Long-Term Funding Gap for Social Security: $30 Trillion
show comments
  • Jim.

    Means testing moves Social Security from a bipartisan “we’re all in this together” story to another IRS-enforced Leftist client-manufacturing handout.

    Once it loses its current egalitarian appeal, expect opposition to grow. If the rules are no longer “you’re American and you worked for a living, so you can take your share the same as everyone else”, expect it to get shut down.

    Handouts to the majority are beaten by arithmetic. Handouts to special interests are beaten by the majority.

    So dies Blue.

  • To the extent that the incumbents fail to return current discourse to the gutter, I believe that the critical contribution of Paul Ryan to an otherwise largely innumerate debate is the implicit introduction of the concept of net present value. Shameless self-promotion alert: I expand on this idea in this post:


  • Eurydice

    What I haven’t heard anybody talking about is where the jobs will come from if people have to wait longer to retire.

  • Corlyss

    Remember when you hear some pol say “payroll tax holiday” that means “you don’t have to pay into the SS fund.” That’s a built in shortfall in the SS income.

  • Gerald

    At some point we must decide whether the “Social Security” program is a retirement program or a welfare “safety net” program. If is is retirement, then means testing is inappropriate – just give everyone back their contribution. If it is welfare, then only provide payments to those people who need it to be at or above the poverty level. As a current recipitent, I would have to live past the age of 90 to get simple payback of funds contributed, and 85% of my ss benefits are taxable, so it is already somewhat “means tested”. If the government wishes to state that it is only welfare, I will be happy to give it up altogether – but please stop the blather and decide what this program is.

  • Luke Lea

    “A new study puts Social Security’s funding gap at $30 trillion dollars over the next 75 years.”

    That’s nothing. You should see the figure for the next three hundred years!

    Or you might read what Dean Baker writes on the subject:


  • Eurydice

    @Gerald #5 – You’ve hit on the essential point. Back at the dawn of SS there wasn’t a culture of retirement – for the most part, people worked until they couldn’t anynore and then they became dependant on others. Now, when we think about the course of our lives, we all expect a time when we can live comfortably and independantly without working. Entire industries have been built up around this expectation.

    It’s not like our policy makers don’t know that the world has changed – every amendment to SS has included rafts of debate about the subject. But I don’t think the public really understands the issue – partly because it’s complicated and boring and partly because politicians find more use in treating SS as a political football.

  • Joe

    With Ryan onboard, there’s a chance that we’ll see some necessary, incremental changes: Raise federal retirement to 70, cut benefit levels, even (yes) means-test. Like Gerald says, we need to stop pretending that this is some sort of universal benefit.

    I’m 24, and I know damn well this program isn’t going to be around in 2053. SS is, and always will be, just another tax for me to pay. I’d prefer the system to go to its end gracefully instead of collapsing on everyone–my grandma’s only real income is SS–but now’s the time to do that, while there’s time to avert the collapse.

    In a few years, when my generation wakes up and figures out what’s taking place here, watch out. The conversation is going to get messier.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.