Is the US running out of Social Security?
And how does it even work?
Subscribe to our channel and turn on notifications (🔔) so you don't miss any videos: goo.gl/0bsAjO
This video is presented by Metro by T-Mobile. Metro has no editorial influence on our videos, but their support makes videos like these possible.
There’s no denying that Americans rely heavily on Social Security benefits. Estimates from the Social Security Administration found that 97% of adults over the age of 60 are either collecting or will start collecting Social Security. As of February 2023, about one in every five residents in the US collected benefits from these funds. For such a widely used program, it’s a bit surprising that people in the US know so little about how it works. To be fair, most of the news around this program over the past decade has been about how it’s doomed in one way or another. Millennials and younger may see the money being taxed from their paychecks and believe they’ll probably never see it again, but is the program really destined to fail? And what do we stand to lose if it does? Check out the video above to get the most basic facts about Social Security in the United States and what to expect in the coming years.
Help keep Vox free for everybody: www.vox.com/give-now
From doing your taxes for free to filing your first return, Vox has you covered:
www.vox.com/even-better-guide...
Sources and further reading:
You can find more interesting history of Social Security and an FAQ sheet here:
www.ssa.gov/history
www.ssa.gov/history/briefhist...
For more on who collects (and who doesn’t):
www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/popul...
For more on how Social Security helps lift Americans out of poverty:
blog.ssa.gov/poverty-data-sho...
www.cbpp.org/research/social-...
For more on how Social Security is funded including data on the trust funds:
www.nasi.org/learn/social-sec...
www.ssa.gov/news/press/factsh...
www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4...
Don't worry, the system has it all covered. The sugar and fast food industry will make sure that US life expectancy in on the decline.
Lol, medical technology is also improving. Life expectancy has never been this high..
Nobody force you to eat fast food and sugar. People need to learn self-discipline and take responsibility for own decisions.
@@fubytv731 Actually, it's been in the decline in the US compared to other countries.
@@huckleberryfinn6578poverty does
fast food wouldn't be successful if people didn't go there. so the people are just as fault on that issue
As a 37 year old with 20 years of SS taxes behind me and another 20 years ahead of me... This video makes my skin crawl.
Agreed. Just turned 36 and I started when I was 15 even. Once again, we Millennials are funding and losing out to the Boomers. AGAIN.
It should be mildly reassuring to anyone worried about social security because the fixes are pretty simple. Some combination of tax increases and/or reduced benefits will keep social security intact indefinitely. The only problem is that we will need to reach the 11th hour before the government will be forced to enact either of these wildly unpopular fixes.
@@kyleolson9636ha no. See my post above. This has been solved for a bare minimum 20 years now Down Under.
@@kyleolson9636ha no. See my post in the reply to this main comment. We have solved this for a bare minimum at least 20 years now Down Under. Yet another video which an American 'problem' is highlighted yet I can't relate to as it's already been solved.
I have two retirement calculations. One which includes my projected social security income, and one that doesn't. I won't stop until I'm confident I can retire without Social Security. I consider the future Social Security to be in true jeopardy, because this country is literally packed with right wing nuts who I'm convinced would opt to be homeless in retirement and put the elderly out on the street rather than accept the fact that they're helping support someone with a disability. I've paid hundreds of thousands to the Social Security administration in my life. If that money comes back to me in any amount when I turn 62 I'll use it to buy property outside of the United States.
There's lots of other factors here: we're living longer, the younger generations are having less children, housing is less affordable, income is not increasing, the working class are unable to build wealth. Essentially, more people will need it and less will be paying for it.
We aren't living longer though... We've had a decreasing lifespan for about 10 years.
having "fewer" children
@@RextheRebel in the US maybe but almost everywhere else in the developed world
Also, the investment return rate is too low in SS trust fund. Across board, everyone loses money with their money invested in SS, compared to investing in s&p 500 by a lot. Unbelievable😂
living longer does not mean the quality of life at old age has improved. Living longer means you're going to be living with a broken body longer than the person before you. You're still going to get health issues before you hit 60, and it will reach its peak before you hit 70. You'll get hit with health issues earlier if your job is physically demanding, like the trades.
You sort of skipped over the part where presidents since 1983 have been using social security to fund government expenditures.
Yep, I said the same thing. Glad I am not the only one who knows about this.
That’s the trust fund
It doesn't impact the trust fund and is often cited as them having robbed social security and that is why it is going to be going under. That is completely false.
That's not really accurate, at least not in implications of what you're saying. Social Security is only allowed to invest its surplus in federal debt because there were concerns that if it was allowed to invest in anything, it would quickly become a monster on the stock exchange and cause problems. The US government issues bonds to cover the money that social security is giving it, and it then turns around and spends that money on other things. This isn't actually a problem unless you believe the US government will default on its debt, in which case social security is the least of your problems. It's dangerous to hear something you think other people don't know about and assume it is the whole picture and isn't information being told to you to manipulate you. It also isn't actually very hard to find out what the actual situation with social security's funding is as long as you don't take the first thing fox news tells you at face value.
We can't even pay our debts to others, what makes you think we can pay debts to ourselves? @@Sobepome
I know what Congress will do: whatever benefits the investor class the most and maximizes pain for the poor and middle class.
You can be poor and an investor.
raising the retirement age. Investors get more workers and rich people don't have to pay any more
It's fascinating that the system already taxes the middle and lower classes at a higher percentage than the upper class due to the cap at $186k. Sure, the ultrawealthy won't use this system for benefits, but why then should they get to reap even higher income? The reward for being rich is...getting to be even more rich
Amazing. I'm pretty sure the founders would have gone straight for taxing the rich and placing the greater burden on them. That was kind of the point of the whole revolution...
@@TomNook.Not an accredited investor
Lol why do poor Americans have to pay more percent than rich ones
Because what are they gonna do? No power, no leverage, easy to exploit.
@@francookie9353damn it's over for those poor people :(
The benefit when you retire is capped so they only tax paychecks up to what that capped benefit would be. Sounds unfair, but it's actually extremely fair.
@@duncanfriend3766 That's true, it's "fair". But it's not "economical". It's really weird that conservatives often discuss this and many other issues of how the rich are treated in terms of "fairness", but don't really care about "fairness" towards the poor. It's not exactly fair that the top 1% of earners in this country live to the age of 87 while the bottom 50% live to 74, but conservatives aren't exactly working to fix that (given that the biggest factor is access to health care). So most of us will pay into social security for our entire lives and draw from it for a very small portion, and those who need it the least will have it the longest.
@@mcryan3890 Well ... yeah. But it's always been like that. The poor get f.cked over, the end.
Relying solely on social security isn't advisable. I've learned that the most efficient path to wealth, both in acquiring a million and sustaining billionaire status, is through wise investment strategies.
Too bad my generation was still in middle school in 2010, when the most lucrative stocks in the history of the world were only $10 per share.
It's the most efficient path to _wealth_ but it's not a stable and risk-free form of _basic income_ and has a barrier of entry.
As an ex-US international student who had previously contributed, I hope the little effort helps 😅
Lol, thanks for your contribution! It does not go un-noticed by me.
