There's literally no analysis that shows social security completely failing at any point. That's spin you're getting from partisan media, and it's absolutely infuriating the people allow this to persist.
In a few years, given no changes, the cash flow will go negative and we'll begin spending down the trust fund. By 2035 or so (I forget the numbers, and the projections tend to vary widely anyway because of differing models and, yeah, partisan spin) the trust fund will be spent and the social security administration will need to adjust, as it will be taking in something like 80% of obligations.
A 20% shortfall is a big accounting problem. It's hardly "plan for it not to exist".
The trust fund is an accounting fiction that doesn't hold any economically productive assets. Congress spent social security's surplus in the general budget and issued special obligation bonds in return that accumulate "interest" on paper but do not ever collect from the government. They cannot be sold on the market. Taxes or debt needs to be raised or benefits need to be cut effectively now.
This is from a 1999 OMB report:
``These [trust fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other trust fund expenditures–but only in a bookkeeping sense. These funds are not set up to be pension funds, like the funds of private pension plans. They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury, that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures.``
So... you don't think it's insolvent then and agree with the OMB that the bookeeping gets complicated but that money exists to pay the existing claims in full for the next few decades? What is your position if you aren't claiming it's going to go up in a big kaboom?
Ugh. Why do these threads always turning into such a strawman mess.
"Big accounting problem", in fact, were MY words upthread when replying to a claim that SS benefits might not exist by then. And I agree, a ~20% shortfall is a big accounting problem. But it's not a social disaster and doesn't need to be treated like one.
Consider: reduce benefits by 7%, increase the FICA payroll tax by 7%, adjust incentives so people reduce their benefit-years by 7%. Seems like our society can survive that without planning on retirement without government assistance.
Oh sorry, I'll clarify... My concern is not that it will become untenable and money will run out - my concern is that it will be slashed into the ground as part of an "entitlement cut" - it's actually pretty unlikely given the party of cutting things that people like gets a lot of votes from the social security crowd, but there is only so much more than can slice off Medicaid before they start looking elsewhere.
In a few years, given no changes, the cash flow will go negative and we'll begin spending down the trust fund. By 2035 or so (I forget the numbers, and the projections tend to vary widely anyway because of differing models and, yeah, partisan spin) the trust fund will be spent and the social security administration will need to adjust, as it will be taking in something like 80% of obligations.
A 20% shortfall is a big accounting problem. It's hardly "plan for it not to exist".