Social Security could run out in 6 years under Trump Plan

[cpwill]

Which is, it is worth noting, only ~3 years before it was already planned.

Social Security’s trust fund reserves could be depleted as early as 203 under former President Trump’s proposals, several years earlier than recent projections, a new analysis from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) has found....

The combined trust funds for Social Security retirement and disability benefits are projected to run out in 2035 by the program’s trustees, a year later than previously expected, after economic growth exceeded expectations last year.

But under Trump’s proposals, CRFB estimated funds could run out by 2031 while increasing Social Security’s cash deficit $2.3 trillion from fiscal years 2026 to 2035.

In a closer look at the price tag, CRFB said its central estimate found that the biggest cost stemmed from Trump’s proposal to do away with taxation of Social Security benefits — a move that would cost $950 billion.....​

Predictably, the Trump Administration is insisting that Math Doesn't Count

Trump’s campaign slammed the analysis in a statement on Monday. “The so-called experts at CRFB have been consistently wrong throughout the years. President Trump delivered on his promise to protect Social Security in his first term, and President Trump will continue to strongly protect Social Security in his second term,” Trump Campaign National Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement, ...

Trump has said on the campaign trail that he will not “cut one cent from Social Security.”... CRFB additionally forecasted potentially bigger cuts to benefits upon insolvency under Trump’s proposals than under current law. The group estimated a 33 percent cut to benefits after tax for roughly half of beneficiaries under Trump’s plans, compared to 23 percent under current law. ​

 

[Ishm]

As long as Trump can avoid jail for the next 4 years, no maga cares about SS running out. Until it actually runs out of course, then they will blame the Dems. That's the maga way!

 

[Bok Tuklo]

That should please Republicans.

 

[Threegoofs]

It wont happen because Trump is just making this shit up as he goes.

He'll need Congress to pass any of this stuff, and I would think the HOR will remain democratic for a while.

 

[Econ4every1]

The problem is the SS ever having been thought of any differently than any other item in the US budget.

There is no "war tax" that comes out of our pay checks. There's no separate tax to fund Congressional salaries (though I might be on to something here!). Why do we have a tax for SSI benefits? Because we are being manipulated to think differently about SSI.

In reality, there is no crisis beyond the statutory crisis that we allow to persist.

The government merely needs to pay SSI benefits just like it pays for everything else.

SSI benefits are used by many as their sole source of income in retirement along with any Medicare/aid benefits a person might qualify for. Taking them away will result in $1.5 trillion dollars less in spending. That's a lot of jobs lost. I would guess that a HUGE amount of that money goes to nursing homes, medical costs, nursing etc. A loss of those benefits without a replacement would be staggeringly bad for the economy.

The idea that the government can tax you check and save it for later is a ridiculous misunderstanding of how government spending and taxing works.

The US government can never have a balance in it's own currency, just as you cannot bank your own debt. If you have a credit card, you start with zero dollars the day you get it. If you spend $3000 and get $500 back and put it in can under your bed, you don't have $500, you have -$2500, but because you aren't applying it to your credit card, you are paying interest to hold it. If all you have is a credit card, you can never be positive dollars, you can only be in less debt until you reach zero.

In other words, the government cannot, in any meaningful sense tax money and put it in an account to save for later. Any money it puts to the side is still debt, just like the $500 under the bed.

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

SS can be easily fixed if Congress wants to fix it.. Easily..

Or the government can just print up more money..

 

[Callen]

The analysis was that existing benefits would have to be cut. No wonder seniors are moving to Harris.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

Which is, it is worth noting, only ~3 years before it was already planned.

Social Security’s trust fund reserves could be depleted as early as 203 under former President Trump’s proposals, several years earlier than recent projections, a new analysis from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) has found....​

​

The combined trust funds for Social Security retirement and disability benefits are projected to run out in 2035 by the program’s trustees, a year later than previously expected, after economic growth exceeded expectations last year.​

​

But under Trump’s proposals, CRFB estimated funds could run out by 2031 while increasing Social Security’s cash deficit $2.3 trillion from fiscal years 2026 to 2035.​

​

In a closer look at the price tag, CRFB said its central estimate found that the biggest cost stemmed from Trump’s proposal to do away with taxation of Social Security benefits — a move that would cost $950 billion.....​

Predictably, the Trump Administration is insisting that Math Doesn't Count

Trump’s campaign slammed the analysis in a statement on Monday. “The so-called experts at CRFB have been consistently wrong throughout the years. President Trump delivered on his promise to protect Social Security in his first term, and President Trump will continue to strongly protect Social Security in his second term,” Trump Campaign National Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement, ...​

​

Trump has said on the campaign trail that he will not “cut one cent from Social Security.”... CRFB additionally forecasted potentially bigger cuts to benefits upon insolvency under Trump’s proposals than under current law. The group estimated a 33 percent cut to benefits after tax for roughly half of beneficiaries under Trump’s plans, compared to 23 percent under current law. ​

Thank Ronald Reagan.

