Social Security points out the glaring fallacy of our perception of taxes and spending at the federal level. This became apparent when the debt ceiling was reached and benefits of the program were threatened with curtailment of payments.

Why would a program that is supposedly "funded" with our payroll deductions have to be curtailed due to the debt ceiling? It is because those deductions, or any other "revenue" to the federal government, don't actually pay for anything directly. They simply reduce the national debt and are destroyed by that process.

When this is balanced against current spending it "appears" as deficit or surplus spending at the bottom line, but "ALL" spending is via newly created money in the private sector. The best analogy of money is to theater tickets. Once one redeems their ticket for their seat at a performance, or pays a tax obligation, that ticket, or dollar, has served its purpose and is made useless by doing so.

Money created from thin air simply returns to where it originated from and cannot be recycled. It can be balanced with a "promise to pay" if such is applicable, but that is entirely dependent upon the "ability to pay" and subject to laws that might impact that ability, such as a debt ceiling. The bottom line is that your spending power was reduced over your working lifetime in trade for a promise that it would be restored when you are no longer productive.

The only way that works is if new money is created when you are eligible for benefits and reinstated to the national debt, which is just a scorecard for our money supply, not an actual debt that anyone must pay. "Affordability" of Social Security is determined by our ability to produce the goods and services the beneficiaries will demand, not the amount of dollars they receive or how much their previous spending power was reduced by their contributions.