pacecar02 said:

---

Buncha dumb in this thread

No one has paid into crap

There wasn't a "fund" until recently

It was a treasury account that has been raided for decades by all politicians

The only concern was having available cash to pay current beneficiaries, everything else was spent

No one saved it for you

It wasnt invested

The money is gone

all of these decisions and choices were made before I was born

The previous generations voted for those decisions

---

"The money is gone".

The SS tax on my paycheck disagrees with you.

This is what happens when you come in cocky.

Quote:

---

The combined Social Security Trust Funds (OASI and DI) operate by collecting tax contributions and paying out benefits directly. [1]

• Total Income: $1.45 trillion (including payroll taxes, income taxation of benefits, and interest).
• Total Expenditures: $1.61 trillion (primarily used to pay benefits to approximately 70 million beneficiaries).
• Asset Reserves: The trust funds have a combined reserve of Treasury bonds, which are drawn down to cover the gap between incoming taxes and outgoing benefits. [1, 2, 3]

---

The "Asset Reserves" are not money, they are bonds/debt

pacecar02 said:

---

Quote:

---

The combined Social Security Trust Funds (OASI and DI) operate by collecting tax contributions and paying out benefits directly. [1]

• Total Income: $1.45 trillion (including payroll taxes, income taxation of benefits, and interest).
• Total Expenditures: $1.61 trillion (primarily used to pay benefits to approximately 70 million beneficiaries).
• Asset Reserves: The trust funds have a combined reserve of Treasury bonds, which are drawn down to cover the gap between incoming taxes and outgoing benefits. [1, 2, 3]

---

The "Asset Reserves" are not money, they are bonds/debt

---

Who cares. They are assets. Gold, oil, stocks, real estate, etc are not "money" either.

pacecar02 said:

---

Quote:

---

The combined Social Security Trust Funds (OASI and DI) operate by collecting tax contributions and paying out benefits directly. [1]

• Total Income: $1.45 trillion (including payroll taxes, income taxation of benefits, and interest).
• Total Expenditures: $1.61 trillion (primarily used to pay benefits to approximately 70 million beneficiaries).
• Asset Reserves: The trust funds have a combined reserve of Treasury bonds, which are drawn down to cover the gap between incoming taxes and outgoing benefits. [1, 2, 3]

---

The "Asset Reserves" are not money, they are bonds/debt

---

So something that is gone earns interest? Of course not, but the Treasury securities that are purchased do. Not exactly "gone."

The bolded last sentence is nonsense. While they are not money like cash and currency, they are an asset that can be used, and are used, to pay benefits. If you get a social security benefit, it does not matter if it came from "money" or came from interest on assets puchased with "money" or from the sale of Treasury securities purchased with "money."

Logos Stick said:

---

pacecar02 said:

---

Quote:

---

The combined Social Security Trust Funds (OASI and DI) operate by collecting tax contributions and paying out benefits directly. [1]

• Total Income: $1.45 trillion (including payroll taxes, income taxation of benefits, and interest).
• Total Expenditures: $1.61 trillion (primarily used to pay benefits to approximately 70 million beneficiaries).
• Asset Reserves: The trust funds have a combined reserve of Treasury bonds, which are drawn down to cover the gap between incoming taxes and outgoing benefits. [1, 2, 3]

---

The "Asset Reserves" are not money, they are bonds/debt

---

Who cares. They are assets. Gold, oil, stocks, real estate, etc are not "money" either.

---

The larger point is that all current money coming in is short of what's being paid out


The "fund" BS was gov't IOU's, the taxpayers are on the hook again to pay,lol


just like a self licking ice cream cone

Quote:

---

Me and my generation paying into SS is the only thing keeping those retirement checks rolling

---

Wait, I thought the "boomers" took all the jobs and won't retire so you have to be unemployed or work at Starbucks.

