Social Security

Shaky Social Security Trust Fund May Run Out in 11 Years

Are you ready for 30 percent cuts in benefits to keep the program alive?


For those of us who consider President Franklin Delano Roosevelt more of a political grifter than a policy innovator, it's no surprise that his signature fiscal legacy, Social Security, is in dire financial straits. New data from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) once again points out that the program, which was crafted from the beginning to meet political needs rather than economic reality, requires either a massive infusion of funds or else drastic cuts to benefits in order to maintain its viability. Of course, Social Security is only part (though a significant part) of the commitments taken on by a federal government committed to fiscal irresponsibility.

"Because the trust funds' revenues are currently lower than their outlays and projected to grow more slowly than those outlays, the Social Security program has a long-term actuarial deficit," a CBO data update noted last week. "Over the next 75 years, if current laws remained in place, the program's actuarial deficit would equal 1.7 percent of GDP, or 4.9 percent of taxable payroll, CBO projects."

The problem is that Social Security has been paying out more than it collects from payroll taxes for a decade. To meet its obligations, the program funds benefits from assets held by the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund (OASI) and the Disability Insurance Trust Fund (DI)—but those funds can only last for so long.

"CBO projected that the OASI trust fund would be exhausted in calendar year 2032 and the DI trust fund in calendar year 2035—again, if current laws remained in place," notes the CBO. "If the funds' balances were combined, the resulting Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) trust funds would be exhausted in calendar year 2032."

Complicating this, though, is what the Social Security Administration considers to be "assets" on which the trust funds draw: namely, IOUs from the rest of the federal government, which borrowed from the program and long ago spent the money.

Trust fund balances "do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits," points out the Cato Institute's Michael Tanner. "Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures."

The federal government itself, let's not forget, is broke. The CBO projects federal expenditures to continue outstripping revenues by an ever-widening gap for the foreseeable future—30 years, at least. So, the trust funds' "assets" are promises of repayments from an Uncle Sam who could only meet the obligation by going even further into debt. And that's without getting into the unfortunate reality that CBO's dire official assessment of federal finances might actually be a tad too rosy. But why introduce such unpleasantness into the conversation?

That said, exhaustion of the trust funds has important implications. "At the time of depletion of these combined reserves, continuing income to the combined trust funds would be sufficient to pay 79 percent of scheduled benefits," the Social Security Administration admitted in its 2020 annual report. The inability to meet obligations would only worsen from there with a growing gap between revenues and expenditures.

To balance the books, the CBO points out, requires a hike in payroll taxes, cuts in benefits, or some combination of the two. Tax hikes are definitely part of the Biden administration's agenda, but so are plans for trillions of dollars in increased spending. That's not how you balance books already awash in red ink.

Benefit cuts, then, may become necessary to keep Social Security going, says the CBO. To keep the program solvent for 75 years, reductions of 30 percent starting in 2022 would have to be made to the benefits of all current and future beneficiaries. "These reductions would achieve a 75-year OASDI actuarial balance of zero but would not be large enough to prevent exhaustion of the combined trust funds during the period," adds the CBO.

Waiting longer to address the problem would make the pain worse.

From the beginning, the economic calculations behind Social Security have always been shaky. That's not necessarily by design, but certainly out of disregard for dollars-and-cents concerns in a program that was primarily seen as a political project.

"I guess you're right on the economics," FDR told Luther Gulick, an advisor who criticized the use of payroll taxes to fund Social Security. "They are politics all the way through. We put those pay roll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program. Those taxes aren't a matter of economics, they're straight politics."

As per FDR's intent, Social Security has proven impossible to kill. It has also demonstrated a remarkable resistance to even modest modification or reform intended to make it conform more closely to financial reality. At this point, it's a Frankenstein monster of a government scheme: wreaking havoc, seemingly unstoppable, and rampaging toward an uncertain fate.

Then again, you could say the same about the federal government itself, which keeps its overall books every bit as divorced from reality as does the Social Security program.

"[F]inancing a large and permanent increase in government spending through perpetual borrowing without any corresponding adjustment in spending or revenues at some point in the future is unsustainable," the CBO warned in March in response to proposals for a much larger and more-active government. But the revenue increases to support such spending have their own costs.

"After 10 years, the level of GDP by 2030 is between 3 percent and 10 percent lower than it would be without the increase in expenditures and revenues," the CBO added. "In those scenarios, younger households experience greater loss in lifetime consumption and hours worked than older households."

Social Security then, with its grandiose promises disconnected from any ability to meet its obligations, is a fitting representative of the federal government by which it's administered. We're all bound to pay a nasty price when the bill for both of them comes due.

NEXT: Brickbat: Bad Teacher

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Ponzi schemes do typically come to an end. Unfortunately, well after folks have madoff with the money.

    1. Fantastic work-from-home opportunity for everyone… Work for three to eight a day and start getting paid ind the range of 17,000-19,000 dollars a month… Weekly payments Learn More details Good luck…

      See…............VISIT HERE

      1. Well, there we are!
        The payroll taxes from all these workers will be more than enough to balance the books, right?

        1. I’m guessing Margaret gets paid under the table.

          1. Does she work under the table too?

            1. Is Margaret the one in the picture? She might lose track of her dentures under the table.

      1. M2

    2. Clever.

      +64.8 Billion

    3. I see what you did there. 🙂

    4. +1 I see what you did there...

    5. madoff, har har. Madoffs last words before being carted off to prison ‘The entire US government is a Ponzi scheme’. Poor guy missed his calling as senator or governor from/of NY, NJ, IL, CA or DNC chair.

    6. You been saving that, haven't you?

    7. This one only comes to an end if Congress kills it, or something kills Congress.

    8. JCT: Toady to the rich , a fucking liar or plain stupid? Federal govt can't run out of $$$ for anything. FICA pays for shit. Those dollars are extinguished from the M1 money supply upon payment. Simply change the law to kill/amend FICA and just pay for SS in the usual payment manner-by crediting accounts. No taxes nor actual borrowing necessary for the MONETARILY SOVEREIGN federal govt to spend. Believe it.

      1. Middle initial "D." Sorry, fear mongering CLOWN.

    9. Yes, Unsociable Insecurity's Trust Fund is far beyond broke already. Congress has so mismanaged its fiduciary responsibilities that our government is hopelessly broke, and the debt service will consume more than half of the governments income for the next 100 years. The government is still paying on debt from 100 years ago for WWI, and there is even more for WWII which ended before most of this countries population was even born.

  2. In 2032, Congress will pass (near-unanimously) a bill to fund the Social Security gap by borrowing more money. Easy peasy.

    Social Security is totally immoral, by the way.

    1. Shaky Social Security Trust Fund May Run Out in 11 Years
      Are you ready for 30 percent cuts in benefits to keep the program alive?

      The most immoral thing about Social Security is that it was called a "trust fund." It's not a "trust fund" you old fart hyenas! It's a Ponzi Scheme wherein the ones at the table earliest get paid for by those who come in later!

      Bernie Madoff just recently died in prison after trying to run a private pension fund like that! And every one of F.D.R.'s "Brains Trusters" should have been sent to prison to die as well the moment they proposed their National Ponzi Scheme!

      Another thing that's immoral about Social Security is that there would never have been a Big Brother Surveillance State or a nationwide and even global problem of identity theft if the Government had never issued Social Security Numbers.

      Originally, it was illegal for Social Security Numbers to be used for any purpose other than drawing Social Security and my Grandparents had the old Social Security Cards that explicitly said so. But then not only employers and banks required them, but it became the Serial Number for members of the Armed Forces. (I seen a picture of a real stupid WWII G.I. who had his Social Security Number tattooed on his chest. I guess that dumbass didn't see the footage from liberated Nazi death camps with all the tattooed Holocaust survivors.)

      Then the Social Security Number became used in colleges and universities. (I remember my university actually posted grades next to student's Social Security Numbers instead of our names, supposedly to preserve academic record privacy. Ha!)

      Then eventually, the Social Security Number became the universal identifier on every form for everything and all you had to do to get a universal dossier on anybody was to get their Social Security Number! Even real estate titles can be stolen from titles posted online with access to a Social Security Number!

