Here's When Social Security Runs Out of Money

According to the latest report from the Board of Trustees of Social Security, it will become insolvent in 2033. Without money in the trust fund to bolster tax receipts. The Social Security Administration will only be able to pay out 79 cents on the dollar in benefits.
Here are the details and how to plan.
Social Security Report: www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2024/tr20...
SSA Press Release: www.ssa.gov/news/press/releas...
Social Security Primer: crsreports.congress.gov/produ...
Open Social Security: opensocialsecurity.com/
New Retirement: go.robberger.com/new-retireme...
Timestamps
0:00 - SS press release
1:55 - The Report
4:45 - Could they take action
5:52 - What could they do to fix it
8:09 - Open Social Security
9:46 - New Retirement
12:33 - Financial Freedom
Join the Newsletter. It's Free:
robberger.com/newsletter/?utm...
Financial tools I use:
I track all of my investments, performance, fees, and asset allocation with Empower. It's Free:
robberger.com/empower
My retirement plan comes from New Retirement, the most robust retirement planner available at a reasonable cost:
robberger.com/new-retirement
I used Capitalize for my last 401(k) rollover. They did all of the work, and it's Free:
robberger.com/capitalize
My budgeting tool of choice is Tiller. It downloads all your banking data to Excel or Google Sheets:
robberger.com/tiller
We save and invest our credit card rewards. Here are some of my favorite credit cards:
www.allcards.com/best-credit-...
My Book (Retire Before Mom and Dad):
amzn.to/4d9qbhA
#retirement #socialsecurity #robberger
ABOUT ME
While still working as a trial attorney in the securities field, I started writing about personal finance and investing In 2007. In 2013 I started the Doughroller Money Podcast, which has been downloaded millions of times. Today I'm the Deputy Editor of Forbes Advisor, managing a growing team of editors and writers that produce content to help readers make the most of their money.
I'm also the author of Retire Before Mom and Dad--The Simple Numbers Behind a Lifetime of Financial Freedom (amzn.to/3by10EE)
LET'S CONNECT
KZbin: / @rob_berger
Facebook: / financialfreedomguy
Twitter: / robert_a_berger
DISCLAIMER: I am not a financial adviser. These videos are for educational purposes only. Investing of any kind involves risk. Your investment and other financial decisions are solely your responsibility. It is imperative that you conduct your own research and seek professional advice as necessary. I am merely sharing my opinions.
AFFILIATE DISCLOSURE: Some of the links on this channel are affiliate links, meaning at no cost to you I earn a commission if you click through and make a purchase and/or subscribe. However, I only recommend products or services that (1) I believe in and (2) would recommend to my own mom.

[@DPTrainor1]

Government Wasteful Spending is totally Out Of Control. God help us.

[@valleyofiron125]

can you give an example?

[@idiocracyishere4531]

@@valleyofiron125 see the budget they just passed. Duh!

[@quertamiller7241]

If they no SS run out stop take the money for employees

[@MrGoodaches]

Glad to see Rob investigate the new trust fund report. Last weekend I saw a couple news articles and a new-to-me KZbin channel that talked up the new 2035 estimate. It took me less than 20 minutes to locate and read the summary of the trustee report. They stated 2033 unchanged. I was looking forward to a trusted source such as Rob coming out with something on this recent misinformation.

[@janetrobinson8925]

Thank you for a great video.

[@Jamie-dz8dg]

LOL...same year I reach FRA I ran scenarios in New Retirement based on a 25% cut to benefits.

[@dmoon9037]

@Jamie, so you’re good, right? File at FRA just before the cut? 😂

[@Jamie-dz8dg]

@@dmoon9037 - if the cut does/did apply to me, bumped claim date out about 15 months. Keeps my success rate at 91% under pessimistic assumptions.

[@karens6053]

They need to re-elvaluate every single person on disability. I know many people who are not remotely disabled but receive it. Get these bums off it can keep it for the legit people that need it.

[@jaymetheaccountant]

Thanks for the info Rob. Definitely not a feel good message but nonetheless, we have to plan for the cut time to write to your senator.!

[@chrisbeaulieu8994]

Great video Rob ! Love the use of AI to break down a 277 page report into consumable portions

[@gregpulley421]

I'm turning 62 this month, if the report stays true, then waiting until I am 67 or 70 to get a higher benefit does not seem to make sense. Seems I should start sooner rather than later.

[@quertamiller7241]

Enjoy now before run out

[@ag4allgood]

Rob, I see this report on Social Security & the ONLY politicians talking about cutting are the Republicans. The President has already a fully funded Social Security plan for many many decades. It just raises the Taxes on the Corporations & people making $400,000 / year ( getting them to pay a Fair Share 15% ). To me & many others who worked all our lives to pay into SSA this plan makes more sense than ANY other plan I heard. Tax reform was talked about for years but NOTHING was ever done. I am retired & lucky enough to receive a small pension but Medicare & Social Security can be funded just by this small step. How about putting our elected Officials on Social Security & Medicare too ! Then they wouldn't be so quick to start talking about all those cuts they want to make !

