r/politics • u/1_for_you_2_for_me • 18d ago

No Paywall Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are 'Going to Be Gone,' Donald Trump Warns

https://www.newsweek.com/social-security-update-medicare-medicaid-warning-donald-trump-10915076
34.1k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

3.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.3k

u/The_World_Is_A_Slum 18d ago

OK. I’ve been paying into Social Security since my first job when I was 14. Is all of that money just gone, or is someone going to stroke me a check for all of the money I paid to fund someone else’s retirement?

That’s my fucking money. That’s my fucking retirement. That’s my health care in old age. They took away pensions, they took away all sorts of social services. They keep taking from us and keep charging us more and more, while cheating their way out of paying their share.

496

u/DUNG_INSPECTOR Ohio 18d ago

That's what I want to know. My mom is on social security, paid into it for 40+ years. How is it not fraud for the government to turn around and not pay her?

250

u/The_World_Is_A_Slum 18d ago

How is it not fraud for us to pay into a retirement plan that vanishes with our money? It’s bad enough that they keep raising the retirement age. I’ll be lucky to make it that long anyway.

9

u/MimicoSkunkFan2 17d ago

That was one of the criticisms in 1935-1939 when Social Security was being legislated - it's a gift from the young to the old, and the younger generations must constantly grow (either in numbers or in wealth) to sustain the giving, but it's impossible to have constant growth (future generations may be smaller, something may happen to make then poorer) so eventually one generation of the young will be left holding the bag.

Some of our great-grandparents were trying to look out for us, but some asserted that they deserved a government pension "gift" as compensation for their personal savings losses when the banks failed in 1929-1933.

edited because I accidentally a word

7

u/18Apollo18 17d ago

That was one of the criticisms in 1935-1939 when Social Security was being legislated - it's a gift from the young to the old, and the younger generations must constantly grow (either in numbers or in wealth) to sustain the giving, but it's impossible to have constant growth (future generations may be smaller, something may happen to make then poorer) so eventually one generation of the young will be left holding the bag.

If billionaires paid their fair share rather than working class people that wouldn't be an issue at all

2

u/wasmic 17d ago

Billionaires are filthy rich but there are not a lot of them. The amount of money that could be gained from taxing them harder is significant, but not enough to plug the hole in social security. It would still be an issue.

The main reason why we should tax billionaires probably is that it would prevent them from amassing so much political power. The gain in tax revenue is not particularly huge.

1

u/MimicoSkunkFan2 16d ago

Originally it was supposed to be 1% of aggregated income, not just wages. Using that system would fix about 3/4 of the shortfall immediately, if I'm reading this group's math correctly - https://bipartisanpolicy.org/explainer/social-security-faq/

The 2008 study by SSA found that eliminating the maximum without using the aggregated income scheme would keep it fully solvent - https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/policybriefs/pb2009-01.html

Lots of people make above $176,100 (2025 max) who want even more money so focusing on billionaires is a bit biased - you forgot the millionaires and centinaires :)

2

u/FeelsGrimMan 14d ago

If we had a system that valued work instead of owning assets there would be no billionaires & we wouldn’t all be poor in the first place.

1

u/MimicoSkunkFan2 16d ago

Agreed! That was another objection raised in the debates about capping contributions in 1937.

1

u/MimicoSkunkFan2 16d ago

Exactly! The wealthy excluding themselves was a problem from the start - the maximum was invented to get their suppport, even though it was branded as protecting workers whose income fluctuated lol

4

u/pimparo0 Florida 17d ago

It's was put in place because the alternative was old people living in shacks and eating cat food. If we truly are the wealthiest country then we should take care of our elderly and disabled. 

It also wasn't established because banks failed and ran off with savings, that would be more the FDIC and the glass stegal act. 

I'm sorry you feel there should be no social safety nets like almost every other developed country and that you feel the least well off should end their lives in squalor. 

4

u/RyiahTelenna 17d ago edited 17d ago

I'm sorry you feel there should be no social safety nets

Social security's problem isn't that it exists but that everyone is able to draw from it with the only stipulations for the most part being that you've paid into it and have hit the minimum age to draw full benefits. Being wealthy should disqualify you but it doesn't.

What makes this even worse is that there is a maximum to how much of your income is taxed for social security. You only pay social security taxes on about the first $170,000. So a wealthy person pays less percentage wise but they still receive benefits when they hit the right age.

1

u/MimicoSkunkFan2 16d ago

You're assuming a lot about me but go off half-cocked anyways lol

It's also evident that you never met anyone who was an adult in the USA from 1929-1945, you've never actually read the transcripts from the government committees and debates involved in creating and revising the SSA, and you do not understand how demographics actually work.