Again, it comes down to the underlying assumptions. If we're looking as SS in a vaccuum, you are completely 100% correct. If we're looking at SS with a surrounding context of Federal spending and the overall US economy, you are changing nothing, or perhaps even making things worse.

The 'real life' problem is that to cover boomers' SS payments, the US will either incur significantly greater and greater debt, increasing the chance that our financial house of cards will come falling down, or will have to raise taxes to unacceptable levels (or More unacceptable levels, if you prefer), slowing the economy and/or sowing seeds of unrest. Or drastically cut other Federal programs, which again has a potential for social unrest, but that seems unlikely.

Raising taxes now helps the 'slush fund', but does little to avoid the above negative impacts as the slush fund operating surplus dries up and then the slush fund is supposed to be repaid from general revenues and public debt. I suppose it Might help if all excess funds were dedicated to reducing the national debt so we had more room to run it back up again later, but this seems unlikely. A more likely scenario is that Congress will funnel any new surpluses into vote-buying programs, which will potentially worsen the later pain when either those programs have to be added to the list of things to be cut or their expense is added to what needs to be covered by tax increases and/or new debt.


I agree, debt reduction is the only good use for these funds. But how likely is it that the CongressCritters who have refused to responsibly address this mess for decades will behave responsibly now?

I don't think there's been a problem with the actuarial analysis, just with the intestinal fortitude of the politicians to make appropriate adjustments.

__________________
Today's forecast: Government corruption.

Tomorrow's forecast: 100% chance of more 'politics as usual'

Maybe it's finally time to vote Libertarian