[@sbkpilot1]

It's 79% payout only if cuts are made across the board. However, across the board cuts are virtually impossible since that would cause the lower end of the recipient spectrum that are literally living only on their SS checks to starve and become homeless. So if we adjust for that and assume that the lower end isn't going to see any cuts then the cuts in the middle and upper end have to mathematically be significantly more than 21% and the payout would probably be closer to 65%.

[@johnscott2746]

It would take Congressional action to do anything, even adjust the cuts. As it is now, cuts would be across the board. And why would they do the one thing and not put in a fix to the whole problem?

[@Omar-et7sb]

@@johnscott2746 Right. This guy doesn't understand why for all practical purposes the action to fix one thing would lead to the necessary conversation to fix it all. SS "running out" is sometimes a bit of a libertarian dystopian fantasy and one of the most misunderstood topics in personal finance. SOOOOOO much doom and gloom vs facts. I appreciate Rob taking the time to make the video - yet most of the takes missed the forest for the trees.

[@felixbarrerasdreamvacatravel]

Just remove the cap!

[@silentnot4812]

You would have to increase the benefits then.

[@IndexInvestingWithCole]

@@silentnot4812why?

[@mguti090]

​@IndexInvestingWithCole because the only way to justify the cap is because the benefits are also capped. At least morally. But hey, who cares about morals? Right?

[@bergman8520]

@@silentnot4812 No you wouldn't.

[@IndexInvestingWithCole]

@@mguti090 well then we’d have to do away with most of the government

[@prkeene]

Typo in the video description which incorrectly states the year of OASI insolvency is 2023 not 2033 as stated in the report and Rob clarifies at the 5:41 mark.

[@RodHardin]

Just another variable that shows how even great planners can not account for everything. Good to have a plan, better to have other options.

[@michaelg8947]

Agree with running models to bracket potential impacts of SS cuts. Seems the approach described herein for New Retirement will result in higher estimated taxes, since it represents the received current (original) SS received then reduced by an expense. Probably not critical considering the other variables / guesses in play, but an aspect to be considered.

[@JohnDoe-iv7yu]

Pay in 100%, get out 79%. Sounds like a bait and switch, uniquely American!

[@paulmiller5781]

Do honestly think a spineless politician would let the program deduct what is owned especially since the elderly are the ones who consistently turn out to vote ?

[@kevinkanter2537]

that has always been the conventional wisdom and I agree for those in the plan it would seem political suicide to "deduct what is owed" (i think you mean). However, but looking at some of the Project 2025 entitlements must be reigned in hair-on-fire / the caravans are invading fear overlays of this complex problem, as well as for example Johnson's 2016 bill-as-solution I can easily see the GOP lying through their teeth ---- gaslighting ---- vs every politician's go-to method of spining a half-truth and hidinng the reality behind some legislative palimpsest.

[@kevinkanter2537]

that has been the go-to argument by everyone since the last time this was attempted --- so i expect some horrific sausage-making and stuffing it into a can to kick further down the road... (had to assemble my metaphors) ---- i have seen Johnson's (R) 2016 bill and Sanders (D) 2021 bill --- lots of points of contention. with only a mild acknowledgement hat the lower-income end must be addressed while the upper end and ultimate solvency of the system has usually dissolved into chaos....

[@asandrik3124]

Well if their options are giving money to old folks or Raytheon/Boing who do you think comes out on top? 😮

[@kevinkanter2537]

@@asandrik3124 "their options" --- talk w/ your legislator - yeah, i don't have the $$$ to buy time with them either .... i'll try for immigration reform as well as social security ..... get a few $$

[@Zues64]

great video Rob, thanks again. I wonder if all that is required to fix SS is to adjust the indexing method back to price adjustment vs. wage adjustment? Given the NAWI index has increased more than the CPI-W for decades now, it would seem an easy fix to adjust the indexing of one's earnings to CPI-W or even CPI-U. Of course, after year of eligibility (62), SS recipients get a CPI-W-adjusted annual COLA. From age 60 backwards, earnings are adjusted by the NAWI. I'm suggesting we adjust these earnings using the annual COLA. Thoughts?

[@VietnamSteve]

Change eligibility criteria, Warren Buffet doesn’t need SS!

[@davef6918]

I may have missed it, but did the report assume no change to the eligibility age for Social Security benefits ?

[@Idaho-Idaho]

Thanks for the video. I received my first SS payment just 4 days ago. My retirement planning did not include SS so the funds are a nice addition to my retirement income. I can't control how the fund will pay out so I don't or will not rely on it for any needed income.

[@mc-kz8zn]

Is it out of line to state that any person in the US, under the age of 45, will not see one penny of social security in their "retirement"?

