Republicans Confirm Their Plan To Let Social Security Go Insolvent
Which party can do the least to fix America's troubled old-age welfare system?

As recently as 2016, the Republican Party's official platform promised to take seriously the approaching insolvency of Social Security and Medicare, America's two largest entitlement programs.
"We reject the old maxim that Social Security is the 'Third Rail' of American politics, deadly for anyone who would change it," that version of the GOP platform read. "The Democratic Party still treats it that way, even though everyone knows that its current course will lead to a financial and social disaster."
Back then, when the GOP still had some lingering muscle memory of advocating for fiscal responsibility, it was estimated that the federal government had about two decades to solve the approaching entitlement crisis.
Now, there is only a decade until Social Security hits a brick wall that will trigger automatic cuts to benefits (and even less time until parts of Medicare go over a cliff). Rather than facing that problem and proposing solutions, however, the Republican Party's newly adopted platform embraces the plan that the old GOP criticized eight years ago: Do nothing and wait for the consequences to arrive.
In the new platform, released Monday, the Republican Party says it will "not cut one penny" from Social Security or Medicare and will also oppose efforts to raise the retirement age.
Where those efforts might be coming from is unclear, since President Joe Biden also opposes changing the retirement age. It's actually a group of congressional Republicans who have put forth the most serious (though far from complete) plan to raise the retirement age—a plan that is very much in tension with the party's new platform.
Choosing to do nothing is still a choice. And we know exactly where the path that both Biden and Donald Trump have picked will end. When Social Security hits insolvency in the early 2030s, beneficiaries will see an automatic cut to their monthly checks. Right now, the trustees that run the program estimate that the cut will be 21 percent, with further cuts likely in future years if nothing changes. This is the outcome that the Republican Party's new platform promises to deliver.
Indeed, at last month's debate Trump and Biden both tried to blame the other for trying to change Social Security, while neither presented a workable plan to keep the program solvent or phase it out.
"[Trump] wants to get rid of Social Security; he thinks that there's plenty to cut in Social Security," Biden said when asked by CNN's Jake Tapper for a plan to address Social Security's fiscal problems. (Biden did reiterate his vague plan to make the wealthy pay more to prop up Social Security, though that's also insufficient on its own.)
Trump had even less of a plan. "Social Security, he's destroying it," the former president said, referring to Biden. "Because millions of people are pouring into our country, and they're putting them on to Social Security." (Illegal immigrants generally do not receive Social Security benefits.)
This whole spectacle is a little bit like having two fire chiefs arguing over who will do the least to put out a house fire—except it's even worse because they also agree to prohibit you from contracting with a private fire service.
This isn't leadership. It's politically motivated, cynical cowardice.
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
And a senior Trump official just made a statement that Ukraine is Europe's problem and Keir Starmer should stop "haranguing" Washington for help.
Something something foreign entanglements.
Most Reason-writers consider themselves "citizens of the world" so there's no "foreign" to entangle with.
Eric Boehm lies yet again.
Trump haters have been falsely claiming Trump and the GOP will get rid of Social Security and Medicare (if Trump becomes president) since 2016 (just as they falsely claimed in 2016 that Trump would destroy the climate, destroy democracy, start WW III, and be another Hitler).
Its quite ironic (or not) that the Trump hating media propagandists continue repeating the same apocalyptic and hysterical lies they've been repeating since 2016.
Good thing most Americans now realize that lying Democrats and their media propagandists have been the biggest threat to Democracy in America (and abroad).
Trump had even less of a plan. "Social Security, he's destroying it," the former president said, referring to Biden. "Because millions of people are pouring into our country, and they're putting them on to Social Security." (Illegal immigrants generally do not receive Social Security benefits.)
Why does Fatass Donnie need to lie about SS? Because as with healthcare and massive deficits he has no serious solution to offer.
Eventually it will be something like this -
1- Tweak the withholding cap - now about $160,000 to fill the 21% shortfall.
2- cut benefits or do nothing
That's it. Those are the only two options,
But lying is just evading the problem.
Under the current system, an increase in the cap would also raise benefit payments.
Fail
Shrike doesn't know how the program works. When the program was challenged in court initially this was the key condition that allowed it to continue. Caps on both sides.
Despite that the program is still hugely progressive.
He doesn’t appear to know much of anything that doesn’t involve accessing child pornography or grooming and raping small children.
I said they could "tweak the cap" you fucking moron.
It is adjusted as it is.
Personally, I'm fine with doing nothing.
No grasshopper, they cannot.
Actually, immigrants, particularly those that work under false ID"s and contribute to Social Security add millions to the Social Security Trust Fund and never see a cent in benefits.
And those that do contribute legally on their own record can eventually receive benefits but as of now, being considerably younger on the average, they are a significant plus to the Trust Fund.
But don't believe me, look at the testimony of the Chief Actuary of the SSA, Stephen Goss
Yeah, that makes up for the costs associated with their other welfare fraud, the cost of educating their children, using ER’s like they’re an urgent care, etc.. Plus crimes committed by illegals.
Once Dems make sure they are allowed to vote they will all be grandfathered in with SS 'reparation' pymt to start them off... then all the benefits of them never seeing a penny will go POOF!
Just needs that overton window to move a bit more.... and then all 30-40 mil illegals will also be considered to be qualified for SS pymts.
Pathway to citizenship is the fastest way to ensure
a) permanent (D) majorities
b) bankrupt nation
There is no "trust fund"! Every dollar taxed into the SS books (on your W2) immediately goes out in payments to current beneficiaries. But it is not enough so they must cash in government bonds held by SS. They will cash the last bond sometime in 2030s. What will change?
Nothing. The bonds redeemed are paid with - general tax revenue! In fact (not government accounting) the general revenue is being used to pay SS expenses which exceed SS direct taxes today. The day they close the books on the bonds they continue to pay the difference out of general taxes, arguably a little more honestly.
The American public "educated" in Public Schools is innumerate. (see "State Lottery for proof of that fact).
Lying. Uh huh. Like this article. It literally just makes things up. From a brief promise in a platform not to cut benefits it concludes that republicans want to let SS go insolvent. Where’s your outrage with this repulsive misrepresentation?
Estimates by the CBO and the SS Trustees are that eliminating the withholding cap altogether will only postpone the depletion of the "trust find" by about 5-6 years; some of the alternative plans proposed by Dems to make the system more "progressive" by only increasing the tax charged to impact a small number of people (such as the "donut hole" concept) would have even less benefit since they'd be taking less total money from the public as a whole.
turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, 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 of course THIS Reason story got picked up by Yahoo News... since the headline makes Republicans sound bad (even if the text of the article points out that neither party will do jack or squat to "fix" SS.)
Sounds like cocktail party invites to me.
Are you saying that the democrats can't really save democracy by refusing to allow half the citizens of the nation to vote for the candidate of their choosing? You must be one of those white supremacists I keep hearing about.
The best plan is to do nothing.
There will be automatic payment cuts in the 2030’s
Since it is a Ponzi scheme, Social Security is not sustainable no matter what plan is instituted.
Let it fail is the only solution
(Illegal immigrants generally do not receive Social Security benefits.)
I like this quiet pivot from "Illegal immigrants don't get social security" to "they don't generally get social security".
So I guess there's no widespread problem of illegal immigrants and social security...
A police officer sees a drunken man intently searching the ground near a lamppost and asks him the goal of his quest. The inebriate replies that he is looking for his car keys, and the officer helps for a few minutes without success then he asks whether the man is certain that he dropped the keys near the lamppost.
