Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Congress

Social Security Is on the Brink of Collapse. The GOP Won't Touch It.

In 1950, there were more than 16 workers for every beneficiary. In 2035, that ratio will be only 2.3 workers per retiree.

Veronique de Rugy | 1.26.2023 12:01 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
The U.S. Capitol is seen with a crack in its dome next to a Social Security card | Photo 125751504 © Zimmytws | Dreamstime.com
(Photo 125751504 © Zimmytws | Dreamstime.com)

If you follow policy debates long enough, arguments you never thought you'd hear can become key components of the two parties' policy platforms. That's certainly the case when it comes to some Republicans and their new "never touch Social Security and Medicare" position.

Over the weekend, newly elected Sen. J.D. Vance (R–Ohio) tweeted that former President Donald Trump was 100 percent correct to demand that "under no circumstances should Republicans vote to cut a single penny from Medicare or Social Security." Vance's tweet was issued amid the debt ceiling fight, but this position has long been held by Trump.

Now, to be fair, the GOP's well-intentioned engagement in the overall debt ceiling dispute is limited by the short time Congress has to raise the limit, all but ruling out credible reforms of Medicare or Social Security. Reforming these two programs will take a considerable amount of time and requires bipartisan action. However, this reality is no reason to assert that the programs' benefits should never be touched.

I cannot wait to hear the grand plan that the "don't touch Social Security and Medicare" Republican caucus has to address the $116 trillion over 30-year shortfall—that's 6 percent of U.S. GDP—facing the two programs. No action from Congress means no money to pay for all the benefits. That means enormous cuts that will hurt the low-income seniors who truly depend on the programs.

Of course, if Vance and friends insist on not touching benefits, they could address the Social Security and Medicare shortfalls with enormous tax hikes. For Social Security alone, when the trust fund dries out, they will have to agree to immediately raise the payroll tax from 12.4 percent to 15.64 percent—or close to a 25 percent tax increase. Add to that the tax hike necessary for Medicare and then repeat the exercise over the years to fill the entire shortfall.

It's not as if we haven't been warning politicians that these troubles were brewing. Back in 2000, roughly when I started working on fiscal issues, experts already warned that the Social Security trust fund would run out of assets by 2037, triggering painful benefit cuts. Today, the situation has deteriorated further, with the trust fund now on track to run dry in 2035, along with any practicable hope for fixing the problem.

In other words, these problems shouldn't surprise anyone. When Social Security started, life expectancies were lower. In 1950, there were more than 16 workers for every beneficiary. That ratio is now below three workers per retiree and will be only 2.3 workers per retiree by 2035. Add to this trend decades of politicians buying votes by expanding benefits beyond incoming payroll taxes and you have a true fiscal crisis on your hands.

That's why it's so alarming that so many in the GOP are giving up on educating a public that's been brainwashed for years with misleading soundbites like "You earned your Social Security benefits, so you are entitled to the benefits now promised," or "There's an account with your name on it." Such misinformation has made serious discussion of reform very difficult.

There's no question that retirees deserve fair treatment, but the facts are that the Supreme Court ruled in 1960 that workers do not have a legally binding right to Social Security benefits, and if Congress cuts benefits even by, say, 50 percent, it can do so—no matter how much anyone has paid into the program. It won't come to that, but the ruling still stands. It's also fiction that all the benefits that have been promised were earned by workers—they weren't. That's in part because current retirees are paid with taxes from current workers, not from funds saved out of the payroll taxes retirees paid when they were in the workforce.

It's magical thinking to say that touching Social Security and Medicare is a nonstarter. Even more strange, many of the same Republicans want to spare these two programs while still putting Medicaid on the chopping block. Medicaid should be reformed too, but at least that program serves poor people. By contrast, the seniors who receive Social Security and Medicare today are overrepresented in the top income quintile while younger Americans are overrepresented in the bottom quintile. So these guys want to cut benefits for poor people on Medicaid while subsidizing relatively wealthy boomers with taxes taken from relatively poor youngsters. Yikes.

The GOP's transformation into the party of big and fiscally reckless government is proceeding apace.

COPYRIGHT 2023 CREATORS.COM.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Today's Tech Giants Show That Market Dominance Is Transitory

Veronique de Rugy is a contributing editor at Reason. She is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.

CongressJ.D. VanceGovernment SpendingSocial SecurityMedicareMedicaidDonald TrumpEntitlementsPolicyFiscal policyOhioDebtNational DebtDebt CeilingRepublican PartyDemocratic PartyGDPIncomePovertyTaxesPayroll taxPoliticsRetirementRetirement BenefitsEmploymentMisinformationSupreme CourtWealthGovernmentFederal governmentBig GovernmentEconomyEconomics
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (268)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf   2 years ago (edited)

    That FICA deduction increase isn’t all that bad; “only” a 3.24% increase in wage loss, and half hidden by employers, or so the taxers will say — “employers pay it, not employees!” — and so it will be accepted as “only” a 1.62% tax increase.

    Lots of people suggest letting employees opt out. That is doubtful even for brand new employees. It decreases the amount paid in, only shows up in reduced payout 50 years later when they retire and don’t get any payout, and assumes they all manage their retirement funds well and don’t end up on welfare, because everyone knows there is no chance in hell of politicians not jumping in to rescue them with taxpayers’ money.

    And opting out after having already been working for 25 years? You’d have to pay them a lump sum, and I doubt that could be managed. I’d like to see someone actually explore how much opt-out would cost in lump sums and how much its eventual payout would decrease, for various ages — 10 years, 25, 50.

    Like all Ponzi schemes, SS and Medicare are gonna make a mess when they fail.

    ETA: Hmmm, I wonder if a gradual phase-in of opt-out would do any good. Start by letting people opt out at retirement, then lower that opt-out age by one year every year. That sure seems unfair; it's the new workers who would want to opt out, but I don't think there's any way to have a phase-in scheme for new workers. Hmmmm....

    1. Roberta   2 years ago

      Wasn't there a Reason article like 20 years ago about a country, maybe New Zealand or Canada or Austria or Argentina, that had ostensibly managed to reform its retirement and old-age medical system in such a way to avoid the looming crisis? Considering there was no follow-up, I'm guessing the reform didn't stick.

      Meaning the world is fucked, it's not the GOP or the USA or the free world, it's everyone. And it can never be fixed, ever, ever, ever. It'll go broke, be restarted, go broke again, etc. Every couple generations, one generation will wind up holding an empty bag and have to be machine-gunned down in the street.

      1. JesseAz   2 years ago

        Chile reformed it.

      2. JFree   2 years ago

        Chile reformed its system back then and is reforming again.

        Pension plans are always public finance problems everywhere - but no the problem in the US is a bit unique. Most countries are on a pure overt pay-as-you-go system. So there is far less future entitlement problem, less intergenerational theft, and far more frequent discussion about tweaks to taxes and pensions.

        1. Jefferson's Ghost   2 years ago

          From what I have read, Chile, fairly regularly "tweeks" their Social Security, and is now a private/public structure.

          1. fenehop   2 years ago (edited)

            Home earnings allow all people to paint on-line and acquire weekly bills to financial institutions. Earn over $500 each day and get payouts each week instantly to account for financial institutions. (bwj-03) My remaining month of earnings was $30,390 and all I do is paint for as much as four hours an afternoon on my computer. Easy paintings and constant earnings are exquisite with this job.

            More information→→→→→ https://WWW.DAILYPRO7.COM

      3. Social Justice is neither   2 years ago

        Given the progressive bent of Reason it is more likely the reforms worked but not under a paradigm that looks good for their prospects at WaPo should they follow up on that. Not that I could say either way for the specific example but the trend is there.

      4. debo10   2 years ago

        The problem is the American people and the politicians, not a particular party. Americans want things without having to sacrifice for it. You should be working before you ever have an opportunity to collect retirement from social security. Politicians on the other hand, can't stop spending! Social security was well funded before the politicians couldn't stand to see all that money available to spend! They also created so many 'entitlement programs' such as: medicare/aid, welfare, etc., that they incentivized people to become lazy. They also dumbed down education and skills training. Not everybody can, or should, go to college. The government knows all this, but are afraid to do what's necessary to stay in power. Pretty soon they will govern a weak and broken nation on the brink of collapse and chaos if they don't reform the entire education, tax, border, citizenship, culture, and voting systems.

        1. glorawoodson   2 years ago (edited)

          Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,600 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,600 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
          .
          .
          Just open the link—————————————>>> http://Www.SmartJob1.Com

    2. Mike Hansberry   2 years ago

      Phase 1: Allow SS to pay out only what it brings in, no raise in taxes, no changes. After 2035 that means only about 80% of projected benefits could be serviced from taxes.

      Phase 2: Enough seniors, and soon to be seniors, as well as young people ask what is the actual rate of return of their cohort (all persons born in a particular calendar year)?

      Phase 3: Enough people realize this forced savings is not all that great a deal and the "third rail" starts to lose its sting.

      Phase 4: An actual reform.

      What might derail this from happening is demagoguery of the sort in the OP.

    3. CE   2 years ago

      Like all Ponzi schemes, the way to end them is immediately. Stop them from recruiting new victims. Sell off the office buildings and the computers and the furniture and pay out whatever that brings on a pro-rated basis to the current victims.

    4. fliboy   2 years ago

      Easily fixed for new enrollees. Have a percentage of their deduction for the programs be invested automatically in a total market stock fund that is not subject to congressional stupidity. Everyone could retire with 2X the income.

    5. Dr. JSH   2 years ago

      Opt-out?
      Not going to happen.
      Privatizing Social Security is a godawful idea. Ask George W. Bush.
      He claimed being reelected (mostly because he was a "wartime") president gave him social capital to take Social Security to Wall Street. Instead he left even Republicans feeling emotionally, morally, and financially exhausted. Americans rejected and resented Bush's "brilliant" idea then and will do the same in 2023.

      1. hihivan   2 years ago (edited)

        Google pays an hourly wage of $100. My most recent online earnings for a 40-hour work week were $3500. According to my younger brother’s acquaintance, he works cs-02 roughly 30 hours each week and earns an average of $12,265. I’m in awe of how simple things once were.
        .
        .
        See this article for more information————————>>>GOOGLE WORK

  2. Liberty_Belle   2 years ago

    I've been waiting on Reason to comment on confidential documents found in Mike Pence's home, just like Biden. Is this a news outlet or what ? Also, can we get rid of both parties now ?

