Social Security and Medicare Cuts Are Coming, Whether Politicians Do It or Not
As legislators refuse to act, benefits will be cut without any possibility of sheltering those seniors who are poor.

President Joe Biden tweeted last week that he will be a "nightmare" for Republicans who dream of cutting Social Security and Medicare. With this statement, Biden showed that he's either shockingly ignorant about these two programs and any Republican reform efforts—or lack thereof—or just another politician who washes his hands of what happens when he's out of office and the programs hit upcoming obstacles.
I have an idea which one it is. However, before revealing my guess, it's worth revisiting the issue more fully. Each time I write about Social Security and Medicare, newspapers receive letters to the editors revealing how little the general public understands about entitlement spending and where it's headed. This misunderstanding is particularly acute and ominous when it comes to Social Security.
It's important for people to grasp reality because no single issue will affect our fiscal future more than Social Security and Medicare. Spending on these two programs alone consumes 45 percent of the federal budget. Along with Medicaid, these programs are the drivers of our current and future debt. And to drive home the seriousness of our predicament, note that Medicare and Social Security together face a shortfall of $116 trillion over the next 30 years.
How Congress decides to address this shortfall will have serious consequences on the government's ability to pay for everything else or on Americans' tax burdens, whether they be rich or poor.
This is why it's worth trying to get through to those who, for instance, believe that Congress shouldn't reform entitlements because they have paid for every dollar and are entitled to them. This assertion is incorrect. Americans have indeed been paying for some benefits, but not for their own and not for all of what they will receive.
Consider Social Security. The program is funded by a payroll tax of 12.4 percent. The revenues collected don't belong to the workers except in the sense that paying taxes makes us eligible to receive Social Security when we retire. But these revenues don't go into accounts with our names on them. Instead, they are used to fund payments made to current retirees. It's a pay-as-you-go system, not an investment account. In the former, adjustments are sometimes necessary.
Second, beneficiaries receive more than they paid in taxes. The average Social Security retiree will get $698,000 and will only have paid $625,000. That explains the program's insolvency. It's even worse for Medicare since the average beneficiary receives three times more than he or she pays in taxes for that program.
So, while no serious reformer seeks to cut a dime more than is necessary to make both programs safe and sustainable, workers and retirees upset about the changes won't have any legal rebuttal no matter how many payroll taxes they paid in. The Supreme Court said that much in a ruling in 1960.
Voters could of course throw those who want to touch Medicare and Social Security out of office. This political constraint is why every Congress stays as far as it can from seriously reforming these programs—but it doesn't mean the programs won't get cut. Failure to reform them, in fact, means benefits will automatically get cut.
Consider again Social Security. Right now, benefits paid out come from the payroll tax as well as money borrowed by the Treasury. Why does the Treasury do that? Because Social Security has a trust fund with about $2.6 trillion in IOUs that it can redeem when the payroll tax isn't covering all the benefits. That's been the case since 2010.
These IOUs come from excess payroll taxes collected from past workers. That money was exchanged for Treasury bonds—pieces of paper. Treasury then spent these funds on whatever Congress directed: defense, highways, education, you name it. This matters for two reasons. First, unless Congress changes the law, as long as the Trust Fund contains IOUs, Social Security will ask Treasury for money and get it. Second, when the Trust Fund runs out of IOUs around 2033, Social Security benefits by law will be cut by about one-fifth. Something similar happens with Medicare, only sooner.
Biden—who's spent a half-century in the Beltway and knows how this works—unwittingly used the right word to describe his intention to block Medicare and Social Security reform. By not acting, benefits will be cut without any possibility of sheltering those seniors who are poor. The nightmare looms for them.
COPYRIGHT 2023 CREATORS.COM.
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.
Please
to post comments
Indeed. Nothing can stop what's coming.
I agree we are headed towards a "cliff." However, My spouse and I are above the average wage earners and have put in no where near 625 K. Where does that data come from??? We have paid in for over 50 years. In the potential 20 years of our retirement we are scheduled to receive > 1 mil - much more than we were taxed. However, had we placed that income into our IRAs, we would have more than that to draw upon. The Ponzi scheme is about to crash.....but it is not our fault. The can has been kicked down the road for far too long.
My guess is there's an inflation adjustment to the taxes you and I paid 30 years ago. It's probably $625 in today's dollars.
There might be an adjustment for investment return. T-bills pay a few percent so one could argue we should consider that interest part of your "contribution" (is is a contribution if it was mandatory?).
●US Dollar Rain Earns upto $550 to $750 per day by google fantastic job oppertunity provide for our community pepoles who,s already using facebook to earn money 85000$ every month and more through facebook and google new project to create money at home withen few hours.Everybody can get this job now and start earning online by just open this link and then go through instructions to get started..........
See this article for more information————————>>>http://www.dailypro7.com
Excellent point NurseyVic53! I looked at my SSA statement and working over 45 years, it shows total taxes paid (by me and my employers) is about half the 625K figure De Rugy provides, while I produced about twice the average US income.
I believe psmoot's comment about an "inflation adjustment" is the answer. The value of a dollar has varied over time, so I'd expect De Rugy adjusted all dollars to the currrent value of the dollar, so earnings of $100 in 1980 are calculated as being worth $363 now.
The calculations I wish De Rugy would have done, would be to compare what SS recipients are getting, compared to what they'd be getting if those contributions were invested by the individual in an index fund of money in their name. They'd be getting a lot more, and usually have money left over to pass to their families when they die. DeRugy also doesn't say there was any return on those Social Security payments (I'd assume she used 0% return) which is unlike a free market, where you usually get something in return for investing your money. That's something government has taken from us with this socialist program.
