3 ms·

>But in reality that "paying in" is just a tax I've paid, and it's not unusual to get less than I was promised for a tax I've paid. Yeah, don't get me wrong.

>But in reality that "paying in" is just a tax I've paid, and it's not unusual to get less than I was promised for a tax I've paid. Yeah, don't get me wrong. Taxes are taxes, and you just have to pay it. I have no problem with paying a tax to support elderly and disabled folks right now. But the thought of it still being solvent 30 years from now with the direction our country is heading is totally absurd. I fully expect the entire system to be gutted for our generation the moment a full Republican majority takes control.

sanderjd 4y ago
But that's the thing, there is no such thing as "solvent"; there is no "account" to be solvent or insolvent. It would be like talking about whether the military is "solvent"; it's just not a thing. The only question is whether spending on a line item in the budget - whether that's the military or social security or whatever else - is or isn't appropriated by Congress. Or if you insist on thinking in these "solvency" terms, then note that social security has never been "solvent". From day one, people who never "payed in" to the "account" received payments "from" it. That was possible for the same reason it is possible today for social security to pay out more than it brings in: it isn't its own account, its just one line item of spending coming out of the US treasury. And there just is no political mechanism by which social security payments will fail to be appropriated. If some coalition gains enough control to pass and sign the legislation necessary to eliminate social security, they will be blamed for it by the electorate and will lose power for a generation. No political party wants to sign its own death warrant. This all does assume the continued existence of the federal government as currently constituted, which is not a guarantee. So if what you're really saying is that you think the US system will collapse at some point before you retire, then that is actually more plausible, I think, than social security being eliminated by legislation under the current system. But personally I also think it's very unlikely that the US system will collapse before I retire. It's just more likely than the wholesale elimination of social security :)

sanderjd 4y ago

But that's the thing, there is no such thing as "solvent"; there is no "account" to be solvent or insolvent. It would be like talking about whether the military is "solvent"; it's just not a thing. The only question is whether spending on a line item in the budget - whether that's the military or social security or whatever else - is or isn't appropriated by Congress. Or if you insist on thinking in these "solvency" terms, then note that social security has never been "solvent". From day one, people who never "payed in" to the "account" received payments "from" it. That was possible for the same reason it is possible today for social security to pay out more than it brings in: it isn't its own account, its just one line item of spending coming out of the US treasury. And there just is no political mechanism by which social security payments will fail to be appropriated. If some coalition gains enough control to pass and sign the legislation necessary to eliminate social security, they will be blamed for it by the electorate and will lose power for a generation. No political party wants to sign its own death warrant. This all does assume the continued existence of the federal government as currently constituted, which is not a guarantee. So if what you're really saying is that you think the US system will collapse at some point before you retire, then that is actually more plausible, I think, than social security being eliminated by legislation under the current system. But personally I also think it's very unlikely that the US system will collapse before I retire. It's just more likely than the wholesale elimination of social security :)