32
Cool cool (hexbear.net)

Does math. That's 11 years away. Subheading does not compute.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] EnsignRedshirt@hexbear.net 5 points 1 year ago

The point is that the cost doesn’t matter. The government can choose to fund it if they want because social security is funded by a payroll tax that is separate from other discretionary spending, and could be maintained, increased, or decreased by changes to that payroll tax.

This is a good brief on social security: https://mattbruenig.com/2011/08/16/the-myth-of-social-security-insolvency/

There’s nothing structurally wrong with social security that would cause it to implode. It could be funded indefinitely by design, regardless of the amounts involved. That’s what I mean when I say that it’s a policy choice. The government may decide to make the choice to cut or eliminate it, but they will be deliberately choosing to do so, and they could just as deliberately choose to maintain it. The issue is political, not fiscal.

this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2023
32 points (100.0% liked)

chapotraphouse

13436 readers
713 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Vaush posts go in the_dunk_tank

Dunk posts in general go in the_dunk_tank, not here

Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from the_dunk_tank

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS