Going over Stephanie Kelton’s Substack article on Social Security w/ ChatGPT and Milton Friedman GPT.

// Note: Most of the custom GPTs I’ve created are for my personal use and are not publicly available in the GPT store for obvious reasons—one being concerns over likeness. They may not always perfectly capture or simulate the individual they represent, and it’s important to distinguish between what that person might actually say if they were alive versus the responses generated by an LLM. I don’t seek monetary gains, only the pursuit of wisdom, truth and knowledge above all else.

I recently subscribed to Stephanie Kelton’s substack, a Modern Monetary Theorist (MMT). I have my own gripes of MMT, maybe because of my ignorance, and that is why I’m open minded to learn from them and what they have to say.

I came across her Substack because of Notes on the Crises blogger, Nathan Tankus, who is considered the go-to Fed guy, because he possesses vast knowledge on the Federal Reserve, the plumbing, banking system, and monetary history. He is well worth subscribing to, and he was recently interviewed by economist Paul Krugman. The first blog post I’ve read recently from him was one he published a few years ago in 2020, called Is There Really A “Looming Bank Collapse?” A Reply to Frank Partnoy’s Atlantic Feature Article. This was a great piece and response to debunk many of the claims made by Frank Partnoy, who painted a grim picture of an economic meltdown of great proportions, rivaling the 2008 financial crisis.

I remember reading the Atlantic piece too in 2023/24 for an article I did, and found differing perspectives that presented opposing evidence, or put to question some of the claims made by Partnoy. Partnoy’s article did not age that well, but it isn’t to say some of what he said there wasn’t true, such as zombie companies, or how fragile the US financial system still is, a persistent issue after all these years later, post-2008 crisis. While the sky didn’t fall to gigantic proportions, a minor contagion issue did arise as we’ve seen a few banks collapsing and needing rescuing in 2023 when the Fed aggressively raised interest rates to control inflation after the massive liquidity injection and rescuing of the financial system and the economy during the COVID pandemic.

https://substack.com/home/post/p-158229625?source=queue

However, this post isn’t about the banking crisis and the fragility of the financial system. It is about the recent article by Stephanie Kelton on Social Security, and her criticism of billionaires like Elon Musk who is meddling with the SS pay system and all congruent systems. Thus I turned to ChatGPT for insights.

Me: break down and summarize this article (Kelton’s article):

Summary of Stephanie Kelton’s Article: “Elon Musk is the Reason Social Security is ‘Running Out of Money'”

Core Argument

Stephanie Kelton challenges the common belief that Social Security is “running out of money.” Instead, she argues that the real issue stems from a legal limitation on funding and economic trends that weren’t anticipated when reforms were made in 1983—particularly, rising income inequality.

Key Points of the Article:

Social Security’s Funding Mechanism
- Established in 1935 as part of the New Deal, Social Security is funded by payroll taxes.
- In 2025, employees and employers each contribute 6.2% of wages up to a cap of $176,100 (self-employed individuals pay 12.4%).
- The program can only pay full benefits as long as it has enough earmarked revenue (payroll taxes) and reserves (Trust Fund).
Three Key Distinctions in Social Security’s Finances
- Legal Authority to Pay
  - Under current law, Social Security can only pay full benefits if its funding sources (payroll taxes + Trust Fund) allow it.
  - If the Trust Fund reaches zero, automatic benefit cuts are triggered.
- Financial Ability to Pay
  - The U.S. government cannot run out of money in the way individuals or businesses can.
  - Congress could authorize Social Security to pay full benefits regardless of its dedicated funding sources, but it has not done so.
- Real Resource Capacity
  - The bigger issue isn’t whether money is available, but whether the economy can produce enough goods and services to support both retirees and workers.
  - If the economy isn’t productive enough, retirees’ spending could compete with workers’ needs, leading to inflation.
Why Do People Think Social Security is Running Out of Money?
- The Social Security Administration (SSA) projects that full benefits can be paid until 2035. After that, unless Congress acts, benefits would be automatically reduced to 83% of scheduled amounts.
- These projections are based on assumptions about economic growth, employment, birth rates, and productivity—which are inherently uncertain.
The 1983 Fix Was Supposed to Prevent This Problem
- The Greenspan Commission made changes in 1983 to ensure Social Security’s long-term solvency, assuming the system would be stable for 75+ years.
- However, current shortfalls show that these projections were wrong, but not because of increasing life expectancy or lower birth rates—those were accounted for in 1983.
The Real Problem: Rising Inequality (and Elon Musk as a Metaphor)
- The biggest reason for the unexpected shortfall is that a larger share of total income has shifted to the very wealthy, whose earnings exceed the payroll tax cap and are thus not taxed for Social Security.
- Elon Musk is used as a symbol for this trend—i.e., the concentration of earnings at the top.
- The share of wages subject to payroll tax has shrunk over time, meaning less revenue is going into the system than originally expected.