      As for what I'm ready to do if benefits are cut 30 percent to keep Social Security alive, I plan on either fighting rats in a gutter with a "toothpick" and a switch for a Snicker's Bar, as well as just working until I die, or maybe I have Lazarus Long genes and I'll outlive it all. Time will have to tell.

      1. The dems will just tax it 100percent on the back side, unless you’re “X” percentage of poverty line or the bottom 30 percent. I keep saying it…Obamacare for everything.

  3. "As per FDR's intent, Social Security has proven impossible to kill. "

    I mean, the people could easily kill it. We choose not to because it's overall very, very popular, much to Reason's chagrin.

    Not to mention, the whole reason it was started was because of old people living in the gutter. We would be right back at that point once this is killed off as you just know not everyone would be smart enough to plan for their own retirement.

    And eyeroller is completely right- it will always be funded. Old people vote and old people love social security. Not to mention telling people who have paid in their whole lives then having the rug pulled out from under them sounds like the easiest form of political suicide I've ever heard.

    1. Ponzi schemes are often popular, until you find that you are one of the suckers holding the bag when the money runs out.

      Also, popular does not equate to good or sustainable policy.

      1. "Gun point Ponzi scheme"
        You can choose not to participate in the regular kind.
        (also +1 to you. I wish Reason would add "Up Vote".

      2. "Ponzi schemes are often popular,.."

        Particularly with low-watt bulbs like the lefty shit above.

      3. The Social Security Ponzi Scheme is so popular, all they have to do to sell us on the idea is to force us to participate at the point of a gun.

      4. If you make the laws and make the money, you don't run a Ponzi scheme. I suspect in your pitifully powerless state, you hate the fact that the federal govt has complete control over the US $. Yes, contrary to deluded libertarian beliefs and "ideals," the Fed is indeed an agency of the US federal govt.

    2. I like how you go ahead and respond to your first paragraph with your third.

    3. Actually, I think you will find that the main reason was to get older workers out of a job so a younger worker could take it. For some reason a large number of unemployed young men has made politicians nervous since the French Revolution.

    4. As usual the leftie shit comes by to claim things will always be the same and we should just dope up and not worry. Third rail of politics and all that right. Politicians too afraid, etc. You are discounting the fact that the people themselves may just decide for you, and you won't like it.

    5. Social Security isn't actually popular. Just people have paid into it so they want what they have paid for. That doesn't mean something is popular, it just means people perceive it as being "pot committed" to use a gambling term. If there was better understanding of money, people would gladly throw away even 20 years of SS pay-ins to get the last 20 years of their career the 12.4% they currently lose into their own pockets instead.

      1. If there was better understanding of money

        If only there was a place where young, impressionable minds were assembled and this understanding could be conveyed.

        Regrettably, as we have been reminded by the teachers' unions and our libertarian betters, schools have far more important missions, like teaching Critical Race Theory.

      2. "Social Security isn’t actually popular."

        I've hated it since the first day I saw FICA on a pay stub.

        Had that 12% actually gone into my retirement accounts I would be retired right now with just over a decade left until I reach Social "Security" age.

        1. Sure, trust the private market more than the federal govt. (Not to say complete "trust," is deserving of either.) Guess who, in economic disaster, ALWAYS bails out those greedy, feckless bank and Wall St fucks?

      3. I've always said I would gladly give up what I've put into Social Security if I had the option to never see the acronym "F.I.C.A." on a paystub ever again! Ditto with Medicare/Medicaid!

      4. The feds are gonna lower the margin on taxation. I’d assume that anyone who’d bring in 1 dollar more than median income in retirement will have it confiscated.

        This is easy Italian Mob stuff. Get it on the front side, in the middle and on the back side.

      5. SS will pare in comparison to this:

        A job on paper, go out 1st day on FMLA, get paid, pump out more kids, sell the new hardworking immigrants and Americans into tax slavery. Rinse repeat.

      6. " Just people have paid into it so they want what they have paid for."

        One of the big lies. SS is just another tax. It's an illusion that anyone has "paid into it". It's not a savings plan. The money doesn't belong to anyone but the government. No one has any right to that money apart from what the government says and the government can decide to change what you will or won't get at any time.

    6. Popular does not mean sustainable or wise. Throwing trash out the window as you were driving down the highway was popular, too. It became unpopular only when the negative consequences became too obvious to ignore. Yet there were plenty of us arguing that it was bad policy from the start.

      1. Faulty...

    7. Slavery was very, very popular as well.

      1. ^THIS +10000000000

    8. *STEALING* usually is "very, very popular" to the criminal minded ESPECIALLY if they can get away with it.

      Did you have a point otherwise?

    9. It'll be funded all right...with both higher taxes and with the worst tax of all, the inflation of the currency with worthless paper, what political cartoonist Thomas Nast called "soft-soap money." Any benefits from Social Security will be off set by highdr taxes and higher prices from inflation!

      Private sector mutual funds and other financial instruments will always be better than Social Security for providing retirement if Government leaves them alone! Why else do you think people supplement their Social Security checks with their private investments?

      Perhaps your online handle is more fitting than you think. At the rate things are going, you may have to forage raspberries off of thornbushes by the railway while tramping and freight-hopping.

      1. "...and with the worst tax of all, the inflation of the currency with worthless paper, what political cartoonist Thomas Nast called “soft-soap money.”

        See Weimar Wheelbarrow Money

        1. That too. I tell the customers at my store about our wheelbarrow specials and encourage them to invest in wheelbarrows.

          Even though money is just bits and bytes anymore, debit gift cards and Steam Cards have a $500 limit, so the wheelbarrow would still come in handy, even in an Information Age Weirmar Republic.

      2. Social security buys government debt only. It will never beat inflation. People who save cash and refuse to take an extremely low risk will never beat inflation. Low cost low risk ( or no risk as we sit with 0 interest rates) s&p index funds either Vanguard ETFs or mutual indexes. Millennials, look at the average S&P return for the past 8 decades.

        Buffet is leaving his wife low cost S&P index ( which Berkshire is part of), and 30 percent bond funds.

      3. As anyone with even a passing familiarity with economics knows, higher taxes does not necessarily translate into higher revenues.

    10. It's popular because people are bad at math and logic and moral reasoning.

      Here's the offer:
      1. We'll force you to support current retirees (no matter how rich they are) by paying taxes when you are young and poor and need the money.
      2. We'll give you a below market rate of return.
      3. If you die early, your heirs inherit nothing. We may give them a small survivors' benefit.
      4. If you live long enough to retire, we may jack up the retirement age. (Mine was raised by 2 years a couple of decades after I "signed up".)

      1. True with one exception (no matter how rich they are). The federal government means tests SS. You better believe they will lower that margin.

        It’s a forced tax that is taxed again.

        1. A forced tax that is taxed again, and then again at the State Level. GOOD TIMES

    11. I've paid into it since 1974, and I had savings until I ended up stupidly racking up credit and was unemployed for most of a year and had to live on my savings, so I'm going to be a "greedy boomer" and need to live on SocSec.

    12. SS is popular? As opposed to what? You leftists always make these bullshit claims. There has been no alternative to SS in living memory. And your kind will destroy anyone who tries to even make mi or reforms. Like when W. Proposed privatizing even 5% of SS in 2005. Your de o rats masters tore him apart over that.

      So SS isn’t popular, and we’re headed for ruin because of you.

      1. SS is popular to anyone who hasn't saved enough to retire on and has no other choice but to live off SS, which is probably most people.

    13. Two words; MEANS TEST. The wealthy should not draw Social Security, period. They don't need it to meet their bills, it's only greed that drives them to draw it.

      Social Security would be flush if there wasn't a cap on how much you must pay in based on your salary, then after that you pay NOTHING. Should be based on a percentage of your entire income whether you make $20K a year or a billion a year.

      Same concept as receiving coronavirus relief - set qualifiers. I can make my rent payments, therefore, I'm not given subsidies. I receive no child care credits, no food assistance, no reduced rent and no unemployment checks.

      I pay property tax for schools. I have no kids. I am still required to pay into it and subsidize a fund for hospitalization of the indigent. It is part of the social contract we make with the government: literacy & healthcare are necessary things for our people. I don't get child care/dependents tax breaks either: no kids, but I still pay income tax without those deductions.

