Guest Post by Brandon Smith
The young do not think about getting old, and this blind spot benefits governments which spend freely and inflate prices. Younger generations find themselves priced out of the economy before they truly get a chance to participate. For Gen Z, there is at least a tacit acknowledgment they’re paying into a benefits system that might not be there for them when they retire. But their perspective is influenced by the rantings of their socialist college professors and militant activists on TikTok.
So, naturally, they think the logical is more power for government, more taxation, more wealth redistribution. In other words, give more control and more cash to the same state which already misspent their money.
Now, the idea of raiding the wealth of others to create financial security is not new. This plan is doomed to fail, as it has failed in nearly every socialist system with a population larger than 10 million people.
Even in “market-capitalist welfare states” that are often cited as successful like Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland, the ability to find retirement programs at a rate which provides a livable wage is only possible if the retiring population is much smaller than the working population.
Today, the larger Baby Boomer generation is aging completely out of the labor pool and these systems are being depleted rapidly. The demographic squeeze is tightening, and in the U.S., Social Security’s reserves are now being depleted. According to the government’s latest projections, the retirement trust fund will exhaust its reserves in 2032, leaving enough incoming revenue to cover only 78% of scheduled benefits.
Social Security’s combined reserves stood at $2.56 trillion at the end of 2025. Those reserves are shrinking as the program spends more than it collects. Last year, the shortfall was $160 billion, covered by drawing down reserves. By 2033, the annual gap between Social Security’s expenses and its income excluding interest is projected to reach $393 billion.
As these reserves disappear due to funding deficits, I expect Social Security payments will be reduced as a consequence.
By the time I am old enough to collect, Social Security payments will be reduced by 22%. The fund does not necessarily implode, but the benefits become increasingly useless over time. Younger generations will face an even larger gap between the benefits they’ve been promised and what the system can actually afford to pay.
At bottom, the trust fund will be depleted, leaving Social Security entirely dependent on incoming tax revenues. Benefits would continue, but without real and meaningful reforms, the program would lack the resources to pay everything it promises. For millions of retirees already struggling with rising living costs, even a partial reduction in benefits would be devastating.
This raises a lot of questions…
Is Social Security even a necessary program? In the U.S. there are currently 71 million beneficiaries of Social Security and out of that group around 14 million depend entirely on their monthly checks as their only source of income. An even larger portion of the population needs these checks as supplemental income.
In other words, the program could be scrapped, but it would be devastating to a large percentage of the public, all of whom would express their anger at the ballot box. If the government is going to operate as an economic backstop for any group, then the elderly should be that group. Anyone who has cared for an elderly relative understands that, one day, we will all hit an age-wall that prevents us from working. When that day arrives, we’ll either be wealthy and flush with savings and assets, or we will be completely dependent on the charity of others.
Is Social Security the answer? No, not as it stands now. Government subsidies are not charity, they are essentially theft through taxation. But a large enough number of Americans want these subsidies in place so the “theft” becomes institutionalized.
Public anger is rising among younger generations because they have to pay into subsidies that they have no expectation of benefiting from in the future. My concern is that the radical left use this anger as an entry point, and channel that anger into support for increasingly destructive wealth redistribution schemes. This will lead to calamity for the country, young and old alike.
So what is the solution? Most of us would prefer to know we’ll be taken care of in old age. So how do we ensure that the elderly are provided for without continually crushing the economy with debt?
Let’s go through a list of solutions…
Before 1935 there was no such thing as Social Security, so how did people aging out of the workforce survive? They largely relied on family to help take care of them. For hundreds of years this was the norm in the western world.
Before 1935 there was no Social Security system, so how did people aging out of the workforce survive? They largely relied on family, personal savings and whatever local assistance was available. In the mid-19th century, nearly 70% of elderly Americans lived with their adult children, though this tradition declined over subsequent generations.
By the Great Depression, the limitations of relying on family and local charity had become painfully obvious. The Social Security program was created in part to provide a more reliable safety net for aging Americans.
This is why the Social Security program was popularized in the first place; far too many older Americans no longer had a family safety net and so they jumped onboard the Social Security train in response. This is not to say that kids should be required to take care of their parents, but the principle should be encouraged. It’s one way to express gratitude for the countless hours and dollars spent on raising a child in the first place.
And, if you think about it, this might also help to encourage better parenting practices, the nuclear family and social cohesion. Who would want to be a deadbeat parent when their kids will be taking care of them in old age? Who would want to abort their babies when those babies are their future safety net? Who would want to get a divorce and break up their family at the risk of being destitute when they hit their twilight years?
Yes, this sounds rather mercenary, but it’s foolish to discount selfish incentives as a method to keep civilization functioning. Not everyone needs incentives to do the right thing, but many do need them.
Returning to the old tradition of caring for relatives as a family or tribe would help to prevent mass destitution and suffering of older Americans should Social Security and other programs fail. It would also help to trim overall deficits in the program.
The knee-jerk reaction from many people (especially Baby Boomers) on the idea of delaying retirement is anger and outrage. I agree, to a point. These people worked their whole lives, raised families, struggled through national and global crisis events, and made it through to the other side. They probably deserve a rest.
That said, life is not necessarily fair and expecting the government to be there for you is not exactly the best plan. In order for a safety net to exist for the most desperate people, the people who are cognizant and functional might need to adapt. Also, there are many older Americans who would like to earn an income and keep busy but they have aged out of the normal labor pool.
With more older Americans staying in the workforce longer, Social Security deficits could be reduced and the funds could potentially last longer. It wouldn’t solve the entire problem, but it could be part of a broader solution.
For the first time in human history, senior citizens have access to work-from-home digital jobs. It’s possible for many older people to work in these fields with proper training programs (and maybe tax incentives for companies that hire the elderly).
I would rather have elderly Americans taking on such work and making money at home than corporations importing a bunch of third world migrants through H-1B visa programs.
This is another idea that creates deep divides among voters, with the primary question being: What happens to Social Security if there’s an economic crash and assets plummet in value? My answer: Diversification.
Over the past decade, if Social Security funds parked in federal debt were invested in physical gold and silver instead? My back-of-the-envelope math says the trust fund would have an additional $7 trillion. That would add another 12+ years to the lifespan of those savings.
If the trust funds were invested the same way the new Trump Accounts are, I estimate they’d have an extra $8 trillion.
Instead, the entire Social Security trust fund is, by law, invested in federal government debt. The same asset whose plummeting value led to the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank in 2023. The same asset that’s currently having its worst run in over 100 years.
Here’s the lesson: Calling any asset, even debt backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, safe and low-risk doesn’t make it true. That’s why the principle of diversification exists in investing!
Diversifying a portion of Social Security trust fund investments is a no-brainer. The gains would be undeniable. Is it gambling with the future, and with taxpayer money? Yes, in a way. On the other hand, the current trust funds are already gambling with the future – and they’re losing badly.
If we don’t take radical measures like this, Social Security is certain to fail, so what do we have to lose?
This is one of the uglier options available, which is to stop all early drawdowns by those aged 62-66. Yes, they already get a 30% penalty, but ending the option of an earlier draw would slow the drain of funds for the more elderly.
No, it’s not ideal, but it is a possibility.
Denying Social Security for the top 20% of American earners who already have extensive savings and assets would save an estimated $500 billion per year. This would eliminate the current deficit and future deficits for many years.
If someone can live comfortably without Social Security after retirement, then they should forgo the monthly checks so that others who are not so well off can have them.
Is this punishing people for being successful? Yes, it absolutely is. It’s not a fair solution, and I’m not saying I agree with the measure on principle, but when survival of the program itself is at stake, this is an obvious strategy.
Across the world, not just in the west but in the majority of developed countries around the world, fertility rates have declined and populations are growing older. Without enough young people in the workforce, the elderly will greatly burden the available tax base. In other words, too many hands waiting for too little cash.
This incoming crisis has led to some nefarious people exploring horrific solutions. For example, multicultural progressives use the fertility decline as an excuse for mass immigration from the third world. Hey, that’s millions of new taxpayers to help support retirement funds, right? Except that immigration is not a simple fiscal solution. New arrivals who go to work do contribute taxes, but they also create demand for housing, schools, healthcare and public services.
Other leftist governments exploring government assisted suicide – I suspect this is a way to reduce the elderly population and ease this kind of demographic problem. This is, of course, monstrous and immoral, but fears of debt collapse and their own wellbeing lure some people into supporting truly terrible “solutions.”