Bottom Line

Social Security isn’t financially constrained in the way many think—it can always be funded if Congress changes the law.
The real issue is rising inequality, which has reduced taxable payroll contributions, creating the illusion of a funding crisis.
The debate over Social Security’s future should focus less on “solvency” and more on how to distribute resources equitably and ensure economic productivity supports retirees.

Me: Fact check this claim (larger share of total income has shifted to the very wealthy, whose earnings exceed the payroll tax cap and are thus not taxed for Social Security…)

ChatGPT: The claim that a larger share of total income has shifted to the very wealthy, whose earnings exceed the payroll tax cap and are thus not taxed for Social Security, is accurate. This shift contributes to funding challenges for the Social Security program.investopedia.com+2en.wikipedia.org+2nypost.com+2

Understanding the Payroll Tax Cap:

Social Security is primarily funded through payroll taxes, which, as of 2025, apply to earnings up to a certain limit—known as the taxable maximum or wage base limit. Earnings above this threshold are not subject to Social Security taxes. For example, in 2024, this cap was set at $168,600. investopedia.com+1en.wikipedia.org+1

Impact of Income Inequality:

Over recent decades, a significant portion of income growth has been concentrated among high earners. As their incomes surpass the taxable maximum, a smaller fraction of total earnings is subject to Social Security taxes. This trend reduces the program’s revenue base. The Center for Economic and Policy Research estimated that this upward income redistribution accounts for about 43% of the projected Social Security shortfall over the next 75 years. en.wikipedia.org+1en.wikipedia.org+1

Declining Taxable Earnings Percentage:

Historically, approximately 83% of covered earnings were subject to Social Security taxes. This figure peaked at 90% in 1983 but declined to about 86% by 2010, reflecting the growing share of income above the taxable maximum. en.wikipedia.org

Conclusion:

The increasing concentration of income among the wealthy, whose earnings often exceed the payroll tax cap, has led to a smaller proportion of total earnings being taxed for Social Security. This development poses challenges to the program’s funding and sustainability.nypost.com+3marketwatch.com+3vox.com+3

Me: Now summarize the article in layman in a paragraph

ChatGPT: Social Security isn’t actually running out of money in the way people think. The government can always fund it, but current laws say benefits can only be paid in full if enough money comes in from payroll taxes. The real issue is that a bigger chunk of total income now goes to the richest Americans, like Elon Musk, whose earnings exceed the payroll tax cap—meaning they aren’t taxed for Social Security past a certain amount. Back in 1983, lawmakers thought they had fixed Social Security’s finances for the long run, but they didn’t predict how much wealth would concentrate at the top. Because of this, less money is flowing into Social Security than expected, creating a shortfall. The problem isn’t that people are living longer or that the system is broken—it’s that income inequality has grown, leaving a gap in funding. If Congress adjusted the tax system or simply allowed Social Security to pay benefits without needing a specific revenue source, the problem would disappear.

Me: What are some flaws and counterarguments of the entire article?

ChatGPT: Stephanie Kelton’s argument is well-grounded in Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and provides a compelling critique of the way Social Security’s funding is framed. However, her article has several potential flaws and counterarguments, both from an economic and political perspective.

