Can Social Security Be Fixed Or Has That Ship Sailed?

[TeePee]

Fixing SS will be at the bottom of the to do list in the foreseeable future.

Unfortunately!

 

[TeePee]

When I think of cuts to SS benefits, I doubt that will happen no matter what. Think of the votes lost from seniors if that happened.

What would save SS? Perhaps raise the tax limit on workers, raise the benefit age (again), and establish an income cap. Why should the rich collect SS?

I hope you're right about nothing happening to social security. If they do make ss cuts (which I hope they don't), I hope they grandfather people in who have been getting it, so they don't have to take a pay cut. There's a lot of people that have calculated their ss in, in their monthly budget.

 

[RambleTamble]

".....Social Security fraud costs the federal government billions of dollars each year in improper payments, and the enforcement response is substantial. Between fiscal years 2015 and 2022, the Social Security Administration estimated it made nearly $72 billion in improper payments across its programs, and its uncollected overpayment balance stood at $23 billion by the end of FY 2023....".
I have a different idea of 'efficiency', and this ain't it. What was saving SS were the undocumented immigrants paying into SS and not ever going to collect.

So, over a seven year period, SS made nearly $72 billion in improper payments, which is about $10 billion a year. SS issues over a trillion dollars in payments annually, so $10 billion out of a trillion dollars, which is about one percent.

That's fairly efficient.

Now, let's take a look at defense spending...

The agency could not account for over 60% of its assets in recent years, meaning hundreds of billions are essentially untracked in bureaucratic "black holes".

• In September 2025, the DOD spent a record $93.4 billion in a single month—including $50 billion in the last five days.
• Luxury Food Items: This spree included $15.1 million for ribeye steak, $6.9 million for lobster tails, and $2 million for Alaskan king crab.

The most significant long-term waste typically involves massive procurement programs.

• F-35 Program: Originally budgeted at $200 billion, its lifetime cost has soared to an estimated $1.7 trillion, despite hundreds of unresolved design flaws.
• Congressional "Pork": Watchdogs noted that the 2026 defense budget includes over $52 billion for items the Pentagon did not even request, such as unneeded Apache helicopters and obsolete drones.

That's ridiculously inefficient!

 

[Trade]

I don't care where or how they find the money but they had better pay me.

 

[OneEyedDiva]

I hope you're right about nothing happening to social security. If they do make ss cuts (which I hope they don't), I hope they grandfather people in who have been getting it, so they don't have to take a pay cut. There's a lot of people that have calculated their ss in, in their monthly budget.

I read early on in more than one article that there will be no grandfathering. Everybody will see their SS cut.

 

[Lawrence00]

I was somewhat hoping to be a burden on the younger people that pushed me out of computer jobs.

 

[Veronica]

I dont know what the solution will be. I agree with raising the upper income cap. I disagree with raising the age.
This is just a subtle way to lower benefits since you cant work forever even if you want to.
Besides how will young people find jobs if nobody retires.

One thing I do know is that a whole LOT of people rely totally on SS to get by.
If they reduce payments that will throw a whole new set of us into that level that qualifies for subsidized housing and all that stuff.
Im not familiar with these programs but Im guessing they are already stretched thin.

 

[bobcat]

Perhaps another way to go.
Over the past century, the American workforce has undergone a massive transformation. Jobs once performed by people have increasingly been replaced by automated or “robotic” systems — everything from robotic arms and sorting machines to fully automated production lines. This shift has delivered enormous financial benefits to large companies: no wages, no payroll taxes, no sick leave, no pensions, no COLA adjustments, and no eventual retirement costs.

But there’s a side effect that rarely gets discussed. When a human job disappears, the Social Security system loses the payroll taxes that worker would have contributed. A robot doesn’t pay into Social Security, and it never will — yet the economic output it generates still creates profit for the employer. Over decades, this has contributed to a slow erosion of the Social Security funding base.

Now we’re entering a new era where automation and AI are expected to replace an even larger share of human labor. If nothing changes, the gap between Social Security’s obligations and its revenue will widen dramatically.

