“This bill shows that Social Security is fully affordable—as long as the wealthiest among us pay their fair share,” said one advocate.

Legislation recently introduced by a pair of Democratic U.S. lawmakers to save Social Security for generations to come would extend the vital social program’s lifespan by at least 75 years, according to a federal analysis published Tuesday.

  • cobra89@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    My concern is the population is no longer growing. What happens when we have a bunch of retirees withdrawing and way less new people in the workforce to contribute?

    • rambaroo@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The idea was that you basically paid your own way. A huge part of the issue is that Congress steals our social security money on a regular basis and people let them get away with it.

      • Onihikage@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        A huge part of the issue is that Congress steals our social security money on a regular basis

        My understanding is the raiding of SSA funds is a myth. The Old-Age and Survivor’s Insurance (OASI) trust fund simply isn’t keeping up with inflation (particularly the big inflation spikes, like in the 80s, and like now) and is paying out slightly more each year than it brings in, leaving it unable to pay full benefits by around 2034 or so. But it’s more than just inflation leading us to this result.

        Every generation since the 70s has been getting poorer as the wealthiest siphon off more and more of the available money for themselves, leaving less getting paid into the fund by newer generations to help counter inflation. People who do make decent incomes currently also tend to stay in school longer than they did 50 years ago, and pay their way with loans rather than working some simple job, so they’re waiting longer to start paying into the system to begin with. All that plus average lifespans having increased since 1939 (though more recently it started dropping) means the SSA’s revenue has to either be increased by raising the social security tax, raising the cap on that tax, or both; or benefits have to be cut by increasing the retirement age or just paying out less to every beneficiary. That last one will happen automatically once it no longer has enough in the trust fund to pay the full amount, and the goal should be to avoid that. However, to my knowledge only an act of congress can increase the OASI trust fund’s income, absent an unforeseen economic boom.

        I think most people should be willing to accept paying a little bit more in taxes so their parents or grandparents can keep getting their fixed incomes, but it often feels like a very loud portion of Americans are totally against all taxes and dig their heels in, refusing to pay one cent more to maintain something they like that in legal reality cannot be re-appropriated to something they don’t like, no matter how much we whinge about it being a ponzi scheme.

      • prole@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        No, that’s absolutely not the idea behind Social Security. At all. It’s explicitly not that. The fact that people view it this way is exactly the problem.

        You are not getting back the same money you put in. It’s not a retirement account, it’s a social safety net, and retirees are not the only people who receive (and rely on for survival) SS benefits. Many of them have never paid a dime into SS in their entire lives, and they still deserve that benefit.