Personally speaking, I find this despicable. It's such a horrible idea for all the generations but if any should be able to afford for their SS payments to drop it would be the boomers.

https://finance.yahoo.com/economy/policy...00571.html

Quote:Social Security's trust fund is now expected to run out of reserves earlier than projected last year, according to the latest report from the program's board of trustees.

The 2026 Board of Trustees Report projects the depletion date for the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund to come in the fourth quarter of 2032, three months earlier than estimated in the 2025 report (1). Once those reserves are gone, ongoing revenue would cover just 78% of scheduled benefits.

That accelerated depletion date is putting even more pressure on lawmakers to find a fix before benefits take a hit. But one potential fix has particularly strong support among older Americans: raising taxes on younger Americans.

In fact, an overwhelming 89% of Americans over the age of 65 said Social Security benefits should be protected at current levels, even if it means higher taxes on younger workers, according to a 2025 survey by the Cato Institute (2).

And it's not only Americans aged 65+ who prefer this solution. Roughly 84% of those aged 55 to 64 preferred higher taxes on younger Americans, while 74% between the ages of 45 and 54 agreed with it as well.

Why would ANYBODY support raising taxes for SS? It's such a horrible system and there's really no "paying into" it b/c at no time can you check your balance. We're just throwing money down a hole trusting the gov't to do the right thing and they never do.

Seems like adjusting the cap would be more pliable than taxing everyone more.

(10-08-2026 08:17 AM)b2b Wrote:  ....
Why would ANYBODY support raising taxes for SS? It's such a horrible system and there's really no "paying into" it b/c at no time can you check your balance. We're just throwing money down a hole trusting the gov't to do the right thing and they never do.

Social Security does have recipients. The money doesn’t all go “down a hole.”

Room exists to improve things. No one doubts this.

Social Security is designed to keep large numbers of people out of poverty. It succeeds in this goal. Always has.

This is why the Trump accounts for kids is such a great idea. It can replace what SS will eventually fail doing. Just fund $1000 into a newborns ira account (a real citizen, not a fake one), and by the time they are 67, theres 1.5million in there.

I support lower taxes because social security isn’t going to be there for most people.

Our elected leaders are spending every dime we send them on other things and haven’t saved a dime of it for us.

Sovereign wealth fund balance is $40 trillion in the hole.

#AndTheBottomDropsOut

#AskGreece

By the time those kids are 40, that money won’t be worth anything and we all know it.
If it’s ever worth $1.5 million, a loaf of bread will be $2 million by then.

#AskZimbabwe

(10-08-2026 08:24 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 08:17 AM)b2b Wrote:  ....
Why would ANYBODY support raising taxes for SS? It's such a horrible system and there's really no "paying into" it b/c at no time can you check your balance. We're just throwing money down a hole trusting the gov't to do the right thing and they never do.

Social Security does have recipients. The money doesn’t all go “down a hole.”

Room exists to improve things. No one doubts this.

Social Security is designed to keep large numbers of people out of poverty. It succeeds in this goal. Always has.

It's an absolutely horrible system. There is no defending it. You could invest the money in a 401k and end up with hundreds of thousands more by retirement age.

(10-08-2026 08:34 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 08:24 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 08:17 AM)b2b Wrote:  ....
Why would ANYBODY support raising taxes for SS? It's such a horrible system and there's really no "paying into" it b/c at no time can you check your balance. We're just throwing money down a hole trusting the gov't to do the right thing and they never do.

Social Security does have recipients. The money doesn’t all go “down a hole.”

Room exists to improve things. No one doubts this.

Social Security is designed to keep large numbers of people out of poverty. It succeeds in this goal. Always has.

It's an absolutely horrible system. There is no defending it. You could invest the money in a 401k and end up with hundreds of thousands more by retirement age.

You could, but when the stock market collapses the rich will all have their money out already and we won’t.

There isn’t going to be a bailout that time.

Our retirements are not supposed to be going to a casino. They are supposed to be saved for us.