“No,” is the reply, “I lost the keys somewhere across the street.” “Why look here?” asks the surprised and irritated officer. “The light is much better here,” the intoxicated man responds with aplomb.
If we are actually searching for our car keys where we dropped them and actually have a chance of finding them (rather than simply not finding them under the lamppost) "Do we deport undocumented immigrants who don't pay taxes?" should be a pretty easy question to answer.
“Do we deport undocumented immigrants who don’t pay taxes?” should be a pretty easy question to answer.
It's my understanding that when the number of illegal immigrants reaches a certain critical level, they can no longer be deported.
It’s my understanding that when the number of illegal immigrants reaches a certain critical level, they can no longer be deported.
No, you *can*. It's just that the LARGEST DEPORTATION OPERATION IN AMERICAN HISTORY will lead to widespread violation of everyone's liberties, and make your team look even more like the authoritarian asshats that your team already is.
And - let's be honest - they're vermin. They will just come scurrying back. Then what?
..to widespread violation of everyone’s liberties ….
You were cool with that during Covid
We get it Jeff, you think rape and murder are fine so long as its illegals doing it.
It’s just that the LARGEST DEPORTATION OPERATION IN AMERICAN HISTORY will lead to widespread violation of everyone’s liberties, and make your team look even more like the authoritarian asshats that your team already is.
Remind me which team is colluding with private actors to silence inconvenient speech, trying to jail political opponents, and pushing the sterilization of children.
And – let’s be honest – they’re vermin.
Damn. That's a long way from "not their best people."
You and your fellow travelers have ready engaged in the widespread violation of civil liberties through your varied Marxist activities. Including you democrats throwing open our sovereign borders.
Which liberties would be violated? Because crossing the border without applying for a visa or citizenship isn't technically a "liberty" that Congress recognizes (even if some libertarians would defend the practice for peaceful immigrants who are able to blend in for years and cause no problems.)
*Congress* doesn't recognize? Even Reason takes the mask off and shits all over that "right" if the particular border is between Antioch and Kenosha rather than the US and Mexico.
Welp- we’ve done it your way for 3.5 years and people don’t like what they’re seeing. Of course that makes everyone (including NYC mayor Adams) a white supremacist, but oh well, the pendulum is swinging back the other way. Get used to it.
You can scream and cry while the rest of us sort it out and figure out who we want and who we don’t. And that will be based on our needs, not the needs of every third world social charge.
Common sense border control will be implemented, and the cries of “draconian” from brain dead leftist retards like yourself will be ignored.
This isn’t hard. No control is a bad look. Weak self loathing is easily exploited. Time to fix that.
Clearly, the reason why Social Security is going broke is because of the illegals.
Clearly, the Reason social security is going broke is because it's a Ponzi scheme with literally no limiting principles on who can receive it. Generally no limiting principle, I might say.
it’s a Ponzi scheme with literally no limiting principles on who can receive it.
Exactly. It's the fault of the illegals.
You suck at doing sarc.
Gaah!! I did not need to know about their personal lives.
On the contrary, he does sarc (and sarc does him) every day here.
I mean it has been true since Clinton.
https://www.ssa.gov/ssi/spotlights/spot-non-citizens.htm
Yes. They take from SS funds. Note the use of Parole there. One of Bidens favorite designations.
They have to wait a full year to qualify!
I had no idea illegal immigrants could qualify for SSI just one year after being "paroled". I'm surprised this page isn't hidden some place behind a password for "national security".
There are federally funded immigration attorneys that use taxpayer funds to get them through the wickets.
Non-citizens were eligible well before then, you clown:
The number of noncitizens receiving SSI peaked in 1995 at around 785,000, representing 12.1% of all SSI recipients. The
number of noncitizen SSI recipients declined markedly in 1996 and 1997, following PRWORA’s enactment, rebounded
slightly from 1998 through 2002, and then began a period of decline through 2021. In December 2021, noncitizens comprised
12.1% of SSI recipients aged 65 or older, 2.0% of SSI recipients aged 18 to 64, and 0.2% of SSI recipients under 18.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46697
God damn youre retarded shrike.
A noncitizen (also called an “alien” for immigration purposes) may be eligible for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) if he or she meets the requirements of the laws for noncitizens that went into effect on August 22, 1996.
Youre confusing legal vs illegal funding. Yes. They’ve always violated the federal programs. Which goes against your leftist talking points.
The cleanup of the abuse legalized it. Sound familiar?
You truly are so fucking stupid that you should be suspected parody, but you've been here long enough that we know it ain't so.
turd, the TDS-addled ass-clown of the commentariat, 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.
Not all "noncitizens" are in the country illegally. All green card holders are noncitizens, for example.
What seems odd to me is that there were apparently only about 8 million total people receiving SSI payments in 1995? Maybe a little bit less than that?
There are more than 70 million recipients now (even after Covid killed off around 850k who'd be old enough to be eligible)
Then they have to work in the US for at least ten years.
How many illegals would plan to soak the system with such a long payback timeframe?
Do you want the number of Reason sob stories of just aliens here for 10 years?
No sob stories for the victims of illegals though.
Too bad you don't seem to know the difference between Social Security, paid for out of the Trust Fund, and SSI which is paid from General Revenue. No one receiving SSI only gets a penny from the Social Security Trust Fund.
Shitty AI indeed.
There is no fucking trust fund dumbass. It is all taxes and spending. Gore still has acolytes huh.
There is a SS Trust Fund you fucking idiot. It has $2.6 trillion of Treasuries in it earning interest.
Why do you Trump Cultists lie about that?
Does it earn more, or less interest than your account that started with 1k and ballooned to 400k?
If that pedo bitch has 400k, then he got it selling videos of himself raping children.
The SS "Trust Fund" is a very large IOU -- payable by US taxpayers. So technically, the funds don't come from FICA withholding, they come from general taxation.
LOL @ muh “lockbox”
In accounting terms, there is a Social Security Trust Fund.
Its balance is all "invested in US Treasury Securities" as required by Federal Law (or was "raided to fund reckless government spending") depending on whether partisan flacks are looking at years where they voted for or against whoever was President at the time.
Since the kind of T-Bonds held by the SSTF have priority to get paid back in the event of a government "default", they can't legally be owned by any entity other than the Trust Fund. That means that as the fund is now being used to cover shortfalls in current-year cash flow within the system, those bonds can't be sold on the secondary market and have to be redeemed (something which a government running at a permanent budget deficit can only fund by re-borrowing the money by issuing an equal number of "regular" T-bonds to replace that portion of the National Debt.
The Trust Fund itself should have been reformed to invest in everything BUT govt debt. A fund that is full of an asset can actually be useful. A fund that is nothing but a debt is a scam. Maybe it wasn't really a scam by design. Probably wasn't since the total debt then was $1 trillion and interest rates were over 10%. Probably would have been difficult to forecast that the trust fund would grow so much that it would drive interest rates down to zero and thus distort spending and help create asset bubbles.
And if my grandmother had wheels, she could have been a bicycle.
Debating what policy "should have" been made half a century (or longer) ago in order to better suit the current situation might be the only thing less useful than the "Progressive" agenda of destroying long-term wealth so that the government can fund a few months of spending that's intended to be repeated for decades into the future.
And when Clinton wanted to do this to a limited extent, opposition came from Republicans who argued that putting the money in Stocks or Non-Government debt would be socialistic in making the Government owners of private companies in a very significant way. Compared to what is usually called socialist, i.e. health care, general welfare, this one actually is. Doesn't make it a bad idea but you need to pay attention to history before you make ridiculous claims.
