Posted on 06/04/2026 9:08:41 AM PDT by MinorityRepublican
Social Security’s finances may be in worse shape than thought.
The Social Security Trustees — who release a report each year on the health of the program that supports about 70 million retirees and people with disabilities — have been relying on overly optimistic forecasts for future fertility rates, according to a blog report from the Cato Institute.
Those forecasts are at odds with projections from the U.S. Census Bureau and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) — the nonpartisan federal agency that provides Congress with independent analysis of budgetary and economic issues — which both have much more sober forecasts for fertility rates.
Fertility rates and longevity are important to the finances of Social Security. Under a “pay-as-you-go” system like Social Security, taxes from current workers pay the benefits of current retirees. As fewer young people enter the labor force, there are fewer active taxpayers to support each beneficiary at a time when people are living longer — and taking benefits for longer.
“The Trustees are likely understating Social Security’s insolvency problem by assuming Americans will start having far more children than current trends suggest,” according to the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.
“Optimistic population assumptions translate into optimistic financial projections. In a pay-as-you-go system like Social Security, higher assumed fertility means more future workers paying taxes to finance benefits and thus a smaller projected shortfall,” the Cato blog report said.
(Excerpt) Read more at marketwatch.com ...
“Do you really think that the government just confiscate their withholdings?”
You didn’t answer the question:
Do you really think that the government just confiscate their withholdings?
Sometimes a solution that seems logical is fatally flawed. The devil is in the details. I took the time to show the calculus of the money that is lost to an individual by SS witholding rather than investing that money instead. Even trasuries would have generated much more than the benefits given by SS.
In the interests of social welfare (which destroys responsibility and incentive) the Government made up a rational for taking money, in addition to taxation, which they would pay back when you were too old to work.
There was no choice, no assent; it was a fiat. In doing that they robbed the American people. If instead they had put that money into bonds, or allowed investment the money would have been there for each working person and their dependents. However in typical Government fashion they wanted that money to allow increased spending which created programs that did little, were wasteful, could have been done more efficiently privately or by the states. Now that money and the time for it to grow is gone and we are saddled with corrupt welfare programs that are very difficult to clawback because they are slush funds for the left. We have thrown bad after good for many years, deepened the welfare trap and perverted the National conversation with entitlement porn.
A socialist says money should go to the people that need it most. While sounding noble that is the most destructive path imaginable, as has been demonstrated every time it was tried. The rule of law and of equal justice says that people get treated equally. Not from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
To escape the SS trap rather than deciding winners & losers based on virtue signaling the system should be privatized with a bona fide investment from this time forward, preferably self directed.
People who are retired should receive benefits based on their contributed amounts. Those who have not retired yet should be on a blended path with growth of contribution going forward and a prorated amount paid based on prior contributions.
People already retired and retiring soon would be paid not out of funds coming in from younger workers but by the US government which has consumed their witheld $ over the years. Perhaps the Government should think outside the box and sell leases for oil rights or some other National resource to get through the transition period. Growing the economy will allow paying down the debt gradually and free up funds as well.
“The reality is, it already has.”
Wow! Nice of you to reference a deported communist.
They are.
Familiarize yourself with the Supreme Court's ruling in Flemming v Nestor:
"The Social Security system may be accurately described as a form of social insurance, enacted pursuant to Congress' power to "spend money in aid of the general welfare,'""
I see youbare still in favor of the government confiscating money.
I see you're in favor of constructing strawmen.
I'm not in favor of it at all. I think it should be abolished entirely. I'm among the generations that will be robbed to funnel money to the richest cohorts in society via FDR's insidious payroll tax.
Yes but we are the ones who elected those politicians.
So?
Did you think the audience here needed a refresher on what a shitty deal Social Security is?
That observation doesn't make the system solvent.
To avoid adding trillions more in taxes, or trillions more in debt, we need to just agree to not send welfare checks households that earn more than the median household income. That shouldn't be a controversial idea. But some folks are convinced that future generations should be put even deeper in debt (we're at ~122% to GDP right now!) so that money can be funneled to people who are not desperate for a government check, and have more wealth and income than most people do.
