What makes you think they will make changes that only affect them?
I hate to burst this bubble: the only obligation to keep sending you checks is political. You have no contractual right to it.
Don't believe it? FLEMMING V. NESTOR 363 U.S. 603
Short version: Congress changed the law to revoke the Social Security benefits of certain people. Nestor sued, claiming he has a contract. US Supreme Court said: no, Congress reserved the power to change Social Security to themselves. Period.
The only way you will keep getting Social Security checks in your current amount is a huge increase in the payroll tax immediately, and again in 2057. All total, the payroll tax increase would be about 50%
Social Security has no choice. The Trust Fund will be exhausted, and the SSA can't borrow money. And, save me the usual bluster about "stealing from Social Security". The Trust Fund was INVESTED in the equivalent of long-term Treasury bonds, and the SSA is now redeeming the bonds. They'll all be gone in 2034.
Lots of proposals have been floated. You can read the comments at the link, and the usual discredited ones are promoted as the "way to save SS". They don't. The Social Security evaluated dozens of proposals on their website, and tells you the long-term effect. The only one that works is the massive tax increase.
I always get flamed about this. But, I'll tell you right now: save your breath. The Social Security Administration has been telling you this in your annual letter for at least a decade, but people scream so loudly, they won't touch it. So, the situation keeps getting worse, and we are well past the point of being able to fix it without a lot of pain.
You really want to know what happened to all the taxes you paid to Social Security? They were paid to your parents and grandparents (or someone else's). Your contributions are long-gone, and all you have in return is a promise that the federal government will do the same to your children and grandchildren so you can get a check.
There is a way to avoid the tax increases needed. We’ve all seen (or heard of) “Logan’s Run” and “Soylent Green” versions of the future. The eldest are “taken care of”. No elderly; no payments. AND THEY STILL COLLECT THE TAXES.
The process is well underway. Billions upon billions have been taken out of SS and Medicare. Retirement housing is sorely needed for the elderly. The death panels will be used against the elderly. And the Ponzi scheme will continue.
In 2034, the Social Security benefits might get cut. In the meantime, Medicare will be bankrupt in 2016 unless the program is reformed. And it will be reformed, but in a way for which there is already precedent. Medicare premiums will shortly escalate sharply for all but the poorest of retirees. They will eventually consume the entire social security benefit for affluent retirees. Affluent retirees won’t get any cash payout on Social Security but, of course, they’ll have to pay income taxes on the “benefit”. Boomers are screwed, but if they were paying attention, they knew this was going to happen when they started their careers. Even Barry Goldwater warned that it was a Ponzi scheme.
I'd rather my money go to my children and my grandchildren...
I'm 62 and not on SS yet...thinking about it ....
but we younger boomers really got the screw job....we have paid in a greater percentage of our income for SS/Medicare than any previous generations and yet still have to wait if we want "full" SS at a later time....
No they weren't paid to our collective parents and grandparents. The truth is much worse than that. They were diverted into the general funds of the US Treasury where they allowed the government to engage in various types of vote-buying schemes (welfare, section 8, etc.) which benefitted Democrat politicians at the expense of the working man's retirement. They funded the "war on poverty", which government employees won, much to the detriment of the general population.
The whole idea of SS purchasing US Treasury bonds is monumentally stupid. If the SS department had purchased French, British and German bonds, at least the French, Brits and Germans would be taking their citizens to pay for the benefits to our citizens. But then the government would not have been able to buy the loyalty of low information voters.
However, the problems with SS did not just crop up yesterday. I read about them in financial magazines ion the 1970s and 80s. Some of us heeded the warnings and saved and invested. SS was never intended as a full retirement package. Read the SS literature. It talks of a 3-legged stool: SS, pension and savings.
If a worker saves and invests he can use SS as it is intended -- a supplement to other income.