Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Social Security now expected to run short on funds in 2035, one year later

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 84 posts

Re: Social Security now expected to run short on funds in 2035, one year later

#31

Post by throwaway5959 »

smeej wrote: post #8

Perhaps this is my cynicism showing, but it's the Boomers who caused this problem. Let them suffer the shortfall as the natural consequence. They've been the political decision-makers most of their lives because there were so many more of them than their parents. And they can criticize Millennials for receiving (?!) participation trophies they handed out until their faces are as blue as their hair, but they've system…

Quite a few of them will be dead by 2035. The earliest boomers were born in 1946, that’s 89 years old. They’ll have been collecting benefits for decades by then.

Re: Social Security now expected to run short on funds in 2035, one year later

#32

Post by AnimalMuppet »

chefkd wrote: post #12

For someone who doesn't know anything about SS how did the Europeans figure it out? Is it because they have smaller populations?

No, smaller populations doesn't help. It reduces the amount of benefits paid out of the fund, but it also reduces the payments into the fund.

Re: Social Security now expected to run short on funds in 2035, one year later

#33

Post by smeej »

I have an out-of-the-box suggestion: For any parents who have been paying in but agree to forego receiving any payments from SS, their children would have a choice:

1. Operate under the existing system. Pay into Social Security, and withdraw as normal when they're older.

2. Have 7.65% of their income invested in a total stock market index fund, which their employers would match. If they want, they can reduce their allocation below 100% stocks once they're 50 or older.

We're already below replacement value for children per family, so while there would be a few families large enough for the benefit to the children to be significantly more than what the parents are giving up, it's still going to take quite awhile for the existing system to wind down. Slow end, simple replacement.

Re: Social Security now expected to run short on funds in 2035, one year later

#34

Post by jltsiren »

chefkd wrote: post #12

For someone who doesn't know anything about SS how did the Europeans figure it out? Is it because they have smaller populations?

Some countries have solved the problem, while others haven't. There is not much to figure out. There are three basic tools: higher contributions, higher retirement ages, and lower benefits. You just have to make decisions. Ideally decades in advance, to avoid unfair sudden changes.

Re: Social Security now expected to run short on funds in 2035, one year later

#35

Post by metabagel »

deadbabe wrote: post #2

Should I give up on any chance at social security in 40 years?

No. Government needs to shore up the funding for Social Security. Although, it’s hard for the government to do anything meaningful when Republicans are in a position to block it.

Re: Social Security now expected to run short on funds in 2035, one year later

#36

Post by drewrv »

chefkd wrote: post #12

For someone who doesn't know anything about SS how did the Europeans figure it out? Is it because they have smaller populations?

They tax people, especially high earners, at a higher rate than Americans. It’s not complicated. The US is the wealthiest country in the history of the planet. We could afford to fund social security if we wanted to but some people are opposed to it.

Re: Social Security now expected to run short on funds in 2035, one year later

#37

Post by goodluckchuck »

metabagel wrote: post #24
smeej wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's telling to me that I completely sincerely have no idea which party you mean.

Republicans despise anything socialist, and Social Security is that. Unfortunately, the program is too popular to cut, but they are looking at the funding crisis as an opportunity to at least scale it back. Social Security needs additional funding, not benefit cuts.

People should be allowed to opt-out, but that would destroy the system because the public doesn’t actually want it.

Re: Social Security now expected to run short on funds in 2035, one year later

#38

Post by dpkirchner »

nitsky wrote: post #25
jmclnx wrote: post #9

Very easy to fix, but one US party does not want to fix it. That party has spent the last 40 years trying to destroy it.

What action could be taken to fix it?

Removing the income limit without increasing the benefit amount (at least not at the same rate) would be a huge improvement and should be about as simple as any tax change can be.

Re: Social Security now expected to run short on funds in 2035, one year later

#39

Post by AnimalMuppet »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #3

I’m 40 and at no point in my life have I trusted that social security will exist for me or anyone beyond my generation so this is just more reinforcement of that You’re on your own folks

I have always expected nothing. But I'm 62 now, and it looks like there may be something there for me after all.

For you, it's not looking great. But it has never looked great, and yet it's still (so far) paying full benefits. Don't plan on it, but don't be too surprised if you get something...

Re: Social Security now expected to run short on funds in 2035, one year later

#40

Post by dpkirchner »

goodluckchuck wrote: post #37
metabagel wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Republicans despise anything socialist, and Social Security is that. Unfortunately, the program is too popular to cut, but they are looking at the funding crisis as an opportunity to at least scale it back. Social Security needs additional funding, not benefit cuts.

People should be allowed to opt-out, but that would destroy the system because the public doesn’t actually want it.

Social Security is incredibly popular, to the point people actually want to expand it:

https://www.nasi.org/learn/social-security/public-opinions-o...

> Moreover, Americans are willing to pay more to keep Social Security strong. About 8 in 10 (77%) say it is critical to preserve Social Security even if it means increasing the Social Security taxes paid by working Americans. An even higher percentage (83%) say it is critical to preserve Social Security even if it means increasing the Social Security taxes paid by wealthy Americans.

Post reply on HN