Medicare is just as bad. I recall David Goldhill's book "How American Health Care Killed My Father", where he determined that seniors getting their "free" Medicare, actually spend a greater portion of their retirement income on medical care, than seniors did before Medicare existed! That suggests abolishing Medicare and returning to free markets would save seniors money.
I am now making over $15k every month just by doing an easy job online from home using my laptop. Everybody can now get this and start making extra dollars online by just follow instructions on this website.. https://salarybez4.blogspot.com/
SS and Medicare have already been cut. Every time we inflate the money supply, it effectively cuts dilutes those dollars received. Through SS and tightens the Medicare’s resources.
There is no free lunch. Someone is paying the tab. Unfortunately, retarded democrats are incapable of understanding that.
Yup!
The reason we lose is that we continue to make excuses for Democrats, like abused spouses. They are not “incompetent.” They are not “ignorant.” What they are is ruthlessly malicious. Until / unless we all acknowledge this openly and act accordingly, we are doomed.
I disagree that "retarded democrats are incapable" of understanding who's paying the tab, even for the few "mentally challenged" democrats like Biden and Fetterman (the 2024 no-brainer ticket).
Instead, they're continue to engage in the fraud that SS and Medicare are something you paid for and can't be eliminated or reduced by the federal government via a single bill, rather than the semi-Ponzi (and definitely socialist) programs they are. The truth is, no Congress can force future Congresses to keep their promises.
Why does the Treasury do that? Because Social Security has a trust fund with about $2.6 trillion in IOUs that it can redeem when the payroll tax isn't covering all the benefits.
Also, this is the biggest financial scam in the history of the world.
It is the equivalent of writing yourself an IOU for one million and saying you have a million dollars now.
"...It is the equivalent of writing yourself an IOU for one million and saying you have a million dollars now..."
Shhh!
This is a common misunderstanding but it's really nothing like writing an IOU to yourself.
Due to demographics (mostly the baby boom) a surplus has built up over time in the Social Security Trust Fund but that surplus will be required to pay benefits in the future.
If you were responsible for such a trust fund, you would have a few obvious options on what to do with it.
Option 1: Store it in the form of one-hundred dollar bills in a "perfectly safe place" until it's needed. This of course would result in much of the value being eroded by inflation over time.
Option 2: Invest it in the private sector. Perhaps invest it in Enron, Tesla, WebVan, Facebook, TerraPower, or Solyndra or other potentially high yielding investments which might also go completely bust. This of course might keep up with or even outstrip inflation but it also would risk losing a very large percentage of the Trust Fund completely destroying the program's ability to pay even current benefits. It would also create a nightmare of political issues by dumping huge sums of money into favored sectors or even favored companies which would distort markets. This would likely result in massive lobbying efforts to get the funds directed to special interests and cause the government to (more than they do so now) "pick winners and losers" in the private sector - with many political implications (perhaps, for example, pressure from unions would result in the Trust Fund only investing in companies which have a union workforce).
Option 3: Invest it in the safest investment, by worldwide standards, possible even though it's not the highest yielding.
Congress, via legislation, chose Option 3. That investment is in the form of a loans to the federal government via Treasuries (just as you or I can do -- although the specific series the Trust Fund invests in isn't available to us).
Note that the stated federal debt includes all the Treasuries the Trust Fund holds. The federal debt would not change one penny if the Trustees suddenly redeemed all the Treasuries they hold. The federal debt is sometimes divided into two categories - such as "Government Holdings" and "Public Debt" or alternatively "Intragovernmental Holdings" and "Debt Held by the Public". Most, but not all, of the "Intragovernmental Holdings" are held by the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds.
If the Trust Fund were to redeem all of its Treasuries suddenly, the Treasury Department would just have to borrow that additional amount (to pay the Trust Fund back, just as when a TBill you hold matures) on the "open market" (including borrowing from foreign investors) just as they do several times a week for the rest ("Public Debt" or "Debt Held by the Public") of the debt. The increased supply of Treasuries on the open market likely would somewhat increase what the government must pay in interest to attract lenders due to the increase in supply without, likely, a corresponding increase in demand at a given interest rate.
I agree, I don't like the IOU model.
I find the question "how much do I want to raise my kids' taxes to pay my SS benefits?" much more compelling. As a dad, clearly my answer is zero. Not sure I've convinced anyone with that.
Since the Government has spent the money in the trust fund , they are already financing the programs out of the general budget. This adds to the yearly deficit. They will probably pass a law to continue this practice. The idea that they will let the cuts take place without action, seems unlikely.
You’re looking at social security as if it’s a separate entity from the Treasury. But it’s not. They’re just a way of reporting different activities within the federal government. The relevant issue isn’t how you’d invest a trust fund, it’s how the government should fund the program. If the “trust fund” reporting scheme had never been set up the federal government balance sheet, in total, would look exactly the same as it does now, except there would be no Social Security balance sheet, nor IOUs from the Treasury to Social Security. But the Social Security program would be in the exact same financial position: needing money from the Treasury to pay benefits. Is the Treasury (i.e. federal government) good for it? Sure. But that’s irrelevant. The act of setting up a “trust fund” did nothing, other than make it easier to see the excess of Social Security taxes over benefits paid to date.
It is my understanding that under current law (with temporary exceptions like a short "Payroll Tax Holiday" during the recession in which the Trust Funds were compensated from general revenues for the revenue lost from the suspended payroll tax) the only source of Social Security benefits were/are the Trust Funds and current payroll taxes and that if those are insufficient to make full benefit payment the payments will be cut accordingly. Congress hasn't appropriated funds to pay Social Security benefits that the Trust Fund can't cover so those benefits simply can't be paid in full.