Taxing productivity instead of wealth has been killing the economy for generations
"Wealth" is literally not real. There's a reason why we always have and will continue to tax tangible in-hand "productivity" as it is generated... and not "wealth"... which can literally disappear just as fast as Enron.
taxation is theft
No, that would be mass immigration.
Consumption based is such a simple solution to the tax system. Not only will it bring in more revenue at a lower tax rate, it is much simpler to administer and you would incentives savings. You can mitigate almost all the regressive aspects by exempting all "non-prepared" food (ie regular groceries, but include restaurants), diapers, baby formula, day care, public transportation and health care and tax everything else (both goods and services). Housing spend would be the biggest regression spot left, but also one of the biggest sources of revenue from the rich. You could mitigate most of the burden by improving the SNAP program with the additional revenue you take in form the consumption tax. You can apply this to businesses as well, with no exemptions
@@nathanr5825 “with no exemptions” - therein lies the problem. In any form of democracy, people or politicians will always find a way to carve out a nice little exception or three. Our current tax system used to be simpler too, and look at it now.
As a European, the sole fact of BEING American feels stressful and anxiety-inducing to me. Seems like if something bad happens to you, the only way is charity.
The European mind cannot comprehend self reliance and not depending on a massive government to take care of you.
gofundme is a defacto pillar of the american healthcare industry. let that sink in
@@bezretmet I had a friend who died when his gofundme failed. I didn't know he was doing it, a lot of his friends didn't realize he was in trouble? He needed around $1000 for a month of diabetes supplies. He was a type 1 diabetic. ...I still feel very sad about this.
I don't know. At least in the US they have 401k, IRA and other vehicles to save money for later. Doesn't exist in my country. Everything gets taxed multible times.
@@geyoda64what country are you in?
Rather than waiting for the government to figure this out, get an Individual Retirement Account (IRA) and begin to prepare for retirement now. Take charge of your own future. Even a moderately successful IRA should be able to cover whatever gap that a reduced Social Security program will provide. But waiting on the Federal Govt. to solve this is irresponsible.
I’m paying for something I’m never going to see or benefit from.
That's not entirely the take-away, though. As she said in the video, there are changes to the system that could be made, such as raising the salary cap or taxing investment income.
No, we are not all in this together; the wealthy legally exclude themselves from the FICA salaried worker pool via political manipulation. Therefore, they clearly do not contribute their necessary share of proportional earnings and monetary gains for the benefit of the general U.S. population. This abomination is grotesquely absurd in our democracy.
You're right. No one should be taxed for the benefit of someone else's retirement.
@gdradio5854, so you're againts health insurance as well?
@@gdradio5854 that's not what they said. They said it's an abomination that they don't pay taxes
So you think health insurance premium is the same as a tax? One is voluntary.@@meinelust
It isn't an abomination. I believe it is making a good case pointing out that taxation is theft. If you want to take form others because they have more than you then you are a thief.@@andrewhardwick4480
Missing from this video; for over 40 years, the older retirees continued to get cost of living increases, but the wages for the younger generations that paid those taxes stagnated. Almost everyone points the blame in the wrong direction; rich people not paying enough taxes, or the government raiding the coffers... while both of these combined represent only a fraction of a percentage. It is very simple. The older generations took far more from the system than they put into it. Generational theft from widespread (and socially accepted) greed.
Socially accepted and democratically voted on. Old people actually vote, no wonder they get the laws passed to their favor
I saw someone else commenting I must be a right wing nut for having this opinion. I just see the abolishment of SS as a moral obligation towards my childrens for them to prosper.
@@roninecostarno, not a right wing nut, just an acellerationist. Some of us want things that are unstable to fail quickly instead of dragging out. I assume you want it to fail quickly because we only fix things when broken and want it fixed before you or those you care about retire.
@@chaosburger307 if what you mean that you want the program fixed then your arguing for bigger govt and more power to the politicians because they created more problems than solving it. If you really don't trust those running the govt then you shouldn't be putting your faith in any of the pon-z scheme programs in the first place.
Hook line and sinker for being pitted against your fellow poors. Cost of living increases for benefits are necessary, and wages should have also increased with inflation and cost of living. Your fight is with the billionaire class, as it Always has been
One alarming bit of info I remember learning from a college law class, is that the SS that you contribute is actually going to the current/next generations of retirees it’s not saving for you. Yours comes from the next generation contributing.
Social security was initially meant to supplement pensions provided by the employer. A person was never supposed to be able to live off of ss
Social security for he public will run out, social security for the financial markets will never stop.
Social security will not run out of money. Some combination of increased taxes and/or reduced benefits will happen, but under its current form it will never run out of money.
@@kyleolson9636wrong again. SS is filled with IOUS that are subsidized temporarily with fed reserve debt monetization that you eventually have to pay back w interest through taxation. Why do you think the politicians pilfered it in the first place? Ask Bush.
@@kyleolson9636 I encourage everyone here to read up on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), specifically "The Deficit Myth" - written by Stephanie Kelton (which is available on Spotify, no this isn't an ad). There is no need to do ANY of the things mentioned in this video. Yes there is a shortage of cash to pay benefits, but all Congress has to do it COMMIT to paying the full balance even when there's no more money in the trust fund and not enough coming in through the payroll tax. Yes, just like in Medicare For All. But wait, won't that mean the Fed is printing more money than it gets back in taxes??? YES. Every time the US Deficit INCREASES, WE THE PEOPLE get a surplus of money in our pockets. AND, the Gov doesn't actually lose money, the Fed sells the exact amount it "loses" (i.e. the Fiscal Deficit) back to the private market in Bonds. (This is also where the interest rate is set to mitigate inflation etc.) The point is, Congress does play a role, and this is not a theory, but how our current government spending works. It's just that not enough people are economists and so congress(men/women) try to get elected by saying what the voters want to hear. Shocked that Vox is not up to date with their economics.
Because the private market is undoubtedly superior in every single way.
And those are the people who pay less than 1% of their income on SS. The answer to this "problem" is obvious. But the politicians are paid to make it seem complicated.
5:37 calling Jeff Bezos a high "earner" is hilarious
And he is patiently waiting for his retirement money...
Why Vox is deleting comments?
@@DjDiversantthey’re not you liar
@@DeesBees76 they deleted my comment about aid for Ukraine.
@@DjDiversantmight be u tuuube “sense or ship” 😅
Another thing to remember: When people receive these social security payments, they spend it on products/services they need. The spent money goes to a business, which employs people. Social security money flows back into the economy. Social security money is not wasted money.
I mean it is from the stand point that it flows back into a business and most of it will get stuck at the top.
Concerning rich people, as the video notes, rich people are mainly paid via stock options or by owning the company, not via a cash salary. This is how they pay so little tax, as a percentage of their total compensation, compared to everyone else. If we could change the tax laws to tax all employment compensation that same way, no matter the form of the compensation, then that would close many loopholes with the fairness of taxation. Whether there are enough rich people for that to make a big difference for social security funding is a good question.
Capital gains do get taxed, and the top earners in this country pay a huge proportion of federal revenue. And unfortunately the problem with trying to tax the richest even more is that they're really good at either avoiding taxes completely or lobbying to get exemptions aka "loopholes" made. That's why back when the top marginal rate was like 90% we actually had lower tax receipts than we do today. But I'm sure someone thought it was more fair.
I get RSUs as part of compensation. Whenever they vest, it gets added onto my income and my income gets taxed at the vesting amount at the end of the year. But I don’t even actually have that money because I never sold those stocks, but I still get taxed on the amount that it vests on. :( Now if the stock goes down the next year and I sell, I can’t even get a refund on the surplus I got taxed on the previous year, and additionally I’ll still get taxed on any capital gains on the stocks I sold. Idk what loopholes rich people use but doesn’t change the fact that this double tax (income tax + capital gains) hurts.
@@neycongjuico7395 That's a little bit disingenuous, RSUs at all the companies I've worked at have payroll withholdings that auto sells some percentage of the vested amount to cover income taxes. You can choose to pay the withholding in cash, but that's a choice. If you are in that situation I would encourage you to reach out to your HR department to up your withholding percentage so that you aren't left trying to cover the price difference out of pocket.
@@neycongjuico7395 Ask your employer/HR or whoever it is appropriate to ask if you can pay taxes on the amount at the point of vesting. I’d recommend, which im sure you already do/know, look for options to minimize your tax burden overall. Think 401k. May I ask why you sell your shares? I understand you said the stock drops but I really want to know why you would sell if a stock drops. Everybody’s goal/strategy is different and if yours is minimizing taxes then selling probably wouldn’t be a great option.
The biggest problem is that about half of all corporations use those loopholes to avoid paying hundreds of billions (probably in the trillion range) in taxes every year.
What a joy to live in a world that bleeds us dry and leaves us with nothing
*Country, No other country does this poorly
Why do you think each successive generation is less conservative than the previous (even as they grow older)? It's unlikely that someone will be conservative when there's nothing left to conserve. Note: That statement is a joke. Conservatives are not about conserving culture and values; only about conserving a monarchy structure, either through force or finance. That's literally what it is based on.
As if incessant whining will get you ahead in life.
*Country. Not "World".
@@schwarzwolfram7925 The ones conserving NATO and its wars aren't about a monarachy based structure.
I don't know why it's never brought up that we could just fund social security out of the general budget. That would result in either higher deficits or cuts to other areas. No one says that we're going to have to cut the military budget because the deficit is going up. The government can fund whatever it wants to fund. This attitude that just because a program is set up with a certain funding mechanism it has to stay that way is ridiculous. The congress makes laws, it can change the funding mechanism for social security.
That would be a bailout for Main Street and we all know that only Wall Street gets bailouts.
It just leads to more taxes or more instability in benefits. Congress might choose to reduce benefits in any given year.
Benefit for poor?! Not in my America
That is equivalent to raising taxes -- either explicitly doing so, or by accruing more debt that we then have to pay interest on (and pay a higher interest rate the higher the debt goes).
Especially as they've raided it periodically in the past. They should give back what they took, with interest.
The thought of retirement makes me cry. My apologies to everyone who have retired and filing social security during this time after putting in all those years of work just to lose everything to a problem you weren't to blame for.it's especially difficult for people who are retired.
True, It has never been easier to understand how to build your money after retirement than it is right now with the inflation, when you may study and experience a completely variegated market passively by employing a successful portfolio-advisor. The impacts of the U.S. dollar's gain or fall on investments, in my opinion, are complex.
I fully agree and place great value on my advisor's role in guiding my daily investments. They excel in both long and short strategies, managing risk for potential gains and protection against market downturns. Their access to exclusive insights and in-depth analysis makes exceeding expectations a regular outcome. In the two-plus years I've worked with my advisor, I've gained over 1.2million dollars.
@@noah-greeneMy partner’s been considering going the same route, could you share more info please on the advisor that guides you.
*Gertrude Margaret Quinto* maintains an online presence. Just make a simple search for her name online.
I just looked her up on the web and I would say she really has an impressive background in investing. I will write her an email shortly.
The government needs to be worried about our safety not our money…
With no more pensions and 401ks that require people to invest, it’s going to bad for a lot of people
Nobody’s fault but there own
I resisted investing for a long time because I thought of the stock market in general as immoral. But it is really the *only* way I'll be able to stay off the streets when I reach "retirement" age- assuming I don't lose it all in a stock market crash. I hold out some hope for AGI if this AI stuff makes its founders the richest people to ever live, but I feel like the US will be one of the *last* wealthy countries to implement it.
@@DavidGravesExistsweak
@@DavidGravesExistsThink of it this way. It's more immoral to stuff your money under your mattress rather than letting it circulate through investments. By investing, you are contributing to future productivity.
@@DavidGravesExistsImmoral why? It cheats on its wife? I swear, people love to assign morality to the most random and neutral things .
Our food has made us sicker, our healthcare is now more expensive, and the citizens have to pay the price
This is the cost of allowing the government to regulate/legislate everything, they destroy all they touch
Right. GMO. 미국의 유전자조작식품회사는 이미 악마를 넘어섰다.
Because they shoved bad food into your mouth and made you eat it. Then they locked you inside your home so you could not exercise.
It’s an omission to say that high income earners to pay more into the taxes as a solution. Capital gains have ZERO taxes for social security. It should be mentioned that capital gains should be subject to social security taxes as a solution
Right. The solution is to FURTHER EXPAND social security, not to phase it out over time. Imagine thinking that lol.
To be fair, I think the video did make that statement, in a less direct way. I.e. they explained that "high earners" earn most of their money through investments, then they say one option is to have high earners pay more into the system, and they provided two examples of this: one was to remove the cap on taxed earnings (which would address regular salary income), and the other was to apply the tax to other income, i.e. investment income, i.e. capital gains. They may not have used the actual phrase "capital gains", but it's definitely what they were talking about.
Billions of $$ is sent to other countries yearly, yet we are struggling to keep social security healthy.
There is social security in the US?
Exactly the first question that came to my mind 😂
Yes, there is.
Kinda, not really
Only if you are a billionares. Somehow those who are filthy rich can live way better then anyone else, and pay way less in proportion Like taxes
Nope. 😂
Then there are people with work visas paying into this who will definitely never see a cent.
Actually, most countries have reciprocal tax agreements with the US regarding SS. For example, if you worked in the UK for 10 years and then moved back to the US (it also works the other direction) you can claim the credits earned in the other country to complete your requirements and collect. You only collect in one country, of course, but you get to combine the credits from both.
And Americans working abroad that are victim to US' double-taxation policy (one of the only countries in the world that has such a thing), where we pay taxes in two countries at once... and often don't see tax returns for either of them.
@@DavidGravesExists Which is why many of us expat Americans give up our citizenship. It has nothing to do with our level of patriotism and everything to do with our level of taxation.
That's because it's a tax, not a retirement account. It's a welfare benefit. And I love it and I hope everyone benefits from it. But it's a tax that we pay to support a welfare program.