    1. Mother's Lament   2 years ago

      "just like Biden"

      Oh, did Biden on his own initiative hire a lawyer to look through all his papers for confidential documents and then self-report himself?
      Because that's what Pence did.

      1. Liberty_Belle   2 years ago

        Another source familiar with the investigation compared the steps Pence took in discovering classified documents to those taken by Biden. Pence turned over about a dozen documents marked classified to the FBI shortly after he discovered them.

        When Biden’s team found classified documents at his Washington, DC think tank office in November, they immediately notified the National Archives, which in turn notified the Justice Department, although the discovery was not publicly announced for weeks.

        “It appears that Pence followed a very similar initial process to Biden in terms of voluntarily reviewing materials and promptly disclosing them to appropriate authorities when found, all made public through a media report,” the source said .

        https://ustoday.news/trump-and-biden-teams-are-both-jumping-on-pence-disclosure-as-a-defense-for-classified-documents/
        ------------------------------------------------
        Governmental sticky fingers can't keep their hands off documents it seems. You'd think there would be rules for this or something.

        1. debo10   2 years ago

          Neither Biden or Pence were POTUS. Trump was treated like a criminal, while working with the FBI, but had the power to declassify. We classify way too many documents anyway. If anyone else was caught doing what Pence and Biden did, they would be in handcuffs.

          1. ObviouslyNotSpam   2 years ago

            The president can "unclassify", but he can't convert government property into his own property.

        2. Mother's Lament   2 years ago

          You really are just a shill, but good job regurgatating DNC talking points you read at PolitiFact or in your ActBlue email.

          A Biden lawyer did notify the National Archives but unlike with Pence, 1. Biden didn't instruct the lawyer to do that, and 2. Biden didn't commission a search.

    2. Social Justice is neither   2 years ago

      I'm waiting for them to do a piece on the activities of Biden's CCP funded think tank with the stored nuclear secrets and no oversight or security on any of it.

      1. Dr. JSH   2 years ago

        You'll have to look for rightwing fiction for that.
        Or, hey, I hear Durham will be out of a job soon. Maybe he could take up your concern as it is consistent with the other nothing-burgers he conned Fox News fans into believing these past four years.

    3. damikesc   2 years ago

      Yes, LB, former VP is just as newsworthy as...well, CURRENT PRESIDENT.

      They do not discuss Obama's less than secure holding of docs either.

      1. InsaneTrollLogic   2 years ago

        You mean the highly secure facility Obama has here: https://goo.gl/maps/LEgbyNhJ5MVkeZyy8

        2500 W. Golf Road, Hoffman Estates, Illinois - a former retail furniture outlet.

        1. ObviouslyNotSpam   2 years ago

          "NARA maintains legal and physical custody of the records and artifacts. After digitization, NARA will store and preserve the original unclassified materials at an existing NARA facility. The classified records have been moved to the National Archives at College Park, MD." https://www.obamalibrary.gov/about-us/frequently-asked-questions

  3. Commenter_XY   2 years ago

    DeRugy fails to provide important context. What will happen in 2035 if the SS 'Trust Fund' runs out of money is that beneficiaries will take a benefits haircut of ~22%. DeRugy left that part out. The Fed government will still be collecting payroll taxes, and could pay out 78% of benefits. That assumes the Congress does nothing at all.

    Should SS be privatized? Yes.
    Will SS be privatized in the next 2 years? No.

    SS is not going away. Nor should it. Thought experiment: Ok, you waved a magic wand and all SS payments just stop. Grandma and Grandpa (or, Mom and Dad) are now calling you for help because one-third of their income went poof. Now multiply that scenario by the millions of elderly Americans currently collecting benefits. Now imagine how the MSM will portray that. Yeah, SS is not going away.

    1. Inquisitive Squirrel   2 years ago

      Yeah, I actually laugh at any article or proposal by anyone that involves eliminating SS or welfare. Like, yeah, no. Never going to happen. Maybe focus on other policies to pursue.

      1. damikesc   2 years ago

        One of the very few positives of Bush was the attempt to reform Social Security. And he was demonized over it. Nobody is going to even try.

        1. Inquisitive Squirrel   2 years ago

          So true.

        2. Commenter_XY   2 years ago

          Yes, I totally agree. He got so close....and was derailed by Iraq.

        3. Beezard   2 years ago (edited)

          And do you remember the main reason critics of Bush’s plan attacked it? The transition costs would dangerously raise the deficit. Pretty fuckin’ comical 20 years on.

          Though to be fair it’d probably just have kicked off the printing/borrowing bonanza even earlier.

    2. Full Of Buckminster   2 years ago

      No way benefits would be cut by 22% in 2035. Shortfalls will be financed by money from the general fund or by issuing new money, or a combination. And SS as currently structured should go away. Gradually.

    3. (Impeach Biden) Weigel's Cock Ring   2 years ago

      The fugazis of Reason don't want Social Secirity to go away, quite the opposite. Like George Soros and Blick Insane Yomomma. they want America to be "fundamentally transformed" into a giant welfare state on the western European model.

      What you will never, ever hear from the gaslighting progressive lefty shitbags of Reason in a million years is a cogent, rational explanation as to why the republicans should always bear 100% of the responsibility for fixing the mess that was 90% created by their fellow lefty democrats.

    4. DarrenM   2 years ago

      More and more money will be borrowed as long as the rubes voters continue to buy into the fantasy. The nation debt will hit $50,000,000,000 by 2035.

  4. Davy C   2 years ago

    Do you think that maybe the reason Republicans aren't willing to touch it, is because those who ever proposed doing anything were attacked by the Democrats for pretty much forever?

    And doing nothing isn't great, but it sure beats the Democrats' call for expanding Medicare to everyone! The Republicans may not be applying the brakes, but the Democrats want to put a brick on the accelerator.

    1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 years ago

      Economic retards to the left of us, economic retards to the right. Full speed ahead!

      1. Social Justice is neither   2 years ago (edited)

        Republicans may be economic cowards but they’ve been pilloried by the media every time the topic comes up. How many beatings for nothing would you need before you learn to shut up?

        This article is a perfect example, the SS failure isn’t new but it is never Democrats making it worse or ignoring the problem, only the Republicans.

        1. Gaear Grimsrud   2 years ago

          Yeah SS reform in my lifetime goes back to Reagan at least. Back then they raised the payroll tax and promised to reduce the debt. Problem solved. Nah. They just spent the increase on other shit and still managed to drive up the debt. Since then there have been various privatization proposals mostly from the R side. In every case the Ds screamed their heads off muh Great Society and they won every time. The idea that Republicans are going to commit political suicide by jumping on the third rail is just silly. Right now Biden is claiming that the MAGAs are trying to destroy SS because they have proposed that Congress actually vote on it once in a while. And by the way. I really wish Reason would stop invoking the magical, non existent trust fund which is now and always has been worth exactly zero.

          1. Full Of Buckminster   2 years ago

            Thanks for mentioning the “trust fund” fallacy. And it’s worth noting that it’s not just worth zero. It doesn’t exist. It’s entirely an accounting fiction, like me putting IOUs from myself into a drawer marked “retirement trust fund.”

            1. Presskh   2 years ago (edited)

              All SS trust fund money is invested in special-issue US Treasury bonds. So, the trust fund is actually as real as any treasury bill, note, or bond. They are all dependent on the ability of the federal government to pay them off by either taxing or borrowing.

              1. Chumby   2 years ago

                Lock box

              2. DarrenM   2 years ago

                "They are all dependent on the ability of the federal government to pay them off by either taxing or borrowing."

                And that ability is being called into question more and more. Interest payments will eventually crowd out funds for other programs and there will be no place to get more. The only solution will be to inflate the debt away or default altogether. There will be no good option.

    2. BillyG   2 years ago

      Agreed. De Rugy suspiciously fails to mention anything the Democrats are doing (or failing to do). And also fails to mention the history. Almost like this is a partisan hit piece.

      1. InsaneTrollLogic   2 years ago

        It's DeRugy. You're almost guaranteed that it is a partisan hit piece.

        1. Elmer Fudd the CHUD   2 years ago

          I prefer the anglicized version of her name. Veronica Rugby.

      2. Elmer Fudd the CHUD   2 years ago

        Veronica Rugby runs this article format regularly. Attacks republicans for not doing something, while leaving democrats blameless via her silence.

        1. BillyG   2 years ago

          Thanks for confirming my sanity.

          Going through it all, seems like Reason has a lot of Reps bad and no mention of Dems in their articles. Strange.

          1. InsaneTrollLogic   2 years ago

            It's something most of the commentariat has noticed over the past few years (like since 2016 at least) in the articles at Reason. To see more, read an ENB or Shackford article. Or see a Sullum article for runaway TDS.

          2. Davy C   2 years ago

            The post is *tagged* Democratic Party. But no mention of them in the text.

        2. Carey Allison   2 years ago

          I now check Reason when I have time to kill, but it's not something I'd go out of my way for. First I add to my almost infinitely long list of muted posters who appear every day bragging about how much they earn with their webcam shows co-starring with their dog or featuring favorite toy. Then I peruse the "libertarian" articles to see what the latest Democrat talking points are.

          Then I make another cup of coffefe.

  5. Squire Al   2 years ago

    There are alternatives to a general increase in the FICA tax rate but DeRugy doesn't mention them. Removing the cap on earnings subject to the tax,$160,200 for 2023, so that all individuals pay the same tax rate on covered earnings, rather than the lower rate overall for those with earnings over the cap, would, by itself, eliminate about 70% of the asserted shortfall and, if combined with a new bend point to limit benefits for the highest earners from the current 15% to 5% return on those now over the cap, nearly all of the shortfall disappears. It does not take draconian changes to put the fund in full actuarial balance. But that is not what DeRugy wants to hear.

    1. Commenter_XY   2 years ago

      You could also raise FRA from 67 to 70 over time. You're right, there are many ways to address this.

      1. Vernon Depner   2 years ago

        At this point, no one capable of arithmetic is waiting till FRA to start collecting benefits.

        1. Commenter_XY   2 years ago

          The best move, generally, is to delay to age 70.

          1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 years ago

            Not necessarily. I ran numbers for accumulated benefits starting at different ages. Ignoring tax liabilities--and investment return on benefits, it will take well into my 80s for the total for later starts to catch up to early starts. And with a 4% return, the later starts never catch up.

            1. Full Of Buckminster   2 years ago

              Sure, ignore important factors and draw a conclusion!

            2. Vernon Depner   2 years ago

              Yep. Most men don't live long enough to break even if they don't start drawing as soon as possible.

