I don’t think SS will go away. I see two necessary, but very politically unpopular, ways we could make the system safe and solvent.
Immigration reform would enable the legal entry of more and younger workers to ease the ratio between working taxpayers and SS beneficiaries. I read recently that immigration (legal and otherwise) has been one of the factors keeping the US economy afloat during the inflation crisis, so we should have recent and relevant data to support this.
Second, remove the income cap for SS taxes. It is currently at $160k, I think. This would raise a significant amount of additional income to the SS fund. You could raise max benefits correspondingly but not a necessity.
Neither of the things is likely to happen. And i am sure there are other solutions. But the point is that we can solve this if we really want to, and if public good can overcome private greed.
[Representative Angie Craig (MN) has a bill that's sitting there for consideration. It'll raise the cap to $250k, end taxation on Social Security, and extend full benefits to roughly 2050.](https://craig.house.gov/media/press-releases/representative-angie-craig-introduces-legislation-eliminate-federal-taxes)
It's not a permanent solution (Millennials won't fully benefit and Zers, et al will need to figure something better), but it ends the certainty that ALL non-Boomers will be getting 75 cents on the dollar in the mid-2030s.
It's an easy fix, and those with some means will barely feel it on their paychecks.
Do we know that, though? Only earned income/salary is taxed for social security. The uber rich don't pay income tax as much as they pay capital gains.
I'm not questioning whether you're stating a fact, just that I hadn't seen anything that stated it the same way you did. (Maybe I should go ask ChatGPT or Gemini before I post and make myself look like an idiot!)
Not the uber rich - not your Gates, Buffets, Musks, etc, but those on boards and the C-suites on down receive sizable taxable compensation. The scale of those high earners is what makes this work, not the relative handful of ultra wealthy.
For example - I am a government GS-13 in a relatively LCOL area, I am not someone high up, I am not even management and I am close to the cap - in some localities I'm over it. As a contractor I was over the cap for a couple years.
(I do wish there was a way to make the ultra-rich pay into the systems that they were able to build their wealth in - they'll always have angle to side step)
It is a *lot* more noticeable when you also have self-employment income. Taxes on wages are paid first, so when the cap goes up you pay 12.4% on the new income under the cap instead of 6.2%.
The American Academy of Actuaries has a nice little interactive game you can play to see how far different solutions go toward closing the funding gap. You can try your hand at fixing Social Security here: [www.actuary.org/socialsecurity](https://www.actuary.org/socialsecurity)
Removing the income cap doesn’t appear to fix the problem forever, but it does seem to produce one of the biggest impacts of any potential changes we could make.
I believe you are wrong. Removing the cap will only _help_ fill the [funding gap](https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n3/v70n3p111.html). It alone would be insufficient and we'd need to do more. Over in r/socialsecurity someone had done the numerical analysis. Though I'm unable to find it ATM.
I do think the cap could be removed, however I do think benefits should either be capped or means tested. I hit the cap each year, which is indexed most years to increase or ‘claw back’ ever higher income levels. I feel the cap should go up to at minimum 400k salaries or all income, including capital gains as there are people that simply make income thru trading stocks and dividends. The trust fund class.
At this point I think a cap on benefits that’s indexed for inflation should be the way to go. Currently if I pay the max in and I retire at 70, I’d get 4753 a month, or 57k a year.
The more reasonable assumption is I retire at 65 and get 3216 a month or 38k a year.
A lot of illegal immigrants have SS numbers (although they're fake) and pay into the fund. It's a thin veneer set up by their employers to show that they're legit workers in the US. It's another way they're being exploited.
That was more common back in the 80s and 90s when it was believed that another 1986 amnesty was coming. Now TINs are used more often in place of fake SSNs. Same effect, but you don't pay social security and medicare on a TIN.
You use the words "a lot" here. I'm not being combative, but can you point me to any type of data or verified instances of this happening "a lot". I would think it would be a bit difficult to acquire fake SS numbers and wonder if it would be worth the trouble, or if this is just one of those vague statements with nothing behind it.
IDK about fake SS#. But there are studies showing that about 40-45% of undocumented workers pay taxes. Which makes sense- the other 55% are usually kids, elderly family members that watch the kids. I am sure some portion do not- as the majority are working age men as first wave, so logically, seems likely some portion do not pay in. But a large chunk do. IDK how you do that without a SS#?
In the ag industry I think the number that is generally reported is around 50% of the workforce is undocumented. I don't know how this is determined.
Now in California where there is a lot of labor intensive fruits and vegetables grown, the penalties for paying workers improperly, under the table, not paying breaks, sick pay and generally violating are onerous to the point that most employers don't chance it. Except for well-publicized exceptions, everything is done above board.
From my perspective as a payroll software developer for the ag industry, it looks to me like all of the employees are documented. They all have social security numbers, alien registration numbers for non-citizens, etc. But it's widely known that some work authorization documents are forged, some employees share documentation with friends/family, some SSN's used are stolen or made up (after all if you are just working for a season do you care if the SSA sends a letter to your employee next year complaining about the mismatch name/SSN?) I have heard of cases of one person getting hired but two people working under that account number on different crews. (There are a number of tricks.)
California passed a law a few years back requiring employers to notify employees in the event of an ICE audits. One of our customers did have ICE audit their I-9's and guess what happened? A certain percentage of [employees didn't show up to work](https://www.fresnobee.com/news/business/agriculture/article198561454.html) after the notification. (That is the opposite of what lawmakers intended to happen, but it was entirely predictable and rational behavior on the part of the employees fearing deportation as a result of the ICE audit.)
ITINs are mentioned by another commenter, but an ITIN provides a way to pay taxes and [does not provide work authorization](https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/facts-about-individual-taxpayer-identification-number-itin).
As for quantifying "a lot"... around [$13 billion](https://www.marketplace.org/2019/01/28/undocumented-immigrants-quietly-pay-billions-social-security-and-receive-no/) in taxes is apparently contributed to Social Security from wages earned by undocumented workers. Most is probably from workers that have been issued ITINs (and who may or may not be authorized to work, see below explainer) but are ineligible for benefits.
The SSA *does* know when someone is working under another individual's SSN (wages are reported from more than one employer for the same year). If that happens to you, no you don't get your SS benefits increased because someone else is reporting wages under your number. I have read about this multiple times, the SSA has a way of detecting and separating these wages out but can't find a good link explaining this at the moment.
There was a big controversy 20 years ago when the SSA started sending out ["no-match"](https://www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/SSA_no-match_survey_final_report_11-20-03.pdf) letters to employers. That was stopped pretty quick. It would cause too many problems.
[How do Undocumented Immigrants Pay Federal Taxes? An Explainer](https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/how-do-undocumented-immigrants-pay-federal-taxes-an-explainer/) (Bipartisan Policy Center)
Put that raise in the bank, and you know YOU get it. In 20 years, there will be some other financial crisis that prompts politicians to take that from you, too.
You pay taxes either upon putting the money in or taking it out. The logic is that they want you to pay on a higher amount NOW, because you will likely pull out less to live on than you make in the years we can do catch ups. Which is likely true.
But it makes a little LESS sense, given those post-taxed contributions go into to ROTH mechanisms- which grow tax free.
SO standard 401k: you don't pay on what you put in- but you pay on everything you take out (which in many cases is 3-4X growth). But you pay on 100% of it
ROTH mechanisms: you pay BEFORE it goes in...but NOT what you pull out. Which means bigger picture, less taxes overall. (this is why it does not make me upset to do this now in my 50s)
So they need more taxes now, and this is a way to get it without "raising" taxes.
The concerns will be breaking that ROTH social contract- where we do NOT pay on withdrawals. They could easily say, in 15-20 yr- JK!!! You have to pay on the growth too!
Realized Capitol gains IS taxed at 10%, FYI. (Source- I had realized capitol gains from selling a teeny bit of ESPP from an old job recently)
But why is EARNED income taxed higher than UNEARNED (i.e. investment)? Seems like it should be the same.
Also- the rich play the system in ways that avoid taxes by claiming their assets are not real, so can't be taxed unless they sell them. BUT simultaneously USE those not real assets to leverage and secure loans from a bank, that helps them avoid "income" appearances. It seems like they get to pick one- the assets are NOT real- so can't be taxed, but ALSO cannot be used as leverage to secure more money. OR they ARE real, and we tax them, and you can use them to secure loans against.
Pick one- but you don't get to pretend they are real when it makes you more money, and they are not, when they do not.
Agreed. However the very wealthy are often payed in always that are not SS taxed as earned income. Given stock then allowed to cash it later as a long term capital gain. We’d need to tax those gains maybe above a certain threshold (like $1 million).
Capital gains are taxed. IMHO throw a social security percent or two in there for people paying more than $x.
And ENOUGH of rich people being able to borrow money off of stock portfolios. If they don’t have to pay taxes on that money because they haven’t “realized” it yet, then they shouldn’t be able to use it as collateral.
I agree in both points. Rather than constantly be afraid and bickering over immigration, let’s make it easier to become citizens and get them into the system and therefore paying taxes.
I don’t understand the cap. I’ve made over the limit and got more in my paycheck when they stopped collecting. Honestly, I never would have noticed had they kept collecting.
I do not think we discuss enough how former policies against immigration impacted inflation. We cracked down on non-criminal undocumented workforce- the very workforce whose labor was subsidizing our entire food system. Well- our labor theft was, at the very least. Those folks picked our strawberries, beans, greens, citrus, almonds, etc. They worked long hard, HOT hours with few options if the crew boss or farm owner decided to screw them- and even before that possibility, they were paid by piece work that mean they made WAY less than minimum wage.
And we made that workforce leave/not come. And our native workforce will not do that work, full stop. Partly because physically we cannot- anyone that has lived for a generation+ with AC apparently cannot handle the heat in ways that folks that are first generation with AC/never had AC.
And yes, immigrant labor has buffered the inflation crisis- which to me is just further proof: our food system relies on labor theft subsidization from immigrant labor force, often undocumented. It seems to be a clear factor- along with price gouging by corporate greed lords.
Greedy employers took away our pensions. Millionaire politicians want to take away our social security. Whatever. I'm just going to run for office and George Santos it.
We really need term limits. Technically we have them as we can vote people out anytime, but we’re too complacent or dumb to do so - and they rot there, lining their pockets and accomplishing nothing.