One proposed solution is a robot tax - not as a punishment for innovation, but as a way to ensure that when human labor is replaced, the social systems built on that labor aren’t left to collapse. For such a tax to work, the first step would be defining what counts as a “robot” for tax purposes. Would it include robotic arms? Automated sorting machines? Lifting mechanisms? AI‑driven production lines? Many of these technologies have been in use for decades, meaning companies that have benefited from labor‑replacing automation without contributing anything comparable to payroll taxes or soc sec will now have that robotic labor taxed. That could be an immense amount of revenue.

If a portion of a robot tax were directed specifically to Social Security, it could help stabilize the program without cutting benefits or raising the retirement age. After all, robots will never retire, never draw benefits, and never need Social Security — but the system still needs revenue to remain solvent.

 

[Aunt Bea]

Bill Gates floated the idea of a robot tax.

This brief article speaks against that idea.

An excerpt from the article.

“The US automotive industry, for instance, installed more than 60,000 industrial robots between 2010 and 2015. During this same period, the number of employees in the US automotive sector increased by 230,000.”

World Robotics Federation IFR: Why Bill Gates’ robot tax is wrong

I believe that we should consider all ideas to shore up Social Security, Medicare, lower the National debt, etc…

Along the lines of a robot tax is the idea to shift our focus from taxing income to taxing spending for corporations and individuals.

A corporate tax on investing in equipment/automation would in effect be a one time robot tax.

In the case of individuals a tax focused on spending would encourage people to save and invest.

The transition from taxing income to spending might create a slight drag on spending and the consumer economy until people adjust.

I also believe that we should consider the creation of an enormous mutual fund similar to the Canadian scheme.

Whatever schemes we eventually adopt should require all Americans to have a bit of skin in the game, I’m absolutely opposed to a system where the government or corporations fund us instead of us funding the government. It gives me a queasy feeling to depend on the government or anyone else for my care. It makes me wonder what freedoms and how much independence I may lose under such schemes.

 

[bobcat]

Bill Gates floated the idea of a robot tax.

This brief article speaks against that idea.

An excerpt from the article.

“The US automotive industry, for instance, installed more than 60,000 industrial robots between 2010 and 2015. During this same period, the number of employees in the US automotive sector increased by 230,000.”

World Robotics Federation IFR: Why Bill Gates’ robot tax is wrong

I believe that we should consider all ideas to shore up Social Security, Medicare, lower the National debt, etc…

Along the lines of a robot tax is the idea to shift our focus from taxing income to taxing spending for corporations and individuals.

A corporate tax on investing in equipment/automation would in effect be a one time robot tax.

In the case of individuals a tax focused on spending would encourage people to save and invest.

The transition from taxing income to spending might create a slight drag on spending and the consumer economy until people adjust.

I also believe that we should consider the creation of an enormous mutual fund similar to the Canadian scheme.

Whatever schemes we eventually adopt should require all Americans to have a bit of skin in the game, I’m absolutely opposed to a system where the government or corporations fund us instead of us funding the government. It gives me a queasy feeling to depend on the government or anyone else for my care. It makes me wonder what freedoms and how much independence I may lose under such schemes.

The article arguing against a robot tax comes from the International Federation of Robotics — which is essentially the trade association for the robotics industry. That doesn’t mean their data is fake, but it does mean their perspective reflects the interests of companies that build and profit from automation.

Their position paper focuses on productivity gains and competitiveness, but it doesn’t address the core issue: Social Security is funded by payroll taxes, not by corporate profits or productivity. When a human job is replaced by automation, the payroll tax tied to that job disappears. A robot doesn’t pay FICA and never will. Also, we are moving into a significantly different situation where even new jobs can be filled by robotics and AI.

So while the IFR emphasizes the benefits of automation, it naturally downplays the impact on Social Security’s revenue base. That’s why it’s important to view their argument as one side of the debate — the side aligned with the robotics industry — rather than a neutral assessment of the broader economic consequences.

Whether it's a tax per "robot" or some form of automation output tax, some type could be implemented. Right now, Social Security is funded almost entirely by labor income. But automation shifts profits from decreased human labor either to capital or shareholders, not programs like soc sec.