The average SS tax per year is $4,140. Lets say over a lifetime you invest that into a 401K yearly. You end up with around a million at 60 and $1.3M at 65.

WTF are we doing?

(10-08-2026 08:39 AM)Todor Wrote:  You could, but when the stock market collapses the rich will all have their money out already and we won’t.

That's why you let it ride There will always be ups and downs in the market. FDR capitalized on stupid people who panic.

(10-08-2026 08:34 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 08:24 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 08:17 AM)b2b Wrote:  ....
Why would ANYBODY support raising taxes for SS? It's such a horrible system and there's really no "paying into" it b/c at no time can you check your balance. We're just throwing money down a hole trusting the gov't to do the right thing and they never do.

Social Security does have recipients. The money doesn’t all go “down a hole.”

Room exists to improve things. No one doubts this.

Social Security is designed to keep large numbers of people out of poverty. It succeeds in this goal. Always has.

It's an absolutely horrible system. There is no defending it. You could invest the money in a 401k and end up with hundreds of thousands more by retirement age.

Likely so. But wrong question.

Social Security was established at a time of emergency. No one had a 401k. Discouraged fathers were abandoning their families to become hobos, women were taking pride in their ability to make clothing out of feed sacks, soup kitchens were a thing, and armadillos made it to dinner plates.

In this environment Social Security was enacted to help keep people out of poverty. It succeeded in that aim and it continues to do that.

A recent study by the University of Chicago found that:

Without income from Social Security, two thirds of the elderly would be considered poor. Social Security reduced the poverty rate to 16 percent in 2008.

That finding aligns with previous research showing that nearly the entire decline in the poverty rate among the elderly since the 1960s is due to Social Security.

In fact, Social Security reduced poverty significantly across almost all family types. Social Security is by far the largest government transfer program based on the number of households reached as well as the average benefit paid out to recipients. Around 65 percent of the dollars dispersed by the program go to those who would be considered poor without the transfer payment.

Retired workers account for the majority of the program’s recipients; however, 14 percent of beneficiaries are disabled workers and 17 percent are the survivors of deceased workers or spouses and children of retired workers. The researchers from the University of Chicago found that while Social Security reduced the rate of poverty among households with elderly residents by 75 percent, it also reduced poverty among households led by a disabled recipient by 33 percent. Those rates far exceeded reductions resulting from programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), Housing Assistance, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

https://www.pgpf.org/article/what-effect...n-poverty/

Full study, University of Chicago
https://www.nber.org/system/files/workin...w24567.pdf

Related report on child poverty
https://www.pgpf.org/article/what-are-th...d-poverty/

__

(10-08-2026 08:21 AM)VA49er Wrote:  Seems like adjusting the cap would be more pliable than taxing everyone more.

Agreed. Adjust the cap. Over 30 years raise the normal retirement age from 68 to 70, like they did in the early 80s, raising it from 65 to 68.

(10-08-2026 08:42 AM)b2b Wrote:  The average SS tax per year is $4,140. Lets say over a lifetime you invest that into a 401K yearly. You end up with around a million at 60 and $1.3M at 65.

WTF are we doing?

Put that $300 per month into a retirement account. Start at 21, and by the time you are 66 you would have $4.5million.

(10-08-2026 09:03 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 08:34 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 08:24 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 08:17 AM)b2b Wrote:  ....
Why would ANYBODY support raising taxes for SS? It's such a horrible system and there's really no "paying into" it b/c at no time can you check your balance. We're just throwing money down a hole trusting the gov't to do the right thing and they never do.

Social Security does have recipients. The money doesn’t all go “down a hole.”

Room exists to improve things. No one doubts this.

Social Security is designed to keep large numbers of people out of poverty. It succeeds in this goal. Always has.

It's an absolutely horrible system. There is no defending it. You could invest the money in a 401k and end up with hundreds of thousands more by retirement age.

Likely so. But wrong question.

Social Security was established at a time of emergency. No one had a 401k. Discouraged fathers were abandoning their families to become hobos, women were taking pride in their ability to make clothing out of feed sacks, soup kitchens were a thing, and armadillos made it to dinner plates.

In this environment Social Security was enacted to help keep people out of poverty. It succeeded in that aim and it continues to do that.

A recent study by the University of Chicago found that:

Without income from Social Security, two thirds of the elderly would be considered poor. Social Security reduced the poverty rate to 16 percent in 2008.

That finding aligns with previous research showing that nearly the entire decline in the poverty rate among the elderly since the 1960s is due to Social Security.

In fact, Social Security reduced poverty significantly across almost all family types. Social Security is by far the largest government transfer program based on the number of households reached as well as the average benefit paid out to recipients. Around 65 percent of the dollars dispersed by the program go to those who would be considered poor without the transfer payment.

Retired workers account for the majority of the program’s recipients; however, 14 percent of beneficiaries are disabled workers and 17 percent are the survivors of deceased workers or spouses and children of retired workers. The researchers from the University of Chicago found that while Social Security reduced the rate of poverty among households with elderly residents by 75 percent, it also reduced poverty among households led by a disabled recipient by 33 percent. Those rates far exceeded reductions resulting from programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), Housing Assistance, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

https://www.pgpf.org/article/what-effect...n-poverty/

Full study, University of Chicago
https://www.nber.org/system/files/workin...w24567.pdf

Related report on child poverty
https://www.pgpf.org/article/what-are-th...d-poverty/

Everyone is open to a better idea. Even those boomers, I bet.

But complaining isn’t an idea.

(10-08-2026 09:03 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 08:42 AM)b2b Wrote:  The average SS tax per year is $4,140. Lets say over a lifetime you invest that into a 401K yearly. You end up with around a million at 60 and $1.3M at 65.

WTF are we doing?

Put that $300 per month into a retirement account. Start at 21, and by the time you are 46 you would have $4.5million.

The problem is a lot, probably most, can't discipline themselves to do that.

(10-08-2026 09:04 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 09:03 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 08:42 AM)b2b Wrote:  The average SS tax per year is $4,140. Lets say over a lifetime you invest that into a 401K yearly. You end up with around a million at 60 and $1.3M at 65.

WTF are we doing?

Put that $300 per month into a retirement account. Start at 21, and by the time you are 46 you would have $4.5million.

The problem is a lot, probably most, can't discipline themselves to do that.

Truth is, most of them do twice that much in a car payment and comp/coll insurance. Sometimes 3x as much.

(10-08-2026 08:39 AM)Todor Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 08:34 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 08:24 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 08:17 AM)b2b Wrote:  ....
Why would ANYBODY support raising taxes for SS? It's such a horrible system and there's really no "paying into" it b/c at no time can you check your balance. We're just throwing money down a hole trusting the gov't to do the right thing and they never do.

Social Security does have recipients. The money doesn’t all go “down a hole.”

Room exists to improve things. No one doubts this.

Social Security is designed to keep large numbers of people out of poverty. It succeeds in this goal. Always has.

It's an absolutely horrible system. There is no defending it. You could invest the money in a 401k and end up with hundreds of thousands more by retirement age.

You could, but when the stock market collapses the rich will all have their money out already and we won’t.

There isn’t going to be a bailout that time.

Our retirements are not supposed to be going to a casino. They are supposed to be saved for us.

You think the rich pull their money out of the market during downturns? That's when the money is made. Granted, most of the really wealthy have investments elsewhere, outside of the market.

(10-08-2026 09:04 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 09:03 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 08:34 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 08:24 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 08:17 AM)b2b Wrote:  ....
Why would ANYBODY support raising taxes for SS? It's such a horrible system and there's really no "paying into" it b/c at no time can you check your balance. We're just throwing money down a hole trusting the gov't to do the right thing and they never do.

Social Security does have recipients. The money doesn’t all go “down a hole.”

Room exists to improve things. No one doubts this.

Social Security is designed to keep large numbers of people out of poverty. It succeeds in this goal. Always has.

It's an absolutely horrible system. There is no defending it. You could invest the money in a 401k and end up with hundreds of thousands more by retirement age.

Wrong question.

Social Security was established at a time of emergency. No one had a 401k. Discouraged fathers were abandoning their families to become hobos, women were taking pride in their ability to make clothing out of feed sacks, soup kitchens were a thing, and armadillos made it to dinner plates.

In this environment Social Security was enacted to help keep people out of poverty. It succeeded in that aim and it continues to do that.

A recent study by the University of Chicago found that:

Without income from Social Security, two thirds of the elderly would be considered poor. Social Security reduced the poverty rate to 16 percent in 2008.

That finding aligns with previous research showing that nearly the entire decline in the poverty rate among the elderly since the 1960s is due to Social Security.

In fact, Social Security reduced poverty significantly across almost all family types. Social Security is by far the largest government transfer program based on the number of households reached as well as the average benefit paid out to recipients. Around 65 percent of the dollars dispersed by the program go to those who would be considered poor without the transfer payment.

Retired workers account for the majority of the program’s recipients; however, 14 percent of beneficiaries are disabled workers and 17 percent are the survivors of deceased workers or spouses and children of retired workers. The researchers from the University of Chicago found that while Social Security reduced the rate of poverty among households with elderly residents by 75 percent, it also reduced poverty among households led by a disabled recipient by 33 percent. Those rates far exceeded reductions resulting from programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), Housing Assistance, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

https://www.pgpf.org/article/what-effect...n-poverty/

Full study, University of Chicago
https://www.nber.org/system/files/workin...w24567.pdf

Related report on child poverty
https://www.pgpf.org/article/what-are-th...d-poverty/

Everyone is open to a better idea. Even those boomers, I bet.

But complaining isn’t an idea.

phase the government out of it is the ultimate fix.

the government isnt a part of my personal retirement accounts, and there's no issue with my future with those.

(10-08-2026 09:16 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 09:04 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 09:03 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 08:34 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 08:24 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  Social Security does have recipients. The money doesn’t all go “down a hole.”

Room exists to improve things. No one doubts this.

Social Security is designed to keep large numbers of people out of poverty. It succeeds in this goal. Always has.

It's an absolutely horrible system. There is no defending it. You could invest the money in a 401k and end up with hundreds of thousands more by retirement age.

Wrong question.

Social Security was established at a time of emergency. No one had a 401k. Discouraged fathers were abandoning their families to become hobos, women were taking pride in their ability to make clothing out of feed sacks, soup kitchens were a thing, and armadillos made it to dinner plates.

In this environment Social Security was enacted to help keep people out of poverty. It succeeded in that aim and it continues to do that.

A recent study by the University of Chicago found that:

Without income from Social Security, two thirds of the elderly would be considered poor. Social Security reduced the poverty rate to 16 percent in 2008.

That finding aligns with previous research showing that nearly the entire decline in the poverty rate among the elderly since the 1960s is due to Social Security.

In fact, Social Security reduced poverty significantly across almost all family types. Social Security is by far the largest government transfer program based on the number of households reached as well as the average benefit paid out to recipients. Around 65 percent of the dollars dispersed by the program go to those who would be considered poor without the transfer payment.

Retired workers account for the majority of the program’s recipients; however, 14 percent of beneficiaries are disabled workers and 17 percent are the survivors of deceased workers or spouses and children of retired workers. The researchers from the University of Chicago found that while Social Security reduced the rate of poverty among households with elderly residents by 75 percent, it also reduced poverty among households led by a disabled recipient by 33 percent. Those rates far exceeded reductions resulting from programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), Housing Assistance, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

https://www.pgpf.org/article/what-effect...n-poverty/

Full study, University of Chicago
https://www.nber.org/system/files/workin...w24567.pdf

Related report on child poverty
https://www.pgpf.org/article/what-are-th...d-poverty/

Everyone is open to a better idea. Even those boomers, I bet.

