For someone who doesn't know anything about SS how did the Europeans figure it out? Is it because they have smaller populations?
Which countries?
Social Security now expected to run short on funds in 2035, one year later
41–50 of 84 posts
Re: Social Security now expected to run short on funds in 2035, one year later
#42Social Security was established as a pay-as-you-go system. In 1987, the income side went into a significant and unprecedented surplus that accumulated by 2020 into a $2.8T Federal government accounting entry called the "Trust Fund"[1]. Al Gore's "lockbox". We've been anticipating the "bust" forever because it's still pay-as-you-go and the demographics and structure don't work past the 2030s and never have.
This "Trust Fund" is pretty silly, especially in today's cleptocratic political environment. It's not like the trustees can invest it according to their fiduciary duties. And, it's not fair an entire generation has been paying more than required to support current retirees, only to have the system revert to pay-as-you-go for their own retirements. For this, as many economic gems, we apparently can thank Alan Greenspan[2]?
Re: Social Security now expected to run short on funds in 2035, one year later
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
2035 is in 11 years.
Yeah, but the trust fund's running out doesn't mean there are no benefits anymore. It just means the only funds to pay them come from current payroll taxes. The trust fund can no longer make up the shortfall. SS may very well survive at reduced benefits a lot longer than 2035. Whether someone should give up hope of any benefits in 40 years is a fair question.
Somethings got to give if SS dries up, what that is I do not know. I have hopes for a more robust, more ahem socialized healthcare system, but that doesn't seem likely with current trends
Re: Social Security now expected to run short on funds in 2035, one year later
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's telling to me that I completely sincerely have no idea which party you mean.
That's wild to me. Are you in the US and do you generally pay attention to national news?
I'm in the U.S., but I stopped paying attention to national news years ago when I realized how much of a waste of time it is to worry about things I can't change when I have a hard enough time living consistently with my own values day in and day out.
It wasn't 40 years ago, though, and I don't remember having seen any actual efforts to destroy SS from either party. I've seen both sides refuse to try certain things to save it, but I don't remember anything I'd have called an attempt to destroy it.
Re: Social Security now expected to run short on funds in 2035, one year later
#45Very 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.
You've had periods where the Democrats control the Presidency, they control the House, and they control the Senate. If it is so easy to fix, why wasn't it fixed?
The answer is that it is not easy to fix, fixing it involves raising taxes, and people don't like taxes.
So the can gets kicked down the road.
Re: Social Security now expected to run short on funds in 2035, one year later
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I have never understood why there is an income limit in the first place.
Re: Social Security now expected to run short on funds in 2035, one year later
#47Very 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.
I applaud whoever tries to minimize/reduce/remove a mandatory ponzi scheme.
I applaud whoever values this society, culture, & these people. I applaud a culture that works to help old people.
And I curse those with recklessness in their hearts that would opt to simply give up.
Re: Social Security now expected to run short on funds in 2035, one year later
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's wild to me. Are you in the US and do you generally pay attention to national news?
I'm in the U.S., but I stopped paying attention to national news years ago when I realized how much of a waste of time it is to worry about things I can't change when I have a hard enough time living consistently with my own values day in and day out. It wasn't 40 years ago, though, and I don't remember having seen any actual efforts to destroy SS from either party. I've seen both sides refuse to try certain things t…
I guess it depends on your definition of "destroy Social Security", but mine would include the efforts by Republicans to privatize it during the George W. Bush administration.
Re: Social Security now expected to run short on funds in 2035, one year later
#49Could the US implement something like Australia’s superannuation? Every year, x% of your wage is put into a fund you choose, which invests according to your choice of strategy. You’re not allowed to access it until retirement age, and you get tax benefits for contributing to it. Would it be unconstitutional to force employers to put aside wages like that?
Re: Social Security now expected to run short on funds in 2035, one year later
#50Short on funds to provide 100% benefits:
> If Congress does not act by 2035, the trust fund reserves are projected to be depleted. However, the income from Social Security taxes would cover 83% of scheduled benefits.
[…]
> By the year 2098, when I will be turning 117, they project the tax revenue will cover 73% of the benefits. That’s a long runway to shore things up.
* https://awealthofcommonsense.com/2024/05/is-social-security-...
It was never predicted to go to zero.