1. MMT’s Assumption That the Government Can Always Fund Social Security

Flaw:
Kelton argues that the U.S. government can never “run out of money” because it issues its own currency. While this is true in a technical sense, simply printing money to fund Social Security doesn’t solve the real problem—ensuring that the economy can actually produce the goods and services retirees will need.
Counterargument:
- If the government injects too much money into the economy without increasing productive output, inflation could surge, making retirees’ benefits worth less in real terms.
- The U.S. already faces rising deficits and increasing debt-service costs. Politically, authorizing unlimited Social Security funding could set a precedent for similar demands across other entitlement programs, potentially worsening fiscal imbalances.

2. Inequality Is a Factor, but Not the Only One

Flaw:
Kelton claims that the main reason for Social Security’s funding challenges is rising income inequality—specifically, that more income is concentrated above the payroll tax cap, reducing taxable wages.
Counterargument:
- Demographic shifts play a much bigger role. The worker-to-retiree ratio is shrinking—fewer workers are paying into the system while more retirees are collecting benefits. This was always going to be an issue, regardless of inequality.
- Lower birth rates mean fewer future workers contributing to payroll taxes, further stressing the system.
- People are living longer, increasing the total benefits they receive over time. Even if the income cap were removed, the fundamental demographic issue would still need to be addressed.

3. Raising the Payroll Tax Cap May Not Fully Fix the Issue

Flaw:
The article implies that simply taxing all wages (rather than capping at $176,100) could resolve Social Security’s funding problems.
Counterargument:
- While eliminating the cap would increase revenue, it would not completely solve the long-term funding gap because benefits are tied to earnings—meaning higher earners would also qualify for bigger Social Security checks.
- The program was never designed as a wealth redistribution tool—it’s an insurance program, meaning contributions and benefits are linked.
- Alternative solutions like gradually raising the retirement age (to reflect longer life expectancy) or adjusting benefits for wealthier retirees might be more effective long-term strategies.

4. Ignoring Political and Legal Realities

Flaw:
Kelton argues that Social Security’s funding issue is a matter of “legal authority” and could be solved with a simple congressional change.
Counterargument:
- The political reality is that Social Security reform is highly controversial, and Congress has repeatedly avoided making tough choices on funding.
- Any expansion of funding would require new taxation or borrowing, which is a hard sell politically.
- A purely MMT-based approach—where Congress simply funds Social Security without worrying about revenue—would require a major shift in economic thinking, which is unlikely in the near future.

5. Overlooking Productivity and Workforce Participation

Flaw:
The article doesn’t fully address how economic growth, productivity, and workforce participation impact Social Security’s sustainability.
Counterargument:
- If productivity increases, fewer workers could still sustain a growing retiree population without the system collapsing.
- Encouraging higher labor force participation (e.g., through immigration, job training, or delaying retirement) could ease the financial burden on Social Security.
- Simply funding Social Security differently doesn’t change the fact that fewer workers are supporting more retirees—a structural issue that money alone can’t fix.

Conclusion:

While Kelton makes strong points about how Social Security is funded, she downplays demographic and structural challenges, assumes Congress would be willing to change the funding model, and relies heavily on Modern Monetary Theory, which remains controversial in mainstream economics.

A more balanced approach would combine multiple reforms, including:

Raising or eliminating the payroll tax cap (while adjusting benefit formulas).
Gradually increasing the retirement age to reflect longer life expectancy.
Encouraging higher workforce participation through immigration and job training.
Exploring a hybrid funding model (potentially mixing payroll taxes with other revenue sources).

Kelton’s MMT-based solution is theoretically possible, but politically and economically challenging in the current system.

Me: Can you simulate multiple perspectives from great economists and sociologists in a feedback style response or peer review of the article?

ChatGPT: Here’s a simulated peer review of Stephanie Kelton’s article, featuring perspectives from economists and sociologists with varying ideological backgrounds. Each will analyze her claims based on their own theories and frameworks.

