How can "they" deduct social security from wages, when they KNOW it is going to run out?

Question

People who are paying it now from their wages
are not going to be able to get their money back?
Does this mean we are slaves?

HASN'T ANYBODY HEARD THAT SOCIAL SECURITY IS GOING TO BE BROKE???

Answer 1

This does not mean we are slaves, this simply means we are stupid for allowing the govt. to keeping taxing us for this tax when we will not benefit for it. It won't change until we all pull together and make it change. After all, the govt. can not do anything without our money. As long as we are stupid and keeping giving it up, we will continue to pay for things we will never use.

Answer 2

To simply discontinue deducting SS from wages would be social suicide so, that is not an option to be considered which means we will ALL continue to pay into the Social Security system.

Based on revised assumptions, the latest estimate is that by 2041 the system's trust fund will be exhausted, meaning the system will only be able to pay out a percentage of the benefits currently promised. In this case, the trustees estimate the system will be able to pay out 74 percent of benefits.

Now, that's 35 years from now, which means if you are say 30 years old, you do not have much to look forward to in the way of having Social Security benefits to support your retirement and you better be putting away a very large amount of savings toward your retirement.

However, on the bright side, between now and 2041 we have to rely that our legislators in Washington will come up with a plan that will head off this disasterous prognostication before it has the effect of putting our 30 year olds in the poor house when they turn 65 and are able to retire (of course, there are also discussions about raising the retirement age to 70 years old or more because we are all living longer).

It's not surprising that anyone who is very young, in their teens or 20's would question why monies are being deducted from their paycheck to provide Social Security for a retiring nation.
In other words, "why should the government be allowed to take my money? I don't know these people and I won't see any of this money for another 40 years..so why should I care?
(a good example of this is "Cathy C"'s answer below)

And, let's remember why the Social Security Act was first introduced by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1935 and that it's purpose was to provide for retirement, disability and death benefits for survivors spouses and children.
Imagine the chaos which would prevail in our society today if we did not have this social security available.

Answer 3

The money being deducted from wages is being used to fund those currently on Social Security. Unfortunately, it should have been privatized savings accounts all along, but it's a little late for that now. I don't really think this means we are slaves, just unfortunate.

Answer 4

I recommend that the top shrink for contributions be completed away with, and that the optimal payouts in retirement nevertheless proceed to be as they are, adjusted for inflation. Social protection isn't a "supply away" software yet one that all of us make a contribution to love a fee reductions plan, and could be shielded from different makes use of with the help of the government. Do you compromise or disagree and why? while you're so nervous approximately it then why do no longer you; first positioned it lower back into the indoors maximum sector and make to have been no can take out funds from it for his or her own interest, 2nd pay lower back each and every penny you have borrowed from the two Social protection and Medicare, third take the unlawful immigrants off of it and people who come over right here yet by no ability paid a penny to it, and ultimately have it the comparable for each individual; in different words government officers are to take area in it and in the event that they choose something extra they do it on their own without the tax payers investment it?yet, the economic stytem feeding the imbalances had by no ability been somewhat replaced. They, a team of scholars, reported that one and all expenses of interest would be 3% or much less for each individual to grow to be rich if needed (that would desire to be authentic additionally to taces). the terrific economic project would be, they reported, while there have been no expenses of interest. Why no longer attempt this answer? the rich would nevertheless be rich. My query is: while soial protection turns right into a project related to federal expenditures, why no longer artwork with a balanced or earnings budget and spend no extra desirable than is equipped in, as any relatives has to attempt for? Why no longer ban all loobying presents with a view to get rules that serve the rustic? God bless united statesa..

Answer 5

Maybe you should get involved in one of the many organizations that are trying to sove this problem, such as AARP? You complaining about paying into Social Security won't fix the problem. You NOT paying definitely won't fix the problem. But you learning about the intricacies of the issue and rolling up your sleeves to help solve the problem would actually be productive.

Answer 6

Makes no difference....an employer is required by law to deduct it and pay it...self-employed people have it even worse...they have to pay both parts...employees only pay half...the rest is payed by the employer

Answer 7

Salves, yeah, pretty much... We're paying for them, the next generation will pay for us, so on and so forth... It's pretty messed up.

Answer 8

They still have to fund the system somehow. Do you really want to screw over your grandmother and your parents that much?
(I'm not saying it's right--I don't like it either.)

Answer 9

means i'm paying for them, your paying for me, and hes gonna pay for you oneday.