Retirement experts say the US is past the point where we can fix Social Security

Photo above - Problem? What problem? Presidents and congress have reduced social security taxes and increased benefits repeatedly, despite warnings of insolvency.

We have good news and bad news. The good news is that it will be “politically impossible” to reduce social security benefits in order to keep the system from going broke. That’s good news if you’re currently living on Social Security benefits. If those checks are reduced, millions of people will instantly be dragged below the poverty line. This will mean election day chaos, not to mention homelessness and hunger.

This is also the bad news, of course. A bankrupt system won’t pay benefits in the future to Gen XYZ and millennials. This means their social security taxes and the retirement age will both need increase. This seems in line with FDR’s original intent. In his era lifespans were so short we were supposed to die quickly, instead of collecting benefits for decades.

This was apparent as a problem early on. President Jimmy Carter, Americas most famous nuclear peanut farmer, signed a Social Security change in 1977 to reduce benefits for people born after 1924. A realist. And deeply unpopular for his economic policies.

Bill Clinton massively increased social security taxes during his administration. It was not a popular move either.

President Obama signed several temporary social security tax reductions as a ploy to help democrats win elections during his term. Critics were already pointing out the future insolvency of the program when he did this. The audacity of . . . something.

President Biden – on his last day in office – allegedly signed an increase in Social Security benefits. Or it may have been an auto-pen signing. Those records are sealed. He also signed 2,500 prisoner pardons - the most of any president in history.

President Trump just dumped a $6,000 social security windfall into the lap of almost every senior citizen over 65. If your tax rate is 22%, and it's a married couple both over 65, guess how much this is worth . . .

What’s my point? Everyone knows social security is paying out benefits faster – a LOT faster – than it’s collecting revenue. Yet presidents and congress continue to use the system as a cheap trick to harvest votes in election years.

So what does the author of the link below (“thought leader and economist”) Teresa Ghilarducci recommend? Start saving more for your retirement. Duh . . .

Someone will say that any government this corrupt and stupid which keeps using social security to swing elections deserves to have it’s retirement programs fail. I think that grannies and grandpa’s are too old to start saving now, and don’t belong on the street.

I’m just sayin’ . . .

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/savingandinvesting/this-retirement-expert-says-the-us-is-past-the-point-where-we-can-fix-social-security-what-she-recommends-instead/ar-AA1USMFd?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=6976092fab76497c8922f9e722fc914e&ei=106

https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R41648/R41648.27.pdf

This retirement expert says the US is 'past the point where we can fix Social Security.' What she recommends instead

Social Security: Temporary Payroll Tax Reduction

jehova · 36-40, M

The solution which I’ve always advocated is self sufficiency and isolationism. Maybe the Social Security system would be solvent except for constant war funding, entangled alliances, and foreign investments.
A) support the troops bring them home
B) redirect all the war spending to domestic issues infrastructure and debt payments.
C) a flat tax on all income over minimum wage; currently $7.25 an hour federal
AND
D) set maximum age for political office; retirement age is 65 yet some representatives are in the late 70s and even early 80s.
Solutions exist but no one wants to try something else!
Ah 1st world problem(s)

jehova · 36-40, M

@jehova also given the portion of the population working and paying taxes is younger than 60 perhaps the principle of no taxation without representation suggests the maximum age for representatives should be no older than two terms below retirement age that’d be no older than 57 for president no older than 53 for the house and no older than 61 for the senate.

SusanInFlorida · 31-35, F

@jehova i can't say your wrong. it doesn't appear that our $5 trillion investment in nato over the years bought us anything. we never fired a single shot, and the troops are playing cards in their barracks instead of defending ukraine. if we'd known a simply russian threat to nuke a random european capital would nullify nato, we would have behaved differently.

that said, the last time the USA was staunchly isolationist, Hitler occupied half of europe in the blink of an eye.