 

[MACKTEXAS]

If they reduce payments that will throw a whole new set of us into that level that qualifies for subsidized housing and all that stuff.

It would seem so, but those who may be eligible for special benefits (state programs, etc) if their SS benefit payment is cut may not qualify if their countable assets - especially bank accounts - are over a certain amount: $2000 generally. That will eliminate most of us.

 

[Jeni]

It was suggested by presidents decades ago in investing for growth etc.
Nope no one wanted risk...... so now they reaped what they sowed NOTHING.
for a program that has been going broke for decades any fraud or overpayments is too much loss.

Perhaps they should run it like a 401 K when the taxes paid in are exhausted .... no more left for that individual but that would cut off the low wage earners first.
This was supposed to be supplemental not the main retirement income but far too many this is all they have.
People look the other way because they know no politician wants to tick off a voting base. if boomers left the next generation is aging into it and what they wait for that one to die off it never reaches a point to cut off.

This system has not kept up with longevity of recipients or cost of living.

 

[RambleTamble]

Nothing will be done to fix Social Security. Too many people want to destroy it, and they will block any reforms proposed that might make it solvent.

 

[StarSong]

Social Security is likely to be a center stage issue during the 2028 election. If it isn't resolved in a way that's acceptable to voters by the 2030 mid-terms, many Congressional laggards will find themselves out of work come 2030 & 2032.

I have no idea how this will all spin out; there's plenty of armchair conjecture by all manner of people, not to mention AI, but zero action by those enacting the the laws.

That said, my confidence is strong that there will be few cuts for current recipients and the salary ceiling will be raised.

As I've said on earlier SS thread: nearly all Americans have a stake in this discussion. If benefits are cut 20% or more, many younger generations will quickly find themselves needing to send their elders a monthly check to shore up their finances, or deal with Nana and Pop-pop moving into the spare room or sleeping on the living room sofa.

Talk about motivation to get out the vote!

 

[Aunt Bea]

Social Security is likely to be a center stage issue during the 2028 election. If it isn't resolved in a way that's acceptable to voters by the 2030 mid-terms, many Congressional laggards will find themselves out of work come 2030 & 2032.

I have no idea how this will all spin out; there's plenty of armchair conjecture by all manner of people, not to mention AI, but zero action by those enacting the the laws.

That said, my confidence is strong that there will be few cuts for current recipients and the salary ceiling will be raised.

As I've said on earlier SS thread: nearly all Americans have a stake in this discussion. If benefits are cut 20% or more, many younger generations will quickly find themselves needing to send their elders a monthly check to shore up their finances, or deal with Nana and Pop-pop moving into the spare room or sleeping on the living room sofa.

Talk about motivation to get out the vote!

I have a feeling that the current administration will push for some sort of investment scheme for individually managed or self directed accounts similar to 401k plans for the younger folks and gradually try to phase out the traditional Social Security benefits for us old folks.

The good news, for me being totally selfish, is that I’ve already drawn more than my employer and I paid in so I’m good no matter what they decide.

It’s a problem, like so many others, for younger folks to ponder and solve.

 

[Trade]

or deal with Nana and Pop-pop moving into the spare room

And listen to gramps cough up phlegm at the breakfast table every morning.

 

[Trade]

I have a feeling that the current administration will push for some sort of investment scheme for individually managed or self directed accounts similar to 401k plans for the younger folks and gradually try to phase out the traditional Social Security benefits for us old folks.

Which is exactly the opposite of what needs to be done. The social security formula to determine benefit amount is progressive. Tending to give more favorable treatment to lower income workers that need more help. While the 401K sytem is regressive giving an advantage to higher income people that need less help.

401(k)s Failing Most Americans, Politico Investigation Confirms - Pension Rights Center

 

[Murrmurr]

Social Security operates at about a 1% or less overhead, so it's incorrect to say that we need to "trim the costs of the bureaucracy." SS is an efficient program.

SS was also created with built-in restrictions to prevent government using the funds for anything other than the social security program. The problem is, that hasn't restricted the gov't from expanding the social security program.

I'm almost positive the first expansion was the inclusion of disabilities not related to work, such as birth defects. And in the 80s, if not before, that included developmental disabilities, commonly known as mental retardation up until then. This is a cradle-to-grave benefit that (I'm quite sure) was not considered when the social security system was created in 1935, when it's purpose was to ensure retirement income for workers.

Later, addiction was classified a disability, and that list has grown to include "amorous addiction" and even kleptomania, though it helps to have a good SSDI attorney (they're plentiful) to pass eligibility requirements.

 

[Veronica]

It would seem so, but those who may be eligible for special benefits (state programs, etc) if their SS benefit payment is cut may not qualify if their countable assets - especially bank accounts - are over a certain amount: $2000 generally. That will eliminate most of us.

I was thinking of those of us just above the limit who rely totally on SS and dont have any savings. But even if you have some savings if you have to use them to supplement your monthly SS it wont be long before theyre gone.

 

[Murrmurr]

SS was also created with built-in restrictions to prevent government using the funds for anything other than the social security program. The problem is, that hasn't restricted the gov't from expanding the social security program.

I'm almost positive the first expansion was the inclusion of disabilities not related to work, such as birth defects. And in the 80s, if not before, that included developmental disabilities, commonly known as mental retardation up until then. This is a cradle-to-grave benefit that (I'm quite sure) was not considered when the social security system was created in 1935, when it's purpose was to ensure retirement income for workers.

Later, addiction was classified a disability, and that list has grown to include "amorous addiction" and even kleptomania, though it helps to have a good SSDI attorney (they're plentiful) to pass eligibility requirements.

Oh, yeah. Obesity. That's another one.

You can eat your way to a guaranteed income without working a day in your life. And get an EBT food allowance as well. Because, heaven forbid.

Some congress members wanted to add obesity from medical causes only to the SSA disabilities list, but the majority was more interested in re-election than reason; in keeping their seats long-term rather than keeping the SS system healthy long-term.

But that's yet another reason the average retired American can't live solely on their social security benefit. But it gets worse; today, just under 30% of Americans work less than 40hrs per week, so they're paying less into the SS system. In fact, the "official" work week was recently reduced to 35hrs, deceptively shrinking the percentage of part-time workers to about 17% instead of nearly 30%.

 

[OneEyedDiva]

Oh, yeah. Obesity. That's another one.

You can eat your way to a guaranteed income without working a day in your life. And get an EBT food allowance as well. Because, heaven forbid.

Some congress members wanted to add obesity from medical causes only to the SSA disabilities list, but the majority was more interested in re-election than reason; in keeping their seats long-term rather than keeping the SS system healthy long-term.

But that's yet another reason the average retired American can't live solely on their social security benefit. But it gets worse; today, just under 30% of Americans work less than 40hrs per week, so they're paying less into the SS system. In fact, the "official" work week was recently reduced to 35hrs, deceptively shrinking the percentage of part-time workers to about 17% instead of nearly 30%.

I worked for my municipality, then the state government in the same office for 28 years. My work week for both was 35 hours, which was considered full time. I know some government workers don't pay into the SS system, but blessedly both agencies took out for SS.

 

[Murrmurr]

I worked for my municipality, then the state government in the same office for 28 years. My work week for both was 35 hours, which was considered full time. I know some government workers don't pay into the SS system, but blessedly both agencies took out for SS.

I wonder if 35 hours was the *official* full-time work week for government worker's (while the rest of us slogged for 40 ).

I'm gonna look that up.

But yeah, for the 45 or so years that I worked, the typical full-time work week was 40 hours. 40 hours/wk guaranteed full benefits. If you were hired for, say 38, you were not considered full-time and your benefits could be slightly reduced. Under 28 hours and your benefits were minimal, and if you worked 24 or less, you didn't get any employee benefits until around the tail-end of the 90s or early 2000s, when employers were required by law to provide at least Worker's Compensation benefits. Before then, an employer could offer Worker's Comp (and other benes as well) but wasn't required to.

I'm speaking in general terms in reference to several different fields, and only during the years I worked; 1970 to 2016.