      Help the poor and the disabled: Social Security. Stop being greedy and do your part for the greater good instead of whining. It's your moral obligation.

      1. It's a moral obligation to have Gov-Guns pointed at you and STEAL your creations/value.... UR a criminal and belong in prison.

        Funny how Republicans give more charity than Democrats and Democrats accuse Republicans of being greedy...

        Cry babies, "Stop being 'greedy' and give me your pony!"

      2. Who are you to judge what my moral obligation is? And where is a copy of this “social contract” I signed? Hint: NOWHERE.

  4. In the long run, Social Security will probably start means testing. Those who have other retirement income saved up will have their Social Security checks reduced, but never to zero. The contributions they made to SS were taxed, so something will be paid out, but probably less than a quarter of what they now get, depending on their non-SS income.
    The photo at the top of the article demonstrates how younger people see the system. In some respects they are right.

    1. The best part about means testing is that fabulously wealthy seniors will have the easiest time arranging things so that they appear completely destitute.

      1. Maybe. If you’re fabulously wealthy SS might not be enough money to be worth the effort.

        1. Also, there is this nasty thing called the IRS. They know. If you are wealthy enough to scam them, the $2000 per month isn't worth the trouble. This is for those with company stock plans or pensions.

        2. Many people got to be "wealthy" by being fabulously tight with every cent available.

          I have little doubt that any substantial changes to payouts will be heavily gamed. Especially since those changes will be written by politicians.

          1. If you ask my daughter how to save money, she'll say "Don't spend it."

      2. While those of merely well off, will get nothing.....

    2. The problem with means testing is that it would require measuring wealth, with the obvious next step being to spread it around.

      1. Don't worry, they don't count old plastic bottles of Popov as a form of wealth. You're safe.

        1. Hey, don't knock booze for barter. Anybody who has or can make hooch or moonshine will do well in a Shit Hits The Fan (SHTF for Survivalists and Preppers) scenario.

          1. Not sure what you're replying to. If it's JesseAz then it's an insult. But I did get really damn good at making really damn good beer at one point in my life. Like making bread. Just takes longer. Thought about turning the hobby into a business, but the permits, licenses and other regulatory requirements are at least six figures. Free enterprise my ass.

            1. Whoever can benefit from barter will be better off in the coming "Interesting Times," so my words are no insult to anyone.

              Even making beer and bread for home use only will assure you a supply of varieties that you enjoy. Perhaps licensing and taxation will fall by the wayside as things get more chaotic too, so there's a chance for an "informal economy" business yet.

              As E.L.O. proclaimed on the famous Eighties coffee commercial: "Hold On Tight To Your Dreams."

        2. Fucking snob.

      2. The real problem with means testing is it provides more incentive to spend now so you get more later if you cannot shield your assets from being counted. This makes everything shakier and the consequences worse when the ponzi scheme eventually collapses.

        1. Also, once you means test it, it ends up providing fewer benefits to an ever increasing umber of people until it's viewed as a type welfare rather than a universal program.

          “The strength of Social Security and Medicare is that everybody is in. Once you start breaking that universality and you say that if you’re above a certain income, two years later that income goes down and 10 years later it becomes a welfare program.”--Bernie Sanders

          1. My work used to take me into a federal building where folks would greet each other by holding up a number of fingers. The number represented how many years before getting their pension. Turns out those lucky bastards didn't pay into SS. Instead they get half their paycheck for the rest of their lives after working twenty years, and most of them got a second job the day after they retired. Play it right and by retirement age they're starting their third job, while getting two pensions. Another trick was to save up all their vacation and then cash it all in on their last year. That would double the income upon which their pension was based.

            Add it all up and by the time they stop working they're getting paid twice what they ever made on the job. Time to travel.

            1. My work used to take me into a……
              Did you get fired from that job too?

              1. Your wife tells me you hit like a girl.

                1. Welcome to the “means girls” club!

            2. IIRC, railroad workers also are exempt from Social Security and instead have their own separate pension programs. I'm sure they do the same thing or something similar.

          2. So everybody is in the same sinking ship, with more people boarding and scarfing up the hors d'ouvres and silverware. Real good thinking, Bernie! Too bad you aren't on the sinking ship with the rest of us!

        2. You’d have to save cash, looks like we’re gonna do inflation for awhile and ban natural gas. Start burning that worthless cash in the wood stove to keep you warm.

          The planners already know what your house is worth.

          This will be Obamacare, if you’re a highly skilled or educated worker, it’s a welfare transfer to everyone that’s not.

      3. "The problem with means testing is that it would require measuring wealth"

        Does not matter whether they look at wealth or just income, either way it can be gamed by anyone not on a defined benefit pension or some such equivalent.

        So long as business expenses, including payrolls, are tax deductible income can be fudged.

        All you are left with then is the potential for a direct wealth tax.

        Yeah, that will go over well.

        1. All you are left with then is the potential for a direct wealth tax.

          When that happens it's all over.

          1. It will never happen. A Federal Reserve audit is more likely, and that will never happen either.

          2. We already have a direct wealth tax. It is the property tax. Many of us pay it directly to the county tax collector (four installments a year, whopee!) or, we pay that tax indirectly to that agency, through an addition to our monthly mortgage payments. Renters pay a portion of the landlord's property tax also since that is part of the rent owners charge. It puzzles me that some people can say we need a wealth tax as if we did not have one already. Don't they own property? Don't they know that landlords pay property tax? Don't they know that retailers have to include their property tax in setting consumer prices? Don't they know that corporations pay property taxes out of money that would otherwise be available for worker pay and benefits, or stock dividends, or internal investment? State and local governments are heavily dependent on property tax. They would take a very dim view of the Federal government elbowing in on their racket. . . . The other form of wealth tax we endure is inflation. That eats away at the value of our financial assets, year by year, even if those assets are in tax-deferred accounts like IRA's.

      4. Your democrat friends are already talking about a European type of excise tax on property.

    3. I think they already do that to an extent. My grandmother gets very little in SS payments because most of her retirement income comes from a state pension. I think the SS is just to top her up to what she would be getting if she was fully reliant on SS and had no pension

      1. Wrong.

      2. People pay into one or the other. She gets little SS because she wasn't paying into it when she was paying into the pension scheme.

      3. If a private entity ran a pension fund like SS they would go to prison for a long time.

    4. Means testing; here come the trust funds [for the children, of course]

    5. They are right in the respect that independently wealthy people like Ronald Reagan should NEVER draw social security. But he DID in spite of enormous wealth, fame and power.

      The vast majority of people on social security are living at poverty levels. These are the people who need social security - not the Ronald Reagans of the world. Not Bezos, not the Walton family, not the Koch family, not Branson, not the Gates family...

      1. If I’m not using it, I’m not paying for it. How do you not understand that little quirk of human behavior? Did you JUST land on this planet?

  5. "Because the trust funds' revenues are currently lower than their outlays and projected to grow more slowly than those outlays, the Social Security program has a long-term actuarial deficit," a CBO data update noted last week.

    Fortunately, the *rest* of the Government's financial situation is totally solvent.

    1. Funding retirement by Ponzi scheme and the having a deliberate policy of reducing future population growth was such a wonderful set of ideas!

      1. I have little doubt that much of the support for open borders by politicians has been about nothing more than importing enough wage slaves to kick this can far enough down the road.

        1. OBL? This one literally has your name on it.

      2. Covid handed us an enormous population deficit.

  6. You could make the cuts right now for all I care, but they won't, since boomers and their parents vote.

    No one in my generation (age 45 & under) who has been paying any attention has been counting on social security as any significant part of their retirement funds.

    1. Yeah, I expect a 100% reduction in benefits by the time I'm that age. I've resigned myself to the idea that I'm going to die in the traces. Whatever, just means I need to try and enjoy whatever I might otherwise want to do during the time between now and then. I'll probably get more out of it if I'm young enough to enjoy it anyway.

    2. You could make the cuts right now for all I care

      You would be wise to care. A cut in benefits is not the only thing that will happen to the program you are not counting on. There will be means testing, as mentioned, payroll taxes will go up, reducing your take home pay, and the age at which you can collect will go up as well, reducing your years in retirement.

