Would you forego Social Security if you could invest in own account instead?

[wenchsenior]

Considering that it is very unlikely that there will be any social security by the time I retire, I would like the option to opt out of this service.

Absolutely and utterly non informed/ non rational opinion.

I am constantly running into millennials who think this, but they can't rationally explain why it will happen. For this to happen, the U.S. economy would have to completely collapse (highly unlikely), OR all the middle aged and older people (who are most likely to vote) would have to vote the system out of existence (highly unlikely), OR the working population would have to go so low, that almost no one was paying into the system (slightly more likely, but still unlikely).

In absence of those things, then what is most likely to happen is SS will pay out at a slightly lower rate than is currently forecast, for the millennials and later generations.

[wenchsenior]

We can make it easier by giving everyone access to low cost TSP funds, the same as Federal employees, and auto enrolling them at some reasonable allocation based on age, and not allowing early withdrawals.

There is no doubt we need to be better about financial education in this country.  We need to make as many as possible aware of the true cost of wasting money on frivolous things. 

No solution is going to be perfect, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to do the best thing for people, and try to encourage personal responsibility.

Do Federal employees actively participate and save money in their TSPs? High fees are not the reason people do not save for retirement.

Currently, about 88% of Feds are participating in TSP. Although I think you are correct that fees are not the primary reason people don't save.

https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/reports-publications/federal-employee-participation-patterns-in-the-thrift-savings-plan-2008-2012.pdf

[Frs1661]

It's worth noting that federal employees are automatically enrolled in the tsp at 3% of their salary (and receive a 4%match). So even with automatic enrollment 12% of them still choose not to participate.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

[starguru]

Considering that it is very unlikely that there will be any social security by the time I retire, I would like the option to opt out of this service.

Absolutely and utterly non informed/ non rational opinion.

I am constantly running into millennials who think this, but they can't rationally explain why it will happen. For this to happen, the U.S. economy would have to completely collapse (highly unlikely), OR all the middle aged and older people (who are most likely to vote) would have to vote the system out of existence (highly unlikely), OR the working population would have to go so low, that almost no one was paying into the system (slightly more likely, but still unlikely).

In absence of those things, then what is most likely to happen is SS will pay out at a slightly lower rate than is currently forecast, for the millennials and later generations.

I agree that SS will be around in some form or another.  At some point the demographics will even become more favorable for SS and the situation will improve. 

However, I do think at some point the law will change and benefits will be means tested, so high earners/savers now might get screwed out of any substantial benefit.  But that's just what I think....

[starguru]

It's worth noting that federal employees are automatically enrolled in the tsp at 3% of their salary (and receive a 4%match). So even with automatic enrollment 12% of them still choose not to participate.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

Yeah that's true and an interesting point.  But if the laws were changed such that people were auto-enrolled in a savings program (with opt-out an option), and 12% opted out, that would be a huge win.  I think if 88% of people were contributing to their retirements, the entire picture would change.

[mxt0133]

However, I do think at some point the law will change and benefits will be means tested, so high earners/savers now might get screwed out of any substantial benefit.  But that's just what I think....

It's already means tested, social security is taxed after certain thresholds.  The more income you have in retirement the more of your social security is taxed.*

*https://faq.ssa.gov/link/portal/34011/34019/article/3831/must-i-pay-taxes-on-social-security-benefits

[wenchsenior]

It's worth noting that federal employees are automatically enrolled in the tsp at 3% of their salary (and receive a 4%match). So even with automatic enrollment 12% of them still choose not to participate.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

Yes, the opt-out approach is much preferable for retirement plans in general, if the goal is just getting more people INTO some sort of available plan.

Re: the feds, it's also notable in that document how many people remain in extremely conservative funds, which I suspect is another demonstration of 'choice paralysis'.

[Jrr85]

Considering that it is very unlikely that there will be any social security by the time I retire, I would like the option to opt out of this service.

Absolutely and utterly non informed/ non rational opinion.

