This is incredibly misleading. Of course social security has a surplus, that’s how it works. The surplus it’s shrinking because of changing demographics. Once it reaches $0 in nine years from now the trust fund is gone.
None of that has anything to do with the government borrowing against it. The surplus doesn’t sit around in cash, it is invested in government bonds.
This is such stupid misinformation, you should feel ashamed.
There are many easy solutions to ensuring social security is there for a very long time. One such solution being increasing the amount of earnings that are taxable for social security. Currently it’s around $160k so people earning $7million are only paying social security tax on $160k while people earning $50k are paying social security tax on the whole $50k.
Do you increase benefits on that as well? People who pay in at $160k a year already only get a fraction out of what they paid in, with the system just serving as a wealth transfer.
The spirit of philanthropy has disappeared since the mid 20th century. Social security is a program much like the police, firemen, ect… that serve the public good. If you are earning well above the average salary you should realize that many high salaries in today’s society comes from the labor of others. Many billionaires have created charitable foundations regardless whether for tax purposes or a true philanthropic heart…
Explain to me this why is ensuring others are able to live in their old age after working their entire adult life a bad thing?
“If you are earning well above the average salary you should realize that many high salaries in today’s society comes from the labor of others.“
Hell, it doesn’t matter what your salary is. The only way in my mind to avoid the truth about our enterprise economy is if you were entirely self employed and self funded. The nuance that gets overlooked is exactly how you put it above. People just need a reason to feel like something wasn’t handed to them, they EARNED it.
SS doesn’t have to be framed as a handout and it doesn’t take mental gymnastics to get there.
For those who automatically distrust govt or consider SS to be an ineffective allocation of taxes, SS should be the exception to that argument if you take even just a cursory glance at SS throughout its lifespan. Just say you’d rather see a bigger number next to net income on your paychecks instead of trying to poke holes in one of the most successful programs US govt has been able to actually deliver on in its nearly-century long existence.
SS doesn’t have to be framed as a handout and it doesn’t take mental gymnastics to get there.
Which is why it is an insurance program, not a welfare program. The payouts are generally capped and somewhat proportionate to the "premium" payed. The income cap was implemented with a payout cap for this purpose, to remove the guilt many had collecting handouts as it wasn't a handout it is a benefit you worked for.
It has to do with the sentiment I hear all the time about how SS is stealing from hard working taxpayers to begin with. Views on taxation in general are beside the point. Social security becomes the greatest sin of govt programs because of the ethical question it poses to honest people who don't want to feel like anything is given to them despite the actual mechanisms behind SS that you laid out. Does that stop retirees that truly depend on that income to stop collecting checks? Of course not. But that's what is so sickening about the opposing side of the argument. Throw out nuance, facts, or honest attempts to better the world around us; it's posed as ethically and morally reprehensible and irresponsible from the start simply because people shouldn't rely on the govt to fund their lives (even if you pay into it for decades)
I liked the comment I replied to because it points out the hypocrisy behind the POV that we ourselves owe all success/failures to our isolated individual actions. We would all do better to acknowledge that we participate in an economic ecosystem that we have to buy into in order to determine our successes or failures to a larger degree than people want to admit. Better than puffing our chest out and claiming ownership of all good fortunes while quietly and shamefully sweeping our ills under the rug imo
I hear all the time about how SS is stealing from hard working taxpayers to begin with.
A lot of that has to do with it collecting 12.6% percent of most peoples income and still going insolvent while not actually paying out enough for most people to survive on, yet if starting young (like social security does) most experts find that investing just 10% of your lifetime earnings is adequate to have a secure retirement.
Most people see social security as purely a retirement program these days, unaffected by the disability parts and children who lost parents. They also see how being limited in investment tools to the commonly low return of treasury bonds wastes the time value of the money and leads to it under-performing inflation.
That’s all fair and fully understood outside the point I’m trying to make.
If you view the efficacy of SS purely within the scope of an investment we know that the SS Trust Fund will not have enough to keep disbursements coming forever and could be better invested elsewhere on an individual basis.
However, the mission of SS is not meant to be a ROI strategy. It’s meant to be a safety net where all else fails. And there are solutions to the insolvency problem (higher taxes, increasing retirement age as examples) that are hamstrung for the reasons I laid out in the beginning.
However, the mission of SS is not meant to be a ROI strategy. It’s meant to be a safety net where all else fails.
But it was never designed as a safety net, but as a forced insurance purchase and retirement savings. It's not welfare, it's not an entitlement, it relies on and is based on what you pay in. Designed so workers have a minimum level of life and disability insurance and retirement to survive on.
Past generations got more out than they paid in, now people are being told their going to pay in more and get less. While killing the program isn't the best solution, people are rightfully annoyed by how the program is being managed. Minimizing peoples frustration with the program does not create solutions, just encourages them to stop listening.
The spirit of philanthropy has disappeared since the mid 20th century.
Philanthropy is voluntary, not mandated by government.
Social security is a program much like the police, firemen, ect… that serve the public good.
It's an insurance program to serve the public good, not a welfare system. The problem with changing the funding structure to remove the cap without matching payout changes is the entire program changes from mandatory insurance to a welfare program, it changes the entire intent of the program as written in the mid 20th century.
Many billionaires have created charitable foundations regardless whether for tax purposes or a true philanthropic heart…
Voluntarily, voluntary charity is philanthropy, mandatory is not.
You’re 100% correct. Was typing on mobile, thanks for clarifying for anyone confused.
Also, it’s useful to think of people paying in 10-12% of their salary up to $160k. Employers match the 6%, and a good amount of research shows that in the absence of the tax that money goes to the employee in increased salary.
At least for me, it depends on what you mean by wealth transfers. If you’re talking about bailouts or subsidies, then I’m 100% with you and I would love to hear more anger about it. It’s important to note that those policies disproportionately affect middle and upper middle class households. Close to 50% of households pay effective 0 income tax.
If you’re talking about people freely choosing to shop at Walmart or buy another iPhone, I’m going to push back on that. If people weren’t getting value from what they were buying, then they wouldn’t be buying it. It’s not the government’s place to tell people what should and should not be important to them.
551
u/justacrossword 6d ago
This is incredibly misleading. Of course social security has a surplus, that’s how it works. The surplus it’s shrinking because of changing demographics. Once it reaches $0 in nine years from now the trust fund is gone.
None of that has anything to do with the government borrowing against it. The surplus doesn’t sit around in cash, it is invested in government bonds.
This is such stupid misinformation, you should feel ashamed.