all 5 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 23 points 8 months ago* (1 child)

That's fine because cost of living keeps going down and we're all totally not going to get royally fucked up.

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that 2031 is the year the youngest Baby Boomers become eligible for full Social Security benefits, and this isn't yet another example of the boomer generation pulling up that ladder behind themselves.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago

    Think of it this way, they will procrastinate long enough to where they won't have full control of the government anymore and perhaps the next generation can teach them a lesson in bootstraps and how to pull them up.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Social Security is easily the simplest problem in the country to solve. Just raise the income cap. It's around $170K now, just raise it to $250k, or $500k, or whatever some smart statistician (not MAGA, they can't do math) determines.

    It's really as easy as that. Some higher income people are going to complain, but who cares?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    Even 15 years ago it was already predicted to run into the red by around 2030. I'm impressed it's still true and not gotten worse.

  • source
  • 54 comments in c/news@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 84 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    Fat-cat social security recipients won't be leeching off our hard-working millionaires and billionaires for much longer. Think of all the tax breaks we'll be able to afford to give to the wealthy with that kind of money!

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 child)

    We'll just end the program and people will no longer have to contribute! Honestly the number of fuckwits who would be excited about this is the sad part. Then they'll cry the leopards are their face when they are being forced into amazon labor camps at 83. Stupid people can't keep nice things. They never understood their value and didn't have to sacrifice for them. So the lesson will have to be learned again.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 51 points 8 months ago (18 children)

    Social Security would be the easiest thing to fix, and honestly, it'd be hugely popular, too.

    That is, it will be hugely popular with everyone but the Epstein class and those that do their bidding.

    Just raise the cap.

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 8 months ago (12 children)

    It's kind of insane to me that there's an annual cap on social security payments. If your salary is high enough, you stop paying into it partway through the year. That's ass-backwards. You shouldn't pay anything for the first chunk of money, and then pay more as you make more.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 8 months ago

    Yup.

    Social security is one of, if not the most popular, government program with Americans.

    Looking at Social Security and the constant gaslighting about how it's a "Ponzi scheme" and it's "going to fail at year X" demonstrates not only how out of touch the Epstein class we have for politicians are, but also the extent they and the corporate media is willing to go to give a false impression about things.

    It could easily be made solvent with just a few steps, all of them quite popular with the American people.

    People already have a shocking lack of saving. We have had the cons trying to destroy Social Security since its inception, and now we get fElon telling people they won't need to save for retirement, FFS:

    https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-retirement-saving-ai-abundance-anthropic-dario-essay-ubi-2026-1

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    If your salary is high enough, you stop paying into it partway through the year. That’s ass-backwards.

    It looks ass-backwards when viewed in isolation and today's tax policy. When the cap rule was put in place in 1937, the marginal tax rate was 79% and this would be for income over $5million ($115million in 2026 dollars). The cap was in place because the Social Security benefit doesn't increase above the that income.

    We broke the system by removing that large marginal tax, but leaving the Social Security income cap in place.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago

    The cap was in place because the Social Security benefit doesn’t increase above the that income.

    I don't think that's necessarily a good reason for the cap to exist. I expect it's a compromise to get rich people and idiots on board.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    It's exactly for these kinds of anachronistic things that when I see someone right now agitating to have some kind of age cutoff for people in office, I have a lot of skepticism.

    It'd be ironic for government to put a cap into place for age of 65 (say) and then soon after, humans often start having longer and longer healthspans, extending over 100 and possibly beyond.

    For that matter, it'd be interesting to see how the Social Security system responds to longer and longer healthspans. I have a feeling that cons would be quite quick to start agitating to raise the retirement age because they always seem very keen on having people working more, even when they don't want to. They also love to take away services and benefits from the average American.

    It's easy to see how slow our system responds based on the realities going on around us.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    It’s exactly for these kinds of anachronistic things that when I see someone right now agitating to have some kind of age cutoff for people in office, I have a lot of skepticism.