Peer Review: “Elon Musk is the Reason Social Security is ‘Running Out of Money'” by Stephanie Kelton

Economist & Sociologist Feedback Panel

1. John Maynard Keynes (Keynesian Economics)

“Kelton makes a compelling case that Social Security’s funding issues are more a matter of political will than actual financial insolvency. She rightly points out that a government issuing its own currency cannot truly run out of money. However, I would warn against assuming that unconstrained spending is without consequences. If benefits are paid without increasing productive capacity, inflation could erode their real value. A better approach would be to ensure that Social Security remains solvent while stimulating economic growth to support it—perhaps through strategic investments in infrastructure and labor productivity.”

2. Milton Friedman (Monetarist Economics)

“Kelton’s reliance on Modern Monetary Theory is deeply flawed. The assumption that Social Security can be funded indefinitely through government fiat ignores the long-term consequences of excessive money creation. The historical evidence shows that expanding government spending without corresponding productivity leads to inflationary pressures. Social Security’s shortfall should be addressed through market-based solutions, such as private savings accounts, rather than increasing reliance on a tax-funded program that discourages personal responsibility. Her dismissal of the ‘solvency’ debate is misleading—what truly matters is whether government spending distorts economic incentives and undermines private investment.”

3. Karl Marx (Marxist Economic Perspective)

“Kelton correctly highlights a fundamental contradiction in capitalist economies—income inequality concentrates wealth at the top while starving public goods like Social Security. Her critique of the payroll tax cap is valid: the wealthy extract vast amounts of economic value while contributing proportionally less to social welfare. However, she stops short of addressing the root cause—capitalism’s tendency to accumulate wealth in fewer hands. A real solution would involve democratizing economic power, restructuring ownership of the means of production, and ensuring that retirement security is not contingent on the financial markets, but rather on collective social provisioning.”

4. Friedrich Hayek (Austrian School of Economics)

“Kelton’s argument assumes that government intervention is the only solution to Social Security’s funding issues, but this overlooks the role of decentralized decision-making in ensuring economic efficiency. Social Security’s structure creates perverse incentives—encouraging dependency on government instead of personal savings and investment. A better approach would be to transition toward private retirement accounts where individuals control their own wealth rather than relying on an increasingly fragile state-funded system. Her argument that Congress can ‘simply authorize more spending’ is reckless and ignores the distortions that government-created money introduces into economic calculation.”

5. Max Weber (Sociological Perspective – Bureaucracy & Authority)

“Kelton presents a structural critique of Social Security’s funding but does not fully consider the bureaucratic and administrative constraints of the system. Social Security is embedded within a rigid bureaucratic framework that resists change. The challenge is not just a matter of economic solvency but of political legitimacy—citizens expect stability in government programs, and sudden shifts in policy (such as eliminating the payroll tax cap) could provoke political backlash. Her argument would benefit from addressing the legitimacy of public institutions and the role of social trust in maintaining economic policies.”

6. Pierre Bourdieu (Sociology – Social Inequality)

“Kelton correctly identifies rising income inequality as a major contributor to Social Security’s financial issues. However, she underestimates how entrenched economic elites resist policies that would force them to contribute more. The concentration of wealth at the top is not just an economic issue but a reflection of power dynamics—those with wealth use political influence to shape tax policies in their favor. Addressing Social Security’s challenges requires not just technical fixes, but also a broader political struggle to redefine who bears the burden of funding social programs.”

7. Thomas Piketty (Modern Economic Inequality)

“Kelton’s focus on the payroll tax cap as a driver of Social Security’s funding gap is well-founded. The historical data supports the idea that as income inequality has grown, a shrinking share of total wages is subject to payroll taxes, reducing Social Security’s revenue base. However, I would emphasize that this is part of a larger pattern—capital ownership is becoming increasingly concentrated, while labor’s share of income is declining. A fair solution would be to tax wealth and capital gains more aggressively to support social programs, rather than relying solely on wage-based taxation.”

8. Joseph Schumpeter (Innovation & Capitalism)

“While Kelton’s article raises important concerns about Social Security’s funding model, she overlooks the role of economic dynamism in shaping long-term fiscal stability. Technological innovation and creative destruction constantly reshape labor markets, and Social Security must adapt to these changes. Rather than framing the issue as a simple matter of taxation and revenue, she should consider how automation, AI, and changing work structures might affect both payroll contributions and retirement security in the decades ahead. Policymakers should focus on forward-looking reforms rather than relying on past assumptions about taxation and inequality.”

