221
Social Security payments predicted to be cut in 2032
(www.newsweek.com)
I want all my money back.
If social security gets fucked by the time I need to start using it, I'm just going to go around lighting shit on fire. And I'm not exaggerating.
be strategic. don't get the restaurants and coffee shops please
There are 4,597 Walmarts in the United States. Not suggesting anything, just putting that fact out there.
Social Security would be the easiest thing to fix, and honestly, it'd be hugely popular, too.
That is, it will be hugely popular with everyone but the Epstein class and those that do their bidding.
Just raise the cap.
It's kind of insane to me that there's an annual cap on social security payments. If your salary is high enough, you stop paying into it partway through the year. That's ass-backwards. You shouldn't pay anything for the first chunk of money, and then pay more as you make more.
Yup.
Social security is one of, if not the most popular, government program with Americans.
Looking at Social Security and the constant gaslighting about how it's a "Ponzi scheme" and it's "going to fail at year X" demonstrates not only how out of touch the Epstein class we have for politicians are, but also the extent they and the corporate media is willing to go to give a false impression about things.
It could easily be made solvent with just a few steps, all of them quite popular with the American people.
People already have a shocking lack of saving. We have had the cons trying to destroy Social Security since its inception, and now we get fElon telling people they won't need to save for retirement, FFS:
If your salary is high enough, you stop paying into it partway through the year. That’s ass-backwards.
It looks ass-backwards when viewed in isolation and today's tax policy. When the cap rule was put in place in 1937, the marginal tax rate was 79% and this would be for income over $5million ($115million in 2026 dollars). The cap was in place because the Social Security benefit doesn't increase above the that income.
We broke the system by removing that large marginal tax, but leaving the Social Security income cap in place.
The cap was in place because the Social Security benefit doesn’t increase above the that income.
I don't think that's necessarily a good reason for the cap to exist. I expect it's a compromise to get rich people and idiots on board.
It's exactly for these kinds of anachronistic things that when I see someone right now agitating to have some kind of age cutoff for people in office, I have a lot of skepticism.
It'd be ironic for government to put a cap into place for age of 65 (say) and then soon after, humans often start having longer and longer healthspans, extending over 100 and possibly beyond.
For that matter, it'd be interesting to see how the Social Security system responds to longer and longer healthspans. I have a feeling that cons would be quite quick to start agitating to raise the retirement age because they always seem very keen on having people working more, even when they don't want to. They also love to take away services and benefits from the average American.
It's easy to see how slow our system responds based on the realities going on around us.
It’s exactly for these kinds of anachronistic things that when I see someone right now agitating to have some kind of age cutoff for people in office, I have a lot of skepticism.
It’d be ironic for government to put a cap into place for age of 65 (say) and then soon after, humans often start having longer and longer healthspans, extending over 100 and possibly beyond.
I would certainly entertain an age cap on office holders. What we have right now with almost entirely geriatric leaders is the lack of representation of those not in the senior citizen demographic. Its a version of tyranny of the few. This is exacerbated by the voting power being focused in those that don't have the suffer the consequences of their choices, and instead leave those for younger generations.
I'm open to other ideas about how to address this too, but I don't dismiss an age cap on office holders immediately.
For that matter, it’d be interesting to see how the Social Security system responds to longer and longer healthspans.
You don't have to wonder. We've experienced this already in the life of Social Security. The original blueprint wasn't designed to have a large retired population. You were supposed to die before reaching retirement. Social Security was to support the aging survivors that didn't die yet to keep them out of abject poverty.
Retirement age increase is only one of three or four big levers on how to alter how Social Security operates and is maintainable.
hey, when you study history you aren't supposed to study economic and tax systems knock it off
load more comments
(6 replies)
Removing the cap is a complete no-brainer but on its own not enough to solve the problem. The fact we can't even do that gives me zero confidence that it will be solvent to fully pay benefits when I ultimately retire.
There's a polished calculator for the impact of each policy change here: https://www.crfb.org/socialsecurityreformer/
Imo there are many reasonable solutions, but the only "free" thing that won't upset the public is removing the cap, and we can't even do that.
Social Security would be the easiest thing to fix, and honestly, it’d be hugely popular, too.
Just raise the cap.
I would be "negatively" affected with the raising of the cap. I still support raising the cap.
I'd also like what Al Gore wanted to do in the year 2000, a "social security lock box". Stop letting Congress spend the annual contribution surpluses on non-social security spending.
Too late for that now. We're past the surplus years.
Yeah but raising the collection age limit is likely the end result unfortunately.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have proposed solutions to the potential shortfall. The Fair Share Act, introduced by Democrats Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Representative Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania, would strengthen Social Security and Medicare by requiring people earning over $400,000 to pay payroll taxes on all income above that level. Supporters say it could fund the program for 75 years, though high earners oppose it.
A bipartisan proposal from Republican Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia would create a new investment fund, allowing Social Security to invest in stocks and other assets, starting with a $1.5 trillion Treasury-backed boost.
These people in the bolded paragraph can be [redacted] .
"Lets tie more things to how the stock market is doing" is a crazy take for a fund that's supposed to be stable.
Tim Kaine is an HRC favorite.
Just out of the Boomer demographic. Convenient.
I cannot believe how many boomers I heard express doubt as to whether they'd ever collect it, since they thought it was going to be Greatest Generation/Silent Generation taking it all.
Why do I feel this is just a ploy for boomers to take even more of my money and then never let me collect SS...
The word you are looking for is DEFAULT. The ruling class if floating the idea of defaulting on social security in 2032.
They borrowed (stole) the extra that was paid in, with the promise of paying it back when needed. Now that the bill is due, they want to default.
They have money to bail out the rich to the tune of trillions, tens of trillions between it all not even including the fed and their hocus pocus to subsidize the richest. But they can't save the post office they sabotaged, nor do they have the cash to pay their debts to retirees, the ones that also paid those goddamned subsidies to the rich and corporate welfare and bailouts. The rich don't even pay taxes, and the corporations pay way lower rates than we do, even before their write offs which brings most of theirs down to 0%.
They sabotage it and use that as an excuse to privatize it.
Say no to the government DEFAULTING on America!
Soon there will be a critical mass of people who have nothing left to lose. Thats why the Republicans put a paramilitary army on the streets, and it’s also why the Democrats won’t stop them. They work for the same people.
Gen X will have paid into the SSA all their lives, and they'll get nothing for it.
Gen X will spend their declining years working, to pay for the SSA benefits for the Boomers.
I know, I know what you're saying: "Gen who now?" And that's right, you've got it, that's exactly how it is.
Gen X here. You've nailed the aesthetic of being Gen X very, very well.
Thanks. Rumor has it, I have experience in this area also.
Fat-cat social security recipients won't be leeching off our hard-working millionaires and billionaires for much longer. Think of all the tax breaks we'll be able to afford to give to the wealthy with that kind of money!
We'll just end the program and people will no longer have to contribute! Honestly the number of fuckwits who would be excited about this is the sad part. Then they'll cry the leopards are their face when they are being forced into amazon labor camps at 83. Stupid people can't keep nice things. They never understood their value and didn't have to sacrifice for them. So the lesson will have to be learned again.
Nuh-uh, they'll obviously be rich in the future and then people like them better watch their step!
We should use all these savings on our tiny military.
So they want to put all of our SSA money into the stock market and hope that it generates enough profit to cover the declining workforce... I'm sure that 401Ks, social security, and banking IRAs all being dependent on the same stock market not failing isn't a terrible idea.
Anything, everything, just to continue draining all possible dregs of M2 money supply into the stock market, artificially inflating it's values. That's why 401k's exist and not pensions; the gambling machine only continues to work if there is effective infinite liquidity to continue pumping up it's values. And scamming the working class into "saving" by dumping their cash into said gambling machine is just another way to do it.
That’s why 401k’s exist and not pensions
Honestly, pensions in the USA today are more risky than 401ks. Pensions require the parent company to still be solvent 30-50 years. A number of formerly bellwether companies with heavy pension burdens have gone under an the the pensioners only receive a fraction of the promised benefits.
Some of the public pensions look very worrisome too. As an example, I have no idea how Detroit is going to manage their pension commitments with its rising costs, declining population, and high number of pension members.
For all its faults, 401k money is the employee's the moment its paid with no dependency of the employer to be around afterward.
eh, the idea is to pump it as high as possible so you can slam it down even harder. when you know how the casino works, you can make just as much (if not more) on the bust-end of the boom/bust investment cycle
Are we expecting the stock market of the crash any day now due to the AI bubble?
Doesn't matter if it's the AI bubble or something else.
It will crash.
It will hurt lots of regular people. Even some "rich" people.
It will not hurt the ultra rich, they've rigged the game so they always win. They'll be able to hoard even more wealth.
Yup. AI, stock market, doesn't matter. The next big pop is a tactical nuke to bring everyone but the ultra wealthy to their knees.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Pulling up the ladder behind them.
The actual choices are to cut paments, lift the cap or divert other revenue (such as a wealth tax on billionaires) to the trust fund.
As if they could be bothered to divert some of the trillions in bail outs and subsidies and tax breaks and corporate welfare to the richest. No we have to default because for the first time the money coming in is less than the money going out, nevermind we took the excess of paid in over paid out for the last 100 years, with the promise of paying it back later.
They are floating the idea of Defaulting, to see how much pushback they get.
Well, I saw fElon say people won't even need to save for retirement, because, well, reasons. Because that dumbass can see the future.
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 19 Feb 2026
221 points (98.3% liked)
News
35962 readers
2904 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 biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
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. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
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, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. 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 or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
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