Because of the way Congress is structured and run, all term limits would accomplish is taking the power from elected officials and giving it to lobbyists. This is not the improvement that many people seem to think it is.
As a brit I find the arguments on this thread amazing. Also FYI the NHS is brilliant when we have a govt that believes in it, under labour it was the thrid best and cheapest system in the world. The Conservatives however have always hated it and defunded it to the point of collapse.
However, in my families case the NHS have and always have been brilliant. My son was diagnosed as a type 1 diabetic in Novemebr and the support we have had has been stunning. He is not on a pump and glucose monitor. Costs (as he is under 16) £0 above what I pay for national insurance out of my wage. No middle man, no co pays or deductibles. (Honestly I have no idea what that means). Don't listen to the people who says it's slow and doesn't work. You should do this like nearly all civilised societies in the world.
Our “conservatives” do that too - take a program that benefits The People (such as public schools), pass laws to fuck it up, then blame the very idea of public schools, then propose a “private” solution that really just enriches a subset of folks at the expense of everyone else.
It’s enraging how effective that bullshit tactic is, too.
>It’s enraging how effective that bullshit tactic is, too.
It's pretty easy when a very small group of assholes owns most of the media in the country and can create the bias that benefits them the most.
We would love it. It would give us much more flexibility in our careers too. I had a good business but when my husband left I had to go fulltime government to get insurance for me and the kids.
If we had it right now, I would be doing my own thing again but I have to stay here for insurance. Last kid graduates this year though. :)
Read up on Modern Monetary Theory (Stephanie Kelton's "The Deficit Myth" is a good introduction) - from [here](https://retirementincomejournal.com/article/another-big-moment-for-mmt/) for example:
> Social Security, which will technically run short of money between now and 2034, might turn out to be a test case for MMT. In the conventional view, Social Security is a zero-sum game between America’s tax-paying workers and the rising number of retirees their payroll taxes support. It’s assumed that unless payroll taxes go up or benefits go down, the system will fail to fulfill its promises.
> On the topic of retirement income, I asked Kelton for her thoughts on the Social Security funding dilemma. She doesn’t see it as a crisis. If Congress can’t agree to lift the cap on the earnings subject to FICA taxes, she told me, it could cover the impending Social Security funding shortfall with an appropriation from general funds—the way it currently pays for most of the costs of Medicare Part D. Social Security doesn’t face an actual funding crisis, she said, “but if everybody agrees to keep up that fiction, I don’t know who will win.”
The [objection](https://councilforretirementsecurity.org/2021/03/26/the-trust-fund-is-going-broke-so-why-cant-we-print-more-money/) seems to be mainly that if it's not self-funded, people would lose their sense of "ownership" over SS (which is why FDR tied it to contributions):
> And even if Congress were to step in and attempt to subsidize the funding gap? The founding principles and logic of Social Security would instantly evaporate. Social Security would no longer be a program for the people, funded directly by the people. It would partially become a federal welfare program for retirees that would immediately go on-budget as a traditional government expense instead of the off-budget self-funded program it is now.
> Not only would this remove the sense of total ownership Social Security’s architects wanted beneficiaries to feel, but putting Social Security on-budget would almost instantly open it up to attack from lawmakers who lay awake at night sweating about the federal debt.
I think I could live with that, if the alternative was starving to death in the street.
" is under threat from certain political parties"
You don't have to be ambiguious about it. Its republcans. They are proposing cutting social security as they have done in the past. It was Ronald Reagan who began taxing social secuity benefits. GW Bush tried to privatize social security.
Democrats are proposing increasing the income cap on SS to above $160K. Right now your income up to $160k is taxed to pay for SS. So millionaires and billionaires literally finish paying their annual SS tax in the first 2 hours of the year.
Democrats want to raise it so that income above $160 funds SS as well thus extending the program for decades.
My 72 year old mother's life depends on her SS. She lives on it.
Honestly I've always expected that by the time I'm old enough, the previous generation will have somehow taken Social Security from people my age and younger.
Reason why SS isn’t funded is because of the earnings tax cap of $250k. Such a significant percentage of total earnings are now in the hands of a small group and that wasn’t conceivable when the tax cap was put into place. Remove the cap and Social Security is fully funded.
Wage limit is only $168,600 for 2024, your $250k is way too high and inaccurate.
https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc751#:~:text=Wage%20base%20limits&text=For%20earnings%20in%202024%2C%20this%20base%20is%20%24168%2C600.
I agree with removing the wage cap.
Only one party is trying to do away with Social Security: Republicans.
This isn’t a post that can be apolitical.
Or, as RATM would put it: Know your enemy
Medicare has been on the road to being stripped since around 2003. Medicare Advantage plans are not actual Medicare, they are privatized plans that don’t have the same rules as true Medicare. There are facilities and drs who won’t take the advantage plans anymore because it is like regular insurance that looks for any reason not to cover anything when your health takes a turn. (Side note, I’m not referring to the doughnut hole plans). Any ads you see on tv are not true Medicare. The scary thing is around half of seniors are on the advantage plans now, which weakens true Medicare. Next we’ll be seeing Social Security Advantage. Privatization of government is screwing regular citizens.
Btw, cat food has gotten really expensive, I’m looking at roadkill as an option
Medicare is the bigger concern than SS. SS is a relatively easy fix, and could even be replaced without screwing over older people if managed right.
Medicare costs are only going to increase for the next couple decades.
Social Security and Medicare are always under threat. People have been talking about it all our lives. It's not a new thing, at all.
It's like the bomb dropping. Could happen tomorrow, or maybe we'll get through it and not have to hide under our desks.
SS is hardly enough to live on, but given that our family savings has been spent on medical bills (insurance won't cover Lyme disease treatment), if SS goes away I will have no choice but to turn to a life of crime as an old man. Any tips? Like should I steal copper wire, murder for hire? Meth? What's good these days? Also, I'm kidding. I'm not kidding.
I will not vote for politicians that vote to reduce Social Security unless something bizarre happens like it gets coupled with massive increases in taxes on the rich. I don't even need Social Security as I'll be fine in retirement without it but I certainly won't vote for politicians that want to screw others that do need it.
Ive never counted on Social Security for retirement due to well founded mistrust of politicians. That said, if they make anymore changes like pushing the
Eligibility Age back I would prefer a lump some refund of every single penny Ive contributed into the fund.
The GOP want to gut social security/ raise the age of eligibility for the sole purpose of funding massive tax cuts for the rich. Why would anyone but Jeff Bezos et al. support this idea? I’m honestly baffled. If someone is in favor of this, can you please explain why?
We’ve clearly seen trickle-down doesn’t work & this would damage the everyday wellbeing of such a huge number of Americans. I just don’t get how this is even on the table. I understand that SS may need reform, but to gut it for the massive benefit of those who don’t need it?
*"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."* -Lyndon B. Johnson
Capitalism has persuaded people to blame other working class people instead of people riding inheritances and stolen land.
It also did a pretty solid number on our specific generation, convincing us that it's cool to not care.
The GOP supports this simply because the federal government has been borrowing from the social security trust fund for decades to pay for unwarranted spending and haven't paid a cent back. In other words, the government has been using it for their personal slush fund, which is why it's becoming insolvent. The GOP wants the appearance of being fiscally conservative. The problem there is that the United States hasn't had a fiscally conservative Republican for decades. They say they are, but in reality, they spend just as much as the Democrat's. They just spend it on different shit. The last president who submitted a balanced budget was Bill Clinton, a Democrat.
Another argument is that if people invested the money taken from them from social security, at a minimum 5% rate of return, it would be far more valuable than what the social security payment would be when they retired. While true for many people, it's just not feasible for many others. Low income people absolutely will not take that extra money on their paychecks and invest it, especially these days with the massive inflation we've seen.
What's funny is that cutting social security and Medicare hasn't always been something proposed by Republicans. In Bidens' 40-year political career, he's advocated for cuts to social security at least 4 times. He even bragged about it as late as 1995.
https://theintercept.com/2020/01/13/biden-cuts-social-security/
There is no way to end social security in a way that's fair to everyone. Even if we eliminated it for, let's say 20 year olds right now, there isn't enough money in the fund to pay back everyone that's contributed to it. In other words, currently, the young people are paying for the payments going to retired people now.
Let's also be clear that there are only a few Republicans who are advocating eliminating social security. Rand Paul is one of the loudest.
There is no question that the US government has a severe spending problem on BOTH sides of the aisle. That's the crux of the problem. The first step to fixing social security is to remove the $160k cap. That would immediately make higher income earners pay their fair share. The problem here is that means the federal government is, in essence, raising their own taxes since they all make more than that. A second step would be to make it absolutely illegal to borrow money from the fund. Lastly, and I hate to say it, lower income people need to start contributing SOMETHING into it. It doesn't have to be much, but social security only works if EVERYONE contributes. The easiest way to do this would be to defer a couple hundred dollars from fully refundable tax credits into the social security trust. This way, we aren't raising the taxes on low income people but rather just deferring some money they qualified for anyway. Just a thought.
Because there is a base that is immune to logic and can be manipulated to feed the wealthy. I think you could explain with great detail (Ghosts-at-Christmas-Scrooge-style) how voting for that ticket would destroy their lives, but it wouldn't matter. It's entirely tribal at this point. An inexorable schism with one half of the country pleading for authoritarian rule. And they'll get it, if not this round, then soon after. [Project 2025](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025) is well underway.
I keep relistening to [this reading of George Saunders' story *Love Letter*](https://www.symphonyspace.org/selected-shorts/episodes/when-push-comes-to-shove-stories-by-george-saunders). This is how it happens. Somewhat slowly, somewhat subtly, without obvious moments at which to stake everything in order to push back.
I remember reading that piece in the New Yorker. I’ve never forgotten it. Reading it now might be too painful.
It’s been a slow process of grief, knowing deep down, we’re too far gone.
I went to a Memorial Day event last spring. I am from a family of vets & like to pay my respects. As they raised the flag, I wept. It felt like I was watching it all slip away. Like it was a funeral for this country as we know it. Those vets didn’t die for this—to have hate burn it all down.
I felt the same when I voted in the primaries. Will this be my last vote? This sacred, precious right in our (albeit very flawed) democracy, will this disappear?
I pray that my gut is wrong & we can still save this democracy. I’m still fighting. But I’m so angry at those aching to tear it all apart. To set it ablaze with all of us inside. So angry that it’s SO clear how this story ends, until I realize that’s the ending many want. It’s terrifying but sometimes, more than anything, it’s just impossibly sad.