The largest part of the plan would pour nearly two-thirds of the federal surplus into Social Security over the next 15 years, and invest a portion of that money in the market. While shifting some money into stocks, this approach would satisfy liberals by leaving intact the program's basic character as a safety net that provides a guaranteed monthly retirement check to all Americans.
As Clinton delivered his speech last night, his mention of Social Security drew a generally enthusiastic response. But earlier in the day, details of his initiative sparked a partisan war of words on Capitol Hill. Democrats largely praised the idea as a sound basis for negotiations. But like many Republicans, House Ways and Means Chairman Bill Archer (Tex.) denounced the idea that the government would manage stock market investments. "If you thought a government takeover of health care was bad," Archer said, referring to Clinton's failed health reform plan of his first term, "just wait until the government becomes an owner of America's private-sector companies."
Proposal at a Glance: Trust Funds
Use 62 percent of projected budget surpluses over the next 15 years, more than $2.7 trillion, to bolster Social Security's cash reserves.
This would extend the fund's solvency by more than 20 years, to 2055. Clinton wants to make the fund solvent until 2075, but doing that would require tougher measures, such as cutting benefits or increasing eligibility age.
Invest one-quarter of transferred surpluses in the stock market.
Savings Accounts
Create subsidized retirement savings accounts with an additional 11 percent of the projected surpluses, about $500 billion.
The government would provide equal dollar contributions to these accounts for most Americans.
Additional amounts that individuals put into these accounts voluntarily would be matched by the government, with larger matches going to those with lower incomes.
"The largest part of the plan would pour nearly two-thirds of the federal surplus into Social Security over the next 15 years,"
The problem with that plan is that even in Clinton's last year in office, the supposed "Surplus" was all due to net-positive cash flow in the SS system at the time (something which was begun by design in 1986 to try to "bank" enough in the trust fund to allow the program to survive the retirement of the "baby boom" generation; the boomers will actually be the only generation in the history of SS to actually have some significant fraction of their benefits paid with money that they themselves actually paid in). The total federal "surplus" was less than the SS Surplus, and the non-SS parts of the government were still running at a small net deficit; something which is provable by the fact that the total national debt increased in the years when it was claimed that there was a "budget surplus" (why borrow more than you're repaying if there's already extra cash on hand that hasn't been spent?). Not to mention that when the stock bubbles began to collapse 6 months before the voting in the 2000 election, the resulting loss of capital gains and other income/assets to be taxed shifted the government back into a net-deficit condition even after counting the ongoing SS revenue surplus at the time.
If the plan were to just drop a huge amount into some kind of index fund, with a provision that the shares held by the fund wouldn't be "voted" by any employee or agent of the government, then the biggest issue would be that it would be trading an increased level of risk for a higher return in a low-rate environment. In the short term, there would also have been an issue of profiteering around how the markets would inevitably move due to that amount of money coming into (and eventually coming back out of) the markets when there aren't a corresponding amount of new equity offerings coming into/out of play around the same time.
The idea of a multi-$Trillion pool of government money being used to purchase blocks of voting stock in individual companies would be incredibly fraught as a means of political operators making various end-runs around due process and limits of regulatory authority. Not to mention what happens if a company in which the SSTF holds a significant stake is bidding against an unowned competitor, or whether a TV network could truly operate as an outlet of a "Free Press" if the government held a significant stake in the network or its parent company.
Not to mention the question of whether or not the government "general fund" would be required to make the trust fund "whole" in the event that an invested company were to file bankruptcy and render all equities worthless almost immediately.
My point was, and you seem to see it, was that simply taking any significant pool of funds and investing it in the Stock Market to obtain a higher return than provided by US Treasury Bonds introduced the idea of the Government having a say in the actions of the private companies. As you note, that could mean people you deride as political operators would have a voice in private businesses. That is why Republicans at the time were against that kind of private investment. Your alternative, to create a situation where the owner of the stock, the Government, would not have the same rights as any other owner, either by keeping the funds in a giant index fund and giving the say over that fund to a non-government actor seems a strange idea for a libertarian who believes owners should have say over the property they own.
The overall point is that taking Public Funds and investing them in private enterprise to obtain a higher return, if it actually did generate that higher return over time, presents a series of difficult problems that would have to be addressed Just saying invest those funds as some like to say is, like everything in life, more complicated than that.
The primary case for investing mainly in "Index" funds with the SSTF balance would really be based on the two following concepts: first is that such funds are automatically diversified, and are almost impossible to manipulate or benefit from "insider" data, and the second is that most managed funds generally under-perform the S&P 500 index overall, so investing in the index is statistically the best bet for risk vs return.
Allowing individual owners of "index" funds, either in the form of mutual funds, or ETFs such as SPY to "vote their shares" with every company whose stock is contained in the fund doesn't exist without government money being invested in those funds; there's no reason to think that making it happen would suddenly become more practical if the SSTF were to dump a bunch of money into one of these.
I'm assuming maybe the fund management (in the case of a mutual fund through an operation like Vanguard or Fidelity) might vote the shares held by the fund, with some kind of proxy agreement being inherent as one of the terms of individuals investing in the funds at all, but the sheer logistics of sorting out who individually "owns" what in a fund that invests in hundreds of stocks and has hundreds of thousands or millions of investors (many of these mutual funds are part of widely used 401k plans) involved would require a staff of people large enough to increase the expense ratio of the fund by at least an order of magnitude.
The only mutual fund for which I've ever recieved even a proxy approval request is the "company stock" fund in the 401k at companies where I've worked, where the fund in question only holds equities from one corporation and some amount of cash to handle in/out transactions, and for the term of the "float" between incoming deposits to the fund and purchase of stock with that money.
Even with ETF structures with fewer holdings, sorting out those ratios and allocating "ownership" of individual shares to individual investors and obtaining either votes or proxies isn't something that's done for private individuals. Try putting $10-20k into the SPY ETF (which structures a portfolio to track with the performance of the S&P 500 index) and see if you ever get a request to vote your "share" of the shares of Apple stock which are held by that fund.
Maybe hedge funds operate differently, but those kinds of funds have extraordinarily high fees already, and such high qualification requirements that the managers of a fund might personally know most of the individuals whose money is under management.
So it will be a self correcting problem.
At least they know that any “reforms” will no doubt make things worse.
When Social Security hits insolvency in the early 2030s, beneficiaries will see an automatic cut to their monthly checks.
I did a quick google search of Reason articles on Social security, here's a brief list of headline hits I got:
Some quick hot takes from the above list of headlines... as the date moves closer to the preset, it appears that Social Security is mostly a Republican failure-- or a Republican Problem to solve-- yes with some occasional nods to "Democrats too". Then a once-in-a-while swerve making it Congress's problem write large, sidestepping presidents.
Also you notice as you go further back in time, there are more wonky suggestions about replacing it with private retirement accounts-- an argument that probably fell out of favor after the 2008 financial crisis.
Then there's the occasional libertarian spasm where there's a call to abolish it.
Also you notice as you go further back in time, there are more wonky suggestions about replacing it with private retirement accounts– an argument that probably fell out of favor after the 2008 financial crisis.
That was what Dubya wanted to do--give people the option to basically treat their Social Security account like a TSP that government employees get, which basically is their version of a 401K. The Republicans even introduced legislation to make it happen.