That makes Social Security completely separate from the rest of the government funding.
Of course politics may result in a future change to the law to backstop Social Security benefits with general revenue but that hasn't happened yet. I agree it's likely that this will happen - esp. in a climate where many people, including the President, advocate to effectively using general revenues to pay back portions of student loans owed by people who are well able to make the payments themselves and agreed to do so upon taking out the loan. The payroll tax is NOT voluntary and deprives the individual of the ability to have been much more fiscally responsible with the premiums the government "insurance" demanded so backstopping the Trust Funds to pay expected benefits is much more compelling than student loan "forgiveness".
If the Trust Fund had bought DJIA index funds or Chinese Treasuries instead of US Treasuries the total US debt would remain the same - the federal government would just owed it to different lenders. As well, if the Trust Funds invested in things other than US Treasuries and ran dry, it's equally likely that for political reasons Congress would end up raiding the "general revenue" (i.e., issue more debt) to cover the shortfall.
Google pays a $100 hourly salary. For a 40-hour work week, my most recent online earnings were $3,500. My younger brother’s buddy claims that he at-90 works for about 30 hours per week and makes an average salary of $12,265. I’m amazed at how straightforward things used to be. More details may be found
.
.
More information→→→→→ https://dollarwork9.blogspot.com
The myth that Social Security represents "benefits that I've earned" is very strong. It's hard to find someone who doesn't believe that on some level, actually. Therefore if SS is going to be reformed, it has to be done in a way so that people don't think that anyone is "taking away their benefits". A transition to a Singapore-style hybrid system would be a big improvement. Basically if that system were to come here, we would still have that 7.65% (x2!) taken out of our paychecks, but it would go into a private IRA-type investment account instead. It's still government forcibly taking money away from people, but at least it's going to a place where the individual has some real ownership over it, rather than to the mythical "Social Security Trust Fund".
The entitlement mentality is very strong here in the US especially. The Singapore and Chile solution doesn't work with that mentality. In fact it reinforces it - with an enormous problem of creating cronyism and kleptocracy when you combine that personal entitlement mindset with private accounts and tax mandates.
I don't know how to solve that entitlement mentality in the US. Not sure it's possible. This could well be one of those inevitabilities of decline of empire. A manifestation of decadence and delusion.
End payroll deductions and raise income taxes on the people that would have been paying in the payroll deductions in a zero sum gain. A graphic illustration that you're not paying in a premium, just taxes. Then start raising taxes to fully pay as you go year over year. A four year term of office so 25% per year until it is fully funded. You won’t get past year one before there’ll be riots in the streets to reform the system.
Well, they forcibly took 100's of thousands of dollars from me over the decades. I do feel entitled to getting some of that back in some way shape or form. When Bush II was floating a similar type system I was very onboard. Time is running out but if they made the switch today you could count me in.
Diverting a portion of that 7.65% x2 effectively becomes a larger benefit cut for existing retirees.
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.
Making money online more than $15k just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info on this page............ http://Www.jobsrevenue.com
Govt people have an aversion to the word "private." For them, it's about control. If you can change that mentality, great.
Your democrats will never do that. And they will destroy anyone who even suggests that.
I want my promised full benefits, in cash or real estate. I hear the feds have a few acres in their portfolio.
I'd accept that.
40 and a mule. In.
sarc is in if that 40 is Colt 45.
Don’t forget the mule.
What promised benefits? The Supreme Court ruled long ago that there is no legal obligation to pay SS benefits. There are only politician's promises, but you _know_ they lie.
when the Trust Fund runs out of IOUs around 2033, Social Security benefits by law will be cut by about one-fifth
So future cuts are already built in?
Leave it alone then.
Congress won't cut it on their own.
Laws can be changed, right? What happens to any congressman in 2033 when he refuses to rescind the 20 percent cut?
What happened to the republicans who promised to get rid of obamacare if they took the congress?
They’ll just claim they’re powerless.
Not as if they didn't try. F'En few RINO'S who act just like *all* the Democrats.
"What happened to the republicans who promised to get rid of obamacare if they took the congress?"
They were outvoted by the Ds and an occasional RINO; is that a mystery?
Do you even realize this is what I explained to you in the roundup thread dummy?
I wonder why we think a 20% cut is the right amount. Maybe it's too little or too much.
Agree. Let everyone take an equal percentage haircut. At least those who paid in the most money over their working career won’t feel they are getting totally ripped off. Converting SS into a total welfare system for the poor elderly (it’s already a semi-welfare system) will totally destroy any public support for it by those who are required to pay in the most.
I figure it's already 80% welfare. I once compared my annual social security statement to someone who'd barely worked and paid in enough to qualify. I paid in 26 times as much as her, and I would get 5 times as much. So there's an 80% difference between my benefits/paid in ratio and hers.
The Social Security trust fund has billions of dollars, the feds should use it to buy lottery tickets. Maybe they'll get lucky, it's better odds than on them getting smart.
the Social Security trust fund is a fiction. there is no money.
There is $2.6 trillion in Treasury Bills in it.
Yeah, I know. Someone stole it all. They are paying benefits with fake money. The WEF hijacked it. Lizard people run the world.
Social security and the treasury are both part of the federal government. It can’t owe money to itself, despite the nomenclature that tries to maintain that fiction. Example: You open a bank account to fund your retirement and put $2,000 in there. Later you need $2,000 to pay bills and your general bank account has nothing in it. You move that $2,000 to your general bank account, spend it all, and write that your general bank account owes $2,000 to your retirement account. How much have you saved for retirement? This is exactly the case with social security.
$2.6 trillion in T-bills/bonds?