@@preferanonymousumm, no, it's not a tax or a welfare benefit. A benefit means you put nothing into it. A tax means you pay more for more than your share. It's a forced retirement savings account for people who WORK. You pay into it for your entire working life, the government gets the interest, and you draw it out when you get to retirement age. It's a safety net and not intended to be the end all, be all for your retirement. And it's there for very good reasons.
If they removed the cap from social security, the fund would be good for the rest of our lifetimes.
Not necessarily. Higher payments into social security also means higher payouts. The cap was put in place to stop the SSA from paying out large sums to the wealthy
@@wiseguy3696 They are probably talking about raising the cap without raising payouts, It would make the system more progressive and many of the upper middle class would move against it.
@@General8675 That would mean a complete redesigning of social security. All of the formulas would have to be changed. Even if they did raise the cap, most of the wealthiest people are already retired, which means they are paying no payroll tax, making the cap increase useless.
@@wiseguy3696 I think that is all on the table here, we designed this system for when there were a higher proportion of younger workers in the system. Also, there are plenty of people pulling high wages who are well off and can be taxed beyond the cap. I don't know the math of it though. fundementally, the math of SS doesn't reflect our demographics and while the math of SS is changable, demographics isn't.
@@General8675 Only 141 million people work as salary or wage workers. The wealthiest 9% would be paying more, meaning at most we could make up between $13-$50 billion of a $280 billion budget shortfall.
Social Security's asset pool is only made of US treasuries. If it was run like a Sovereign wealth fund (or at least like Alaska's Permanent Fund) we would never have an SS issue. the reason being is the rate of inflation and treasuries are tied, so if the fund returns above treasuries/inflation/benefit increases based on inflation, the fund won't run out of money.
Alaska's Permanent Fund Dividend doesn't do well unless the oil prices stay high. When they are low, it doesn't do as well. However, I like the way the Permanent Fund is managed.
Social security is not an investment fund, but an intergenerational transfer system. All of the SS taxes are currently being paid out to 50 million recipients. The Trust fund is just the extra we paid in over several decades and represents about $ 50k per retiree (or about two years of current payout).
@@tradeprosper5002 But it has to operate as a fund. Ever-increasing costs tied to population growth and inflation make it very difficult to have a positive surplus in the long run. Sure, short-term surpluses occur due to a large young workforce, but the moment you have a pause of that, it breaks or runs a loss. There are other investment models that run how SS should. One example is pension plans being the closest to it, but I think endowments are also another example of how the fund could operate to generate better returns for the investment people put into it. If it was simply a generational wealth transfer tool, there wouldn't be inflation-tied payments, no pay in, receive out calculations. it would be a straight line. the old population needs X billion this year. Therefore, all working class will be taxed, X so that there is no (major) surplus or deficit, just a tax like SUTA that can operate at a loss or surplus but then course corrects it by either charging a higher rate or lower rate respectively.
Get rid of the income cap to start. I figure compensation for doctors and midlevel providers for a regional health system…some of these doctors made $160,000 in the first month of this year. The were capped as of Jan. That’s not right. There is no reason this tax should end when someone reaches that cap.
It's capped because the benefit in retirement is capped. took me a little to figure this out. But is it fair for wealthy people to pay more into it when they won't get more out of it?
Well, the income cap exists because there is a cap on benefits. The decision to confiscate 6.2% from high earners will not be so obvious in light of their 37% federal and double digit state tax in NY and CA. Also, their employers would be hit with another 6.2%.
my father is a doctor (head of department in fact). he (or ANY of his colleagues) makes no where near the figure you mentioned. stop spreading lies.
@@duncanfriend3766 Yes. Look, the wealthy GET wealthy _because the entire economic system ( including Social Security) enables it._ It's not just hard work. Low-income people work hard too. ...And less-affluent people fill the pockets of the more affluent. The system has given them a lot. They can pay more.
Why can’t the government just raise the budget like it does with the debt limit every year?
It seems a bit weird some politicians are advocating for tax cuts and some other forms of increased spending when this is around the corner doesn't it?
It's easier to understand once you accept one party is full of traitors who are comfortable with weakening the country for their russian masters.
Why? Social Security is supposed to be fully funded by the 6.2% payroll tax. The are supposed to be mutually exclusive.
Love hearing the royalty free theme from the Two Cents PBS show - start saving for retirement hahaha
Tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax the rich. Reducing benefits or increasing retirement age shouldn't even be thought of on the same playing field as taxing the rich.
Germany has been subsidizing its retirement fund for decades. Who will benefit and who will lose from a change in the system is a political question - not an economic one. There is enough money. The question is who will get it
Germany is run by Social Market Economy (Soziale Marktwirtschaft), which is superior to the American cut throat capitalism.
Define "There is enough money." If Germany is subsidizing the retirement fund then that means another program is not taking place.
@@reecedrystek2992 That actually isn't true. A country's budget doesn't work like your own. Whether or not a program can be financed is a political question. The budget is decided by politicians, not some bank telling the government how much they are able to pay.
@@Parazetaand that right there is why your money keeps becoming less and less valuable because you actually think that the politicians can just throw more imaginary money at a problem without driving up inflation and devaluing the currency.
@@Gripmagic That is true, if an economy is already at maximum capacity. As long as there is workforce, space and resources to be turned into products or services, those people would be happy to work for current prices. In short: More money equals higher prices is too simplified. Distribution of wealth is a way more important factor
It’s not a ponzi scheme! We just need more new money coming in to pay the people who have paid in already!
hahaha
Exactly. It's not illegal when the government says so and forces everyone to pay for something that often gives a negative return. FML!
It IS a ponzi scheme. But it's a LEGAL ponzi scheme.
On top of that the clowns want to tax young people who won’t see it even more
If you start thinking about it accurately, it's much less nefarious. Current workers funding current retirees. We transfer money from people that make income to people that don't make income. It's just a welfare program with a backup fund, not some sort of investment scheme. The idea that "you'll get your money back in retirement" is basically a lie designed to trick welfare-phobic Americans into supporting a good program.
Only elect to the congress and senate those whom will support social security and fully fund it consistently. This will ensure that everyone will have this when they retire.
I mean, an obvious way that's not mentioned is to use other tax sources to fund this program. Why is this even designed to be a separate tax item to begin with? can't it be better allocated with the IRS and state tax we pay already, why does it have to be separate.
I think if there was a referendum on it, raising the cap would pass this year, overwhelmingly
Right? How is that even a Debate vs lowering benefits or increasing retirement age 🤦♀If I had more of a hope of SS being at least what it is today in my old age, maybe suxcide wouldn't be my retirement plan
I think both should happen: raise ss retirement age and increase ss payroll taxes.@@nari5161
I thought the cap was the maximum amount paid, which would make sense, but it seemed to be the maximum salary to be taxed…
But it wouldn't fix the problem. You need to pay more, not steal even more from the people already funding your benefits.
@@nari5161 So i need to pay more into it, but i am not getting any more out of it. I am being punished because of the mismanagement of politicians.
SSI is easily fixable. Remove the limit on top earners in this country. You’re welcome for solving the problem.
