What further belies this former bozo of social security’s idiotic scare speech is this:
Financial analysis of the Covid 19 pandemic and the millions of deaths in the US prematurely ending Social Security fund payout to beneficiaries now dead— this revealed several billion dollars kept IN the socalled “trust fund” which extends the life of the fund for 3 or more decades even in the face of increasing payouts (soon to be reduced by removal of illegal aliens getting anything, AND the DOGE winnowing of completely disappeared money to people of ages not capable of being a) alive or b) existing in the first place (shadow, multigenerational payouts to persons unknown, etc.)
This puts a huge LIE on this bozo’s face beyond all else. Zoom- bang— gone!
However there still is this problem
Its set up like a Ponzi Scheme. In a Ponzi Scheme you need a constant influx of “new investors” to maintain the promised return to the old investors. Social Security was set up with certain demographic assumptions. The paying in ratios would remain high and the majority of beneficiaries would be dead by 65. Back in the FDR era when this was set up financial experts told FDR’s team of Ivy League genius lawyers that the assumptions over the long run wouldn’t hold. The FDR boys didn’t care the crash wouldn’t occur on their watch.
Consider in 1940 there were 159.4 covered workers paying in for every beneficiary receiving. In 2013 that ration has shrunk to 2.8 to one. Keep in mind these statistics are from SSA’s website. The link
https://www.ssa.gov/history/ratios.html
The other problem which is related to the assumption on age of mortality being 65. Modern medicine has greatly increased that! That stresses the system severely. It creates situations to where you can take out far more then you put in. Consider the case of Ida May Fuller. She worked under Social Security just shy of three years from the spring of 1937 to November 1939 and paid a total of $24.75 (equivalent to $510 in 2024) in Social Security taxes into the system. She lived a long life and collected a total of $22,888.92 (equivalent to $513,723 in 2024) in Social Security benefits. There have been hundreds if not thousands of Ida May Fullerss. See wiki link on here and you can find data on her from the SSA website, but it takes some digging.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ida_May_Fuller
The system did in a sense do its job. Prior to it being set up 75% of the elderly lived in poverty. That’s not the case now. but it was set up in such a ridiculous manner that we are all going to end up in poverty. SS needs to be redone and set up on a (the hard part!) sound financial basis and done. Set up in a way where no one currently receiving benefits sees any reduction in payments That’s the hard part but I bet it can be done! Of course, the Ratlanders will demagogue it to death!
Yes, Congress has helped drain and endanger it with its giveaways and borrowing from the revenue stream. however, the problem goes back to the beginning in its faulty assumptions about demographics and the means that it funded.
Currently it’s a timebomb with a slow burning fuse. One has some ability to slow the rate of burning but no ability to stop it.
Again, USSC decisions have confirmed several times it’s not your money it’s a tax! If you owned it, you could count it as an asset and leave it to your heirs. You can’t! People who keep saying it’s my money are just fooling themselves! It isn’t, it never was!
The numbers I saw was a three year extension (2035 to 2038) from a $205 billion net savings. From the early deaths less will be spent on direct benefits, but less tax will be paid and more survivor benefits will be paid to counter some of the savings.
The "I Owe Me" certificates in the trust fund have almost no effect on the real Social Security plan. By cashing them in, the SS gets to tap the general revenue and force bond market borrowing without needing Congressional approval. If the whole trust fund was never set up, SS would tap the general revenue and force bond market borrowing but need Congressional approval to do it. Economically and budget-wise there is no difference.