He stole billions from social security to fund his SDI project.

 

[ttwtt78640]

It wont happen because Trump is just making this shit up as he goes.

He'll need Congress to pass any of this stuff, and I would think the HOR will remain democratic for a while.

Trump is likely clueless about how his “no tax on SS benefits, tips and overtime” ideas would negatively impact the SS ‘trust me’ funds.

 

[CaughtInThe]

If Trump somehow pulls this election out of his ass I'm gonna laugh at all the old/female MAGAs that hurt themselves.

 

[CaughtInThe]

 

[VySky]

Which is, it is worth noting, only ~3 years before it was already planned.

Social Security’s trust fund reserves could be depleted as early as 203 under former President Trump’s proposals, several years earlier than recent projections, a new analysis from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) has found....​

​

The combined trust funds for Social Security retirement and disability benefits are projected to run out in 2035 by the program’s trustees, a year later than previously expected, after economic growth exceeded expectations last year.​

​

But under Trump’s proposals, CRFB estimated funds could run out by 2031 while increasing Social Security’s cash deficit $2.3 trillion from fiscal years 2026 to 2035.​

​

In a closer look at the price tag, CRFB said its central estimate found that the biggest cost stemmed from Trump’s proposal to do away with taxation of Social Security benefits — a move that would cost $950 billion.....​

Predictably, the Trump Administration is insisting that Math Doesn't Count

Trump’s campaign slammed the analysis in a statement on Monday. “The so-called experts at CRFB have been consistently wrong throughout the years. President Trump delivered on his promise to protect Social Security in his first term, and President Trump will continue to strongly protect Social Security in his second term,” Trump Campaign National Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement, ...​

​

Trump has said on the campaign trail that he will not “cut one cent from Social Security.”... CRFB additionally forecasted potentially bigger cuts to benefits upon insolvency under Trump’s proposals than under current law. The group estimated a 33 percent cut to benefits after tax for roughly half of beneficiaries under Trump’s plans, compared to 23 percent under current law. ​

Great. And Kamala just announced she wants to expand Medicare. That’s smart

 

[cpwill]

Great. And Kamala just announced she wants to expand Medicare. That’s smart

Yup. Looks like both the major party candidates this go-around are fiscally illiterate and destructive.

 

[Winston]

Which is, it is worth noting, only ~3 years before it was already planned.

Social Security’s trust fund reserves could be depleted as early as 203 under former President Trump’s proposals, several years earlier than recent projections, a new analysis from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) has found....​

​

The combined trust funds for Social Security retirement and disability benefits are projected to run out in 2035 by the program’s trustees, a year later than previously expected, after economic growth exceeded expectations last year.​

​

But under Trump’s proposals, CRFB estimated funds could run out by 2031 while increasing Social Security’s cash deficit $2.3 trillion from fiscal years 2026 to 2035.​

​

In a closer look at the price tag, CRFB said its central estimate found that the biggest cost stemmed from Trump’s proposal to do away with taxation of Social Security benefits — a move that would cost $950 billion.....​

Predictably, the Trump Administration is insisting that Math Doesn't Count

Trump’s campaign slammed the analysis in a statement on Monday. “The so-called experts at CRFB have been consistently wrong throughout the years. President Trump delivered on his promise to protect Social Security in his first term, and President Trump will continue to strongly protect Social Security in his second term,” Trump Campaign National Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement, ...​

​

Trump has said on the campaign trail that he will not “cut one cent from Social Security.”... CRFB additionally forecasted potentially bigger cuts to benefits upon insolvency under Trump’s proposals than under current law. The group estimated a 33 percent cut to benefits after tax for roughly half of beneficiaries under Trump’s plans, compared to 23 percent under current law. ​

That’s by design, imo

 

[cpwill]

SS can be easily fixed if Congress wants to fix it.. Easily..

