Response to Social Security’s Go-Broke Date

[Doc7505]

1. Treasury does not fund SS. If SS is not "fixed" recipients only get what gets paid in.

2. Medicare goes bankrupt in 2033. Medicare needs to be fixed ASAP

3. Trump and the GOP need to start paying down the debt. The 2026 budget was a good start, but much more work to do to avoid the collapse of the dollar.

~~~~~~
Indeed, Social Security recipients are paid monthly from the General Fund.

 

[TimFitz]

~~~~~~

US Reclaims An Absurd Amount Of Social Security ​

Payments To Dead People​

MSN

by Eugenia Lazaris

Doubts about Social Security have circulated for years, with claims running rampant about Social Security funding being in danger of running out to dead people receiving Social Security payments. As it turns out, at least one of those claims has turned out to be true and something is finally being done about it.
On January 15th, 2025, the U.S. Department of Treasury, the government department which oversees federal finances by collecting taxes, managing public debt, and enforcing tax and finance laws, issued a press release announcing that it had successfully prevented and recovered $31 million in Social Security payments to deceased individuals. The payments were identified as both fraudulent payments and improperly issued payments and were discovered as part of a 5-month pilot program between the Treasury Department and the Social Security Administration (SSA) working with what is known as Social Security's Full Death Master File.
~Snip~
This is the most complete and comprehensive record of its kind and was made available to the U.S. Department of Treasury as part of this pilot program as a result of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, This act granted access for a period of three years starting in December of 2023 and ending in December of 2026.
Read more:

US Reclaims An Absurd Amount Of Social Security Payments To Dead People - Money Digest

Rumors of Social Security payments being issued to dead people have circulate for years, and it turns out that there was in fact an issue.

www.moneydigest.com

Commentary and response:
So you claim it's a lie, yet MSN and other sources claim differently.
One could claim that the reason these violations and crimes have occurred is due to the Democrats in Congress insisting that investigation and changes to Social Security not occur.
This is just a small amount of the total fraud. I will not applaud a government agency for doing part of the job. 13.6 billion were paid out in fraudulent claims in 2022.
The big problem lies in the fraud we know that goes on within the Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP and other welfare Programs.
All of which Democrats protect vehemently. You have to wonder Why? Do they benefit from the scams and fraud? Follow the money.
By the way as a Democrat how many gold bars do you hide in your suit pockets hanging in your closet?

I claim that the idiotic sensational claims mde by DOGE were mostly false.

DOGE bellowed that millions of dead people were collecting, and Trump sheep fell for it hook,line and sinker.

You are still claiming, again without evidence, that $13 billion was paid out in fraudulent claims.

But you can only document $37 million.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Both parties are too chicken to let it go broke.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Social Security may be the least of your worries. If SS payments are no longer able to be paid, this will affect trillions in Pension benefits paid out as well as many of those funds rely on government bonds and notes etc.

I would fully expect pension funds to collapse along with the SS and Medicaid systems.
Actually, these may begin to fail leading up to government programs failing or being cut.

When the system truly collapses, it will affect everyone. You won't have a "safe harbor", not even gold.
The only thing that will survive the collapse are the demands that you continue to pay all your taxes and bills, with or without the means to do so.

 

[kyzr]

Social Security may be the least of your worries. If SS payments are no longer able to be paid, this will affect trillions in Pension benefits paid out as well as many of those funds rely on government bonds and notes etc.

I would fully expect pension funds to collapse along with the SS and Medicaid systems.
Actually, these may begin to fail leading up to government programs failing or being cut.

When the system truly collapses, it will affect everyone. You won't have a "safe harbor", not even gold.
The only thing that will survive the collapse are the demands that you continue to pay all your taxes and bills, with or without the means to do so.

You are describing what happens if the US dollar collapses. That will happen if the government keeps borrowing and adding to the Debt. Lets hope that Trump and the BBB will put the budget into a surplus to start paying down the debt,

 

[g5000]

So making the money in my pocket buy less than it did last year is the key to shrinking the debt?

What.....the....actual......****?

That's correct.

There are six ways for a country to handle unmanageable debt.

1. Default. See: Argentina. Not an option for the US. We'd lose our status as the world's reserve currency and bond vigilantes would increase interest rates through the roof.

2. Renegotiate the terms of the debt. This is something Trump actually bleevs we can do, like he did with his failed casinos.

3. Internal devaluation. See: Spain. Suppress wages to make your production costs competitive with other countries.

4. External devaluation. This is also a kind of default. Make your money lose its value. This is the dirty little secret politicians prefer. The most common way to achieve this is through inflation, but you can also de-peg your currency from a fixed exchange rate and just declare its new value.

5. Raise taxes/cut spending. Not happening. In fact, Trump just re-upped his tax cuts and increased the debt, DOGE or no DOGE.

6. Economic growth. A growing economy means increased revenues. Simple enough. This is obviously the best option. However, GDP growth in the US has been steadily declining for decades, thanks in large part to our public and private debt overhang.

 

[g5000]

Response to Social Security’s Go-Broke Date ​

Here's the deal with Social Security and Medicare which I have pointed out a zillion times and no one has the guts to implement.

1935. The year Social Security was enacted. 5.4 percent of the population was 65 or older.

1965. The year Medicare was tacked on. 9 percent of the population was 65 or older.

The Present. 17.3 percent of the population is 65 or older.

A smaller and smaller percentage of the working population is supporting a larger and larger percentage. It is blazingly obvious this is unsustainable.

The Social Security/Medicare eligibility age must raised. There is no way around this.

In 1983, the Social Security age was raised to 67, but the cowards didn't set it to take full effect until this year. They didn't have the guts to make it effective during their tenures in Congress and face the wrath of the voters.

In 1983, life expectancy was 74.46 years.

Today, life expectancy is 78.4 years.

So life expectancy has increased by 4 years while the eligibility age has increased by only 2 years.

We need to raise the eligibility age to 70, and index it to 9 percent of the population to account for increases and decreases in population affecting the weight on the national treasury.

This is unavoidable. We are living longer than our ancestors, we should be working longer.

And before any of you say that some workers can't work until they are 70, keep in mind our labor today is far, far easier than the labor of 1935. Most people died before they became eligible. Social Security was intended for those who beat the actuarials.

Also, early retirements are allowed under our current system and can be carried forward.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The fix is simple.

The problems if the bravery of Congress and the President.

 

[Hafar1014]

Response to Social Security’s Go-Broke Date ​

Response to Social Security's Go-Broke Date
20 June 2025
The recent analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget regarding the 2025 Medicare Trustees’ Report highlights the looming challenges with Medicare and Social Security, but it only scratches the surface of the deeper fiscal issues our country faces. To understand the full financial reality, we must go beyond trust fund “solvency” and examine the actual commitments the federal government has made—and continues to make—without fully accounting for them
The recent analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget regarding the 2025 Medicare Trustees’ Report highlights the looming challenges with Medicare and Social Security, but it only scratches the surface of the deeper fiscal issues our country faces. To understand the full financial reality, we must go beyond trust fund “solvency” and examine the actual commitments the federal government has made—and continues to make—without fully accounting for them.
As the Congressional Budget Office has noted:

“In the public debate, ‘solvency’ means keeping the trust funds from exhausting their balances and ensuring the ability of the funds to finance promised benefits. Defined that way, however, trust fund solvency is not a meaningful measure of the government’s ability to meet its future obligations.”​

In other words, solvency in this context is more of a political or legal benchmark than an actual measure of financial health. The more alarming reality is how much these programs consume of the federal budget. In 2008, spending on Social Security and Health and Human Services (including Medicare) made up 38% of the federal budget. In 2024, that share has grown to 44%, crowding out other priorities and worsening the deficit.
Despite this, Congress continues to make benefit promises without a full understanding—or accounting—of their long-term costs. For example, lawmakers recently expanded Social Security coverage to additional workers without fully assessing the impact on the already strained and largely symbolic trust funds. This is like buying a car knowing only the monthly payments, without understanding the total cost or whether you’ll be able to pay it off.
One of the clearest signs of how disconnected federal accounting is from reality lies in the federal balance sheet itself. According to the Treasury Department, only $241 billion of liabilities for Social Security and Medicare are included in official federal financial statements. This is a tiny fraction of the real financial picture: Social Security carries over $50 trillion in unfunded promises, while Medicare’s unfunded obligations exceed $60 trillion.
Why is this massive gap ignored in the financial statements? Because, as Steve Goss, Chief Actuary of Social Security, explained:

“An overriding uncertainty exists under the Social Security (and all Federal Social Insurance) programs. This is the Government’s right and ability to alter potential future benefits. Until benefits become due and payable, there is no binding commitment over which a worker has control and so no liability can be recognized.”​

In plain terms, the federal government is not legally liable to pay any Social Security or Medicare benefits beyond the checks due next month. These are political promises, not binding obligations—yet millions of Americans base their retirement planning on the assumption that these promises will be honored.

