Likewise the revenue numbers look a little spun. They appear not to be including the near term bump due to the expiration of the 2001 tax cuts.
Social security is very clear what is going on. It also has mandatory new participants which keeps it from collapsing as well as well understood economic increases. The same thing happens with corporate pension plans, interest on treasury bills and any number of other systems that require future growth in order to pay back debt.
It is clearly not a ponzi scheme.
The fact that you're going to get a massively debased dollar back for each dollar you put in alone means it's a fraudulent process as it stands today (again due to our government's fiscal irresponsibility). The calculations used for inflation adjustments are about as bunk as you can get for govt numbers. The Fed has managed a catastrophic devaluing of the dollar over the last 50 years, and that's only likely to accelerate given their need to massively monetize our deficits and debts.
It is not related to fiscal irresponsibility. Sometimes it is due too too much demand and not enough supply driving the cost of goods up (prices are sticky) and other times it is due to underlying company costs going up and raising the prices to keep their profit margin even.
In neither case is it the government's "fault." Most governments around the world try to maintain an inflation rate of 2-3%. This is well understood. Don't keep your wealth in currency. No one sane has for over a hundred years even when we were on the broken gold standard (if you think inflation is bad, you should see what rapid deflation caused by a spike in gold demand followed by a rapid drop in demand does to an economy on the gold standard).
SS is bleeding out right now with a negative annual run, and will get worse every year for at least the next 20 years. There is no SS trust that we can tap into. It's all going to come from Fed monetization.
By the time this decade is out, SS will be running a negative $100+ billion per year cash flow. We were supposed to have eight more years of surplus than what we did, that didn't happen.
It's also worth pointing out that we're taking on over $5 trillion per year in new liabilities that we don't have the cash flow to pay for, when you count debt + entitlements that have to eventually be paid for.
Changes to the program-- much smaller than the 1983 reform-- can insure solvency for a long, long time to come.
In fact, if you eliminate social security, you will almost certainly have to raise taxes to create a new piggy bank for all the programs that are currently run off the social security one.
Social Security is only "solvent" in a conventional sense if those assets can be redeemed without taxation. Since Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system, the cash-flow definition of "solvency" is appropriate.
The Federal Reserve ultimately will lend the US Government that money (the Fed is now buying 95% of all long term US govt debt), now with interest on the debt, instead of there being an actual trust there earning interest.
So any math that relies on that trust existing, is Enron accounting.