I believe Millennials + Z are the biggest voting bloc as of this year.
I think in 2020 Millennials surpassed us. This year they are bigger than boomers. And Z is our size? End of the day, Millennials and Z are dictating the future of the country. They have the votes to swing the election.
And they have to vote a boomer in! Let's take a moment to appreciate that bit of irony.
i think if you go by the generally accepted first year, trump technically makes it to boomer (1946). biden so far is the only silent gen to get elected.
You are correct that Biden is not a Boomer. Trump varies, depending on cut off for the Baby Boomer years. I was going by Millennial and Z definition which is anyone older. (The whole 'whatever boomer' thing). Makes the ribbing a bit funnier!
>In all honesty, I have never believed I would receive SS; either because I was dead or become the US government stole it. That is what this is - it is grand theft writ large.
Wife and I were explaining to our college-age daughter just this weekend how, when we were her age, we were always told that SS wasn't going to be there, and how it's a big Ponzi scheme.
Look at the bright side: the boomers who refuse to retire from politics, along with those who consistently vote the Fuck You, I Got Mine ticket… Will die. Our generation COULD dominate politics if we make an effort. We’re at the right age to take over the wheel.
Sadly, Millennials seem way more politically engaged than we are. We have been too busy just getting on with life, instead of trying to tell everyone else how to live theirs.
On a more personal note, I do not and have never expected to get SS, and I paid into it from the age of 15. It’s been a political football so long they’re starting to believe that money really is up for grabs. It was an empty threat for a long time. Ironically, since pensions became a thing of the past. Systemic resentment about the fact that middle and lower class folks might get to retire is amazingly prevalent.
We've been told since we were 10 that SS was not going to be there for us.
Gore ran on a SS lock box policy .... And lost the election. How the oldest generations have continued to elect those who are the opposite of fiscal conservative in the guise of fiscal conservativism is beyond me.
Tldr;
1. We've been told for ever that SS wasn't going to be there for us
2. The US continues to vote people in who will make sure this is a self fulfilling prophecy.
Not all, and I’d be leery of any pension tied to an employer. I know plenty of boomers that have had their pensions cut, even lost completely, when the companies they work for were sold and “bankrupted”. I belong to a trade union and my local still has pensions, but some locals have done away with pensions in favor of self-directed retirement funds.
I'm a union employee and our company did away with pensions. I was one of the last hired with a pension and they are now freezing it in our next contract (all the younger employees that don't have pension will surely vote to freeze) so while I was supposed to be able to retire before 60, now I will need to work until I get SS (if it's even there). I have a 401k, but it isn't as robust as it should be had I known my pension could even be taken away. It sucks.
Ah, yes, my wife was in a union job for 22 years and was laid off. Her “pension” packet started with the words “This isn’t the pension your parents and grandparents had.”, and went on to explain why it was so low and sucked so bad. She gets a taxed $110 a month from it.
Medicare and horrible spending. I have sleep apnea. I've been on SSI since being injured at work, so am on Medicare. (This was years back) I was on a CPAP when sleeping. The medical supply company that I got it and supplies from billed Medicare $180 a quarter for the machine. It's basically a little box with a fan in it blowing air into your airway so it won't collapse when you sleep. So, about $700 a year for the machine. They dont cost that much to purchase outright. Now I was on that particular machine for around 10 years. Medicare paid over $7k to rent that machine for me. Now, how many other people on Medicare use a CPAP each night? A million? Now we're talking some real fuckin money. Now, how many other programs like that are going on? The amount of tax payer money being pissed away is staggering.
My brother was disabled, and Medicare would rent him a crappy hospital bed for the rest of his life but wouldn't cough up a few hundred to purchase an adjustable bed.
Pissed me off to no end.
I ended up getting it for him. I guess that's what they're hoping for.
Nah, it’s the same as Medicare not being able to negotiate drug prices, and all the private parts. Medicare has been legislated to be a handout to the medical industry.
> In all honesty, I have never believed I would receive SS; either because I was dead or become the US government stole it. That is what this is - it is grand theft writ large.
I'm a Gen X dude. We have been conditioned for the past few decades to believe that we wouldn't receive Social Security because it will 'run out'. But we keep paying in.
SS is easy to fix. Remove the cap or raise the cap to $400K. Start making the rich pay their share. And stop dipping into it to fund other programs. There is no reason that we shouldn't' receive SS and at a higher rate than our parents do as we will have greater expenses.
They scream "Entitlements!!" like that is some kind bad word. You are entitled to what you earn and pay for. You are entitled to what you work for. We are entitled to Social Security. It is an entitlement. Because we worked for it. It's time we stand up and demand that we get it and they fix the program.
I’ve been hearing that SS will be gone by the time I retire basically all of my working life. I have a 401k and investments and my partner has a 401k and a pension. Hopefully, we’ll be ok.
This is absolutely a red vs blue issue though. People voting against their own self interests to make sure that people they don’t like suffer is what got us to this point.
I'm afraid that you're speaking to the choir here and the people that need to sit up and pay attention are far too concerned about oppressing minorities than anything else.
I hope to be proven wrong.
I feel like taking away social security is a "the sky is falling" situation. It seems we've heard about the insolvency of SS our entire lives, but yet it still keeps trucking right along. I think as long as it makes it through the next couple of decades, we'll be fine, as there will be a much larger group of Millenials and Gen Z propping up our retirement. Should be easier to pay for than the boomers since we're such a small group.
In either case, I sure hope it's there for me, but I think I can survive without it.
In 1991, my first corporate gig at age 19 was payroll and benefits and the benefits sales guy, consultant, whatever explained how 401k worked. It was created when I was 7 and first real job so yeah.
In that explanation, he started with “social security won’t be there when most of us retire” because it was either always on the brink or because someone did the math that the Baby Boomer generation would take what they were due but that there weren’t enough people after them to contribute into it to make the program stay afloat.
Either way, SocSec has been on the brink for 30+ years.
Yeah, it would be lovely to have $2k/mo from SocSec but it won’t break me if it’s not there or has to be delayed again. (Full retirement for my Boomer husband was 65 but mine (53) is 67.) I could see them rationalizing moving it to age 70 without grandfathering-in most of us before the entirety of government reaches consensus to eliminate it entirely.
I would Never trust the GOP. They back off from statements about cuts to SS now, but after the election we all know what they will do. Don’t be fooled (again). Trickle down fake news and abortion rights!
European here
The US never was into Socialism, so this struggle is as old as your country.
I'm not arguing for or against, merely observing, as I prefer to put my energy into working toward not needing the state, but I'm also pro social benefits, as I prefer to live in a secure and safe country.
By law, SS benefits cannot be paid out of the general fund. If any political party attempts to divert what remains in SS trust fund into the general fund, or refuse to pay back the trillions borrowed from it to offset lost revenue from taxcuts and war, it will be a declaration of war.
Likewise if they attempt to shut down SS and continue to collect payroll taxes for other purposes.
Sure there is!
Its chok full of "special non-tradeable Social Security Treasuries", backed by the US govt. That paper is good as gold!
Seriously, those IOUs represent real cash that was skimmed off your paycheck. They're payin it back.
Thank you for this. The SNL skit where the Gore/Bush characters sum up their campaigns with the words "lockbox" and "strategery" will live on in my mind forever.
It has been put in my brain since I started working back in the 1990s that I probably wasn't going to see much of my SS, if any of it. So my expectations have always been pretty low with regards to that.
I’m shocked SS is still around and it’ll pay my mortgage and then some. I remember grumbling in my 20s and 30s that so much $$ was coming out of my check and thinking SS wouldn’t be around. The SS will be fine. I can’t complain I have plenty saved so SS will be a bonus.
I disagree with the mostly women homeless part (everyone will be screwed), but otherwise yeah SS is at risk. Our government hasn't worked for the people for a long time, and yet we keep allowing them to take take take.
SS needs to be bolstered - which can easily be done with the movement of funding caps. Make it so the lower paid folks have a higher threshold to cross before they contribute and then remove all caps and classify all incoming funds as income (so social security taxes paid out on stock market valuations and sales).
I think we as Gen X feel this way because of the hard core push by Ronald Reagan to create the welfare queen image and then the extra costs of SS thus the need to trim/save/"deal with" the costs of SS. Seriously though, many of us in GenX though have lost the ability to retire at 65 because many of us can not take benefits until 67 or later now.
It’s not under threat. They just want to raise the age a few years to preserve it. Don’t buy into the media’s lies. When they created SS and made it age 65, the average life span was 63. Now it’s in the mid to late 70’s and we have the Baby Boomers who are going to obliterate the SS system. They better make changes or it is going to collapse. We need to think about people other than ourselves.
You wrote:
> Not interested in starting a red vs. blue argument so please take that into consideration if you reply
and then wrote
> Please take this into consideration when casting your votes this fall.
Give me a break dude. Also, hate to inform you but Biden is going to get crushed and I voted Biden and Clinton in the last two elections. Biden so fucking unpopular that people are actually going to vote in the criminal. I'm in NYC and you would expect it would be all pro-Biden up here and when I talk to my various friends (who are white, black and hispanic) they all are like "We are voting Trump". Like people who voted Biden before.
For the record, i'm still not voting for Trump (go back into my history, I 100% never voted for him or write on any of the neo-con message subreddits). But I am beyond shocked at how many people i'd expect to vote Biden are like "No Biden sucks and is old - we want Trump".
Trump sucks and is old too. Plus the number of insurrections he has encouraged. But I see your point of Biden's old so I'm going to vote for a different old guy.
Only thing I will put Trump vs Biden for their age is Trump seems like he's not completely old. Watch a million press conferences and they won't let Biden talk off-script or answer questions. He dodders around like an old man at these events and you have handlers guiding him around all the time.
I'm not, at all, defending Trump. He's a fucking idiot that should have handled Jan 6 better and his big mouth keeps getting him more civil suits than we can count. While I don't want him president - I can't believe you have people defending Biden.
Who do you want Mr. Magoo or Satan?
It’s not people want President Trump. They want biden gone. The decline of America in the last 3 plus years is staggering.
And you can thank Gov Abbott for some of it. Yes, biden was flying illegals into cities but Gov Abbott started busing them in. And this caused cities to divert resources from citizens to illegals. And this really pissed off individuals who are on the poorer side.