Force the rich to join our ponzi scheme
Then you need to remove the cap on benefits so it will be back to square one. You are not welcome
@@xcqematic1 Why do you need to remove the cap? That's not a social democracy, that's pure capitalism and everyone for themselves again
@@silcodon look up why and how we got people to agree on SS. It was not another tax grab scheme. It was for retirement. What you are suggesting is tax increase, which is already unfair because the top 1% pays over 60% of all income tax while the bottom half pays 0%.
@@xcqematic1 Yeah that's a social democracy, not unfair, everyone in the world does that. And everything is a tax with intended use for the general population, it's a tax to pay for retirements, you just don't want to call it that.
As someone with poor genetics, knowing I won't live much beyond 70 and even if I do it will be very poor quality of life...the entire social security system enrages me. I will NEVER get even half as much out as I pay in.
Correction: @1:40, not all US workers pay into SS (OASDI), some teachers with a pension do not (in Georgie for instance it's a county by county decision; in neighboring Florida though they do pay into SS; for those that don't the pension contribution is usually higher, say 10% compared to Florida's 3%).
Oh those 5 option circles I can almost guarantee which one(s) congress will do.
Indeed, rich people can lobby, poor ones can't.
@@laiswith2dotshell half of congress are millionaires themselves because they don’t get caught on the insider trading they do. They aren’t going to rig the game to hurt themselves. The fact that congress is the #2 wall street earners behind…actual wall street people should have been a 🚩. But instead we just know this fact and nothing is done.
Yea, I think we can all agree that whatever happens nobody is going to pay more tax. Since the rich don't care that they get less social security at the end, we know that it will be cut to make up for the shortfall. Or plan b) they will not do anything, they just borrow the money and increase the government deficit instead as long as that party lasts.
Taxing the rich even more won't solve the problem, at least not in the long run. What they need to do is just bite the bullet and increase ss payroll taxes... you know... kind of like how it was originally intended.@@laiswith2dots
It happened once already in 1983. Democrats and Republicans came together to pass legislation that kept SS going until 2033. It can be done.
If wages increased, then the amount going into SS would increase too, right? Maybe minimum wage and wages in general should be part of this conversation
Those wages also increase the benefits people get in the future. I'm not sure if the ratios work for it being a net positive to SS.
Part of the problem is that the population that is working as opposed to the number of those reaching retirement age has decreased over time. There are soon to be fewer people paying into Social Security than are drawing benefits. Short of getting more people working and paying into SS, there are only so many options available to shore it up. Raising the retirement age and raising the income payroll tax are two no-brainers. However, neither will be popular. They were not back in 1983, but Dems and Repubs did it together and saved SS to 2033.
Increasing minimum wage causes inflation which is one of the current issues we are currently facing. Since employers have to pay their workers more, they will raise the price of their goods. This devalues the currency and whatever amount people have saved before is worth less. Increasing wages is a very "not good" solution to the issue.
@@dilthiumfulinflation is an acceptable risk.
When anyone tells you that you pay 6.2% of the tax, and "your employer" pays 6.2% of the tax, you should recognize that this is just the government's attempt to hide from citizens how much we pay in taxes. If the "employer" side of the tax wasn't there, all of our salaries would be higher. The reality is that we pay 12.4% of our total Wages for these benefits. If you don't believe me, ask anyone that does budgeting for businesses, these taxes all get lumped into what the business can afford to pay employees for their labor.
The number of old people collecting social security is increasing exponentially and they are also living longer while the number of working age per retiree is decreasing. Today 12% of people living in the US are 70 or older. In 10 years it will be 16% that's 20 million more people aged 70 or over coming in just the next decade.
It's baffling to me that the investment class get away with contributing so little to general society.
Lobbying, pay offs to politicians, off shore tax shelters, global citizenship, etc. They can simply move their businesses abroad, change residence, and citizenship - then bye bye to their taxes and jobs altogether. The richest 1% do not have loyalties to a nation or state because they are as powerful as nations or states.
Contributing so little? There are literally the reason you have everything in your life that you do right now.
You're making a common mistake. The top 10% earners pay like 80% of of income tax revenue. And income tax is only like half the federal revenue.
What are you talking about? Have you ever needed a loan for anything? Do you think everything would be better if people couldn't invest in companies they thought might do well?
Careful there calling it an "investment class". Unlike most other elements of class divide you can literally participate in the exact same way that billionaires do, even if you're poor. And now you can do it with a smartphone. I made thousands in the pandemic in my bedroom. You can too. The fact there there's no gatekeeping is a major thorn in your argument. When richer people invest, they make more profit because of scale. Poor people can make a much higher percentage of profit than billionaires depending on how they invest, but it's a lot less in returns since their portfolio is significantly smaller. Time for you to actually put effort into understanding things you are critical of.
Stuff like this is exactly why I’m trying to get out of here as soon as possible. The fact that they said everyone is in this together but yet nobody wants to come together is the biggest irony in life.
Alot of people dont like social programs. The more responsible you are the less you tend to want someone else telling you how to handle your safety net.
And where would you go?
@@Wary_Of_Extremes I would like to know too. The US is not perfect but is the best we got. NO other country do the people have the rights that we have. Like freedom of speech. Or that though our healthcare cost a bit more the quality is higher along with every other country benefiting form the scientific research from here
I am a naturalized citizen so I can bounce
Good luck. You'll need it. 40 years from now, you'll realize what you ran away from.
Nobodies talking about the government giving tax deductions in return for opting not to receive a social security check. Since so much of our tax money already goes to waste.. I see this as a win win.
Just raise the 6.2 % tax , raise income you pay S.S. taxes . Has to happen
This is something that nags at me as a disabled adult on the survivor's benefits and SSI. It's already so little money.
Look I feel for you but why is it everyone else's job to support you? Did your caretaker have life insurance? Did you save funds? Do you have a part-time job? A disability doesn't mean you can't work.
@@reecedrystek2992Lack of basic solidarity showing.
@@reecedrystek2992but a lot of disabilities do mean you cant work? What if you live longer than you thought, and your retirement fund runs out. Should everyone make sure they have enough money to retire until 120? Is it ok that millions of elderly, disabled, and children starve on the streets? Seems like regression more than progression, sounds more like a devolving race than an evolving one. Ive worked with the elderly and so many suffer even on social security, I have no idea what theyd do without it.
@@userblame632 "What if you live longer than you thought, and your retirement fund runs out. Should everyone make sure they have enough money to retire until 120? Is it ok that millions of elderly, disabled, and children starve on the streets?" Welcome to problems that everyone faces, what makes you or anyone uniquely special? Everyone has challenges some certainly harder than others but if you view the world through a lense of evening out cosmic justice then you are simply not ever going to win or be satisfied. "But a lot of disabilities do mean you cant work?" Really? Name one? Short of having no arms, legs or a brain there is something that you can be doing. I inherently believe people have value and something to contribute to society, unlike you who apparently believes the littlest adversity and they are destined to live the life of a vegetable.
This is why immigration is so important to countries that use this system
For folks who said SS will run out, I wonder if they actually watched the video. She made it clear that only the surplus will run out, which is not a big deal. It’s the money that your parents and grandparents already paid, so it’s their time to collect it. One thing about this video that’s not correct is SS is not the only fund you rely on for your retirement. There’s also 401k and cash savings.