I am constantly running into millennials who think this, but they can't rationally explain why it will happen. For this to happen, the U.S. economy would have to completely collapse (highly unlikely), OR all the middle aged and older people (who are most likely to vote) would have to vote the system out of existence (highly unlikely), OR the working population would have to go so low, that almost no one was paying into the system (slightly more likely, but still unlikely).

In absence of those things, then what is most likely to happen is SS will pay out at a slightly lower rate than is currently forecast, for the millennials and later generations.

This isn't right at all.  People that think they will get nothing are probably way too pessimistic, but right now, there is a roughly ~24% cut to SS benefits baked into current law that will happen in 10 to 12 years.  I don't think there is a chance that there is going to be a 24% cut across the board, so I think it's likely you see people with higher income and/or savings taking a much greater hit and lower income/savings people taking a zero percent hit. 

Even though I'm fairly certain I'll get something, I plan as if I'm not going to get anything, simply because I think I will take a huge haircut, whether it be in the form of higher taxes or a cut in benefits and I want the extra cushion, and it's not that much of a sacrifice for me to do a retirement plan without SS.  Anything from SS will just be gravy that I can pass on to my kids.  If I were going to make a best guess as to what number high income/high net worth people should use, I would put it at 50% of scheduled benefits. 

[nereo]

Considering that it is very unlikely that there will be any social security by the time I retire, I would like the option to opt out of this service.

Absolutely and utterly non informed/ non rational opinion.

I am constantly running into millennials who think this, but they can't rationally explain why it will happen. For this to happen, the U.S. economy would have to completely collapse (highly unlikely), OR all the middle aged and older people (who are most likely to vote) would have to vote the system out of existence (highly unlikely), OR the working population would have to go so low, that almost no one was paying into the system (slightly more likely, but still unlikely).

In absence of those things, then what is most likely to happen is SS will pay out at a slightly lower rate than is currently forecast, for the millennials and later generations.

This isn't right at all.  People that think they will get nothing are probably way too pessimistic, but right now, there is a roughly ~24% cut to SS benefits baked into current law that will happen in 10 to 12 years.  I don't think there is a chance that there is going to be a 24% cut across the board, so I think it's likely you see people with higher income and/or savings taking a much greater hit and lower income/savings people taking a zero percent hit. 

Where are you getting "10-12 years" and "-24%"?  Everything I've seen and read indicates that it will be in/around 18 years from now, and the shortfall is projected to be 21%.

[Telecaster]

This isn't right at all.  People that think they will get nothing are probably way too pessimistic, but right now, there is a roughly ~24% cut to SS benefits baked into current law that will happen in 10 to 12 years.  I don't think there is a chance that there is going to be a 24% cut across the board, so I think it's likely you see people with higher income and/or savings taking a much greater hit and lower income/savings people taking a zero percent hit. 

I think there is close to zero chance of this happening.   There currently is no savings test for Social Security.  Implementing one would be problematic and extremely unpopular.   Similarly, I doubt any portion of the public would stand for taking a big hit to benefits from a system they've paid into their entire working lives.  It would be political suicide for any president or Congressman to suggest such a thing.  Another problem with your scenario is that as the SS Trust Fund is drawn down, benefit would have to be cut every year.  Or there would have to be a massive cut in the front end in order to provide stability in benefits for a few years.  That's not likely either.   

I think a far more likely scenario is a similar solution to the one cobbled together in 1983, when Social Security was in far worse shape than it is today.  Which was basically small benefit cuts in the future, along with tax increases.   For example, in 1983 payroll taxes affected about 90% of income, which has slowly decreased to about 80% today.   If payroll taxes were raised back to up to capture 90% of income again, Social Security becomes solvent for several additional decades.    Eliminating the cap entirely makes SS solvent virtually forever.   Other scenarios might include using chained CPI, which grows slower than regular CPI. 

[Jrr85]

This isn't right at all.  People that think they will get nothing are probably way too pessimistic, but right now, there is a roughly ~24% cut to SS benefits baked into current law that will happen in 10 to 12 years.  I don't think there is a chance that there is going to be a 24% cut across the board, so I think it's likely you see people with higher income and/or savings taking a much greater hit and lower income/savings people taking a zero percent hit. 

I think there is close to zero chance of this happening.   There currently is no savings test for Social Security.  Implementing one would be problematic and extremely unpopular.   Similarly, I doubt any portion of the public would stand for taking a big hit to benefits from a system they've paid into their entire working lives.  It would be political suicide for any president or Congressman to suggest such a thing.  Another problem with your scenario is that as the SS Trust Fund is drawn down, benefit would have to be cut every year.  Or there would have to be a massive cut in the front end in order to provide stability in benefits for a few years.  That's not likely either.   

I think a far more likely scenario is a similar solution to the one cobbled together in 1983, when Social Security was in far worse shape than it is today.  Which was basically small benefit cuts in the future, along with tax increases.   For example, in 1983 payroll taxes affected about 90% of income, which has slowly decreased to about 80% today.   If payroll taxes were raised back to up to capture 90% of income again, Social Security becomes solvent for several additional decades.    Eliminating the cap entirely makes SS solvent virtually forever.   Other scenarios might include using chained CPI, which grows slower than regular CPI.

Anything done at this point will be extremely unpopular. We've promised people a lot of benefits that somebody else will pay for. I definitely think the result is going to lean more towards higher taxes rather than benefit cuts, but it's economically the same thing for high earning millennials. Pay a lot more in taxes over the next 30 years and get roughly the same scheduled benefits, or pay the current taxes over the next 30 years and get a reduced benefit.  If you're 50, how the program is made solvent could greatly impact how much pin you feel.

[Jrr85]

Considering that it is very unlikely that there will be any social security by the time I retire, I would like the option to opt out of this service.

Absolutely and utterly non informed/ non rational opinion.

I am constantly running into millennials who think this, but they can't rationally explain why it will happen. For this to happen, the U.S. economy would have to completely collapse (highly unlikely), OR all the middle aged and older people (who are most likely to vote) would have to vote the system out of existence (highly unlikely), OR the working population would have to go so low, that almost no one was paying into the system (slightly more likely, but still unlikely).

In absence of those things, then what is most likely to happen is SS will pay out at a slightly lower rate than is currently forecast, for the millennials and later generations.

This isn't right at all.  People that think they will get nothing are probably way too pessimistic, but right now, there is a roughly ~24% cut to SS benefits baked into current law that will happen in 10 to 12 years.  I don't think there is a chance that there is going to be a 24% cut across the board, so I think it's likely you see people with higher income and/or savings taking a much greater hit and lower income/savings people taking a zero percent hit. 

Where are you getting "10-12 years" and "-24%"?  Everything I've seen and read indicates that it will be in/around 18 years from now, and the shortfall is projected to be 21%.

You're right. The 10-12 years is the Medicare trust fund. We have longer for the ss fund. But I think the 24% number is right for social security. Obviously an uncertain projection looking 18 years on the future; the big thing is that absent something completely in foreseeable improving the picture, there is a significant cut scheduled.

[nereo]

This isn't right at all.  People that think they will get nothing are probably way too pessimistic, but right now, there is a roughly ~24% cut to SS benefits baked into current law that will happen in 10 to 12 years.  I don't think there is a chance that there is going to be a 24% cut across the board, so I think it's likely you see people with higher income and/or savings taking a much greater hit and lower income/savings people taking a zero percent hit. 

I think there is close to zero chance of this happening.   There currently is no savings test for Social Security.  Implementing one would be problematic and extremely unpopular.   Similarly, I doubt any portion of the public would stand for taking a big hit to benefits from a system they've paid into their entire working lives.  It would be political suicide for any president or Congressman to suggest such a thing.  Another problem with your scenario is that as the SS Trust Fund is drawn down, benefit would have to be cut every year.  Or there would have to be a massive cut in the front end in order to provide stability in benefits for a few years.  That's not likely either.   