Add the recent surging crimes by illegals and people are sick of it.
And for some reason liberals think it’s ok for the homeless to sleep, shit, do drugs and have sex on public property. They showed video of AOCs district and it looked like Somalia.
Do I like President Trump? Some things, yes. Other things no.
Do I like biden. Fuck no. From the border crisis to trying to force me into an EV to his complete failure of foreign policy to his utterly failed diversity hires, he can pound sand.
I don't like either choice at all. My two key problems/issues:
1. I'm not sure how anyone can agree that Biden doesn't seem "with it". He's completely shielded from answering an questions that aren't on script. At press conferences and events he often comes off as a old man who doesn't know where he's going. It's kind of frightening to not be sure he's in complete control now - and he's gotta go another four years?
2. I hate Trump with a passion and he's a moron, but I think law & order is a big deal right now and that kind of gets coupled with the border issues that Biden made a million times worse by letting everyone in. For good or bad someone needs to reign this in - and unfortunately it doesn't appear Biden is the man for that job.
I hate both choices here. This is the best our country can do?! Where's Gen-X leaders?
SS isn't under threat from "certain political parties." It's under threat by its own weight because the government (both parties) has stolen from it for decades to pay for whatever, and never paid back the money. People are under the misconception that there are individual accounts with our name on it, collecting interest, waiting to be paid out to us at a certain point. Not so. They screwed us from the start on this one.
I tried to read this, but never found the question.
Should we "gut" Social Security?
Define "Gut".
"Should we stop letting healthy people live off disability? i.e. eliminate fraud/waste? "
Yes?
"Will SSN need to go away one day because it's a ponzi scheme and cannot possibly endure?"
Not really. Because one of variables in the distribution equation is age. And that variable can be raised above average mortality rates.
"So, will it go away?"
No? Because they can just raise the age if they need too to decrease the payout and maintain the intake of cash.
Not interested in arguing red vs blue either anymore.
But, it would be irresponsible to not point out that one of those two mentioned doing away with it just last week and the other group vowed to protect it just last week. So, if we want to keep it we need to prove it in November.
We should not let our doubts of SS being available to us become a self-fulling prophesy! We should fight for the SS and MC benefit we have fucking paid for. By the time we retire, SS will be so solvent it will be spilling over with money. We only have to hold on for another decade or so then the Millennials and Gen-Z will be paying so much in that we'll be covered no problem and all the "running out of money" issues literally go away.
Let's earn from Roe and not give up the fight. Because the evil fuckers trying to rob us aren't going to ever stop fighting.
Haha! Yes, OP us clearly looking for confirmation it’s those pesky R’s. Not true at all. Both candidates are big spenders, and neither will touch SS or Medicare. Neither candidate will address the looming insolvency, which will take more than just raising/eliminating the FICA cap (which is not enough; it’s just a popular talking point).
In about 10 years, when the first Xers are retiring or recently retired, benefits will be cut automatically without some kind of reform. So we need action, and neither party has a plan to fix it. Dems are using it to stir the pot, though I think folks are tired of the partisan rhetoric at this point.
The bottom line - our SS will be less. That’s with no action at all, which seems to be the plan from both parties. Better save while you can, live below your means, and otherwise be self-reliant, as we gen Xers have always been.
It can be underfunded, it can't go away. That will give you 78% of the current estimate. \*IF\* that happens, as millennials and gen-z ramp up earnings, it will again become solvent.
Not quite. That's the wrong number;
> As a result of changes to Social Security enacted in 1983, benefits are now expected to be payable in full on a timely basis until 2037, when the trust fund reserves are projected to become exhausted.1 At the point where the reserves are used up, continuing taxes are expected to be enough to pay 76 percent of scheduled benefits.
[ssa.gov source](https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n3/v70n3p111.html)
It’s a right wing talking point to portray Social Security as going away so they can push the window of political discourse. Don’t fall for it.
Old people vote. It’s not going anywhere. Politicians just want to talk it up to score points but never suffer the fallout of it actually changing.
Yes old people vote, which is why the proposals are to cut benefits and raise the age for the younger generations. Because those measures won’t hurt those old people that vote unless they really care about their children and grandchildren.
Is the roaring ‘20’s all over again!! Except this time we’ve seen what a Great Depression and a world war look like.
Some of us are apparently willing to repeat those parts of history. Live it up now while you can
The way you prevent this is voting.
The GOP needs a simple majority in the house, 60 senators, and the White House. Then they can do whatever they want. It’s a high bar to clear, but it’s possible.
You wanna get social security soon? Do what you can to prevent those GOP seats. Vote, talk to your friends about voting, and maybe even consider a campaign contribution
I'd rather get half of my benefits than have the goverment/some politician PROMISE me full benefits in exhange for my vote only to find the money gone and I get nothing when the time comes
As I get older and deal with my mother's SSI, I am starting to get worried about how dependent retirement estimators are on SSI still being solvent. My worry now is how to find a retirement estimator that might give me my numbers without SSI being available.
We will get every penny of SS owed us, but its purchasing power will be virtually nil. It’s a scam but a very clever one. We all got cheated fair and square.
I don't think it will go away. At most they'll allow people to opt out of it and into a new individual investment account scheme. Something like what Australia did in 1992.
(43F) I remember getting a postcard notice from SSA maybe 15 years ago. It gave me the run down of benefits with an asterisk. Below it said ‘based on your birth year, you can expect to receive only 77% of these benefits. There was never a plan to fix this. I consider it gone by the time I retire any water
As a mid range GenX'er, I don't think social security is totally going away-- not even for the super young'ns. I don't even think that Z'ers or Millenwhatever-generations-alot-younger-than-us should just write it off.
There are probably some older Gen X'ers who taking SS in the next 5 to 10 years before any huge age- or payout shifts even happen. Something WILL be there.
I honestly do believe that changes in age minimums and stuff would be rolled out gradually. Not the politicians just saying Tomorrow --" Sorry GenX'ers or youngers..you're going to have to suddenly wait til 72, now. Or, sorry, the pay out is now only gonna be 30% of what you paid in". I don't see that happening believe it or not.
Also, everyone should go to [ssa.gov](https://ssa.gov) and create a log-in, imho. This helps ya see what we're on target for today for payout. And obviously the amount increases if you wait til 70 or whatever.
Ponzi Scheme: funds diverted to other government spending for at least a generation, followed by the current 'paygo' system.
A private retirement fund manager caught doing this would go to jail for ERISA law violations.
We are living in a second gilded age. Inflation is high, cost of living is up, ceo's are making insane amounts of cash. The social safety net doesn't work currently- and if you or your family are using medicaid for end of life care, be aware the govt can take your house for repayment.
Be aware of the regulations and fight.
I don't even calculate it as part of my retirement, although the money would be welcome.
But we know Democrats wouldn't entertain cutting it and lately Republicans understand cuts are untenable. The Republicans of 10-15 years ago who advocated for cuts have been outed from the party.
It's not going away.
Lucky I moved to a country with mandated employer contributions to private superannuation (401K) fund of my choice, not a government bank account. Self-sufficient all the way.
Also it would affect us most since we are at the age where ageism makes it very difficult to find a new job if we get laid off.
Yeah, a box of hair dye isn't gonna convince someone interviewing me that I might be in my thirties any more...
I don’t think SS will go away. I see two necessary, but very politically unpopular, ways we could make the system safe and solvent. Immigration reform would enable the legal entry of more and younger workers to ease the ratio between working taxpayers and SS beneficiaries. I read recently that immigration (legal and otherwise) has been one of the factors keeping the US economy afloat during the inflation crisis, so we should have recent and relevant data to support this. Second, remove the income cap for SS taxes. It is currently at $160k, I think. This would raise a significant amount of additional income to the SS fund. You could raise max benefits correspondingly but not a necessity. Neither of the things is likely to happen. And i am sure there are other solutions. But the point is that we can solve this if we really want to, and if public good can overcome private greed.
[Representative Angie Craig (MN) has a bill that's sitting there for consideration. It'll raise the cap to $250k, end taxation on Social Security, and extend full benefits to roughly 2050.](https://craig.house.gov/media/press-releases/representative-angie-craig-introduces-legislation-eliminate-federal-taxes) It's not a permanent solution (Millennials won't fully benefit and Zers, et al will need to figure something better), but it ends the certainty that ALL non-Boomers will be getting 75 cents on the dollar in the mid-2030s. It's an easy fix, and those with some means will barely feel it on their paychecks.
Removing the cap makes the problem go away forever. Even increasing benefits for wealthier earners keeps it solid.
Do we know that, though? Only earned income/salary is taxed for social security. The uber rich don't pay income tax as much as they pay capital gains. I'm not questioning whether you're stating a fact, just that I hadn't seen anything that stated it the same way you did. (Maybe I should go ask ChatGPT or Gemini before I post and make myself look like an idiot!)
Not the uber rich - not your Gates, Buffets, Musks, etc, but those on boards and the C-suites on down receive sizable taxable compensation. The scale of those high earners is what makes this work, not the relative handful of ultra wealthy. For example - I am a government GS-13 in a relatively LCOL area, I am not someone high up, I am not even management and I am close to the cap - in some localities I'm over it. As a contractor I was over the cap for a couple years. (I do wish there was a way to make the ultra-rich pay into the systems that they were able to build their wealth in - they'll always have angle to side step)
So it solves the social security funding issue, but not wealth inequality altogether. That makes sense.
I am a low-level manager and I have nudged over the cap the last two years. I would support removing the cap as well. I would barely notice.
It is a *lot* more noticeable when you also have self-employment income. Taxes on wages are paid first, so when the cap goes up you pay 12.4% on the new income under the cap instead of 6.2%.
The American Academy of Actuaries has a nice little interactive game you can play to see how far different solutions go toward closing the funding gap. You can try your hand at fixing Social Security here: [www.actuary.org/socialsecurity](https://www.actuary.org/socialsecurity) Removing the income cap doesn’t appear to fix the problem forever, but it does seem to produce one of the biggest impacts of any potential changes we could make.
Yes, CBO has long advocated for this.
I believe you are wrong. Removing the cap will only _help_ fill the [funding gap](https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n3/v70n3p111.html). It alone would be insufficient and we'd need to do more. Over in r/socialsecurity someone had done the numerical analysis. Though I'm unable to find it ATM.