9. Adam Smith (Classical Economics)

“Kelton’s criticism of the payroll tax cap has merit, but she neglects the importance of incentives in economic behavior. Social Security, as currently structured, discourages savings and self-reliance by promising future benefits regardless of individual financial prudence. A system that encourages personal investment and savings—perhaps through tax-advantaged retirement accounts—would create a more resilient and self-sustaining retirement system. Expanding government intervention to fix Social Security’s funding challenges risks distorting market mechanisms that naturally allocate resources more efficiently.”

Final Takeaways from the Peer Review

Support for Kelton’s Core Argument (from Keynes, Marx, Piketty, Bourdieu)
- Social Security’s funding gap is largely due to rising income inequality and the payroll tax cap.
- The government can technically fund Social Security indefinitely if Congress removes legal constraints.
- A fairer solution might involve taxing capital and high-income earners more aggressively.
Criticism from Market-Oriented Economists (Friedman, Hayek, Smith, Schumpeter)
- Removing the payroll tax cap could discourage investment and economic efficiency.
- Market-based solutions (like private retirement accounts) would be more sustainable than a government-funded model.
- Simply issuing more money could lead to inflationary pressures and distort incentives.
Broader Sociological and Political Considerations (Weber, Bourdieu)
- Changing Social Security’s funding model is not just an economic issue but a political battle.
- Wealthy elites use political influence to shape tax policies, making reform difficult.
- Bureaucratic inertia and public trust in institutions play a key role in whether reforms can succeed.

Conclusion

Kelton’s core argument about inequality is strong, but her MMT-based solution faces both economic and political challenges. While some support eliminating the payroll tax cap, others argue that private market solutions or broader structural changes to Social Security would be better. Ultimately, the debate reflects deeper ideological divides over government intervention, economic incentives, and the future of public welfare programs.

// Milton Friedman GPT

Me: Can you respond to this notion by Alan Greenspan as mentioned in the article by Kelton, that the federal government can’t run out of money. And respond to this part of her article: …

ChatGPT: Response to Alan Greenspan’s Notion That the Federal Government Can’t Run Out of Money and Kelton’s Analysis of Social Security Funding

At a fundamental level, Alan Greenspan is correct in saying that the U.S. federal government cannot run out of money in the same way that a household or business can. As a sovereign currency issuer, the U.S. government has the ability to create dollars at will to meet any financial obligation denominated in its own currency. This is an undeniable fact of monetary sovereignty.

However, the crucial question isn’t whether the government can print money—it’s what happens when it does. And here, the issue shifts from a purely financial concern to one of real economic constraints—a distinction that both mainstream economists and Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) economists acknowledge but interpret differently.

1. The Government Can Always Fund Social Security, But That’s Not the Full Story

Kelton argues that Congress could remove statutory constraints and allow Social Security to pay benefits without depending on payroll tax revenue. Technically, this is correct—if Congress changed the law, Social Security could be funded directly, much like military spending or bank bailouts.

However, this does not eliminate the real economic constraints on retirement benefits. The real question is:

Does the economy produce enough goods and services to support both retirees and workers?
If more money is pumped into the system, will it create inflationary pressure without increasing the actual supply of goods and services?

Greenspan’s follow-up question is key:

How can you be sure that the real assets are created which those benefits are employed to purchase?

This is the fundamental constraint that printing money cannot solve—the ability of the economy to provide real goods and services to retirees without causing inflation or harming economic stability.

2. The Risk of Inflation and Real Resource Constraints

Kelton acknowledges this issue when she writes:

“With fewer workers and more retirees, the real challenge is this: Will the economy be productive enough, in the years ahead, to allow both groups to buy the things they want, or will everyone end up competing over a shrinking pool of real resources, thereby driving up prices?”

She frames this as a secondary concern, but in reality, it is the primary economic challenge of Social Security.

