• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Social Security to Exhaust Funds in 2033

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
345
126
And you expect the government to fix this? I find that very laughable.
People like you said it wouldn't last at all from when it was created.

Funny, going well much later - though Reagan screwed it up with surplus borrowing.
 

xaeniac

Golden Member
Feb 4, 2005
1,640
13
81
People like you said it wouldn't last at all from when it was created.

Funny, going well much later - though Reagan screwed it up with surplus borrowing.
It more than likely would be a viable program if it was not borrowed/stole against. It has been a successful program and definitely has its place in society, so not sure if I agree that I would say it would not last, though I would have my doubts due to the corruption of the politicians today. You never have to bring R or D to the conversation as do not decide on party lines. In my opinion R and D is one in the same behind closed doors. Something must be done though and I do not know how to fix it. Possibly raise the tax ceiling on the SS max, but I am sure it will take more than this.

Just to reiterate Reagan was not the only president to abuse and steal from SS. Any president after Reagan could institute from borrowing against it, but it is a common people's program, which our government is not really interested in sustaining.
 
Last edited:

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,408
2
0
What trust fund? And it's been taking money from general fund last 3 years. ~ 80 billion a year.
 

Ronstang

Lifer
Jul 8, 2000
12,427
10
81
People like you said it wouldn't last at all from when it was created.

Funny, going well much later - though Reagan screwed it up with surplus borrowing.
Johnson started raiding the SS Trust fund by using surplus witholdings to fund the Vietnam War. He did this by making a unified budget and moving the surplus into the general fund. I'm sure you just forgot.
 

Argo

Lifer
Apr 8, 2000
10,045
0
0
Remove the cap on SS taxable income. Include capital gains in this calculation for individual earners. That will go a loooooong way to fix and/or alleviate the problem. Of course, simple demographics will eventually lead to a situation where we will need to come up with a shortfall out of the general fund. By that time it'll be time to pay the piper, and I'm okay with that. I'm a bit weary of means-testing schemes as SS was originally structured as a type of insurance/annuity...a benefit that you pay for and earn. I would only advocate that in the most dire of fiscal situations.
But then it's no longer a retirement program, but rather an entitlement tax...
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
345
126
Johnson started raiding the SS Trust fund by using surplus witholdings to fund the Vietnam War. He did this by making a unified budget and moving the surplus into the general fund. I'm sure you just forgot.
No, that's why I said "surplus", the thing Reagan created that didn't exist under Johnson.
 

child of wonder

Diamond Member
Aug 31, 2006
8,310
175
106
Personally, I'm just assuming SS will be gone when I retire in 30 years. It's not even in my plans as a source of income so I'm making sure I save enough on my own to fully fund my retirement.

That being said, I'd really like it if SS could start to phase out over time and maybe in 20 years or so the tax for it could go away and I could invest my money for my own retirement rather than pay for someone else's.
 

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
Personally, I'm just assuming SS will be gone when I retire in 30 years. It's not even in my plans as a source of income so I'm making sure I save enough on my own to fully fund my retirement.

That being said, I'd really like it if SS could start to phase out over time and maybe in 20 years or so the tax for it could go away and I could invest my money for my own retirement rather than pay for someone else's.
+1 Although I would like to see this happen in less than 20. SS really is pointless when no one expects or plans on it to fund any of their retirement. They are already taking steps to do that themselves.
 

child of wonder

Diamond Member
Aug 31, 2006
8,310
175
106
+1 Although I would like to see this happen in less than 20. SS really is pointless when no one expects or plans on it to fund any of their retirement. They are already taking steps to do that themselves.
It needs to take decades for it to go away. There's a lot of people that are at or near retirement that are depending on that money to be there and they've paid into the fund all their adult lives.

An idea might be to announce "in 20 years SS will be gone for all new retirees" then begin phasing out the benefits. For those that retire 5 years after that, they get 95% of full benefits. 10 years after that get 75%, 15 years get 50%, and 0% at 20 years. After the 20 years, the SS tax ends.

There will be a lot of people that get screwed in this scenario but SS cannot be ended by pulling the rug out from underneath those that currently depend on it. Unfortunately, that means people that won't ever collect on it will pay in tax money that they'll never see.
 

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
It needs to take decades for it to go away. There's a lot of people that are at or near retirement that are depending on that money to be there and they've paid into the fund all their adult lives.

An idea might be to announce "in 20 years SS will be gone for all new retirees" then begin phasing out the benefits. For those that retire 5 years after that, they get 95% of full benefits. 10 years after that get 75%, 15 years get 50%, and 0% at 20 years. After the 20 years, the SS tax ends.

There will be a lot of people that get screwed in this scenario but SS cannot be ended by pulling the rug out from underneath those that currently depend on it. Unfortunately, that means people that won't ever collect on it will pay in tax money that they'll never see.
I am willing to sign on the dotted line right now forfeiting any benefits as long as my payroll tax is eliminated. I know a lot of people with the same attitude. They have gotten plenty of my money that I already will never see. This eliminates my burden on the system immediately.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,471
423
126
In the 1980's when Social Security was readjusted and the limit that people had to pay was raised there was something of gentlemen's agreement or understanding that in the future income limit that people had to pay would be raised at a certain rate.

If that was strictly followed, instead of the about 106k(?) that is subject to taxes for social security it would definitely be noticeably higher.