I think a far more likely scenario is a similar solution to the one cobbled together in 1983, when Social Security was in far worse shape than it is today.  Which was basically small benefit cuts in the future, along with tax increases.   For example, in 1983 payroll taxes affected about 90% of income, which has slowly decreased to about 80% today.   If payroll taxes were raised back to up to capture 90% of income again, Social Security becomes solvent for several additional decades.    Eliminating the cap entirely makes SS solvent virtually forever.   Other scenarios might include using chained CPI, which grows slower than regular CPI.

Anything done at this point will be extremely unpopular. We've promised people a lot of benefits that somebody else will pay for. I definitely think the result is going to lean more towards higher taxes rather than benefit cuts, but it's economically the same thing for high earning millennials. Pay a lot more in taxes over the next 30 years and get roughly the same scheduled benefits, or pay the current taxes over the next 30 years and get a reduced benefit.  If you're 50, how the program is made solvent could greatly impact how much pin you feel.

Personally I doubt that anyone who's currently over age 50 will see much change in their SS payouts and (at most) only modest changes in their payroll taxes.  We've got about 18 years before the trust fund is set to be depleted, and I expect any changes, once they are made, to exempt people who are within 10 years of scheduled retirement.
The people who will experience changes will likely be Gen-Xers and the Millennials.

[nereo]

You're right. The 10-12 years is the Medicare trust fund. We have longer for the ss fund. But I think the 24% number is right for social security. Obviously an uncertain projection looking 18 years on the future; the big thing is that absent something completely in foreseeable improving the picture, there is a significant cut scheduled.

Just so that we're talking about the same thing; the annual report of the Social Security Board of Trustees projects the trust fund will be depleted in 2034 (18 years) and will suffer a 21% shortfall that year if no changes are made and model parameters are correct. 
You're welcome to quibble with their model parameters (many do - it's worth noting that the proposed fund depletion and shortfall have both been revised considerably in a positive way over the last five years).

https://www.ssa.gov/policy/trust-funds-summary.html

[starguru]

This isn't right at all.  People that think they will get nothing are probably way too pessimistic, but right now, there is a roughly ~24% cut to SS benefits baked into current law that will happen in 10 to 12 years.  I don't think there is a chance that there is going to be a 24% cut across the board, so I think it's likely you see people with higher income and/or savings taking a much greater hit and lower income/savings people taking a zero percent hit. 

I think there is close to zero chance of this happening.   There currently is no savings test for Social Security.  Implementing one would be problematic and extremely unpopular.   Similarly, I doubt any portion of the public would stand for taking a big hit to benefits from a system they've paid into their entire working lives.  It would be political suicide for any president or Congressman to suggest such a thing.  Another problem with your scenario is that as the SS Trust Fund is drawn down, benefit would have to be cut every year.  Or there would have to be a massive cut in the front end in order to provide stability in benefits for a few years.  That's not likely either.   

I think a far more likely scenario is a similar solution to the one cobbled together in 1983, when Social Security was in far worse shape than it is today.  Which was basically small benefit cuts in the future, along with tax increases.   For example, in 1983 payroll taxes affected about 90% of income, which has slowly decreased to about 80% today.   If payroll taxes were raised back to up to capture 90% of income again, Social Security becomes solvent for several additional decades.    Eliminating the cap entirely makes SS solvent virtually forever.   Other scenarios might include using chained CPI, which grows slower than regular CPI.

Anything done at this point will be extremely unpopular. We've promised people a lot of benefits that somebody else will pay for. I definitely think the result is going to lean more towards higher taxes rather than benefit cuts, but it's economically the same thing for high earning millennials. Pay a lot more in taxes over the next 30 years and get roughly the same scheduled benefits, or pay the current taxes over the next 30 years and get a reduced benefit.  If you're 50, how the program is made solvent could greatly impact how much pin you feel.