          2. NOYB2   2 years ago

            The best move at this point is to take out as much money as early as you can, since the system is obviously going to collapse sooner rather than later.

            1. Vernon Depner   2 years ago (edited)

              Even assuming it won’t collapse, waiting till full retirement age is not a good risk. How do you know YOU won’t collapse sooner rather than later?

          3. CE   2 years ago

            Yeah, that's what all the finance articles say to do. Maximize your benefit by waiting until you're 70, instead of retiring early at 62 and taking 30% less. So you can retire later and have your benefits cut by 30% anyway.

    2. JesseAz   2 years ago

      Raising the cap increases the amount paid out when retired as well. Ypure calling for an income transfer.

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 years ago

        There already is an income transfer component in SS (and in Medicare, since monthly premiums* are based on income). Raising the earnings cap, without a similar rise in benefits, will turn it more completely into a welfare transfer program.

        *Yes, kids, Medicare is not "free". You still get to pay monthly premiums, just like with private insurance.

      2. NOYB2   2 years ago

        You think they didn't think of that? Social Security has a regressive payout scheme. And they may simply cap benefits entirely.

        1. Presskh   2 years ago (edited)
    3. Social Justice is neither   2 years ago

      Fuck you, cut spending. Stop looking for more ways and justifications to steal or steal more from your neighbors you evil POS.

      1. TJJ2000   2 years ago

        +10000000000000000000000

  6. Chumby   2 years ago (edited)

    It is too late to repair Social Security. Allow it to collapse under its own weight. Any cosmetic changes done to Social Security will be akin to rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic. The iceberg has been struck and folks have already madoff with the money.

    1. Don't look at me!   2 years ago

      Take off the rose colored glasses and stop jacking around.

    2. Vernon Depner   2 years ago

      Right. SS needs to be scrapped and replaced with a means-tested welfare program for the elderly.

      1. JesseAz   2 years ago

        That will still discourage most from saving for their own retirement.

        1. Vernon Depner   2 years ago

          That's a good thing. If everyone saved adequately for retirement in a rapidly aging population, then they would all be wiped out by inflation when they all started spending their savings. That might happen anyway.

      2. Chumby   2 years ago

        Replace a broken system with a strawman? It will be run to failure. Those planning to rely on social security should make alternate arrangements.

      3. justme   2 years ago

        do get my millions back from the gov?

        1. Vernon Depner   2 years ago

          No. Affluent people who have paid in will get screwed. One way or the other.

      4. Presskh   2 years ago

        SS is already a semi-welfare program - you think it should be replaced with a total welfare program? That should really encourage tax compliance by fiscally-responsible individuals forced to pay for it.

        1. Vernon Depner   2 years ago

          If they're forced to pay, it doesn't matter what they think of it.

      5. CE   2 years ago

        Yeah, SS was sold as a way to support the indigent elderly who were too proud to take welfare. Since they "paid in" they could claim "their benefits". But these days no one is too proud to take a stimulus check or a handout. And the elderly are the wealthiest class in America, and skimming money from young working families who can least afford it.

    3. McGuffin   2 years ago

      ^this

      At this point its political suicide to attempt to cut. The most rational position, if one wants to have and maintain any sort of power and influence, is to identify it as a problem, but let it crash and burn, to say "we told you so" when its all rubble.

      Its unfortunate, but this is the position we have been placed in. They have bought votes with it to the point it is untouchable.

      It should be noted that if/when UBI is even instituted, it will create the same problem. No one is ever going to want to be the one to claw back the free goodies from the entire population, and when it comes to getting a free check, LOTS of people (even young people) would come out to defend it.

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 years ago

        We could go back to giving out 40 acres and a mule.

        1. Gaear Grimsrud   2 years ago

          I'll take my 40 acres Manhattan.

        2. Philadelphia Collins   2 years ago

          Where's my mule, where's my forty acres? Where's my dream, Mr. Emancipater? To live this way, might as well meet my maker. Where's my mule? Where's my mule!?

          1. Carey Allison   2 years ago

            Go lope your mule in front of your webcam. Folks by the hundreds on here proclaim the thousands of (tax-free?) buck they earn at home on their computer.

      2. Social Justice is neither   2 years ago

        UBI is a lie. Every sales pitch for it comes with changes and qualifiers that make it welfare and prone to the same winner/loser selections and pressures to perpetually increase.

        1. DarrenM   2 years ago

          Assuming UBI was implemented at the start with the usual theoretical design, a flat amount to each individual, etc., it would still end up looking much like what we have now after the government got through enacting all the exceptions, loopholes, and added benefits for different classes of people. Look at how SS started and what it is now.

      3. CE   2 years ago

        People wonder what will happen if UBI is instituted, and paint a rosy picture of people leaving their humdrum corporate jobs to create music and art. But we already know from SS what will happen. Benefits start at age 62, and the average retirement age in the US is 62.

    4. NOYB2   2 years ago

      It is too late to repair Social Security. Allow it to collapse under its own weight.

      "Collapse" isn't good. It needs to be phased out gradually and replaced with a self-contained mandatory retirement scheme.

      1. Chumby   2 years ago

        It is political suicide to touch it before it breaks. It should be replaced with individual responsibility. Government caused the problem by creating a ponzi scheme; more government is not the answer. Says me.

        1. NOYB2   2 years ago

          Well, it may be political suicide. Nevertheless, it would be objectively the right thing to do, since the alternatives are worse for everybody.

      2. CE   2 years ago

        Phase it out and replace it with nothing. Mandatory government schemes are never as good or as sustainable as what competing private companies offer.

  7. Jerryskids   2 years ago

    No explanation for why the Dems didn't fix the problem while they had the majority in both the House and the Senate plus the Presidency? Was the GOP minority blocking them somehow?

    1. Vernon Depner   2 years ago

      How would they have benefited from doing that?

    2. ThomasD   2 years ago

      Hell, no explanation why the writer didn't think it was worthy to discuss at the time they held all that power.

  8. Roberta   2 years ago

    The GOP's transformation into the party of big and fiscally reckless government [italics added]

    Because of course the Democrats are the party of small and responsible government.

  9. McGuffin   2 years ago

    Please just stop with this. Stop the fiction of "The GOP wont do anything to cut entitlements or touch SS!"

    Stop pretending if this is even mentioned in any way shape or form the democrats, MSM, and reason wont have a full on shit fit about the fascist, ageist, mean, unfair GOP and how they are absolutely the worst for even considering it.

    Remember last time Rick Scott even suggested touching medicare and SS? He got hammered hard from every direction. So please just quit it. You are just daring them to make a move so you can say how terrible and awful that move is.

    1. Tony   2 years ago

      An unmitigated socialist program like social security surely isn't libertarian-approved. They should be devoting every other issue of their magazine to describing its evils, if they really cared about opposing socialism.

      But you seem more interested in protecting Republicans from truthful political criticism. Why is that?

      1. Sevo   2 years ago

        Oh, look! More lies and misdirection from shitbag!

      2. InsaneTrollLogic   2 years ago

        Oh look, it's the lying asshole who's one step removed from SPB2 as a pedo.

        Tony on children and sex ed.

        https://reason.com/2023/01/16/with-classified-documents-the-real-divide-is-between-the-powerful-and-the-rest-of-us/?comments=true#comment-9880416

        Tony 1 week ago
        I don’t personally think sex as a topic hurts anyone, and I think when conservatives try to shield young people from sex education, it’s a sinister cover for their own motives to keep children innocent, the better to rape them. That’s what I feel.

        Violence, which you people are fine introducing children to in toddlerhood, is a more complicated subject to my mind.

        1. Tony   2 years ago

          Yes, I think conservatives hate sex ed because they want to rape children without the children having any cognitive tools to resist or retaliate. Otherwise, you tell me what's going on.

          Seeing a tit has never hurt anyone. You are requiring all of society to be as puritan, prudish, and squeamish as you are. Why don't you just stop being weak?

          1. InsaneTrollLogic   2 years ago

            So, what do you think of prepubescent kids and sex?

          2. InsaneTrollLogic   2 years ago

            And do you think they should be able to watch an NC-17 movie such as Showgirls?

            1. Tony   2 years ago

              As long as priests and such want to rape prepubescent kids, then prepubescent kids should be educated about sex, at least to the extent that they are provided with the knowledge and tools to protect themselves.

              Why do you want something different? Have something to confess?

              The sad truth probably is that you never even thought of what the point of sex ed is. You think about kids and diagrams of vaginas and get an erection. Did it ever even fucking occur to you that the point of sex ed is to protect children from rape and disease? You sick fuck.

              As for movies, I think the current system of leaving it up to their parents or custodians is probably for the best. I don't understand how politicians would do better on this count.

          3. Inquisitive Squirrel   2 years ago

            And the irony of you constantly accusing others of being conspiracy theorists. BlueAnon, here you go.

      3. DarrenM   2 years ago

        Simple redistribution is not socialism.

  10. Longtobefree   2 years ago

    Just eliminate benefits for democrats.
    They all subscribe to gun control, so they can't fight it as well as all the redneck republicans with assault weapons welded on their walkers.

  11. ValerieMFaulkner   2 years ago (edited)

    Hurry Up Grab Your Reward $10000 Now Here........ https://bit.ly/3Dk2Nh8

  12. Will Munny   2 years ago

    THE party of big and fiscally reckless government? What utter garbage. Why is this all about Republicans when there isn't a single Democrat who even recognizes the problem?

    1. JesseAz   2 years ago

      It is funny how Reason peops up Vox, Wapi, NYT, etc who are the main drivers in instilling fear of SS changes, theb blame the GOP despite it requiring them 60 senate votes and a president and a removal of the squish goo afraid of the mentioned media.

      Instead of encouraging and emblodening the GOO to continue to seek changes, Reasoj castigated them. When even a "libertarian" magazine attacks them over it, it will dissuade many senators and house members due to media blowback.

  13. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 years ago

    'That's why it's so alarming that so many in the GOP are giving up on educating a public that's been brainwashed for years with misleading soundbites like "You earned your Social Security benefits, so you are entitled to the benefits now promised," or "There's an account with your name on it."'

    Who knew Al Gore was in the GOP!

    1. Social Justice is neither   2 years ago

      Cunt blames Republicans for not educating people on lies told by the media she supports and places absolutely on blame on Democrats telling those lies.

  14. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 years ago

    In their rush to give out free stuff, FDR and his fellow travelers overlooked or ignored very predictable demographics.