How do we increase population naturally? I believe only sure way is to increase individual wealth. How? That’s the question of the ages. Socialism is certainly not the answer – no truly socialist system has ever actually increased the wealth of the middle class without turning to free markets (the antithesis of socialist principles). Even then they tend to stifle productivity and entrepreneurship.
If there is a cap on success, individual wealth will fail. This is a fact.
A lot of people are going to question if Social Security is even worth saving. After all, there has to be a better way. I’m not saying it is or is not worth it, that’s a topic for a separate article. The only question here is, can Social Security be saved? The answer is yes, at least in principle. The options I’ve outlined are a start – combined with a severe reduction in federal deficits (which are funded, in part, by Social Security). However, none of these solutions is painless.
The secondary question is: Do we have time? I think yes, but only if there’s not a debilitating crisis that prevents us from taking action. A new inflation spike, or worse a severe monetary crash, would create much bigger worries than Social Security’s future.
The best overall option is not to rely on Social Security in the first place. Investing wisely in your own and your family’s future, while preparing for economic disruptions, is the best way to ensure your retirement years are not an exercise in misery. Diversifying your savings, exactly as I suggested the Social Security trust funds should be diversified, is a good place to start. Add growth like the Trump accounts do, and add inflation-resistant investments like physical gold and silver. Then, once your financial foundation is established, you won’t have to worry so much about how Social Security must change in the years ahead.
The dollar buys less today than it did a year ago, a decade ago, a generation ago. That slide is the predictable result of endless printing and borrowing. Dr. Ron Paul believes the FED has the answer. But they’re keeping it to themselves. Fortunately, a new financial chart has publicly exposed their secret moves. See it for yourself: https://freekit.birchgold.com/lf/ro...D_v02a_article&placement=article&cid=rp_media
To learn more about how physical gold could help protect your retirement portfolio, click here to get your FREE info kit on Gold IRAs from Birch Gold Group. And now introducing a Crypto IRA to capitalize on the fastest growing market in the world.
Tweet
Continue reading...
[ H/T The Burning Platform ]
The young do not think about getting old, and this blind spot benefits governments which spend freely and inflate prices. Younger generations find themselves priced out of the economy before they truly get a chance to participate. For Gen Z, there is at least a tacit acknowledgment they’re paying into a benefits system that might not be there for them when they retire. But their perspective is influenced by the rantings of their socialist college professors and militant activists on TikTok.
So, naturally, they think the logical is more power for government, more taxation, more wealth redistribution. In other words, give more control and more cash to the same state which already misspent their money.
Now, the idea of raiding the wealth of others to create financial security is not new. This plan is doomed to fail, as it has failed in nearly every socialist system with a population larger than 10 million people.
Even in “market-capitalist welfare states” that are often cited as successful like Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland, the ability to find retirement programs at a rate which provides a livable wage is only possible if the retiring population is much smaller than the working population.
Today, the larger Baby Boomer generation is aging completely out of the labor pool and these systems are being depleted rapidly. The demographic squeeze is tightening, and in the U.S., Social Security’s reserves are now being depleted. According to the government’s latest projections, the retirement trust fund will exhaust its reserves in 2032, leaving enough incoming revenue to cover only 78% of scheduled benefits.
Social Security’s combined reserves stood at $2.56 trillion at the end of 2025. Those reserves are shrinking as the program spends more than it collects. Last year, the shortfall was $160 billion, covered by drawing down reserves. By 2033, the annual gap between Social Security’s expenses and its income excluding interest is projected to reach $393 billion.
As these reserves disappear due to funding deficits, I expect Social Security payments will be reduced as a consequence.
By the time I am old enough to collect, Social Security payments will be reduced by 22%. The fund does not necessarily implode, but the benefits become increasingly useless over time. Younger generations will face an even larger gap between the benefits they’ve been promised and what the system can actually afford to pay.
At bottom, the trust fund will be depleted, leaving Social Security entirely dependent on incoming tax revenues. Benefits would continue, but without real and meaningful reforms, the program would lack the resources to pay everything it promises. For millions of retirees already struggling with rising living costs, even a partial reduction in benefits would be devastating.
This raises a lot of questions…
Is Social Security even a necessary program? In the U.S. there are currently 71 million beneficiaries of Social Security and out of that group around 14 million depend entirely on their monthly checks as their only source of income. An even larger portion of the population needs these checks as supplemental income.
