[GabrielF00]

Currently, social security takes in $801.6B in revenue and pays out $750.5B a year, and social security has a $2.8 trillion trust fund. After 2022, outflows will exceed inflows, and social security will have to draw down on that trust fund, which will be exhausted by 2035.[1]

From the charts in the NYT article, Puerto Rico's fund is taking in <$400M a year and paying out >$600M, and their trust fund is less than $1B, and will be exhausted by 2020.

Social security is still running a surplus, and still has a massive trust fund. It definitely seems plausible to make changes that will make it solvent well into the future.

https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html

[mason240]

> social security has a $2.8 trillion trust fund.

That trust fund is in form of IOUs from the general fund of the Federal government - where do you think the money to pay back those IOUs will come from?

[unclenoriega]

Probably taxes, where all SS funds have always come from.

[mason240]

That's the point. If the IOUs have to be repaid with extra tax revenues, it is functionally equivalent to a deficit and not really a "trust fund."

[tuna-piano]

Imagine 2 scenarios where social security needs $1B more than it has in revenue.

Situation A, Social security trust fund as exists today-The trust fund redeems a bond from the US treasury. To get the $1B, the Treasury either raises taxes or takes out $1B in its own debt.

Situation B, no trust fund- To get $1B, social security either raises taxes or takes out $1B in its own debt.

The point is that you can call the trust fund an asset (something you have), but you then also need to call the money the federal government owes a liability. But the federal government hasn't accounted for it in this way.

This is equivalent to John Doe writing a check for 2.8T to himself and saying he has a 2.8T asset (he does), but not mentioning he also has a 2.8T liability.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2011/07/13/what...

[haroldp]

It may or may not have income to cover its obligations, but it's still a "ponzi scheme"[1] in the sense that I will not get out the money I put in. Rather, it counts on new "investors" to meet it's obligations to me. The big threat to such a scheme is fluctuations in the investment stream - for example, people not supplying enough money (as in a recession) or fluctuations in the pool size (as in baby booms). It's a very dangerous scheme and shouldn't be counted on for what is essentially investment.

To say that it has a "massive trust fund" is like me saying I am rich because I have a cookie jar full of IOUs that I wrote to myself on top of my fridge.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme