Unfortunately!
Can Social Security Be Fixed Or Has That Ship Sailed?
- Thread starter OneEyedDiva
- Start date
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
Senior Member
- Location
- U.S.
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.
- 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.
OneEyedDiva
SF VIP
- Location
- New Jersey
I read early one in more than one article that there will be no grandfathering. Everybody will see their SS cut.
Lawrence00
Senior Member
I was somewhat hoping to be a burden on the younger people that pushed me out of computer jobs.
Veronica
Head Shenanigator
- Location
- Eastern Midwestern Female
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.
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
Well-known Member
- Location
- Northern Calif
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.
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
SF VIP
- Location
- Near Mount Pilot
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.
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
Well-known Member
- Location
- Northern Calif
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.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.
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
Well-known Member
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
Senior Member
- Location
- pacific northwest USA
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.
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.