Personally I doubt that anyone who's currently over age 50 will see much change in their SS payouts and (at most) only modest changes in their payroll taxes.  We've got about 18 years before the trust fund is set to be depleted, and I expect any changes, once they are made, to exempt people who are within 10 years of scheduled retirement.
The people who will experience changes will likely be Gen-Xers and the Millennials.

According to wikipedia, all it would take to completely fund SS at current benefits is a 2.8% increase in the SS tax, split between employer and employee.  Also, raising the retirement age would eliminate some of the shortfall.  In a more sane, less politically charged (stupid) environment, these seem like reasonable things that people could compromise on.  Yeah, it sucks raising taxes, but it fixes the problem.  Yeah, it sucks raising the retirement age, but honestly people are living so much longer now, and it helps the problem and is it really so hard to give up something?  Our problems are entirely self-imposed. 

And even if our glorious leaders could compromise it out to solve this issue, I would still favor mandatory saving or at least auto-enrolling everyone in a retirement plan, either their employers or a government administered one.

[nereo]

According to wikipedia, all it would take to completely fund SS at current benefits is a 2.8% increase in the SS tax, split between employer and employee.  Also, raising the retirement age would eliminate some of the shortfall.  In a more sane, less politically charged (stupid) environment, these seem like reasonable things that people could compromise on.  Yeah, it sucks raising taxes, but it fixes the problem.  Yeah, it sucks raising the retirement age, but honestly people are living so much longer now, and it helps the problem and is it really so hard to give up something?  Our problems are entirely self-imposed. 

And even if our glorious leaders could compromise it out to solve this issue, I would still favor mandatory saving or at least auto-enrolling everyone in a retirement plan, either their employers or a government administered one.

Agreed that mechanically it's an easy problem to fix.  I remember one econ professor spoke about it as a "freshman problem"... as in, the sort of problem any freshman econ student could solve by shifting around taxes, age requirements and benefits.  It's the politics that's hard.
As evidenced by this thread, people see it as "their money," which the SSA hasn't exactly helped by sending out periodic notices entitled "Your Guranteed SS Benefits."  If it were just seen as a tax supporting a welfare program it probably would be significantly altered every presidential administration.
Oddly, people seem to see it both as a tax (bad!!  Must lower taxes!!) and as 'their money' (I'm not willing to give up one dime!  I earned that money, it's mine!!)

I agree that having a forced savings program would go a long way towards alleviating our need for everyone to get SS.  However, even though it would solve a problem I'm fundamentally wary of government forcing people to do something 'for their own good'.  Also, I think we should have some sort of social safety net to avoid citizens falling destitute.  So if personal savings increase (whether voluntarily or via a forced-savings-program) I'd still argue FOR SS, though we could probably scale it back to only 2-3% of people's paychecks over time.  Problem is, before we could ever do that we'd have to get people to accept that it's not 'their' money and most people would pay 2-3% every year but receive almost nothing in return.  It becomes a chicken-and-egg, or at least the 'turning-the-battleship" problem.  It's easy enough to do, but where do we start and how many decades do we allot to make the turn complete?

[Telecaster]

Personally I doubt that anyone who's currently over age 50 will see much change in their SS payouts and (at most) only modest changes in their payroll taxes.  We've got about 18 years before the trust fund is set to be depleted, and I expect any changes, once they are made, to exempt people who are within 10 years of scheduled retirement.
The people who will experience changes will likely be Gen-Xers and the Millennials.

^ This.  A future Congress won't change benefits for people currently collecting them, or for people who will retire within say, 15 years or so.   Won't happen. 

