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

61–70 of 84 posts

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

#61

Post by TheCleric »

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.

I know people who aren’t confident it’ll be there when they need it, but I personally know of no one who doesn’t want it.

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

#62

Post by jmclnx »

rufus_foreman wrote: post #45
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.

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.

Actually, the tax limit has been risen a few times, I remember when it was ~68000 and then it ended up being ~98000 in the late 90s, maybe in the Clinton Admin.

I think it is now ~163000, I can only assume that that was done by Obama.

In today's environment, as you say, I doubt it will be raised until 2/3 of the Senate and the Pres wants to raise it.

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

#63

Post by searealist »

chefkd wrote: post #54
searealist wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The trick is to have a homogenous population of Nordic people.

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

#64

Post by TheCleric »

chefkd wrote: post #55
floydnoel wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I wouldn’t call it a Ponzi scheme, but it’s less you get an account and more you pay into a big account and get a stipend based on your peak income. So money we pay now goes to pay current retirement benefits. And hopefully by when I retire the next generation will be paying so I can retire.

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

#65

Post by [deleted] »

searealist wrote: post #63
chefkd wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The trick is to have a homogenous population of Nordic people.

[deleted]

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

#66

Post by jauntywundrkind »

from-nibly wrote: post #58
jauntywundrkind wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Giving up is the cowards route. How do we figure out what to do?

It's only a "ponzi scheme" because of hard to guess demographics. It requires help & correction I'm my view. It's bleak sad & vicious anti-human nihilism to "give up". That feels low, cruel, and an unimaginable horror to me. Giving up & doing nothing is an opting for unimaginable brutal cruelty & suffering. How can I even start to sympathize with that?

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

#67

Post by chefkd »

TheCleric wrote: post #64
chefkd wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I wouldn’t call it a Ponzi scheme, but it’s less you get an account and more you pay into a big account and get a stipend based on your peak income. So money we pay now goes to pay current retirement benefits. And hopefully by when I retire the next generation will be paying so I can retire.

this is so maddeningly confusing to my brain that's used to you get what you put in

can you explain like I'm 5-10 why is the fund running out if every generation pays? are people in the workforce right now not paying into it or has there been a significant change in demographics between 1983 and now? wouldn't an entire generation need to stop paying for this to happen or is that ismplifying it

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

#68

Post by ungreased0675 »

rufus_foreman wrote: post #45
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.

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.

We’ve also had periods where Republicans controlled Congress and the Presidency, and they didn’t “destroy” Social Security like we’re told they would.

It’s a difficult problem to fix, and I suspect some politicians prefer the status quo so they can use it as a wedge issue. (as you see in the comments here)

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

#69

Post by Server6 »

jmclnx wrote: post #62
rufus_foreman wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Actually, the tax limit has been risen a few times, I remember when it was ~68000 and then it ended up being ~98000 in the late 90s, maybe in the Clinton Admin. I think it is now ~163000, I can only assume that that was done by Obama. In today's environment, as you say, I doubt it will be raised until 2/3 of the Senate and the Pres wants to raise it.

The social security tax limit is indexed with inflation and updated annually by the IRS without an act of congress. This indexing is factored into their funding calculations.
Post reply on HN