Even the very concept of “trust funds” is misunderstood. The Treasury Department clarifies:​

“In the federal budget, the term ‘trust fund’ means only that the law requires a particular fund be accounted for separately, used only for a specified purpose, and designated as a trust fund. A change in law may change the future receipts and the terms under which the fund’s resources are spent.”​

This differs drastically from the private sector, where trust funds involve a fiduciary duty to manage someone else’s money for their benefit. In government, trust funds are little more than internal bookkeeping entries that Congress can change at any time.
At Truth in Accounting, we believe the public and lawmakers deserve honest, complete, and transparent accounting. That includes recognizing the full cost of Social Security and Medicare, understanding the long-term implications of policy changes, and being honest about what has been promised—and what has not.
Until we do so, we are not just engaging in poor financial management—we are undermining the American people's trust and passing unsustainable burdens onto future generations.

Commentary:
Ever notice that nothing else in the Federal Budget has a “go broke” date? Welfare doesn’t, Ukraine doesn’t, EPA doesn't, NASA doesn’t, etc.
The real "Go Broke" date is when the US dollar become worthless through hyperinflation and a new monetary system has to be created. The Weimar Republic is good example of that, except the US economy today is much bigger than Old Germany. It'll be quite a mess.

SS is ponzi and will always go broke. We have to allow people to opt out

 

[Hafar1014]

The fix is simple.

The problems if the bravery of Congress and the President.

Its impossible to fix SS because its based on the ponzi model ad will always go broke. There is no internal investment to offset future increases. The tax is already to high and the benefits too low.

 

[kyzr]

Its impossible to fix SS because its based on the ponzi model ad will always go broke. There is no internal investment to offset future increases. The tax is already to high and the benefits too low.

1. Removing the cap and raising the retirement ages saves SS

Social Security Isn’t Broke — but These 4 Fixes Could Change Your Benefits

Social Security may run short by 2034. Experts have suggested boosting FICA taxes, raising wage cap and delaying retirement as potential remedies to shortfall.

www.aol.com

2. If the birthrate keeps dropping Trump's new "baby bonus" account may replace SS at some point.
"The Trump baby bonus refers to a $1,000 deposit made by the federal government into a special savings account for every child born in the U.S. between 2025 and 2028, as part of the "Trump accounts" initiative aimed at helping families save for education, home purchases, or starting a business. Parents can also contribute up to $5,000 annually to these accounts until the child turns 18."

 

[Hafar1014]

1. Removing the cap and raising the retirement ages saves SS

Social Security Isn’t Broke — but These 4 Fixes Could Change Your Benefits

Social Security may run short by 2034. Experts have suggested boosting FICA taxes, raising wage cap and delaying retirement as potential remedies to shortfall.

www.aol.com

2. If the birthrate keeps dropping Trump's new "baby bonus" account may replace SS at some point.
"The Trump baby bonus refers to a $1,000 deposit made by the federal government into a special savings account for every child born in the U.S. between 2025 and 2028, as part of the "Trump accounts" initiative aimed at helping families save for education, home purchases, or starting a business. Parents can also contribute up to $5,000 annually to these accounts until the child turns 18."

Which reduces benefits which are already too low. Keep doing that and the tax destroys the economy and the retirement age becomes 100. Its a PONZI

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Response to Social Security’s Go-Broke Date ​

Response to Social Security's Go-Broke Date
20 June 2025
The recent analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget regarding the 2025 Medicare Trustees’ Report highlights the looming challenges with Medicare and Social Security, but it only scratches the surface of the deeper fiscal issues our country faces. To understand the full financial reality, we must go beyond trust fund “solvency” and examine the actual commitments the federal government has made—and continues to make—without fully accounting for them
The recent analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget regarding the 2025 Medicare Trustees’ Report highlights the looming challenges with Medicare and Social Security, but it only scratches the surface of the deeper fiscal issues our country faces. To understand the full financial reality, we must go beyond trust fund “solvency” and examine the actual commitments the federal government has made—and continues to make—without fully accounting for them.
As the Congressional Budget Office has noted:

“In the public debate, ‘solvency’ means keeping the trust funds from exhausting their balances and ensuring the ability of the funds to finance promised benefits. Defined that way, however, trust fund solvency is not a meaningful measure of the government’s ability to meet its future obligations.”​

In other words, solvency in this context is more of a political or legal benchmark than an actual measure of financial health. The more alarming reality is how much these programs consume of the federal budget. In 2008, spending on Social Security and Health and Human Services (including Medicare) made up 38% of the federal budget. In 2024, that share has grown to 44%, crowding out other priorities and worsening the deficit.
Despite this, Congress continues to make benefit promises without a full understanding—or accounting—of their long-term costs. For example, lawmakers recently expanded Social Security coverage to additional workers without fully assessing the impact on the already strained and largely symbolic trust funds. This is like buying a car knowing only the monthly payments, without understanding the total cost or whether you’ll be able to pay it off.
One of the clearest signs of how disconnected federal accounting is from reality lies in the federal balance sheet itself. According to the Treasury Department, only $241 billion of liabilities for Social Security and Medicare are included in official federal financial statements. This is a tiny fraction of the real financial picture: Social Security carries over $50 trillion in unfunded promises, while Medicare’s unfunded obligations exceed $60 trillion.
Why is this massive gap ignored in the financial statements? Because, as Steve Goss, Chief Actuary of Social Security, explained:

