Anybody concerned that social security will run out?

What if I put in for 30 + years (current situation) and get nothing (or greatly reduced benefit) back?  Isn't that paying more than my fair share?

All these years of wage stagnation SS has been getting regular raises. It's time for that to stop. Period.

Not trying to be argumentative- I just don't understand why Social Security even exists this long after Reagan (et al) screwed us all and let companies off the hook for pensions in lieu of a market dependent, time horizon sensitive stock market investment (401k.)

Not to quoted person- but in general... I'd much rather forgive some value of student loans in exchange for a greatly reduced social security benefit for those that opt in to forgiveness. What would have been loan payments could then be earmarked for retirement savings. The rest of us that didn't opt into forgiveness of student loans would have a better shot at SS.

ETA: The Revenue Code Section (401k) was passed in 1978. Anyone of voting age in 1978 should be cut off.

I think we're mostly in agreement here, as I also mentioned means testing going forward. I guess we could take away the SS of those we feel should have been able to save more, but if the result is that we have a huge number of elderly people starving or on the street, I'm not comfortable with that.

The Boomer and earlier generations were raised with the expectation of SS being there for them. I can't fault them for having expected it. My generation (X) and younger should know better.  To your point, though, lots of younger people are struggling even to buy a house or pay off their student loans, so even if they know SS won't be there, they may not be able to save a lot.

Perhaps the answer is to replace SS with a means-tested program something like SSDI. Do away with SS paycheck deductions. When you're unable to work any longer, you get a basic income if your assets/income are below a certain amount. It could be funded by eliminating some of the tax loopholes from which only the rich can benefit. And that would also end the idea that people are just getting back the money they paid in. Most people outlive their SS deductions by a lot these days - that's part of the reason SS will become insolvent. 

I'm 52 and I do expect to get some social security when I retire. Some, not all, and certainly not enough to survive on. They'll keep raising the age and reducing the payout to kick the can.

No politician wants to be the one the "pulled the plug" on SS.

I agree with a lot of what you said clair.
They did increase the age from 65 to 67. They could increase it more, but many people wouldn't want to work till they are 70. And you can delay collecting SS until the age of 70, when you will get paid more than if you take it at 67.

Can they discontinue SS and the people who have paid into it for 60 years will just be SOL?  I think its more likely that they will stop people from paying into it and when the current generation who are receiving their money they paid in, the program will stop.  If I’m not right, will someone explain it to me?

Not as much social security, as I always assumed that would be a problem since it’s been under ‘threat’ my entire adult life. I am wary or fearful of the removal of Medicare as the GOP has recently proposed. The GOP wants to raise the age of eligibility and then end it at 80 something years old. Like where are 80whatever+ people supposed to get medical insurance from? How will they all afford their STD treatments in the villages?

I graduated in 1994 and when I was in high school they were already telling my generation to plan on not having it by the time we retire. This shouldn’t be alarming to anyone at this point.

I don’t know if threatening to remember this in November means much anymore. We have had Clinton, Bush 2.0, Obama, Trump and Biden and the talk has always stayed the same. Basically all generations past baby boomer are funding their own retirement (without SS) and the baby boomers retirement.

SSA covers more then just retirement payments. Think disability payments, survivor payments.

BTW: I don't think saying vote carefully in November a threat.

Yes I realize what FICA all goes towards. It is clear that there is a funding problem. It is also clear that since the 1990s when I started hearing about it running out not one person that has been elected has found a solution to this math problem. I also don’t believe anyone that we elect in the near future will fix the problem either. It will only be addressed when it becomes a reality. I have little faith that anyone from either party really cares enough to try to find a fix.

My husband came from a long-lived family (except his siblings who had cystic fibrosis) so everyone fully expected him to live a long life like his parents and aunts and uncles, as he didn’t have the disease. He got cancer and died 23 months later; he only collected the SS that he had paid into for well over 40 years for a little bit more than two years. 

More people than you think never live to collect what they paid in. And a lot of people can’t work until they are 70 or more. My brother is in the kidney dialysis program; no way could he work a job now at 69. And in order to retire earlier but delay collecting, you have to have enough to live on without SS. It’s not as easy as people want to think.

Soooo...

Let's be clear, Donald Trump will steal the hard-earned Social Security and Medicare benefits Americans have been paying into their entire lives and he'll use it to fund tax cuts for rich people like him," Singer warned. "President Biden keeps his promises. He has and will continue to protect Social Security and Medicare from MAGA Republican efforts to cut them—Donald Trump won't."

"No doubt we will hear cries from so-called 'fiscal conservatives' that Social Security is going 'bankrupt,' supposedly requiring Draconian measures—which couldn't be further than the truth."

