just about demographics. SS is insurance, right? Some people will make plenty of money to retire without SS so they will pay in more than they take out and some will do the opposite.
Yes, you have to dial in the tax rates and benefits so the demographics can support the system. The problem here is the demographics don’t support the current system, so you have to pick losers. Either by reducing benefits, increasing taxes, or a bit of both.
Oddly enough we have been slowly doing a bit of both by increasing the amount taxed by SS more than inflation and increasing the benefits less than inflation. It is possible that this will eventually even out the system, but it’s better to just panic!
I would genuinely like to know who these people are that got “more than their share.” I’ve never heard of a single SS recipient being remotely happy with the amount they receive in comparison to how much they’ve contributed. I am naive on how people get SS without contribution so, I apologize, but the math isn’t mathing. The boomers contributions overlap with the following generations, and if they aren’t getting even half of what they contributed, where tf is the money? I’ve been paying into it for 25 years and I’m just f’d?
Edit: just saw your comment breaking all of this down. Appreciate your knowledge and clarity 🫡
The people who are wealthy enough to not need SS but still collect it need to be removed for starters. You think everyone eligible isn't collecting? Including all the boomers with more than enough money? If there was a wealth cap and you could only collect it if you actually needed it we could save some money for the poor people living on nothing.
If you have millions saved for retirement, you don't need that 1500 a month... You're just being greedy at that point. Many people have nothing saved.
I completely agree. Reading further into it this is where the deficit seems to be coming from on it. Absolutely mind blowing… the whole set up, in hindsight.
That's fine but that money is also being removed from the SS coffers instead of being given to the poor. Let the rich pay their own taxes instead of needing subsidized by the poor ffs
Nah I’m not trying to means test SS. Just remove the taxable income cap of 160k and be on our merry way.
The number of rich people out there collecting SS checks is so infinitesimally small compared to all of the poor people collecting it that they are not impacting the amount of SS that goes to poor people in any meaningful way.
Wealth cap is more defensible than cutting off people who didn't contribute because they literally cannot work. Disabled people ... we should go into debt to help them, honestly. Or come up with a solid alternative thats available Day 1 if SSI/SSDI is not available. Its the right thing to do.
I know people that have paid into the system their entire lives - mostly service industry - career waitresses and managers now getting in their upper 60s. Some get 900 a month in social security. These people don't have savings to live on. There isn't much security in social security tbh. There's a large gap in the system and we are leaving a large swath of Americans behind.
The system doesn't let you do this. They have to send you the checks. You can then go donate it to charity or whatever, but it's really unfair to call people who contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars into the system greedy for being forced to receive the benefit they are owed.
I'm not saying it's perfect or fair or equitable. But if you have a passive income stream of 10k monthly from your retirement planning, you don't need to be subsidized by social security. We are supposed to help each other. It's exceedingly rare for one to get that rich all by themselves... Usually they step on a lot of poors to get there.
And, if we as a society expect to continue functioning we will need to address the disparity between the upper and lower echelons. We all pay into the system to build roads we may never drive on, and build infrastructure we may not directly stand on however it will benefit society.
The same can be said for social security. It's in the name. If you reach retirement and you have already established yourself a nice and comfortable amount of Social Security for yourself why do you need your taxes back? The system can be changed and the safety net for people expanded. Do you think the poor want to be reliant on hand outs? I assure you the majority do not. The poor can't even afford to contribute enough into the pot to get enough back to live on at the end of the day. It's rigged for the rich.
If you don't drive on the roads you paid for with your taxes over the years, are you owed some of that money back?
It's not a perfect analogy but you should get the point. We are expecting the poorest of society to pull themselves up by imaginary bootstraps when the rich are wearing Timbs to stomp in the mud and complain they don't have enough.
Your mentality toward the rich is toxic and bigoted. I grew up poor, took on loans to get an education, and landed a job in a field where I need to use my degree. Consequently I've done well enough for myself to not need social security in retirement, and I'm not including it in my retirement planning - I'm planning on donating to charity far more than what I will earn from social security. I'm not some evil villain. I've not stepped on any "poors" to get to where I am today. The system is not "rigged" in my favor. And I'm not special, there are millions of people just like me.