In other words, the program could be scrapped, but it would be devastating to a large percentage of the public, all of whom would express their anger at the ballot box. If the government is going to operate as an economic backstop for any group, then the elderly should be that group. Anyone who has cared for an elderly relative understands that, one day, we will all hit an age-wall that prevents us from working. When that day arrives, we’ll either be wealthy and flush with savings and assets, or we will be completely dependent on the charity of others.
Is Social Security the answer? No, not as it stands now. Government subsidies are not charity, they are essentially theft through taxation. But a large enough number of Americans want these subsidies in place so the “theft” becomes institutionalized.
Public anger is rising among younger generations because they have to pay into subsidies that they have no expectation of benefiting from in the future. My concern is that the radical left use this anger as an entry point, and channel that anger into support for increasingly destructive wealth redistribution schemes. This will lead to calamity for the country, young and old alike.
So what is the solution? Most of us would prefer to know we’ll be taken care of in old age. So how do we ensure that the elderly are provided for without continually crushing the economy with debt?
Let’s go through a list of solutions…
Fundamentally change the way we look at aging
Before 1935 there was no such thing as Social Security, so how did people aging out of the workforce survive? They largely relied on family to help take care of them. For hundreds of years this was the norm in the western world.
Before 1935 there was no Social Security system, so how did people aging out of the workforce survive? They largely relied on family, personal savings and whatever local assistance was available. In the mid-19th century, nearly 70% of elderly Americans lived with their adult children, though this tradition declined over subsequent generations.
By the Great Depression, the limitations of relying on family and local charity had become painfully obvious. The Social Security program was created in part to provide a more reliable safety net for aging Americans.
This is why the Social Security program was popularized in the first place; far too many older Americans no longer had a family safety net and so they jumped onboard the Social Security train in response. This is not to say that kids should be required to take care of their parents, but the principle should be encouraged. It’s one way to express gratitude for the countless hours and dollars spent on raising a child in the first place.
And, if you think about it, this might also help to encourage better parenting practices, the nuclear family and social cohesion. Who would want to be a deadbeat parent when their kids will be taking care of them in old age? Who would want to abort their babies when those babies are their future safety net? Who would want to get a divorce and break up their family at the risk of being destitute when they hit their twilight years?
Yes, this sounds rather mercenary, but it’s foolish to discount selfish incentives as a method to keep civilization functioning. Not everyone needs incentives to do the right thing, but many do need them.
Returning to the old tradition of caring for relatives as a family or tribe would help to prevent mass destitution and suffering of older Americans should Social Security and other programs fail. It would also help to trim overall deficits in the program.
At-home work for the elderly
The knee-jerk reaction from many people (especially Baby Boomers) on the idea of delaying retirement is anger and outrage. I agree, to a point. These people worked their whole lives, raised families, struggled through national and global crisis events, and made it through to the other side. They probably deserve a rest.
That said, life is not necessarily fair and expecting the government to be there for you is not exactly the best plan. In order for a safety net to exist for the most desperate people, the people who are cognizant and functional might need to adapt. Also, there are many older Americans who would like to earn an income and keep busy but they have aged out of the normal labor pool.
With more older Americans staying in the workforce longer, Social Security deficits could be reduced and the funds could potentially last longer. It wouldn’t solve the entire problem, but it could be part of a broader solution.
For the first time in human history, senior citizens have access to work-from-home digital jobs. It’s possible for many older people to work in these fields with proper training programs (and maybe tax incentives for companies that hire the elderly).
I would rather have elderly Americans taking on such work and making money at home than corporations importing a bunch of third world migrants through H-1B visa programs.
Diversify Social Security trust fund investments
This is another idea that creates deep divides among voters, with the primary question being: What happens to Social Security if there’s an economic crash and assets plummet in value? My answer: Diversification.
Over the past decade, if Social Security funds parked in federal debt were invested in physical gold and silver instead? My back-of-the-envelope math says the trust fund would have an additional $7 trillion. That would add another 12+ years to the lifespan of those savings.
If the trust funds were invested the same way the new Trump Accounts are, I estimate they’d have an extra $8 trillion.