Pick a narrative and stick with it.

pacecar02 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

pacecar02 said:

---

Quote:

---

The combined Social Security Trust Funds (OASI and DI) operate by collecting tax contributions and paying out benefits directly. [1]

• Total Income: $1.45 trillion (including payroll taxes, income taxation of benefits, and interest).
• Total Expenditures: $1.61 trillion (primarily used to pay benefits to approximately 70 million beneficiaries).
• Asset Reserves: The trust funds have a combined reserve of Treasury bonds, which are drawn down to cover the gap between incoming taxes and outgoing benefits. [1, 2, 3]

---

The "Asset Reserves" are not money, they are bonds/debt

---

Who cares. They are assets. Gold, oil, stocks, real estate, etc are not "money" either.

---

The larger point is that all current money coming in is short of what's being paid out


The "fund" BS was gov't IOU's, the taxpayers are on the hook again to pay,lol


just like a self licking ice cream cone

---

It's no different than the government issuing me a bond in exchange for my cash. Had they issued bonds directly to the people instead, would that make you feel better?

And it's not the fault of SS. SS will have paid it's way until 2032-2033. At that point, you can rightfully complain that more money has gone out than taken in by SS.

northeastag said:

---

I hate being called a boomer. I have very little in common (generationally) with someone nearly 20 years older than me.

But that aside, plenty of us "Boomers" would have happily opted out of the Social Security system when we were young. We would have given up all claims of future government payments in exchange for not paying into the system throughout our lives. But you know what? We didn't have that choice.

So I find it the highest insult to insinuate that we are (now) somehow Greedy for expecting the social security compact to continue. I am well aware that I probably won't receive what the formula currently says I will receive. They will either cap benefits or means test me out of it. I have expected that to happen for years and I accept it as a fact of life. The government continually takes more and more from those that are successful and responsible.

But DON'T call me greedy.

---

The bolded part times 1000. I can vividly recall me and my friends having this conversation in our late 20s and early 30's. Just let us opt out and you (US Government) will never have to care about us again regarding retirement. But nope we were not given that chance. We were told to keep paying up.

And the italicized part needs to be drummed into every young person's skull - the government is not your friend or savior.

Logos Stick said:

---

And it's not the fault of SS. SS will have paid it's way until 2032-2033.

---

WTF does this even mean, lol

if we are sitting around watching the building burn down for the next 5 years like, nah, we got time, this fires been burning since 35

pacecar02 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

And it's not the fault of SS. SS will have paid it's way until 2032-2033.

---

WTF does this even mean, lol

if we are sitting around watching the building burn down for the next 5 years like, nah, we got time, this fires been burning since 35

---

It means SS has run a surplus until that time. Don't blame the SS program for irresponsible spending by your government.

Current social security taxes are insufficient to pay current social security benefits. In 2025 SS collected about $1.2 trillion in taxes and paid out $1.4 trillion in benefits, a cash flow deficit of $200 billion.

This negative cash flow (benefits>taxes) started in 2010.

For a while, the so-called Trust Fund had assigned interest payments on the Trust Fund balance that covered the negative cash flow, so that taxes+interest-benefits was still positive.

Taxes plus interest payments became lower than benefit payments in 2021.

Social Security is designed as a 'pay-as-you-go' system with the Trust Fund serving as a bumper to smooth periods of excess tax collections. Unfortunately the period of excess tax collections ended in 2010, and now the Trust Fund is being exhausted on an on-going basis and at an increasing rate. In 2032 or so, the Trust Fund hits zero, no more interest payments, and taxes

In 2033, social security taxes will be the only income to the program and they will cover an estimated 78% of promised benefits that year.

This situation is not going to get better. Projections are that it continues to worsen as the number of workers per retiree continues to fall. Basically we need more revenue (taxes) and/or lower benefits than currently promised.

As many have said, it is just math.

Further, since Social Security is highly redistributive, with lower income workers receiving monthly payments up to 90% of their 'Average Indexed Monthly Earnings' while high income workers receive monthly payments that are a combination of 90% on their first $1,286 of AIME, 32% of dollars from $1286 to $7749, and 15% for AIME above $7749 up to the maximum AIME (based on maximum taxable earnings). Higher income workers get a signifcantly worse deal from Social Security. So who do we cut, someone living only on Social Security (for some reason), but who gets a good return from Social Security? Or someone with a lot of income over their life who is already getting a poorer return from Social Security but who has a lot of income? Questions of interpersonal comparisons of individuals in the same generation, comparisons of income and wealth that are the result of lifetime choices and luck and skill and hard work, are always difficult. And these are compounded by the intergenerational issue, where we change a program and the changes impact the young more than the old. I hope the poster who says we can find a solution 'what we all can agree on' is correct, but I wouldn't bet much on it.