[@rosqeauxsretreat6829]

How would the benefit reduction scenario you outlined in New Retirement address taxes? Seems like you’d be overestimating taxes by leaving SS income unchanged and dealing with the cut as an expense

[@Jamie-dz8dg]

Better option is copy scenario and update assumptions so that those variables are considered

[@josephjuno9555]

If they Did do the Cuts, wud they still do COLA Increases based on new lowered numbers? Or just say SOL?

[@kw7292]

Does New Retirement assume any reductions in SS with its output?

[@MsTubbytube]

a little error in your summary below the video, you say "it will become insolvent in 2023".

[@waukee321]

So many Fed retirees, particularly in Congress, who were hired before 1984 are under the CSRS retirement system which does not pay social security and they did not have it deducted from their salaries. They did away with CSRS and replaced it with FERS, which does pay SS, mainly in order to get more Feds to contribute to SS. So now FERS recipients will take a hit on their SS, but no cuts to CSRS recipients? So the many Congressmen under CSRS won't be impacted by the SS situation so why should they care? Enough with CSRS recipients always being immune and getting all the breaks!

[@JJbike]

Thanks for all the wisdom as usual. very helpful YT channel. I dont believe congress will allow significant cuts to those already on SS because of the massive amount of low income elderly that have no income besides SS. Would cause massive hardships nationwide. But all this is good to know for future planning.

[@vlu3517]

I stumbled acoss your video and I think you make investing very simple. Could you suggest a 2 or 3 fund portfolio for a 70 yr old woman who has always been afraid to invest. I have money in savings, Cd,s, some at vanguard.

[@peterizzo6527]

VTI/VXUS/VUSB 50/25/25

[@howardfriedman7077]

VTI and BND. 60/40

[@randolphh8005]

The SS insolvency issue has occurred 2-3 times in the past. I believe in those cases CURRENT recipients never saw cuts. Future recipients saw increased taxes, changes in claiming ages, and some benefit cuts. Those tactics would again work in the current situation as far as I understand.

[@ag4allgood]

Cuts are not an option when I saw the President's plan to raise the Taxes on Corporations & those people making over $400,000 / year. A flat rate of 15 % for Corporations & those $400,000 / year would FULLY Fund Social Security & Medicare for many decades. The ONLY group I see that wants to cut Social Security & Medicare is Republicans. I vote with my wallet.

[@Omar-et7sb]

@@ag4allgood Bingo. And to be a little less partisan, I would add that there are combinations of both the dems plans and even some GOP "compromises" to still fund it fully. People are just crazy and vote against their best interests... It's amazing to see. I was at an event and Rick Scott was there, he came to say "hi" blah blah and I didn't disrespect him in front of others but I told him to his face in private: "Dude, you go in interviews and say LITERALLY the opposite of what your actual proposals say". (which is that he would increase working class taxes at the expense of sparing corporations and the rich AND cut coverage)

[@hanwagu9967]

social security has never been insolvent and is not insolvent or going bankrupt.

[@UdaySingh-jc5cu]

You definitely have my sub. This content is next level. For me Eledator was the turning point. Please keep doing what you do and keep being you, love it.

[@camaro6810]

if the elderly changed their name to Ukraine or Israel they would get all the money they wanted...we can fund/fight every war in every foreign land, but cant seem to fight poverty in our own country. I am a high income earner who maxes out SS every year, my benefit will be a penance for what I have/will pay in, I would be better off putting that $10,500 I will pay in this year in a CD, or money market, buying an insurance policy, an annuity or investing in the SP500 and my monthly benefit would be about 7x what they are projecting.

[@hanwagu9967]

You and others whining about Ukraine and Israel aid don't understand how that aid works. Almost all that money is spent on US companies providing US products and services. Limited amounts of that aid can be spent on foreign companies, which are able to provide a product that US companies cannot provide or cannot provide cost effectively or on time. What does that mean? Out of the $175b in Ukraine aid, $107b is being recycled into the US economy paying US workers, who are then subject to OASDI payroll tax. The other $75b pay for US activities, which again pays for US salaries that are subject to OASDI payroll tax.

[@donnawilliams4210]

Paid into it and might not get what I put in? Bunch of BS

[@asandrik3124]

This is nothing new and in all of my calculations, including new retirement and my spreadsheets I have only put in 75% of my full retirement benefit for my spouse and myself.

[@Markazoid6041]

Above you have it running out in 2023 not 2033

[@70qq]

🤘

[@asandrik3124]

Why don’t you just reduce the amount at FRA in new retirement for Social Security by 25% and let it do the calculations? What am I missing?

[@michaelg8947]

Reduction could apply 8 to 10 years hence, and if your retirement (benefit start) is after that date, your approach is valid, else need some way to model the (potential) reduction in benefits.

[@tVideoUTube]

Came here to mention that.... And then the taxes would be more accurate as well.