So those will have to be sold in order to create larger deposits in Federal Reserve banks. And who is going to buy those T bonds? Federal Reserve banks. So we’ve done nothing at all on the back end except create matching assets/liabilities in the FR system. Oh and pay interest on those T bonds forever.
On the front end – when those T bonds in the trust fund were created – we did so by deliberately spending more than we raised in taxes. That, along with the entitlement mentality (and generational theft) created by deficit spending, was the ‘solution’ to ‘save SS and Medicare’ in 1983. Which also happens to be the last time there was a serious public finance discussion. Once every two generations.
It's the equivalent of writing yourself and IOU for a dollar every time you spend a dollar.
And then decades later you're like 'oh man look at all this money i have in the form of these totes legit IOUs i wrote myself. I'm flush with cash baby!"
The bonds in the so called trust fund cannot, by law, be purchased by anyone.
And that is because, by law, they are in fact worthless.
That's paying off your credit card with IOUs.
He's a simp for the regime he doesnt even believe half the shit he posts.
Don’t attribute to malice what can be explained by ignorance or stupidity. There’s a difference between a liar and someone who believes liars.
Boaf sidez believe their fair share of bullshit. So much contradictory information out there. Facts aren't facts anymore. Depends on your politics. If you're not on either team then it's really confusing.
He regularly touts how awesome George Soros is, and is one of his acolytes. By his own admission.
[deleted. decided this platform doesnt deserve my thoughts]
If you are as stupid as turd, none of that matters.
Yes, a special kind of treasury bill that cannot be sold. The federal government has been transferring the excess SS taxes to other accounts and writing IOUs to itself. They have no real value and can only be paid out of the general treasury, that is, what is funded out of general tax revenue. A debt to yourself is not an asset to you. The SS Trust Fund contains nothing but vapor.
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.
And that's different from other government debt... how?
The trust fund is government debt like any other.
But for some reason, defaulting on it is considered less serious than defaulting on other debt.
"The average Social Security retiree will get $698,000 and will only have paid $625,000."
So increase the SS tax by 12% or decrease benefits by that amount or some combination. As to Medicare - that program is doomed.
Worst case scenario for Republicans:
Party A = adjust the FICA cap up to cover the actuarial shortfall
Party B = cut benefits
Party B then gets trounced in the next couple of elections.
Better to "reform" it now to keep Party A out of power.
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.
"Biden showed that he's either shockingly ignorant about..."
Yeah, we know which door, Veronique.
Get ready, people. No one is going to save you.
I’ve made $84,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. The potential with this is endless.
Here’s what I do…………..>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
Do they still send those "This is what you're gonna get" letters anymore? Can't remember the last time I got one. They probably have the wrong address.
i believe its all digital now. i get an email once a year that reminds me to go check.
Medicare is the real nightmare.
Fixing SS is straightforward.
Remove the income cap on the taxes.
Raise the retirement age, and index it to longevity (how fast is the trick)
Reduce the ability to claim early semi-slowly to zero
Done
I’d much prefer we end the Social Security tax and increase income taxes to offset that, plus more. We need to eliminate the fiction that this program is a personal retirement account funded by your “contributions.” And it’ll end the fiction that there’s a trust fund.
Remove the income cap on taxes
This would be the largest tax increase in history.
And giving them more money wont solve the problem.
And giving them more money wont solve the problem.
but it will create new ones.
The income cap would also just increase maximum payout. I dont understand how people have so little knowledge of how SS works.
True, but due to the semi-welfare nature of SS, the amount high-income earners pay in more than offsets the extra payout. Moreover, it will result in an immediate large increase in funding, with payouts only gradually increasing as workers subject to the new tax retire over time. Because this allows politicians to kick the can down the road for another decade or so, raising the cap or eliminating it entirely is the most likely “solution” to the problem.
"Raise the retirement age, and index it to longevity (how fast is the trick)"
That would be a hard sell, since, when SS first started writing checks, the average life expectancy was two years short of the "retirement age."
In other words, the system failure was built in to the program when it was designed.
"Remove the income cap on the taxes."
This is a pile of horse shit.
The reason the cap on income exists is because there is a cap on benefits. Removing the cap on income would mean high income earners would be getting screwed even more than they are getting screwed now. So why would they sit still for that. In stead of making 175K a year (or whatever) they would get their employer to pay them the 167,500 and take the excess in other benefits. While not always the case there does seem to be some connection between smarts and industry and how much one makes. It would not take long for some smart CPA (Corrupt Price Adjuster) to come up with a dodge for the cap removal.
Let both fail. Don’t replace with a government program.
It’ll never happen. We need to deal with options that might have a chance of passage. But I still think those won’t pass, at least enough to solve the problem. It’ll be “solved” by printing money and suffering the resulting inflation. That’s the path of least resistance for Congress.
US Debt Clock indicates there is a $57T liability for Social Security and Medicare. That’s a lot of money printing for a currency that has been diving.
"It’ll never happen." --- But it already did; It was called the Revolutionary war.
The correct response is "Fuck those people. Their fault for trusting government. My family thought ahead, so fuck everyone else. Look at how smug I am. I'm so smug. I'm practically beaming!"
You are such an annoying little cunt, you hyphenated blue-haired freak.
You are mistaken. I've never dyed my hair.
"Their fault for trusting government." (GUNS will make ?free? SH*T)
Why yes; Yes you're are spot on.
There's a reason USA patriots are sick of socialists STEALING.
It's the same reason people get ticked off about getting robbed by criminals.
So yes, yes indeed; F*ck those criminals and the criminal careers.
Only a criminal would say otherwise.
