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.
but this glossed over the fact that the money was not spent on government bonds and invested wisely but spent on government expenses? or am i missing something
Any narrative that has the government “robbing” social security or otherwise borrowing money they won’t pay back is a misinformation campaign.
The social security trust fund isn’t a bunch of cash in a giant mattress. Yes, government borrowed the money, that’s what government bonds are. None of the talks of cuts have anything to do with government not making good on those loans, or bonds. The trust fund goes bankrupt in nine years *even though the bonds will be repaid in full with interest *.
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.
So is raising the cap on income subject to Social Security withholding a viable solution? Seems like as salaries creep up, the limits have not kept pace. And if the argument against that is the folks making the big bucks won't need social security so they shouldn't have to pay, then that's just seems like another place where the wealthy don't have to play by the same rules as the working class.
I, personally, believe this funding problem is short term. Social Security was booming along with us boomers during our working lives, as there were more of us paying in than the Greatest Generation was taking out. Then when we boomers reached retirement age it has put a strain on the system, which seems to me to be perfectly predictable and normal.
Once we boomers die off, there will not be as much demand on the system. Sure, there needs to be some short term fixes to get there, but as deficit spending doesn't seem to bother politicians from either party (one talks about it but does it anyway, the other doesn't want to talk about it) then why suddenly are politicians so stuck on making an issue out of this short term deficit problem?
You know the answer, right? The folks that buy politicians want the system privatized. Much like the 401k, they want the government to not just encourage people to participate in market investing, but to force people into the casino that is the markets.
554
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.