5 ms·
It's ironic that you cite social security, which is a giant unfunded liability. Pensions don't actually have to be funded by the next generation. That's just
by cwhiz 6y ago
It's ironic that you cite social security, which is a giant unfunded liability. Pensions don't actually have to be funded by the next generation. That's just the asinine way we have it set up here in the US. It relies on a never ending baby boom and economic expansion. Surprise surprise, it doesn't really work all that well. Hence social security funded at 70% and many city and state pensions funded at less than 50%.
What we should actually be doing is pay as you go. You pay into the pension and you get out what you paid, plus growth. We could have switched to this model at any point over the last 70 years if American society wasn't so addicted to endlessly kicking shit down the road and punting on problems.
- arrosenberg 6y ago> It's ironic that you cite social security, which is a giant unfunded liability. Social security is not an unfunded liability. If you look at your paycheck you will see a line that explicitly goes toward funding social security. It is currently underfunded due to (1) Congressional malfeasance; and (2) the $120K cap on paying into the fund. Even the underfunding is nowhere near as bad as advertised - current funding is sufficient to pay full benefits through 2035 and about 80% of benefits from 2035-2094. If we pay back the borrowed money and remove the income cap the funding issue would resolve.
- vkou 6y agoYes, but how are we going to prevent further congressional malfeasance between now and 2094? One of the two parties is not going to stop trying to undermine social security every chance it gets in over the next 75 years...
- arrosenberg 6y agoWe either take responsibility for it as citizens or we get what we deserve.
- cwhiz 6y agoSocial security is not underfunded. It is only underfunded due to these two reasons. Well, which is it? If it were simple to make social security solvent at full promised benefits then surely we would?
- arrosenberg 6y agoYou claimed it was unfunded, not underfunded. Please read more carefully. And no, surely we wouldn't. The Republican Party wants to destroy Social Security, they aren't interested in anything that would make it stronger.