“An overriding uncertainty exists under the Social Security (and all Federal Social Insurance) programs. This is the Government’s right and ability to alter potential future benefits. Until benefits become due and payable, there is no binding commitment over which a worker has control and so no liability can be recognized.”​

In plain terms, the federal government is not legally liable to pay any Social Security or Medicare benefits beyond the checks due next month. These are political promises, not binding obligations—yet millions of Americans base their retirement planning on the assumption that these promises will be honored.

Even the very concept of “trust funds” is misunderstood. The Treasury Department clarifies:​

“In the federal budget, the term ‘trust fund’ means only that the law requires a particular fund be accounted for separately, used only for a specified purpose, and designated as a trust fund. A change in law may change the future receipts and the terms under which the fund’s resources are spent.”​

This differs drastically from the private sector, where trust funds involve a fiduciary duty to manage someone else’s money for their benefit. In government, trust funds are little more than internal bookkeeping entries that Congress can change at any time.
At Truth in Accounting, we believe the public and lawmakers deserve honest, complete, and transparent accounting. That includes recognizing the full cost of Social Security and Medicare, understanding the long-term implications of policy changes, and being honest about what has been promised—and what has not.
Until we do so, we are not just engaging in poor financial management—we are undermining the American people's trust and passing unsustainable burdens onto future generations.

Commentary:
Ever notice that nothing else in the Federal Budget has a “go broke” date? Welfare doesn’t, Ukraine doesn’t, EPA doesn't, NASA doesn’t, etc.
The real "Go Broke" date is when the US dollar become worthless through hyperinflation and a new monetary system has to be created. The Weimar Republic is good example of that, except the US economy today is much bigger than Old Germany. It'll be quite a mess.

Turn the account over to Congress and let them trade it, they can keep 10% of the profits

 

[kyzr]

Which reduces benefits which are already too low. Keep doing that and the tax destroys the economy and the retirement age becomes 100. Its a PONZI

1. If SS was a ponzi it would have failed long before now. SS has worked well since 1935 with periodic tweaks.

2. Benefits are not reduced. People are living longer. The SS tax is a good investment for "working class" people.
Upping the retirement ages from 62/67 to 64/68 is not a big deal.

3. What could kill SS is if family formation and birth rates drop. That would mean that Trump's "baby bonus" would need to happen and kid's 401k would need to replace SS.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

SS is ponzi and will always go broke. We have to allow people to opt out

Nope.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Its impossible to fix SS because its based on the ponzi model ad will always go broke. There is no internal investment to offset future increases. The tax is already to high and the benefits too low.

You don't understand what a Ponzi Scheme is then. You have made a classic fallacy of false equivalency error.




How Social Security is different
While Social Security does rely on current workers’ payroll taxes to fund retirees, it’s:

• Legal and transparent: It’s a government-run program with oversight and public accounting.
• Adjustable: Congress can change tax rates, benefit formulas, or retirement ages to keep it solvent.
• Not profit-driven: It doesn’t promise unrealistic returns or enrich a central figure like a Ponzi scheme does.

Why the confusion?
Some critics argue that because Social Security needs a steady stream of new workers to fund retirees, it resembles a Ponzi structure. But that’s more of a metaphor than a literal comparison. The program’s challenges — like an aging population and longer life expectancies — are real, but solvable through policy changes.

So while it may share some superficial traits with a Ponzi scheme, calling it one is more rhetorical than factual. Want to explore how Social Security could be reformed or what its future looks like?

 

[Hafar1014]

Nope.

Prove me wrong Ponzi a model where new money pays old obligations with no internal investment to offset future increases in expenses.

SS a model where new money pays old obligations with no internal investment to offset future increases in expenses.
See the difference.

Lets see if you can prove me wrong

 

[HikerGuy83]

Right winger alway “solve” problems with empty fact free generalizations.

Why don't you address the fundamental problem instead of just turd-bombing the thread?

Everyone knows that the system is headed towards a time when benefits will have to be trimmed.

Or do you not believe that?

Simple YES or NO.

 

[HikerGuy83]

No attempt will be to stabilize the long term fiscal health of either SSA or Medicare by the Trump regime.

Shut up.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Prove me wrong Ponzi a model where new money pays old obligations with no internal investment to offset future increases in expenses.

SS a model where new money pays old obligations with no internal investment to offset future increases in expenses.
See the difference.

Lets see if you can prove me wrong

John Edgar Slow Horses has never proved a thing in his time on this board.

All he does is prattle.