The nonpartisan budget watchdog, revisiting one of its favorite subjects, found that Americans retiring this decade are on track to collect, in the form of entitlements, about 133% of everything they and their employers paid in taxes, measured in present-value dollars. Strip out the employer match, and the return nearly doubles: Roughly 265% of what workers put in themselves. A median-wage retiree in 2027 will collect about $730,000 in lifetime benefits on combined contributions of less than $200,000. The math holds together because today’s payroll taxes are covering the gap. Who pays those taxes, and who is retiring and collecting? Largely millennials and baby boomers, respectively.

In nominal dollars, the gap is even more dramatic. A median-wage worker retiring in 2027 can expect about $730,000 in lifetime Social Security benefits, compared with less than $200,000 paid in taxes by that worker and their employer combined, according to CRFB. Benefits outpace total taxes paid after just six years of collecting. They outpace the worker’s own direct contributions after only three.


The consequence is a financing cliff that’s now closely dated. Social Security’s retirement trust fund is projected to be depleted in 2032, with the combined retirement and disability trust funds exhausted by around 2033 or 2034. After that point, according to the SSA Trustees Report, incoming payroll taxes alone would cover only about 78% of scheduled benefits—triggering an automatic, across-the-board cut of roughly 22% unless Congress intervenes before then.

The promise of retirement for Millennials is just a mirage. Conservatives keep sabotaging social security even though it has worked for 3 generations.

all 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 6 points 41 minutes ago (1 child)

That's... How it's supposed to work. Don't fall for the trap of getting mad at guaranteed income lol. You will regret it

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 20 minutes ago

    Right? I don't know how the US system works but in Canada we invest contributions and grow them. If you've been paying in since you started working I would hope it's grown in the meantime.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 53 minutes ago

    Isn't that how Social Security is supposed to work? In 30 years it's going to be Gen A paying for millennials. It only has reserves because the trust fund was set up to cover the baby boomers because they knew it was a much larger generation. The trust fund was never intended to be a permanent fixture.

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 6 hours ago (1 child)

    Their own graph illustrates how bullshit their own argument is:

    In the text they are comparing taxes without interest at "less than $200,000" (aka as $197.000 or "almost $200.000" if the author weren't a ghoul) with benefits without interest at $730.000, without mentioning interest/inflation adjustment at all. Since taxes were paid decades before the benefits will be received, their accumulated interest is going to be much higher, which is illustrated well by the graph.

    If the graph can be trusted, then with interest the break even point of contributions/benefits happens at 82 or 83 years of age. The usa life expectancy is 79 years. So according to their own data, the average boomer will have contributed more than they will receive. And that is with the current regressive taxation scheme, where high earners contribute less.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 8 hours ago

    Goddamn, I'm so sick of this bad faith argument. Fucking Fortune bullshit.

    Remove the Social Security Cap on incomes over $184k and this problem goes away. It's really that fucking simple.

    TAX THE FUCKING RICH ALREADY.

  • source
  • [–] 21 points 8 hours ago (1 child)

    First of all, "there's no money for this" coming from the federal government is a lie, on any topic. They just don't want to, and take advantage of people not knowing how money works. There's always money for bombs, but for schools and social services not so much.

    Second of all, as others have said, capping social security payments per year is stupid. It should be progressive. The first $x don't get taxed at all, then higher rates as your income goes high.

    Third, it shouldn't be tied to your personal contributions. We live in a society, despite what anti social conservative monsters say.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 hours ago

    While I agree the cap on social security contributions should be lifted, I don't think we need three separate progressive payroll taxes at the federal level. Currently both income and medicare are separate progressive tax brackets. Taxes are already complicated enough!

    Just lump them all together, increase the number of brackets (90% top rate), and tie the income ranges to inflation.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 8 hours ago (1 child)

    I'm proud of Lemmy's response to this.

    I expected "boomers bad", but found most comments calling out the bullshit.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 76 points 12 hours ago* (3 children)

    Oh, cool, a multi-prong attack on Social Security, just like I commented on that other article here on Social Security.

    Get the younger generation all whipped up and butthurt about the "olds" collecting what is characterized as "too much". While the oligarchs bitch about "balancing the budget" by cutting services.

    Instead of the fucking obvious option - lift the caps.

    I wish I could downvote this article more than once.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 11 hours ago

    Thank you for saving me the time and energy to say precisely that.

    If the caps were removed, it would completely solve the problem.

    That's it.

    Yet again, they try to divide us any way they can.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 8 hours ago*

    This is horseshit that should be deleted. Some VC billionaire is funding a campaign to make everyone hate social security so they can privatize it.

  • source
  • [–] 129 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (5 children)

    Baby boomers are collecting 265% of what they paid into Social Security

    A median-wage worker retiring in 2027 can expect about $730,000 in lifetime Social Security benefits, compared with less than $200,000 paid in taxes by that worker and their employer combined

    Adjusting the $200k for inflation, that's around $800k.

    If anything, SS recipients should be getting back more than $730k. That's deferred consumption which was recycled through public spending into increased domestic growth. Growth that the vast majority of these workers never got to see, as their salaries fell behind the inflation rate.

    But ask the editors of Fortune Magazine what they think of uncapping the Social Security tax, so it applies to people making more than $180k/year. Ask them how they feel about paying for SS directly out of the General Fund, rather than getting a special Poor Tax that can't be exempted through deductions and credits. Ask them how they feel about paying for SS out of an Equities Transaction Tax, such that trillionaires issuing the next round of IPOs take responsibility for the millions of senior citizens who they are brain-fucking with AI slop on a daily basis.

    Social Security is the promise this country (kinda-sorta) makes to its elderly. If you worked your whole life, you won't be impoverished the day your employer doesn't consider you a value-add anymore. The taxation scheme for SS is fucked, but only because it taxes labor income rather than labor value. We've seen the gross wealth in this country rise from $2.2T to $167T between 1960 and 2027. And you're telling me we're running out of money to pay our retirees?

    Fuck off. Anyone should be able to see through this bullshit.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 31 minutes ago

    about 133% of everything they and their employers paid in taxes, measured in present-value dollars. Strip out the employer match, and the return nearly doubles: Roughly 265% of what workers put in themselves.

    (Emphasis added.)

    The article already adjusted for inflation. It would be 365% if calculated based on nominal dollars.

    The problem isn't individual retirees collecting more than they paid in. The problem is billionaires and hundred-millionaires being exempted from paying into it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 7 hours ago (1 child)

    The most obvious slight of hand here is the suggestion that employer contributions shouldn't count as part of what employees paid in. That is part of their compensation and shouldn't be ignored when suggesting that younger generations are paying for baby boomer's social security.

    To me this reads like someone is trying to poison younger people against social security so they won't complain when it is taken away.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

    I sort of don’t want to wade into this, but…

    […] about 133% of everything they and their employers paid in taxes, measured in present-value dollars. Strip out the employer match, […]

    I agree with pretty much all of what you said, but they are accounting for inflation.

    Edit: Oh, no. My apologies.
    The article is kind of bullshit. They jump from saying the value is measured in present values to nominal without actually adjusting their numbers. I’m not a mathamagician, but something is fucky here in a way that extends beyond mathematical errors. They claim a discrepancy (employee + employer contributions), use an edge case to inflate the numbers (going with just employee contributions), then repeatedly mention that higher discrepancy while saying it’s due to both employee and employer contributions. It’s like an AI went off the rails trying to write persuasively, and the “writer” just let it fly anyway. Some basic logic doesn’t seem to work here.

    Shit. I read the summary from the OP before I commented. My mistake.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 29 points 13 hours ago (1 child)

    Exactly. It is obvious that this is trying to lie to you, because of course employees should be entitled to the employer match that employers paid into SS. If SS were a private fund, then those retirement funds would have been earning interest and the payors should be entitled to interest on their savings. “But, the index fund is paying you out more than you put in!!! The stock market will run out of moeny!” No, that is exactly what index funds, and retirement funds, are suppose to do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 100 points 13 hours ago (1 child)

    So I guess Fortune magazine just discovered inflation today? Fuck your dumb oligarch divisive bullshit, the only problem with Social Security is that the wealthiest haven't been paying enough into it.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 minutes ago

    They do say measured in present value dollars, so technically this isn't inflation. But it is effectively interest. The idea that social security taxes should be a 0% interest bank account is absurd. Nobody would reasonably put their retirement savings in a 0% interest bank account, even one that is inflation protected, and expect to have a successful retirement. They also fudge the numbers by looking at the median retiree and not the average retiree. Social Security is a progressive payout system, meaning those who put in the most get the least back proportionally (it could be more harshly progressive IMO, but that is a separate conversation). Meaning that in a wealth-concentrated environment like ours, social security is effectively a transfer of wealth from the richest boomers to the other boomers, but Fortune pretends that isn't happening and chalks it all up as a transfer of wealth from millennials to boomers, which is quite disingenuous

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 8 hours ago

    Not going to lie, I was upset when I saw the headline. Then I actually thought about it, and yeah, that sounds about right.

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 10 hours ago

    And it will be the same for when millennials are old enough to collect. That's literally how it works. The fact that people are constantly trying to frame this, like it's some kind of scam, is infuriating. Stop bullshitting people.

  • source
  • [–] 36 points 13 hours ago

    The media sure is pushing the “cut social security and medicare” narrative this month — instead of pointing out that yearly military budget is $1 trillion.

  • source
  • [–] 31 points 13 hours ago

    Let's be clear, every generation should get more than they put into it by working, because they're still paying taxes as well. Also, we all buy our own healthcare for the most part. This is a shitty, shitty, comparison.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 11 hours ago

    Eliminate the cap or eliminate the fuckin problem

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 13 hours ago

    I'm glad Lemmy sees through this. If they have to go into a skilled nursing facility and don't have really good insurance to pay and the copays and deductibles, they will be forced onto Medicaid (assuming it still exists), and the state will take their entire estate to pay for overpriced, subpar care. Eff all the way off with this noise.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 12 hours ago*

    That makes sense if you trust the inflation numbers the US has been putting out.