I have to find sources to confirm this. I do remember hearing about it on the radio though.
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,215
13
81
I am willing to sign on the dotted line right now forfeiting any benefits as long as my payroll tax is eliminated. I know a lot of people with the same attitude. They have gotten plenty of my money that I already will never see. This eliminates my burden on the system immediately.
Why don't you send it to my retirement account?
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,803
4,703
126
Personally I am assuming Social Security will be around, and will vote to make sure that happens.
 

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
19,120
1,979
126
Remove the cap on SS taxable income. Include capital gains in this calculation for individual earners. That will go a loooooong way to fix and/or alleviate the problem.
It wouldn't completely fix the issue unless you made people above the then removed cap pay more into the system without receiving more out of it (ie subsidizing other peoples SS payments)

+1 Although I would like to see this happen in less than 20. SS really is pointless when no one expects or plans on it to fund any of their retirement. They are already taking steps to do that themselves.
Not gonna happen (unless we have a really big meltdown) Might as well get used to that right now. Way too many people are relying on it to retire. Frankly I don't see that getting any better. While more and more people are aware of the SS issues people are starting to save later and later. I expect that the drstically rising cost of college education means there is an entire generation out there that is putting off saving for retirement when it will benefit them the most so they can pay off student loans

It would be better to focus your efforts on getting how its handled changed - like pegging it some how to expected life expectancy

Also - chances are that you will see the money - or around 75-80% of it but I applaud your decision to not count on it (its the same one I made). If more people took a greater interest in their retirement this wouldn't be as big of a deal IMO
 
Last edited:

ky54

Senior member
Mar 30, 2010
532
1
76
If you're under 40 and expect Social Security you're a damned fool. At this point it's like people who still smoke - you know the consequences and have known them for generations - but you do it anyway. Fortunately I'll be long dead before 2033. The funny thing about all these SS discussions is it's seems a fair percentage of people in this country didn't mind stealing SS monies to get that nice little mortgage deduction and other tax breaks they enjoy. We are now blaming the person who was robbed for being robbed.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,086
493
126
In the 1980's when Social Security was readjusted and the limit that people had to pay was raised there was something of gentlemen's agreement or understanding that in the future income limit that people had to pay would be raised at a certain rate.

If that was strictly followed, instead of the about 106k(?) that is subject to taxes for social security it would definitely be noticeably higher.

I have to find sources to confirm this. I do remember hearing about it on the radio though.
SS has been indexed to inflation. The ceiling is raised every year. It also only pays out on a maximum of 106K. People seem to forget that.
 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,431
82
91
Personally, I'm just assuming SS will be gone when I retire in 30 years. It's not even in my plans as a source of income so I'm making sure I save enough on my own to fully fund my retirement.

That being said, I'd really like it if SS could start to phase out over time and maybe in 20 years or so the tax for it could go away and I could invest my money for my own retirement rather than pay for someone else's.
If the government did away with Social Security... people still wouldn't save for retirement. Then you would have all these retired people without a dime to their name needing assistance from the government.

I would like to have back my money going to SS... but we are going to be paying for dumb asses who don't save one way or another.

If people are so stupid they need the government to save for them... at least revert social security back to a contributory system... but at this point it is a little late for that.
 

etrigan420

Golden Member
Oct 30, 2007
1,723
1
71
... but we are going to be paying for dumb asses who don't save one way or another.
YUUUP.

I'm not worried. 20 years is a long time...think of all the money the government can print from now until then. :eek:
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
345
126
If you're under 40 and expect Social Security you're a damned fool. At this point it's like people who still smoke - you know the consequences and have known them for generations - but you do it anyway. Fortunately I'll be long dead before 2033. The funny thing about all these SS discussions is it's seems a fair percentage of people in this country didn't mind stealing SS monies to get that nice little mortgage deduction and other tax breaks they enjoy. We are now blaming the person who was robbed for being robbed.
Lies.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
345
126
Personally, I'm just assuming SS will be gone when I retire in 30 years. It's not even in my plans as a source of income so I'm making sure I save enough on my own to fully fund my retirement.

That being said, I'd really like it if SS could start to phase out over time and maybe in 20 years or so the tax for it could go away and I could invest my money for my own retirement rather than pay for someone else's.
You're wrong. Unless idiots vote to get rid of SS, it'll be there for you.

How nice you don't 'need it'. That doesn't solve the issue for the country.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
345
126
But then it's no longer a retirement program, but rather an entitlement tax...
It's a retirement insurance program. In case you are like most. If you're rich, you're like the guy who pays car insurance and doesn't have an accident.
 

nyker96

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2005
5,631
1
81
And you expect the government to fix this? I find that very laughable.
respectfully, I think several EU countries already tried universal insurance that made things better. I won't say it is a cure all but at least it's a proven concept to reduce long term cost for everyone.

However, I cannot say it can be the only solution to this problem. You seem to be on the Republican side, maybe, some state can give the Republican plan to fix SS/medicare a try see how successful it really is.

Maybe we can come up w/ something that most people can accept while solve this problem.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
345
126
respectfully, I think several EU countries already tried universal insurance that made things better. I won't say it is a cure all but at least it's a proven concept to reduce long term cost for everyone.

However, I cannot say it can be the only solution to this problem. You seem to be on the Republican side, maybe, some state can give the Republican plan to fix SS/medicare a try see how successful it really is.

Maybe we can come up w/ something that most people can accept while solve this problem.
You have to understand something.

The Republican agenda has nothing to do with 'fixing' the system with a goal of providing for people.

The Republican agenda is simply to transfer wealth off the people and onto the extremely wealthy.

So you're never going to get some 'alternative good solution', just dishonest schemes.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY