• Jackthelad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    6 days ago

    People on Lemmy will tell you it’s going to disappear because orange man wants to kill everyone, or something.

    What is likely to happen is nothing.

    • DomeGuy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      6 days ago

      Please understand that “nothing” means the built up surplus runs out and there will be not enough money to pay all benefits.

      The smart and easy fix would be to raise the cap on ss taxes while flattening the “you deserve more money because you made more money when you were working” weirdness.

      Instead, they’ll likely either do nothing and force the dems to fix it in four years, play with benefits to make the poor suffer, or try and replace it with a phased in 401k style stock market scam.

      (that last option, btw, is killing social security.)

    • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      Yes, nothing, which means not fixing it. Which means it will be depleted in nine years. I guess it depends on how long his mom plans to stay alive.

      • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 days ago

        Trust fund will depleted which is what boomers want exactly… It is theirs anyway and they abiut to start dying off so why not enjoy it?

        • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 days ago

          Social Security has shifted far from its original intent. It was once a system where your taxes were set aside and invested, creating a fund for your own retirement. But over time, the baby boomer generation began drawing heavily from these reserves, turning what was meant to be a self-sustaining system into a pay-as-you-go model. Now, instead of relying on their own invested contributions, Social Security is sustained largely by taxing the younger generations to fund the retirees, shifting the burden and undermining the system’s original promise. This approach leaves younger generations on the hook, fueling concerns about the system’s long-term viability.