    In truth, for 50 years real inflation, as measured by the old unchanged pre 1970's measures changed to yield lower numbers through hook and crook, have averaged 5-8% a year just by 2008.

    In fact, by the old measure, social security checks would be worth on average 1,300 more a month just by 2008. Boomers are getting cheated, OP is just too, uh, ahem, misguided, to not be manipulated by the oligarchy.

    https://harpers.org/archive/2008/05/numbers-racket/

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 11 hours ago

    This is how it's supposed to work. Inflation doesn't stop when you stop working. If your savings and income are shrunk by inflation around you what are you supposed to do? Some of us will have investments that will grow with inflation, but many will not. This is literally designed to work this way, you collect an amount based on the current cost of living, not what that cost was when you were paying into it. It's a good system.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 10 hours ago (1 child)

    Even the paragraphs copied into my posts set of my bullshit detector a lot. It really feels like I'm being lied to. What's actually going on here?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 10 hours ago (1 child)

    Let's say you pay $10 in social security today. In 30 years when you take it out if it was worth $10 you'd be up shits creek. Social security would be literal robbery. Anyone could put the money in a bank/bonds whatever investments and at least get paid interest. So what happens here is a person puts in $10, their employer matched the $10. Then they get out a little less than $40 30 years later. If you look at inflation from 30 years to today... It's ~100%.

    Aka they should be getting at least that amount back, or it is a bad investment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 13 hours ago

    Budget watchdog

    Three conservative bootstraps penny-pinchers in a trenchcoat.

    They know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 13 hours ago*

    What in the fuck is benefits plus interest? Lol, fucking Christ.

    Their own graph shows their taxes plus interest covers more than the cost of their benefits. Shut the fuck up.

    Also using the non-interest, non-inflation adjusted sum with the current day dollar benefit amount and saying “it gets worse” as if they HAD done that then they just… give the same two numbers?

    I… you’re supposed to be someone I listen to about financials? You can’t even fucking pretend you did any math?

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 12 hours ago

    It's really hard to control the fury sometimes

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 14 hours ago

    Come and get some
    Skinning the children for a war drum
    Putting food on the table selling bombs and guns
    It's quicker and easier to eat your young

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 13 hours ago (1 child)

    That's OK, I've been eavesdropping on older relatives and know which nursing homes are the worst. My retirement plan is to buy a gun and check out when I run out of money for rent/food/medicine.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 12 hours ago

    As long as you have a plan in place to accomplish this and don't foist it onto your family members or friends, go for it.

    My irritation is that more than once in my family I've seen someone refuse to talk about or plan for their end of life care in any serious manner, but they tell everybody things like "if you're going to put me in a nursing home, just go ahead and put a bullet in my head first", and then inevitably they end up unable to care for themselves such that family members have to be the bad guy who put them in a home. Then that issue causes all kinds of friction and fighting in the family because "Danny didn't want to be in a home" even though the people most vocal about defending Danny's wishes aren't stepping up to take care of him and pay his bills, so...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 13 hours ago (1 child)

    The Greatest Generation got the best deal on Social Security, if you ask me.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

    The promise of retirement for Millennials is just a mirage. Conservatives keep sabotaging social security even thogh it has worked for 3 generations.

    Eh, Gen X told each other that sort of thing for years, and believe me, I stashed the maximum I possibly could in things like 401K when I could because of that sentiment.

    Gen Y stands to be the benefactors of the largest wealth transfer in history, by the way. It won't be equally distributed, but still.

    https://www.bordencastle.com/finance/society/2026/03/15/the-great-wealth-transfer.html

    The numbers are staggering enough to seem unreal: roughly $84 trillion in assets will transfer from Baby Boomers to younger generations over the next 20 years. To put it in perspective, that’s more than three times the current U.S. GDP. It’s the single largest intergenerational transfer of wealth in recorded history, and it has been quietly building momentum for years.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 7 hours ago* (1 child)

    Eh, Gen X told each other that sort of thing for years

    Oh! So, the problem has been known about for decades and not fixed? Broken as the Epstein class intended and bribed the politicians to have happen.

    Gen Y stands to be the benefactors of the largest wealth transfer in history, by the way. It won’t be equally distributed, but still.

    You think something will pass like that? The Epstein class will have drained it all with the Boomers' retirement/elderly care. The Millennials won't get anything from their parents.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 hours ago (1 child)

    The biggest wealth transfer in history has already started. Not sure what you think will drain it all. In some cases, the parents started giving it to them before they passed....

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 hours ago

    I wouldn't call Inheritance a wealth transfer, that term is pretty much only used for compelled forced transfers (taxes, increased prices for tariffs, etc).

    Its its own thing, and it will be weird

  • source
  • parent