[Schiendelman]

Honestly, the reporting has looked the same around this since the 1980s. I've read books from them referencing how Social Security was going to be bankrupt by the 90s, or the 2000s. The fact is that older people vote way more than younger people, so it stays funded; we will at worst pay for some of it out of income taxes.

[phil21]

The date was always in the 2030-2040 range since I started reading about it in the 90's. At my first job I planned my retirement around the trust fund running out by the time I retired, and benefits being cut passively via cost of living not matching inflation.

This is largely due to congress actually taking action in the early 80's, which pushed this date back to the current 2030ish estimate. As the date draws nearer, it gets more refined. If they had not taken action, those previous articles would have been correct.

If congress had done their jobs and done another round of reformation 20 years later in around 2003 we would not be having this discussion now. The date would have either been pushed back or eliminated. It was exceedingly clear what was going to happen back then if no action was taken, and those workers simply did not vote for folks who were going to raise taxes (or reduce benefits) for them. Collectively speaking they would rather have their children pay instead.

From my standpoint the reporting has been very consistent on the subject. It's pretty easy math to report on.

[Schiendelman]

The first projected failure date I know of was 1979, which was reported on in the early 1970s.

There were amendments in 1977 that should have helped, but the 1980-81 recessions made it bad again; by 1982 the Trustees said it would be insolvent in 1983.

In 1983 the Greenspan Commission and the resulting amendments believed they pushed solvency through the 2050s.

In 2005 that was down to 2041, in 2010 it was 2037, and since then it's sat around 2033-2035.

In Jane Jacobs' book "Cities and the Wealth of Nations" in 1984, she saw the pattern, and brought up that you'd have to keep amending it forever.

[seanmcdirmid]

The math has been constant, if you were reading reports saying it would hit the breaking point in the 90s or 2000s, you are either misremembering, confusing it with something else, or willfully distorting facts. Anyways, if you make claims like that you should take advantage of internet linking features and just provide your evidence directly vs a “I remember reading” anecdote.

There was a point where social security went from surplus to deficit in 2010. That wasn’t insolvency though since the federal government owed them for the previous surpluses they borrowed. 2033 is when the federal government no longer has to pay back money to SS and it is truly insolvent.

[rpdillon]

Exactly this. The date has been very consistent for many years, and the math checks out. 2033 unless something significant changes.

[seanmcdirmid]

The date used to be later but COVID drove it forward a bit since they got rid of contributions for some people for a couple of years I think? Generous cost of living increases have also caused the date to creep forward, but I don’t think it has ever moved backward.

[Schiendelman]

Maybe you are misremembering. The Greenspan Commission was the last time we significantly amended social security to avoid these problems, and it was in the 80s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenspan_Commission

[seanmcdirmid]

Greenspan commission wasn’t a prediction. They used a previous pay as you go model that was simply broke at that time (and had been for awhile$, leading to the current pay for the future model. They then made predictions that the new system would be solvent way past 2033.

[Schiendelman]

See my more complete history here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48961349

[bronco21016]

As others have pointed out, the date has long been mid/early 2030s.

You may be remembering that it’s been a hotly debated issue since the 80s.

I distinctly remember it being a massive election issue in 2000 between Gore and Bush (the first election I’m old enough to remember in detail). It was the whole “lockbox” vs government funding of private accounts debate.

[Schiendelman]

In the early 80s, the date was not in the 2030s - not until after the Greenspan Commission and that set of reforms.