3 ms·

I've known I can't really rely on Social Security to exist when I retire, in any notable form, but man, this is so dark. And it's just a start. (Edit: I'm not

I've known I can't really rely on Social Security to exist when I retire, in any notable form, but man, this is so dark. And it's just a start. (Edit: I'm not certain either way! But it seems like too great a risk to rely on. And the prognosis seems not great! I have heard for decades needs serious help, and nothing seems to change. More broadly, with a few exceptions, I've seen overwhelmingly obstructionism and destruction of America in lifetime.)

Schiendelman 3mo ago
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.
- seanmcdirmid 3mo ago
  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 3mo ago
    Exactly this. The date has been very consistent for many years, and the math checks out. 2033 unless something significant changes.
    - seanmcdirmid 3mo ago
      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 3mo ago
    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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenspan_Commission
    - seanmcdirmid 3mo ago
      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 3mo ago
        See my more complete history here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48961349 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48961349
- bronco21016 3mo ago
  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 3mo ago
    In the early 80s, the date was not in the 2030s - not until after the Greenspan Commission and that set of reforms.
- phil21 3mo ago
  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 3mo ago
    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.
eYrKEC2 3mo ago
It's much worse than that. Governments, when faced with shortfalls in the government pension, will absolutely nationalize your 401k or IRA. YOU, while attempting to responsibly take care of yourself, will absolutely be a piggybank to be raided. This has happened in numerous countries. You wouldn't want to be selfish, would you? Sure, you forgo the midlife crisis sports car in favor of the Toyota Corolla you've been driving for years, but that's just tough. Shoulda lived for the now.
- Grombobulous 3mo ago
  This is just wild hyperbole. Yes, tax rates might go up. You should actually bet on that because tax rates are at a pretty low level historically. But this concept of nationalizing private bank accounts is pretty extreme.
  - bronco21016 3mo ago
    It doesn’t even have to be raiding of accounts. They can modify rules of RMD to drive tax revenue or even entirely change the rules of 401k withdrawals such that if your balance is over a certain amount you pay an extra tax. I don’t think it’s far fetched that 401ks of a certain value start to experience penalties to make up shortfalls. After all, the whole reason they would need to do this is because they failed on the promise of social security. Why not fail on the promise of the 401k?
    - Grombobulous 3mo ago
      It’s far-fetched for a number of reasons: 1. It upsets the most influential voting demographics. I struggle to find any national policy implemented in the last few decades that has truly disrupted the kind of upper middle class voter that has a lot of money in a 401k. 2. If you tax 401ks higher than long term capital gains tax then higher earners just won’t use 401ks/IRAs. 3. 401ks and IRAs are completely detached from the way social security is funded so they aren’t even really the most logical place you would go to fund social security. E.g., why not just raise the social security payroll tax? 5. It’s less logical to do this than to remove the social security tax cap.
Grombobulous 3mo ago
This isn’t what my financial advisor told me and I doubt many others would, either. Social Security is almost certainly going to exist in some form. The question is how much retirees will get from it and how that compares to the cost of living. Excessive cynicism is often dangerous because it converts the mundanely pleasant reality into an enthralling doom and gloom scenario. Of course, I’m not really saying that everyone in America is going to have a wonderful retirement. But if you’re like the other software engineers on this forum and you’re maxing out your 401k and have a mortgage, you’re almost certainly going to have a pretty enviable retirement.
- secabeen 3mo ago
  Indeed. The worst case scenario with no action is a ~30% cut in benefits; that's a long way from a 100% benefit cut.
- bluefirebrand 3mo ago
  > the mundanely pleasant reality There are a shocking number of people who do not experience anything resembling a mundanely pleasant reality Those of us who do are extremely fortunate
  - Grombobulous 3mo ago
    I completely recognize that. However, a lot of the voices of discontent and cynicism are living very comfortable lives in America relative to others. Even having access to a flushing toilet and consistent electrical service are luxuries. The US social safety net is only embarrassing by the standards of 30 or so of the most wealthy nations. Medicaid, Medicare, and social security, even in a diminished state, are programs that a lot of people lack.
    - bluefirebrand 3mo ago
      > Even having access to a flushing toilet and consistent electrical service are luxuries Globally sure. But we don't measure ourselves by global standards. We measure ourselves by what we have around us, and the norms we were brought up with. No one in North America thinks indoor plumbing with flushing toilets is a luxury it's a basic necessity, and they're right to think so by the standards of their society. The US social safety net is embarrassing by the standards of what lives people in the US expect to have. Saying that their expectations are silly because people in rural Africa don't have indoor plumbing is kind of asinine. They are reasonably setting their expectations based on their neighbours experience not the most baseline human experience.

