161

Medicare and Social Security go-broke dates pushed up due to rising health care costs, new SSA law (apnews.com)

submitted 4 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

19 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The go-broke dates for Medicare and Social Security ‘s trust funds have moved up as rising health care costs and new legislation affecting Social Security benefits have contributed to earlier projected depletion dates, according to an annual report released Wednesday.

The go-broke date — or the date at which the programs will no longer have enough funds to pay full benefits — was pushed up to 2033 for Medicare’s hospital insurance trust fund, according to the new report from the programs’ trustees. Last year’s report put the go-broke date at 2036.

Meanwhile, Social Security’s trust funds — which cover old age and disability recipients — will be unable to pay full benefits beginning in 2034, instead of last year’s estimate of 2035. After that point, Social Security would only be able to pay 81% of benefits.

top 19 comments

sorted by: hot top new old

[-] [email protected] 43 points 4 days ago

I only learned recently that there's a max on social security tax you pay each year. If your income is high enough, partway through the year your takehome pay jumps up because that tax is no longer applicable to you.

That's stupid. Profoundly stupid. Ass backwards.

When your income is low, you need those dollars that are taxed. When your income is high, you don't.

It should be like, the first (some amount) of income isn't taxed for social security, and then the rate goes up as income goes up.

Anyone who doesn't want to pay into social security is welcome to go live in a state of nature where they can be eaten by wolves instead of a society.

[-] [email protected] 7 points 4 days ago

Does that mean you're no longer entitled to social security if your income is too high? I figure the rich can still get it anyway.

[-] [email protected] 7 points 4 days ago

I'm not sure that detail of how it works today. I would assume that if there's an option that is less beneficial to the wealthy, it's not true.

In my magic wand perfect world, we just do UBI and things are much simpler for everyone.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago

There’s a cap to how much income you can receive. That’s likewise why you have a cap on the taxation amount. In a way that’s good but it’s also bad.

[-] [email protected] 14 points 3 days ago

Social Security is literally the easiest problem to fix. Just raise the cap.

Right now, we pay SS on the first $167,000 in income. Most people make less than that so they pay SS on 100% of what they earn. But those who earn more that $167K only pay it on the first $167K.

So all they have to do is raise the cap from $167K to $250K, or $500K, etc. They'll scream about it, but who cares? Most of us pay it on 100% of our pay, so I'm not concerned if you have to pay it on a fraction of that amount.

Simple. Stop listening to the Conservative Propaganda Machine, and just raise the cap.

[-] [email protected] 24 points 4 days ago

RAISE THE FUCKING CAP OR ELSE

[-] [email protected] 8 points 4 days ago

Over 25 years ago Canada realized we would be facing the same issue so the feds started a Canadian Pension fund to invest in stocks.

Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPP Investments) was created in 1997 by an Act of Parliament to respond to projections that the employee contributions to pay retirements benefits was not sustainable.

It was determined that a professional investment management organization would be able to grow the fund through investment income to help ensure the CPP remains sustainable for the long term. CPP Investments prudently invests the amounts transferred to us by the CPP, helping to provide a foundation on which Canadians can build financial security in retirement.

After an initial transfer of $12 million from the CPP, we began investing in publicly traded stocks in 1999.

https://www.cppinvestments.com/faqs/

[-] [email protected] 13 points 4 days ago

We had pensions and they took them away from us and pushed us into 401K’s. Appropriate their assets. Liquidate if necessary. The threat is existential.

[-] [email protected] 6 points 4 days ago

The casino makes more money when everyone is forced to use it as a bank!

[-] [email protected] 21 points 4 days ago

Great. Since I’m looking at least at 2045, please return the small fortune I have paid to this program immediately.

Thanks. ✌️

[-] [email protected] 19 points 4 days ago

Am I blind or was the idea of removing the income cap on social security tax not mentioned in that article?

[-] [email protected] 19 points 4 days ago

Good gods man you can't mention that! What if a poor sees it and realizes they are contributing astronomically more to SS per dollar earned than us riches?

[-] [email protected] 6 points 4 days ago

So...can we who will surely never see a dime STOP PAYING INTO IT? What a fucking fleece.

[-] [email protected] 6 points 4 days ago

The working people pay for the ones retired now. It’s been that way since day one.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 4 days ago

Yeah, and since the ones who are retired now are all in on the people bankrupting the future, I say fuck them entirely

[-] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago

Good point.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 4 days ago

No, because the boomers will get big mad

[-] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago

No, the way to fix it is to remove the cap, not stop paying into it at all.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago

Ahh just in time for the boomers to die...

this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2025

161 points (99.4% liked)

News

30380 readers

2582 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]