Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

This post is nonsensical.

> The SS Trust Fund is numbers on a spreadsheet. It doesn't matter.

"Numbers on a spreadsheet" is meaningless, you just described functionally all of accounting for the entire economy, and if that's a reason it "doesn't matter" then the debt also "doesn't matter" because it's also just numbers on a spreadsheet. What do you think nearly all money is?

> It's gone and spent.

Simply, factually wrong. If so, then so's your 401k. And all the money in your bank account.

> The question is about real actual resource distribution. SS is drawing more resources from young people than it is giving back. That's an actual problem, no matter how many tabs you add to your excel spreadsheet.

You're wrong about Social Security (and medicare, for that matter) contributing to the budget deficit, so you're trying to change the topic to "is social security's funding fair?"






I will expand, if you need.

The SS trust fund produced a surplus. Boomers then spent the entire surplus on their own deficit spending. There is no actual cash in a bank — it was put on a spreadsheet and then spent on other budget priorities — wars, military, medicaid, everything else. The SS trust fund was one of the main reasons the US could spend profligately for the past couple decades!

The SS Trust Fund is NOT A BANK ACCOUNT. I cannot emphasize this enough. The money got spent.

Now, boomers are retiring and demanding that money — which they already spent — back again. That's absurd double spending which impacts young taxpayers as inflation or deficit spending.


You have fallen for propaganda aimed at getting people to not give a shit when republicans try to end Social Security.

The money didn't "get spent", it's invested. If that counts as "got spent" then your savings account also "got spent" (funding loans) and your retirement accounts also "got spent" (buying bonds, treasuries, securities) so you can go ahead and sign those over to me since they're empty anyway—right?

If the money had been spent then it would have reduced deficit spending by that much, but it didn't, because that spending was funded by debt (some of which the SS trust fund owns). If that isn't "real" then the entire debt isn't real so who cares if anything contributes to it?


The money is lent to the federal government via Treasuries. As the surplus is spent, it will directly decrease the funding for the government deficit, increasing the cost for the government to service its debt. The original poster is wrong since the surplus is real, but spending down this surplus will still cost the government a lot. And even if it didn't, Social Security will burn its entire reserve in 10 years and be forced to cut benefits by 20% in 10 years or be forced to spend trillions to maintain its current level deficit.

It's true to the same extent that redeeming any treasuries "contributes to the deficit". The only way that is meaningfully true in the context of "how do we reduce the deficit?" is if we're willing to not repay our debt and if that's the case, the entire issue is moot.

Framing it that was is just priming us for the government to actually empty the account by defaulting on that debt, i.e. rendering the assets owned by the fund worthless.

It's true in the same way that it's true to say that cars can fly, which is to say, that it's way more true to say that no, they cannot, even if yes, sure, the other thing is "true".




Consider applying for YC's Summer 2025 batch! Applications are open till May 13

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: