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

71–80 of 84 posts

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

#71

Post by smeej »

TheCleric wrote: post #61
goodluckchuck wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I know you don't know me personally, but I don't want it. Living off of my children's labors feels deeply icky to me unless they offer their support willingly, especially when they're at the time in life that they most need to be investing in themselves and I've already had the opportunity to do that.

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

#72

Post by smeej »

OedipusRex wrote: post #43
smeej wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

As long as there are workers, it doesn't dry up entirely. I guess the problem then becomes the fact that U.S. fertility has already fallen below the replacement rate.

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

#73

Post by smeej »

throw0101c wrote: post #52
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.c…

Whose fault is that? Actions have consequences.

This is definitely the parentified child in me speaking, but I'm sick of being the adult to this generation of perpetual children, especially while being mocked by them the whole time for their actions.

Look at the stats about how inexpensive everything was back then relative to wages. If someone couldn't manage to save anything and succeed financially in that environment, compared to today's? They must not have been trying.

I recognize some people faced extenuating circumstances, but not HALF of people.

My dad's a perfect example. He complains that he prioritized "living for today" when he was young, but now it's tomorrow and he barely has a pot to piss in. But it's his own fault, and I would really like to see Boomers face that reality for the first time in their lives.

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

#74

Post by [deleted] »

throwaway5959 wrote: post #31
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.

[deleted]

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

#75

Post by Ekaros »

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?

We did not... In essence it is even more pay as you go. Tax everyone more and distribute that to pensioners. Though quite many pensioners are rather poor. Some with high earnings in late career do quite well.

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

#76

Post by Ekaros »

deadbabe wrote: post #2

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

Very unlikely. Plenty enough 70 year olds can still do enough damage... So no payments is very unlikely situation. What I would expect is much lower standard of living and maybe not getting the most expensive medical treatments.

Specially later I think is something that as society we have to accept. You can not keep everyone alive as long as possible. On other side, with AIs and lot of drugs becoming generic we might be able to medicate affordably for quite a while.

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

#77

Post by mike_hearn »

dpkirchner wrote: post #40
goodluckchuck wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

NASI is the National Academy of Social Insurance, which doesn't mean their results are wrong but does mean you'd need to pay very close attention to what they're doing in these surveys.

For example, they list reasons their respondents give for supporting social security and the first is "I know that I will be receiving benefits when I retire", but the point of the story we're commenting on is that they don't know that. They've been told that, and it might be true, but on the current trajectory it's not currently going to be true. If the NASI told them that social security was unsustainable, that their money being paid in wasn't being saved for them and they might well have fewer benefits than they expect or that seem fair, would they still agree?

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

#78

Post by mike_hearn »

jauntywundrkind wrote: post #66
from-nibly wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It's a ponzi scheme structurally and independent of demographics, this is tautologically true given the definitions of how these systems work and what Ponzi scheme means. Ponzi schemes don't only become so when they go deep into the red, they are Ponzis right from day one if they work by paying out early investors from the fees paid by later investors.

Giving up in this context means switching to a better system, not doing nothing. It's a really bad habit of political debate to assume that if the government provides a service, only the government can provide that service and anyone who criticizes their bad provisioning is therefore arguing for no service to exist at all (and therefore that they must be inhumane and evil). It's just a cheap and nasty debating tactic that you should avoid. "Giving up" means simply for all pension and social insurance to be managed by the private sector. Governments could maybe mandate you buy a policy, and they'd still regulate the private investment funds, but that'd be the limit of their involvement.

The advantage is that governments are much better at enforcing rules on companies than their own departments. There are lots of rules governing how investment capital is managed if you're in the private sector, but if government run pension funds were companies the management would all have been put in jail decades ago, and the Justice Department would be crowing about how it had protected vulnerable citizens from them. Keeping capital savings and management in the private sector (which is good at it) and rule enforcement in the government (which is good at it) would result in a fairer and more trustworthy system over the long run.

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

#79

Post by [deleted] »

smeej wrote: post #71
TheCleric wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I know you don't know me personally, but I don't want it. Living off of my children's labors feels deeply icky to me unless they offer their support willingly, especially when they're at the time in life that they most need to be investing in themselves and I've already had the opportunity to do that.

[deleted]

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

#80

Post by dpkirchner »

mike_hearn wrote: post #77
dpkirchner wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

NASI is the National Academy of Social Insurance, which doesn't mean their results are wrong but does mean you'd need to pay very close attention to what they're doing in these surveys. For example, they list reasons their respondents give for supporting social security and the first is "I know that I will be receiving benefits when I retire", but the point of the story we're commenting on is that they don't know tha…

I think they addressed that by including the word "preserve," however the PDF summary of one of the reports[0] makes that explicit:

> Six in 10 respondents (62%) say they are not confident about the future of the program. Among those not receiving Social Security benefits, 68% lack confidence they will receive all of their earned benefits.

The report goes on to detail how people believe social security is far worse off than it actually is (likely, IMO, due to fearmongering from one particular side.)

0: https://www.nasi.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/HIGHLIGHTS_A...

Post reply on HN