But complaining isn’t an idea.

phase the government out of it is the ultimate fix.

the government isnt a part of my personal retirement accounts, and there's no issue with my future with those.

Nice work if you can get it. Congratulations.

The government still has a say, I bet.

(10-08-2026 09:16 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 09:04 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 09:03 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 08:34 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 08:24 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  Social Security does have recipients. The money doesn’t all go “down a hole.”

Room exists to improve things. No one doubts this.

Social Security is designed to keep large numbers of people out of poverty. It succeeds in this goal. Always has.

It's an absolutely horrible system. There is no defending it. You could invest the money in a 401k and end up with hundreds of thousands more by retirement age.

Wrong question.

Social Security was established at a time of emergency. No one had a 401k. Discouraged fathers were abandoning their families to become hobos, women were taking pride in their ability to make clothing out of feed sacks, soup kitchens were a thing, and armadillos made it to dinner plates.

In this environment Social Security was enacted to help keep people out of poverty. It succeeded in that aim and it continues to do that.

A recent study by the University of Chicago found that:

Without income from Social Security, two thirds of the elderly would be considered poor. Social Security reduced the poverty rate to 16 percent in 2008.

That finding aligns with previous research showing that nearly the entire decline in the poverty rate among the elderly since the 1960s is due to Social Security.

In fact, Social Security reduced poverty significantly across almost all family types. Social Security is by far the largest government transfer program based on the number of households reached as well as the average benefit paid out to recipients. Around 65 percent of the dollars dispersed by the program go to those who would be considered poor without the transfer payment.

Retired workers account for the majority of the program’s recipients; however, 14 percent of beneficiaries are disabled workers and 17 percent are the survivors of deceased workers or spouses and children of retired workers. The researchers from the University of Chicago found that while Social Security reduced the rate of poverty among households with elderly residents by 75 percent, it also reduced poverty among households led by a disabled recipient by 33 percent. Those rates far exceeded reductions resulting from programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), Housing Assistance, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

https://www.pgpf.org/article/what-effect...n-poverty/

Full study, University of Chicago
https://www.nber.org/system/files/workin...w24567.pdf

Related report on child poverty
https://www.pgpf.org/article/what-are-th...d-poverty/

Everyone is open to a better idea. Even those boomers, I bet.

But complaining isn’t an idea.

phase the government out of it is the ultimate fix.

the government isnt a part of my personal retirement accounts, and there's no issue with my future with those.

I tend to agree. I'd like to have that 6.2% back and invest it myself.

(10-08-2026 09:03 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 08:34 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 08:24 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 08:17 AM)b2b Wrote:  ....
Why would ANYBODY support raising taxes for SS? It's such a horrible system and there's really no "paying into" it b/c at no time can you check your balance. We're just throwing money down a hole trusting the gov't to do the right thing and they never do.

Social Security does have recipients. The money doesn’t all go “down a hole.”

Room exists to improve things. No one doubts this.

Social Security is designed to keep large numbers of people out of poverty. It succeeds in this goal. Always has.

It's an absolutely horrible system. There is no defending it. You could invest the money in a 401k and end up with hundreds of thousands more by retirement age.

Likely so. But wrong question.

I didn't ask a question, dummy. I made a factual economic statement. I complained and I gave you an alternative. Sorry you can't understand compounding interest. It's not even worth quoting the rest of your stupid post b/c it has zero to do w/ the challenges we (especially younger folks) are dealing with in 2026. I don't care why SS was started just like I don't care much about why unions started. Good intentions and all..... don't apply to 2026.

Because of how much it's changed over time we have no idea what's actually "in our SS account" because there really isn't one. They take a **** load of money from us every year and then 10, 20, 30, 40 years later some ******** in congress decide what we get to be paid back. See how that works? There really isn't a "paying into" crap to this. It's just another form of taxation to prop up a bunch of older people who've had decades to get their crap together for retirement. It's worse than ever.