Social security is just a tax that you have zero right to. (Flemming v Nestor.)
Vox: Social security in the US, Americans: **scratch their heads**
there are social security in the US where the people pay more than socialist and get less than when it's a capitalist. as they say, socialise the loss, capitalise the profit
presented by Tmobile lol
I think the conclusion should be in the title / headline, since many will see it who won't click and learn the truth. What most people don't realize is that benefits and funding are according to statute, which can be changed at any time. That means that funding can be increased as necessary, simply by passing legislation. If you use up your food budget and run out of food, it doesn't prevent the use of other available funds to buy food. The real risk to your SS benefits is Republicans in congress, who want to eliminate funding and benefits, rather than "save" Social Security. It isn't dying, it doesn't need "saving," it only needs funding.
The TLDR, if you want to retire, have kids.
thats not really worth it. It cost more to raise them then you get out of it.
@@DevilsRadvocate Not really. Life expectancy is way longer than retirement age in most developed countries. Spending 20 years relying on your kids looking after you feels fair after you spent 20 years bringing them up.
@@Bobbydylandor maybe start contributing to retirement accounts every paycheck and don’t burden ur kids with ur mistakes
@@ThePeanut12300 Lol. You think savings and pension plans will survive demographic collapse? When the population pyramid is inverted and there ware waaaay more people consuming than their are producing , what do you think will happen to the value of your savings? We saw supply side shortages in 2020, look at the inflation it caused. Think that but everywhere all the time.
@@Bobbydyland You are suppose to invest in assets to hedge inflation also there’s a thing called AI, robots and automation that will be able to handle that but go ahead and don’t responsibly invest and plan for the future since doomsday is always around the corner
You've missed the biggest solution, that Australia implemented a mandatory 401k called superannuation that was taxed at a lower rate and had to be contributed to by the employer and the employee.
Like a pension?
@@tonylarose4842not like a pension. Each person has an investment account that grows through mandated spending. When they need to draw down on it, the government does not pay any money.
a 401k is also subject to market prices meaning it could make money, or Lose money. With the current global economy that could be a big risk, depending how aggressive your 401k is managed.
We could also intentionally lower life expectancy! If you're alive less time after you retire, less benefits will be wasted!
It turns out Republicans have us all covered. Just gut any healthcare reform that would massively improve the health of Americans! They really know how to run the economy.
I think Americans are already lowering their life expectancy by being obese. It just increases other costs.
They're already doing that. -_-
Vacine
We cannot raise the amount of the tax. Low and middle-earners already have too much burden. The wealthy need to support the country that allowed them to accrue their obscene wealth or reap the circumstances...
Who pays the majority of the income tax collected by the IRS each year?
Well considering we're giving most of it to people who just got here and paid absolutely nothing into the program.......
Need to raise the age. As a healthcare worker been in more then a decade. People are living longer. The only problem is those jobs with manual labor intensive can not work as long.
Social security is the fee the last generation paid so that the baby boomers could saddle this generation with debt we will never be able to pay off, let alone reap the reward from.
that is not how it works
😂 maybe you should learn what SSI is bc everything you wrote makes me think you're not American and/or you've never worked a day in your life
@@Sinaeb but it sounded good!
Where do you get debt from?
No! US system may be...I live in a country where everyone gets social security, even people who have never worked. Working people get pension(s) as well as social security.
You think that’s bad, have a look at what it’s like here in Japan
I actually dont know the details of the japanese one but i know that with the japanese populations lobsided aging metrics its gotten bad. Too bad the Diet refuses to listen to basically every economic group and just open up immigration which would solve most of japans issues in like a year.
How does that fix anything? In the US or in Japan?
@@martinc.720 Increases the working population that pays into the social security system. Important in the US, 5 times as important in japan which has a job surplus(more jobs than people to fill them)
@@BOYVIRGO666 Any system can recover in time, if people are accepting of needed changes. And some folks still won't change for nobody.
@@walteracevedo5105 Except in japan the government refuses change which is causing long term problems. Japans employment and immigration issues have been well documented since the late 90s.
Raise the retirement age, increase social security tax, tax wealthy, close tax loopholes, and add more people to the work force.
My parents had regular jobs and saved and barely spent. Started work in their late 30s because they’re immigrants. In their 70s they don’t want to retire but managed to amass $6M. So you can do it without social security.
tax the rich
Yes
The highest tax bracket in the USA is 37%. I'd say that is quite a lot of taxing.
37% isnt much especially if tax loopholes are being used...@@gdradio5854
@@gdradio5854 tax anyone making more than 10 dollar with 75% taxes.
@@gdradio5854not really considering it caps out. Also, the more you earn the more tax cuts you qualify for. Remember the tax bracket used to go up to 78% and those who were taxed still had millions to their name.
Higher life expectancy has been a major issue for social security systems all over the world: people live longer now so they collect more funds during their retirement. Add the economic gloom floating above our heads with fewer people with actual jobs so that they can provide for their families never mind fund other people's retirement and birth rates decreasing all around the world and it is not hard to see the likely outcome. Hint: it doesn't bode well for those of us looking forward to benefit from social security in the future. And before anyone says that they should privatize Social Security: Be careful with what you wish for. Pinochet essentially privatized Chile's equivalent of Social Security during his dictatorship and what is left of it today is a system that doesn't even provide the bare minimum that those retired people need to survive in their late years and the government had to dip into its pockets once again to complement their income.
Only if you think you are going to be able to retire and live comfortably off of just Social Security alone. Unless you plan on moving to Panama and living there, you will have a very difficult time here in the U.S. Keep in mind that Social Security was never meant to be your sole retirement strategy.
There is another option. $51 Trillion has been transferred to the wealthy since the Reagan tax cuts. We could eliminate the wage cap, then tax ALL individual income from all sources. This would actually mean a Social Security tax rate cut since more money would be taxed. This could give the lower income groups more breathing room without cutting Social Security benefits.
I made $168K last year. I'm literally paying the same amount into Social Security as millionaires.
But you will also receive the same payouts as millionaires...
@@B1uSku1 I don't believe I or anybody my age will see a dime of that money by the time we are able to claim it.
yeah I worry about my old age years. I have my own investments/savings/etc. but even then, I'm still worried.
I'm just worried our increasingly liberal government will decide that me having money saved for retirement while other people who didn't bother to save are broke isn't fair and pass some ridiculous tax policy to "redistribute" my retirement savings to the parasites...
I don’t have much of anything but I sense I won’t live very long anyway I’d be flabbergasted
You are ahead of the game. Stay worried as that means you won't ignore the world around you and will be prepared to take action to stave off any issues. Knowledge is power.
Raising the retirement age already happened here! It's 67 now. Check the facts, people: Full ss retirement age in the US for anyone born after 1960 is: 67 years of age.
"Raiding the Social Security Trust Fund" was a thing, esp in the Reagan years. That was the point the country became cynical. "The Rich Get Richer, The Poor Get Poorer."