    One possible solution is to constantly adjust the age for benefits, based on an annual accounting of revenue. Do this very openly, and the public might begin to understand SS financials.

    1. ThomasD   2 years ago

      They didn't overlook. They didn't care to look. Knowing full well that they would be long gone before it ever became an issue.

    2. Tony   2 years ago

      There's huge demand for labor right now, and you want to start putting desperate 70 year-olds into the mix?

      SS has more benefits than protecting the old from destitution. It takes them out of the labor pool to make room for more productive workers... who are the ones needed to fund SS.

      1. Sevo   2 years ago

        "SS has more benefits than protecting the old from destitution."

        To shitbag, ruining the economy is a "benefit". He's stupid taht way and many other ways also.

      2. InsaneTrollLogic   2 years ago

        Does that fit in somehow with your postmodernism, there, Tony? After all, there is no truth, no facts, so therefore, who cares about the workers. It's all relative anyway.

        1. Tony   2 years ago

          I prefer nihilism, but whatever. Turns out, it's not necessary for the norms of our behavior to be sewn into the fabric of the cosmos before we're allowed to behave in pro-social ways. In fact, the point is being free to choose the best way without the distractions and reversions that come from ideological strictures.

          1. InsaneTrollLogic   2 years ago

            Oh, even more fun. So you don't actually believe in anything at all, do you?

            1. Tony   2 years ago

              Depends on what you mean by "believe" and "anything."

              1. InsaneTrollLogic   2 years ago

                Welcome to the chat, Bill Clinton.

                1. Tony   2 years ago

                  Bill Clinton and I are philosophers. All we do is scrutinize the definitions of even the simplest words.

                  1. InsaneTrollLogic   2 years ago

                    Do you screw interns as well?

                    1. Tony   2 years ago

                      Budget me one and I'll let you know.

          2. EISTAU Gree-Vance   2 years ago

            Lol. Nihilists don’t tend to be as angry and resentful as you, tony. Too much effort.

      3. Elmer Fudd the CHUD   2 years ago

        Huge demand for labor? So I should just ignore the massive ongoing layoffs around the country?

  15. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   2 years ago (edited)

    Absent the fiction of “fiscal responsibility” what good is the GOP? All you’ve got left is a party of Bible-beating Aborto-Freaks.

    Conservatives just need to die out. They offer nothing as a movement. Conservatives need to all follow Jesse Helms and Jerry Falwell into nothingness.

    1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 years ago

      Move to Venezuela, and you can live your dream today.

    2. damikesc   2 years ago

      Yes, Biden is the pinnacle of new ideas.

      Well, he seems to like behaving inappropriately with children, so we get why SPB likes him so.

    3. Sevo   2 years ago

      turd lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
      If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
      turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.

    4. Elmer Fudd the CHUD   2 years ago

      You first, you fucking pedophile.

  16. ThomasD   2 years ago

    Reason Writers: Vote the Democrats in. Blame the Republicans for not fixing things.

  17. Brian   2 years ago

    I really don’t see what all these welfare fans complain about. It’s obvious we’ve created a society that takes care of fairly worthless and idiotic people on a massive scale that is beyond the imagination of man from even a few hundred years ago, yet they whine.

  18. Dillinger   2 years ago

    can we just let it die?

  19. NOYB2   2 years ago

    Social Security Is on the Brink of Collapse. The GOP Won't Touch It.

    Why should they? Democrats are already using this as an issue to hurt the GOP with one of their core constituencies (seniors), no matter what the actual proposal. And anything the GOP passes won't get past the Senate and the president anyway.

    The GOP's transformation into the party of big and fiscally reckless government is proceeding apace.

    And that reflects the country: people with even a minimal understanding of economics and politics are dying out. Just look at the trash that even "libertarian" publications like this publish.

    The fault isn't with the parties, the fault is with the American people: voters have become entitled, privileged, and ignorant, a result of post-WWII cultural and educational changes in the US. Americans vote for low taxes, big borrowing, and big spending, and that's what they are getting from both parties.

    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    1. Elmer Fudd the CHUD   2 years ago

      The fault is concentrated first within the Marxist democrats.

  20. middlefinger   2 years ago

    The word on the street is that Congress will bipartisan to lift the payroll tax cap. That’ll cause a recession. But hey, at least it’s in writing to cite libertarians on killing Grandma.

    The way it OUGHT to be (a literate, numerate public) that understands Ponzi schemes and the CBO, is not the way it is. Thanks to public schools and unions, this is the way the U.S. goes down.

    Medicaid-?? The last time I checked, around three billion people want to come to the open borders of the United States. Who pays for that free healthcare cradle to grave?

  21. Full Of Buckminster   2 years ago

    Good article, but this is stupid: “It's also fiction that all the benefits that have been promised were earned by workers—they weren't. That's in part because current retirees are paid with taxes from current workers, not from funds saved out of the payroll taxes retirees paid when they were in the workforce.” So what? Money is fungible. If I put money in a savings account for retirement, then withdraw it 30 years later, would De Rugby say that wasn’t my money because the bank used it for lending before I withdrew it?

    1. justme   2 years ago

      anyone can download your ss statement showing what you paid in. i'm retired but not withdrawing ss because i'll wait until i'm 70. but i know what my total contributions are (mine + employer). doing some simple math it is obvious that i'm getting ripped off. i'll never get my money back. if i had taken that money and saved/invested it i'd have more than i could spend at the max ss monthly withdrawal amount. there would be assets left for my heirs. simple math shows that ss is not a good deal for anyone.

      1. Full Of Buckminster   2 years ago

        You’re thinking of SS as a savings plan. It isn’t and never was. It was an insurance plan. Insurance against getting old. Essentially an annuity. It’s even called that: Old Age, Survivors, Disability Insurance Plan. Everyone (workers) paid premiums and only a few made “claims.” And it was actuarially sound at the beginning. But then Congress upped benefits and people lived longer. What it is now is a very bad insurance plan that no one would buy on their own.

        1. justme   2 years ago

          you missed my point. i was comparing the financial outcomes to show that everyone would be better off without this "insurance plan".

  22. Moderation4ever   2 years ago

    One thing correct in the article is that fixing Social Security will take time and that maybe reforms downfall. No one wants to take time they are looking for quick and easy fixes. I don't trust anyone looking for a quick fix.

    Let me suggest taking a longer view. Start by accepting that people like the idea behind Social Security and the goal should be reform not elimination. Take a hard look at what it is actually doing for people. Who really needs the funds. How people are using the funds in their retirement plans. Accept that people can work longer, many do, but also that some people cannot continue to work and that some employers don't want older workers. Talk to a broad section of people from scholars to regular people, and people with view across the spectrum.

    Then make a plan for the 2000's SS to replace the 1900's SS, and sell that plan.

    1. Full Of Buckminster   2 years ago

      You might as well ask people about how to reform an automobile collision insurance policy in which annual premiums are 1/3rd the value of the car. It can’t be reformed. It simply doesn’t work. SS was implemented as an insurance policy. And it worked. But people started living longer. It doesn’t work anymore. And people won’t accept the amount that has to be put in to fully fund it. It has to be eliminated, with a transition period to smooth the pain. Maybe create something else (a welfare retirement plan for poor people and/or a forced savings plan for others?). But SS in any form like we have today isn’t feasible. Not that I think congress will actually do anything about it.

      1. Moderation4ever   2 years ago

        Remember the idea of replacing the Affordable Care Act went nowhere. Start with the idea of reform first and see where that will take us. There are brilliant minds out there that create complex financing systems for almost anything and you are saying that it cannot be done for SS. I don't believe that for one minute.

        1. YuckFou   2 years ago

          The ACA was written by the healthcare industry FOR the healthcare industry. It came within 1 vote of being repealed, failing only because of a feud between the ultimate Swampster cancer-brain McCain and Trump. IMO, the ACA is the perfect example of legislation that should be wholesale replaced - not repaired piecemeal.

  23. Tony   2 years ago

    Talking about these things without addressing the underlying issues just makes it easy to make any point you want. Did you even mention raising the income cap to make Social Security less regressive? The only argument for not doing this is that Americans are so uneducated that they need to feel that there's some correlation between paying in and getting out. It's tedious moralism. Childish. I think everyone would be just fine having a secure retirement even if it is correlated to a more progressive tax.

    The question is whether we want to provide for the basic needs of the elderly. Perhaps our country simply doesn't have the resources. But if we haven't even tried to get such resources from our modern day Gilded Agers (minus the taste and charity), then we surely can't claim that. Let's assume that we can take care of the basic needs of the elderly. We can afford the largest military in the known universe, after all.

    So this entire conversation is about how to fill out the paperwork to get resources from one place to the elderly. Obviously, conservatives like to complicate matters so that we're distracted from the basic point. Congress has all the power in the world to tax more, tax differently, provide a universal basic income for everyone without taxing at all, or whatever it wants. It prints money. Anyone setting his hair on fire over the insolvency of Social Security is a person who has deliberately worked to make it insolvent. It's the lies that I can't stand.

    1. NOYB2   2 years ago

      Talking about these things without addressing the underlying issues just makes it easy to make any point you want. Did you even mention raising the income cap to make Social Security less regressive?

      Social Security is already highly progressive, since the people paying in the least are getting the highest return on their investments.

      The question is whether we want to provide for the basic needs of the elderly.

      If we wanted "to provide for the basic needs of the elderly", Social Security would be run like an actual retirement system. Instead, it is just treated as an additional tax and squandered.

      Congress has all the power in the world to tax more, tax differently, provide a universal basic income for everyone without taxing at all, or whatever it wants.

      Yes, and the kinds of choices you propose are going to ensure that Americans will become increasingly poor and desperate.

      It prints money.

      Yes, the government prints money. But it doesn't produce anything, and the more money it prints, the less people are willing to produce stuff. And it's production, not money printing, that alleviates poverty.

      1. Tony   2 years ago

        Social Security is already highly progressive, since the people paying in the least are getting the highest return on their investments.

        These words have meanings dude. The payroll tax is very regressive. The less you make, the bigger the share of your income that goes to this tax. There, that's the end of the definition of regressive.

        If we wanted “to provide for the basic needs of the elderly”, Social Security would be run like an actual retirement system. Instead, it is just treated as an additional tax and squandered.

        It's run like a universal basic income system. I don't know what you mean by squandered. Just say you think poor old people should die starving. Again, it's the obfuscation that rankles.