Well. Simply. It won't be easy, because it's too easy to demagogue up until the point where we have no more choices. :-/

 

[cpwill]

That’s by design, imo

Eh.... I tend to assume incompetence and lack of caring about the future.

 

[CaughtInThe]

 

[Fletch]

As long as Trump can avoid jail for the next 4 years, no maga cares about SS running out. Until it actually runs out of course, then they will blame the Dems. That's the maga way!

As the OP points out, SS runs out of money even if Harris wins.

 

[Econ4every1]

Or the government can just print up more money..

All US dollars have been created by the government. The banking system also creates money though the purchase of promissory notes that everyday folks create when they sign loan agreements, but that money is offset, to the dollar by a liability, but that's a longer explanation I can get into if you're interested.

 

[PoS]

SS is a government ponzi scheme. Best to let it die.

 

[OrphanSlug]

The disinformation campaign rages on.

For Social Security (and other Retirement Funds ran by the government) the only difference between a Harris win or a Trump win is when the Fund runs out of intergovernmental debt holdings, no government ran fund holds anything in their respective ledgers but special issued intergovernmental debt.

Insolvency for government ran Funds only means intergovernmental debt holdings for a given Fund has reached zero, and the immediate impact would be reductions in beneficiary payment amounts to the point that the outlays from the Treasury for recipients would be equal or less than income in. Inevitably "solvency" for any government ran Fund means the program costs are less than the revenues received over a period of time. If you've ever heard of the concept of payers in to payees out, the reason for the terminology is that ratio determines long term capability of any government ran Fund.

Because the mechanism for all this is very simple, so are the answers. Either increase payments in to increase the velocity of new intergovernmental debt issued as holdings by these Funds or decrease payments out to slow down the cashing out of intergovernmental debt already held. Or, some combination of the two. The former is the better option, the latter of the two harms the most vulnerable.

At current course all government ran Funds are headed towards insolvency, this is indisputable fact even if their actual dates vary by Fund.

BTW, it is worth mentioning, neither Harris nor Trump has released any sort of comprehensive plan on how to deal with this reality.

If you do not know what I am talking about then you do not understand how these funds work.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The disinformation campaign rages on.

For Social Security (and other Retirement Funds ran by the government) the only difference between a Harris win or a Trump win is when the Fund runs out of intergovernmental debt holdings, no government ran fund holds anything in their respective ledgers but special issued intergovernmental debt.

Insolvency for government ran Funds only means intergovernmental debt holdings for a given Fund has reached zero, and the immediate impact would be reductions in beneficiary payment amounts to the point that the outlays from the Treasury for recipients would be equal or less than income in. Inevitably "solvency" for any government ran Fund means the program costs are less than the revenues received over a period of time. If you've ever heard of the concept of payers in to payees out, the reason for the terminology is that ratio determines long term capability of any government ran Fund.

Because the mechanism for all this is very simple, so are the answers. Either increase payments in to increase the velocity of new intergovernmental debt issued as holdings by these Funds or decrease payments out to slow down the cashing out of intergovernmental debt already held. Or, some combination of the two. The former is the better option, the latter of the two harms the most vulnerable.

At current course all government ran Funds are headed towards insolvency, this is indisputable fact even if their actual dates vary by Fund.

BTW, it is worth mentioning, neither Harris nor Trump has released any sort of comprehensive plan on how to deal with this reality.

If you do not know what I am talking about then you do not understand how these funds work.

Trump is trying to ‘buy’ votes now and even if congress agreed to let him make his proposed FIT code changes SS wouldn’t ‘go broke’ until after his (last) term ends.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Trump is trying to ‘buy’ votes now and even if congress agreed to let him make his proposed FIT code changes SS wouldn’t ‘go broke’ until after his (last) term ends.

Kick the can down the road approach, not the first guy to try it.

 

[nvflash]

All US dollars have been created by the government. The banking system also creates money though the purchase of promissory notes that everyday folks create when they sign loan agreements, but that money is offset, to the dollar by a liability, but that's a longer explanation I can get into if you're interested.

Consider yourself in a very select club of people who understand this.

Money is proof of debt.

Either the governments debt or our private debt.

 

[Econ4every1]

Either the governments debt or our private debt.

Ironically, people are sh*tting their pants worried about the $36 trillion in government debt and blissfully unaware of the $44 trillion dollars for non-government domestic private sector debt (bank debt)