# Is there "money" in the Social Security Trust Fund? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 12, 2014, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-money-in-the-social-security-trust-fund/695391 "2014-08-12T19:34:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-money-in-the-social-security-trust-fund/695391/61 "2014-08-14T06:25:50Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I’m not sure if you mean the bonds the SSTF bought when it was in surplus, which will now have to be converted to cash to pay for Baby Boomers, or a future gap when the money runs out if no one is smart enough to modify the program to put it on sound demographic footing. How do you think the government converts a government bond into cash? It does it by collecting taxes. There’s no money in the bond itself. > [@Voyager](#): > > The latter would be a real problem, since the system would not have an adequate amount of income to meet demands. For the former however, if the SSTF took the money and hid it under their mattress and didn’t buy bonds, and the US sold bonds it would have sold to the SSTF to American investors or to China, how would the situation be any different in terms of the debt? The situation would be different because right now we’re collecting more social security taxes than are needed to fund the current program. And we’re being told it’s okay because the excess money is being “set aside” to fund future needs. But that’s not happening. When those future needs arrive, we’ll have to collect the exact same amount of taxes to pay for them as if we hadn’t set any money aside at all. Instead of collecting taxes to pay for the social security program, we’ll be collecting taxes to pay for the bonds that we’ll use to pay for the social security program. But it’ll be the same amount of money. And when people finally realize this, a lot of them are probably going to retroactively wish that they hadn’t paid all those excess social security taxes that we’re paying now. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-money-in-the-social-security-trust-fund/695391/62 "2014-08-14T06:36:12Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > . . . And when people finally realize this, a lot of them are probably going to retroactively wish that they hadn’t paid all those excess social security taxes that we’re paying now. Except that, if they _hadn’t_ paid that money by way of social security taxes, they would have paid it by way of higher general taxes; or they would have enjoyed less by way of government services; or the public debt would be higher; or some combination of all these. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 7:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-money-in-the-social-security-trust-fund/695391/63 "2014-08-14T07:22:31Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > How do you think the government converts a government bond into cash? It does it by collecting taxes. There’s no money in the bond itself. And there is no money in your savings account, and definitely no money in your 401K, since all of those things would have to be converted to cash to get your money. And the risk of that not happening for stock is a lot higher for government bonds. The risk of it happening to your savings account is a bit lower because the government guarantees it. There is a reserve fund right? I wonder how they store the money they get from banks to fund it. Bonds perhaps? > [@](#): > > The situation would be different because right now we’re collecting more social security taxes than are needed to fund the current program. And we’re being told it’s okay because the excess money is being “set aside” to fund future needs. > > But that’s not happening. When those future needs arrive, we’ll have to collect the exact same amount of taxes to pay for them as if we hadn’t set any money aside at all. Instead of collecting taxes to pay for the social security program, we’ll be collecting taxes to pay for the bonds that we’ll use to pay for the social security program. But it’ll be the same amount of money. > > And when people finally realize this, a lot of them are probably going to retroactively wish that they hadn’t paid all those excess social security taxes that we’re paying now. I’ll ask again - if we didn’t buy bonds with the excess funds, and stored them under a mattress, would total government indebtedness be any different? The market says that the risk of government default on bonds is very low - thus the low interest rates. Are you saying the bond market is stupid? If the bonds hadn’t been sold to the trust fund they would have been sold to someone else, and we’d still be paying taxes to pay them off. What part of this don’t you get? We’re getting very close to the point where I ask you to send me your worthless T-bills. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 7:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-money-in-the-social-security-trust-fund/695391/64 "2014-08-14T07:26:05Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > If you were born in 1960 or later, your retirement age with full benefits is 67. When I was a kid it was 65. It is 66 for me. So the two year increase has already happened. We’ve already raised the cap without the roof falling in. It would be a way to reduce income inequality, among other benefits. I wouldn’t mind - though I don’t have long before I’m a SS collecting parasite. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 7:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-money-in-the-social-security-trust-fund/695391/65 "2014-08-14T07:41:57Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > Except that, if they _hadn’t_ paid that money by way of social security taxes, they would have paid it by way of higher general taxes; or they would have enjoyed less by way of government services; or the public debt would be higher; or some combination of all these. Perhaps. But people would have at least been aware of how much money was being spent and how much would have to be paid in the future to fund social security. As it is, most people are going to be shocked when they finally realize they still have to pay for the social security program they thought they had already paid for. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 7:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-money-in-the-social-security-trust-fund/695391/66 "2014-08-14T07:43:07Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > But that’s not happening. When those future needs arrive, we’ll have to collect the exact same amount of taxes to pay for them as if we hadn’t set any money aside at all. No, because if the money hadn’t been set aside, we’d still have a $17.6 trillion debt to deal with and we’d have to pay for Social Security. Revenue would have to be higher to deal with the debt and Social Security than it would be to deal with an identical debt that includes Social Security. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-money-in-the-social-security-trust-fund/695391/67 "2014-08-14T07:52:17Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > And there is no money in your savings account, and definitely no money in your 401K, since all of those things would have to be converted to cash to get your money. And the risk of that not happening for stock is a lot higher for government bonds. The risk of it happening to your savings account is a bit lower because the government guarantees it. There is a reserve fund right? I wonder how they store the money they get from banks to fund it. Bonds perhaps? I gave the example earlier in this thread of getting a birthday check. If I gave you a check for $1000, you’d be a thousand dollars richer. If you gave yourself a check for $1000, would you also be a thousand dollars richer? In fact, why limit yourself to just one check a year? Why not write yourself a check for a thousand dollars every week? That’ll give you $52,000 a year, which is a good income. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 8:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-money-in-the-social-security-trust-fund/695391/68 "2014-08-14T08:00:10Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > No, because if the money hadn’t been set aside, we’d still have a $17.6 trillion debt to deal with and we’d have to pay for Social Security. Revenue would have to be higher to deal with the debt and Social Security than it would be to deal with an identical debt that includes Social Security. The Social Security Trust Fund is part of that $17.6 trillion debt. So the debt wouldn’t be $17.6 trillion if it didn’t include the trust fund. Now _maybe_ we would have just gone ahead and borrowed all that money anyway. But I don’t think so. As this thread shows, a lot of people don’t understand how the trust fund debt works and they think it isn’t a debt. So they’re happy to spend money now because they don’t understand how big a debt they’ll have to pay in the future. ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/848f3c/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_Dunlop)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-money-in-the-social-security-trust-fund/695391/69 "2014-08-14T12:45:35Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Now _maybe_ we would have just gone ahead and borrowed all that money anyway. But I don’t think so. As this thread shows, a lot of people don’t understand how the trust fund debt works and they think it isn’t a debt. So they’re happy to spend money now because they don’t understand how big a debt they’ll have to pay in the future. I think the biggest problem people have who don’t understand that Social Security Trust Fund is that they are correctly realizing that the excess funds _could have_ been used to increase our national savings / reduce net spending. For some reason they just can’t go the last mile and realize that in fact it did not do that. We could’ve said that each year that this one area of government has excess funds that we want to save, we’re going to invest them in treasury bonds. But since we want to actually save it, we’re not going to buy special non-marketable bonds that are only issued to soak up the social security excess funds. Instead we’ll buy up marketable bonds from whoever is holding U.S. government debt. China, Goldman, CALPERS and other large pension funds. That would be loosely analogous to a corporation doing a stock buyback, except with debt. Social Security would still have all its money in the safest security available, but it would’ve used its excess funds to reduce the public debt. It’s true that if you went back in time and excluded all the non-marketable trust fund debt that Treasury has issued, they almost certainly would’ve issued more regular debt to offset the lost borrowing, rather than actually spend less or raise taxes. The difference is it would’ve been perfectly clear to people that we were indeed borrowing more, without the confusion about assets and liabilities that most people don’t get. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-money-in-the-social-security-trust-fund/695391/70 "2014-08-14T14:04:12Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > But there is no money in the Trust Fund. Hunh!?!? You say that the bonds are not valueless but there is no money in the trust fund? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-money-in-the-social-security-trust-fund/695391/71 "2014-08-14T14:05:18Z")
> [@treis](#): > > No it doesn’t. It’s all the same government. Congress could pass a law tomorrow transferring all bonds in the SS trust fund to the general fund. Then, since the owner of debt and the organization paying them are one in the same, those bonds effectively go poof. I suppose they could do that (they could do a LOT of things) but they haven’t and until they do, the social security trust fund has trillions of dollars worth of securities in it. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-money-in-the-social-security-trust-fund/695391/72 "2014-08-14T14:16:02Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > This. > > As ever - > > You have $10 in your wallet. You take the $10 out and replace it with an IOU promising to put $11 back into your wallet next payday. You then spend the $10. > > If you think there’s money in the Social Security trust fund, then you think you have $11 in your wallet. > > Regards, > Shodan A better analogy would be: You deposit $10 with a bank. The bank lends the money out and puts an IOU for in your account. Does the bank’s promise to pay you have value? Now assume that the bank has the full faith and credit of the US government. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-money-in-the-social-security-trust-fund/695391/73 "2014-08-14T14:19:17Z")