        Yes, the government prints money. But it doesn’t produce anything, and the more money it prints, the less people are willing to produce stuff. And it’s production, not money printing, that alleviates poverty.

        I agree that productivity is where it all comes from, which is why as the richest country in the world, we surely have the resources not to let the old die starving.

        Money and taxation are just means of moving those resources around. Either you want to protect the old from misery or you don't. The rest is detail.

        1. Sevo   2 years ago

          "...Either you want to protect the old from misery or you don’t. The rest is detail."

          To shitbag, this carries some small amount of truth; to intelligent people, it's shitbags's lefty sloganeering.

        2. InsaneTrollLogic   2 years ago

          Wow, you really don't even follow your postmodernism philosophy fully, do you, lying twit? I thought everything was relative to you.

          1. Tony   2 years ago

            What does everything being relative have to do with choosing to let old people starve to death?

            1. NOYB2   2 years ago

              Well, you need to answer that; Tony, why do you want old people to starve to death?

        3. Leizl   2 years ago

          These words have meanings dude. The payroll tax is very regressive. The less you make, the bigger the share of your income that goes to this tax. There, that’s the end of the definition of regressive.

          It is 6.2 percent up to 160k in income. For everyone.

          1. InsaneTrollLogic   2 years ago

            But Tony was busy telling me last week that words can change meaning.

            Tony 1 week ago
            Postmodernism has a lot to teach us. If there were no humans, there’d be no language, and hence no conception of the idea of sex.

            If something only exists because words were invented to describe it, is it real?

            1. Tony   2 years ago

              Words obviously can change meaning. Nobody on earth disputes that. I mean, you'd have to be some kind of rock-brained simpleton to think words don't change meaning with time.

              I'm more interested in the definition of "real." Even physicists struggle with it. Think you have the best answer?

        4. NOYB2   2 years ago

          These words have meanings dude. The payroll tax is very regressive. The less you make, the bigger the share of your income that goes to this tax. There, that’s the end of the definition of regressive.

          I'm not going to play semantic games with you. The objective fact is that low income earner get a proportionately much higher payout than high income earners.

          I don’t know what you mean by squandered.

          What I mean is that politicians take the money that was paid into Social Security and use it for crony capitalist handouts to corporations.

          I agree that productivity is where it all comes from, which is why as the richest country in the world, we surely have the resources not to let the old die starving.

          The US debt to GDP ratio is 114%; the US is bankrupt.

          Money and taxation are just means of moving those resources around. Either you want to protect the old from misery or you don’t.

          You apparently want old people to starve and die in misery, while politicians pay off themselves and their billionaire cronies, because that is the inevitable outcome of the policies you advocate.

          1. Tony   2 years ago

            I’m not going to play semantic games with you. The objective fact is that low income earner get a proportionately much higher payout than high income earners.

            It's not a semantic game, it's a definition. The SS payroll tax was designed to be regressive, the better to demonstrate some "skin in the game" principle and to try to keep rich people's grubby paws off it.

            What I mean is that politicians take the money that was paid into Social Security and use it for crony capitalist handouts to corporations.

            Interestingly, that's not how it works, but I also agree that crony capitalist handouts to corporations are bad. I don't agree that starving old people is the way to fix that problem.

            The US debt to GDP ratio is 114%; the US is bankrupt.

            Once we're talking about $30 trillion of debt, are we really talking about anything? What are we gonna do, have a bake sale? Sell Neptune? Of course we must also notice that we supposedly have $30 trillion federal debt and no crater has swallowed the country. This is after almost a century of dire warnings on the matter, too, the only solution for which, it seems, is to make old people starve and rich people richer.

            1. NOYB2   2 years ago

              The SS payroll tax was designed to be regressive

              The Social Security tax is not "regressive", it is flat.

              Interestingly, that’s not how it works

              Yes, Tony, that is how it works: the US government has raided the Social Security "trust fund" to go on a spending spree.

              Once we’re talking about $30 trillion of debt, are we really talking about anything?

              Yes, Tony, we are talking about retirement savings, 401(k)'s, and pension funds in the US and abroad.

              This is after almost a century of dire warnings on the matter, too, the only solution for which, it seems, is to make old people starve and rich people richer.

              That is YOUR solution, Tony: destroy people's retirement savings, destroy the economy, and then have everybody live off dwindling Social Security benefits.

              1. OldLawProf   2 years ago

                All Ponzi Schemes must fail. Even those devised by Democrats.

              2. Tony   2 years ago

                If SS funds are dwindling, we can always make more. It just depends on how much you prioritize not having to spend your life savings caring for your elderly parents, should you be lucky enough for them to live long enough.

                If you're saying that the country actually can't afford it, as in it simply does not have the resources needed to keep old people out of poverty, fine, put up the numbers. Once we've made all billionaires middle class and taxed the excess profits of oil companies away, we can see where we stand.

                Unless perhaps you think excess wealth in the hands of the ridiculously wealthy is more of a social priority than old people not starving in the gutter.

                1. Inquisitive Squirrel   2 years ago

                  You use words like "excess profit" and "excess wealth" and don't even comprehend the stupidity of such phrases. It's like your whole world view is that of a freshman in college.

                  1. InsaneTrollLogic   2 years ago

                    It’s Tony. He plays make believe with real life and then wonders why real life doesn’t conform to his rules:

                2. NOYB2   2 years ago

                  If you’re saying that the country actually can’t afford it, as in it simply does not have the resources needed to keep old people out of poverty, fine, put up the numbers. Once we’ve made all billionaires middle class

                  That amounts to selling off and/or destroying pretty much every factory and large business in the US. Great way of completelyb destroying jobs and the economy!

                  and taxed the excess profits of oil companies away,

                  Ah, you want to make the US completely dependent on foreign oil imports! Brilliant idea!

                  we can see where we stand.

                  "Where we stand" will be economic ruin. Well, you'll stand there; I'll have left the country long before then.

                  1. Tony   2 years ago

                    So your claim is we have absolutely no choice, because of a lack of resources, but to let poor, old people starve to death. Well that's not very optimistic. Let's tax the rich a whole bunch and see if we can get partway there.

                    1. NOYB2   2 years ago

                      So your claim is we have absolutely no choice, because of a lack of resources, but to let poor, old people starve to death.

                      No, Tony, that's what we call a false dichotomy. In fact, we need to abolish Social Security, but we also need a transition period so that people who were forced to pay into it and couldn't save won't starve.

                      Let’s tax the rich a whole bunch and see if we can get partway there.

                      You want to tax people to "make all billionaires middle class", and that is indeed a surefire way to cause widespread poverty and starvation. You are the problem, Tony, not me.

        5. Elmer Fudd the CHUD   2 years ago

          Tony, he was right and you’re completely wrong. You don’t have the intellect for this discussion.

          Even if you did you would lie.

        6. EISTAU Gree-Vance   2 years ago

          Well tony, since you also believe that “work is misery”, I guess there’s just no escaping misery for the unwashed masses in your bleak world.

          I kinda feel sorry for you.

    2. Its_Not_Inevitable   2 years ago

      Tony cares. That's why he always wants more of whatever you have.

  24. justme   2 years ago

    and we spend billions on worthless efforts like ukraine.

  25. Truthteller1   2 years ago

    When did the democrats "touch it" you idiot? GFY.

    1. Elmer Fudd the CHUD   2 years ago

      Well, Biden is a democrat, and I’m sure a lot of kids/staffers/his daughter will swear under oath that he ‘touched it’.

  26. Ann in L.A.   2 years ago

    The article, and just about everyone, assumes that raising tax *rates* means an equal increase in tax *revenues*. However, that's not really how things work. The US government, regardless of tax rates, never collects more that 20% of GDP. Currently, we're running in the 17% range, according to the St Louis Fed.

    In short: Art Laffer gets the last laugh. There is a peak tax rate which brings in a peak tax revenue. On either side of that peak, whether lower or higher rates, you can't collect more. We are likely already on the far side of the Laffer curve, and any increase in rate will result in either no increase in revenue, or an actual decline.

    1. Tony   2 years ago

      The difference between 17% and 20% of the US GDP is a vast amount of money. This is an old trick. Obviously taxes raise revenue. That's what taxes are.

      1. InsaneTrollLogic   2 years ago

        But it's all relative to you, postmodernist.

        1. Tony   2 years ago

          So, what, numbers exist at the whim of some thunder god too?

          Why don't you stop trying to play philosophical gotcha and explain why you believe the things you do.

          1. NOYB2   2 years ago

            20% isn't some magical ceiling, it is something that the US government used to get under very different conditions.

            At this point, if you raise taxes substantially, you will likely decrease tax revenue below 17%.

            1. Tony   2 years ago

              Based on the whimsical mathematics of Reaganites, sure. I don't want to break this to you. They were lying.

              If you're going to complain about a budget deficit but you refuse to entertain even a single cent of increased revenue, you are simply a liar and a thief.

              1. Elmer Fudd the CHUD   2 years ago

                Increasing taxes past a certain threshold lowers total revenue received. It’s a proven fact.

                It’s also beyond your limited comprehension.

                1. Tony   2 years ago

                  And what threshold is that? Mind looking it up for me?

                  Let's tax just below that threshold.

                  1. TJJ2000   2 years ago

                    https://reason.com/2023/01/26/social-security-is-on-the-brink-of-collapse-the-gop-wont-touch-it/?comments=true#comment-9897834

                    "But the question still remains; why is everyone even cheering for just how much THEFT can occur before it all goes belly-up? Is the goal to live in a world where the most CRIMINAL activity can occur before everything is stolen? Or is the goal to have a JUST society? (Liberty and Justice for all)?"

              2. EISTAU Gree-Vance   2 years ago

                If you’re going to complain that the rich don’t pay enough taxes but you refuse to entertain cutting out massive government waste and bloat first, you are simply a liar and a thief.

                And a useful idiot.

      2. TJJ2000   2 years ago

        Taxes are Armed-Theft... Hand over your money else be jailed or shot.

      3. NOYB2   2 years ago

        Increasing tax rates at this point likely decreases tax revenues because people change their behavior in response to taxation.

        If taxes go up any higher, I'll likely retire early and then provide services on a volunteer basis that will cost other people their jobs.

        1. Tony   2 years ago

          Government has this funny way of doing fiscal policy in a way that assumes rational market behavior on the aggregate.

          Your response to higher taxes is to give up income altogether. You'd be what we call an outlier.

          1. Elmer Fudd the CHUD   2 years ago

            No they don’t. In fact they’re largely clueless to that. You’re a drone for people that are shockingly stupid, and ignorant. They are of you.

