This is true, but the real problems with Social Security began when Lyndon Johnson combined the Social Security fund, then entirely separate, with the rest of the federal budget. Instead of maintaining a very close eye on how much money was coming in and going out for Social Security, there was no longer any urgency to keep that money around. In other words, money taken out of paychecks for Social Security was spent on everything else, and Federal income taxes were paid out as Social Security.
But thanks for contributing.
Even now, the system faces not a crisis, but a need for adjustments. In the 2030s, incoming taxes are expected to be at approximately 75% of payouts. If no changes are made, once the trust fund is exhausted, people will continue receiving at least 75% of their entitlement indefinitely.
I have no opinion regarding the solvency of social security.
This is getting way off topic, but the lower and middle class portions of the Bush tax cuts, for example, contribute way more to the deficit than those for the upper class. And your claim doesn't really square with the trend of more % of all income taxes being paid by the top percentiles over time.
On the other hand, the government is not quite a 'corporation,' and isn't entirely subject to those kinds of notions, is it?
Didn't say it wasn't. Try not randomly reshuffling the words. You'll get a much clearer picture of what I actually said.
disclosure: non-American with no knowledge of your welfare scheme
On the other hand, that strategy is working fine for Twitter...
> disclosure: non-American
Which may explain why you're not familiar with the particulars of the meme I refer to, but does not excuse randomly shuffling my words.
> with no knowledge of your welfare scheme
Social Security is not a "welfare scheme", it is a government-administered pension program. Everyone who has paid into the system, from the very poor to Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, is entitled to benefits at retirement in proportion to their contributions.
The wage base will need to be adjusted to reflect these changes. The last time it was changed was 20 years ago under Reagan.
30 years ago, to the nearest decade. That was the change in Social Security policies that raised my retirement age and the tax rate that I pay into the system. My standard retirement age is just after Medicare "exhausts," that is runs out of accumulated funds to pay full benefits to people who have been paying into the system for their entire working lives.
The original New Deal guys had mechanisms in place to deal with those sorts of things. But in order to keep funding in place for the Vietnam War and other things, the Congress accelerated cost of living adjustments in the 60s and 70s -- basically using Social Security as a political tool.
Since adjustments were made long ago, many other tweaks have affected Social Security. Welfare reform pushed folks who were chronic public assistance recipients onto the SSDI rolls. The ceiling for payroll tax adjustments hasn't kept up with inflation. And of course, the Obama administration decided to cut the payroll tax in the short term to stimulate the economy.
You are thinking of life expectancy at birth, which averages in childhood death.
SS only pays people who worked for at least a few years, so life expectancy for people who reach age ~20 is much higher.
Somewhat similarly, welfare was aimed at a tiny fraction of "the deserving poor" but was poorly worded/thought out and thus inadvertently changed the social contract and thereby actively grew the number of poor moms. At the time it was created, having a kid out of wedlock was strongly taboo. Poor single moms were thus mostly widows. The authors apparently could not imagine it becoming more socially acceptable to have children out of wedlock.
I worked at bigco for five years. Similarly shortsighted wording for contracts and the like is pretty rampant from what I have seen.