Not working anymore is over rated. It's amazing for about 6 months, and then you get bored real quick and wanna go back to work. Also, i remember my dad talking about how social security was going to run out of money in about 5-10 years back in the 80's. They have perpetually always been about 5-10 years from running out of money, and they never do. I wouldn't worry about it. Politicians know if social security checks stopped being printed the voting public would revolt.
Option 6 reform America's immigration laws at new workers and increase the number of people paying into the social Security trust fund.
True. She didn't list _every_ option here. Another mentioned but not listed was "do nothing", which is actually the most likely outcome.
Our immigration system desperately needs reform for moral reasons, but doing it right would result in a boost to the economy.
good luck with that when the red half of the country wants to make AmeriKKKa white again
It might be even better to increase illegal immigrants who pay into the system but will find it difficult to ever draw benefits.
@@seneca983 It's true that they "pay into the system" by paying local taxes on the goods they buy, but they don't pay into social security. That comes out of paychecks.
In the Great Depression, we had thousands of families on the roads looking for day labor. We invented Social Security. I'd recommend reading all sorts of bizarre stuff about this ancient history, like Steinbeck's "Grapes of Wrath", or ... maybe you could ask a survivor. That's how ancient it ain't. Yes, you should pay attention.
Absolutely! How quickly people forget. SS is not a 'Benefit'. It is a contract that the earner pays into and receives an earned reward. Most importantly, it keeps people from re-living the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl horrors. As a retired US military member living in Europe, I am appalled that we, the largest economy in the history of the world, can't manage to have universal basic health care for our citizens. Much less a funded system that ensures our elders, those whom we are supposed to respect, have a quality of life in old age.
@@ailo4x4 Except that its not, its a ponzi scheme.
@@churblefurbles Of course it is if you care to look at it that way. Life itself is a ponzi scheme. We invest ourselves in our children because a., we love them, and b., they will take care of us when we get old. And with SS not only do our children take care of us, we invest in that care ourselves as we work. Why do we do it that way? Because not everybody has the luxury of having children capable of taking care of you. And as a society, we should be taking care of the vulnerable; the disabled, the elderly, and yes, even the poor as well. I guess it depends on what kind of person you are; generous and kind or selfish and miserly. It's up to you but I would seriously suggest you read your history and see why SS came to be. As for me, when given the choice, I choose to be kind even when it costs me.
@@churblefurbles Except that it's not a ponzi scheme, as there is no foundation member reaping massive benefits
@@churblefurbleswhat ponzi scheme have you heard of that ran for nearly 100 years?
The problem is that too many people who don't work want to abuse it. I think they need to break it up into separate entities.💯
Retirement is a separate fund than Disability
Woah woah woah. you listed two options but there’s three, and one of them is the correct option. 1. Increase taxes - no thanks 2. Lower benefits - absolutely not 3. Remove the cap. This should 100% be the option. If you make more money you still pay the appropriate % of tax. It’s absolutely messed up that up to $160k we all pay a % but after that it’s just…:free? Why is someone making 160k and someone making 500k and saying the same amount into the shared fund? That’s the entire solve.
If you remove the cap on contributions, then you also remove the cap on pay-outs. That is a zero sum solution...
Same issue with Japan, but Japan has an additional challenge of higher life expectancy
Actually, higher life expectancy has been a major issue for social security systems all over the world: people live longer now so they collect more funds during their retirement. Add the economic gloom floating above our heads with fewer people with actual jobs so that they can provide for their families never mind fund other people's retirement and birth rates decreasing all around the world and it is not hard to see the likely outcome. Hint: it doesn't bode well for those of us looking forward to benefit from social security in the future.
...America allows at least some immigration. Immigration is a net benefit to the U.S. Japan doesn't allow much immigration, AFAIK.
Does Japan have a comparable government program?
@@grmpEqweer exactly this, right winger hates that slavery is profitable.
That's why they're becoming lazy. They're supposed to work hard from morning to night, job is honorable for them. US is supposed to implement that too
Can I ever stop working? Nope.
I hope I can take off work early for my funeral?
@@samfeldman1508😂😂
I'm not american, so i don't know a thing about social security, but why did it really sounds like a ponzi? you need more people to support beneficiary, then those more people become beneficiary, so you need even more people to support?
SS was originally intended as a bank account for each person when they retire, but they spent it. Now they have to use current workers to pay for people on ss.
The first time I ever DIDN'T pay social security tax on a paycheck, I was furious. I only learned that the richer you are, the less you pay in at that moment. To be clear, I am outing myself as someone who makes over $170k a year and has for some time, but I should be paying more taxes. That's messed up.
Also capital gains should pay social security. If that makes selling homes less profitable, GOOD. Homes being profitable is in direct opposition to housing availability.
Thanks for your honesty. You might be positioned to give insight into a point posted elsewhere - If the 168,600 earnings cap were removed, would you stop working or work less in order to avoid more social security tax? That seems to be the argument in favor of reducing benefits instead.
You know you actually can pay more taxes if you want to right? Nothing’s stopping you from increasing your withholdings or cutting a check to the IRS.
No. Unless you want to totally remake Social Security and what it actually is, then no. Social Security is literally supposed to be a retirement fund that you pay into monthly over the course of your career/working years... it is NOT a tax or some other tax-like incentive. If you want SS to be solvent, then there is one very obvious way to make it so... increase the "funding" mechanism it was originally supposed to run on: payroll 'taxes' (or should we say contributions). This is not a taxing issue. If it is, then redefine WHAT SS actually is and remake it based on that... but don't go changing what the current Social Security system is or what it was originally intended to function as. @@Demmrir
@@ExpensiveSalary He's talking about SS tax, not general income tax. And I don't see anything wrong with wanting to fund your own SS more and, while still paying your fair taxes, not wanting to pay more for, oh, say, foreign wars and gov't mismanagement.
I just wish I could opt out of that 6.2% being pulled from every paycheck. Let me have that money to do with as I please right now understanding that since I am not "contributing to the system" I will not be able to collect from it when I retire. Simple math on contributing 5K per year every year and having it in the S&P would result in a range from 500K (at 6% return) and double that (1M) for the historic 10% return.
If only Social Security could invest in actual marketable securities instead of only being allowed to buy IOUs from the US Treasury.
@@JonMartinYXDsovereign wealth fund.
In Australia, we have what's called superannuation where you're employer pays into a seperate retirement fund on top of your wage. I'm sure it has its downfalls, but it's gotta be better than what's going on in America
@@spaghettiflakes2251 That's how American 401(k)s work. There was a proposal to replace social security entirely with that in the early 2000s rather than having two parallel programs/mechanisms - it went down in flames.
The argument is logical, but does not consider the wider human impact. Caring for the disadvantaged in our community is what makes us a developed country. All developed nations have some form of social security for a reason. The people it helps can still contribute to the economy, such as displaced children when they grow up. Unless you want more homeless people on the streets, Less desperate people means less crime
The system relies on constant population growth to sustain itself, and congress will never supplement it by going after the wealthy because they are owned by them. Cutting social services and tax cuts only affect one class of people, the ones that already don't need the help.
No, they did NOT invest it. If they HAD invested it, it would NOT be in the deficit that it is. Instead, Congress has spent every single penny that it brought in just as fast as it came in. Then they basically gave SSA IOUs for the money they spent--Just worthless paper like our dollars will be soon.