[@asandrik3124]

@@michaelg8947 yeah but if you’re looking at it from a worst case scenario it would definitely error on the side of caution and if it doesn’t happen until 2035 well BONUS!!!! 😂 I just assume 75% for both my wife and myself even though I will take it in 6 years.

[@johnbankston72]

If FRA is “full retirement age”, don’t you mean reduce the benefit “amount”, not “age”?

[@asandrik3124]

@@johnbankston72 you are correct I meant the amount at FRA but didn’t directly say it. I can see where I should have been more specific. Good call I corrected it.

[@joelcorley3478]

I wouldn't be surprised if Congress waits until the OASI trust fund is about to be exhausted before trying to scramble and fix the issue. I also wouldn't be surprised if Congress fails to reach a compromise before the deadline. But I also wouldn't be surprised if Congress's eventual fix ultimately retroactively pays retirees any missed payments. While I think the "fix" they come up with might result in lower benefits, I think younger participants will bear the brunt of this change. Existing retirees or people already in their 60s probably won't lose more than say 5% of their benefit payments. I imagine the rest will be some compromise of increased taxation in some form and a gradual reduction in benefits or increase in the FRA for younger retirees. Unfortunately it's rather difficult to model this kind of uncertainty in any of these retirement tools. There's just not enough data to hazard a good guess what the idiots in Congress might eventually do. But it does seem obvious that if you will be eligible to draw on OASI before 2033, you should probably claim early ... if you think there will be any significant, permanent cut in your benefits. But like I said, I think Congress will probably not cut benefits significantly for people in that window and even if they fail to get legislation enacted in time, they will probably make the fix retroactive in some way such that existing retirees will not be out a significant amount in benefits.

[@BadPhD777]

Plan for the worst, hope for the best 🙂

[@dakkon74]

Yes. I do not even account for Soc Sec in my retirement planning. If I get any, it will be a huge help though.

[@DirtyHippie63]

Thanks for this video's focus on how we Boomers can think about planning for SSI as part of our future income streams. Like about 1/2 of Americans now, I chose to take SSI as soon as eligible. Since I have more than enough income to enjoy my retirement very comfortably - and since the next generation in my family will be paying into the SSI Fund I'm taking out of - I decided to collect as soon I was eligible as a way to "pay it forward". We Boomers have benefited greatly for the size and timing of our cohort. For me, it has come time to invest in the future for other people. It was really a small sacrifice for me and I know I won't even miss the added $s after I'm 80. Hell, I might even not reminder the difference by then! Imagine if instead of if 80% or more of Boomers did that? That's analysis I've never seen - because no one expects our generation to sacrifice anything, ever, for anyone. They've been calling us the "Me Generation" since the 60's - and we sure are living up to it. Just your the kids and grandkids.

[@dathat555]

If the law makers in Washington were also on SS, we would have seen steps to fix it taken long ago. As long as the politicians have their own cushy retirement system (that they can vote to increase at any time) they have little incentive to make the needed changes to fix SS for the rest of us.

[@TopShot501st]

The irony is they are

[@Unknown-jt1jo]

They are on SS (just like everyone else), but it's not a big part of their income.

[@nhgreg]

Why would congress fix Social Security it does not apply to them, they could care less.

[@howardfriedman7077]

greg: Yes, Congress has been on SS since 1984.

[@robertweisberg5570]

It will not be cut. Thats political suicide for all involved. They may push out when yu can collect by two years, there are many options. This has been stated before but there will be not cuts per se.

[@johnbankston72]

Raising the eligibility age is also a “cut”. Semantics.

[@DS-mz7dy]

The fairest way is to raise the income ceiling. I don't understand why there is an income ceiling to begin with, why should someone making a large amount of salary be paying a smaller percentage of their pay to SS than someone that makes less? Problem solved.

[@murraypassarieu9115]

Not quite. You’d also have to lift the cap on what they can collect. The reason there’s a cap on their tax is because there’s a cap on their benefit.

[@silentnot4812]

You receive more in benefits per your contribution at lower salaries too. Why should people who may be receiving higher salaries due to working longer hours be penalized?

[@stephenpalfy8226]

It’s called Social Security because it’s primarily for those with low income. Those that make more pay for those that make less. If you are a high earner, do you need the society to make you secure in retirement? It’s an investment in society not your personal investment account.

[@mguti090]

​@@stephenpalfy8226what??? Absolute communist crap is what you have just said. If I'm required to contribute as anyone else, I am entitled to benefit as anyone else. How much I make has zero to do with anything.

[@bergman8520]

@@murraypassarieu9115 No, you wouldn't have to raise the cap on what they can collect. I just googled how many millionaires in the U.S., roughly 22 million, not including 759 billionaires. Eliminate the collection cap. Tax capital gains tax for those whose primary income comes from such. This would more than solve our problems.

[@koufax174]

Already factored in to my calculations. This will happen. Contract with reality is the solution

[@hollyannbest2300]

They have been telling us social security is going to fail for my entire my lifetime. So stop scaring folks and vote blue.

[@johnbankston72]

Vote blue, as in vote woke? No thanks. 🟥🟥🟥

[@user-dd6pr8jo5h]

Why do they continue to collect from people who will not be able to receive the benefit later when they retire? We could use that money to instead invest in our own retirement....

[@Omar-et7sb]

Because that is not how SS works or what it's for. 1. History shows us MOST people would not invest and instead spend it. 2. SS payees (us working) are paying for those who already earned it. They worked for it, they paid the de facto tax, and we owe it to them because we live in a society where every once in a while we must be thinking of the collective well-being and not our own self interests 3. Because the shortfall is EASILY solvable. Rob only gave two examples on how it can easily be funded, but there are literally thousands permutations on ways to fix it. In fact, some fixes include no increase in taxes for middle-class and below. 4. We have been here before. In the 80's congress acted and basically funded it for the next 4 decades - it's just time for congress to get off their butts and do it again. 5. Because S is actually one of the best annuities in the world. Arguably THE best. Adjusted for inflation and basically anyone with a job can earn it. 6. Having an income floor for the poorest amongst us keeps us from becoming a banana republic. Literally every first world country has SOMETHING to protect the bottom or else a country can spiral down.

[@JohnDoe-iv7yu]

American math

[@user-sb2vv3wm8g]

Thank you for your research. I find your videos are well done. RIght now I'm keeping an eye on Eledator

[@fortyofforty5257]

Any time a politician proposes touching Social Security in any way, shape or form, he is savaged by his opponents and forced to back down. Howls of "He wants to cut your Social Security!" are enough to make every politician turn away from the plan, no matter how reasonable or necessary it might be. So, nothing is done, year after year after year, as we rush toward the cliff.

[@Unknown-jt1jo]

That's democracy for you. You give the people what they want.

[@howardfriedman7077]

They changed SS in 1984 and no politician paid any price for lower lifetime benefits.

[@fortyofforty5257]

@@howardfriedman7077 That was forty years ago. With a solid Republican majority in the Senate. And Reagan was a very effective communicator.

[@howardfriedman7077]

@@fortyofforty5257: Dems had a large majority in the House but, both parties supported the bill. My point was that no one paid a political price for raising the FRA or taxing benefits.

[@fortyofforty5257]

@@howardfriedman7077 If you hear how Biden demonizes Trump for making any proposal to change SS now, you'll see why people back off. The cliff is approaching fast. I don't see anyone really fixing things right now. People were more reasonable forty years ago, it seems.

[@jordanlover23]

Least intrusive option is to raise the income ceiling subject to SS withholdings. Because obviously government’s profligate spending everywhere else will not abate.

[@Alex-yz6cv]

Agreed. Why isn’t this option being discussed more?

[@cryengine_x]

SS is the profligate spending lol. well, it's one of the big 3 entitlements that dare not be touched, with medicare/medicaid and the pentagon the other 2. i forget whether medicare or ss is #1, but they are 1 and 2. this is why arguments about cutting the small portion of the budget that is discretionary spending are fuss about nothing. the budget problem lies in the big 3. and you can rest assured it will not be addressed.

[@mguti090]

​@@Alex-yz6cvbecause then you would have to also raise the benefits cap. Which puts us in the same spot.

[@jordanlover23]

@@mguti090 The raise doesn’t have to be proportional to the income limit increase. It could still result in a net gain. Also, I disagree in principle with the assumption in the first place: we all pay taxes for services which we will likely never avail ourselves of. But we do it (among other reasons) because it is part of the implicit social contract we’ve all agreed to. That is to say that if we as a society feel that social security is a worthwhile program/goal, there is absolutely nothing stopping the government from exacting, say, a .5% tax on incomes over $1M annually to fund SS. Those folks would of course receive some SS payment above the current maximum payout level, but not equal to (or even necessarily proportionate with) the amount they’ve contributed. And that would add up quickly. If someone earns $5M/yr for 20 years, that’s another $400K into SS. I’ve payed WAY more into disability and unemployment insurance in my life than I can ever receive, so I don’t really see a qualitative difference: it’s a social contract issue. Mustering the political will to do so and selling the idea is, of course, a different matter.

[@jordanlover23]

@@mguti090 The increase in benefits need not be proportional to the increase in the income cap - thus it could still result in a net benefit. Also, I disagree in principle with the assertion - we do not necessarily need to raise the benefit cap if we raise the income limit. If we as a society agree that Social Security is beneficial, it becomes part of the social contract. We all pay taxes for services and benefits which we will never avail ourselves of. I've paid more into unemployment/disability than I will ever receive; people who are unable to have children are still forced to pay taxes to fund the education system, though they themselves will never receive any benefit from it. And (part of) the reason we do this is because the social contract requires it - none of us can pick and choose which parts of it we will abide by. If they enacted, say, a .5% tax on income above $1M/yr, it would go a long way towards funding SS. For a single taxpayer earning $5M/yr over 25 years, it would result in $500K flowing into SS. These folks can receive an SS payment that is above the current benefits cap or perhaps they won't. But even if they do, it need not be proportionate to the amount they are contributing.

