https://www.ssa.gov/myaccount/statement.html

Wanted to share this as a resource since I started doing a deep dive on the financial implications during one’s retirement years of being a homemaker earlier today in light of a new law in Florida stopping the practice of lifetime alimony.

    • axtualdave@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, it’s not.

      https://www.marcumllp.com/insights/no-social-security-is-not-going-bankrupt

      While the current expenditures predict, without any action, one of the funding sources for social security, the trust fund, will deplete in 2032, payroll taxes still exist.

      Although the Trust Fund is projected to be depleted in 2033, Social Security will not be insolvent or bankrupt. Although it may not be able to pay 100% of the program’s cost, as it stands now, Social Security estimates it will be able to cover approximately 76% of the program’s cost due to employee and employer payroll taxes.

      A simple fix – remove the cap on the ssa taxable cap. Currently, only income under $160,200 (2023) is taxed for social security. Removing, or simply raising that cap opens up solvency for decades.

      • bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        That cap is one of the biggest fuck you to the public. Ohh you made too much money, ok, you don’t need to fund social security anymore.

    • HandsHurtLoL@kbin.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      1 year ago

      I am aware that this has been covered, but I have to maintain the belief that much like the US Postal Service, the federal government will continue to foot the bill regardless.

    • jeffw@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Sure, but the US fuckin loves old people. It’s the one thing we will spend money on. Most countries spend 3x-4x more on elder services than general social services for all ages. The USA (can’t forget my homie Japan, them too) spends TWENTY times more on shit for old people. I doubt this will change until all the boomers are dead and the distribution of ages in the USA changes.

      The one thing republicans and Dems will fix together is social security. Not until the last minute, of course.

      • entropicdrift@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

        We do spend 20x more on old folks, but IMO that’s mainly because we’re lacking social safety nets for those not yet of retirement age compared to most other countries.

        • jeffw@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Definitely. My point is just that old people are a massive priority and even stingy GOP diehards won’t let social security end. It’s not an entitlement, so they think it’s worth spending for