      1. If I'm not counting on this as a source of income, how will that reduce my years in retirement?

        I'm much more concerned that they are going to raid my 401k and other investments to pay for people who didn't plan ahead. 'Equity' - it means different things to politicians and financial planners. But if they can take my equity to ensure equity, I've no doubt that democrats will try.

        1. That’s another plan, a financial transaction tax. But hey, the low skill, minimum wage to support a family of five service economy LOVES Democrats.

    3. Same boat. I save for my retirement not expecting a nickel from SS.

      1. Luckily you will be taxed to pay for those who didn't save.

        It is like we took the wrong lesson from the parable of the Cricket and the Ant.

      2. Yep. In the last fifteen years I've managed to double my income, but my lifestyle has changed very little. Get a 3% raise? Add 3% to the 401K or HSA or something. Don't spend what I don't see.

        1. ^ Ooh, Mr. big shot over here, making $12/ hour now!

          1. Don’t laugh. That’s at a margin for free or heavily subsidized healthcare, food, education and housing and full on non-means tested adjusted for inflation retirement payments.

            Who’s the big shot now?

            1. Don’t forget, he also got to go and hang out at a HALF million dollar lake house with ‘cool dudes’. Probably as a pass around bottom, but still……. COOL DUDES!

              1. Half million?

                *makes whistling sound*

    4. No one in my generation (age 45 & under) who has been paying any attention has been counting on social security as any significant part of their retirement funds.

      Sadly based on savings rates, this is an untrue statement.

      1. "who has been paying any attention" didn't save me?


        1. Actually those are the people who are going to doom you.

          And the rest of us.

          The politicians think themselves immune and/or unreachable. If it gets bad enough they are going to get an abject lesson in how the world really works.

      2. The media and academia always has the best interests of the taxpayer in mind while they’re pushing the DNC propaganda. How would anyone under 45 know any different?

    5. You know - that is exactly what I assumed in 1983. As did everyone my age. Certainly everyone I knew. When Social Security first went bankrupt - before the 'trust fund' flimflam created its deep entitlement mindset. I had just joined the workforce. 45 was a long way away. 65? I'll be dead by then.

      Turns out that assumption creates a big big problem. Two really.
      First - ain't no one who can really predict their situation in 40 years. Anyone selling you some notion of certainty 40 years in future is selling flimflam and it doesn't matter one whit whether that's private or public. Not only can you not predict any certainty. Even if you could the very attempt to try eliminates the ability to incorporate new knowledge that wasn't known when you tried. eg generational accounting' wasn't even a concept until 1991. On its own it may be flimflam - but it's at minimum a great way to re-assess the 'trust fund' flimflam.

      Far worse - that notion of 'I'm OK, you can fuck off' is exactly what eliminates future discussion of the issue. For a lot of reasons I understand now. But I would have been gobsmacked if I had realized - in 1983 - that that would be the only window in my lifetime where the issue could even be discussed. Ignore actual reform talk. The issue is now so poisoned with scamminess and bad faith that discussion cannot take place. Hell this article doesn't even mention 1983. It just blames FDR. As if discussion has never been possible.

      1. Taking responsibility for my own retirement savings situation instead of solely relying on a government program funded by taxing everyone else makes me part of the problem.

        You heard it here first, folks.

        1. You've just been called a kulak.

          So, maybe your first, but not really a first.

        2. Yes you are. No one in their right mind would ever listen to anything you say - or include you in any public discussion because bad faith (and petulance) surrounds everything you say.

          Which means - guess why reform - even elimination of the program - is never put on the agenda. That's not FDR's fault. He's dead. It's not current retirees fault. They don't want reform. No - the age group that wants and needs reform is doing nothing but ignoring the issue and stomping their feet insisting everyone should cater to them.

          Grow the fuck up asshole.

          1. That got awfully personal, huh? I haven't blamed FDR anywhere for our current situation. I haven't insisted that anyone do anything for me at all, let alone 'cater'. I don't know where you're getting this.

            I'm fine with my generation being the one that has to get the rug pulled out from under them, if that is what has to happen eventually. In the mean time, it isn't 'young people doing nothing' preventing any meaningful reform. Older people who are either in retirement, soon to be in retirement, within a decade or so of retirement - Social Security reform is a political poison pill for a huge percentage of that voting block. AARP is a powerful lobby.

            And, I am not suggesting that they just go and cut everyone's benefits by 33% today, either. Anything that is done as far as benefit reduction will need to be gradual to lessen the impact. And we will probably need to attack it from multiple angles - reduce spending by either reducing benefits *or* the number of people who qualify (means testing, etc) - adding revenue, perhaps by raising the cap on what is taxed. It wouldn't hurt to quit spending trillions of dollars on crap, either.

            There should probably be some sort of private option as well, where an individual could invest some or all of their social security 'savings' into a market-based portfolio plan, like a 401k.

            1. That got awfully personal, huh? I haven’t blamed FDR anywhere for our current situation. I haven’t insisted that anyone do anything for me at all, let alone ‘cater’. I don’t know where you’re getting this.

              JFart has nothing anymore other than his colossal strawmanning, blame-shifting, and misdirection. That comes from living in a state like Colorado where he's struggling to battle Stockholm Syndrome.

            2. Now you may be part of the solution. The details don't really matter as much. those are an outcome not an input.

              Do you know the origin of Social Security as the 'third rail of politics'? It comes from the 1981 introduction of that SS reform to prevent bankruptcy..

              It originated when Reagan and his staff didn't try to calculate the impact/timing of the changes they recommended. The result was that 61 year olds were going to get a 33% reduction in their expected early retirement benefit - the next year - in a year when interest and mortgage rates were over 16% and there was a serious multi-year recession. If they had to move for a job or lower housing costs in retirement, they couldn't even sell their house. So they WTF'd their critter. Reagan sent his proposal to the Senate - Republican for the first time since 1955 - and the Senate rejected it 96-0. AARP didn't cause this. afaik they hadn't even started lobbying.

              This only happens because the tinearedness of people who didn't need SS themselves and didn't care about those who do. The instant they spoke, they were the entire problem. As I said, I would never have believed that that was the last time any of this was talked about seriously. Or that so many learned nothing.

              1. Stuff it up your ass along with your PANIC flag, you cowardly piece of lefty shit.

      2. Not only can you not predict any certainty. Even if you could the very attempt to try eliminates the ability to incorporate new knowledge that wasn’t known when you tried. eg generational accounting’ wasn’t even a concept until 1991.

        Correct. If there were such a thing as Omniscience, the future would be set and there could be no free will. And, goodness knows, no being professing both Omniscience and Omnipotence is going to save us from the Social Security Trainwreck.

    6. My very lovely mother did once make the statement that it would be unfair to cut social security to booomers because they had paid into it their whole lives and shouldn't have the rug pulled out from underneath them.
      I told her that exact scenario is going to happen to some generation and it's not like it's somehow not going to be unfair then.

      1. Of course it's fair, it didn't happen to the Boomers, just to the Xers.

      2. They had the chance to fix it before they were in that situation. They climbed into bed with the devil instead. They shouldn't be shocked when he fucks them.

        1. Where's EISTAU Gree-Vance to use his tag line?

    7. The SS benefits will be paid out, and will likely get more generous.
      It will be funded by raising the cap, maybe with a gap between the current cap and the high end range where taxes kick in again, so well-off Dem voters don't get hit too hard.

      1. Agree. Actually I see the cap removed. There are many, many people for whom Social Security is their only income. They never had the chance to accumulate any retirement savings. You may say they can collect SSI, but SSI is maybe $700-900/month, very hard to live on that in most places. Maybe we should take a harder look at all those collecting Social Security Disability. Sure does seem to be a lot of young people collecting those disability checks.

    8. It was never designed to support recipients 'significantly'. It was designed to help them.

  7. LThiscwill happen right before I am supposed to retire. Fantastic.

    May FDR and the New Dealers burn in Hell.

    1. I always planned on my Social Security Check being zero dollars. It appears my estimate may have been to optimistic.

      1. Since Biden is talking about taxing investments to "pay for" his absurd spending increases, you can expect your retirement savings to be broken into.

        1. Yes, I have interpreted fixinv SS as raiding my savings. Most US citizens don't save, which makes them smarter than me.?

