The Social Security Trust Fund
By Randall Holcombe • Tuesday February 1, 2011 11:42 AM PDT • 8 Comments
There is no Social Security trust fund, but it is a useful fiction. For decades taxpayers have paid in more in Social Security payroll taxes than the program has paid out, and the excess payroll tax revenues have gone to pay for other federal expenditures. The Treasury has issued bonds — IOUs — to its Social Security program, but those IOUs are just a claim one office of the federal government has against another. The federal government has no assets to repay those IOUs. You can’t create an asset by saying you owe yourself money. The trust fund is a fiction.
It has been a useful fiction, however, because people talk about the program being in trouble because once the trust fund is exhausted the program will be broke. The trust fund fiction causes people to think about ways to get the program’s costs under control in a way that does not exist for any other federal government program.
The trust fund is completely irrelevant to paying for Social Security. Either Social Security taxes exceed payments, in which case those taxes pay for other federal programs, or payments exceed taxes, in which case money has to be diverted from income tax collections and bond sales to fund Social Security payments. How much is in the trust fund has nothing to do with federal taxes, expenditures, or the budget in any way.
As long as the fiction of the trust fund survives, policy makers will look for ways to get the program’s costs under control, so that Social Security does not go broke. That’s good, and it would be nice if there were similar fictions pushing to control costs for other government programs.
But sooner or later, the fact that the trust fund is a fiction that has never existed in reality will be brought into the debate. Talk of needing to fix Social Security or the program will go broke will end, and Social Security will just become another claim on the Treasury.
I am quite confident that once the trust fund balance falls below zero, general revenues will continue to flow into the program to pay Social Security recipients, and the trust fund will just show a larger and large negative balance. How much in revenues will be diverted to Social Security will depend on how much reform will take place before the fiction of the trust fund is exposed.
Exposing the fiction of the trust fund will naturally bring into the debate the fairness of Social Security payroll taxes. Now, they are regressive, starting with the first dollar of income, but capped so that high-income people pay a smaller percentage of their incomes in payroll taxes than lower-income people. This looks fair if it appears that those taxes are going into a trust fund to pay future benefits. But when one realizes they are just another source of tax revenue for the Treasury, and there is no trust fund, payroll taxes are subject to the same fairness debates that now characterize income taxes.
The trust fund is like the emperor who has no clothes, and I am surprised that the fictional trust fund has not already become a part of the debate on financing Social Security. Once it does, the nature of the debate on Social Security will change from reforming it so it does not go broke to deciding how much the nation’s working population should chip in to support its retirees.
Tags: Budget and Tax Policy, Economics, Government subsidies, Nanny State, Politics, Social Security, Taxation, The State, Transparency, Welfare ![]()




















Every time Social Security comes up in conversation, I make it a point to tell others that the “trust fund” is a fiction. There are no assets in the fund, people! They look at me like I’m from Mars.
How is it possible for millions of people to be in a state of collective delusion about something so simple: Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. It is immoral, unconstitutional, and unworkable. The money has been squandered over the last 75 years, and now we’re left holding the bag on some $17 trillion in unfunded liabilities.
There is no free lunch. Someone always pays in the end. The default is not going to be pretty.
Steve Hogan | Feb 1, 2011 | Reply
How is it possible? the same way it’s possible for millions of us to be in delusion (or simply ignorant) about the nature of the monetary system: most of us are either too busy dealing with real-life day-to-day struggles or we simply don’t care.
I get the from-Mars look too.
And do you mean to tell us that U.S. gov’t securities (bonds, etc.) are not assets?
willienelso3 | Feb 8, 2011 | Reply
Future obligations are larger than any possible revenue or borrowing, and for that matter, larger than any exchange value from printing money. The only use from lying about it is to protect the century-long geometric expansion of government and debt. Fixing the problem will require liberals to admit that there actually is a limit to how much government can spend and borrow. It would butcher many, many sacred cows. So for the time being they think it’s more useful to keep running down the path of exponential failure...
anon | Feb 9, 2011 | Reply
Funds to run surpluses in the current employees paid more than the amount paid to current beneficiaries. If the social security fund to result in higher government spending or tax rates can be lowered, if the Fund is to contribute to national saving.
cosmetic surgery marketing guide | Feb 13, 2011 | Reply
“Funds to run surpluses in the current employees paid more than the amount paid to current beneficiaries. If the social security fund to result in higher government spending or tax rates can be lowered, if the Fund is to contribute to national saving.”
Uhhh... What?
Chris Breaux | Feb 17, 2011 | Reply
Everyone has the greatest ideas to fix these types of things yet none of them are executed or put into effect.
Dr. Carl | Dec 28, 2011 | Reply