Instead, the entire Social Security trust fund is, by law, invested in federal government debt. The same asset whose plummeting value led to the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank in 2023. The same asset that’s currently having its worst run in over 100 years.
Here’s the lesson: Calling any asset, even debt backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, safe and low-risk doesn’t make it true. That’s why the principle of diversification exists in investing!
Diversifying a portion of Social Security trust fund investments is a no-brainer. The gains would be undeniable. Is it gambling with the future, and with taxpayer money? Yes, in a way. On the other hand, the current trust funds are already gambling with the future – and they’re losing badly.
If we don’t take radical measures like this, Social Security is certain to fail, so what do we have to lose?
End early Social Security withdrawals
This is one of the uglier options available, which is to stop all early drawdowns by those aged 62-66. Yes, they already get a 30% penalty, but ending the option of an earlier draw would slow the drain of funds for the more elderly.
No, it’s not ideal, but it is a possibility.
Cut funding for the wealthiest 20%
Denying Social Security for the top 20% of American earners who already have extensive savings and assets would save an estimated $500 billion per year. This would eliminate the current deficit and future deficits for many years.
If someone can live comfortably without Social Security after retirement, then they should forgo the monthly checks so that others who are not so well off can have them.
Is this punishing people for being successful? Yes, it absolutely is. It’s not a fair solution, and I’m not saying I agree with the measure on principle, but when survival of the program itself is at stake, this is an obvious strategy.
Increase population growth
Across the world, not just in the west but in the majority of developed countries around the world, fertility rates have declined and populations are growing older. Without enough young people in the workforce, the elderly will greatly burden the available tax base. In other words, too many hands waiting for too little cash.
This incoming crisis has led to some nefarious people exploring horrific solutions. For example, multicultural progressives use the fertility decline as an excuse for mass immigration from the third world. Hey, that’s millions of new taxpayers to help support retirement funds, right? Except that immigration is not a simple fiscal solution. New arrivals who go to work do contribute taxes, but they also create demand for housing, schools, healthcare and public services.
Other leftist governments exploring government assisted suicide – I suspect this is a way to reduce the elderly population and ease this kind of demographic problem. This is, of course, monstrous and immoral, but fears of debt collapse and their own wellbeing lure some people into supporting truly terrible “solutions.”
How do we increase population naturally? I believe only sure way is to increase individual wealth. How? That’s the question of the ages. Socialism is certainly not the answer – no truly socialist system has ever actually increased the wealth of the middle class without turning to free markets (the antithesis of socialist principles). Even then they tend to stifle productivity and entrepreneurship.
If there is a cap on success, individual wealth will fail. This is a fact.
Is there a better way to save Social Security?
A lot of people are going to question if Social Security is even worth saving. After all, there has to be a better way. I’m not saying it is or is not worth it, that’s a topic for a separate article. The only question here is, can Social Security be saved? The answer is yes, at least in principle. The options I’ve outlined are a start – combined with a severe reduction in federal deficits (which are funded, in part, by Social Security). However, none of these solutions is painless.
The secondary question is: Do we have time? I think yes, but only if there’s not a debilitating crisis that prevents us from taking action. A new inflation spike, or worse a severe monetary crash, would create much bigger worries than Social Security’s future.
The best overall option is not to rely on Social Security in the first place. Investing wisely in your own and your family’s future, while preparing for economic disruptions, is the best way to ensure your retirement years are not an exercise in misery. Diversifying your savings, exactly as I suggested the Social Security trust funds should be diversified, is a good place to start. Add growth like the Trump accounts do, and add inflation-resistant investments like physical gold and silver. Then, once your financial foundation is established, you won’t have to worry so much about how Social Security must change in the years ahead.
The dollar buys less today than it did a year ago, a decade ago, a generation ago. That slide is the predictable result of endless printing and borrowing. Dr. Ron Paul believes the FED has the answer. But they’re keeping it to themselves. Fortunately, a new financial chart has publicly exposed their secret moves. See it for yourself: https://freekit.birchgold.com/lf/ro...D_v02a_article&placement=article&cid=rp_media
To learn more about how physical gold could help protect your retirement portfolio, click here to get your FREE info kit on Gold IRAs from Birch Gold Group. And now introducing a Crypto IRA to capitalize on the fastest growing market in the world.
Tweet
Continue reading...
[ H/T The Burning Platform ]