          1. Sadly yes it kindof does make them smarter than us. They get to enjoy spending all their money today, and will enjoy spending all of our money tomorrow. We sacrifice today to save for tomorrow, and will have less for it, today and tomorrow

          2. Most US citizens don’t save, which makes them smarter than me.?

            I think a lot of that is based upon that infamous poll that asked how people would handle an unexpected expense of a thousand dollars or so, and most said they'd put it on their credit card. The implication was that they didn't have anything in savings to cover it. In fact it meant that many, like me who pay their credit card in full every month, would use the card for points. Then transfer some dough from savings to checking to pay for it.

            1. I think a lot of that is based upon that infamous poll that asked how people would handle an unexpected expense of a thousand dollars or so, and most said they’d put it on their credit card. The implication was that they didn’t have anything in savings to cover it. In fact it meant that many, like me who pay their credit card in full every month, would use the card for points.

              It's more of a function of people automatically just using their credit card for large expenses these days, points or no. I don't doubt that a lot of people couldn't handle a $1000 hit on their personal ledger, and savings rates have been empirically lower for most of the last 30 years (the Great Recession was an exception to this). But cash is rarely used these days, and personal checks even less so. It really just boils down to changing cultural habits.

              1. What's the problem with using the credit card if you've got money in the bank to cover it?

                The implication was that people have no savings, and have to borrow.

              2. My mom is now using her credit card to pay for things like electricity and internet. For the points. That's a bit too far for me. I won't pay bills with borrowed money, even if I can pay it back at the end of the month. Seems weird.

                1. For all of us hopeless accountants it makes the monthly tally-up much easier. The couple of % I get back each month in points is just gravy.

        2. I suggest a more radical wealth redistribution scheme. Since most of the blame lies with leftists, the logical course of action is to kill off the leftists and redistribute their wealth as ‘reparations’. As leftists favor both wealth redistribution and reparations, this should be very popular with their kind.

      2. With the negative income tax payments going out to parents (what next week?) you would be correct.
        The scam gets even better. My oldest sister, an ER nurse in Philly, sees all low level new hires go out on FLMA immediately or work part time once in awhile, there’s no one working. The scumhave a job on paper and will be receiving the UBI cash payments for however many kids they have. It’s gonna go to thousands a month.

        1. Thousands of dollars a month- cash for votes.

          1. Robbing Peter to buy Paul's vote

    2. Sadly, we would have to create a Hell first, then burn them in it.

      1. We have several already. As Hell is very real place.

        Chicago, Seattle, Portland, Minneapolis, Baltimore, etc.

    3. So, retire at 62 and get 30% less?
      Or retire at 67 and find out you're still getting 30% less anyway?
      Seems like an no-brainer.

      1. There are ways to supplement retirement. For instance, what is the collective value of the organs belonging to a millennial progressive? I suspect harvesting even one prog millennial’s organs would be a huge improvement to one’s retirement plan. And it’s a great way to monetize these turds while simultaneously thinning the herd.

      2. This, provided you will live to collect. Think of the 607,500 plus who have already died in the U.S. with an average death toll of 250 a day currently (Wall Street Journal). The government "keeps" uncollected social security paid in by those who never live to draw benefits.

        1. Apologies: from coronavirus ALONE. Actual morbidity rates are higher for the U.S.

  8. You know they're just going to print the difference, right? I used to worry about the social security funding gap, but then coofbux taught me that there is no limit or minimum justification for simply printing unlimited dollars.

    1. Straight from the Book of Tony; "The government will just make more money, silly." AKA MMT.

  9. My guess is that the current administration will likely raise the earnings cap on Social Security taxes - you know - to make sure the rich "pay their fair share". Not that this will be enough to keep the program solvent, but I think they'll try that before they raise payroll tax rates - which I think will happen within a few years - even if the GOP takes back the Senate and/or the White House.

    1. Probably a good guess. Don't expect anything more than nibbling around the edges - can kicking is what keeps you getting re-elected.

    2. It's the logical solution along with means testing. It would work - doesn't mean you have to like it, but everyone needs to contribute.

      1. It’s already means tested and taxed, at a few thousand more than the minimum wage annual level. And the UBI for having children scheme is going to cost more than SNAP, and,,,SNAP hasn’t been this high since creepy uncle Joe was VP.

  10. Oligarchs won’t suffer

  11. Dark humour thought could've not covid spent and got a few more years through increased old and probably low contributor deaths plus money that was tossed around put towards solvency for a bit.

  12. Considering the average of people who die of Covid is 72, I think our government is missing an obvious solution to SSI insolvency.

    1. See above, same thought wave length

    2. Let's nominate Cuomo for another award; call this one the Malthusian.

      1. With Oak Leaf Cluster Fu..

    3. It’s not talked about much, but COVID-19 has helped the Social Security / Medicare bottom line a bit.

      1. Not by much.

        Average age is low 70s, median is even higher. Also, these numbers need to be looked at in the number of years of life lost. And, in that sense, most of these people were short timers anyway. So the aggregated years of payout that was avoided is not as high as one might think.

        Had the 50-64 year cohort been harder hit the effect on SS solvency would have been much more profound.

        As a side note: Isn't it odd where the statisticians chose to intercalate a 15 year cohort among a bunch of ten year cohorts? I cannot help but suspect this was done intentionally to skew those bars and hide the fact that this is a disease that predominantly affects the very old, or the old and frail.

        1. It's a common practice among medical stats, mostly because of Medicare eligibility. When we approach a new market one of things we look at is the share and growth of the over 65 set; too much of either is going to be a drag on the P&L.

          Shorter: never attribute to malice that which can be explained by sloth.

  13. It has to crash, and hard, for people to understand how they were duped by grifters, mostly democrats but RINOs as well, and only then once you've thrown those people out of office can you start to fix it. Getting rid of the bureaucracy is the next step. Political will doesn't come from position papers or research, it's much more brutal than that.

    1. Cuba. I’m sure the dead grandparents of the revolution dreamed of that workers paradise.

  14. Before I signed up for SS I prepared a spreadsheet that calculated the net present value of my total benefit up till the day of my death. I assumed a cost of capital of 1%. (Those were the days.) The NPV varied from $325,000 for death at 70 to $590,000 (death at 85). It is strongly dependent on the cost of capital and would be lower now. I and my employers paid in around $300,000 unadjusted, so 1980 dollars (when I was a grad student) are given the same value as dollars when I retired. That number would be higher if I adjusted it.

    FDR was right. I paid into it and I want it back. I was told I was going to get it and so I planned it into my retirement funding. If you were not serious about giving me my money back then I would not have happily given it to you in the first place.

    1. Your participation in the gun point Ponzi scheme is mandatory. Your return is not. I always planned on getting nothing.

      1. I think that was the point of my calculation. I put in as much as I am get out. I could have done better myself with a mutual fund.

        1. If you are under 30, you stand an excellent chance of getting out less than you paid in. You could have done better stuffing cash into your mattress.

        2. I could have done better myself with a mutual fund.

          You could have done better with cardboard futures.

        3. If they returned my money to me, adjusted for inflation, I'd gladly forego SS payments. They could even keep the portion my employers paid into the system.

          1. Which many don’t realize is a 1:1 match.

          2. That’s how I feel about it. Just give the cash back, do not adjust for inflation. Employers get to write down the tax (I’m a older xer business owner). My husband and I would get nothing except for our college jobs and picking up part time shifts when we took the risk of opening the business. Most workers do not itemize. . Boomers and Xers have done well on real estate returns and the largest market bull run in history. Let these younger generations get a break with upward mobility. Abolish FICA

    2. Yet another reason to get rid of the people who do these things and take their stuff.

  15. I have it by very good authority that we are a very rich country and can afford all of this. So, no, this is not gonna happen when I retire in 11 years.

    1. See you in the bread line!

      I'll save you a spot.

      1. Thanks. It is this kindness that will support me and my family.

        1. Well, I said there would be a line, and you would have a spot. I never said there would be bread...


  16. Our country’s Great Covid Fuck Off probably isn’t helping SS revenue either.

  17. The "Greatest Generation" told Goldwater and his s.s. reform plan to "take a hike." Boomers perpetuated it once they could vote. Don't expect those generations after them to vote out something they've paid into all their lives.