That is the REAL LIBERTARIAN solution all right:
"You motherfuckers burn it all down, I'll be here in my bunker with my guns"
"I’ll be here in my bunker with my guns"........ IN SELF-DEFENSE of property I have worked hard and *EARNED* and justly have every right to against Armed-Robbers who don't know when to quite.
The racial collectivist needs access to the fruits of successful people’s labor, as do all collectivists, hence him demonizing folks exercising the libertarian principle of defensing one’s earned assets.
“You didn’t build that bunker” - jeff sitting on Obama’s lap
If you had actually made enough to save for retirement you'd be pissed to. Not all of us can be homeless drug addicted cookswho ended up homeless so are dependent on government to save us. Some of us actually plan for the long term. Fuck off.
Of course it will, but that is next year, next decade. If the politicians do something about it now, then they will be blamed for it now. The political are largely cowards, but their cowardice is rational.
Entitlements are a corrupting influence on politics.
The US Congress will never cut SS benefits. They will simply inflate the debt away. They've already started.
came to say this, they will never officially make cuts. they will feed as much fiat money into it as is necessary, then blame the reduced purchasing power on corporate greed.
^^^ this ^^^…. A 100% historical repeat of all ‘Social’ist Security believers.
Or more directly that Hyper-Inflation they all run-away with until the entire nation is liquidated and gone.
Read Stephanie Kelton’s book “The Deficit Myth” on modern monetary theory if you want a preview of coming attractions. The Fed and the treasury will merge, the treasury market will be halted and government will simply create the money it needs. Don’t even need taxes except as a mechanism for controlling inflation. MMT. I like to call it the "Magical Money Tree." Keynes would be proud!
There was an MMT ignoramus here yesterday, promoting the fantasy that the quantity of money is infinite!
Until you go to a grocery store and the price of a steak is an infinite amount of money.
PoMo writ by London School of Econ econ ignoramuses.
Keynes wasn't that idiotic. All he advocated was to use government spending briefly to get a stuck economy going.
Unfortunately, this has a habit of spiraling out of control, since most spending is inflation adjusted one way or another. So, they print money, inflation goes up, everything gets adjusted, and the cycle repeats. That's how countries end up with runaway hyperinflation.
But elites love this because the newly minted money tends to flow through the hands of Wall St, banks, and government employees first, meaning they get to spend it before inflation goes up.
So it's insolvent because you pay in 625 but take out 698? Beyond stupid. If you asked a rich man to invest the 698 in e.g. 'index' funds, you could take out 1,230 and still leave another 625 to your heirs or pass it on to the next generation. It's a PONZI scheme with qualified and full immunity for those that permit to exist.
Calling SS a Ponzi scheme is unfair to Ponzi schemes.
Ponzi schemes are more honest.
They don't force you to put money into them, at the point of a gun.
LOL! The government will have a great way to fund SS. They'll take Lizzie Warren's advice and break into your retirement accounts.
We’re scheduled for a 20% cut.
Do you want to be remembered as the asshole who cut SS by 15% or the hero who rescued 85% of the benefits?
The next time I invest my money in a Ponzi Scheme, I want the schemer to promise higher returns than Social Insecurity has.
"The next time I invest"..... LOL.... Oh; you thought the armed-robbery was optional?
Everything in this article is factually correct and also totally irrelevant. Americans long ago abandoned any pretense of caring about the future economy or fiscal responsibility now or both. The politicians, as pointed out in the article, couldn’t care less about what happens to people even ten years from now, let alone thirty. It’s like a game of musical chairs – only the officials in the hot seat at the time the crunch happens will care and, of course, it will be too late to do anything about it by then. Then the finger pointing, blame shifting and throwing each other under the bus will begin.
Why the US Constitution was written as the Supreme Law of the Land.
Those who ignore it will meet the same history as those that wrote it.
Sure, you're entitled: to 80¢ on the dollar.
Welcome to the Biden (D) economy.
Let me draw a map...
1) Woodrow Wilson [D] ignored the premise of the US Constitution and created the UN-authorized 'fiat' money counterfeiting outfit.
2) As predicted this gave the people the ?blessing? of the Great Depression
3) FDR [D] ignored the US Constitution entirely and created 'Social'ist Security.. It was a "New Deal" (not the USA anymore).
Repeat steps 1.....3 about 50-Times.
Does anyone pay attention?? The Democrat party has been conquering your land of the free for decades. They cause it to fail and because it fails they make it worse (more socialist). That is how we ended up living in a Nazi-Empire on the verge of self-destruction. The partisan-war, the culture-war (wars everywhere), massive inflation THEY ARE *ALL* historical REPEATS of socialist societies in there final days.
YOUR retirement??? Democrats don't recognize 'YOUR' anything. It's [OUR] retirement pot of robbed-gold. That is what socialism *is* be it democratic or monarchy. The only path forward is to abolish the socialism.
…You’ve all been duped by grazers of your greener-grass.
The Conquer and Consume party who will continue to graze and eat away everyone’s pasture until they *learn* by having to ‘suffer’ (the crying howl of the criminal party) the consequences of it. Armed-robbers don’t stop robbing until they are caught and made to suffer consequences for their selfish actions.
Being 'poor' is NOT some magical excuse to making STEALING legal. If life is on the line; the prison system offers shelter, food and healthcare but it comes at a cost as it should if anyone is expected to LEARN anything short of GUNS make ?free? SH*T.
Hitler didn't conquer Germany...
German voters elected Hitler...
So Hitler could implement National Socialism (i.e. Nazism).
Sound familiar?
where did Veronique come down on the $100billion in aid to Zelensky?
Drop in the bucket, but she was writing about a certain issue; no reason to assume she'd support throwing money at someone else's enemy.