Even if Congress eliminated the payroll tax and authorized direct spending on Social Security benefits, it would not magically produce more doctors, more vacation resorts, more restaurant staff, or more caregivers for retirees. Instead, it could create inflation, where retirees have more money in their pockets but are competing for the same limited resources as working-age individuals.

Key Economic Risks of Unconstrained Social Security Spending:

Labor Shortages & Productivity Decline
- A growing retiree population means fewer workers producing goods and services.
- If benefit payments rise without an increase in production, there is more demand chasing the same (or fewer) goods, leading to price increases.
Sector-Specific Inflation
- The elderly disproportionately consume healthcare, housing, and leisure services.
- Increased Social Security spending without an increase in medical staff, housing, and travel infrastructure could drive costs in these sectors sky-high.
Intergenerational Resource Competition
- Younger workers might face higher taxes, higher costs of living, and reduced economic mobility if retirees’ benefits are funded without productivity gains.
The Political Economy Problem
- Expanding Social Security without payroll taxes would shift financing toward general taxation or debt issuance, making it a bigger target for future budget cuts.

In short, Kelton underplays the inflationary and productivity risks that come with funding Social Security purely through money creation.

3. Does MMT Solve This Problem?

MMT proponents argue that inflation is the only real constraint on government spending. Their solution?

Increase taxes if inflation rises (to pull money out of the system).
Ensure that spending is directed at productive capacity expansion rather than just cash transfers.

While logical in theory, in practice, this approach has serious challenges:

Raising taxes is politically difficult and often lags behind inflationary pressures.
Not all sectors can expand quickly—for example, it takes years to train new doctors and build new hospitals.
The U.S. already struggles with labor shortages in key industries, and simply injecting more money won’t solve supply bottlenecks.

Thus, while MMT acknowledges the real resource problem, it underestimates the difficulty of adjusting policy in real time to prevent inflation.

4. Alternative Solutions: Balancing Fiscal Responsibility with Economic Growth

Rather than eliminating statutory funding constraints altogether, policymakers should consider hybrid solutions that account for both fiscal sustainability and economic productivity.

Possible Reforms:

Raise or eliminate the payroll tax cap
- A larger share of income could be subject to Social Security taxes, reducing the funding gap without resorting to unlimited money creation.
Gradually increase the retirement age (to reflect longer life expectancy)
- This ensures workers stay in the labor force longer, contributing to economic output while easing the burden on Social Security.
Encourage productivity growth
- Investments in automation, AI, and worker training could allow fewer workers to support more retirees without inflationary pressure.
Means-testing benefits for wealthier retirees
- Those with substantial private savings and pensions could receive lower Social Security payments, reducing fiscal pressure without harming low-income retirees.

Final Response: The Reality of Social Security’s Funding

Kelton and Greenspan are both partially correct, but each misses a crucial piece of the puzzle:

Greenspan is right that money creation alone cannot guarantee the availability of real goods and services.
Kelton is right that the government has the power to fund Social Security financially, but she understates the inflationary risks of doing so without resource planning.

Thus, the real constraint is not money—but productivity, demographics, and inflation management. Any long-term Social Security reform must account for these factors, not just focus on whether Congress can authorize more spending.

Me: Friedman, what has been your view overall on social security based on your work and so forth, how do we get ourselves, like myself, a younger individual out of this conundrum. It feels like my generation and younger are entrapped for the older generations’ benefits at the expense of the younger generation. That is insidious and parasitic in my view.

ChatGPT: Milton Friedman’s Perspective on Social Security & The Burden on Younger Generations

Ah, now we’re getting to the heart of the problem. Your instincts are correct—Social Security, in its current form, is fundamentally a transfer system that redistributes from younger, working individuals to older, retired individuals. It was designed as a pay-as-you-go system, meaning current workers fund the benefits of current retirees, rather than a system where individuals save for their own retirement.

The problem? Demographics have shifted, and the system is unsustainable in the long run. When Social Security was first implemented in 1935, there were 16 workers supporting every retiree. Today, that ratio is closer to 2.5 to 1 and shrinking. That means fewer people paying in, and more people taking out.