          2. NOYB2   2 years ago

            Your response to higher taxes is to give up income altogether. You’d be what we call an outlier.

            No, Tony, I'm not an outlier. Contrary to your simplistic and greed/envy based understanding of human beings, most people don't maximize income.

            Many people are just marginally satisfied with their jobs, and it takes only a little nudge for them to quit their job and do something that pays less but is more fun, or retire, or live off UBI/welfare.

            That kind of behavior is, in fact, rational.

            1. Tony   2 years ago

              You're right, but that's why the science of economics can't be boiled down to two or three slogans, and why economic policy can't always be "never raise taxes." Life's complicated, and we must not make the mistake of reacting to that fact with the overwhelming burning need for it to be simple.

              1. NOYB2   2 years ago

                You’re right, but that’s why the science of economics can’t be boiled down to two or three slogans, and why economic policy can’t always be “never raise taxes.”

                I'm just saying that raising Social Security taxes won't have the effect you predict.

                overwhelming burning need

                You really are channeling Hitler!

      4. Full Of Buckminster   2 years ago

        Obviously taxes raise revenue…. Did you purposely switch his terminology from “tax rates” to “taxes” to cloud the issue? Of course taxes raise revenue. His point is that raising tax rates doesn’t necessarily increase revenue. That’s patently obvious. But apparently not to you.

        1. Tony   2 years ago

          First of all, yes it does. Second of all, even if it didn't, that's fine. When taxes are taken, they do not go into a government kitty to be distributed to federal agencies. They are literally destroyed. Pay taxes in cash and it will be literally burned.

          If by some freak accident we reach the fantastical point on the Laffer curve you people hinge your entire economic philosophy on where taxes themselves depress taxable wealth, good! That's one major function of taxes. To make people have less money.

          It's certainly not to fund government. Government prints the money. We talk of taxes funding the government because for some reason people have been convinced that outlays and taxes ought to match up. This is a fallacy that I'm sure will be rectified sometime soon.

          1. NOYB2   2 years ago

            If by some freak accident we reach the fantastical point on the Laffer curve you people hinge your entire economic philosophy on where taxes themselves depress taxable wealth, good! That’s one major function of taxes. To make people have less money.

            Almost no wealth is stored in money. Wealth is stored in capital investments: factories, businesses, etc. That is what you destroy when you tax and redistribute.

            1. Tony   2 years ago

              I'm not so positive on a wealth tax. What I'd do with "capital investments" is simply redistribute the ownership.

              1. NOYB2   2 years ago

                What I’d do with “capital investments” is simply redistribute the ownership.

                A poor person with ownership of capital investments doesn't benefit from it unless they sell, and since after redistribution, everyone wants to sell, the company becomes worthless and will cease operating. The outcome of your wealth taxation scheme is the destruction of the means of production. Good going!

  27. Leizl   2 years ago

    I haven't seen the democrats do anything but scream vitriol when a republican even suggests that ss needs an overhaul. I'm curious what the Dems think should be done.

  28. Its_Not_Inevitable   2 years ago

    So then it's up to the Dems? What's their plan?

    1. Its_Not_Inevitable   2 years ago

      Gimme. More.

    2. Tony   2 years ago

      It's all very simple. If there aren't enough resources allocated to achieving the goal of preventing old-person destitution, you find resources and allocate them.

      Plenty of resources sitting around in yachts these days.

      1. NOYB2   2 years ago

        That's pretty much the Nazi political agenda.

        Weimar Germany shows you how that approach to government ends up working.

        1. Tony   2 years ago

          I didn't realize the Nazis were famous for their old-age social welfare program.

          1. TJJ2000   2 years ago

            They didn't call themselves National ***SOCIALISTS*** for nothing.
            Dumb*ss.

          2. NOYB2   2 years ago

            Well, Tony, there are a lot of things that you don't realize, but it's true.

            1. Tony   2 years ago

              Okay and they had snappy haircuts too. I have a snappy haircut. Do I want to kill all the Jews?

              Are you people really this retarded?

              1. NOYB2   2 years ago

                Okay and they had snappy haircuts too.

                The association between Nazis, old age pensions, and your beliefs isn't coincidental: you literally believe in the same social and economic ideology.

                I have a snappy haircut.

                I'm not surprised.

                Do I want to kill all the Jews?

                The Nazis didn't start out wanting to kill all the Jews. The started out with the same kinds of race-based grievances that you and other progressives subscribe to. They eventually graduated to genocide.

                1. Tony   2 years ago

                  Yes, being mindful of social injustices between the races is just like wanting to kill all members of a particular race. Very good. The John Birch society has turned you out well.

                  1. EISTAU Gree-Vance   2 years ago

                    Mindful?

                    You misspelled “obsessed”.

                  2. NOYB2   2 years ago (edited)

                    Yes, being mindful of social injustices between the races is just like wanting to kill all members of a particular race.

                    The people who voted the Nazis into power didn’t want to kill all members of a particular race. The Nazis ran on a program of social justice, racial justice, government spending, taxing the rich, making everybody middle class, and extensive government social programs for education/pensions/healthcare.

                    They viewed “rich Jews” the same way progressives view “rich cis-hetero white males”, and they proposed and pursued the same policies you advocate: expropriation, affirmative action, vast government programs, and money printing.

                    That's the point you and progressives are at. You, Tony, are like one of Roehm's adoring towel boys.

                    The genocide happened years later, after the economy had (predictably) gone to shit and Jews had been socially and economically destroyed. That's also when the Nazis put homosexuals into the death camps.

        2. TJJ2000   2 years ago

          EXACTLY... +100000: Tony, "And once all the yachts are looted and vacant (fled from theft) it's off to knocking off massive portions of the population in firing squads and attempting to knock of neighboring nations (conquer and consume)."

          The zero-sum economics of leftards (or should I just say criminal minds).

          1. Tony   2 years ago

            Yes TJJ, progressive taxation always leads to death camps.

            Which is why you want government to focus on the important things, like exterminating trans people.

            1. TJJ2000   2 years ago (edited)

              Full on projection of your own mentality “exterminating 'those icky yacht' people.”

              1. Elmer Fudd the CHUD   2 years ago

                Damn, you’re a total idiot.

            2. InsaneTrollLogic   2 years ago

              You really are a sociopathic idiot, aren't you. No one is trying to exterminate trans people, jackass. What they're objecting to is people trying to convince their kids that they're trans.

              1. Tony   2 years ago

                No, they're not just objecting to it, they're legislating against it.

                In what other ways should we use the government to tell parents how to raise their children? Do I get a turn?

                1. NOYB2   2 years ago

                  No, they’re not just objecting to it, they’re legislating against it.

                  Republicans are legislating against castrating teenagers with mental problems.

                  It's not surprising that you favor castrating teenagers with mental problems, just like the eugenicists and Nazis a century ago.

                  1. Tony   2 years ago

                    And drag shows. And pride parades.

                    They'll lose in the courts and you'll somehow find a way to forgive Republicans for their overt assault on free speech and the rights of minorities, I don't doubt.

                    1. NOYB2   2 years ago

                      And drag shows. And pride parades.

                      Republicans are indeed legislating against drag shows and pride parades for minors, at the state level. And that is perfectly legitimate.

                      you’ll somehow find a way to forgive Republicans for their overt assault on free speech and the rights of minorities,

                      Preventing the exposure of minors to sexual materials in school and in public spaces doesn't violate anybody's rights.

            3. EISTAU Gree-Vance   2 years ago

              Lol. Here we go again. “People will die” tony must have been triggered by another comedian.

      2. Earnesto Concernada   2 years ago

        Excuse me, but I think you meant to say that, thanks to MMT, we don’t have to “find resources” to “allocate them.” We simply print money, give it to old people, and then tax accordingly to give that money value.

        We’re never going to get ahead while you simpletons pretend you’re distributing resources. “Resources” and “distribution” are all imaginary, after all.

        1. Tony   2 years ago

          But those are the only to concepts in this discussion that aren't imaginary, which is why I refer to them.

          1. Earnesto Concernada   2 years ago

            Words are just figments of our imagination. “Resource”: so vague. What is a resource? And is that “real”? “Distribution”: also vague. What’s “real” about that? What even is “real”? Even physicists don’t know.

            It’s hardly established that “resources” and “distribution” are real.

            1. Earnesto Concernada   2 years ago

              It’s probably best that he scurried away. Philosophy is a deep subject. Kids should stay out of the adult swim.

              There’s a kiddie pool for people who go around asserting what is “real” when they don’t have the slightest clue how complex a subject they’re talking about.

  29. TJJ2000   2 years ago (edited)

    Hindsight — What do you mean Medicare & Medicaid are going bankrupt. [WE] mobsters using Gov-Guns got practically all those icky smokers to quite because it was such a National health crisis it was breaking the entire healthcare system. /s

    If only yesterdays BS-Propaganda was distributed in the same articles as today’s BS-Propaganda…

    If anyone cares to *really* know what is breaking the USA look no further than its ignorance of the US Constitution and it’s ever-growing National Sozialism(Nazism)…. The USA was the fastest growing Nation of wealth, prosperity and pride BECAUSE at the beginning it it didn’t entertain Gov-Gun Commie-Utopias.

    It's as bloody *simple* as accepting the FACT that the only thing that makes 'government' unique is it's LEGAL use of GUNS. That's the only tool in it's toolbox. Accepting the FACT that GUNS don't make human resources and that using those GUNS to STEAL from one so someone else doesn't have to *EARN* something is always a NET LIABILITY and a growth of CRIMINAL SOCIETY behavior. At that point there is more LIABLE citizens then there are PRODUCTIVE citizens EARNING it goes belly-up. But the question still remains; why is everyone even cheering for just how much THEFT can occur before it all goes belly-up? Is the goal to live in a world where the most CRIMINAL activity can occur before everything is stolen? Or is the goal to have a JUST society? (Liberty and Justice for all)?

  30. Sequel   2 years ago

    The smartest thing that old-tyme Democrats ever said was that any Republican attack on Social Security and Medicare would be suicide. All civilized countries possess these programs, though the US version genuflects a bit too much to the 19th century.

    The smartest thing that modern Republicans have said is that they should leave Medicare and Social Security untouched. Keep it up, and they will recapture the White House.

    1. TJJ2000   2 years ago

      And run the nation bankrupt in the process.

    2. ObviouslyNotSpam   2 years ago

      At any cost.

      Worth it!