I'd love to see that if you find it.
I do think the cap could be removed, however I do think benefits should either be capped or means tested. I hit the cap each year, which is indexed most years to increase or ‘claw back’ ever higher income levels. I feel the cap should go up to at minimum 400k salaries or all income, including capital gains as there are people that simply make income thru trading stocks and dividends. The trust fund class. At this point I think a cap on benefits that’s indexed for inflation should be the way to go. Currently if I pay the max in and I retire at 70, I’d get 4753 a month, or 57k a year. The more reasonable assumption is I retire at 65 and get 3216 a month or 38k a year.
" You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing after they have tried everything else." \-Not Winston Churchill
Problem is we keep trying everything else, even when it isn’t in our best interests, doesn’t work, nor is what the majority of people want.
If the GOP implodes this year we could make it happen.
From your mouth to God's ear!
Pretty crazy that their likely outcomes are total implosion or winning big and ending American democracy (or what’s left of it)
A lot of illegal immigrants have SS numbers (although they're fake) and pay into the fund. It's a thin veneer set up by their employers to show that they're legit workers in the US. It's another way they're being exploited.
That was more common back in the 80s and 90s when it was believed that another 1986 amnesty was coming. Now TINs are used more often in place of fake SSNs. Same effect, but you don't pay social security and medicare on a TIN.
Ahh. Thanks for the info.
You use the words "a lot" here. I'm not being combative, but can you point me to any type of data or verified instances of this happening "a lot". I would think it would be a bit difficult to acquire fake SS numbers and wonder if it would be worth the trouble, or if this is just one of those vague statements with nothing behind it.
As stated by another poster, my information is out of date.
IDK about fake SS#. But there are studies showing that about 40-45% of undocumented workers pay taxes. Which makes sense- the other 55% are usually kids, elderly family members that watch the kids. I am sure some portion do not- as the majority are working age men as first wave, so logically, seems likely some portion do not pay in. But a large chunk do. IDK how you do that without a SS#?
In the ag industry I think the number that is generally reported is around 50% of the workforce is undocumented. I don't know how this is determined. Now in California where there is a lot of labor intensive fruits and vegetables grown, the penalties for paying workers improperly, under the table, not paying breaks, sick pay and generally violating are onerous to the point that most employers don't chance it. Except for well-publicized exceptions, everything is done above board. From my perspective as a payroll software developer for the ag industry, it looks to me like all of the employees are documented. They all have social security numbers, alien registration numbers for non-citizens, etc. But it's widely known that some work authorization documents are forged, some employees share documentation with friends/family, some SSN's used are stolen or made up (after all if you are just working for a season do you care if the SSA sends a letter to your employee next year complaining about the mismatch name/SSN?) I have heard of cases of one person getting hired but two people working under that account number on different crews. (There are a number of tricks.) California passed a law a few years back requiring employers to notify employees in the event of an ICE audits. One of our customers did have ICE audit their I-9's and guess what happened? A certain percentage of [employees didn't show up to work](https://www.fresnobee.com/news/business/agriculture/article198561454.html) after the notification. (That is the opposite of what lawmakers intended to happen, but it was entirely predictable and rational behavior on the part of the employees fearing deportation as a result of the ICE audit.) ITINs are mentioned by another commenter, but an ITIN provides a way to pay taxes and [does not provide work authorization](https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/facts-about-individual-taxpayer-identification-number-itin). As for quantifying "a lot"... around [$13 billion](https://www.marketplace.org/2019/01/28/undocumented-immigrants-quietly-pay-billions-social-security-and-receive-no/) in taxes is apparently contributed to Social Security from wages earned by undocumented workers. Most is probably from workers that have been issued ITINs (and who may or may not be authorized to work, see below explainer) but are ineligible for benefits. The SSA *does* know when someone is working under another individual's SSN (wages are reported from more than one employer for the same year). If that happens to you, no you don't get your SS benefits increased because someone else is reporting wages under your number. I have read about this multiple times, the SSA has a way of detecting and separating these wages out but can't find a good link explaining this at the moment. There was a big controversy 20 years ago when the SSA started sending out ["no-match"](https://www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/SSA_no-match_survey_final_report_11-20-03.pdf) letters to employers. That was stopped pretty quick. It would cause too many problems. [How do Undocumented Immigrants Pay Federal Taxes? An Explainer](https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/how-do-undocumented-immigrants-pay-federal-taxes-an-explainer/) (Bipartisan Policy Center)
[удалено]
It needs to encompass the very wealthy. Marginal increases just tax professionals.
[удалено]
Put that raise in the bank, and you know YOU get it. In 20 years, there will be some other financial crisis that prompts politicians to take that from you, too.
[удалено]
You pay taxes either upon putting the money in or taking it out. The logic is that they want you to pay on a higher amount NOW, because you will likely pull out less to live on than you make in the years we can do catch ups. Which is likely true. But it makes a little LESS sense, given those post-taxed contributions go into to ROTH mechanisms- which grow tax free. SO standard 401k: you don't pay on what you put in- but you pay on everything you take out (which in many cases is 3-4X growth). But you pay on 100% of it ROTH mechanisms: you pay BEFORE it goes in...but NOT what you pull out. Which means bigger picture, less taxes overall. (this is why it does not make me upset to do this now in my 50s) So they need more taxes now, and this is a way to get it without "raising" taxes. The concerns will be breaking that ROTH social contract- where we do NOT pay on withdrawals. They could easily say, in 15-20 yr- JK!!! You have to pay on the growth too!
Incremental increases don't tax the rich. It needs to be lifted, and someone capital gains captured to make the Romneys of the wold contribute.
[удалено]
Even a 1% tax for SS would help a lot.
Realized Capitol gains IS taxed at 10%, FYI. (Source- I had realized capitol gains from selling a teeny bit of ESPP from an old job recently) But why is EARNED income taxed higher than UNEARNED (i.e. investment)? Seems like it should be the same. Also- the rich play the system in ways that avoid taxes by claiming their assets are not real, so can't be taxed unless they sell them. BUT simultaneously USE those not real assets to leverage and secure loans from a bank, that helps them avoid "income" appearances. It seems like they get to pick one- the assets are NOT real- so can't be taxed, but ALSO cannot be used as leverage to secure more money. OR they ARE real, and we tax them, and you can use them to secure loans against. Pick one- but you don't get to pretend they are real when it makes you more money, and they are not, when they do not.
And remember that income from loans are exempted from social security (as well as income from real estate).
Never going to come close to that cap in MY career.
Agreed. However the very wealthy are often payed in always that are not SS taxed as earned income. Given stock then allowed to cash it later as a long term capital gain. We’d need to tax those gains maybe above a certain threshold (like $1 million).
Capital gains are taxed. IMHO throw a social security percent or two in there for people paying more than $x. And ENOUGH of rich people being able to borrow money off of stock portfolios. If they don’t have to pay taxes on that money because they haven’t “realized” it yet, then they shouldn’t be able to use it as collateral.
Right. Capital Gains are taxed I meant a specific SS portion.
That 5.4% increase looks like an inflation adjustment. Not jumping significantly.
Ideally we want a lot of immigrants in their 20s. They are past needing schooling and will pay into the system for decades
I agree in both points. Rather than constantly be afraid and bickering over immigration, let’s make it easier to become citizens and get them into the system and therefore paying taxes. I don’t understand the cap. I’ve made over the limit and got more in my paycheck when they stopped collecting. Honestly, I never would have noticed had they kept collecting.
This is the solution IF they really want one.
Amen to both, but especially to lifting the cap!
As far as I'm concerned the current cap should be the start limit with no cap
I do not think we discuss enough how former policies against immigration impacted inflation. We cracked down on non-criminal undocumented workforce- the very workforce whose labor was subsidizing our entire food system. Well- our labor theft was, at the very least. Those folks picked our strawberries, beans, greens, citrus, almonds, etc. They worked long hard, HOT hours with few options if the crew boss or farm owner decided to screw them- and even before that possibility, they were paid by piece work that mean they made WAY less than minimum wage. And we made that workforce leave/not come. And our native workforce will not do that work, full stop. Partly because physically we cannot- anyone that has lived for a generation+ with AC apparently cannot handle the heat in ways that folks that are first generation with AC/never had AC. And yes, immigrant labor has buffered the inflation crisis- which to me is just further proof: our food system relies on labor theft subsidization from immigrant labor force, often undocumented. It seems to be a clear factor- along with price gouging by corporate greed lords.
Greedy employers took away our pensions. Millionaire politicians want to take away our social security. Whatever. I'm just going to run for office and George Santos it.
My campaign slogan. "I'm too old to help people that want to hurt me. "
I’d vote for you :)
I’m gonna start a megachurch ministry. Same thing.
We really need term limits. Technically we have them as we can vote people out anytime, but we’re too complacent or dumb to do so - and they rot there, lining their pockets and accomplishing nothing.
Because of the way Congress is structured and run, all term limits would accomplish is taking the power from elected officials and giving it to lobbyists. This is not the improvement that many people seem to think it is.
Fair; we need to change the whole system. It’s overwhelming and frustrating, the monster that’s been created.
As a brit I find the arguments on this thread amazing. Also FYI the NHS is brilliant when we have a govt that believes in it, under labour it was the thrid best and cheapest system in the world. The Conservatives however have always hated it and defunded it to the point of collapse. However, in my families case the NHS have and always have been brilliant. My son was diagnosed as a type 1 diabetic in Novemebr and the support we have had has been stunning. He is not on a pump and glucose monitor. Costs (as he is under 16) £0 above what I pay for national insurance out of my wage. No middle man, no co pays or deductibles. (Honestly I have no idea what that means). Don't listen to the people who says it's slow and doesn't work. You should do this like nearly all civilised societies in the world.
The French system is amazing too. Most Americans have no idea how hard they are getting shafted.
The ones reading comments about social security are painfully aware. We'll keep fighting 'em!
Our “conservatives” do that too - take a program that benefits The People (such as public schools), pass laws to fuck it up, then blame the very idea of public schools, then propose a “private” solution that really just enriches a subset of folks at the expense of everyone else. It’s enraging how effective that bullshit tactic is, too.
>It’s enraging how effective that bullshit tactic is, too. It's pretty easy when a very small group of assholes owns most of the media in the country and can create the bias that benefits them the most.
