• jimjam5@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    3 days ago

    That’s the shit that gets me riled up. Maybe it’s a bad take, but if social security is shrinking and won’t be there for us when we reach retirement age, government should get their fuckin hands off my paychecks. Why do we have to fund billionaires and their toxic yacht tendencies? Why the fuck do they need a dollar more??

    • zbyte64@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      The only reason SS wouldn’t pay out is if you don’t qualify or it is repealed (or they break the operations so it doesn’t work). It will be there when you retire at a reduced rate. If we uncapped the SS contributions the that problem goes away.

      • forrgott@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        I wish that were true. But it’s getting sabotaged, one little bit at a time. Death by a thousand cuts.

      • Broken@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        That depends on when you’re retiring. The money is running out, period. The fact that its running out in the 2030s isn’t news (the article even states this hit to SS only changes things by a year), and that payments will be reduced is true. But a 50 year old will get that radically reduced rate, but get something. A 20 year old really doesn’t have that guarantee, especially with how freely the rules can change by the time they hit retirement age.

        We’re at the tipping point, so of course there’s a lot of upheaval about it, but there really hasn’t been a definitive plan (let alone a good one) on how to change this predicament so that resting on “you’ll get something” seems optimistic at best.