The cries of the impending doom of Social Security are way, way, way, way, way, overblown.   For example, raising the payroll cap would only affect about 20% of incomes, and then only on that income that above the existing cap.  That's not a draconian increase, and it doesn't even have to be the full 4.2% employee share.   Some lower fraction (maybe combined with pushing the cap higher) would work too.  And/or combined with chained CPI, etc.  In short, there are lots options, which perhaps aren't painless, but don't require particularly large changes either. 

Also worth remembering that back in 2005 Pres. Bush proposed some broad changes to Social Security, which were never passed by Congress.   However, Social Security is actually in better shape now than it was then even though nothing was done.  This despite the fact that we've been through a major recession AND Congress lowered the payroll tax for two years.   The reason is that the SS actuaries used conservative models that underestimated overall economic growth during that time period.  If the models continue to under estimate growth, there is a possibility that SS will remain solvent indefinitely with no benefit cuts or tax increases.   I wouldn't bet on that, but it is a possibility. 

But since Social Security has been improving financially over time, and the date when revenues will fall short of project outlays is still a long way into the future and getting farther, we can safely wait a little while and see how things shake out before pressing the panic button.   

[Jrr85]

This isn't right at all.  People that think they will get nothing are probably way too pessimistic, but right now, there is a roughly ~24% cut to SS benefits baked into current law that will happen in 10 to 12 years.  I don't think there is a chance that there is going to be a 24% cut across the board, so I think it's likely you see people with higher income and/or savings taking a much greater hit and lower income/savings people taking a zero percent hit. 

I think there is close to zero chance of this happening.   There currently is no savings test for Social Security.  Implementing one would be problematic and extremely unpopular.   Similarly, I doubt any portion of the public would stand for taking a big hit to benefits from a system they've paid into their entire working lives.  It would be political suicide for any president or Congressman to suggest such a thing.  Another problem with your scenario is that as the SS Trust Fund is drawn down, benefit would have to be cut every year.  Or there would have to be a massive cut in the front end in order to provide stability in benefits for a few years.  That's not likely either.   

I think a far more likely scenario is a similar solution to the one cobbled together in 1983, when Social Security was in far worse shape than it is today.  Which was basically small benefit cuts in the future, along with tax increases.   For example, in 1983 payroll taxes affected about 90% of income, which has slowly decreased to about 80% today.   If payroll taxes were raised back to up to capture 90% of income again, Social Security becomes solvent for several additional decades.    Eliminating the cap entirely makes SS solvent virtually forever.   Other scenarios might include using chained CPI, which grows slower than regular CPI.

Anything done at this point will be extremely unpopular. We've promised people a lot of benefits that somebody else will pay for. I definitely think the result is going to lean more towards higher taxes rather than benefit cuts, but it's economically the same thing for high earning millennials. Pay a lot more in taxes over the next 30 years and get roughly the same scheduled benefits, or pay the current taxes over the next 30 years and get a reduced benefit.  If you're 50, how the program is made solvent could greatly impact how much pin you feel.

Personally I doubt that anyone who's currently over age 50 will see much change in their SS payouts and (at most) only modest changes in their payroll taxes.  We've got about 18 years before the trust fund is set to be depleted, and I expect any changes, once they are made, to exempt people who are within 10 years of scheduled retirement.
The people who will experience changes will likely be Gen-Xers and the Millennials.

According to wikipedia, all it would take to completely fund SS at current benefits is a 2.8% increase in the SS tax, split between employer and employee.  Also, raising the retirement age would eliminate some of the shortfall.  In a more sane, less politically charged (stupid) environment, these seem like reasonable things that people could compromise on.  Yeah, it sucks raising taxes, but it fixes the problem.  Yeah, it sucks raising the retirement age, but honestly people are living so much longer now, and it helps the problem and is it really so hard to give up something?  Our problems are entirely self-imposed. 

And even if our glorious leaders could compromise it out to solve this issue, I would still favor mandatory saving or at least auto-enrolling everyone in a retirement plan, either their employers or a government administered one.