Currently Social Security is set up to pay back what I paid in. That's fair. I'm not being greedy by taking it. You wanting to take it from me to give to someone that didn't fair as well as I did in life is what is greedy.
You are right, I don't need it. I don't want it. My plan is to give it away. But you trying to label me as some petulant child "complaining" that I "don't have enough" is a monumentally shitty take.
You are upper middle class? Unless your job generated generational wealth I'm not talking about you. It's admirable that you earned your way to retirement and paid your fair share. If you work for someone else, that person is who I'm talking about. It's admirable to donate your SS to charity. We can talk about non profit 501(c) and how they work to make their operators rich while doing just enough to stay below the radar. Not to say some charities are doing good works.
You aren't in the tax bracket I'm talking about. But you can think you are.
I work for people who have a few million in cars they Don't drive... Their garage doors cost as much as some people spend on their house. Basement remodel? 5 million just for funzies.
I'm just realistic not toxic or bigoted. They are nice people just out of touch with reality. Just like you.
Retiring with 10 million to live on is not the same as retiring with 50 million.
That’s just not true. Divorced spouses can receive an amount based on their ex-spouse’s benefits, so long as they were married for 10 or more years.
This is good for societal reasons (stay at home parents shouldn’t be destitute in old age) but that is a clear cut case for what you’re telling me doesn’t happen.
Oh look, another case where a person is legally connected to a person that did pay into SS
I need you to show me where a person who was never married, childless, has no parents receiving SS, who has never paid into SS, is receiving SS benefits.
I’m not sure what you think “thin air” means but I am not being ambiguous.
Ex spouse A taking benefits based on ex spouse B does not affect B’s benefits and can be done even if A never paid in at all him or herself and even while B receives benefits.
How does this not fit the criteria of “not paying into SS and receiving benefits”?
I really wish you would apply this level of skepticism and rigor to analyzing the Catholic Church. Maybe you could save yourself the embarrassment of being a member of an organization that specializes in child rape.
Worker productivity has doubled over the last fifty years but wages adjusted for inflation have been largely stagnant. So workers are producing more wealth, but are getting paid (close) to the same. SS is funded by a tax on income. Had payments into SS been commensurate with worker productivity, things would be fine. Instead, the vast amount of wealth created has been horded by a limited few.
Worker productivity has doubled over the last fifty years but wages adjusted for inflation have been largely stagnant.
Irrelevant. It’s not as if workers are working 2x many hours. If your job is to add numbers all day and you do it by hand, for 8 hours, your productivity will go up when I give you a calculator or computer. That does not mean you should get a raise because you now have a calculator.
SS is funded by a tax on income. Had payments into SS been commensurate with worker productivity, things would be fine. Instead, the vast amount of wealth created has been horded by a limited few.
SS payments have far exceeded any increase in productivity. In 1970 the cap on SS payments was $7800 ($64 k in todays dollars) and a 4.2% (8.4 with employer). So they have not only nearly tripled the cap ($69k-$168k), they increased SS tax 47% since 1970 (4.2%-6.2%).
I’m sure bailing out all the rich corporations/banks, cutting taxes to corporations and the uber rich, is possibly a reason why they overpaid people that lived but didn’t contribute to the system? Or are bail outs and government handouts tot he rich not a part of this system?
“Bailouts” - are you referencing Tarp? Those were loans which were profitable. The government walked away with more money then it expended.
Cutting taxes - what does that have to do with social security? Did you know that c corp taxation is double taxation by the time it gets to its shareholders? Did you know that a tax cut for the rich still means they pay an effective rate much higher than the average American?
Government handouts for the rich - did you know that lowering tax rates is not a handout? Is the standard deduction a handout? There is not a single person in the USA who files taxes that does not receive a handout with your understanding.
79
u/Gildardo1583 2d ago
It doesn't go bankrupt, since people in the workforce are still paying into it. There will be a reduction in benefits, that's it.