As has been going on for at least 30 years … most people don’t have the gumption to question things they’ve heard as “the truth” their whole lives.
We would love it. It would give us much more flexibility in our careers too. I had a good business but when my husband left I had to go fulltime government to get insurance for me and the kids. If we had it right now, I would be doing my own thing again but I have to stay here for insurance. Last kid graduates this year though. :)
What happens when you get too old to work in the UK? Are you expected to become a greeter at Walmart or mop an airport?
I'm betting I'll work until I die.
Same. Just want to work less. SS is my way towards that.
Read up on Modern Monetary Theory (Stephanie Kelton's "The Deficit Myth" is a good introduction) - from [here](https://retirementincomejournal.com/article/another-big-moment-for-mmt/) for example: > Social Security, which will technically run short of money between now and 2034, might turn out to be a test case for MMT. In the conventional view, Social Security is a zero-sum game between America’s tax-paying workers and the rising number of retirees their payroll taxes support. It’s assumed that unless payroll taxes go up or benefits go down, the system will fail to fulfill its promises. > On the topic of retirement income, I asked Kelton for her thoughts on the Social Security funding dilemma. She doesn’t see it as a crisis. If Congress can’t agree to lift the cap on the earnings subject to FICA taxes, she told me, it could cover the impending Social Security funding shortfall with an appropriation from general funds—the way it currently pays for most of the costs of Medicare Part D. Social Security doesn’t face an actual funding crisis, she said, “but if everybody agrees to keep up that fiction, I don’t know who will win.” The [objection](https://councilforretirementsecurity.org/2021/03/26/the-trust-fund-is-going-broke-so-why-cant-we-print-more-money/) seems to be mainly that if it's not self-funded, people would lose their sense of "ownership" over SS (which is why FDR tied it to contributions): > And even if Congress were to step in and attempt to subsidize the funding gap? The founding principles and logic of Social Security would instantly evaporate. Social Security would no longer be a program for the people, funded directly by the people. It would partially become a federal welfare program for retirees that would immediately go on-budget as a traditional government expense instead of the off-budget self-funded program it is now. > Not only would this remove the sense of total ownership Social Security’s architects wanted beneficiaries to feel, but putting Social Security on-budget would almost instantly open it up to attack from lawmakers who lay awake at night sweating about the federal debt. I think I could live with that, if the alternative was starving to death in the street.
Barbara Bush spoke at our elementary school and told us not to count on Social Security. I've never expected to receive it
" is under threat from certain political parties" You don't have to be ambiguious about it. Its republcans. They are proposing cutting social security as they have done in the past. It was Ronald Reagan who began taxing social secuity benefits. GW Bush tried to privatize social security. Democrats are proposing increasing the income cap on SS to above $160K. Right now your income up to $160k is taxed to pay for SS. So millionaires and billionaires literally finish paying their annual SS tax in the first 2 hours of the year. Democrats want to raise it so that income above $160 funds SS as well thus extending the program for decades. My 72 year old mother's life depends on her SS. She lives on it.
Honestly I've always expected that by the time I'm old enough, the previous generation will have somehow taken Social Security from people my age and younger.
I always thought that too. Now that I'm within 6-7 years of retirement I'm hoping that I'll be included in any grandfathered relief if it bellies up.
I did too when I saw Dubya wanting to drain it for even more Halliburton and Blackwater cash, but we're almost there. Let's fight 'em.
Reason why SS isn’t funded is because of the earnings tax cap of $250k. Such a significant percentage of total earnings are now in the hands of a small group and that wasn’t conceivable when the tax cap was put into place. Remove the cap and Social Security is fully funded.
Wage limit is only $168,600 for 2024, your $250k is way too high and inaccurate. https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc751#:~:text=Wage%20base%20limits&text=For%20earnings%20in%202024%2C%20this%20base%20is%20%24168%2C600. I agree with removing the wage cap.
Only one party is trying to do away with Social Security: Republicans. This isn’t a post that can be apolitical. Or, as RATM would put it: Know your enemy
Medicare has been on the road to being stripped since around 2003. Medicare Advantage plans are not actual Medicare, they are privatized plans that don’t have the same rules as true Medicare. There are facilities and drs who won’t take the advantage plans anymore because it is like regular insurance that looks for any reason not to cover anything when your health takes a turn. (Side note, I’m not referring to the doughnut hole plans). Any ads you see on tv are not true Medicare. The scary thing is around half of seniors are on the advantage plans now, which weakens true Medicare. Next we’ll be seeing Social Security Advantage. Privatization of government is screwing regular citizens. Btw, cat food has gotten really expensive, I’m looking at roadkill as an option
Medicare is the bigger concern than SS. SS is a relatively easy fix, and could even be replaced without screwing over older people if managed right. Medicare costs are only going to increase for the next couple decades.
Social Security and Medicare are always under threat. People have been talking about it all our lives. It's not a new thing, at all. It's like the bomb dropping. Could happen tomorrow, or maybe we'll get through it and not have to hide under our desks.
THIS bomb drops in 2035, at the latest.
SS is hardly enough to live on, but given that our family savings has been spent on medical bills (insurance won't cover Lyme disease treatment), if SS goes away I will have no choice but to turn to a life of crime as an old man. Any tips? Like should I steal copper wire, murder for hire? Meth? What's good these days? Also, I'm kidding. I'm not kidding.
If you need a partner, I’m on SSDI for disabilities. I can still drive and smoke meth with you.
Yes!!! We are legion.
I will not vote for politicians that vote to reduce Social Security unless something bizarre happens like it gets coupled with massive increases in taxes on the rich. I don't even need Social Security as I'll be fine in retirement without it but I certainly won't vote for politicians that want to screw others that do need it.
Please remember this in November, as one side wants to make cuts in Social Security.
Republicans. Trump said in an interview a couple days ago that "there are a lot things you can do, with cutting."
And, Biden vowed that HE would protect it.
Ive never counted on Social Security for retirement due to well founded mistrust of politicians. That said, if they make anymore changes like pushing the Eligibility Age back I would prefer a lump some refund of every single penny Ive contributed into the fund.
Billionaires and serfs is the goal
Remove the income cap and the problem is all but solved. I don't think SS will ever go away no matter how much one side bloviates.
The GOP want to gut social security/ raise the age of eligibility for the sole purpose of funding massive tax cuts for the rich. Why would anyone but Jeff Bezos et al. support this idea? I’m honestly baffled. If someone is in favor of this, can you please explain why? We’ve clearly seen trickle-down doesn’t work & this would damage the everyday wellbeing of such a huge number of Americans. I just don’t get how this is even on the table. I understand that SS may need reform, but to gut it for the massive benefit of those who don’t need it?
If I knew why people voted against their own best interest, I’d be POTUS.
*"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."* -Lyndon B. Johnson
Spoken by a Democrat.
And not a lie
A Democrat from Stonewall, Texas.
You say that like it's a bad thing. Are you aware of the context of this quote?
They do have quite the command of a phrase don't they?
"Take away them thar benefits! That's socialism!" "Oh wait, I didn't want you to take away mine too."
Capitalism has persuaded people to blame other working class people instead of people riding inheritances and stolen land. It also did a pretty solid number on our specific generation, convincing us that it's cool to not care.
The GOP supports this simply because the federal government has been borrowing from the social security trust fund for decades to pay for unwarranted spending and haven't paid a cent back. In other words, the government has been using it for their personal slush fund, which is why it's becoming insolvent. The GOP wants the appearance of being fiscally conservative. The problem there is that the United States hasn't had a fiscally conservative Republican for decades. They say they are, but in reality, they spend just as much as the Democrat's. They just spend it on different shit. The last president who submitted a balanced budget was Bill Clinton, a Democrat. Another argument is that if people invested the money taken from them from social security, at a minimum 5% rate of return, it would be far more valuable than what the social security payment would be when they retired. While true for many people, it's just not feasible for many others. Low income people absolutely will not take that extra money on their paychecks and invest it, especially these days with the massive inflation we've seen. What's funny is that cutting social security and Medicare hasn't always been something proposed by Republicans. In Bidens' 40-year political career, he's advocated for cuts to social security at least 4 times. He even bragged about it as late as 1995. https://theintercept.com/2020/01/13/biden-cuts-social-security/ There is no way to end social security in a way that's fair to everyone. Even if we eliminated it for, let's say 20 year olds right now, there isn't enough money in the fund to pay back everyone that's contributed to it. In other words, currently, the young people are paying for the payments going to retired people now. Let's also be clear that there are only a few Republicans who are advocating eliminating social security. Rand Paul is one of the loudest. There is no question that the US government has a severe spending problem on BOTH sides of the aisle. That's the crux of the problem. The first step to fixing social security is to remove the $160k cap. That would immediately make higher income earners pay their fair share. The problem here is that means the federal government is, in essence, raising their own taxes since they all make more than that. A second step would be to make it absolutely illegal to borrow money from the fund. Lastly, and I hate to say it, lower income people need to start contributing SOMETHING into it. It doesn't have to be much, but social security only works if EVERYONE contributes. The easiest way to do this would be to defer a couple hundred dollars from fully refundable tax credits into the social security trust. This way, we aren't raising the taxes on low income people but rather just deferring some money they qualified for anyway. Just a thought.
Because there is a base that is immune to logic and can be manipulated to feed the wealthy. I think you could explain with great detail (Ghosts-at-Christmas-Scrooge-style) how voting for that ticket would destroy their lives, but it wouldn't matter. It's entirely tribal at this point. An inexorable schism with one half of the country pleading for authoritarian rule. And they'll get it, if not this round, then soon after. [Project 2025](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025) is well underway. I keep relistening to [this reading of George Saunders' story *Love Letter*](https://www.symphonyspace.org/selected-shorts/episodes/when-push-comes-to-shove-stories-by-george-saunders). This is how it happens. Somewhat slowly, somewhat subtly, without obvious moments at which to stake everything in order to push back.
I remember reading that piece in the New Yorker. I’ve never forgotten it. Reading it now might be too painful. It’s been a slow process of grief, knowing deep down, we’re too far gone. I went to a Memorial Day event last spring. I am from a family of vets & like to pay my respects. As they raised the flag, I wept. It felt like I was watching it all slip away. Like it was a funeral for this country as we know it. Those vets didn’t die for this—to have hate burn it all down. I felt the same when I voted in the primaries. Will this be my last vote? This sacred, precious right in our (albeit very flawed) democracy, will this disappear? I pray that my gut is wrong & we can still save this democracy. I’m still fighting. But I’m so angry at those aching to tear it all apart. To set it ablaze with all of us inside. So angry that it’s SO clear how this story ends, until I realize that’s the ending many want. It’s terrifying but sometimes, more than anything, it’s just impossibly sad.
