Newly retired couples may lose $16,900/year in Social Security in 2033

Yes, and the sky may fall tomorrow. The longer I live the more I read these sensationalist headlines designed to gin up angst and antagonize people's peace of mind.

Social Security's solvency has been the subject of much debate, but clearer heads point toward a graduation of the current system to include higher earners. That will accommodate the large aging population's demand. Case closed, easy peasy lemon squeezy.

I wish i could just opt out of social security and invest the money myself. I'd pay the long term cap gains tax if this was an option, and I'd come out way ahead. The federal government can only mishandle money.

Maybe we need two systems:

1. You may move to be a certified responsible saver. You inherit all risk. But you opt out of the taxes. You must prove retirements assets are being contributed to.

2. Mandatory saving for everyone else (reading other countries, seems like this happens elsewhere). Money is pooled and invested into US companies. Investments must produce at least 8% return annually over 10 year rolling period or something, else corporate assets are forfeited (someone more saavy than I needs to figure that policy out).

Can someone explain the legal structures in place in the US that make Social Security "run out"? Because it just sounds like deliberate indirection put in place by the government to cut funding for pensions?

In Australia, we have a universal, means-tested pension funded through consolidated revenue (i.e taxes). The pension can't "run out", because it is just a law that says that the government will pay you $X after you turn a particular age, if your assets are below a threshold. But if X were too high the Government would need to raise taxes, borrow money or print money to fund it, like all government spending.

Separately, we have superannuation - which I think is similar to 401k except compulsory for employers to pay 12% of your salary into, which are personal retirement savings held in trust to be released at your retirement, but generally these are account-based and in addition to the pension if you are eligible (i.e what you put in is what you get out).

There are older "defined benefits" superannuation funds where payouts aren't account-based (I think based on years of service in government roles or something like that) but they have been phased out to avoid the moral hazard of something government-adjacent having pension liabilities they cannot meet with their member's funds.

So what exactly is Social Security if it can run out? It sounds like a defined-benefits fund that is run by the government - in which case why has nobody closed it off to new members like Australia did when the writing was on the wall?

"If we do nothing about this obvious problem for the next decade it will be catastrophic."

Ok

I've known I can't really rely on Social Security to exist when I retire, in any notable form, but man, this is so dark. And it's just a start.

(Edit: I'm not certain either way! But it seems like too great a risk to rely on. And the prognosis seems not great! I have heard for decades needs serious help, and nothing seems to change. More broadly, with a few exceptions, I've seen overwhelmingly obstructionism and destruction of America in lifetime.)