The Dems killed that effort after taking over Congress in 2007 and gave themselves a standing ovation for doing so at Bush's State of the Union. For all of shriek's pontificating about the stock market, you'd think he'd ding these guys for basically denying retirees a shot of taking advantage of the Bestest Stock Market Evar!
And everyone would be way better off now if W's plan had been enacted. But no one mentions that now.
Private "accounts" fell out of favor almost as soon as they were mentioned by "W" because he took office in the middle of a bursting stock bubble (or as Dem loyalists choose to remember it, he enacted a tax cut in Feb 2001 which caused the stock markets to crash starting in April 2000 and thereby "destroyed the prosperity of the Clinton era").
The reality is that the very structure of Social Security would make a transition to an "individual account" system fiscally impossible, even if such a system would ultimately be far more sustainable.
The Big Lie at the heart of Social Security (at least during my lifetime) is that everyone "gets out what they put in". Since its inception, the program has always paid current-year benefits out of current-year revenues (the initial recipients in the 1930s had never paid in a penny at any point), while promising that those paying in now will get paid out in the future; the SSA has on multiple occasions produced detailed explanations claiming to explain how this is somehow different from a Ponzi Scheme, while also admitting within the same propaganda that the very factor which makes all Ponzi schemes eventually fail is the reason why Social Security is now into a negative cash-flow situation.
The only thing which really separates Social Security from a Ponzi scheme is that the US Government can, if needed, print money to make good on payments that it's promised to make but can't otherwise fund (and the Government can't just leave town in the middle of the night with everyone's money once there's more owed out than has been collected).
My favorite:
Ponzi! Ponzi! Ponzi!
September 15, 2011 - Seniors who collect Social Security think they're just getting back money that they put into their "account." Or they think it's like an insurance policy—you win if you live long enough to get more than you paid in. Neither is true. Nothing is invested. The money taken from you was spent ...
Yes... it's a Ponzi scheme... so... what's the "libertarian solution" for a Ponzi Scheme? Save it so it can keep going?
Reason's solution is the same as their solution to everything, flood the country with immigrants
what’s the “libertarian solution” for a Ponzi Scheme?
[Looks around and starts chanting] CO-VID! CO-VID! CO-VID!
If it's supposed to be a "safety net", a good start would be to quit sending the biggest benefit checks to the wealthiest recipients.
The system would be a whole lot more sustainable if payouts were means-tested. Instead, benefit amounts are determined by whether or not (or in how many years) an individual taxpayer hit the "cap" meaning those with the most potential ability to have also accumulated adequate private savings get the most in benefits (which they'd never miss in many cases if they were to stop coming in) and those who scraped by on lower-earning work get subsistence-level payments.
Punish the hard working and successful people. Good plan.
It's not about punishing the successful, it's about not wasting resources on providing the most "safety" to those who need it the least, or in many cases not at all. If the plan is to give the biggest benefits to the wealthiest recipients, then get rid of the pretense that the point of the program is to be a "safety net"
Telling someone with a 7-figure nest egg and one or more non-mortgaged houses that they're not going to receive an extra $2-3k/month that they planned to not depend on anyway isn't going to feel like a punishment.
It is if they were forced to pay in all their lives, and still managed to act responsibly with their finances.
Envy will get you nowhere.
The point is that lower income people who were also forced to pay in, and whose incomes never "hit the cap" get a lower benefit amount after retirement than those who kept earning past the point at which their income was taxed, and who therefore had much more money available to "act responsibly" with.
You could make the case that people who "lived paycheck to paycheck" maybe should have done more to develop valuable skills, especially in a "libertarian" forum.
The case that can't be made is that someone who earned $40-50k per year for their lifetime ever had as much opportunity to save/invest than someone who made $250-275k per year after providing for the basic necessities of living day-to-day. In fact, there'd be a strong case to make that a higher-earner who ends up needing their SS check to get by as much as the lower earner in retirement would have to have been far more irresponsible.
If the purpose of SS is to compound on top of good fortune and successful saving/investment, and reward the prosperous, then the current structure is absolutely appropriate; why not then go one more step and re-establish a version of feudalism in which the chosen "lords" at least take in some of the "serf" class as domestic workers and field-hands?
If it's supposed to be a "safety net" to provide some kind of basic minimum to those in real need, then sending the biggest benefits to those who need them the least is counter-productive to the purpose, and altering that dynamic would be a useful change toward increasing the viability and sustainability of the system.
So you are good with making SS a wealth redistribution program rather than an insurance program?
"Telling someone with a 7-figure nest egg and one or more non-mortgaged houses that they’re not going to receive an extra $2-3k/month that they planned to not depend on anyway isn’t going to feel like a punishment."
It will make them feel like a sucker. Kind of like how people who manage to repay their student loan debt find loan forgiveness offensive. And at the margins it will create perverse incentives to shape one's nest egg to fall under the welath limit so as to retain SS benefits.
"So you are good with making SS a wealth redistribution program rather than an insurance program?"
It's already a wealth redistribution plan, but it's taking wealth from the current workers and giving it to the retirees; and giving the most to those who had the most ability to save outside of its structure. The reason why the tax rate has been increased so many times in the last 90 years combined with the fact that there always have to be more than 5-8 people paying in to "support" one recipient is that most people "take out" far more than they "paid in" as it currently stands, and that makes the existing structure not only a "handout", but an unsustainable one.
If you want it to act like "insurance", then why not restructure it to focus the limited resources to help those with the most need rather than paying the most to those who need it the least?
I think you need to re-calibrate your understanding of the words you use. They don't seem to mean what I think you're trying to say.
Social Security was specifically started as "NOT" a welfare plan.
Because back then (we're told) people were too proud to take a government handout. They would rather eat dogfood than be seen as a charity case. So by making people pay in, they would cash "their" checks in retirement and not starve.
Sure, you could means test it now, but that would tick off a lot of voters who paid in under one set of pretenses, only to have the rug pulled out from under them. And no one seems allergic to government handouts now, witness the COVID "stimulus" handout checks and the clamor for more and bigger payouts.
"Because back then (we’re told) people were too proud to take a government handout. They would rather eat dogfood than be seen as a charity case. So by making people pay in, they would cash “their” checks in retirement and not starve."
Except that the initial generation of recipients had never paid anything in. They just got a "handout" consisting of the money paid in by the initial contributors (who in turn had their benefits covered by the following generations of workers, and in most cases ultimately recieved much more than they'd ever contributed.
My grandfather, as an example took a reduced benefit amount because he retired early (at age 55) in the mid 1980s; for most of his working life, the contribution rate was around 2-4%, and the income limit was under $20k, which means that through most of his working career, he (or his employer) "paid in" less than $2k/year, and he maybe paid in a total of $40-50k over his lifetime. By the time he died in the "teens", his "reduced" benefit checks were up to probably $1500/month, and he'd been collecting benefits for almost 35 years, meaning that he "took out" as much in the last 10% of his time cashing checks as he "paid in" over his entire career; he did have some concerns about "outliving his money" in the later years of retirement, and likely ended up using a reverse-mortgage on the house that he owned with my grandmother, but that was largely due to the fact that he had expected to live to around 72 and ended up dying just short of his 90th birthday.
The only way to only "take out what you put in" with Social Security is to die within about 5-7 years of retiring (maybe even before that). Anyone living longer than that is absolutely "taking a handout" whether they know it or not. Just because the government and media have constructed some kind of mythos around the system doesn't mean that anyone living past 75 isn't actually making themselves a "charity case" every time they cash/deposit their benefit payment.