    1. The problem is that nobody paid into anything because that implies that there's something to pay into. There isn't. Payments pay for current benefits. Money just passes through. If this was a private sector investment the people in charge would be executed in front of a firing squad.

      1. Unfortunately, every few years the SS Office sends out letters letting people know how much is in their "account". They are outright lying. It's fraud, but it's government so it's legal fraud. Even my mother who hates the gub'ment believes that lie. She has an account and the money in it is hers. Sigh.

    2. How to save Social Security:

      1) No wealth cap for taxes. Pay a percentage of what you earn regardless of how much you earn. Don't cap it at 250k.

      2) No payouts for the wealthy. Means test the payouts.

      3) Establish a "pay down" rate, so that each year the new crop of retirees gets a bit less. Until we finally get down to zero and we can bury the whole system in the graveyard of bad ideas.

      It took us along time to dig a hole this deep, it's going to take time to fill it back in.

      1. As I said above, I'm hesitant about means testing. Not because I think it's a bad idea by itself. It makes sense. The problem is what information will be required and what the government will do with that information. I could see it as the beginning of a wealth tax. Not just income, but wealth as well. Got a nice home with barely any income? You've got to sell it to pay your wealth taxes. Got a family business that isn't doing well? So much for passing it along, you've got to sell it to pay the taxes. That's where I see means testing leading. Slippery slopes aren't always fallacies.

        1. Biden is already taking the first step in that direction with the proposal to end the current rules for cost basis on inherited assets.

          1. I'm quite aware.

      2. 4) Don't let government employees and teachers opt out

        1. They haven't for years. I doubt there is anybody in the fed system that was able to opt out. When I was fed civil service 20 years ago, the only people in that boat were close to retirement already.

          1. IIRC that was stopped by the Graham Rudman Act.

        2. Ding ding ding!!!!

      3. Means testing is popular with those without any means.

      4. 1) No wealth cap for taxes. Pay a percentage of what you earn regardless of how much you earn. Don’t cap it at 250k.

        2) No payouts for the wealthy. Means test the payouts.

        This isn't going to pass Constitutional muster. The government isn't going to be able to take out a proportional amount of money from someone without paying them back in that proportional amount, without a lot of wealthy people with influence throwing a fit and getting it struck down as unequal treatment.

        1. Unfortunately, SCOTUS has already ruled that the feds have no obligation to pay anyone anything on social security. They could cancel the whole thing at any point.

  18. I've been hearing this since the 70's.

      1. But as I near retirement age, at the same time 70's style inflation is coming back, I'm afeared my own retirement savings will be insufficient. Not that I was expecting to live on social security, but I think about how much better off I would have been if all those taxes has been invested in index funds instead. Or just hidden under the mattress, for cripes sake.

        1. Inflation is coming back precisely because it is the least politically onerous way for the current crop of politicians to meet the obligations imposed by all these transfer payments.

          It's stealth taxation upon everything denominated in US dollars.

        2. but I think about how much better off I would have been if all those taxes has been invested in index funds instead.
          Would you feel the same way if you retired in the spring of 2020? Or 2008?

          1. Would you feel the same way if you retired in the spring of 2020? Or 2008?

            After 40-45 years of investment growth? Abso-fucking-lutely! And no one has their entire portfolio in equities in the years leading up to retirement.

            1. Exactly. It’s those who panic and sell everything. “A Life without Risk” The DNC/Covid motto.

          2. Do you really plan on liquidating your assets the day you turn 59.5?

            1. There is not many things more disheartening than to see your asset values cut in half a month after you retire, even if you don’t need to tap into them.

              1. Bullshit. You’re gambling in risky stocks in your retirement and expect someone to do something when you lose.

                No bond funds?

        3. "But as I near retirement age, at the same time 70’s style inflation is coming back, I’m afeared my own retirement savings will be insufficient..."

          You got what you wanted, TDS-addled piece of shit.

  19. A government program run out of money? Especially one that people depend upon? hahahahahahahaha. If 2020-21 has taught us anything (monetarily), it's that the government will just print whatever money it needs.

  20. Well it's a good thing AOC says the world is going to end about the same time

  21. oh yes all those senior citizens buying fur coats and designer sunglasses while living on $12,000/yr

    this fucking website...

    1. That gets missed in all of this. The wealthiest age demographics are (unsurprisingly) the older ones.

      Net Worth By Age

      1. Thanks for that graphic. The scary part is the 65-74 year old group. The top end is only $1.2 million. Which, for a healthy couple entering retirement, really is not a fabulous amount of money. Especially considering just how much of it might be their place of residence. Most all of those people are either going to be needing SS payments, or living very frugal lives.

        1. Most all of those people are either going to be needing SS payments, or living very frugal lives...

          ...and many may still find themselves fully on the public dole in the final years of their lives.

        2. Nonsense. The bottom end is stable from 55 to 75+. This doesn't take into account any of the living expenses that are picked up by investment income or any defined pensions or annuities they may have.

          1. "investment income or any defined pensions or annuities"

            Income that - other than defined pensions - has to be coming from the assets included in that net worth number. And no doubt minus a substantial portion that represent their primary home. Which pretty much is what that 'stable bottom' represents. And defined benefit pensions are fewer and fewer every year.

            Yeah, a million dollars is not horrible, but as I noted that is the top. A couple entering retirement realistically needs to plan to make that last at least twenty years. And since they are at the top end it is safe to assume that they are used to living a comfortably middle class lifestyle. What kind of returns are they going to need to provide the equivalent of an $80k annual lifestyle (with adjustments for inflation)?

            And how is the couple who only have half that amount going to manage anything close?

            I would feel better about our future if all those numbers were doubled.

          2. One last thing, that bottom number is indeed the median. So half of the people in that age range have total assets of less than $250k. Which, at best means they own their home.

            None of this is intended as an argument against cutting, or eliminating SS. Just noting that there will be significant consequences if/when we do. That those consequences would prove massively deflationary tells me that, like it or not, they simply will not happen. Not so long as our current political order remains intact.

    2. "this fucking website…"

      This fucking lefty ignoramuas

  22. Well I'm sure paying young people not to work fill fix this problem. Why you doubt the wisdom of gub'ment? Gotta keep the unemployment benefits bonuses extended!

    1. I was wondering if that is actually a somewhat clever if evil method of getting places to raise their wages. I've seen a lot of fast food places advertising much higher starting wages even in relatively poor off locations.

  23. Are you ready for 30 percent cuts in benefits to keep the program alive?

    Not good enough. We need a 100 percent cut.

    1. I'm about ten years out from retirement. I'd be perfectly willing to forego SS payouts in exchange for making no further payments in (that includes me starting to receive the employer half that I never previously got to even see.)

      1. I got around 20 left and would be willing to accept nothing in return for a 75% cut.
        We should adjust this to maintain quality of life for Romneys 47%. Give it to the people who actually need it and cut deductions for everybody.
        Like others, I don't count on getting 1 cent back and have planned accordingly.
        Fuck democracy... The median IQ is 100 and half of people are below that.

        1. +1

          I'm supposed to be able to start collecting later this year, but I too would give up the whole thing, and just fund the little bit of legitimate governmental charity (I'm thinking of my neighbor's down's syndrome kid, for example, or 90 year olds that have no other income) out of the general budget.

          Of course, talk is cheap. It ain't gonna happen, so I might as well promise to conjure up a solid gold unicorn.

  24. I suspect the D.C. crowd would dearly love to clean out everybody's 401k accounts and shovel the money into SS but possibly even they are smart enough to know that would be a bad move.

    1. If by "bad move" you mean "reliable way to find yourself hanging from a lamppost" then yes, I concur.

    2. Oh, they have signaled they would like to do it, but the blowback is tremendous.

    3. No, they're not smart enough. Many have said it.

      1. I figure since so many Democrat politicians are millionaires they would have some concern for what it would do to the stock market. Granted, the fact they're millionaires doesn't mean they know how to handle money (look at Hunter Biden).

  25. No surprise at all, as an early Gen Xer, I knew that most of the SS money would be used by the Boomers, and that we would have greatly reduced benefits from what they got. I'm surprised it will do that well.

    1. same here. to cope i try to tell myself my SS deductions are going directly to my SS collecting father.

      1. LOL.

        As a boomer with two (thankfully) healthy parents, I'm trying the same mental slight of hand on myself.