Or they could just tack it on to the national debt, like all other excess spending.
While I appreciate that Reason got SS largely right this time as compared to ENBs article. They left out a huge part of the issue. The fact that SS disability numbers exploded due to changes under Obama.
https://www.independentsentinel.com/social-security-disability-increased-by-5-4-million-under-obama/
This is one of the largest drivers of SS costs but is never mentioned for some reason.
Agree. It was the quickest way to get a significant number of new voters dependent on the government for their living.
Just because math is racist doesn’t change the fact that these programs will be insolvent soon and no one seems to care
Save the "Social"ism Security in the USA??
I not only don't care; I'm exited about it's demise.
Continuing armed-theft for the sake of retribution isn't a game that ends well.
The solution is simple. Baby Boomers will get theirs. As always. Gen X and onwards will get screwed. This is news? Oh this is about educating the most selfish generation in history they are screwing their young? I’m sure Boomers will smack their foreheads upon learning this math lesson, and cut back on their senior cruises and golf vacations so that the younger generations can eat.
good article
Social Security isn't going anywhere. The fact is, elderly people vote and nobody is prepared to see a mass movement of grandma and grandpa into their homes or onto the streets because they have no money. That is just not going to happen. Get real.
Things I see on the horizon...
Will SS payroll taxes increase? Yes
Will FRA be indexed to longevity? Probably Yes
Will SS be means tested in some manner? Probably Yes
SS really ought to be privatized, and taken out of government hands. It would be infinitely better if SS payroll taxes were invested in low cost index funds, like those offered by Fidelity and Vanguard - with the balance inheritable to the persons estate upon their death. Isn't privatization a more libertarian way to achieve what SS is trying to do?
I find it odd that so many can talk about an inheritable estate in the same sentence as "they have no money".
"Isn’t privatization a more libertarian way"
Not if the government controls how you invest the money. You'd find yourself with a bunch of Solyndra stock and other investments in boondoggles.
The debate is not R vs D. It is rhetoric vs math. Math doesn't lie, doesn't negotiate and will have the final word. And it will be a dirty word.
Math is racist!
Well written and accurate, Veronique. If I may add at the margins?
The Social Security Insurance system has never been fiscally sound since its creation -- even as a pay-as-we-go system. This reality was understood even by the legislators who created the system, and by the more savvy of those who have watched benefits rise with cost of living adjustments, without similar increases in the rate of taxation. With a 12.4% deduction rate over 50 years of working life, the break-even point on total benefits for an expected retirement period of 25 years is somewhere in the neighborhood of 25% of inflation-adjusted average lifetime wages.
But retiring workers have built a standard of living that reflects their most recent wages, not their lifetime average earnings.
In practical terms, what this means is that if you haven't saved ANOTHER 12.4% of your lifetime earnings in assets that appreciate with inflation -- above and beyond SSI -- then you're likely going to live in poverty when you retire. And almost none of us have been willing (or among our poorest workers, "able") to save what is necessary to live better.
In the immortal words of Pogo, "We have met the enemy and he is us!".
"face a shortfall of $116 trillion over the next 30 years." what is the source of this claim?
SCAREMONGERING BULLSHIT. No federal govt program can have a shortfall. Being the sole source of dollar creation, Uncle Sam no time soon gonna "run outta money." Sure, banks create money via loans, but as principal is paid down, those dollars disappear completely from the money supply.
Indeed, Uncle Sam isn't going to "run out of money". The Weimar Republic didn't "run out of money" either. Instead, its monetary system collapsed, many people lost everything, and fascism took over.
Running out of money isn't the problem, economic and social collapse is.
"As legislators refuse to act, benefits will be cut without any possibility of sheltering those seniors who are poor."
Why does a libertarian website continue to advocate for big government?
If Reason were truly libertarian, they would advocate that legislators actually do nothing and allow SS to be exposed for the Ponzi scheme that it is. There is no free lunch!
Hey, if y'all had elected Al Gore, he woulda put our SS payments into a lockbox! A lockbox!
Y'all screwed up.
No lockbox, no trust fund, no stash of dollars. The US federal govt creates brand new dollars each and every time it spends. It never can run out of its own sovereign currency for ANY federal program, which includes SS/Medicare. Don't believe in hogwash peddled by Koch Bro-dick sucking morons like Veronique de Rugy.
Indeed. Neither did the Weimar Republic, and you can see how that ended up.
"Don’t believe in hogwash peddled by Nazi-dick sucking morons like" SteveDDD.
While the article makes sound points, the problem is we've been hearing the same story for my entire life.
At some point people are going to to say we're crying wolf and stop listening. I think that point was 30 years ago.
The entire USA GDP is on debt. Not sure how much more of a wolf needs to appear.
Or if you want to divide that debt it’s ~ $194,000 for EACH working citizen.
When all else fails there’s always confiscation. It’s DOA, but that’s not stopping the democrats testing the waters after SOTU. ‘The Confiscation Tour and Rally’
The word salad from Jared Bernstein is hilarious:
“You called it a wealth tax on unrealized gains,” Bernstein said of the capital gains tax proposal. “In fact, what it really is, or at least the way we see, it is a prepayment or withholding tax on future capital gains.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/08/white-house-economist-jared-bernstein-defends-bidens-billionaire-tax-outlined-in-state-of-the-union.html
Taxpayers, countries, corporations, FIRE entities & Grandma OWN, never owe federal debt! It's simply bank savings deposits at the Fed. Just like YOU own the contents of your safe deposit box at your private bank. ALL $31 trillion. Yeah, it's ALL there, NEVER used for federal govt spending. The federal govt creates NEW dollars each and every time it spends. Feel better now?