Pick any financial planner in the world, and ask them what kind of retirement income could be derived by someone who set aside 12.4% of their earnings for life (assume a $40k salary with a growth rate at 2% over CPI inflation, to get a rough picture for a "middle class" boomer away from the coasts) and "invested" that savings at the 10-year T-bond rate (compounding interest, tax-free) over the last 40 years.
Then compare the amount they tell you to the current median SS benefit for new retirees, and try to figure out why the "SS" number is so much bigger than the number based on what SS claims to have done over that time.
$500/ month over 40 years with 4% interest nets $592,000
$592,000 divided by $1500 /month is 392 months, not including the interest gained on the balance
"$500/ month over 40 years with 4% interest nets $592,000"
It might if it were actually deposited and saved for 40 years. Since SS started paying out and taking in money simultaneously, the money paid in by workers in 1950 (which capped at closer to $200/month) was mostly paid to retirees in 1950, it wasn't put into a 4% bond and held until 1990 to be "returned" to the workers from 1950. In my Grandfather's case, the time between when he returned from WW2 and when he retired at the age of 55 (or maybe 57? I was in grade school at the time) couldn't possibly have been 40 years. Even if "his" SS money had accumulated to $600k (which it wasn't allowed to do), that wouldn't cover payments of $1700/month for the 30+ years of his retirement.
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4a3.html
It wasn't until after 1986 that any significant portion of money paid into SS was allowed to accumulate in the SSTF, and even in that era it's only ever been at most 20-30% of money paid in that got saved (meaning that the income cap for SS tax would have to be $160k/year or higher for any one person to have $500 "saved" from their SS taxes paid in any single month, and it only recently is approaching that level). The T-bond rates in the 1980s and 90s were higher than 4% though, and the T-bond rates over the last 24 years have been less than that.
I'd love to see the math by which $2k/year could break down to $500/month, even setting aside the part where 90% or more of the money paid into the system was being paid out in most years.
You're basing your (fabricated) "accumulation" calculation on what would have to be a $60k/year SS tax being paid by an individual in an era where a $30k/year salary was probably an upper middle class income at least.
Or are you pretending that someone who retired prior to 1985 spent a lifetime paying into the system according to the tax levels which were enacted by Congress in 1986?
One mistake I made in my original numbers.
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/ProgData/taxRates.html
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/cbb.html
From 1950-1970, the SS tax rate went from 1.5% to 4.2%, and the wage/salary cap went from $3000-7800. Max SS tax paid per person would have been $90 for the year in 1950, and $655.20 for the year in 1970
For the period from 1950-1970 (inclusive), the total SS tax paid in by any individual worker (including "employer" share of the tax on their wage/salary) who earned at or above the wage cap in every one of those 21 years would be $6,358.20. You're assuming that one person's contributions somehow amounted to $6k per year for that entire duration.
As much as I'd like to see the math by which $2k/year could have broken out into $500/month, I'm even more curious to see how $90/year could be spread out to cover that same monthly amount. By my math, it would take more than 60 people's SS taxes to provide $500/month in 1950 to cover what you're imagining one person paid in (and further imagining that amount was "invested" as opposed to being spent almost immediately).
As fun as it can be to make up numbers that make your point, it does then leave you exposed when the real numbers are available and don't match your fairy tales.
The libertarian solution to a Ponzi scheme is the just one:
Shut it down immediately.
Lock up the perpetrators.
Sell off the assets.
Distribute the assets in proportion to how much the victims paid in.
Republicans learned that you can't even mention reforming it or voters will crush you.
Democrats learned back in the 80’s. Ask Dan Rostenkowski:
https://youtu.be/qre7DzEtxyc?si=9DT8wF-a8S4KVb8p
And now they're tarred with the "Republicans will destroy SS by doing nothing" brush.
Doing nothing isn't "destroying" something.
Anything that's destroyed without intervention is collapsing under its own untenable design.
Nobody mentions that when Biden was Vice President he fronted a plan where the Federal Government would seize all 401k accounts and give the holders of those accounts IOU's from the Government. When I read the titles of these articles I don't have to read the name of the author to know who wrote it.
Round up and kick out all the illegals, and the problem is solved.
Anyone who disagrees is a leftist.
Nobody said that but you.
this would certainly help a lot of budget problems, and you know it.
It wouldn’t even be a rounding error and you don't know it. Because you're just like a leftist screaming about the defense budget which could be eliminated and make no financial difference at all.
He doesn’t care. Sarc wants to see the world burn as long as Trump and republicans lose.
Here's an idea that I like.
Buy out all the American citizens on SS.
Give them a one time $1 million, tax free, if they get off SS, and $1.5 if they get off SS and Medicare, Medicaid, etc. but they get no more money from SS, Medicare or Medicaid, etc. for the rest of their lives.
SS, Medicare and Medicaid spending is one of the major reasons the US has such a large debt, and a good way to stop this spending is to buy out those on it.
Otherwise, nothing will change, and the US will continue down the path of of bankruptcy like the old Soviet Union.
Then tax them as the "ultra rich". I like this plan.
OK, genius, nice plan, I approve .... except where you get those $1M and $1.5M buyouts. There are roughly 80M retirees, and that's not counting the several million who are one year from retirement, the several million who are two years from retirement ...
$80-120 Trillion dollars you'd need. Where's that coming from?
If you want more realistic numbers, invest in the DJIA and S&P 500 with 5% withdrawal, which is half the average rate of return the last 10 years, leaving it to grow with inflation. The max SS payout is something like $50K a year. Call the average $25K a year. You could get by with $500K SS buyout.
Medicare/Medicaid/Obamacare are roughly on par with SS spending, but that includes non-retirees. So you might be able to drop their buyout to half, like you suggest, $750K, a total of $1.25M for 80M retirees, an even $100T.
Nope. Still impossible.
Flooding the stock market with that much liquidity would likely contribute to additional inflation as well.
Yeah, I just added up the DJIA market cap -- $15T. But that's ok, I think even the MMT idjuts would balk at $80T. Of course, if they didn't, they'd balk at privatizing SS and want to send every kindergartener to Harvard.
It comes from MMT silly.
and the multiplier effect.
the economy will boom when everyone gets their 1M buyout check and spends it all at once!
The problem is, when the government gives that 20-something $1 million in cash, and that person then proceeds to spend it all on hookers and blow, and then winds up at retirement age completely broke, and this story is repeated many millions of times, there is no way the rest of the country is going to say "too bad, time to starve in the streets." They are going to vote to reinstate some form of welfare and call it "Social Security Part 2".
While the theoretically correct libertarian solution is to completely abolish Social Security, realistically, I think the best that we can hope for is a transformation of the system in to one in which the government's influence over the pot of retirement cash is kept to a bare minimum. So, something like a Singapore-style system.
“Nobody is smart enough to run their own life”
/jeff
It's the first time I can remember where he's even come close to the truth. The eternal problem with letting individuals have any choice is that some make bad choices. It doesn't matter whether it's retirement investments, guns, speech, or anything else -- the do-gooders are going to insist that government can fix that.
Jeff's problem, in this respect, is refusing to admit that government can't fix squat. Look at Chicago -- they can't even enforce their monopoly in violence.
"We could give you your money back, but you might not spend it right" -- Bill Clinton, when faced with a surprise (temporary) budget surplus.
After blowing all their retirement money on blow, they can apply for assisted suicide (probably a thing in the US by then). Duh.
If I take 1979 as Reason's 'starting point' on Social Security reporting, you'd be forgiven if you thought fixing it would be difficult.