  31. Stefan Stackhouse   2 years ago

    I'm fighting cancer, so the odds are I won't need to worry about this. My wife may well live well past the mid-2030s, though. We are assuming that the politicians will dither and do nothing, allowing the automatic cuts mandated by law to do their dirty work for them.

    We have therefore taken our welfare into our own hands. I have been saving and investing 10% of her social security benefit every month. Should the cuts come, that will be the first thing to be cut as an offset. If more is needed, there will have to be some budget belt-tightening, then maybe taking in a lodger (we can safely assume that there will be MANY widows and other single retired women in a desperate situation), and finally dipping into that investment fund as needed - probably by buying a lifetime immediate annuity. This does not guarantee that she will be spared from any pain, but she will certainly be in better shape than will be vast majority of retirees.

  32. LibertarianAmazon   2 years ago (edited)

    It would help put a small dent in the shortfall if Congress would return the $2.9 TRILLION it has “borrowed” from Social Security and stop using SS as a piggy bank for its pet pork projects.

    In addition, let people opt out of Social Security and invest, a la Roth IRA, in a manner of their own choosing – and unable to touch until a magic age of 62 or 65, where to invest. Most of us will never get back all the money we’ve paid into the system, so in the end it it makes sense that the government stop taking that 12.4% of our paychecks of which we’ll only get back a fraction in payments during our senior years.

    1. EscherEnigma   2 years ago

      Wait, you think that if the Gov stopped collecting payroll taxes on your earnings that your boss would give a corresponding raise?

      That's hilarious.

  33. Oscar Gordon   2 years ago

    I think the author is being disingenuous - what Vance can't say out loud is that if either party takes unilateral action on this they are slitting their own throats. With out bipartisan support nothing can happen. The first thing that has to happen is Congress and the government unions should have their separate pension plans cancelled and all of them be placed under Social Security. THAT will get some action.

    1. Liberty Lover   2 years ago

      I agree, both parties got us here and both parties have to fix it. The Democrats still have the Presidency and the Senate, but all Reason want's to do is bash Republicans every chance they get. The government printed $5 trillion for covid relief but not one penny for Social Security, stole the Social Security money and replaced it with worthless IOU's but now want to put the burden of their blunders on retirees.

  34. Liberty Lover   2 years ago (edited)

    The Democrats had two years with all the levers of government and didn’t touch social security, but now it’s the Republican's fault because they have the House?

    1. NOYB2   2 years ago

      It's "de Rugy logic". I can't quite tell whether she believes the nonsense she writes or whether she knows it's nonsense and intends to sabotage the GOP.

  35. Richard Bees   2 years ago

    So the Republicans won't touch SS in order to reform it. Guess who else won't? The Democrats. Why is it they're ignored in this failure? I remember when Bush wanted to privatize SS and the Democrats blew a gasket. It was a "risky scheme" according to Al Gore. I mean, really, let people KEEP their earnings and invest them in the market. The horrors!! Better to let people like Gore decide what you get before he jets off to Davos.

    There's no reason this thing can't still be privatized, have everyone 45 and up grandfathered in, gradually privatize it for everyone younger. Messy and expensive? Yes. Better than the empty train station waiting for the 70 mph train.

    But that would remove an important feature of federal government. The need to control every aspect of our lives and retirement. Doesn't everyone want to live with a scope up their keisters?

    Term limits and age limits for everyone (2 terms, 75 years), a 1% reduction in the federal budget in every department, every year for 10 years. Look at means testing SS payouts. These are the hard things, the unpopular things. The things that no one will touch, republican or democrat. This failure in leadership will cost us dearly. And our children. And our grandchildren. If we get that far.

    1. ATCme   2 years ago

      The problem with term limits is then a political office will become part of the corporate climb. Every corporate VP has to do a term in Congress in order to move up. Furthermore, even allowing that some politicians won't be put up by corporations, every politician will be looking towards their next job for after they leave Congress. what better way to ensure your financial security than to take care of your future employer with some targeted legislation. Admittedly, it already occurs but term limits will make it far worse.

      The real problem is gerrymandering and uncompetitive Congressional races. Why everyone doesn't understand the moral bankruptcy of a "safe congressional seat" is beyond me. This is also why I'm a big advocate for ranked choice voting. This should not be partisan issue as there are "safe seats" for both party's & as such, it only exacerbates the radicalism.

  36. Mike Hansberry   2 years ago

    Why is Reason again calling for increases in entitlement spending?
    Why is Reason defending transfer payments?

    It is as if Reason is now liberal rather than libertarian.

  37. Johnathan Galt   2 years ago

    To anyone with the ability to perform simple arithmetic and to reason, it has always been obvious that SS and Mediscare / Mediraid were Ponzi schemes intended from the outset to destroy our nation. Had they been privatized in the 1970s, most retirees would be looking forward to security and comfort. Instead, the monies were all stolen, we will see millions suffer and die.

  38. ATCme   2 years ago

    The simplest solution is to eliminate the earnings cap for social Security taxes. By itself, such a policy would cover the majority if not all of the estimated shortfall.

    Now certainly there is an argument against such a move coming from those who do not feel any sort of collective responsibility to the society that has facilitated their success but I believe that most people appreciate the benefits of having social safety nets rather than returning to the sort of 3rd world society that existed in the USA in the late 1800s when some people were able to amass huge fortunes but the vast majority lived close to or below poverty with virtually no protection from any sort of personal disaster or health crisis.

    Medicare is a more complex issue. If you analyze public policy, Medicare has arguably done more to reduce poverty than any other social program. On the other hand, the American disease care system has gone to great lengths to take advantage of the supply & demand equation where the demand for health (life) is essentially infinite.

    1. NOYB2   2 years ago (edited)

      The simplest solution is to eliminate the earnings cap for social Security taxes.

      You know who that mainly hurts: late career middle class families who need to save for a few years before finally being able to retire.

      Now certainly there is an argument against such a move coming from those who do not feel any sort of collective responsibility to the society that has facilitated their success

      You mean paying 50% in taxes already amounts to "feeling no collective responsibility"?

      rather than returning to the sort of 3rd world society that existed in the USA in the late 1800s

      You mean when the economy was growing rapidly, when healthcare was affordable, and when people could actually save for retirement on their own? You mean before the progressive era madness started, destroyed the economy, and turned every American into a slave to the state?

  39. B G   2 years ago

    The idea that "you get out what you put in" has always been and will always be a lie whenever it's applied to Social Security.

    If we want to save the "safety net", how about we make it actually work as a safety net and send the bigger checks to those who were the least able to save for themselves. It's maybe one of the few instances where means testing is less likely to create distorted incentives; those making more "comfortable" incomes during their working years will have more incentive to save in order to maximize their chances of a comfortable retirement, and there's not likely to be large numbers of workers deliberately under-earning over their lifetimes in order to get a slightly-better than subsistence level retirement provided at little or no cost to themselves.

    It's always been baffling to me that so many "progressive" ideologues remain so willing to continually endanger the viability of one of the most sacred cows over their abiding committment to such an unwarranted and counter-productive fabrication.

    1. Mike Hansberry   2 years ago

      SS already pays a much higher rate of return for low earners than for high earners.

      The trick is to continue to pay a positive rate of return to those who were middle tier earners. That will be difficult after 2035.

      1. B G   2 years ago

        The entire idea of "rate of return" with Social Security is a fallacy.

        Even the portion of money paid in which has been "invested" is put into US Treasury bonds, meaning any "return" on that balance is simply interest paid by the US treasury for the loan of that money and therefore is funded either by additional borrowing or out of "general fund" tax revenues. Those tax revenues are mostly derived from individual income taxes, with the rest coming from corporate taxes (the burden of which almost all ultimately gets passed down to consumers) and tariffs (again, ultimately passed along to consumers). It's debatable that this represents a net positive for the US Government's books if it's assumed that all that money would have been borrowed regardless of any other circumstance (a premise which is definitely supportable with the people who have run the government over the last several decades) and the same interest would have been paid to some outside lender if it weren't paid to the SSTF.

        If by "rate of return" you mean people receiving far more out of the system than they ever put in, all that requires for pretty much anyone is to live more than 3-5 years past retirement age. In a system where significant amounts of savings were truly invested and generated actual returns that might be sustainable, however with the structure of what so many among the political class deem sacrosanct (because they're answerable to voters who have been grossly misinformed for generations) the collapse of the whole house of cards isn't a matter of "if", it's a question of "when".

  40. Marc St. Stephen   2 years ago

    But of course the GOP isn't going to reform SS, nobody's going to reform SS. Why would anyone? Doing so means pain now and losing elections in two years.

    There are plenty of good ideas to reform SS, but we all know in our hearts of hearts that the only way it will be reformed is for it to fail first.

    If our country crashes and burns and is reformed from scratch, the Constitution should read somewhere in it in big, bold letters, "Government shall never be in the business of retirement pensions or retirement medical care" and "any citizen who chronically survives on government entitlements shall NOT be allowed to vote" - maybe, just maybe, this all shall not happen again.

  41. Panhandle   2 years ago

    This article was a waste of time to write and an even bigger waste of my time to read.

  42. dchang0   2 years ago

    Just offer all Americans the choice to opt out of Social Security forever. Sign a waiver, and you forfeit all claims BUT you will never again have to pay into Social Security.

    The young will opt out in huge numbers. I'm not so young, but I'd opt out too because I'm young enough that SS will be unable to pay me anything I'm promised by the time I retire. People who want to stay in can stay in, but they of course would be surprised to find out how many people jump ship.

    The opt out option is easier to sell than other accelerationist approaches to ending the Ponzi scheme that is SS especially because the younger taxpayers, normally Democrats, will love it.

    1. NOYB2   2 years ago

      Just offer all Americans the choice to opt out of Social Security forever. Sign a waiver, and you forfeit all claims BUT you will never again have to pay into Social Security.

      You'll probably get more takers if you offer people the total nominal amount you paid in. That's still theft, but it might actually be enough to fix Social Security.

  43. Cloudbuster   2 years ago

    Democrats control the White House, the Senate, the bureaucracy and until just days ago, the House. All they had to do is take up Social Security reform. Yet this hit piece is targeting Republicans and the word "Democrat" is never even used.

    What trash.

  44. Sequel   2 years ago

    It is magical thinking to believe that Social Security will: 1) ever be privatized; and 2) never need repeated tweaking to balance assets with future liabilities.