        It doesn't work.

  26. SS sends out a notice every year of how much you will get when you retire. A few years ago the estimate for me dropped 23% which is strange since i put more in. what this means is i will probably have to leave California to retire, that is if California lets me leave with what money i have left after taxes

    1. Why would California let you leave with their money?

      1. You can check out anytime you want,
        But you can never leave.

  27. "cuts"


  28. I have a friend (really) who cheated on his wife, and they got divorced.

    She never remarried. Then she died before collecting any SS benefits.

    She worked her whole life giving a huge percent of her income to SS so that her cheating ex-husband could collect her benefits.

    That’s the fun of losing your property rights.

  29. "To balance the books, the CBO points out, requires a hike in payroll taxes, cuts in benefits, or some combination of the two."

    Guess which one we will get.
    Hint: old people vote.

    1. Neither party will suggest changes to SS. It's the 'third rail.'

  30. SS was not financially sound from day one. The benefits are not worth anything close to what is paid for them and it must get worse. Forcing new workers to pay higher taxes is nothing more than selling them into indentured servitude to their elders.

    1. That’s what young people are for.
      Surely you remember getting hazed as a freshman, then dishing it out as a senior.

  31. "The federal government itself, let's not forget, is broke."

    I don't see how that's possible. The Dems are starting a new 3.5 trillion dollar infrastructure plan, they must be getting the cash from somewhere.

    1. Inflation; It's the crooked salesman pitch. What you want to buy (house, food, energy) will be marked up to cover the 'labor' required to build $3.5T in infrastructure.

      Pull the 'fiat' out of the game and it is EXACTLY $3.5T of today's labor hour/dollars STOLEN which is exactly the definition of SLAVERY.

  32. All of this trust fund bullshit is irrelevant. SS isn't paid out of a trust fund. Never was and never will be because the trust fund is now, has always been, and always will be worth exactly zero. SS is paid out of the US Treasury and will continue to be until congress no longer appropriates the money.

    1. ...And anyone has to wonder why their car looses less value than their cash in the long run. The 'new' standard of inflation is that your cash will loose it's value faster than cars.

      1. Oh I need an excuse to buy a nice car, hmmmm

  33. Haven't heard much about this on any of the other news sites I visit daily. Guess it goes cross grain to the liberal argument that claiming SS is running out of money is a right wing lie intended to privatize the system.

  34. The sky is falling. I have heard this my entire life. Social security benefits will not be cut 30 percent and the can will be kicked down the road.

    1. Eventually the first law of thermodynamics always wins. The can at some point becomes too heavy to kick any further.

  35. "... actuarial ..."

    Translation: "we are counting on the Boomers to die on schedule."

    Reality: Boomers are going to live a LONG TIME. And they will demand extensive medical procedures to prolong. Hip replacement, cataract surgery, coronary artery bypass, knee replacement, organ transplants, and much much more that the Boomer imagination is only now dreaming up.

    All it takes to ruin the (already dire) actuarial calculation is each Boomer living one or two years longer than predicated.

    Go Boomers!

    1. And if, "Hip replacement, cataract surgery, coronary artery bypass, knee replacement, organ transplants, and much much more" wasn't Nazified (i.e. National Socialism) it's cost would be but 1/100th what it is today.

      Point & Case: Obamacare; raising healthcare costs EVEN HIGHER.

  36. Despite what some knitwits have responded, I worked/contributed for 15 yrs before disease struck. It's not just 'old' and lazy getting benefits. Just curious for the government to answer why I can live near $20009/ye, but a single person, making $90000/yr, with one child, needs a tax credit that's basically vacation funds

    1. ^^The biggest problem with commie-systems right there.

      You didn't "work/contribute" for you; you were enslaved by the [WE] mob for 15-years.

      Now you're playing political 'POWER' (i.e. Gov-Guns) games to *steal* another persons labor/value because you don't think it's fair they add $90K/yr value for others. So you want to destroy their motivation to be of VALUE for others.

      And so the 'slave' game continues and grows with every new citizens who can no longer see any alternative than to become a Gov-Gun toting criminal out looking for a new slave.

      That is exactly why such draconian leaderships such a communism and socialism should be avoided and a system of Individual Liberty and basic Justice should be overwhelming supported.

      1. yes, if you're too disabled to work or make money, off to the poorhouse with you.

        such a nice ideology you've got. you guys'll win a Presidential election any day now, i swear. this country's just cruel & stupid enough to elect people who believe like you do

        1. If you're as stupid as this steaming pile of lefty shit, you'd have an ideology where assholes like this decide to make sure you don't have any money.
          Fuck off and die.

        2. awe yes, if you're too disabled to work or make money; it's off to the criminal gov-gun totting gang with you.

          Surely; A system where all self-proclaimed 'disabled' people can resort to gun-forced *stealing* is better than natural laws of motivating them to DO ANYTHING at all let alone take care of themselves... Good Grief; How "disabled" does one have to be to be unable to punch keys on a keyboard??????????????

          Ya; B.S. sympathy excuses to gun-enforced *stealing* has run out excuses for a lot of people 'slaving' away for those with the conquer and consume mentality.

        3. Cuba is nice this time of year. White sand beaches and free healthcare, plenty of air conditioning for the really hot days.

  37. You know where the money is? It's in the equity of Boomer's homes.

      1. FedGov wants to coax the equity out of the Boomers. That's the thinking behind reverse mortgages.

        That way, they don't have to pass a tax on wealth or increase death taxes.

        1. Seems like a practical way to get that wealth somewhere safe and out of the hands of bratty heirs. Haven't we had enough of those running around with their on-the-nose levels of entitlement?

          I can be president too Daddy!

          Oops Daddy I made a booboo.

          1. Shitstain once more offer adolescent bullshit; asshole has nothing better.
            Fuck off and die.

  38. There is no "Trust Fund", and it would be nice if our allies would find a better phrase for the source of this grift.

    And, as to the 30% reduction, personally, I've been doing all of my projections based on a 1/3 reduction, or an cost of living increase that is only 2/3 of the "official" inflation numbers. Frankly, I'm surprised that it's doing as well as it has.

    Finally, anyone who is actually concerned about stabilizing this scam (since we won't ever be able to get rid of it) should avoid entanglements with the AARP (who are nothing more than a socialist insecurity lobbying group).

  39. "Finally, anyone who is actually concerned about stabilizing this scam (since we won’t ever be able to get rid of it) should avoid entanglements with the AARP (who are nothing more than a socialist insecurity lobbying group)."

    A lobbying outfit for the wealthiest lot of the population! A pox on their house!

  40. The stock photo is of a much better lookin' dude than Deidre McCloskey.

  41. You can't get rid of Social Security within the lifetime of anyone paying payroll tax today. You could, but you'd lose elections you thought you could CRT your way through in a walk.

    Grover Norquist wants to get rid of Social Security because he's devoted to a sociopathic ideology. Most of you want to because it's government and you hate government. (Really scraping up to the middle of the barrel around here.)

    And we very well could see a US with no transfer payments to the old, poor, disabled, pregnant, or working. Some fucking nutjob anarchist zombies are trying to burn the place down.

    But if any semblance of democracy remains, all the people they left starving and without healthcare or childcare or the ability to wheel up a ramp or earn a living that can pay for a slice of pizza... they gonna vote you out, hard.

    Which, of course, is why you must prevent them from voting for the true glorious plan to work.

    I've seen ideology-based authoritarianisms before, but this neoliberal burning and pillaging takes the cake for being especially cunty, because I don't even think it's based on malice. I think it's based on Ayn fucking Rand's "philosophy." Which is warmed-over Naziism, as we all knew once we read it the second time.

    1. #1 - because it’s government and you hate government
      .... BECAUSE 'government' by it's very being is Gun-Force.
      #2 - all the people they left starving and without healthcare or childcare or the ability to wheel up a ramp or earn a living
      ..... NOT Surprising you think **earning a living** is from 'transfer payments' (i.e. Armed Robbery).
      #3 - I'm sure you know by now Nazism is an acronym for 'National Socialism' the tyrannical form of governing used by the Nazi's and wildly supported by the Democrats and their 'transfer payments' ideology.

      Gotta love how lefty-sh*ts spin things on their heads.