[@RichardTouchfaith]

Hard to be a very young person expected to pay into a system for decades that has also had issues for decades and hear that there is no plan of a ROI.

[@TopShot501st]

Thats cute, by 2055 it wont exist for me. Im counting on that.

[@kimappreciateslife]

Fearful title just to get our attention? Yes? It worked, 😂

[@NewGuy2024]

Question: back in the 1990's a family friend sponsor his elderly mom (age55+) to the US from another country. This person stayed with him and got monthly financial assistance from the government. This person NEVER worked in the US. From which bucket did these funds come from?

[@johnscott2746]

It’s hard to say without more information. There are reciprocity agreements with other countries that allow people to retire abroad and make use of the other countries retirement system. I’m not saying that’s what happened in this case. But I had a teacher who was fluent in German and he aged out of the school system in this country. He moved to Germany and worked for a number of years and drew his eventual retirement from Germany. Some countries have work requirements, such as Australia, where you have to work for 5 years contributing to the retirement program before you are eligible to draw from it. An American citizen can retire overseas and still draw Social Security from the US. There are a few countries where they won’t send the money to but most places it’s okay.

[@NewGuy2024]

@@johnscott2746 I am not naming this country, but I do believe this country is on the list where you CANNOT send Social Security to back in the 1990s (I read this before if I recall correctly). A quick Google seems you now can send Social Security there now in 2024.

[@JPinPortugal]

2023? Should be 2033 or 2034?

[@timstest1287]

To be clear, Social Security Income (SSI) payments are made from general tax revenues, not from the Social Security Trust Fund. It's part of the broader federal budget and not funded by Social Security payroll taxes. Therefore, if Congress does nothing, SSI payments will be the same. We will just run a larger deficit.

[@randolphh8005]

I think the other name used is Supplemental Security Income.

[@stephtraveler7378]

Something important to consider: They are NOT going to reduce the benefit of someone already receiving a benefit.... i.e. If you are already getting $2400/mo from SSA, they are not going to reduce your check to $1800/mo. That would cause a civil war. Thus, the cuts would be to future benefit recipients. Knowing that, there will be a flood of people starting their benefit earlier than anticipated. Even then, people are going to raise cane on that.... I think just raising the cap and increasing the withholding tax. Both of those will cause some noise but will keep the riots down...

[@ericfischer5605]

This is not true from what I’ve researched. The cuts will happen for everybody, including those already on SS, across the board. Those who depend on SS to just get by will have their benefit cut and be thrown into poverty. People on the lower end with narrow margins on their retirement income will not be able to adjust to a 21% cut.

[@kevinkanter2537]

@@ericfischer5605 yep - shows that so far the politicians are just stating their ideological maximal positions --- i've heard some citing the 2022 Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) which says that everyone (89%) are doing ok - -- no the survey has not been proactive in asking the question of 21% reduction of ss benefits. i agree that if the minimal basic needs income afforded by SS for the bottom 2 quintiles were reduced by 21% theere would be a reaction --- hopefully before it went through w/ a subsequent massive homelessness impact as well as a GDP hit since people use it for survival. --- on the opposite end of the income curve i've seen large % decreases of the AIME calculation for some increases of cap --- haven't seen any multiple-bendpoint / lo % benefit calc past 215K much less 400k or ?

[@kevinkanter2537]

@@ericfischer5605 yep - Johnson's 2016 bill had in it a payout formula and a phase-in period: The new formula would have been phased in from 2028 to 2037. they know their bills would impact their consituents ---- but not within their terms 🙂--- so accountability is NOT built in if something just gets passed through ...

[@randolphh8005]

@@ericfischer5605 only true if no changes are made. They will make changes!

[@hanwagu9967]

the Administration via Treasury Secrterary via SSA Board of Trustees likes to threaten exactly that: reduction in benefits.

[@barneyfyfe8313]

Congress will get full pension etc

[@barkingshark6413]

What about all the people that paid into the system that died prior to receiving benefits?

[@mguti090]

That was already accounted for from the design of the program. Actually that has been the main problem. These days people live longer but retire at the same age so they draw more money from the fund than the system was originally for.

[@tVideoUTube]

@@mguti090 Covid 2.0 (stronger and more deadly) perhaps would eliminate another tier of recipients. Don't say it could'nt happen. Hmmm...

[@peterwestre1010]

SS isn’t running out. It is a matter of ability to pay benefits promised. 80% of promised benefits isn’t insurmountable. Eliminate the earnings limit above 400k and the gap is closed.

