[Shish]

The 1st problem is that there are a lot of people that are "working under the table, not paying into the system."
Supposedly, there is a lot of undetected fraud that needs to be cleaned up.

What DOGE Did About Social Security Records
According to the site:

The Social Security Administration (SSA) began a major cleanup of its records in early 2025.

Over 12.3 million individuals listed as age 120+ were marked as deceased.

The cleanup targeted legacy errors where people were incorrectly listed as alive, including some who were receiving benefits.

Complex cases — like individuals with multiple birthdates on file — are still under investigation.

💡 Why This Matters
These ghost entries have long plagued SSA’s databases, contributing to improper payments and fraud.

The DOGE-led initiative is part of a broader push to modernize federal systems and improve data integrity.

ccording to DOGE.gov:

The Department of Government Efficiency has flagged SSA’s legacy systems as a top priority for modernization.

Plans include transitioning records to cloud-based infrastructure and deploying automated verification tools to fix anomalies like:

People listed as alive who were born before 1905 👀

Multiple birthdates or missing citizenship fields

Incomplete work histories due to inconsistent employer reporting

💸 Why It Matters
These outdated systems lead to improper payments, fraud vulnerabilities, and inaccuracies that impact millions.

SSA has struggled with cost overruns and coordination across data centers in trying to upgrade — past efforts fizzled due to complexity and funding gaps.

[jimhoward]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Not sure what numbers you're looking at, but here's mine (rounded):

Between my payroll deduction and employer contribution, I've paid in just under $60,000 in social security taxes.

I'm getting $40 more per month in social security payments than I did when I started getting them, just 1.5 years ago. I anticipate around $20 more per month for 2026. Regardless:

At the current total of my social security checks, I will have received 100% of what I put in, and what my employer put in, by the 7th year of collecting social security checks. I won't even be 70 years old yet, at that point, because I started getting them when I was 62.

This means that all the checks I receive after I turn 70, will be "in addition" to what I/my employer paid in. If I live to be 90, that'll mean 100% of what I get post 70-years-old will be "profit." I dunno - seems like a pretty good deal to me. Get a 100% return on your initial investment in 7 years after the start of the payout, and then keep getting steady monthly checks for the next 20 (or more) years.

As others have pointed out its not true for everybody. For me the numbers are $342K (my contribution plus employer) plus another $325K for Medicare. There is no earnings limit on medicare, so taxes can get high on that part of it if you make good money. My payback is longer.

But I think your point is still a good one. Also, many people overestimate how much they contributed to SSI even though the numbers are right on the SSi website.

[Pugchief]

How about instead of raising the retirement age (broken promise) we take all the federal pension benefits that allow workers to retire at 55 (not 67 like the rest of us) and put that into the SS Trust Fund. Then give Fed workers the same benefits that those in the private sector receive via SS.

Yeah, that's gonna go over really well.

[eyc234]

Not hard to find the information. Just type in average Social Security rate of return on investment and then average return on investment in stock market. SS over last 55 years returns 1.23% to 1.7%. For the stock market it is approximately 10%. In 2005 President George W Bush attempted to allow a portion of SS to be invested in private accounts. The outcry by retired Americans was so massive that it was stopped. We did not count on getting SS for our retirement but sure would have loved to invested a portion in the stock market as we would have a loooooot more money now. Could have retired better off and sooner than 50.

[jimbomaybe]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

I’d like to see the numbers on that.

Markets have down years, SS does not.

Drawing down funds from my marketplace accounts means I could eventually hit $0, SS never hits $0.

https://carry.com/learn/average-stock-market-returns

[biker1]

Really? You want to argue semantics? Ok, fine, I said "special T-Bills" and you said "special-issue Treasury securities". Otherwise you repeated everything I said.

Originally Posted by SoCalGal

The U.S. Treasury doesn't issue T-Bills (Treasury bills) to the Social Security Administration (SSA). Instead, it issues special-issue Treasury securities, which are not marketable (they can't be sold on the open market). These are special bonds, not typical T-Bills (which are short-term securities typically maturing in a year or less). These special securities earn interest and represent the Social Security Trust Fund surplus. Once issued, the government can't redeem them early (i.e., can't “call” them before maturity, like callable corporate bonds). While they're not callable by the Treasury, the SSA can redeem them on demand to pay Social Security benefits. Think of it like an intragovernmental IOU: the Trust Fund has the right to cash in the bonds whenever it needs to — and the Treasury must come up with the money (via taxes or borrowing). Social Security’s holdings are a special case, and that’s why they can be “cashed in” before maturity to cover benefit payments.