*The Trust Fund is a bigger fiction than is commonly understand, an accounting gimmick that serves a political purpose. It is a loan made between Social Security and the Treasury, an asset to one branch of government and a liability to another branch. Net result, zero. Currently the Treasury pays all of its bill including interest on the debt, and some of that debt is owed to another branch of government called Social Security. To pay this interest to Social Security, the government borrows additional dollars by issuing more government bonds.

**Arguably we should have been raising social security taxes or cutting benefits on a continual basis as tax collections fell short of benefit payments. The demographics have been clear for a long time. I can find a Social Security Trustees Report from 1993 that projects the Trust Fund being exhausted in 2034~2035. Pretty good for a four decade ahead forecast.

***Two recent congressional actions have not helped. The inaptly named "Social Security Fairness Act" repealed two existing laws from 1983 and earlier that limited the ability of persons (and spouses)who only pay into Social Security for part of their working lives to earn high replacement rates on their contributions. The One Big Beautiful Bill provided seniors with a $6,000 extra standard deduction for a number of years, which reduces income subject to federal income tax including tax due on social security benefits. Those federal income taxes on social security benefits flow into the social security system, and the OBBB reduced those flows. So these two recent acts are responsible for at least a year of the change to a close day for Trust Fund exhaustion.

tamufan said:

---

Current social security taxes are insufficient to pay current social security benefits. In 2025 SS collected about $1.2 trillion in taxes and paid out $1.4 trillion in benefits, a cash flow deficit of $200 billion.

This negative cash flow (benefits>taxes) started in 2010.

---

You are misrepresenting the situation without also mentioning the surplus that was built up prior to 2010 from all those years when SS taxes exceeded SS benefit payments.

Today in 2026 the total amount of SS taxes collected still exceeds total SS benefits since its inception in the 1930's. We are still in the black today.

That net balance is expected to go negative in approximately 2032. At that point, we'll be in the hole.

But we are not today. It is important to work with all of the facts and not just a slice of them.

If the youngsters would get a job and move out of their parents' basements, we wouldn't have this problem. And working as a barista won't be enough to pay my extravagant SS check each month, so become an engineer or at least a plumber.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

tamufan said:

---

Current social security taxes are insufficient to pay current social security benefits. In 2025 SS collected about $1.2 trillion in taxes and paid out $1.4 trillion in benefits, a cash flow deficit of $200 billion.

This negative cash flow (benefits>taxes) started in 2010.

---

You are misrepresenting the situation without also mentioning the surplus that was built up prior to 2010 from all those years when SS taxes exceeded SS benefit payments.

Today in 2026 the total amount of SS taxes collected still exceeds total SS benefits since its inception in the 1930's. We are still in the black today.

That net balance is expected to go negative in approximately 2032. At that point, we'll be in the hole.

But we are not today. It is important to work with all of the facts and not just a slice of them.

---

Your apparent lack of concern seems fall inline with the current state of the Social Security system

"not a problem yet"

"Lets wait till the check bounces"

Stymied said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

The annoyances run both ways, trust me. I'll soon be 62 and when somebody says I didn't pay anything into SS, that is utter and complete BS. I've got the receipts for SS taxes from when I was 15, or 47 years of paying into the system.

I also understand folks at your stage in life who've paid in for many years and are kind of "halfway" there. You've also paid. And you also deserve to be treated fairly.

Those just starting out in their 20's also deserve to be treated fairly.

We need to find a solution that treats everybody fairly. Again I'll go back to the Claude AI suggestion from earlier. It sounded like a reasonable starting point. Gradually wind down SS for older people, gradually ramp up private accounts for younger folks, and some kind of hybrid for those in the middle. You could design a solution that all generations could support.

But the roadblock is going to be political will... can we take that solution to our elected representatives and demand that they implement it?

---

I'm all for finding a practical solution. However, math is math. The only way out of this is for someone to be treated less fair.

