I could be oversimplifying, but I don’t think it really matters where social security is at at any given moment. The government can choose to fund it, defund it, privatize it, neglect it, etc. as they like. The fact that it currently exists and has funding is no guarantee that it will continue to exist, and the fact that it’s on course to start diminishing is no guarantee that it’ll continue to diminish.
It’s a policy choice, is what I’m saying. It may very well get reduced or eliminated at some point, but it’ll be because of deliberate decisions made by the government, not because the big pot of money ran out (although they may use that as an excuse).
How much would it cost every year to fund though
The point is that the cost doesn’t matter. The government can choose to fund it if they want because social security is funded by a payroll tax that is separate from other discretionary spending, and could be maintained, increased, or decreased by changes to that payroll tax.
This is a good brief on social security: https://mattbruenig.com/2011/08/16/the-myth-of-social-security-insolvency/
There’s nothing structurally wrong with social security that would cause it to implode. It could be funded indefinitely by design, regardless of the amounts involved. That’s what I mean when I say that it’s a policy choice. The government may decide to make the choice to cut or eliminate it, but they will be deliberately choosing to do so, and they could just as deliberately choose to maintain it. The issue is political, not fiscal.
I mean the easy fix is to remove the cap on Social Security income. You don't pay into social security on income above $150k.
In general, social security's problems are because the system was constructed to assume unending working-age worker growth. That year's payouts are funded by that year's takings. With the boomers retiring and the birth rate going lower, you just get to a demographic point where there are more people cashing out than paying in. Compounded of course by real wages declining.