2.8% is not a small increase.  That's a 22% increase in what is one of the three largest expenses for most people.  But SS by itself is a reasonably easy program to fix, even if the fixes will be painful.  When benefits are about to be cut, a lot of stuff that is politically impossible now will suddenly become possible. 

[nereo]

2.8% is not a small increase.  That's a 22% increase in what is one of the three largest expenses for most people.  But SS by itself is a reasonably easy program to fix, even if the fixes will be painful.  When benefits are about to be cut, a lot of stuff that is politically impossible now will suddenly become possible.

So if I understand you correctly, the only practical way we're going to see large changes in SS is if/when the trust fund runs out and cuts are eminent.  Sadly, I tend to agree with this assessment, even though we could have much smaller changes if we enacted them now instead of waiting ~18 years.

Also worth remembering that back in 2005 Pres. Bush proposed some broad changes to Social Security, which were never passed by Congress.   However, Social Security is actually in better shape now than it was then even though nothing was done.  This despite the fact that we've been through a major recession AND Congress lowered the payroll tax for two years.   The reason is that the SS actuaries used conservative models that underestimated overall economic growth during that time period.  If the models continue to under estimate growth, there is a possibility that SS will remain solvent indefinitely with no benefit cuts or tax increases.   I wouldn't bet on that, but it is a possibility. 

Thanks for pointing this out. I think there's a lot of misperception about the health of the SS program. Most people would be shocked to learn that it currently runs a surplus, has been generating a surplus for years nad is projected to run a surplus for another ~5 years.  Likewise it's possible that an income boom, immigration surge and/or higher mortality rates of senior citizens (e.g. really bad flu pandemic) between 2020-2030 could mean the program will continue to generate surpluses.
I wouldn't bank on it, and would prefer to make small changes now, but long-term financial forecasts are often comically offbase.

[onehair]

No I personally would not.  It's money I've paid into on the table.  Why leave money on the table?  Plus not everyone is willing or able to invest properly.

[Jrr85]

Thanks for pointing this out. I think there's a lot of misperception about the health of the SS program. Most people would be shocked to learn that it currently runs a surplus, has been generating a surplus for years nad is projected to run a surplus for another ~5 years.  Likewise it's possible that an income boom, immigration surge and/or higher mortality rates of senior citizens (e.g. really bad flu pandemic) between 2020-2030 could mean the program will continue to generate surpluses.
I wouldn't bank on it, and would prefer to make small changes now, but long-term financial forecasts are often comically offbase.

Pretty sure that there was a deficit several years ago and at that time, they projected another few years of basically break even before consistently having a deficit that was projected to grow with the number of baby boomers until the trust fund account was zeroed.  I knew projections would improve with the economy, but I did not realize that we're supposed to have a surplus for another five years.  I'm sure a lot of people are in the same boat as far as not completely updating their information.

[nereo]

Thanks for pointing this out. I think there's a lot of misperception about the health of the SS program. Most people would be shocked to learn that it currently runs a surplus, has been generating a surplus for years nad is projected to run a surplus for another ~5 years.  Likewise it's possible that an income boom, immigration surge and/or higher mortality rates of senior citizens (e.g. really bad flu pandemic) between 2020-2030 could mean the program will continue to generate surpluses.
I wouldn't bank on it, and would prefer to make small changes now, but long-term financial forecasts are often comically offbase.

Pretty sure that there was a deficit several years ago and at that time, they projected another few years of basically break even before consistently having a deficit that was projected to grow with the number of baby boomers until the trust fund account was zeroed.  I knew projections would improve with the economy, but I did not realize that we're supposed to have a surplus for another five years.  I'm sure a lot of people are in the same boat as far as not completely updating their information.

It would depend on what you consider "several years ago".  The last time that SS has paid out more than it took in was 1981, which ended 7 years of negative revenues.  Not surprisingly the SS amendments of 1983 greatly shifted the revenue side of the equation. We've had 34 consecutive years of surpluses. Currently SS is projected to provide a surplus every year through 2021.
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4a3.html