For any solution, even your claude one, the younger generations are going to have to have their ratios of "pay in" versus "pay out" adjusted. That will be:
- COLA adjustments
- Means testing
- Removing caps on SS wages without any increase in benefits
- Prolonged inflation to pay down our growing debt

Your benefits won't get touched. However, I can tell you those 20, 40, or 60 years younger than you won't be treated as fairly. It's just the way it's going to be.

You paid into the system. You will get what you are currently forecasted to get. I don't see that changing in the current political environment. However, it's disingenuous to believe that those behind you are going to be treated the same way. And if that makes you feel bad or angry for having that pointed out, sorry... it's just the way it is.

---

. Maybe there will be means testing. I signed up for Medicare last year and thought the monthly charge was very reasonable. Then a couple of months later I got a letter saying after reviewing you income tax return here's your Medicare surcharge each month. About a quarter of my SS payment each month is deducted for Medicare. Because I am still working, I'm still paying into the SS system and paying income taxes in my SS payments

SS will never go bankrupt. We will just borrow more to pay and our g-g-g-great grandkids will hate us 300 years into the future.

So calm down, everyone will get paid.

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Me and my generation paying into SS is the only thing keeping those retirement checks rolling

---

Wait, I thought the "boomers" took all the jobs and won't retire so you have to be unemployed or work at Starbucks.

Pick a narrative and stick with it.

---

Sir please come buy your venti triple mocha espresso latte with 3 pumps caramel so I can afford to fund your retirement. Please sir, it's all that I live for

pacecar02 said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

tamufan said:

---

Current social security taxes are insufficient to pay current social security benefits. In 2025 SS collected about $1.2 trillion in taxes and paid out $1.4 trillion in benefits, a cash flow deficit of $200 billion.

This negative cash flow (benefits>taxes) started in 2010.

---

You are misrepresenting the situation without also mentioning the surplus that was built up prior to 2010 from all those years when SS taxes exceeded SS benefit payments.

Today in 2026 the total amount of SS taxes collected still exceeds total SS benefits since its inception in the 1930's. We are still in the black today.

That net balance is expected to go negative in approximately 2032. At that point, we'll be in the hole.

But we are not today. It is important to work with all of the facts and not just a slice of them.

---

Your apparent lack of concern seems fall inline with the current state of the Social Security system

"not a problem yet"

"Lets wait till the check bounces"

---

Are you confused about your gender, because you sure are dramatic?

Stymied said:

---

SS is government redistribution. Always has been and always will be. If you were conservative you should have been against it back then and you should be against it now. It just so happens to be in your best interest now to keep the music going.

---

What does this even mean? What good does it do to be "against" Social Security, then or now?

It's the law. You pay in because you are forced to.

And don't talk to me about "you boomers voted for this." Show me ONE politician -- from either party -- with the stones and the power to do away with Social Security.

pacecar02 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

pacecar02 said:

---

Quote:

---

The combined Social Security Trust Funds (OASI and DI) operate by collecting tax contributions and paying out benefits directly. [1]

• Total Income: $1.45 trillion (including payroll taxes, income taxation of benefits, and interest).
• Total Expenditures: $1.61 trillion (primarily used to pay benefits to approximately 70 million beneficiaries).
• Asset Reserves: The trust funds have a combined reserve of Treasury bonds, which are drawn down to cover the gap between incoming taxes and outgoing benefits. [1, 2, 3]

---

The "Asset Reserves" are not money, they are bonds/debt

---

Who cares. They are assets. Gold, oil, stocks, real estate, etc are not "money" either.

---

The larger point is that all current money coming in is short of what's being paid out


The "fund" BS was gov't IOU's, the taxpayers are on the hook again to pay,lol


just like a self licking ice cream cone

---

LMAO. I get the narrative, but it's irrelevant.
Government took my money to pay for my future returns. Just like an annuity.
If a private insurance company would stop paying someone's annuity because "it's not making as much as it's paying", they would go to prison, unless it went bankrupt, in which case they probably would go to prison anyway.

Taking people's money for a service and then just not provide the service because, well, we can't cut costs in other areas is right out of the lib 101 playbook.