This is not just inefficient; it’s a Ponzi-like structure, where each new generation is forced to contribute under the false promise that they too will receive benefits in the future. But as you recognize, younger generations are paying more than they will ever get back. That’s a raw deal.

Friedman’s Critique of Social Security

In my work, I have consistently argued that Social Security is economically inefficient, morally questionable, and politically unsustainable. Here’s why:

It Discourages Personal Responsibility & Savings
- Social Security disincentivizes private saving and investment. People contribute 12.4% of their income (including the employer’s portion) but don’t get to invest that money in higher-yielding assets.
- If individuals were free to invest that money themselves, they would earn far higher returns than what Social Security provides.
It Creates Intergenerational Injustice
- The program was designed when life expectancy was much lower, meaning early recipients got far more than they ever paid in.
- Now, your generation and younger are paying more but will receive less—essentially funding the retirement of older generations at their own expense.
It Distorts Labor Incentives
- Payroll taxes make hiring more expensive, discouraging employment and business growth.
- It punishes younger workers by taking away their income to fund retirees, reducing disposable income for housing, education, and investment.
It’s Financially Unsustainable
- As birth rates decline and life expectancy increases, the system is running unsustainable deficits.
- Future payroll taxes will have to increase dramatically or benefits will have to be cut—but cutting benefits is politically impossible.
- This means younger generations will either be taxed more or receive far less in benefits.
It’s a Government-Mandated Ponzi Scheme
- Unlike a real investment, your Social Security contributions aren’t saved or invested—they are immediately spent.
- If a private company did this, it would be considered fraud.

How Do We Get Out of This Trap?

If I had my way, we would transition out of Social Security entirely and move toward a market-based, private savings system. Here’s what should be done:

1. Let Individuals Opt Out and Save for Themselves

The best way forward is a voluntary privatization of Social Security.
Younger workers should be allowed to invest their payroll tax contributions into private retirement accounts, like 401(k)s or IRAs, which would yield far greater returns.

2. Raise the Retirement Age (To Reflect Longer Life Expectancy)

When Social Security was created, people retired at 65 and lived until 67.
Today, people retire at 65 but live into their 80s and 90s.
The retirement age should be increased gradually so benefits last longer without bankrupting the system.

3. Reduce or Eliminate Benefits for Wealthy Retirees

There is no reason for billionaires or millionaires to receive Social Security checks.
Means-testing benefits would reduce costs while keeping support for lower-income retirees.

4. Eliminate the Payroll Tax and Move to Private Retirement Accounts

A privatized system would allow workers to invest in stocks, bonds, and mutual funds, which historically provide far better returns than Social Security.
If a worker could invest their 12.4% payroll tax in an S&P 500 index fund over 40 years, they would retire with several million dollars instead of relying on the government’s failing program.

5. Encourage Private Savings & Investment

The U.S. should expand tax-free retirement accounts (like Roth IRAs and HSAs) and incentivize people to save on their own instead of depending on government handouts.

Final Thoughts: A Call to Action for Younger Generations

Younger generations should demand fundamental reform, not just band-aid fixes like tax increases or benefit adjustments.

The best solution? Let people own and control their own retirement savings. You shouldn’t be forced into a system that steals from your paycheck under the false promise of future benefits. You should be able to invest in real assets that will actually generate wealth for you.

Social Security was a bad deal from the start, but today it’s an outright burden on younger generations. The only real solution is to transition to private accounts, phase out government dependence, and give individuals control over their own financial future.

My advice? Fight for your right to opt out, invest for yourself, and reject the idea that you exist to fund the retirements of others.

Conclusion.

Fundamentally, I understand the dilemma we face as a nation. I don’t want to see elderly individuals struggling without shelter, food, medical care, or the means to cover basic expenses. However, I also recognize that the younger generation and working-class individuals are bearing the brunt of an outdated and flawed system — one perpetuated by political and economic gridlock that leaves us all trapped.

P.S. Additional correction about SS: Social Security pays benefits to retired workers, those with qualifying disabilities, survivors of deceased workers, and dependent spouses and children of beneficiaries.