A socialist says money should go to the people that need it most. While sounding noble that is the most destructive path imaginable, as has been demonstrated every time it was tried. The rule of law and of equal justice says that people get treated equally. Not from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
I'm under no delusion that we can end welfare. It would be my preference, but it's not going to happen.
The government will take from those who have and give to the poor. What we can't afford is a government that will take from those who have, borrow on the backs of everyone else, and give money to people who are already wealthier and have more income than most.
“Social Security’s finances may be in worse shape than thought. The Social Security Trustees — who release a report each year on the health of the program that supports about 70 million retirees and people with disabilities — have been relying on overly optimistic forecasts for future fertility rates”
Just another government success story? How about this? So you are 85 years old. Social Security didn’t count on folks living this long so we have to restrict your access to any medicine you might need to over the counter meds. Good luck.
Nice of you to read about how the Supreme Court established you don't have any property rights to your payroll taxes collected under the social security system and Congress can alter eligibility of payout at its whim.
Do you really think that the government just confiscate their withholdings?
I explained to you they already have. Taxes are confiscated. They're not a deposit you can elect to draw upon. These aren't novel concepts, and I've already familiarized with the Supreme Court's ruling specific to this fact.
Is English your first language?
confiscation
känfəˈskāSHən
Confiscation is the permanent, involuntary taking of private property by a government or authorized public entity, typically as a penalty, without compensation to the owner.
“”The Social Security system may be accurately described as a form of social insurance ...”
Social insurance funded be withholding. Not welfare.
But keep referencing a single case of a deported communist.
“I’m among the generations that will be robbed to funnel money to the richest cohorts in society via FDR’s insidious payroll tax.”
You toally ignore the fact that lower income earners get an above market return on their withholding and pay no tax on their benefits while higher income earners get below market returns on their non-deductible witholding and taxed on their benefits.
“Confiscation is the permanent, involuntary taking of private property by a government or authorized public entity, typically as a penalty, without compensation to the owner.”
Exactly what you are proposing except the penalty is for being wealthy.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
I thought importing millions of turd world trash and puting them on welfare would fix it...
“Did you think the audience here needed a refresher on what a shitty deal Social Security is?”
For the higher income earners. For lower income earnings it is a great deal.
I can tell you that if they means test me after all I’ve paid into that crap, I will take it out on someone. I’ll put my life on the line to demonstrate my anger. That is immoral!
You’re correct, welfare is immoral.
But I posit it would be even more immoral to put future generations in deeper debt than they already will find themselves just so we can make welfare payments to households with the most wealth, and incomes above the median.
That’s immoral on top of irrational.
Social Security can remain what it always should have been considered - a safety net.
I guarantee you not one retired household earning above the median income would trade it for subsisting on social security. There will remain the incentive to save and invest, but Americans shouldn’t incur trillions and trillions in new debt just to make government payments to people who have no need for them.
You’ll drown the rest of society (and presumably your progeny) in inflation. For what? To make sure you get away with FDR’s Ponzi too?
“Get away with”?
You are really making me angry. I paid the maximum into that crap for over 25 years. That was my money! You’re fine with them robbing me it seems.
All I can tell you is someone is going to pay dearly if they screw me.
You are really making me angry. I paid the maximum into that crap for over 25 years. That was my money! You’re fine with them robbing me it seems.
It was your money. Then it became taxes. But not enough taxes, because you're leaving behind a 39 trillion (and growing) debt because not all of the government spending your generation enjoyed during your life was supported by taxes.
But that's not good enough for you. You want to bury the future in even more debt. I think that's immoral.
All I can tell you is someone is going to pay dearly if they screw me.
I'm really sorry FDR foisted this ponzi on our society, but running it a little longer for your benefit is still immoral and a harm to the nation as a whole. Welfare checks for people making above the median national income is unconscionable when the debt is 39 trillion and growing over 2 trillion dollars a year.
I’m Gen X
I need to elaborate…I’m Gen X and haven’t collected a dime of SS or other benefits, but I’ve paid a boatload of money that was confiscated from me. Now just as I am within about 10 years of getting some of my money back, you are fine with this criminal theft!
FU you lousy communist!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.