      1. But you see, you must weigh that reality against the reality of an anarchic hellscape where there is no consolidation of the legitimate use of force. Even before we get to asking you whether you have some nice running shoes (in case of rape gang), we're still stuck on you being a sociopathic monster who doesn't give a crap about what the rape gangs do to the children,

        1. I'm curious how you come to the conclusion that a lack of social security will equal an "anarcic hellscape where there is no consolidation of the legitimate use of force". Leaving aside that I don't think anyone here is saying we don't need a general police force (though there is vocal opposition to many of the activities which police do engage in), leaving that aside, how does a lack of the social security program, which is really just a moderately regressive wealth transfer from largely lower income young workers to largely relatively wealthy retirees, how is that completely essential to basic civil harmony? (Apologies for the run-on there, but I just started rather stream of thought). The point is though, America existed for well over a hundred years without social security. Countries around the world exist without social security. This particular government program is the only thing preventing rape gangs from wandering the streets? Really?

        2. Gov Gun-Force has *one* legitimate purpose; Ensuring Individual Liberty and Justice against those who wish to take those items away by gun-force or other physical force (i.e. defensive).

          Allowing Gov Gun-Force to "take those items away" ***IS*** the "anarchic hellscape" you speak of .... For it is the fear of losing one's own Individual 'rights' (i.e. 'rape gang') by the gun-pointing or forcing of another that is the end-result of "anarchic hellscape".

          You see Tony; You are the one supporting the 'rape gang' to go out and rape (i.e. forcefully take) whatever the 'poor' wants. 'Poor' is not an excuse to be criminal.

    2. Shitstain once again offers adolescent bullshit; stupid lefty sumbitch has nothing better.
      Fuck off and die, shitstain

  42. I swear the best way out of this mess was to undercut the political support.

    Remove social security deductions from the pay checks of younger people. Raise taxes on everyone. As old people start dying off, advertise to the younger generation that they’ve been paying for old people benefits with no return no reciprocation. Watch young people vote away social security for good.

    The millenials are the first generation to rival the size of the boomers. We could potentially have voted it away by now, but nooooo… gotta keep youngins funding it to keep it “solvent”.

  43. There’s a joke among the right that if you want to fix the north rate, abolish social security.

    1. Birth rate.

    2. Do not forget the grandmother effect. The short version. Women are more likely to choose one more if her mother is around to provide support. It makes sense from an evolutionary point of view as well as a practical one.

      Do not depend on SS to fund retirement. Everyone knows this. Even smaller amounts invested over time in equities will return much more due to compounding. Your house is where you live. Your car is what you drive.

      I have paid into SS for more than 40 years. I am not yet collecting but planning on it. I will never get out anything like what I put in. When I do retire I will need Medicare to cover my health care. So there you have it kiddos.

  44. The pols won't reduce benefits because "you're starving grandma to death." It's political suicide. Their only way out is stealth reductions: kill old people off a la Covid and Obamacare death panels, reduce benefits de facto by inflating the currency, so you get your 1.2% "inflation adjusted" increase each year in a 10% real inflation environment, delay eligibility age until everyone is dead, and increase payroll deductions - they'll no doubt increase corporate contributions to increase their "fair share" of tax payments - which will get passed on in inflated costs of goods to consumers.

    What they WON'T do is decrease government spending to a "fair share" of the fruits of our labors, because that steals redirected government graft money from their election campaign funders and partners in crime, which is the whole point of government from their perspective.

    If we had term limits - 2 terms of whatever, period; no Senate after the House, no Presidential runs after the Senate - 2 and out. Back to private business and live with the consequences of the legislation you passed - then the ship would right itself instead of creating its own whirlpool that sinks it. There should be NO career politicians, period.

    Likewise bureaucrats/civil service; pick a tenure - 20 years max - and then OUT. Mandatory retirement, with defined contribution (not defined benefit) retirement plans. Getting rich off government service needs to stop, dead.

    No one can justify - NO ONE - current expenditure levels other than by whining; not a single bureau, department, or branch would endure catastrophe from a 10% budget reduction and additional 1% each subsequent year, in absolute dollars. Mandate efficiency, not expansion. No more "cuts" that are "reductions in increases" instead of reductions from last year's budget. These people are liars and grifters and do not belong running things.

    They need to be struggling in the private sector, and surviving there or starving from incompetence. Break up the tech and media monopolies and make elections honest again or we are dead; we'll never get them out, because the social media will keep them in to prolong their monopolies.

  45. I don't believe in government funds and things like that. It is better to keep money in cryptocurrencies or online casino accounts than anywhere else. I think one of the less risky cryptocurrency litecoin and one of the best online casinos with accounts is this one

  46. I don’t believe in government funds and things like that. It is better to keep money in cryptocurrencies or online casino accounts than anywhere else. I think one of the less risky cryptocurrency litecoin and one of the best online casinos with accounts is this one

  47. I should think the answer was obvious; no more free riders. Anyone who wants spousal and survivor benefits should pay for them. There is already a precedent for this idea, e.g. spousal IRAs, and typically, other public pension systems require the recipient to elect survivor benefits (or decline) in exchange for a reduced retiree benefit. I know of no pension system that pays a spouse who did not contribute. I would favor a grandfather clause (no pun intended) for the very old, but we are well into the 21st century. It's not 1950.

  48. I find it amusing that people who are on "disability" -- unable to work -- can spend endless hours writing and debating on social media -- including in these comments.
    I may be wrong, but isn't it becoming common for people to do productive work online at home?
    But then, to do so, such employment costs a "disabled" person their tax free welfare payments for NOT working.

  49. Social security is not just a Ponzi scheme. It's a "progressive" Ponzi scheme.

    Low income people (especially part time workers) get 90% SS pensions. At the other end of the pay scale -- people paying social security on their income above $70K to about $143K get NOT ONE DIME more in SS benefits.

  50. The pandemic -- paying people not to work which will NOT affect their later SS retirement payments -- is accelerating the BK of SS. It's coming anyway -- just faster because of the pandemic.

  51. SS will not actually go bankrupt. It will change into a completely "needs based" welfare program.

    For those who work hard, save, invest and seek to better their financial condition, they will receive little or no SS benefits for all those SS payments they made in their lifetimes.

  52. There's one CRUCIAL difference between the "Bernie Madoff" Ponzi scheme and Social Security.

    The Madoff con job was VOLUNTARY -- like all private sector pyramid schemes. People had the option NOT to invest.

    During my years as a CFP, I saved a number of my clients big bucks by convincing them that they were about to be conned with such an "investment" plan.

    Sadly, SS is an absolutely MANDATORY program -- even though it's now widely viewed as a Ponzi scheme. Try not "contributing," and ultimately you'll end up in jail -- or dead.

  53. We need to make cuts to your already meager SS payments, that YOU paid for your entire life with substantial "contributions" from every single paycheck you ever earned - but we've got plenty of taxpayer money to send Israel another 33 billion dollars on top of all the other payments Israel ALWAYS seems to "need" from America.

    Funny how that works. Israel is operating at a surplus yet still needs "aid" from the United States that's operating at a deficit.

    1. Israel. So all of that is military. It is a subsidy to Raytheon, Lockheed Martin and other contractors. It all comes back here.

      What is the ROI.

      - The more F-35s you manufacture the lower cost per unit.

      - Israel is a real time platform to use those. The F-35 has only been used in combat by Israel against high level Russian built defenses. We won.

      - Israel is a reliable stable political ally and economic partner. The best in the region.

      - Israel shares intel and defense technology with the US. Iron Dome the most proven close in anti missile technology on the planet is tied to Raytheon. Mossad has close ties to US intel including cyber war.

      So if you had stock this would be like owning Apple or Amazon.

      You can argue against it but c’mon.


  54. To the point of funding, a possible solution is the passage of the FairTax Act (HR 25). In addition to ending income taxes and the IRS, this revenue-neutral plan also allocates a set percentage of tax revenue to fund the Social Security and Medicare funds.

  55. Hence the desperate push to "vaccinate" as many people - especially old folks - as possible. By killing off most of the recipient market, there will be sufficient funds to keep the scam going for a while longer. So when my peers start dropping like flies, I'll be happy to take fat raises to benefits.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.