Social Security is insolvent, at least to the extent that it cannot supply 100% of planned benefits after 2034 or so. So there is no "letting" involved.
Papering over the insolvency by forcing some to pay into the fund at rates for which they will surely receive a sharply negative rate of return is not a fix, it is what libertarians used to call theft.
Republicans are almost certainly trying to win over younger voters, many of whom say they don't expect to receive Social Security benefits anyway. It's not a bad strategy, I guess. Goes along with rethinking their abortion rights strategy, which was certain to cost them the younger voters, who do care about reproductive health issues. Seems like a "fall back and retrench" move in an age/class war they think they can win. Never mind the standard Republican argument against wealth redistribution: "It's class warfare! Lions and tigers and bears!"
To which the normal response has been "No shit, Sherlock!" It's Jefferson versus Hamilton--Jefferson's yeoman farmers vs. Hamilton's plutocrats. Republicans have more less switched sides in their new anti-corporatist views (Read: Old Money vs. New Tech Money). Not to mention their abandonment of limited government, now that they see political gold in Trump's authoritarianism.
So everybody and nobody wants to change S.S. and Medicare, or at least to be seen as against change. Both sides, probably, are counting on current beneficiaries to be dead when we hit the wall. My suggestion to whichever side wants to get serious is that the payroll tax be extended to cover all income from whatever source, means testing for S.S. benefits, and that the income tax be converted back to its graduated roots. Preferably all three. Insufficient to address the problem completely I'm sure, but at least enough to buy us more time to work out permanent solutions. "Liberte, egalite, fraternite, bros!" No, wait, Republicans abhor the second and third and like to define the first as what you get when you've amassed a big enough pile.
Look...I was aware that SS was a ponzi scheme when I was 18. I would have offered to not receive it if the taxes were not taken out of my paycheck, but that was not an option. Here we are 40 years later and I damn well want my money. It might be illegal for the government to renig on their commitment. It is certainly immoral. Figure something out.
Closest I've come to a solution is privatizing all of government, every last little bit. Most of is discretionary spending is bunk, like studying Peruvian hookers or getting pretty pictures from Mars.
SS, Medicare++, cost around $4T a year. Governments collect around $9T in taxes a year. Convert to some simple tax (my fav is a property tax, because it can be anonymous and is relatively proportional to wealth/income) which gets rid of all those damned bureaucrats, and that's $5T a year to pay down the national debt, and as it and the interest rates lower, that leaves some surplus to sell lump sum buyouts. It's important this be at an auction where low bidders win.
$5T a year and lower interest rates mean paying off the national debt in probably 5-6 years. Then you can start getting serious about auctioning off retirees. Require them to manage a fake investment account for a year, not to prove they won't spend it all on hookers and blow, but to make sure they understand what's at stake. No pass/fail, just one year no grade, then start bidding. You could probably auction off all SS++ obligations in ten years, and it's "only" dumping $5T a year into the stock market.
But of course the do-gooders would still scream and holler about retirees who screw it up, and everyone would have to be investing in their own retirement funds.
All I claim is it provides some sort of baseline.
. It might be illegal for the government to renig on their commitment.
this is false and there are actual supreme court rulings on this. They owe you nothing. they have no obligation to pay. and they have prior rulings that uphold that position.
You will get screwed and like it.
I was forced to sign up for SS when I was 16 (since I wanted to start working), even though I was a minor and legally barred from signing a contract. At the time I was informed that full retirement age was 65. Somewhere along the way, the SS Admin changed full retirement age to 67, unilaterally modifying the illegal contract I had been forced to sign as a minor.
This would make for a great class action lawsuit if this scam had been run by a private company.
Ending SSI (Supplemental Security Income) and Medicaid, the two welfare programs, and using those funds for SS (Social Security) and Medicare, the non-welfare programs, would go a long way to providing stability. The two welfare programs currently consume nearly $900 billion annually.
I would say the opposite. Get rid of SS and Medicare, they are unneeded. Why make productive people sign up for substandard insurance and pension programs?
Keep Medicaid for the truly needy who need medical care. Just have regular welfare/food stamps for the truly needy.
Medicaid costs $660 billion per year. Golly, you sure are a big government, big welfare spender!!
Do nothing and wait for the consequences to arrive.
Cool! Artificial Intelligence will certainly have the solution by then!
Error! Error! Does not compute.....
To paraphrase Captain Kirk: "Let it die!"
Means-testing, gargantuan money printing, partial confiscation of private retirement accounts, a sprinkling of race-based benefits preferences, and a few more mass-hysteria epidemics to thin out the retirement herd ought to just about cover it.
No one needs a 401k balance over 3M, the Democrats said….
but that was before the recent 50% inflation in 5 years.
I like your headline. I think it accurately depicts what the Republican Party, as currently constituted plans.
However, your comment that the only serious plan to solve the Social Security problem is to cut benefits is just not true. For at least one of the plans that does not cut benefits and actually increases them is in the Social Security 2100 Act introduced by Congressman Larson. I get that you don't like the provisions, eliminate the cap on earnings subject to tax over time, modestly increase taxes over all, make adjustments in how the benefits are calculated to benefit low earnings, and some other minor changes that in total eliminate any projected shortfall for at least 85 years, the maximum time generally used.
Yes, the solution is either to cut benefits or raise taxes. This article writer can only see half the equation. It says more about him than the real ways to deal with the solution.
Yes, the solution is either to cut benefits or raise taxes.
Dishonest lying politicians always say they want to "reform" SS.
turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, 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 TDS-addled lying pile of lefty shit.
Sorry comrade but there is no point in working on a problem when your counterpart acts in bad faith at every turn and the reporting will only blame you for not solving a problem if you try to address it despite the interference and bad faith actions of your counterparts. Even here, it's a Republican failure but they're the only ones working on the issue and Democrats get a pass. So fuck off with that dishonest noise.
just tax people more! That will solve it!
where do they keep finding these fools.
It just has to be reformed. 40 working quarters of required eligibility for every facet of Social Security and Medicare. Offer an option to pay in 150% of employee’s contribution for at least 40 quarters; for an otherwise nonqualifying spouse; otherwise, no spousal benefit.
If you have your 40 working quarters, then you cannot draw a spousal benefit; you must take SS based on your own wages.
Disability needs to be its own program and have its own dedicated collection. Mandatory 3 year recertification of disability and lack of employment opportunity. If jobs exist that persons with a specific disability can do, then they are ineligible for benefits. No disability benefits for minors and non-working people.
The only serious solution to Social Security problem is to continue to pay out to the people who have paid into it, and then make paying into the program optional. Since virtually no one will keep doing so, that takes care of the long term problem right away.
From there, cut spending elsewhere to help pay the existing obligations to people. And then pillory those still alive who helped perpetuate this wealth destroying abomination of a Ponzi scheme.
You have to quit cold turkey.
Put elderly folks who cant feed themselves on regular welfare like everyone else.
Sorry, Social Security was a failed commie scheme like they all are and now the jig is up. if you "paid in" and arent broke, you're gonna get screwed anyway (they already tax you on Ss income if you have other income etc).
Best to go cold turkey and face reality. But of course that will never happen
Social Security was the compensation for little people who lost all their savings during the bank runs of 1929-1932. The elderly were the people who had been depositing money - gold at that - into the banking system for their entire lives. Who didn't do risky stuff like put money into a crooked stock market. And then whoosh - it's gone and can't be recovered and when the banking system reopens the currency is now worth half of what it had been worth. And the economy goes into permanent freefall and everyone in their fifties who thought they might have set something aside for retirement is now unemployed with no chance of finding a job again. The big money was - as always - bailed out with no questions asked as banks reopened with govt covering any of the insolvencies, frauds, etc that had caused the bank runs.