[@A_T_O_M_I_C_Rooster]

Yeah, the video is not titled correctly.

[@efnuti]

Perfect… “From each according to his means, to each according to his needs”. Pure transfer of wealth. No thanks. The whole system is a Ponzi scheme where the victims (all of us) are forced to participate by the boot of government on our neck. When the system started, there were 159 workers paying in for every beneficiary. Read that again… 159 workers per beneficiary. Now, it is 2.07 workers per beneficiary! The original tax rate was 1% up to $3,000 (about $66,000 in today’s dollars). Read that again - the tax rate was 1%!!! And the public was assured it was never going to rise! Inevitably, a scheme like this will run out of money. So, they have raised the tax rates. They have made the benefit taxable. They have increased the FRA. All of these can not stop MATH! The Ponzi scheme is by axiom collapsing on itself.

[@mguti090]

Then we have to also eliminate the benefits limit. Right?

[@michaelg8947]

@@mguti090 I suspect you know, and meant to make a point, however, Benefits are currently not linearly proportional to contributions. Lower wage earners receive a higher return on contributions. That would continue, with an increasingly disparate return on contributions as earnings (hence contributions) increase.

[@hanwagu9967]

@@michaelg8947 sounds like you are both in agreement in terms of opposing point to the OP.

[@miken7629]

They need a new calculus formula that takes into account "Peak Death" of Boomers, early in 2024 Boomers reached "Peak 65", average lifespan in USA is 77 so "Peak Death" of Boomers is 2036. We are dying now, deaths will escalate in 2030's where over 60 million Boomer deaths will occur culminating in "Peak Death" in 2036 then the Boomer bell curve will be on the down slope. Boomers are 20% of population and will be dropping off Social Security benefits mostly in 2030's, Social Security formulas are not valid unless "Peak Death" is included.

[@hanwagu9967]

they need to do a lot of reformulating, since they only assume 829k net immigration, which we know is absurdly and laughably wrong. We also know that the bond rates have increased, but they only used a moderate interest rate increase. we have to be fair though because they also are using rosy economy numbers supporting the Administration's economic success nubers vice reality.

[@natelammers652]

What if they just keep bumping full retirement age up and up and up until it gets to the point enough people die before claiming benefits that eventually the fund starts to balance out?

[@augustwest9339]

Make the FRA at 65 yrs old. Eliminate the provisions of being able to take SS early (62-64) and delaying (66-70)

[@supermills03]

actuarily taking early or late doesn't really effect the fund, take early they give out fewer benefits, take late they don't have to pay out as many years.

[@hanwagu9967]

why? the reason they want you to delay is to pay out less.

[@uf1978]

Just accept that you might get screwed out of your owed ss and save save save!

[@supermills03]

let's just raise the tax by 4% starting 2035, I don't see what the issue is. if there's a Boomer bulge it's only a temporary strain anyway so it's not like in 20 years after that we would have to raise taxes again.

[@pauld9653]

Don't worry Be Happy.. ! Gov issues more debt, everybody gets paid ! Of course the affect of inflation is that a loaf of bread is $20

[@MC-gj8fg]

While the government printing money is inflationary, is it truly inflationary to print money solely for the purpose of keeping social security intact so the elderly can put food on the table?

[@randolphh8005]

From an economics standpoint yes. But, the government doesn’t print money to cover SS, although it does for most everything else.

[@howardfriedman7077]

MC: First, the government does not print money, the Fed does. Second, it is illegal for the government to contribute to SS.

[@hanwagu9967]

@@howardfriedman7077 Wrong, "printing" money is the sole function of the US Treasury. The Fed has nothing to do with it outside of buying up Tresuries so the US Treasury can print more money. What do you mean it is illegal for the government to contribute to ss? That makes no sense.

[@hanwagu9967]

@@randolphh8005 since oasdi tax revenue goes vanilla into the US treasury, the government does indeed print money to cover ss.

[@howardfriedman7077]

@@hanwagu9967 The treasury prints or, "mints" currency. There is a difference between currency and money. Minting currency does not increase the money supply. "Printing" or, "creating" money by the Fed, does increase the money supply and is done digitally. In order to buy securities, such as treasuries or MBSs, the Fed must first "print" money into existence. The Social Security Act, which is the legislation which brought about the Social Security Administration and the the retirement program, in 1935, very specifically states that the program is to be funded only through contributions from future beneficiaries. Those contributions take place through payroll taxes levied on employees and employers. It makes illegal for the government to fund the program through any other type of contribution.

[@clsanchez77]

83-cents on the dollar? That’s better than what my wife makes.

[@mguti090]

Ahhh yeah. The mythical wage gap. Right?

[@goldenwhang]

Let’s just get rid of social security in the traditional sense. It should only apply for people who have a disability not simply because you’re old. This should reduce the tax allowing people to save more. Additionally, this would give people earlier access to their money.

