It’s worse if you include 401k payments to offset a more generous public pension.
At the very least it indicates that the company prioritizes the finances of that one department much more than any other.
The other problem I have with this complaint is that it implies that things would be different if it didn’t hold treasuries. If it had $3 trillion in a bank account, would that make it “real”? The US government issues dollars too, and can devalue the currency at will, so it’s not really better.
Ultimately, it’s a commitment mechanism. If SS were paid out of the general fund, it could be cut off to fund other projects at will, as long as Congress were willing to piss off old folks. (Which is already a big obstacle, admittedly.) By funding benefits from a gigantic trust fund holding government debt, cutting off SS to fund something else would require imploding the world economy.
That's like saying "Oh man, your job isn't paying you enough money, you should quit." 'But I make 80k, that's plenty!' "Oh, you uh did, until I stole all but five dollars." 'Oh darn, guess I'll quit then.'
Personally, I agree with your opinion. I think that we're going to get to the point where SS is taking in less than it pays out and, combined with the large amount of individuals who don't like anyone getting government money and so push to get rid of it, the system is going to fall apart.
The worst part is that it's not even the government's money. People pay into the SS and take back out later. It's supposed to work like a savings account, to some extent.
In a few years, given no changes, the cash flow will go negative and we'll begin spending down the trust fund. By 2035 or so (I forget the numbers, and the projections tend to vary widely anyway because of differing models and, yeah, partisan spin) the trust fund will be spent and the social security administration will need to adjust, as it will be taking in something like 80% of obligations.
A 20% shortfall is a big accounting problem. It's hardly "plan for it not to exist".
This is from a 1999 OMB report:
``These [trust fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other trust fund expenditures–but only in a bookkeeping sense. These funds are not set up to be pension funds, like the funds of private pension plans. They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury, that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures.``
that's totally self defeating. There are simple adjustments that can be done to make it viable long term. But there are quite few people in DC who desperately want it to fail to show that government is no good.
And there are quite a few others that want to expand it to cost even more, so they refuse anything beside perfection to achieve meaningful compromise.
Let alone the idea of income over a certain amount having to pay a larger percent...
[1] https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-bud... [2] https://www.populationpyramid.net/united-states-of-america/1...