> [@Hellestal](#): > > I did not … (Snip) Better to tinker with what we got.) Thanks for the very thorough post, and please don’t be disappointed if I do not respond point by point, as that would be an unreadable post. However, let me raise a few issues: First, and again, one cannot compare a legally unenforcable IOU to one’s self with a bond backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. The bulk of your post did not deal with this issue, of course, other than your opening statement that you do not concede the point. I’m sure that nearly everyone else understands that there is a fundamental difference between a legally worthless piece of paper and one that is guaranteed to have value under the Constitution, even if some posters here quibble with that obvious distinction. Second, you say that money is fungible. As a general principle, and in most applications, that is entirely true. But the difference in this case is that the fungibility of money is limited by law. At the very basic level, no matter how much is collected in income tax, none of those funds may be used for Social Security retirement benefits. Similarly, funds appropriated to the Department of Interior may not be used for military salaries, even though both agencies are part of the Federal government. This is important because the SSTF is, in fact, practice and law, a system designed to limit fungibility. The whole intent is that FICA revenues over time dictate the solvency of the SS retirement system. If money were truly fungible from a government-wide perspective, this would not be the case. But if my mother had four wheels and a transmission, she would be a car. Finally, all the numbers that you presented about whether the SSTF makes a difference in the overall Federal budget are pretty much on-target. But the point of the SSTF is not to make a difference in the overall budget, it is to insulate the SS system from the budget dynamics of the rest of the government. Just like how corporations often own subsidiaries that have an independent legal identity from the parent (like how Otis Elevators and Sikorsky Helicopters are owned by the same corporation, but function independently of each other) the Social Security system has its own identity in order to achieve various policy objectives. Your arithmetic, while pretty much on the mark, does not address this fact, which is the central issue in this discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-money-in-the-social-security-trust-fund/695391/74 "2014-08-14T14:22:42Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Hunh!?!? > > You say that the bonds are not valueless but there is no money in the trust fund? He’s right. If I have a closet full of gold, I don’t have a closet full of “money.” I have a closet full of stuff that is worth a lot of money. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-money-in-the-social-security-trust-fund/695391/75 "2014-08-14T14:25:39Z")
> [@Hellestal](#): > > We can humor your example. > > We can posit the existence of your strange crack-addled Bizarro universe where the Secretary of the Treasury did exactly what you say. We can imagine the insane court case. We can accept as given the judgment of that court case. > > The court would rule that Treasury has to pay the interest. > > Treasury could then issue bonds to the public in order to raise the funds to pay the interest, if they didn’t issue bonds directly to satisfy this judgment. > > The Trust Fund would accept the cash. It would then use the cash to purchase the special securities that it uses directly back from Treasury. > > Treasury would then use the money given directly back in order to retire the bonds it issued to start this process. > > The net result is _exactly the same as if the trial never happened_, and in fact the net result is _exactly the same as if the Trust Fund did not exist_. Meaningless. The entire thing is meaningless. The Trust Fund affects nothing. And in fact, the process would be identical in practice even if the trustees for some bizarre reason held onto the cash, if it were legal for them to do so. That cash would be taken out of the system, but that would be a problem in itself. The Fed would notice that circulating monetary base was less than total monetary base, and they would purchase an equivalent number of the newly issued bonds in order to return monetary base to circulation. This is empty accounting only. The extra bonds would end up at the Fed instead of in the Trust Fund, which is just paper-pushing. FICA payments and Social Security benefits would remain entirely, completely, and totally unchanged by any of this. > > This is all empty government accounting. Even given your insane court case, it means nothing. > > Just because a court case is possible does not automatically mean the case isn’t fucking ridiculous. What if the social security trustee wanted the money to make social security benefit payments instead of to lend the money right back to the treasury? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-money-in-the-social-security-trust-fund/695391/76 "2014-08-14T14:29:28Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > What would the judge say if the Secretary said he was going to redeem the bonds with the money that was in the Social Security Trust Fund? > > Regards, > Shodan what!?!😕 Those securities don’t belong to the government. They belong to the trust fund. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-money-in-the-social-security-trust-fund/695391/77 "2014-08-14T14:31:11Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I have a complete understanding of how the SSTF works. > I have made no claim analogous to this. > > Do you believe that, if I take $10 out of my own wallet, spend it, and replace it with an IOU promising to replace it next payday with $11, that I have money in my wallet? > > Do you believe that, if the government takes $10 billion out of the SSTF, spends it, and replaces it with an IOU promising to replace it with $11 billion, that there is money in the SSTF? > > Regards, > Shodan Its not really your wallet, you’re holding the money for someone else. ---