Richard Fiesta, executive director of the Alliance for Retired Americans, said Monday that "current and future American retirees should feel confident about both Medicare and Social Security, which [are] stronger due to the robust economy under President Biden. But the future of these earned benefit programs depends on who is elected this fall—both as president and to Congress."

Fiesta highlighted that Biden's latest budget "calls for strengthening" the programs whereas Trump recently said that "there is a lot you can do... in terms of cutting" them and "the Republican Study Committee (RSC), which includes around 80% of House Republicans, stands ready to make cuts as well."
***

Unlike Democratic leaders in Washington, D.C., "Republicans want to cut benefits despite overwhelming opposition from the American people," Altman said of federal lawmakers and the former president. Additionally, "Trump plans to sharply restrict immigration. This would harm Social Security by reducing the number of workers paying in."

"The United States is the wealthiest nation on Earth at the wealthiest moment in our history. We can use that wealth to protect and expand Social Security, or to provide yet more tax handouts to billionaires," she concluded. "This report is a reminder that the next decade is a crucial one for Social Security's future. Americans should vote accordingly this November."

Max Richtman, president and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare, also asserted that "Congress must act NOW to strengthen Social Security for the 67 million Americans who depend on it. We cannot afford to wait to take action until the trust fund is mere months from insolvency, as Congress did in 1983."

www.rawstory.com/trustee-reports-show-medicare-social-security-must-be-defended-from-trump/

You can still retire earlier if you have your own retirement account.

I like the idea that if you wait until 70 you get this much more. If you wait until 75 (for example) you get this much. It makes sense that if someone waits until 70 without touching “their” contributions that money should be growing with interest.

So those of us that have already been paying in for 30 years, and will be paying in at least another 10-20 years by 70, to get a reduced benefit.... What? Why is it ok to keep moving the playing field? How are RESPONSIBLE people supposed to plan?

Also, I'm starting to reach the age where my friends are starting to die- due to their health for whatever reason. People who weren't always ill or even "covid." I just lost my brother in law at 52 years old! 

Sure, if you are one of those people that really loves their work, have flexible work with lots of perks and make plenty of money to enjoy it, I understand why you want to work into your seventies. My boyfriend is that guy.

But the vast majority of us literally trudge to work, to make the wealthy exponentially richer, doing our part to feed into the economy machine. I have alot of flexibility in my job, but many people do not. Why are we expected to spend 8 plus hours working, M-F for 50 years of our lives? And MAYBE see retirement for a decade or so. Maybe?

Generational wealth aside, generally speaking for these 50 years of contributing people, it's the risk averse, saving in the background people that make it to retirement without relying on SS. They (including me!) are counting the minutes til retirement! I know I am! Risk averse people thrive when they know what the variables are, and plan for it. Moving the goal posts (for little break some of us get) is just wrong.

I'd really rather just see it go away altogether and allow me to save my money or spend it on purses if I want. Money doesn't grow on trees and every dollar that goes to a person pulling SS that never worked (and paid in) and allowed (today at 67) to "retire" comes out of my paycheck. Why the hell should I (who has been paying all this time) have to wait even longer?

No more cost of living raises unless all companies are required to pay them to people actually working and paying in.

I'm 100% against means testing. Or, just make it like a true insurance. Allow me to opt out, and I can never receive it. Otherwise, all means testing does is feed a bureaucracy and cushy government paychecks and benefits for people who literally do no more complex work than I did balancing inventory and cash register drawers working fast food in high school.

I'm also 100% against people being able to "draw" against their ex's SS. Non-working (contributing) spouses receiving a benefit etc. I could go on and on- but basically- if YOU (the worker hoping to some day see a return on their paid in investment) didn't earn your credits, no SS for you. 

I haven't done the math in a long long time- but given the idea that that money was supposed to be "invested" "for us" we should reap the benefits of those many years of investment. But, yes, dollar for dollar, the SS money I paid in 1992 will likely be exhausted in a matter of two payments- if I ever get them. But then again, it will have been invested for 50 years plus at that time. 

That money will be exhausted even faster if every 10 year ex I have and my current non working spouse are allowed to collect against "my benefits." 

I say these things, but no politician, even the "big bad R's" are going to make the cuts necessary to make SS solvent, because they aren't nice. Instead, we'll keep paying in, until it's a small little not talked about change (like making moving expenses due to a job change tax deductible) and it's reduced to a small small portion of our retirement income. As we see on this thread, alot of people (including me) figured SS wouldn't be here for us and planned accordingly. Not everyone can do that, but over time, it'll become less and less monetarily valuable, or attainable (raise the age to 97!)