How to shore up Social Security for 75-plus years

[kinkytoes]

Originally Posted by Escort Rider

...

The "old" government mandate for forced savings, Social Security, has worked pretty well for over 75 years now. It is demographics (low birth rates), not some evil intent on the part of government (as NHartphotog seems to believe), which is the main reason SS now needs further modifications to keep it solvent for the long run.

There is nothing wrong with current levels of SS benefits. ...What we do need is to avoid the benefits being reduced to 75% of their current levels in another couple of decades (or less).

Agree with the above.

Originally Posted by GeoffD

Welcome to 21st century demographics...Japan, South Korea, and northern Europe have the problem even worse. The US is at least still seeing a birthrate above replacement level. Something else will be cut. I figure it will mostly be safety net things like Medicaid since poor people don't vote.

Can we count on what congress will or will not cut? They seem to make some decisions on political pressure and their desire to look good. Hence the benefits that are paid to some strange classes of people who did not pay into the system. I'm not sure any congressperson wants to be the one to cut payments to babies with cerebral palsy or some old, penniless widow, even though those people did not pay into the system.

The tactic of late has seemed to be making the people who paid in seem like the enemy. What I'm seeing is increased propaganda painting boomers as irresponsible, rich and lazy. This may make it more palatable to try to cut benefits for those who actually paid.

[ReachTheBeach]

Cutting the safety net would be stupid; that plays back to TuborgP's question about equity and efficiency IMO, because it would be incredibly inefficient. We would still have a safety net; it would just be a patchwork of other programs (it already is, which is one of my biggest gripes).

The accounting for SS as a separate program with separate tax has its pros and cons. It's good that we actually are trying to make it solvent and not just going further in debt like we do to buy bullets. The downside is that people feel like it is an investment and feel like the people who get more out of it than they put in are gaming the system. It's a social program; it is supposed to help disproportionately. Some of us "overpay" because we have been fortunate enough to do well.