    It’d be ironic for government to put a cap into place for age of 65 (say) and then soon after, humans often start having longer and longer healthspans, extending over 100 and possibly beyond.

    I would certainly entertain an age cap on office holders. What we have right now with almost entirely geriatric leaders is the lack of representation of those not in the senior citizen demographic. Its a version of tyranny of the few. This is exacerbated by the voting power being focused in those that don't have the suffer the consequences of their choices, and instead leave those for younger generations.

    I'm open to other ideas about how to address this too, but I don't dismiss an age cap on office holders immediately.

    For that matter, it’d be interesting to see how the Social Security system responds to longer and longer healthspans.

    You don't have to wonder. We've experienced this already in the life of Social Security. The original blueprint wasn't designed to have a large retired population. You were supposed to die before reaching retirement. Social Security was to support the aging survivors that didn't die yet to keep them out of abject poverty.

    Retirement age increase is only one of three or four big levers on how to alter how Social Security operates and is maintainable.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    If you were rich you would feel the opposite. You'd feel that you don't/won't need social security so you shouldn't have to pay for a service you won't use.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    I'm not sure about the rich, but most people don't like being surrounded by homeless and starving people. They also don't like seeing their extended family homeless and starving after working their whole lives.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    I'm not rich to the point of no longer needing to labor, but I did hit the social security cap one year. I was pissed when I learned why my take home jumped up. I would have rather kept paying.

    It's selfish to want to keep a little more of your vast wealth like you describe. That's cartoon villainy.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 8 months ago* (1 child)

    Social Security would be the easiest thing to fix, and honestly, it’d be hugely popular, too.

    Just raise the cap.

    I would be "negatively" affected with the raising of the cap. I still support raising the cap.

    I'd also like what Al Gore wanted to do in the year 2000, a "social security lock box". Stop letting Congress spend the annual contribution surpluses on non-social security spending.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    Removing the cap is a complete no-brainer but on its own not enough to solve the problem. The fact we can't even do that gives me zero confidence that it will be solvent to fully pay benefits when I ultimately retire.

    There's a polished calculator for the impact of each policy change here: https://www.crfb.org/socialsecurityreformer/

    Imo there are many reasonable solutions, but the only "free" thing that won't upset the public is removing the cap, and we can't even do that.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 44 points 8 months ago (9 children)

    So they want to put all of our SSA money into the stock market and hope that it generates enough profit to cover the declining workforce... I'm sure that 401Ks, social security, and banking IRAs all being dependent on the same stock market not failing isn't a terrible idea. 

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 8 months ago* (2 children)

    Anything, everything, just to continue draining all possible dregs of M2 money supply into the stock market, artificially inflating it's values. That's why 401k's exist and not pensions; the gambling machine only continues to work if there is effective infinite liquidity to continue pumping up it's values. And scamming the working class into "saving" by dumping their cash into said gambling machine is just another way to do it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago

    That’s why 401k’s exist and not pensions

    Honestly, pensions in the USA today are more risky than 401ks. Pensions require the parent company to still be solvent 30-50 years. A number of formerly bellwether companies with heavy pension burdens have gone under an the the pensioners only receive a fraction of the promised benefits.

    Some of the public pensions look very worrisome too. As an example, I have no idea how Detroit is going to manage their pension commitments with its rising costs, declining population, and high number of pension members.

    For all its faults, 401k money is the employee's the moment its paid with no dependency of the employer to be around afterward.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    eh, the idea is to pump it as high as possible so you can slam it down even harder. when you know how the casino works, you can make just as much (if not more) on the bust-end of the boom/bust investment cycle

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    Are we expecting the stock market of the crash any day now due to the AI bubble?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    Doesn't matter if it's the AI bubble or something else.

    It will crash.

    It will hurt lots of regular people. Even some "rich" people.

