Social Security Now Expects Shortfall Earlier, in Late 2032

Social Security Now Expects Shortfall Earlier, in Late 2032(wsj.com)

10 points by JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago | 10 comments

while_true_ 53 minutes ago |

Put a tax on AI for each human employee it displaces. Estimate the human labor equivalent of AI each year and levy a tax to replace Soc Sec and Medicare revenue no longer received. Benefits need to be funded for existing retirees and they need to be there for younger generations too.

CurtHagenlocher 2 hours ago |

GenX here, and yep: this is what we were promised.

sameAsItEvrwas 54 minutes ago | |

This is what you slept walked into

cyanydeez 24 minutes ago | |

yeah, except that promise is closer to Mafia talk than fiscal anything else. This is all about how Congress has spent it's time making policies that on paper make it look like it's losing money. The same way conservatives say "the post office doesn't make money" as if a service is suppose to turn a profit.

Take this UBer example of what we're talking about: https://consumerwatchdog.org/accountability/accountability-r...

Uber is _insuring itself_ not via the Market but through it's own susidiary. Then claims it's "losing money" anytime California does anything to rectify the abusive relationship it has with it's consituents.

That's SS. That's all. It's magic paper talking points and we can fully fund SS if we gave a damn about quality of life for all, rather than QOL for billionaires and minorities (obviously, you know which direction those two diverge and how the social safety net is the 1960's public pools).

exabrial 56 minutes ago |

Social Security such a Ponzi scheme. At least, proper reform should be elective. One can either pay in, or make it mandatory that part is invested privately.

I'll pay in probably something like $250k-$500k in, and I'll doubt I'll get even the principal amount out. If I were in charge of investing my own social security, I'd end up with millions.

rehevkor5 47 minutes ago | |

I don't think it would take many changes to fix it. Scott Galloway has some persuasive things to say about it.

Even though Republicans are always trying to kill it, it's still better than the alternative which is old people living in abject poverty. Also, public health matters like keeping people off the street shouldn't be a source of corporate profit.

WheelsAtLarge 2 hours ago |

BS, watch how they somehow get the funding. Old people vote and they will make their unhappiness known to every elected official even if the official can't do anything about it.

The coming generations are the ones that will feel the pain. It's likely that SS will switch to a partial stock market funding. Where some of the money the government deducts will be invested in the stock market.

sameAsItEvrwas 48 minutes ago | |

The coming generations have no skin in this game. As more Boomers die the youth will be forced to rewrite the rules.

Nice of the elders to wipe the slate clean on their way out dismantling what they benefited from.

Thomas Jefferson wrote that Constitutions must be rewritten every 19 years to be updated with modern thought. Or else the next generations are ruled by fiat decree.

So it's for the best. Would be preferred if such was done intentionally and not made a necessity due to malfeasance of the dying generation.

quickthrowman 2 hours ago | |

It could easily be funded by raising the payroll tax cap and leaving the benefits cap in place. High income earners would be subsidizing the program, sounds fair to me after society enabled them to become high income earners.

JumpCrisscross 1 hour ago | | |

> raising the payroll tax cap

I hope a capital-gains tax is considered as part of the mix.