[mgh95]

> Social security is self-funded. It has literally no impact on the deficit or our ability to pay off debt. By statute.

There is a very real problem that social security is project to be no longer solvent in 2035. (see here: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/RL33028) It may require either transfers from the general budget or structural changes to remain solvent.

[const_cast]

To be fair, republicans have been saying SS will go insolvent from the moment it was written into law. It's been almost a century. After a certain point, we have to call a spade a spade and just admit there's a lot of people ideologically opposed to SS and that's it.

[mgh95]

> To be fair, republicans have been saying SS will go insolvent from the moment it was written into law. It's been almost a century. After a certain point, we have to call a spade a spade and just admit there's a lot of people ideologically opposed to SS and that's it.

Actually, SS was going to go insolvent when it was first written. The benefits were far too generous for what was affordable, even with the population pyramid at the time.

Then it actually was going to go bankrupt and the benefits were reduced in real dollars, because it turned out at one point we were dramatically overestimating inflation, and we couldn't afford it.

If social security was an actual insurance or pension plan, it would have been shut down by a state regulator or the PBGC. It's a horrifyingly bad plan for the simple reason that it's structurally insolvent. Even the concept of "uncap the tax" just kicks the can down the road: you now need to pay those people benefits.

The issue is we don't actually know what we want from it, which I alluded to in another comment. If we want some sort of "social insurance" plan where you just get back a portion of what you pay in, we have it and it's functionally in default. If we want a social safety net, we need to have a serious discussion about means testing.

[fkfyshroglk]

The surplus won't be solvent; the program itself is fine by definition. The entire concept of "social security solvency" is fear-mongering by people who want you to think of the entire country like a sack of gold rather than a proper economy.

[mgh95]

Not really. It won't be "solvent" in the sense it can pay out full benefits and people will not receive the face value of what was promised.

And I say this as someone who unabashedly supports allowing it to revert to its statutory payout rat, even if it is below what was promised.

[fkfyshroglk]

Maybe you should stop lying to your grandparents!

But seriously, nobody was promised anything not dictated by statute. Who gives a shit about what you, specifically understood the statute to mean? By any reasonable understanding of the law it's not even possible for SSI to go without funding, assuming the government is still operational.

What's more real and relevant is that the government only cares about your insofar as you contribute to the private economy. Like what can we do to make those fucks actually pay out and take care of us?