Schiendelman 3mo ago

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.

seanmcdirmid 3mo ago
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 3mo ago
  Exactly this. The date has been very consistent for many years, and the math checks out. 2033 unless something significant changes.
  - seanmcdirmid 3mo ago
    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 3mo ago
  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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenspan_Commission
  - seanmcdirmid 3mo ago
    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 3mo ago
      See my more complete history here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48961349 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48961349
bronco21016 3mo ago
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 3mo ago
  In the early 80s, the date was not in the 2030s - not until after the Greenspan Commission and that set of reforms.
phil21 3mo ago
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 3mo ago
  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.

eYrKEC2 3mo ago

It's much worse than that. Governments, when faced with shortfalls in the government pension, will absolutely nationalize your 401k or IRA. YOU, while attempting to responsibly take care of yourself, will absolutely be a piggybank to be raided. This has happened in numerous countries. You wouldn't want to be selfish, would you? Sure, you forgo the midlife crisis sports car in favor of the Toyota Corolla you've been driving for years, but that's just tough. Shoulda lived for the now.

Grombobulous 3mo ago
This is just wild hyperbole. Yes, tax rates might go up. You should actually bet on that because tax rates are at a pretty low level historically. But this concept of nationalizing private bank accounts is pretty extreme.
- bronco21016 3mo ago
  It doesn’t even have to be raiding of accounts. They can modify rules of RMD to drive tax revenue or even entirely change the rules of 401k withdrawals such that if your balance is over a certain amount you pay an extra tax. I don’t think it’s far fetched that 401ks of a certain value start to experience penalties to make up shortfalls. After all, the whole reason they would need to do this is because they failed on the promise of social security. Why not fail on the promise of the 401k?
  - Grombobulous 3mo ago
    It’s far-fetched for a number of reasons: 1. It upsets the most influential voting demographics. I struggle to find any national policy implemented in the last few decades that has truly disrupted the kind of upper middle class voter that has a lot of money in a 401k. 2. If you tax 401ks higher than long term capital gains tax then higher earners just won’t use 401ks/IRAs. 3. 401ks and IRAs are completely detached from the way social security is funded so they aren’t even really the most logical place you would go to fund social security. E.g., why not just raise the social security payroll tax? 5. It’s less logical to do this than to remove the social security tax cap.

Grombobulous 3mo ago

This isn’t what my financial advisor told me and I doubt many others would, either. Social Security is almost certainly going to exist in some form. The question is how much retirees will get from it and how that compares to the cost of living. Excessive cynicism is often dangerous because it converts the mundanely pleasant reality into an enthralling doom and gloom scenario. Of course, I’m not really saying that everyone in America is going to have a wonderful retirement. But if you’re like the other software engineers on this forum and you’re maxing out your 401k and have a mortgage, you’re almost certainly going to have a pretty enviable retirement.

secabeen 3mo ago
Indeed. The worst case scenario with no action is a ~30% cut in benefits; that's a long way from a 100% benefit cut.
bluefirebrand 3mo ago
> the mundanely pleasant reality There are a shocking number of people who do not experience anything resembling a mundanely pleasant reality Those of us who do are extremely fortunate
- Grombobulous 3mo ago
  I completely recognize that. However, a lot of the voices of discontent and cynicism are living very comfortable lives in America relative to others. Even having access to a flushing toilet and consistent electrical service are luxuries. The US social safety net is only embarrassing by the standards of 30 or so of the most wealthy nations. Medicaid, Medicare, and social security, even in a diminished state, are programs that a lot of people lack.
  - bluefirebrand 3mo ago
    > Even having access to a flushing toilet and consistent electrical service are luxuries Globally sure. But we don't measure ourselves by global standards. We measure ourselves by what we have around us, and the norms we were brought up with. No one in North America thinks indoor plumbing with flushing toilets is a luxury it's a basic necessity, and they're right to think so by the standards of their society. The US social safety net is embarrassing by the standards of what lives people in the US expect to have. Saying that their expectations are silly because people in rural Africa don't have indoor plumbing is kind of asinine. They are reasonably setting their expectations based on their neighbours experience not the most baseline human experience.