I swear to God libertarians are so fucking clueless about economic history - even when it involves the gold standard.
“Social Security was the compensation for little people who lost all their savings during the bank runs of 1929-1932.”
**cough cough, bullshit, cough cough**
As I said - you people are fucking clueless about actual history. Don't know why either. The Great Depression is a really fascinating era
This explains why the program ended as soon as those specific people were “compensated.”
Oh wait, no it doesn't.
Amity Schlaes and Burton Folsom, among others, have excellent treatments of the depression.
You OTOH, have your head up your ass.
You are constantly one of the lost obtuse and factless fools I’ve seen in over a decade of posting here. That you attempt to belittle and lecture ANYONE here (except for maybe Jeffy, Sarc, Shrike, Mod, etc) is just beyond the pale.
Now go sit in the fucking corner, you moronic Marxist.
Content free post
“I swear to God libertarians are so fucking clueless about economic history – even when it involves the gold standard.”
Just responding to your insightful commentary. You’re known here for a pattern of ignorance and lies, filtered through your leftist worldview.
Now go back and sit in the fucking corner.
“libertarians are so fucking clueless about economic history”
I’m told regularly that there are only about 3 real libertarians here anyway. Are you addressing them?
That's everyone's plan. That's the default plan.
And what will REALLY happen is they will print eleventy trillion dollars and pretend that social security is just fine while your 25K check can barely buy groceries.
A revolution before that is preferable. At least then we can settle accounts with the left in this country and cleanse them, if we have to suffer so much for what they’ve already done.
This isn’t Repub vs Dem. This is Boomer vs Gen X. And the SS “failure”, for Boomers, is a feature not a bug. 2030’s you say? Ah, just when the last of them has shuffled off. The the SS carcass sucked dry. For us it’s “insolvency”. For Boomers, it’s a plate licked clean, their bellys full. And the timing is perfect, cause by the time the check comes, the Boomers are out the door.
There’s one policy constant, Dem or GOP: Boomers must be pampered. At the expense of all others. When you look at SS policy from the perspective of the Boomers, the Greediest Geezer Generation, it’s worked just beautifully, no? What’s all this downer talk of policy failure, Reason? The Boomer Greedy Geezers have crafted the greatest policy achievement in history.
Ha! Majority rules!
SS started in the 30s before any of the Boomers were born. If you want to blame somebody it's the Greatest. And the tax and retirement age have been raised multiple times. From it's inception the tax has increased from 2% to 12.4%.
The 1983 reform to SS increased SS taxes. That's what created the SS Trust Fund. Boomers had ZERO power in Congress then. The oldest boomer was 38 and there were maybe 15 boomer critters in Congress by then. The whole point of the Trust Fund was to build it up via increased taxes on the workforce (where boomers were in the early workforce years) - and then drain it out to cover the boomers.
This was not some 'deal' for boomers you sniveling little moronic shit. Nor was it some decision by boomers to entirely avoid discussing the fucking problem for 40 years - the entire adult life of boomers. The point of the solution then - as always - was to kick the can down the road as far as possible. Boomers were not even thinking about retirement then. The avoidance of the discussion was not for their benefit. If there was a generational benefit to kicking the can to avoid discussion it was for the WW2 generation who were on the cusp of retiring (including from Congress) and certainly wanted to make sure there were no solvency discussions during their retirement.
Very valid to blame boomers for not letting go of power. Not SS.
It’s you leftists that are the problem, regardless of age.
You’ve got to go.
Except that old people vote.
Libertarians should take note.
A boomer president tried to privatize some of it.
a few sane and sober pols: Uh, folks, listen, Social Security cannot and will not happen the way you were told it will.
the voters: la la we cant hear you
Sane pols: no , really. it's not gonna happen. If you dont want it to be extra painful maybe we should look at some reasonable roadmaps to retiring it while not causing too much pain.
the voters: la la la we cant hear you
Sane pols: throw up of hands. ok then.
Life expectancy at 65 in the US has increased significantly since SS was first implemented. I also suspect that hours worked even in tough blue collar jobs have declined since then. Hence raising the retirement age is not unreasonable.
I would favour a restructuring of SS into individual accounts holding special government securities (too much detail to go into here).
Yes, by all means, we must prop up the government, top priority.
Most of that increased life expectancy made SS more solvent not less. Medicare is different.
There were three huge leaps in life expectancy:
antibiotics and penicillin - raised general life expectancy across the board in the 1940's/1950's. But mostly what it did was increase the number of years workers pay into the system
childhood vaccines - obviously only raised the life expectancy of kids which is the biggest overall increase. But obviously that adds people to the taxpaying rolls over their entire working life before they retire.
post-Medicare - the growth of specialists (who mostly didn't exist before Medicare provided their income) increased the life expectancy of higher income elderly. Lower income life expectancy among the elderly has not increased much - maybe a year or two - since Medicare started. Basically that group is more unhealthy now coming into retirement and they still die in a decade or so without much lingering. Higher income retirees otoh have increased life expectancy by a decade or so since then. That has totally obliterated Medicare since those are also the highest utilizers of specialists - now for an extra decade of medical spending - lotsa lingering - plus the extra decade of SS income
Actuarially - that is the group that is receiving the largest welfare advantage (meaning benefits received v taxes paid ratio) from SS and especially Medicare. But there really is zero interest among wealthy retirees/specialists for a 'reform' to Medicare along the lines of just cover the basics in an HMO type system with gatekeepers.
That’s what we need, “gatekeepers”.
Slaver
I’m sure you’re the sort who never says boo that the US govt pays the highest prices in the world for medical – with pretty much zero control.
You democrats made that happen.
"pretty much zero control."
Do you have a history of cousin intermarriage in your family tree?
Move to Britain or Canada. Enjoy the “free” healthcare there.
He is incapable of independent thought.
When SS was implemented, it was actuarially expected that half of the contributors would die before they would be able to collect. The program had aspects of being a tontine as well as a ponzi scheme. There were also 30 people paying SS taxes for every recipient. The last time I checked, that ratio was around 3 to 1 and falling.
"Which party can do the least to fix America's troubled old-age welfare system?"
This is a trick question with no correct answer.
What is the Democratic Party capable of doing to fix Social Security? Nothing.
What is the Republican Party capable of doing to fix Social Security? Nothing.
Nothing = nothing. It's a tie.
If the left was gone, it would be possible to make useful moves to fix thugs without a democrat press and democrat political operatives savaging them for doing so.
This is the fault of the left.
Social Security as it exists is likely unfixable.
If the left was gone, maybe they could replace it with something sustainable, but in my opinion that wouldn't be "fixing" the existing Social Security system.
Wait, isn't reason in favor of a guaranteed basic income?
Reason is in favor a of all kinds of Marxist plans, as omg as the borders remain open, and all narcotics are fully legal. Beyond that, the world can burn for all any of the Reason staff care.
Why does Reason.com wish to sound like a LEFT WING RAG?
They talk of BOTH parties doing the wrong things, that the result will be the defunding of SS. However, they headlined as the REPUBLICANS want to end it.
Sorry, but it was the DEMOCRATS that attempted to end it TWICE when they raided the Trust Fund and Spent it on national budget.
When SUED, SCOTUS had no possible solution but to determine that SS is a TAX, not a retirement scheme. This meant that Congress can say NO MORE BENEFIT even though they maintain the tax.