Debt is an agreement between two parties that one party defers consumption right now in favor of another party. E.g., I don't buy a new TV and instead chip in to let the government build a new highway somewhere, in return for interest.
What you're saying is that there are no consequences to the government if it breaks that agreement. But there are: people only defer consumption in favor of another party if they actually derive a future benefit. If the government defaults on its debt, people aren't going to defer consumption voluntarily anymore.
Of course, the government can force them at gunpoint to do so through taxes, but that impoverishes the country and also doesn't work in the long term.
Go back and reread Atlas Shrugged if you want to know why the whole Ponzi scheme hasn't failed. Those of us who can work, do keep on working, even though we get kicked in the nuts harder every year for doing it.
But the Ponzi scheme is failing, it's just doing so gradually.
The reason it's been so slow is because demographics and global conditions let the West get away with it for a while.
ok,should have been "failed yet".
but we could hasten that day
I’ve made $84,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. The potential with this is endless.
Here’s what I do…………..>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
Well, I have done my part to help keep it solvent: Get a terminal disease - you can thank me later.
Right around the time I will be able to take SS (62), I will most likely be dead or close to it.
What I am trying to say is this: I don't give any fucks about it at ALL. Now if I didn't have stage 4 cancer, my response would be: You are a moron for not saving money outside of SS if you are anywhere close to retirement. We knew this was a potential problem for years.
Tax hikes or spending cuts would have no effect on Social Security and Medicare solvency. These federal agencies and all other federal agencies are solvent because they are funded by the infinitely solvent U.S. government.
The misnamed federal “debt” is not a debt of the federal government. The government has paid all its debt the same way: By creating dollars from thin air.
The misnamed trust funds are wholly owned and controlled by the federal government. It can add to them, subtract from them or do whatever else it wishes with them.
The notion that the trust funds will run out of money and so can’t pay Social Security or Medicare benefits is ridiculous on its face. The federal government pays whatever benefits it wishes, regardless of so-called “trust funds.’
Further, the government has the unlimited power to add to, or subtract from those fake trust funds whenever it wishes.
The whole Social Security/Medicare trust fund fiction is a giant scam to make you believe the government can’t afford SS and Medicare benefits.
This dumb bitch would gladly accept those "pieces of paper" as they are US dollars (with a coupon). By the way, they are no longer available as a piece of paper-they're simply numbers on a spreadsheet. Get with the times, dumb bitch.
The new level of stupid right there... Nobody pays for anything and nobody owes or gets anything because that ?racist? math system of fair trade doesn't exist.
Any BS... Any BS at all to keep STEALING.
What you said is what the economic geniuses in the Weimar Republic believed. The rest is history.
workers and retirees upset about the changes won’t have any legal rebuttal no matter how many payroll taxes they paid in. The Supreme Court said that much in a ruling in 1960.
Is the ruling in mind Flemming vs Nestor, or something else? That one seems to hit the mark that there is neither contractual right nor “accrued property rights”. Having this citation at hand should enable each of us to more accurately counter some of the the arguments that we will encounter in discussing this debacle with our fellow Americans.
You've provided some excellent advice. I fully think that it is critical for every blogger to assist their readers. Your visitors will return for more if they find value in your material. Readymade doors in lucknow
huh. no mention in the article here of how the government is stealing money from the Medicare and social security funds to give to the quote unquote Urban poor, which really means the black parasite class in the form of money for food.. the government would stop stealing Medicare and social security funds to give to Urban blacks for food, social security Medicare would be completely solvent... strange that the politically correct reason magazine article does not mention this.. very very strange oh yeah very strange
We've been hearing that SS and Medicare were going to go bankrupt in a few years since at least the 70s. It never happens because there are ways to address it as others have noted -- increase the cap, change the way inflation increases are calculated, etc.
And the reason these adjustments need to be made isn't due to some flaw in the programs, it's due to demographics. The share of the population that is retired is increasing and the working age population is decreasing, which means fewer people paying for more people in the program. This should be alleviated somewhat after the passing of the baby boomer generation because the generations just after are smaller. It could also be alleviated with immigration.
And the idea that SS is a ponzi scheme is completely illogical. Such a scheme involves paying dividends to investors with money from other investors while misrepresenting that the money is coming from profits in some investment when there's no real investment being made and ultimately no way everyone to ultimately be paid their money back much less any profit. There's no misrepresentation here. Everyone knows that SS is being paid into the government with a promise of being paid back an amount later that, as noted, is significantly above what they paid in -- a significant return. And that return is made possible in part precisely because benefits are being paid from the taxes of today's workers whose wages reflect the inflation that occurred in the intervening years. The percentage tax in any given year inevitably raises more dollars numerically so long as there is inflation. And of course, excess dollars are invested in treasuries to create more money.
As to the idea that the investment in treasuries isn't real because it's just the government loaning money to itself and you can't loan money to yourself, nonsense. If you own a company, you can borrow money from the company or you can lend the company money and it's still a loan that has to be paid back. You can think of the government as a giant holding company of other companies. So the SS company lends money to the other companies that have to pay it back.
Finally to all the gold bugs who continue to scream about the government printing money, I'm sorry, but you don't understand money. It is, and always has been, a fictional representation of value that only works because we all agree to buy into the fiction. The value of gold is exactly the same way. It's a shiny rock that only has value because we say it do, but it being rarer makes it impossible to provide enough of it to serve as a medium of exchange for hundreds of millions of people without creating massive deflation.
Yes, printing too much paper money can cause inflation, but that doesn't mean the answer is deflation or that paper is money is automatically illegitimate.