[eyc234]

Originally Posted by Pugchief

How about instead of raising the retirement age (broken promise) we take all the federal pension benefits that allow workers to retire at 55 (not 67 like the rest of us) and put that into the SS Trust Fund. Then give Fed workers the same benefits that those in the private sector receive via SS.

Yeah, that's gonna go over really well.

Never understand why fed, state, fire and police get to get retirement at 55 and regular working people cannot touch 401k until 59 1/2 and for non-government it is money they put in not a pension.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by eyc234

Not hard to find the information. Just type in average Social Security rate of return on investment and then average return on investment in stock market. SS over last 55 years returns 1.23% to 1.7%. For the stock market it is approximately 10%. In 2005 President George W Bush attempted to allow a portion of SS to be invested in private accounts. The outcry by retired Americans was so massive that it was stopped. We did not count on getting SS for our retirement but sure would have loved to invested a portion in the stock market as we would have a loooooot more money now. Could have retired better off and sooner than 50.

Originally Posted by jimbomaybe

https://carry.com/learn/average-stock-market-returns

My money in SS returned 0% as far as I can tell EXCEPT, I will receive an increasing amount every year until I pass regardless of how much I actually contributed.

On the market side, the amount of money I have in SS the longest is tiny compared to what I contributed the last few years. During that time it has taken at least three big losses. It recovered from each of those but the losses have to be considered as well and could happen again.

The amount that I would be able to withdraw from a market account would also be affected by future market returns affecting a likely decreasing balance. Figure poorly and I would be talking to a reverse mortgage salesman or knocking on my kid’s doors (if I had any children)

[Packer Fan]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

Folks born in 1960 have already had their retirement age raised 2 years. Hopefully any future benefit reductions won’t apply to anyone already 65 or older, but I certainly wouldn’t bank on that?

I would bank on it. You people, seriously? Old people like us vote. Any politician that cuts benefits will be unemployed after the next election, any of them. Period. They will fix it sooner or later, but I would be willing to bet a large sum of money the "cuts" will be increasing the retirement age for people in their 30s right now, a small increase in the taxes, increasing the income "cap" on SS taxes for high earners, etc. It will not involve cutting benefits to current or soon to be retirees. If you believe this, I have some beautiful farmland in Arizona to sell you, right on the ocean. Seriously people.

[biker1]

A couple of years ago I put together a quick spreadsheet to figure out the future value of my SS contributions (both mine and my employer's). I assumed 7.5% return each year. I should have used an actual stock market index return - maybe I'll go back and do that. Regardless, the future value turned out to be approximately 5x what was put in. Assuming a withdrawal rate of 5%, it would provide me about 30% more than my SS benefit.

Originally Posted by Bill14564

My money in SS returned 0% as far as I can tell EXCEPT, I will receive an increasing amount every year until I pass regardless of how much I actually contributed.

On the market side, the amount of money I have in SS the longest is tiny compared to what I contributed the last few years. During that time it has taken at least three big losses. It recovered from each of those but the losses have to be considered as well and could happen again.

The amount that I would be able to withdraw from a market account would also be affected by future market returns affecting a likely decreasing balance. Figure poorly and I would be talking to a reverse mortgage salesman or knocking on my kid’s doors (if I had any children)

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by biker1

A couple of years ago I put together a quick spreadsheet to figure out the future value of my SS contributions (both mine and my employer's). I assumed 7.5% return each year. I should have used an actual stock market index return - maybe I'll go back and do that. Regardless, the future value turned out to be approximately 5x what was put in. Assuming a withdrawal rate of 5%, it would provide me about 30% more than my SS benefit.

I just did mine roughly and at 8% and came up with 4x what was put in. I’ll work on it later with actual market returns. (By way of comparison, I expect to receive over 5x of what I contributed)

I’ll also try the 5% withdrawal to see how many years the money lasts but that will be even more dependent on future returns.

[Nevinator]

This should come as no surprise to anyone. Each administration since 1992 has kicked this can down the road and done nothing to prolong the longevity of this program. A good number of financial service companies have given many good presentations on how to fix this, such as doing away with the maximum SS tax limit, raising the retirement age and raising the percentage of withholding from 6.2% (each for employers and employees) to 7.5%. The fact is that people are living longer for the most part and there are fewer workers supporting those retiring and collecting their benefits.

