pull down to refresh
10 sats \ 51 replies \ @Undisciplined 7 May \ parent \ on: US Treasury issues 125 billion dollars worth of new bonds this week econ
Not really, but sort of. There was some fake accounting that was called the social security trust fund, but it was never legally binding in any way and the program was never actually set up to be financially sustainable.
On occasion, politicians have publicly justified their reckless spending as borrowing from that fake trust fund, though.
It was sustainable as long as the population kept increasing... ironically illegal immigration is really great at helping social security stay afloat since those individuals can never draw down from it
reply
Just like how pyramid schemes are sustainable.
What I mean is analogous to how defined contribution retirement plans are sustainable, but defined benefit plans are not. There was never a social security trust fund that mechanically contained all of the money or assets that would eventually get paid out. It was always organized like an unfunded liability, even if there was occasionally money somewhere that someone claimed was for social security payments.
reply
I just dont understand why they would sell the concept and then ruin it for the people in need.
I just leaves a bad taste in your mouth.
reply
They didn't ruin anything. They still make all the payments.
All that's happened is that the accounting (which was always fake) looks different now.
reply
Right now they are able to.
Isnt it in a few years, next 10 years, when stuff will get difficult and they will only give 60% benefits or something?
reply
Kinda... what they are going to do is raise the age to start off with because that is they easiest. Humans live longer and with social security, the idea was people only lied 3-5 years on it and died... not 20+
reply
Do you think raising the age is easier than means testing? I would have assumed the opposite.
reply
what?
They were only supposed to live 3 to 5 years on it?
I thought it was a pension plan for the old.
reply
Eligibility was initially set at the same age as average life expectancy, so on average people weren't eligible for long before they died.
There's nothing in the law that currently allows that. As it stands, they will keep paying out the full benefits by running huge deficits.
There are some emerging political frictions along generational lines that make me wonder how long it will be before the Boomers get their entitlements cut, though.