The real reason that libertarians oppose SS and Medicare is the notion that taxing people is taking money away from people who've earned it and giving it to those who haven't. The idea that the guy who contributed to the economy by working on the line for 30 years doesn't deserve as much in his old age because his contribution didn't earn as much as say an actor. But earnings are a reflection of supply and demand, which is a measure of how to efficiently allocate resources to meet demand, not a value judgement on someone's contribution. Free markets produce efficiency of production, not fairness. To compensate for that, it is absolutely legitimate, to take some from those who were lucky to be in a field that allowed them to earn more for the same level of work and provide for the retirement of those who weren't so lucky. What's more, this redistribution and other types of redistribution are ultimately good for the economy as a whole because without such redistribution, a higher and higher percentage of the money flows to a small group of people where it increasingly sits idle instead of doing the work of creating demand or real investment.
What's more, providing the population access to healthcare, education and infrastructure increases the overall productivity of the economy. That's why government is essential to the economy. Free markets without government burn themselves out.
In short, my libertarian friends, in my view, you are wrong about everything. Smart as you are, you understand nothing. And most people sense this, which is why they oppose you even if they can't articulate exactly why.
That is how Social Security is presented: "you pay into it, it is your money, the government invests it for you, and you get it back when you retire".
Listen to Democrats talk about it like this every day.
From the "libertarians for redistribution" department of Reason, apparently.
Yes: they are part of the federal government's debt. Not paying back that money means the US government is defaulting on its debt.
So the real question you should be asking is: why should the federal government default on its debt to Social Security before it defaults on something else.
Make all earned income subject to social security taxes but cap the amount the benefit is based on to what is currently called the taxable maximum. For 2023 that is $160,200. That should keep it liquid for another 10-20 years. Then start working on getting rid of it as a retirement vehicle and putting everyone on something like a portable 401K.
Disagree. If you pay in more, you should still get more, even if you are not getting proportionally more compared to what you have to pay in. The current SS return curve bend points ensure that raising the taxable cap will bring in more revenue but still allow those having to pay more feel like they are getting a little more for their larger contributions. Contrary to Dem propaganda, people who make a lot of money already pay the lions share of income taxes. Screwing them over with onerous SS taxes, with no increase in benefits, will only result in their seeking more tax shelters in order to decrease their “earned” income.
Fearmongering. Where's the outrage over dementia Man's spending?
Social Security and Medicare have been funded by payroll taxes. We can raise the payroll taxes when the time comes.
My point is that this is not a big deal. I remember when Reagan raised taxes and delayed retirement - the world did not end.
"Social Security and Medicare have been funded by payroll taxes"
But the payroll tax not enough to cover all costs, which is why the government has to rely on IOUs.
Medicare being funded by payroll taxes isn't like you paying 15 bucks for a pizza. It's not a transaction. You're pouring money into a benefits system in which you pay for other people, and hope that younger people do the same when its your turn. There is theoretically no guarantee of quality or service.
If medicare or SS go broke in 20 years, then the current workers would be screwed in the future. But meanwhile they're still funding other people who were ahead of them. Don't forget recipients get 2,3 time what they put in.
Lower income recipients get much, much more in benefits during retirement, compared with their contributions during their working years. For high-income workers, it’s not nearly as good of a deal, since a good bit of their contributions are used to subsidize proportionally larger benefits for lower-income workers. It’s a semi-welfare system.
It’s a semi-welfare system.
This is a feature, not a bug.
They won't "go broke". That is just as much a misconception as anything else mentioned in the article. They would have to be cut to 75-80% of what they currently are, but the programs would not come to a stop when the trust funds run out.
Headline: Social Security and Medicare Cuts Are Coming, Whether Politicians Do It or Not
Followed by: As legislators refuse to act, benefits will be cut without any possibility of sheltering those seniors who are poor.
These statements are contradictory. "Whether politicians do it or not" implies that the cuts are inevitable. But they are not, as stated correctly in the subheadline. It would be the failure of Congress to reform SS and Medicare that would result in cuts. They are not inevitable. And the options are not only to cut benefits or raise the retirement age or both, as raising taxes is an option as well. Really, a fourth option exists. They could also remove the requirement that they rely solely on payroll taxes + the trust funds and simply make it part of the general budget which would allow borrowing to cover it directly. (Not that I would want that, just that it exists as an option.) There could be other options in addition to those, even.
Biden is simply saying something that is true as a political reality. Cutting Medicare and SS benefits is a losing position. Whether it is Republicans in Congress now making cuts, or a future Congress or President that allows it happen through inaction, it will be a nightmare for those that make the cuts. When even Tea Party protesters in 2009 were saying "keep your government hands off my Medicare," the problem should be obvious. These programs are incredibly popular across the political spectrum. There is no substantial constituency that wants to see them cut for themselves.
There are a simple couple of fixes to supporting Social Security & Medicare.
First, cut by 50% our military budget and foreign assistance budget with no country ever getting more than $1billion except in times of war.
Second, include all income from any source - including dividends - under FICA taxes. All workers making under $160,000 pay FICA on all their income; those making more than that can do the same.
Third, revamp our income tax to have federal taxes - except FICA - start at $75000. From there have a progressive tax rate. No deductions except for medical expenses, period.
Problem solved.
While there may be some reforms, I don't see benefits getting cut. Once the TF's run out, they'll just borrow more. It is more third-rail than ever.
It would be easier to re-establish slavery.
The simple solution is for all retirees to make $100/hr working for Google, as many comments here at Reason insist is easy .
Internet security is very important to me, especially when it comes to money. Not so long ago I decided to try playing in a casino, and I know that now you need to be especially careful when choosing a gambling site so as not to run into scammers. CasinoGrizzly has a great top with a bunch of gambling sites to definitely avoid contact with scammers.