    It is equally magical to think that the claim of "Social Security is Socialism" will ever disappear. That remains a political organizing tool that is just too effective upon a small but dedicated base to ever abandon. It has the same polarizing and paralysis-inducing effect as "Amnesty for Undocumented People".

    1. Mike Hansberry   2 years ago

      Simpler version: Social Security is magical thinking.

  45. The Green Avenger   2 years ago

    Start by being honest. Social Security is a government run Ponzi scheme. Those who have been FORCED to participate for more than 20 years should get what they payed in. Everyone else should be able to opt out and invest THEIR 12% of income any way they please (with regulation on investment managers).!

  46. The Green Avenger   2 years ago

    Why no mention from "reason" that DemoKKKrats have tried to destroy ANY reform, as a political weapon, for the last 50 years. Ever since THEY decided to raid the trust fund to spend in the general budget?

    1. kimove   2 years ago (edited)

      I have even managed $20,000 per calendar month by simply working some easy tasks from my apartment. As I had lost my office career, I was very disturbed but luckily I’ve discovered this best on-line career that’s why I’m capable of earning a thousand USD just from home. Each person can avail this best offer & collect more greenbacks online
      checking this article>>OPEN>> http://WWW.DAILYPRO7.COM

  47. Presskh   2 years ago

    Maybe we just need to go back to the original intent of SS - to pay retirement benefits to workers who reached retirement age and had contributed over a lifetime of working. Because the program had so much money flowing in during the initial decades, politicians (of course) couldn't resist the idea of buying votes with this available pot of money. So, benefits for non-working spouses were added, as was Supplemental Security Income and early death benefits for spouses and children. I'm not saying these aren't worthwhile programs - they just shouldn't be funded from the same pot originally intended to provide retirement benefits for the those who actually contributed a minimum number of quarters to the program. Funding issue solved.

    1. NOYB2   2 years ago (edited)

      Maybe we just need to go back to the original intent of SS – to pay retirement benefits to workers who reached retirement age and had contributed over a lifetime of working

      Social Security should be run like an actual retirement program, with money that goes into the system actually being invested and payouts based on actual returns. This might be accomplished by defining and offering privately run retirement plans, or by creating a kind of “mandatory universal 401(k)”, with each investment account managed privately and individually, subject to some reasonable restrictions.

  48. ragebot   2 years ago

    The bottom line is that SS pays out more money than it takes in; something that is not sustainable. Same goes for Medicare and even more so for Medicaid. In fact the US government spends more money in total than it takes in which should come as no shock to anyone with an IQ above room temperature.

    In modern times (post WWII) while the highest marginal tax rate has sorta been decreasing since the 90%+ highs under Ike to somewhere in the high 30% the amount of taxes paid has remained constant at 20%+or- the GDP. Theory is that if tax rates raise too much tax payers at the high end are able to shift, reduce, or other wise lower how much tax they pay. So there seems to be a ceiling of about 20% of GDP for tax collections. Attempts to collect more have never seemed to work and at times have resulted in a drag on economic growth.

    It may be time to realize that the government should limit it's spending to around 20% of GDP.

  49. jb4479   2 years ago

    The author is being disingenuous here. There is no trust find, as an economist she should know this. Social Security is two line items in the Federal budget. These are reserve accounts which have invested funds that pay approximately 3% (originally there was only one account). Previously this enough to pay to make estimated payouts for the year. However as the worker ration has fallen, it's not enough to keep up. The simple answer is to reconfigure the reserve accounts in order bring a higher rate of return.

  50. Phil8656   2 years ago

    We need the numbers on how many disabled people are receiving Social Security. Especially those who are receiving benefits without ever having paid into the program. And we also need to know how much of that money is going to the disability lawyers who seem to be making a good living from it.
    Social Security was originally just for those workers who paid in.
    Welfare is for those who never worked. You don't see any Welfare lawyers do you?

  51. ruffsoft   2 years ago

    The opening set of facts "In 1950, there were more than 16 workers for every beneficiary. In 2035, that ratio will be only 2.3 workers per retiree." is guilty of three lies of omission (which Orwell called the most powerful lies). That might be a record!
    1. Prior to 1950, the SS payroll tax (which today is 6.2%) was 1% In 1950 it was raised to 1.5%.....so of course it took far more workers to fund the program than today.
    2. The second lie of omission is to omit the fact that today, the ratio of workers to retirees is 2.6 to 1. So a change to 2.3 is not an insurmountable decrease.
    3. In 1950. SS had no suplus; today it has, be design, a huge surplus of about 2.8 trillion dollars. This is enough to fully fund SS until about 2035 when the surplus is exhausted and SS, WITHOUT ANY CHANGES TO INCREASE REVENUE, would only take in enough to pay 80% of benefits
    So there is no imminent crisis, given that we have 13 years to do the following:
    1. By a simple law by Congress, the existing cap on SS payroll taxes could be eliminated, which would bring in nearly enough to keep the program 100 solvent in the future. "In 2021, the Social Security cap, or the annual earnings on which Social Security payments are calculated, will increase from $137,700 to $142,800. The trust funds from which Social Security payments are made held nearly $3 trillion at the beginning of 2019 but are projected to run out of money in 2035." This unnprogressive tax means that a hedge fund manager making a billion a year pays obly his first $142,000, with the remaining 98.6% of his income untaxed. Most Ameridcans pay on 100% of their earnings, but the superrich get a big break for the vast majority of their income.
    The solution, while politically complicated, is financially simple: "legislators could close three-quarters of the long-term deficit by immediately abolishing the maximum taxable wage base (currently $147,000), thus subjecting all wages to taxation. "
    And if the way benefits are increased were changed from the consumers price index to the chained price index (a slightly different and more accurate way of measuring inflation), that would reduce another 1/5 of the shortfall, leaving just 1/20th to be squeezed out by raising the payroll tax by a tiny amount, from 6.2 to about 6.4% So if you make 50,000 a year the increase would be about $100 a year extra.
    This simple solution faces intense political resistance by a party that is currently in control of the House and considering ending income taxes and insteading charging a 30% sales tax, which for almost all Americans, except the rich, hike their taxes.

  52. ANMorton   2 years ago

    One possible solution, which is unpalatable to both parties, is the FairTax Act (HR 25). Besides changing tax collection to a consumption tax, designates 35% of tax revenue for funding the Social Security and Medicare funds. The Act is unwelcome because it would end tax lobby patronage dollars.

    1. TJJ2000   2 years ago

      The Act is unwelcome because it contains Universal Basic Income.
      As well as completely turning Social Security Communist.
      As well as pushing tax-rates farther and farther away from consumers.
      As well as making all foreign imports tax free.

      It's a P.O.S. proposal that deserves to be thrown in the trash the sooner the better.

      1. Orenv   2 years ago

        It doesn’t have to mean no tax on foreign imports.

      2. Orenv   2 years ago

        I don’t think you are correct.

  53. Orenv   2 years ago

    If a fix will happen it HAS to be provided by Democrats. Which means it will never happen.

  54. Liberty Lover   2 years ago

    FDR and the Democrats started the ponzi scheme we know as Social Security, always keep that in mind.

  55. MyWag13   2 years ago

    Silly
    The US Govt has borrowed $$$ TRILLIONS of Dollars
    from Social Security. Simply pay back what was borrowed.

  56. YuckFou   2 years ago

    Either we are going to take care of our elderly, or they are going to vote for those who will. Seniors vote.
    Younger folks, still in the workforce, can recover from stupid insane taxes, (look at CA,NY,etc), but retired folks can't.
    The burden of SS and Medicare will force governments to spend less on lesbian dance theory courses - a good thing. About time we focus on what is really important.

  57. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf   2 years ago

    Ho!!! I beat the spammer by 5 minutes!

  58. Elmer Fudd the CHUD   2 years ago (edited)

    Thank you, I’ve been saying that for years. And all the other CHUD’s agree. It’s one thing to be a cannibalistic humanoid underground dweller, but being a sociopathic narcissist Marxist is just a bridge too far.

  59. Tony   2 years ago

    I said two things. I support children being protected from rape, and I'm against the government making parents' decisions for them.

    Which of these do you disagree with most?

  60. Inquisitive Squirrel   2 years ago (edited)

    Except, you’re not cool with parents making all decisions, you’re only cool with them being able to make the decisions you agree with.

    And no one disagrees with protecting children from rape. That’s just another false straw man argument you created. The problem that people are now having is actually in line with protecting children from sexual predators. The left, and you apparently, seem not to be able to understand that. Rather, you scream false tribal narratives rather than actually engaging with the substance.

    Do you ever get tired of being such a dishonest commenter, Tony Rupar?

  61. Tony   2 years ago

    And I'm saying explicitly that Republicans are acting contrary to the goal of protecting children from child predators by opposing sex ed. Can't you see a hysterical Republican moral panic when it screeches in your face? How many more rounds of this are we going to go. They do not know how to protect children. Their solution to children being shot by the dozen is more guns in schools.

    The reason they are so supposedly interested in child predation, apart from the many, many ones of them who have been sent to prison for it, is because it's a moral crime extreme enough for them to actually be against it, at least in public. They're just happy they found some moral principle to get behind.

  62. EscherEnigma   2 years ago

    It's been shown then when kids know about sex, and about the importance of consent, they're more likely to recognize and speak-out when they're being sexually abused.

    Or to put it another way... a sexually ignorant kid is more likely to let Uncle Randy do whatever and keep it secret then a kid that's gotten age-appropriate sex-ed.

    Similarly, it's been shown (over and over again) that comprehensive sex-ed reduces teen pregnancy more then abstinence-only education.

    Ignorance of sex protects no-one.

  63. YuckFou   2 years ago

    Seniors aren't rich - they've just accumulated wealth over time. Seniors are very vulnerable to changes that require a greater income, (eg. Inflation), because they can't participate in the workforce.
    So stop blaming supposedly rich seniors.
    THINK instead.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Trump's Tariffs and Immigration Policies Destroy Thousands of Acres of Tomato Crops in Florida

Autumn Billings | 5.12.2025 5:14 PM

Defenders of Trump's Birthright Citizenship Order Offer an Implausible Take on a 127-Year-Old Precedent

Jacob Sullum | 5.12.2025 4:52 PM

Why DOGE Failed

Eric Boehm | 5.12.2025 3:20 PM

The Indian-Pakistani Ceasefire Is What U.S. Diplomacy Should Look Like

Matthew Petti | 5.12.2025 12:11 PM

Republicans Want To Redefine Obscenity

Elizabeth Nolan Brown | 5.12.2025 11:45 AM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!