Information presented below is from the 2001 Annual Report of the board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Funds and NCPA calculations:

In 2000, Social Security provided survivors benefits for 38.5 million people and disability for 6.6 million. Meanwhile, 152.9 million workers contributed to the program.

Social Security is a pay-as-you-go program, which means the government writes checks to today's beneficiaries using payroll taxes collected from today's workers.

When Social Security began in 1935, the payroll tax on workers' salaries to support the program was 1% on the first 3,000 of income. Today, Social Security is financed by a 12.4 percent payroll tax - half by the employee and half by the employer - on the first $176,100 in 2025.

Social Security is in Trouble

The number of Social Security beneficiaries is growing faster than the number of workers paying taxes to support them - the number of elderly between now and 2050 will increase 100% while the number of will workers will only increase by 22%.
People are living longer and collecting more Social Security benefit checks. In 1940, life expectancy was 61.4 for men and 65.7 for women. By 2000, life expectancy was 73.8 for men and 79.5 for women; by 2050, life expectancy will be 79 for men and 83.3 for women.

People are having fewer children. For each generation to be the same size and the one before (the replacement rate), women must have 2.1 children. In 1940, the fertility rate was 2.23. Today, the rate is 2.07 and by 2050 it is expected to trend downward to 1.95.

The result has been dramatic. In 1940, there were 42 workers per retiree. Today the ratio is 3-to-1; by 2050 it will be 2-to-1. The burden on each individual worker will increase substantially and we will no longer be able to keep out promises to retirees at current payroll tax levels.

By 2016 Social Security will spend more in benefits than it collects in taxes. By 2040 the program will have spent all the assets credited to the trust fund - taxes will have to rise by half or benefits cut by a third.

Bottom line, the program IS in trouble, but it’s just circling the drain at this point. It’s still fixable, but Congress needs to institute several measures to fix this before it’s too late.

[Nevinator]

Originally Posted by manaboutown

This narrative totally ignores the time value of money and the interest, dividends and capital gains one can obtain over the years. It is similar to pitches I used to hear from whole life insurance salesmen 50 years ago.

You’re absolutely correct, and I totally agree with you, however, we tend to neglect the fact that there are millions of people who are collecting social security and have no other source of income whatsoever. Whether it be unfortunate life circumstances, bad planning, or no planning at all, some people need a lot of handholding; some mechanism to squirrel some money away so they will have some means to support themselves in old age, no matter how meager.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Packer Fan

I would bank on it. You people, seriously? Old people like us vote. Any politician that cuts benefits will be unemployed after the next election, any of them. Period. They will fix it sooner or later, but I would be willing to bet a large sum of money the "cuts" will be increasing the retirement age for people in their 30s right now, a small increase in the taxes, increasing the income "cap" on SS taxes for high earners, etc. It will not involve cutting benefits to current or soon to be retirees. If you believe this, I have some beautiful farmland in Arizona to sell you, right on the ocean. Seriously people.

The change occurred in 1985. That means people born in 1960 were only 25 years old, when they learned they'd need to be 62 to receive "early retirement" SS benefits. That also means they had 33 years to prepare for it.

If the government does that with the current batch of 25-year-olds, then THEIR change won't become effective for another 30-something years or so, giving them plenty of time to prepare for it.

[Blueblaze]

The solution is ridiculously simple, and there will eventually no other option -- start making the wealthy help pay off the debt owed to current retirees. SS is the only government program that the wealthy are excluded from by statute. The moment you hit "wealthy" (about $110K/year, last I checked), you quit having to pay for this boondoggle.

If folks like Elon and Zuck had to pay the same 15% of their lifetime earnings that we did, SS would run a surplus to the end of time. In fact, Zuck alone could cover the SS deficit for the next hundred years by himself, and still be a billionaire 100X over.

If we were a smart country, we would just calculate the amount needed to payoff the current retirees and reimburse the kids. Then we'd divide it up, tax EVERYONE to cover it, and just end the damned thing. With EVERYONE paying, it would be a trivial tax, compared to FICA. In its place, we would set up a privately-funded retirement program, and force everyone to INVEST the same 15% we had confiscated for a Ponzi scheme. Our kids would retire with an actual asset worth millions, instead of just a stupid promise that's forfeited the moment you die.

The only downside would be that the gooberment wouldn't have a slush fund to borrow from, like they have for the last 100 years. But now that they've just about blown through it, anyway, maybe we can finally convince our corrupt politicians to finally give Americans a real retirement system instead of a Ponzi scheme.

Of course, it only works if we retirees don't set our hair on fire the moment we see an ad with somebody pushing granny off a cliff.