**Author:** ![Hellestal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3ab097/32.png) [@Hellestal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hellestal)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-money-in-the-social-security-trust-fund/695391/78 "2014-08-14T14:36:29Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](#): > > It’s true that if you went back in time and excluded all the non-marketable trust fund debt that Treasury has issued, they almost certainly would’ve issued more regular debt to offset the lost borrowing, rather than actually spend less or raise taxes. The difference is it would’ve been perfectly clear to people that we were indeed borrowing more, without the confusion about assets and liabilities that most people don’t get. …I can’t even remotely agree with this. No one would have noticed anything. Literally the only people on earth who would care are the primary dealers who earned a commission from buying directly from Treasury and then immediately reselling to the fund. They’d be making a penny or two, buying from the government and then reselling to the government. That penny would be multiplied a few gazillion times. Debt held by the public would remain relatively steady after all transactions were complete (except for those pennies), and anyone looking at the markets would notice nothing. It would be completely invisible. The only thing that would splash cold water on the faces of anyone who thinks the fund is important would be to eliminate it entirely and see how absolutely nothing about our budget situation has changed. And yeah, that ain’t gonna happen. As another poster said, it’s a great “marketing tool”. It’s way too useful politically for the government to admit that it’s meaningless. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-money-in-the-social-security-trust-fund/695391/79 "2014-08-14T14:39:35Z")
> [@Hellestal](#): > > I did not concede that point, because it’s not true in the slightest. > My post was not in error. > > If the explanation ended up looking similar to a thing **Shodan** said, then I guess that’s just my cross to bear. No one person can be wrong about everything, not even him. > You have missed the underlying meaning of what I said. > > The entire point of my post was that the paper pushing involved does not matter. You respond to this with… more empty paper pushing that doesn’t matter. > > The same net effect would result **regardless of which side won your court case**. Your response is more irrelevancies. It literally does not matter whether they use the interest payments on their current bonds to buy more bonds or use that specific flow of cash to pay the benefits. Nothing changes. If I go to the bank and deposit the current bill I’m holding, D37952215D, then the bank will take it. And if I go tomorrow and do a withdraw and they give me a different bill, that doesn’t mean they’re not giving me my money. Money is [fungible](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungibility). There is no inherent difference if they add more bonds, or pay benefits out of the interest on their current bonds, because everything will cancel out. What you’re calling a factual error hinges on the entire point of what I’m saying. > > I will now demonstrate that. The following will involve basic arithmetic. > > The concern with Social Security is how much people pay in, how much people receive, and how much debt has been released to the public. I can prove that those three items will be exactly the same, even with a wide variety of arbitrarily different government accounting systems. I can prove that they will be the same regardless of which side wins your silly court case. They will all end up being equivalent. Obviously some of them will involve more wasteful bureaucratic foofaraw than others, and there might be legal issues on the side like the debt ceiling, but ultimately the net effect for any observer outside the government will be a perfectly identical result. > > I’m going to start with made-up numbers for simplicity. We could shift to real US budgets at any time, but that will be unnecessarily messy to illustrate the basic idea. We start: > > **Time Period 1** > Treasury takes in 100 through regular taxes. > Treasury spends 110 through regular spending. (Treasury net: -10) > SSTF takes in 10 through FICA. > SSTF spends 5 for benefits. (Net: 5, invested in Treasuries) > > What’s happened? The Treasury has issued 5 debt to the public and 5 intragovernmental debt. But the more important question is what’s happened from the perspective of those outside the system? > > They paid 10 into FICA, received 5 in benefits back, and 5 debt was sold to the public. > > **Time Period 2 Initial:** > Treasury takes in 100 through regular taxes. > Treasury spends 110 through regular spending. > Treasury spends 1 on interest (Treasury net: -11) > SSTF takes in 10 through FICA. > SSTF spends 5 for benefits. (Net: 5) But the SSTF isn’t growing so when they ask for interest or redeem securities, they aren’t turning around and putting more net money into the fund. The money is leaaving the fund. So if SSTF has $100 coming in and $15 going out and needs to redeem some of those securities to make up the difference, Treasury’s willingness and ability to redeem the seucrities makes a difference. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-money-in-the-social-security-trust-fund/695391/80 "2014-08-14T14:41:15Z")
> [@furt](#): > > Yes, because we have mechanisms for obtaining the money from Canada; if all else fails we invade and take back a terabuck’s worth of beer to make ourselves whole. > > When the bonds are our own, we must take money from ourselves to make it whole. > davida03801’s summary is the accurate one: yes, the bonds will very likely be repaid, because not doing it would require legislative changes that would be politically disastrous. > > The issue then is not where the money comes from to replenish SS, but where the money comes from to pay the bonds that were used to replenish SS. And the options are drastically raise taxes, drastically cut spending, or inflate. Or keep borrowing and stick it to our kids. > > I’ll guess we’ll keep sticking it to our kids, at least until the baby Boomers die off, and eventually we’ll probably wind up doing all three, as well cutting/capping SS payouts. Or we could just remove the social security cap and the entire problem goes away. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-money-in-the-social-security-trust-fund/695391.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-money-in-the-social-security-trust-fund/695391.md?page=5)