[Harmless Teddy Bear]

I assume that is what SS assumes when publishing their yearly reports.

No.

If not, where does all the $$ go?

Administrative expenses. You can hide so much under that label. Office drones, buildings, art work, advertising, slush funds, executive jaunts to exotic locations, you know... the usual.

Where do all the poeple's $$ come from?

They probably work for it, or do you mean where does the money paid out to people who are on SS comes from? In that case it comes from the many government thefts.... er... taxes... I meant taxes.

[Svartalfiar]

Administrative expenses. You can hide so much under that label. Office drones, buildings, art work, advertising, slush funds, executive jaunts to exotic locations, you know... the usual.

True. But you're telling me that admin costs are going to take $2.9T (yes, trillion) in the reserve "fund" down to zero in ten years? There's numbers missing somewhere in there... Obviously admin costs aren't currently hurting it that much, since SS has run a surplus for the majority of its life, so what changes in this coming decade?


They probably work for it, or do you mean where does the money paid out to people who are on SS comes from? In that case it comes from the many government thefts.... er... taxes... I meant taxes.

Yes, I mean paid out to recipients. And I know where the money actually comes from, my question is on the theoretical side (as if SS actually maintained these $$ as a dedicated fund, which is how the SS yearly/quarterly statements are published as). If every participant is generating a net income for SS, then their money is what generates the fund for their "account", and there would be no need for any Ponzi setup. So the number of people paying in vs paying out shouldn't make much difference in the total SS bank account, as each individual account should be almost entirely self-sufficient, as you claim above, correct? So how is SS suddenly going net-negative, when as above, admin costs haven't made it negative before?