    It will not hurt the ultra rich, they've rigged the game so they always win. They'll be able to hoard even more wealth.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    Except the stock market can't crash if enough trillions of dollars are injected into rich folk's pockets.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago*

    eh. a crash is where the real $ is made when you know how the casino works, bulls and bears both want the same thing.

    the losers are anyone living on various types of fixed income (which never matches inflation) and working class people who don't know how it works panic selling everything when they see their retirement lose 50%+ of it's value in a day or 2

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 30 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    If social security gets fucked by the time I need to start using it, I'm just going to go around lighting shit on fire. And I'm not exaggerating.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    be strategic. don't get the restaurants and coffee shops please

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Just out of the Boomer demographic. Convenient.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 23 points 8 months ago*

    The word you are looking for is DEFAULT. The ruling class if floating the idea of defaulting on social security in 2032.

    They borrowed (stole) the extra that was paid in, with the promise of paying it back when needed. Now that the bill is due, they want to default.

    They have money to bail out the rich to the tune of trillions, tens of trillions between it all not even including the fed and their hocus pocus to subsidize the richest. But they can't save the post office they sabotaged, nor do they have the cash to pay their debts to retirees, the ones that also paid those goddamned subsidies to the rich and corporate welfare and bailouts. The rich don't even pay taxes, and the corporations pay way lower rates than we do, even before their write offs which brings most of theirs down to 0%.

    They sabotage it and use that as an excuse to privatize it.

    Say no to the government DEFAULTING on America!

  • source
  • [–] 18 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have proposed solutions to the potential shortfall. The Fair Share Act, introduced by Democrats Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Representative Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania, would strengthen Social Security and Medicare by requiring people earning over $400,000 to pay payroll taxes on all income above that level. Supporters say it could fund the program for 75 years, though high earners oppose it.

    A bipartisan proposal from Republican Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia would create a new investment fund, allowing Social Security to invest in stocks and other assets, starting with a $1.5 trillion Treasury-backed boost.

    These people in the bolded paragraph can be [redacted] .

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    The actual choices are to cut paments, lift the cap or divert other revenue (such as a wealth tax on billionaires) to the trust fund.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    As if they could be bothered to divert some of the trillions in bail outs and subsidies and tax breaks and corporate welfare to the richest. No we have to default because for the first time the money coming in is less than the money going out, nevermind we took the excess of paid in over paid out for the last 100 years, with the promise of paying it back later.

    They are floating the idea of Defaulting, to see how much pushback they get.

  • source
  • parent
  • I want all my money back.

  • source
  • [–] 18 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Gen X will have paid into the SSA all their lives, and they'll get nothing for it.

    Gen X will spend their declining years working, to pay for the SSA benefits for the Boomers.

    I know, I know what you're saying: "Gen who now?" And that's right, you've got it, that's exactly how it is.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago

    Why do I feel this is just a ploy for boomers to take even more of my money and then never let me collect SS...

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago

    Soon there will be a critical mass of people who have nothing left to lose. Thats why the Republicans put a paramilitary army on the streets, and it’s also why the Democrats won’t stop them. They work for the same people.

  • source
  • [+] 0 points 8 months ago (1 child)
  • 5 comments in c/usa@midwest.social view that post

    Is that so, Newsweek? Well MYSELF I predict the fascists will be out and we'll have shaken out the billionaires upside down and picked up the coins and then we'll have plenty of money to keep our promises.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago*

    checks notes

    Yup, first date of eligibility for drawing US SS checks is 2032....right on time

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    If you're new to this, know it's a tired Republican scare tactic/distraction.

    You'll be evicted if you stop playing your rent. Same principle. We pay into social security and that's what keeps it going, always has been. Non story BS.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    then what am I paying into it for?

  • source
  • A better frame for this is: full payments for social security guaranteed through 2032. The social security trust fund will only run out if congress doesn't budget for it, which is also true for every other government program. If the social security trust fund does run out (which would be political suicide), payments will go down to 80%. That people think social security is in crisis is an incredible work of propaganda. Nothing else in government is as secure as funding for social security.

  • source
  • 1 comment in c/usa@lemmy.ml view that post
    [–] 7 points 8 months ago