Let me ask you:
How much money does Welfare take in?
How much money does USAID take in?
How much money does Congressional Salaries take in?

I would agree to cut every government expenditure that costs more money that that department takes in.

Science Denier said:

---

Government took my money to pay for my future returns. Just like an annuity.

---

no, they didn't


this was never the case


it was never anything like an annuity


Why don't you understand this?


It was always setup to pay current beneficiaries


It was never a retirement fund where funds are invested

Keller6Ag91 said:

---

pacecar02 said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

tamufan said:

---

Current social security taxes are insufficient to pay current social security benefits. In 2025 SS collected about $1.2 trillion in taxes and paid out $1.4 trillion in benefits, a cash flow deficit of $200 billion.

This negative cash flow (benefits>taxes) started in 2010.

---

You are misrepresenting the situation without also mentioning the surplus that was built up prior to 2010 from all those years when SS taxes exceeded SS benefit payments.

Today in 2026 the total amount of SS taxes collected still exceeds total SS benefits since its inception in the 1930's. We are still in the black today.

That net balance is expected to go negative in approximately 2032. At that point, we'll be in the hole.

But we are not today. It is important to work with all of the facts and not just a slice of them.

---

Your apparent lack of concern seems fall inline with the current state of the Social Security system

"not a problem yet"

"Lets wait till the check bounces"

---

Are you confused about your gender, because you sure are dramatic?

---

I guess you're just fiscally ret@rded

pacecar02 said:

---

Keller6Ag91 said:

---

pacecar02 said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

tamufan said:

---

Current social security taxes are insufficient to pay current social security benefits. In 2025 SS collected about $1.2 trillion in taxes and paid out $1.4 trillion in benefits, a cash flow deficit of $200 billion.

This negative cash flow (benefits>taxes) started in 2010.

---

You are misrepresenting the situation without also mentioning the surplus that was built up prior to 2010 from all those years when SS taxes exceeded SS benefit payments.

Today in 2026 the total amount of SS taxes collected still exceeds total SS benefits since its inception in the 1930's. We are still in the black today.

That net balance is expected to go negative in approximately 2032. At that point, we'll be in the hole.

But we are not today. It is important to work with all of the facts and not just a slice of them.

---

Your apparent lack of concern seems fall inline with the current state of the Social Security system

"not a problem yet"

"Lets wait till the check bounces"

---

Are you confused about your gender, because you sure are dramatic?

---

I guess you're just fiscally ret@rded

---

I'm just thankful you're not an Aggie with your lack of critical thinking skills

FTAB Class of '02



seriously, I thought this place was full of conservative minded individuals, both socially and fiscally


just head in the sand here, lol

pacecar02 said:

---

FTAB Class of '02

---

I stand corrected. How far the A&M education experience has fallen in 11 years.

yeah, we were big on math


I guess you missed those classes

pacecar02 said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Government took my money to pay for my future returns. Just like an annuity.

---

no, they didn't


this was never the case


it was never anything like an annuity


Why don't you understand this?


It was always setup to pay current beneficiaries


It was never a retirement fund where funds are invested

---

Never said it was an investment o
The COMMITMENT is the same.

Government said we will take your money
In return, Government said we would pay you this.

It doesn't matter how it's funded, or what government spent. That's the commitment, the same as annuity payments are commitments based on what you pay and what you receive.

How it's funded is irrelevant.

pacecar02 said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

tamufan said:

---

Current social security taxes are insufficient to pay current social security benefits. In 2025 SS collected about $1.2 trillion in taxes and paid out $1.4 trillion in benefits, a cash flow deficit of $200 billion.

This negative cash flow (benefits>taxes) started in 2010.

---

You are misrepresenting the situation without also mentioning the surplus that was built up prior to 2010 from all those years when SS taxes exceeded SS benefit payments.

Today in 2026 the total amount of SS taxes collected still exceeds total SS benefits since its inception in the 1930's. We are still in the black today.

That net balance is expected to go negative in approximately 2032. At that point, we'll be in the hole.

But we are not today. It is important to work with all of the facts and not just a slice of them.

---

Your apparent lack of concern seems fall inline with the current state of the Social Security system

"not a problem yet"

"Lets wait till the check bounces"

---

Again, facts matter.