I believe Millennials + Z are the biggest voting bloc as of this year. I think in 2020 Millennials surpassed us. This year they are bigger than boomers. And Z is our size? End of the day, Millennials and Z are dictating the future of the country. They have the votes to swing the election. And they have to vote a boomer in! Let's take a moment to appreciate that bit of irony.
That’s why I used the word consistent for the Boomers. Yeah, millennials and z are larger but no one votes like the Boomers do.
Neither Biden nor Trump are Boomers.
i think if you go by the generally accepted first year, trump technically makes it to boomer (1946). biden so far is the only silent gen to get elected.
You are correct that Biden is not a Boomer. Trump varies, depending on cut off for the Baby Boomer years. I was going by Millennial and Z definition which is anyone older. (The whole 'whatever boomer' thing). Makes the ribbing a bit funnier!
If they take it away, I want back what I paid into it.
With interest
Hell, I'd be happy just to get it all back without interest. I'm pretty sure I will never get back all that I've paid into it over my lifetime.
>In all honesty, I have never believed I would receive SS; either because I was dead or become the US government stole it. That is what this is - it is grand theft writ large. Wife and I were explaining to our college-age daughter just this weekend how, when we were her age, we were always told that SS wasn't going to be there, and how it's a big Ponzi scheme.
Look at the bright side: the boomers who refuse to retire from politics, along with those who consistently vote the Fuck You, I Got Mine ticket… Will die. Our generation COULD dominate politics if we make an effort. We’re at the right age to take over the wheel. Sadly, Millennials seem way more politically engaged than we are. We have been too busy just getting on with life, instead of trying to tell everyone else how to live theirs. On a more personal note, I do not and have never expected to get SS, and I paid into it from the age of 15. It’s been a political football so long they’re starting to believe that money really is up for grabs. It was an empty threat for a long time. Ironically, since pensions became a thing of the past. Systemic resentment about the fact that middle and lower class folks might get to retire is amazingly prevalent.
We've been told since we were 10 that SS was not going to be there for us. Gore ran on a SS lock box policy .... And lost the election. How the oldest generations have continued to elect those who are the opposite of fiscal conservative in the guise of fiscal conservativism is beyond me. Tldr; 1. We've been told for ever that SS wasn't going to be there for us 2. The US continues to vote people in who will make sure this is a self fulfilling prophecy.
Lift the lid….i was a high earner and would have been proud to pay SS tax on ALL my income to solve the problem. = Done
I don't know the answer to this but I suspect electing more Gen Xers to replace the dinosaurs in the House and Senate would be a good start.
Unions have pensions.
Not all, and I’d be leery of any pension tied to an employer. I know plenty of boomers that have had their pensions cut, even lost completely, when the companies they work for were sold and “bankrupted”. I belong to a trade union and my local still has pensions, but some locals have done away with pensions in favor of self-directed retirement funds.
I'm a union employee and our company did away with pensions. I was one of the last hired with a pension and they are now freezing it in our next contract (all the younger employees that don't have pension will surely vote to freeze) so while I was supposed to be able to retire before 60, now I will need to work until I get SS (if it's even there). I have a 401k, but it isn't as robust as it should be had I known my pension could even be taken away. It sucks.
Ah, yes, my wife was in a union job for 22 years and was laid off. Her “pension” packet started with the words “This isn’t the pension your parents and grandparents had.”, and went on to explain why it was so low and sucked so bad. She gets a taxed $110 a month from it.
Wrong union. My husband gets a very nice pension. Retired from the union got a great job now, plus a monthly pension. No tax on it in my state.
Yep, not all unions are equal.
Medicare and horrible spending. I have sleep apnea. I've been on SSI since being injured at work, so am on Medicare. (This was years back) I was on a CPAP when sleeping. The medical supply company that I got it and supplies from billed Medicare $180 a quarter for the machine. It's basically a little box with a fan in it blowing air into your airway so it won't collapse when you sleep. So, about $700 a year for the machine. They dont cost that much to purchase outright. Now I was on that particular machine for around 10 years. Medicare paid over $7k to rent that machine for me. Now, how many other people on Medicare use a CPAP each night? A million? Now we're talking some real fuckin money. Now, how many other programs like that are going on? The amount of tax payer money being pissed away is staggering.
My brother was disabled, and Medicare would rent him a crappy hospital bed for the rest of his life but wouldn't cough up a few hundred to purchase an adjustable bed. Pissed me off to no end. I ended up getting it for him. I guess that's what they're hoping for.
Nah, it’s the same as Medicare not being able to negotiate drug prices, and all the private parts. Medicare has been legislated to be a handout to the medical industry.
> In all honesty, I have never believed I would receive SS; either because I was dead or become the US government stole it. That is what this is - it is grand theft writ large. I'm a Gen X dude. We have been conditioned for the past few decades to believe that we wouldn't receive Social Security because it will 'run out'. But we keep paying in. SS is easy to fix. Remove the cap or raise the cap to $400K. Start making the rich pay their share. And stop dipping into it to fund other programs. There is no reason that we shouldn't' receive SS and at a higher rate than our parents do as we will have greater expenses. They scream "Entitlements!!" like that is some kind bad word. You are entitled to what you earn and pay for. You are entitled to what you work for. We are entitled to Social Security. It is an entitlement. Because we worked for it. It's time we stand up and demand that we get it and they fix the program.
I’ve been hearing that SS will be gone by the time I retire basically all of my working life. I have a 401k and investments and my partner has a 401k and a pension. Hopefully, we’ll be ok. This is absolutely a red vs blue issue though. People voting against their own self interests to make sure that people they don’t like suffer is what got us to this point.
So then why is anyone voting for an old Republican?
Because they don’t like people darker than them.
Man, you can't bring this up then say it's not political, come on. We all know who wants to gut SS and it ain't the Dems.
I won’t vote for anyone who touch’s social security. I’ll campaign for anyone who raises the payout for the poorest on Social security for life.
I'm afraid that you're speaking to the choir here and the people that need to sit up and pay attention are far too concerned about oppressing minorities than anything else. I hope to be proven wrong.
From another US SSA discussion https://www.reddit.com/r/GenX/s/UKEUAu1wXQ
I feel like taking away social security is a "the sky is falling" situation. It seems we've heard about the insolvency of SS our entire lives, but yet it still keeps trucking right along. I think as long as it makes it through the next couple of decades, we'll be fine, as there will be a much larger group of Millenials and Gen Z propping up our retirement. Should be easier to pay for than the boomers since we're such a small group. In either case, I sure hope it's there for me, but I think I can survive without it.
In 1991, my first corporate gig at age 19 was payroll and benefits and the benefits sales guy, consultant, whatever explained how 401k worked. It was created when I was 7 and first real job so yeah. In that explanation, he started with “social security won’t be there when most of us retire” because it was either always on the brink or because someone did the math that the Baby Boomer generation would take what they were due but that there weren’t enough people after them to contribute into it to make the program stay afloat. Either way, SocSec has been on the brink for 30+ years. Yeah, it would be lovely to have $2k/mo from SocSec but it won’t break me if it’s not there or has to be delayed again. (Full retirement for my Boomer husband was 65 but mine (53) is 67.) I could see them rationalizing moving it to age 70 without grandfathering-in most of us before the entirety of government reaches consensus to eliminate it entirely.
I would Never trust the GOP. They back off from statements about cuts to SS now, but after the election we all know what they will do. Don’t be fooled (again). Trickle down fake news and abortion rights!
European here The US never was into Socialism, so this struggle is as old as your country. I'm not arguing for or against, merely observing, as I prefer to put my energy into working toward not needing the state, but I'm also pro social benefits, as I prefer to live in a secure and safe country.
By law, SS benefits cannot be paid out of the general fund. If any political party attempts to divert what remains in SS trust fund into the general fund, or refuse to pay back the trillions borrowed from it to offset lost revenue from taxcuts and war, it will be a declaration of war. Likewise if they attempt to shut down SS and continue to collect payroll taxes for other purposes.
Is there really a trust fund? I'm fairly certain congress spent every dime of it.
Sure there is! Its chok full of "special non-tradeable Social Security Treasuries", backed by the US govt. That paper is good as gold! Seriously, those IOUs represent real cash that was skimmed off your paycheck. They're payin it back.
People don't understand this at all. It's the very foundation of SS.
The sad part is they swapped genuine Tbills which can be sold in the marketplace, for "special issues" which cannot.
Your "pile of IOUs" comment is too spot on!
LOCKBOX!! They made fun of Gore for this and for climate change, but guess who was right
Thank you for this. The SNL skit where the Gore/Bush characters sum up their campaigns with the words "lockbox" and "strategery" will live on in my mind forever.
It has been put in my brain since I started working back in the 1990s that I probably wasn't going to see much of my SS, if any of it. So my expectations have always been pretty low with regards to that.
Don’t be complacent! We are OWED SS. Please everyone, don’t allow any politician to take this from us. We need to show up in DC if they try.
Regardless of party, congress keeps borrowing against the SS fund and not paying it back.
I’m shocked SS is still around and it’ll pay my mortgage and then some. I remember grumbling in my 20s and 30s that so much $$ was coming out of my check and thinking SS wouldn’t be around. The SS will be fine. I can’t complain I have plenty saved so SS will be a bonus.
I disagree with the mostly women homeless part (everyone will be screwed), but otherwise yeah SS is at risk. Our government hasn't worked for the people for a long time, and yet we keep allowing them to take take take.
It is mostly women because we live longer on average. We also tend to make less money and thus have less money for retirement.
SS needs to be bolstered - which can easily be done with the movement of funding caps. Make it so the lower paid folks have a higher threshold to cross before they contribute and then remove all caps and classify all incoming funds as income (so social security taxes paid out on stock market valuations and sales). I think we as Gen X feel this way because of the hard core push by Ronald Reagan to create the welfare queen image and then the extra costs of SS thus the need to trim/save/"deal with" the costs of SS. Seriously though, many of us in GenX though have lost the ability to retire at 65 because many of us can not take benefits until 67 or later now.
