31 sats \ 41 replies \ @Cje95 7 May \ parent \ on: US Treasury issues 125 billion dollars worth of new bonds this week econ
Kinda... what they are going to do is raise the age to start off with because that is they easiest. Humans live longer and with social security, the idea was people only lied 3-5 years on it and died... not 20+
Do you think raising the age is easier than means testing? I would have assumed the opposite.
reply
reply
Sometimes you'll hear people propose things like "no social security for people with more than $X in assets."
That seems like the most politically viable strategy to me. You're the one rubbing elbows with congressmen though, so maybe that's not really being considered.
reply
From what I understand there already is something along those lines already in law. Granted I think it is for the 0.01% like the Warren Buffets who are the affected ones because there is something about being able to make money and drawing on social security that essentially if you make to much money you don't get social security there is like a chart of diminishing returns if that makes sense
reply
There's an income limit on paying into social security, which indirectly affects eligibility. Rich people don't pay in and therefor never become eligible to withdraw.
However, people who did pay in become eligible regardless of their wealth or other income.
reply
You had me engaged until that... as someone who has survived 3 neurosurgeries but is now immunocompromised during the height when the shot first came out it was worth it and saved millions of lives. Unless you don't think someone like myself deserves to live.
Which if you do then yikes I will pray for you because that's an awful way of not only thinking but living your life.
reply
what?
They were only supposed to live 3 to 5 years on it?
I thought it was a pension plan for the old.
reply
Eligibility was initially set at the same age as average life expectancy, so on average people weren't eligible for long before they died.
reply
So there should be a huge amount that is unclaimed?
I hope my parents are able to draw from it forever lol
I know that is the wrong way of thinking, but I told them to invest their social security money because they have a simple lifestyle.
reply
If it had been a real trust fund, then there would have been extra funds from back then. However, it has always been a pay as you go program. Current benefits are paid from current revenues: there are no savings.
reply
reply
reply
reply
I thought it was a large trust initially.
I thought they were investing it the whole time the money was sitting?
Wrong concept?
reply
NGL what would they invest in? It not like it a sovereign wealth fund. The whole idea was to have money to pay for the aging out population and the excess was used to prop up shortfalls in government revenue like with the postal service. However they cannot keep doing that so we have an issue of what to do
reply
I thought they would invest in the stock market and everything.
Some percentage in bonds.
reply
I dont think the Federal Government is allowed to invest in itself via bonds if that makes sense. The stock market sounds good but what if there was a crash in today's day and age? The government wouldn't have anything to fall back on at least a pile of cash has value in a depression
George W. Bush proposed this and it didn't go anywhere.
In general, messing with social security is a complete non-starter politically.