I didn't say it wasn't a problem.

I simply corrected the misrepresentation that SS is currently in the hole.

It is not.

It will be in about six years, and we should endeavor to address that now instead of waiting.

[Personal attacks are out of bounds -- Staff]

pacecar02 said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Government took my money to pay for my future returns. Just like an annuity.

---

no, they didn't


this was never the case


it was never anything like an annuity


Why don't you understand this?


It was always setup to pay current beneficiaries




It was never a retirement fund where funds are invested

---

Al Gore wanted a lock box.

pacecar02 said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

pacecar02 said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Government took my money to pay for my future returns. Just like an annuity.

---

no, they didn't


this was never the case


it was never anything like an annuity


Why don't you understand this?


It was always setup to pay current beneficiaries


It was never a retirement fund where funds are invested

---

Never said it was an investment o
The COMMITMENT is the same.

Government said we will take your money
In return, Government said we would pay you this.

It doesn't matter how it's funded, or what government spent. That's the commitment, the same as annuity payments are commitments based on what you pay and what you receive.

How it's funded is irrelevant.

---

ret@rd

please follow

In an annuity a financial institution takes your money in an exchange for an agreed upon set future series of payments

The financial institution then invest those funds to earn interest. The theory is that they earn money for themselves and you(through your future distributions) based on putting your money to work through loans, CD's, index funds, whatever


Where in the blue blazes did the Social Security Administration ever do any of that?

---

You are confusing FUNDING and COMMITMENT

I get both words have more than 3 letters so let me break it down for you

Annuity
1. Insurance takes your money
2. Insurance commitments to pay you a certain amount monthly at a later date

SS
1. Government takes your money
2. Government commits to pay you a certain amount monthly at a later date.

If insurance takes your money and decided they don't make enough so just keep your money and don't provide the monthly payments at a later date, folks go to jail. It doesn't matter how insurance funds your benefit. Investments, whatever.

Just like it doesn't matter how SS is FUNDED. If government spends the funds on other ****, too bad. The COMMITMENT doesn't go away.

This is why SS isn't going anywhere. Even government won't do something this stupid.

Regarding some of the discussion of the government's "promise" of social security benefits...

The Supreme Court case that established Social Security is not an accrued property right or individual asset is Flemming v. Nestor (1960). The Court ruled that workers do not have a legally binding contractual or property right to their benefits, meaning Congress can alter or eliminate them at any time.
The landmark ruling clarified several core concepts regarding Social Security:

• No Contractual Right: Paying payroll taxes does not equate to purchasing an annuity or a private insurance contract.
• Not an Individual Asset: Because the funds do not belong to you as individual property, Congress has the authority to change the rules, adjust retirement ages, or even stop payments to certain individuals (such as those deported for specific offenses).
• Social Welfare: The Court defined the system as a form of social insurance and public welfare, rather than a personal trust or savings account.
• You can read the full decision directly via the Social Security Administration Flemming v. Nestor Historical Page

No. The Boomers have enough accumulated wealth already. Cut current benefits to make like easier for workers.

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

Hey Claude, design a schedule based on age cohorts for phasing out social security that prioritizes preserving benefits for current retirees while allowing the program to remain financially solvent. You may eliminate benefits for those persons currently under the current age of 30. You may look at eliminating COLA, raising retirement ages of those not already retired, reducing fraud and other means of reducing program expenditures.

https://claude.ai/share/d666029c-eeca-4612-82c3-93de3e0a81b2

Seems doable. Add in the option to opt out of SS altogether and drastically raise Roth contribution cap, and it could be a political winner.

---

I've run this exercise before. It's totally doable and the obvious solution which means it will never get done.

infinity ag said:

---

SS will never go bankrupt. We will just borrow more to pay and our g-g-g-great grandkids will hate us 300 years into the future.

So calm down, everyone will get paid.

---

This exactly. Politicians would ever allow social security benefits to be cut because doing so would me getting voted out of office. We already deficit spend, we will just continue to deficit spend.

Social Security could be put in a situation where it takes in what it pays out with three simple sentences. But doing so would run the same risk as far as being voted out of office, though less likely than cutting benefits.