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

51–60 of 84 posts

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

#51

Post by throw0101c »

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’m 40 and at no point in my life have I trusted that social security will exist […]

It will exist mostly intact, just not necessarily at 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.

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

#52

Post by throw0101c »

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…

> Perhaps this is my cynicism showing, but it's the Boomers who caused this problem. Let them suffer the shortfall as the natural consequence.

If you want people out on the streets, that would probably be a good way to do it:

> Nearly half of senior citizens receive 50% or more of their income from Social Security. One in 5 people 65 or older gets 90% of their income from the program.

* https://awealthofcommonsense.com/2024/05/is-social-security-...

There are a lot of poor Boomers out there, and SS is the only thing preventing them from being completely destitute.

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

#54

Post by chefkd »

searealist wrote: post #41
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?

Which countries?

Scandinavian is the usual example but like the UK for instance lived there for a bit everyone got dental / health through the NHS that would be the equivalent of medicare right? it didn't seem to be as political

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

#55

Post by chefkd »

floydnoel wrote: post #28
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?

I believe they are heavily importing immigrants currently. Not really possible to "solve" a ponzi.

could you say more about what makes it a ponzi scheme? in my country there's traditional retirement account you contribute to from your salary whether you work at a private / public org and you get that when you reach 65 is that bad idk much about life but especially clueless about these things

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

#56

Post by chefkd »

drewrv wrote: post #36
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.

if you don't mind me asking why? won't everyone just get the money they put in from their salaries? in my head it's like a way to save pre-tax am I simplifying it too much

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

#57

Post by [deleted] »

justinator wrote: post #26
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?

EU citizens generally pay much higher taxes, and get better retirement benefits for a wider variety of jobs, many of which would not be a career path that would have a good benefit package in the States. And insurance that's not coupled with your employer. The flaunting of wealth also isn't exactly culturally as strong as it is in the States. My plan in the States -- in all seriousness -- is to be the local mountain…

[deleted]

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

#58

Post by from-nibly »

jauntywundrkind wrote: post #47
richwater wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Give up on the ponzi scheme?

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

#59

Post by silotis »

tamaharbor wrote: post #46
dpkirchner wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When Social Security was first passed into law it was sold to the public as a sort of compulsory annuity, not a means of mass wealth redistribution.

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

#60

Post by RhysU »

joegibbs wrote: post #49

Could 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?

That's opting into a 401k, essentially. Employers often match employee contributions to some amount. But it's not compulsory nor is it universally available. IRAs are, however.
Post reply on HN