If you are going to talk BS at least get your facts straight. The DEMS killed SS when they raided the Trust fund for general use and SCOTUS killed it by determining that it was never ANYTHING but a TAX. Republicans/Conservatives had little to do with any of that.
It’s a typical democrat ploy. My Marxist aunt does the same thing. Points out Republican faults, which are usually a tiny fraction of the same from democrats. Then insist that’s why democrats are better and that it proves I should vote for democrats.
Reason is no better.
Why haven’t you killed your Marxist aunt yet?
She’s 92. Old age is sorting that out for me. And I prefer to reserve my efforts to ridding the world of you younger Marxists. Or you could all self deport now, and head to a real socialist paradise, like Venezuela.
I’m not a Marxist.
I'm pretty sure both parties have the same plan for social security: Hope the other party is in power when we go off the cliff, then campaign on them "cutting" benefits.
Seems like a libertarian publication would want SS to go insolvent -- it's a Ponzi scheme, and the worst kind of Ponzi scheme, one where you can't go after the perpetrators and one that gets people accustomed to looking to the government for sustenance.
Friedrich Hayek warned specifically about Social Security and Medicare as big government traps that should be eliminated. Reason even used to mention Hayek approvingly 20 years ago or so.
Maybe SCOTUS will grow some balls of honor and rule it UN-Constitutional – because it is 100%.
Common; [Na]tional ‘So[zi]al-ist Security’ in the USA?
One thing about socialism; people seem to dilute themselves that retirement and medical can somehow be cheaper by adding a bill for the most useless but "richest territory” (D.C.) in the USA (politicians).
You’re all just adding expenses of useless TV-star game-show hosts packing ‘Gov-Guns’ for yourselves. It’s never going to be ‘just’ because FDR established it in the ‘justice’ department. You just as well be asking every criminal to prosecute themselves.
You can’t afford these things today BECAUSE D.C. is billing you for its ‘uselessness’. ‘Guns’ don’t make sh*t but it does cost to hire criminals as 3rd parties.
As long as the MSM is committed to keeping most of the public that any change to SS other than increased benefits is tantamount to "shoving Granny off a cliff" (I forget which year in the 80s or 90s the Dems ran campaign ads depicting that literally), the options for any kind of useful changes to an untenable program will be limited to nil.
If there's no chance of fixing the problem, the remaining options are to either let the thing fail in its own time, or to exacerbate things and make it fail sooner.
Until the voters get told, and are willing to accept, the truth the least harmful thing that can actually be done is nothing, and any helpful idea is just tilting at windmills.
Didn't know they did it then too. I just remember the commercials of that when Paul Ryan and Republicans were attempting to address this when they actually had some power.
These articles are so fucking disingenuous. Yes, the Republicans are cowardly because any time they attempt to even nibble at the edges of entitlement spending they get relentlessly attacked in the media and end up losing seats. On the other side, Democrats keep pushing to spend more and lie about the Republican proposals.
You can't blame the one side for all problems when the other side has no interest in assisting in fixing them.
Courage hardly enters into it at a certain point. Only the players on the field can affect the scoreboard.
There's never been a party that could make policy without holding seats in the legislature, so losing seats never serves the agenda regardless of whether it's coming from "fighting the good fight" and trying to "speak truth to the media/voters" or as backlash against profligate corruption.
Look at what happened to Mondale in 1984 simply for saying that he'd address the budget deficit by raising taxes. In the 1980s, the Dems went apoplectic over the debt growing by almost $2Trillion in a decade, now when it goes up by less than that much in a fiscal quarter, they start whinging about the dangers of "austerity".
I'm curious what possible solution exists wherein it doesn't become insolvent.
the Republican Party's newly adopted platform embraces the plan that the old GOP criticized eight years ago: Do nothing and wait for the consequences to arrive.
This is known as the "Let It Fail" approach.
Stupid entitled Americans insist on learning everything the hardest way possible. We can publish encyclopedias and put up warning signs and even have a guard on standby to protect you from yourself - but stupid entitled Americans will ALWAYS find a way to stick a fork into the socket.
"Do nothing and wait for the consequences" is the single BEST plan the Republicans have had in my entire life. If that isn't brazenly clear with the way that they stepped aside and let Biden prove on live television (twice!) that his brain is a bowl of lukewarm tapioca pudding, then this should prove it.
It's just like the LGBT pedos. Let them slit their own throats. "We're going to oppose this bill against child prostitution because it will disproportionately affect us!" So you're admitting that you're into child prostitution. GOOD. Get these pedo SOBs on record for being against curbing child prostitution because LGBT has a greater likelihood of being involved in child prostitution. Now we ALL know that the LGBT has always been directed towards one goal: raping children.
It's just like abortion. Make it very clear that it's not some regrettable thing that you wish you didn't have to do, but begrudgingly accept. Shine the light on it - you just want to kill inconvenient babies.
It's just like crime. The libs don't want to punish it. So, let it run rampant. Let the businesses close. Let the people move away. Let California fall to ruin. Shine the light on it. I wish to God that Gavin Newsom would run for President against Tapioca Joe, because the nation needs to see just what a failing catastrophe California has become.
KEEP GETTING THEM TO SAY THE QUIET PART OUT LOUD.
This is a good thing.
The school of hard knocks is a harsh teacher - but it's one that certainly teaches a lesson. America is desperately in need of this.
Once again we have a lying Reason writer calling Social Security an entitlement. Social security is not an entitlement. It’s a contract. You pay in until you quit working. You get paid when you reach retirement age.
Until you can be honest about the program you’re just a trained monkey at a keyboard.
You do not understand what “entitlement” means in government fiscal terms. It means payments that the government cannot legally avoid because the recipients are entitled to them by law.
Whatever Social Security is, it's not a contract.
Funny. I never signed a ‘contract’.
What you are describing isn’t what Social Security is.
Who you going to call when that imaginary ‘contract’ is violated?
It was ruled by the Supreme Court to be nothing but a TAX already.
Your claim to ‘contract’ was already shot down by the Justice Department.
What it is; is in its name 'Social' ism.
"with pretty much zero control"
Control freaks and slavers on the left. Even after paying all income tax owed, the Dems claim authority to regulate our economic decisions regarding how the remainder (after taxes) of our income is spent.
I'm no Trump supporter, but I am confused... if neither side is willing to fix the problem, then why are only the republicans planing to let it go insolvent? Sorry Eric, not a clear case here... or I read it too fast and missed something.
Trump had even less of a plan. "Social Security, he's destroying it," the former president said, referring to Biden. "Because millions of people are pouring into our country, and they're putting them on to Social Security." (Illegal immigrants generally do not receive Social Security benefits.)
Hey Boehm, where does welfare come from? Fine even if we go with social security isn't given, medicare, medicaid etc.
At least part of Boehm's problem is that he thinks of Social Security as a "welfare program".
As conceived, and still for most of it is, Social Security is a compelled retirement savings program.
It needs to be protected from governments trying to use it for something else, by declaring it to be an unearned welfare program.
Most of the population thinks there is some savings there for them in their retirement. Try to fix and you lose elections and can't fix it anyway. Democrats deny it's even a problem only an excuse to tax the rich.
Government is reactive not proactive. Likewise for the budget deficit. It will be addressed exactly one day after a bond crisis.
There are three options:
1. Get rid of the withholding cap;
2. Treat it like welfare, and only give it to people below a certain income level; or
3. Let it collapse, allow to people to keep their own money and invest for their retirements themselves.