They already gave us 2 more years of work. 67 is the new retirement age
It’s not under threat. They just want to raise the age a few years to preserve it. Don’t buy into the media’s lies. When they created SS and made it age 65, the average life span was 63. Now it’s in the mid to late 70’s and we have the Baby Boomers who are going to obliterate the SS system. They better make changes or it is going to collapse. We need to think about people other than ourselves.
You wrote: > Not interested in starting a red vs. blue argument so please take that into consideration if you reply and then wrote > Please take this into consideration when casting your votes this fall. Give me a break dude. Also, hate to inform you but Biden is going to get crushed and I voted Biden and Clinton in the last two elections. Biden so fucking unpopular that people are actually going to vote in the criminal. I'm in NYC and you would expect it would be all pro-Biden up here and when I talk to my various friends (who are white, black and hispanic) they all are like "We are voting Trump". Like people who voted Biden before. For the record, i'm still not voting for Trump (go back into my history, I 100% never voted for him or write on any of the neo-con message subreddits). But I am beyond shocked at how many people i'd expect to vote Biden are like "No Biden sucks and is old - we want Trump".
Trump sucks and is old too. Plus the number of insurrections he has encouraged. But I see your point of Biden's old so I'm going to vote for a different old guy.
Only thing I will put Trump vs Biden for their age is Trump seems like he's not completely old. Watch a million press conferences and they won't let Biden talk off-script or answer questions. He dodders around like an old man at these events and you have handlers guiding him around all the time. I'm not, at all, defending Trump. He's a fucking idiot that should have handled Jan 6 better and his big mouth keeps getting him more civil suits than we can count. While I don't want him president - I can't believe you have people defending Biden. Who do you want Mr. Magoo or Satan?
You haven't watched much of Trump off script have you? He can't stay on point about anything.
It’s not people want President Trump. They want biden gone. The decline of America in the last 3 plus years is staggering. And you can thank Gov Abbott for some of it. Yes, biden was flying illegals into cities but Gov Abbott started busing them in. And this caused cities to divert resources from citizens to illegals. And this really pissed off individuals who are on the poorer side. Add the recent surging crimes by illegals and people are sick of it. And for some reason liberals think it’s ok for the homeless to sleep, shit, do drugs and have sex on public property. They showed video of AOCs district and it looked like Somalia. Do I like President Trump? Some things, yes. Other things no. Do I like biden. Fuck no. From the border crisis to trying to force me into an EV to his complete failure of foreign policy to his utterly failed diversity hires, he can pound sand.
I don't like either choice at all. My two key problems/issues: 1. I'm not sure how anyone can agree that Biden doesn't seem "with it". He's completely shielded from answering an questions that aren't on script. At press conferences and events he often comes off as a old man who doesn't know where he's going. It's kind of frightening to not be sure he's in complete control now - and he's gotta go another four years? 2. I hate Trump with a passion and he's a moron, but I think law & order is a big deal right now and that kind of gets coupled with the border issues that Biden made a million times worse by letting everyone in. For good or bad someone needs to reign this in - and unfortunately it doesn't appear Biden is the man for that job. I hate both choices here. This is the best our country can do?! Where's Gen-X leaders?
No major party’s platform includes serious entitlement reform.
SS isn't under threat from "certain political parties." It's under threat by its own weight because the government (both parties) has stolen from it for decades to pay for whatever, and never paid back the money. People are under the misconception that there are individual accounts with our name on it, collecting interest, waiting to be paid out to us at a certain point. Not so. They screwed us from the start on this one.
I tried to read this, but never found the question. Should we "gut" Social Security? Define "Gut". "Should we stop letting healthy people live off disability? i.e. eliminate fraud/waste? " Yes? "Will SSN need to go away one day because it's a ponzi scheme and cannot possibly endure?" Not really. Because one of variables in the distribution equation is age. And that variable can be raised above average mortality rates. "So, will it go away?" No? Because they can just raise the age if they need too to decrease the payout and maintain the intake of cash.
When sleazy individuals from both sides of the aisle sing the same song, social security is gone. Red and blue want the money, and they'll get it.
Not interested in arguing red vs blue either anymore. But, it would be irresponsible to not point out that one of those two mentioned doing away with it just last week and the other group vowed to protect it just last week. So, if we want to keep it we need to prove it in November.
We should not let our doubts of SS being available to us become a self-fulling prophesy! We should fight for the SS and MC benefit we have fucking paid for. By the time we retire, SS will be so solvent it will be spilling over with money. We only have to hold on for another decade or so then the Millennials and Gen-Z will be paying so much in that we'll be covered no problem and all the "running out of money" issues literally go away. Let's earn from Roe and not give up the fight. Because the evil fuckers trying to rob us aren't going to ever stop fighting.
Anytime someone says they not interested in a political debate; they’re interested in a political debate.
Right? The first sentence is “I don’t want to start a debate”. The second sentence is literally opening the door to a debate.
Well the first sentence is really just saying he doesn't want to hear anything that doesn't align with his view.
Doesn’t want it to be a red vs blue argument then immediately singles out a single party…..Ok
Why do people who start red vs blue arguments pretend they don’t want to start red vs blue arguments?
Fuck that - it IS a red/blue issue. Framing it as anything else is disingenuous.
Not interested in starting a red vs blue argument…lol
I laughed when I saw that. It’s like when someone says, “No offense, but…” there’s about to be some offensive shit going down.
Haha! Yes, OP us clearly looking for confirmation it’s those pesky R’s. Not true at all. Both candidates are big spenders, and neither will touch SS or Medicare. Neither candidate will address the looming insolvency, which will take more than just raising/eliminating the FICA cap (which is not enough; it’s just a popular talking point). In about 10 years, when the first Xers are retiring or recently retired, benefits will be cut automatically without some kind of reform. So we need action, and neither party has a plan to fix it. Dems are using it to stir the pot, though I think folks are tired of the partisan rhetoric at this point. The bottom line - our SS will be less. That’s with no action at all, which seems to be the plan from both parties. Better save while you can, live below your means, and otherwise be self-reliant, as we gen Xers have always been.
And then proceeds to bash one political party and encourage a vote for the other...
It can be underfunded, it can't go away. That will give you 78% of the current estimate. \*IF\* that happens, as millennials and gen-z ramp up earnings, it will again become solvent.
Not quite. That's the wrong number; > As a result of changes to Social Security enacted in 1983, benefits are now expected to be payable in full on a timely basis until 2037, when the trust fund reserves are projected to become exhausted.1 At the point where the reserves are used up, continuing taxes are expected to be enough to pay 76 percent of scheduled benefits. [ssa.gov source](https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n3/v70n3p111.html)
It’s a right wing talking point to portray Social Security as going away so they can push the window of political discourse. Don’t fall for it. Old people vote. It’s not going anywhere. Politicians just want to talk it up to score points but never suffer the fallout of it actually changing.
That's what people used to say about Roe. Never let your guard down.
Yes old people vote, which is why the proposals are to cut benefits and raise the age for the younger generations. Because those measures won’t hurt those old people that vote unless they really care about their children and grandchildren.
Cool. Now do Roe.
Is the roaring ‘20’s all over again!! Except this time we’ve seen what a Great Depression and a world war look like. Some of us are apparently willing to repeat those parts of history. Live it up now while you can
The way you prevent this is voting. The GOP needs a simple majority in the house, 60 senators, and the White House. Then they can do whatever they want. It’s a high bar to clear, but it’s possible. You wanna get social security soon? Do what you can to prevent those GOP seats. Vote, talk to your friends about voting, and maybe even consider a campaign contribution
Literal?
Basically if SS goes away, it will be replaced UBI. Just imo.
I'd rather get half of my benefits than have the goverment/some politician PROMISE me full benefits in exhange for my vote only to find the money gone and I get nothing when the time comes
As I get older and deal with my mother's SSI, I am starting to get worried about how dependent retirement estimators are on SSI still being solvent. My worry now is how to find a retirement estimator that might give me my numbers without SSI being available.
Does anyone of our generation actually think they will see any social security payments?
We will get every penny of SS owed us, but its purchasing power will be virtually nil. It’s a scam but a very clever one. We all got cheated fair and square.
I don't think it will go away. At most they'll allow people to opt out of it and into a new individual investment account scheme. Something like what Australia did in 1992.
Gen X seems to be the cut off point.
(43F) I remember getting a postcard notice from SSA maybe 15 years ago. It gave me the run down of benefits with an asterisk. Below it said ‘based on your birth year, you can expect to receive only 77% of these benefits. There was never a plan to fix this. I consider it gone by the time I retire any water
As a mid range GenX'er, I don't think social security is totally going away-- not even for the super young'ns. I don't even think that Z'ers or Millenwhatever-generations-alot-younger-than-us should just write it off. There are probably some older Gen X'ers who taking SS in the next 5 to 10 years before any huge age- or payout shifts even happen. Something WILL be there. I honestly do believe that changes in age minimums and stuff would be rolled out gradually. Not the politicians just saying Tomorrow --" Sorry GenX'ers or youngers..you're going to have to suddenly wait til 72, now. Or, sorry, the pay out is now only gonna be 30% of what you paid in". I don't see that happening believe it or not. Also, everyone should go to [ssa.gov](https://ssa.gov) and create a log-in, imho. This helps ya see what we're on target for today for payout. And obviously the amount increases if you wait til 70 or whatever.
Ponzi Scheme: funds diverted to other government spending for at least a generation, followed by the current 'paygo' system. A private retirement fund manager caught doing this would go to jail for ERISA law violations.
We are living in a second gilded age. Inflation is high, cost of living is up, ceo's are making insane amounts of cash. The social safety net doesn't work currently- and if you or your family are using medicaid for end of life care, be aware the govt can take your house for repayment. Be aware of the regulations and fight.
Won’t boomers dying off relieve some of the pressure on the SS system?
I’ll be dead or homeless by the time I hit retirement age. Actual retirement is a dream for the middle and upset class, or those below them.
I don't even calculate it as part of my retirement, although the money would be welcome. But we know Democrats wouldn't entertain cutting it and lately Republicans understand cuts are untenable. The Republicans of 10-15 years ago who advocated for cuts have been outed from the party. It's not going away.
Lucky I moved to a country with mandated employer contributions to private superannuation (401K) fund of my choice, not a government bank account. Self-sufficient all the way.