[@randolphh8005]

Not a solution, most people can’t save because they don’t make enough, and many others won’t save enough.

[@scott1441]

Put SS percentage takeout on recipients who don't need SS, change age benefits, and increase SS tax ceiling on individuals who make x amount of earned income. These are no brainer fixes, but the politicians will only act when a crisis reaches a boiling point

[@silentnot4812]

Punish those that saved? You will also need to increase benefits if you remove the cap.

[@mguti090]

Oh wow. Really? So communism and inmoraliy are no-brainer fixes now? Geez..

[@StevenChristenson]

@@silentnot4812 Why would you need to increase benefits if you remove the cap? You don't get extra services from the government because you pay more taxes. And yes, it is a "punishment" of those who saved sufficiently for their retirement. But in society there are always those who are legitimately unable to do so.

[@hanwagu9967]

you don't know how bend points work if this is your fix.

[@PacifierMusic]

Take it from the rich. Time for them to pay their fair share in taxes

[@StevenChristenson]

I agree with the sentiment. There should not be a scenario where a Jeff Bezos pays LESS in taxes than someone who earns 1/100th or 1/1000 of the amount Bezos makes. However it's worth noting that the tax brackets do require the rich to pay a lot more - the problem is that the wealthy contributed to the tax codes and have many more means at their disposal to avoid taxes. A FLAT tax rate with **no loopholes** would be the fairest of all possible situations, IMHO. If Mr. Bezos earns (by whatever means) 1000 times what I earn, his tax should be 1000 times what mine is. If Mr. Bezos and I both buy the same dinghy it shouldn't cost him 1000 times as much as it would cost me just because he is wealthy.

[@howardfriedman7077]

Pacifier: Is it fair if someone pays $50,000/year in SS taxes but gets the same benefit as someone paying $10,000/year in taxes?

[@hanwagu9967]

bend points ensures fair share.

[@hanwagu9967]

​@@StevenChristenson people conflate what a billionaire is worth on paper from what they earn.

[@howardfriedman7077]

@@hanwagu9967 Proposed legislation to remove all or part of the FICA cap, does not allow for any change to the benefits cap so, those "rich" people paying higher taxes, would not receive any additional benefit for their taxes paid above and beyond the taxes paid on their first $168,600. So, is that "fair?"

[@ChrisKAloha]

It’s already out of money

[@howardfriedman7077]

No, the trust fund holds almost $2.8 trillion. How else do you think that the SSA is still able to pay full benefits?

[@ChrisKAloha]

@@howardfriedman7077 it holds bonds and t bills which are a liability to the government. So not only is the future payments of the entitlements a liability so is the paper to pay them.

[@howardfriedman7077]

@@ChrisKAloha The liability belongs to the SSA, to pay the benefits however, they have that $2.8trillion to help fund the liability through 2035. The liability is on the government to pay back the SSA on the principal for their investments. They simply sell new debt ion the open market, in order to pay back the SSA.

[@ChrisKAloha]

@@howardfriedman7077It’s all government liabilities.

[@howardfriedman7077]

@@ChrisKAloha What are you saying is a government liability?

[@stephenblessed92]

Raise the tax, means test, raise the retirement age... Do it all and do it soon. Under no circumstances should current recipients benefits be cut. That would not fly.

[@carolinecollins2441]

Means test- so the people who have been responsible investing for retirement, living in a smaller house, forgoing expensive vacations, driving reasonable cars longer, preparing meals at home, should lose out on SS that they have paid into their entire careers? Seems like a great plan.

[@hanwagu9967]

or just max out bend points and cap benefit accordingly. cut recipient benefits that are getting more than they paid in.

[@valcaron]

It needs to be privatized.

[@nathannguyen2041]

Social security is such a grift. Having an incompetent government in charge of it makes it even worse for us.

[@DavidBrown295]

" runs out of money"... as long as there are workers earning paychecks this will never happen. Sorry, just don't like click bait hyperbole.

[@johnbankston72]

…and when you have more benefits paid out than what workers are paying in? You’re looking only at the income side.

[@abrahams.lincoln6749]

Grandpa Sniffy would rather send billions to foreign nations then help Americans. 🇺🇸

[@kevinkanter2537]

couldn't even pass a 22.5B / year border security/asylum law rewrite VS a 60B Ukraine aid , 8% of the $820B Defense budget -------- much less addressiong the $1500 B we spend for social security benefits. at some point there will be a lot of sausage making in the halls of congress - it will not be pretty because in all probability the sausage that is made will be stuffed into a can that will be kicked down the road, just like the 1985 SS bill did.

[@larrytruslow6304]

The new Biden-appointed Social Security Commissioner is the former liberal Governor of Maryland, Martin O'Malley...as Governor, he tried to tax "rainfall" in Maryland