Those jobs that Boomers post-war had were more stable and less about a companies bottom line meaning the Boomers could retire and enjoy SS.
and that, dear friend, is because of unions and a 70% tax rate on wealth. You can thank Reagan and 'trickle down economics' for tax cuts on the wealthy, the demise of the middle class that could retire on job pensions AND the SS they paid into.
@@ailo4x4speaking of ignorance... How are you not aware that very very few companies paid that tax rate? It was very easy to get around, and that's basically the reason the USA still exists (turn your brain back on for a moment, and you will realize that if most companies had paid such a high tax rate, they would NOT have had more money for higher wages than they do now). There are many many very valid reasons that that tax rate was so short lived, but one of the biggest was because it would force significantly lower wages if too many companies paid it for too long.
@@awesomeferret umm, for those of us old enough to have lived through it, yeah, it was that high. From WW2 to Reagan the tax rate was high enough to support everything it needed to (read: Social Security, etc).
While that's true, at the heart of this particular problem is simply that people started having fewer kids. If there kept being more young people than old people, there wouldn't really be a problem even we didn't 'fix' anything else about it.
"its a compact that we all look after each other" Good luck tell young ppl who got priced out of the housing market
No. Congress is taking from the funds. Case closed.
The government does fund whatever it wants and always will. It doesn't spend from a fund, it spends and only taxes back to control the value of the dollar. Tax dollars go bye bye. That's what the tax is for at the federal level. Originally the SS tax was intended to make the program safe from its enemies. The enemies now claim dollars can somehow run out not in spite of the fund but because of it.
Would also help if companies actually paid their employees living wages.
gives a number. how much is a living wage?
Blah, Blah, Blah. People in Africa live on a dollar a day. It is in the commercials.
Always remember: With Modern Monetary Theory, we can rethink hownwe treat money and put to bed the idea that taxes "pay" for things.
Thank god someone else understands this.
@@AlbertoGarcia-wd7sc honestly MMT is a lot easier to understand than the mental gymnastics economist have been doing since the end of the Gold Standard. Money, without anything backing it, in a nation that produces enough to keep that currency sovereign, is basically not real. But this is a good thing. It means that we can always pay for whatever needs to be done, and money is simply how the government redistributes resources to people who can then freely spend it. Taxes exist to make sure that there isn't too much money circulating (or worse, stagnating in some billionaires coffers). I will never understand why a million people getting $100 richer, only to have to spend it, is "Bad for inflation" yet one billionaire getting and forever holding One Billion dollars is not "Bad for inflation".
@@jackjones4824 As I said, in the last paragraph MMT is way easier to understand than the mental gymnastics you have to do explain why we're using basically Gold Standard backed money that has no Gold backing it. Also using gold as an example of how inflation happens, when the whole point of MMT is that there is no Gold backing money anymore is hilarious. And again, a million people getting $100 that will be spent instantly is somehow bad, but a billionaire who gets a billion dollars to turn that money's velocity into nothing for several decades, is somehow good? So thanks for your critique, it proves my point even further.
That only works so long as the USD is considered the reserve currency for every other country in the world. The moment that stops being the case, everything collapses.
I can't tell if this is being sarcastic or not, lolololol
When those that have never donated have been living off the money that the rest of us have been forced to donate too, that has been horribly mismanaged and stripped of money by every government since the 60’s
Raise the retirement age! The average predicted lifespan when Social Security was made was lower than the retirement age.
There's no shortage of money or resources - but society only works when everyone (including business) pays their fair share towards the systems that allow them to exist. This isn't just an American problem, it's worldwide.
“There's no shortage of money or resources” - What are you talking about? All resources have shortages. Otherwise all resources would be free. I happen to want several tons of gold (just because), but the shortage of widely available gold means I would have to pay billions of dollars for such an amount. I can get several tons of dirt for a few hundred dollars, but even it is limited (hence why I have to pay those who own and/or transport it for me).
Corporations should be taxed on their profits, with no loopholes to escape. Cut military spending by 75% (we'd still be spending 2x what the next country, China, spends). Change Social Security, welfare, and food assistance into an unrestricted Universal Basic Income of $2000 per month that everyone who makes less than $75k per year would receive. Any person older than 55 and any disabled person would still get Medicaid/Medicare benefits. Just the taxes and military cuts would compensate 126 million Americans with a $2000 per month UBI. Removing some social assistance in lieu of a UBI would make more economical sense than what we have now. But it'll never happen as long as corporations are profiting off war contracts and have politicians in their back pockets.
Corporations definitely don’t pay as much as they should for the public benefits they enjoy, but I would be more cautious about defunding defense. Global trade and the suppression of price inflation that it allows would be immensely disrupted if adversaries are enabled to enforce a so-called “multipolar” world which caters to their more exclusionary ideologies; think more Ever Given blocking the Suez type of incidents but done by the actions and policies of a regional hegemon. There’s a reason Pax Romana, Pax Mongolica, Pax Brittanica, and Pax Americana were named after the one state who ensured security over the trade routes for like a third of humanity at the time.
$2000 per month for half the US population would cost $3.6 trillion per year. And Medicaid/Medicare already make up a massive portion of the federal budget. A $1000 monthly UBI for the poorest 25% of the population with all other benefits eliminated would be more feasible. That would only cost about $900 billion per year, which is less than Medicare and Social Security cost. Also, obviously, the benefits should be reduced gradually as you make more income, as opposed to losing all of them suddenly once you cross a certain income threshold. Making more money should never result in taking home less.
The goal is not to only be two times better than the Chinese military. If we are only two times better, they might be willing to take a chance against us considering they don't care about the lives of their people and have long held to the military strategy of throw more bodies at a problem until you overwhelm the opposing force.
@@doujinflipWe'd still be spending double what China spends on defense. There's absolutely no reason we should be spending more than the next 10 countries combined on national defense. Also, us policing the world isn't "national defense". It's international police, whether those other countries like it or not. It's emperialistic. I'm not saying we couldn't help other countries and protect trade routes, but it shouldn't take near as much as it does now to do so. Especially in the modern age.
@@me-myself-i787US Corporations raked in $3.8 trillion in profits last year alone. The US military budget was $1.7 trillion last year. Reducing the military budget by $1 trillion would count towards 1/3 of the price I quoted. Taxing those corporations and wealthy people on their profits, as well as their total assets and holdings, and removing some welfare programs would make up the difference and change 126 million American lives in one fell swoop. We could completely eliminate food assistance programs, force Medicaid/Medicare price negotiations and set standard procedure pricing, and regulate private insurance companies so they couldn't negotiate non-insurance holders out of weeks of salary just for one doctor visit. We absolutely could pay for a generous UBI in the United States, IF we had the will and want to do so. Unfortunately, every time something like this is suggested, everyone yells, "Socialism!" and the politicians that are in the pocket of large industries stamp it out at first glimpse.
It's almost like SS was never designed to be relied on by everyone lol
if you paid for SS, you should get SS.
Let's just raise the retirement age to 85, then the fund will never run out.