logo
Social Security Warning Issued as Retirees Could Face $18,000 Cut

Social Security Warning Issued as Retirees Could Face $18,000 Cut

Newsweek4 days ago
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Retirees could face a huge cut to benefits in the next seven years if a new funding solution isn't found for Social Security, a new report from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) has outlined.
The committee has estimated that a couple with medium dual income retiring in 2033 would lose $18,100 per year in benefits if the trust fund conundrum is not solved. For a single income couple, this would be $13,600.
Why It Matters
Social Security is relied on by tens of millions of Americans who collect monthly benefits, which help form the bedrock of income in retirement. The program is funded by a combination of payroll taxes and government reserve funds.
But according to the latest Social Security Trustees report, the program's two trust funds—the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI) funds—when combined are projected to reach insolvency by 2034. At that point, benefits would rely entirely on incoming payroll taxes, resulting in an automatic cut of approximately 21 percent, unless Congress intervenes.
What To Know
The size of future Social Security benefit cuts would vary significantly depending on a couple's age, marital status, and employment history. Dual-earner couples with low incomes would face a slightly smaller cut of around $11,000 per year, while high-income couples might experience reductions approaching $24,000 annually.
While the dollar amount is lower for low-income couples, the impact would be more severe relative to their total income and lifetime earnings.
These projected reductions are higher than those outlined in the latest Social Security Trustees' report, which projected a 21 percent cut in benefits if no solution is found. The CRFB calculations are based on a 24 percent cut, due to the recent passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), which include tax rate cuts and an expanded senior standard deduction.
The OBBBA ensures that almost 90 percent of Social Security recipients will no longer be required to pay income taxes on their benefits, according to the Social Security Administration (SSA).
"The tax rate cuts and increase in the senior standard deduction from the recently enacted OBBBA would reduce Social Security's revenue from the income taxation of benefits, increasing the required cut by about a percentage point upon insolvency," CRFB said in its report. "If the expanded senior standard deduction and other temporary measures of OBBBA are made permanent, the benefit cut would grow larger."
Social Security has weathered similar financial challenges before. In the early 1980s, the program neared insolvency, making Congress implement a series of reforms. These included increases in payroll taxes, gradually raising the full retirement age, and introducing taxes on a portion of Social Security benefits.
Stock image/file photo: A Social Security card with U.S. Dollars.
Stock image/file photo: A Social Security card with U.S. Dollars.
GETTY
What People Are Saying
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said in its report: "Policymakers pledging not to touch Social Security are implicitly endorsing these deep benefit cuts for 62 million retirees in 2032 and beyond. It is time for policymakers to tell the truth about the program's finances and to pursue trust fund solutions to head off insolvency and improve the program for current and future generations."
Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano said in a news release earlier this month about the OBBBA: "This is a historic step forward for America's seniors. For nearly 90 years, Social Security has been a cornerstone of economic security for older Americans. By significantly reducing the tax burden on benefits, this legislation reaffirms President Trump's promise to protect Social Security and helps ensure that seniors can better enjoy the retirement they've earned."
What Happens Next?
Lawmakers are offering proposals to shore up the system. Among them is the reintroduced Medicare & Social Security Fair Share Act from Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Representative Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania, both Democrats. Their bill would impose payroll taxes on wages and investment income exceeding $400,000.
A bipartisan effort comes from Republican Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, who have proposed establishing a $1.5 trillion investment fund for Social Security. The Treasury would front the funding, which would be invested across a broad portfolio of stocks, bonds, and other assets to generate higher long-term returns. After 75 years, the Treasury would be repaid, and the accumulated gains would be directed toward supporting Social Security benefits.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Ghislaine Maxwell Subpoena Update as House Waits on Supreme Court
Ghislaine Maxwell Subpoena Update as House Waits on Supreme Court

Newsweek

time13 minutes ago

  • Newsweek

Ghislaine Maxwell Subpoena Update as House Waits on Supreme Court

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. House Oversight Committee Chair Rep. James Comer told Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys the panel is willing to delay her subpoenaed deposition until after the Supreme Court rules on an appeal she has filed, a decision expected in late September. Maxwell's legal team had warned she would invoke her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination unless certain conditions were met, including congressional immunity, conducting the deposition outside her prison, receiving advance questions, and waiting for the appeal's conclusion. Comer said Maxwell's testimony remains "vital" to the committee's Jeffrey Epstein investigation but ruled out granting immunity or providing questions in advance. He added the panel is "willing to engage in good faith negotiations" and will continue its practice of holding detailed discussions about the scope of testimony. This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.

Donald Trump's Effort to Overturn Birthright Citizenship Struggles in Court
Donald Trump's Effort to Overturn Birthright Citizenship Struggles in Court

Newsweek

time13 minutes ago

  • Newsweek

Donald Trump's Effort to Overturn Birthright Citizenship Struggles in Court

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A three-judge panel in the Boston-based appeals court expressed deep skepticism about arguments from President Donald Trump's Department of Justice as the administration seeks to overturn birthright citizenship, according to Reuters. Why It Matters Trump's executive order, signed on Inauguration Day in January, seeks to restrict birthright citizenship and could potentially affect the rights of millions of U.S.-born children. The order directs U.S. agencies to refuse citizenship to children unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. The crux of the issue sits in the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which will determine whether the constitutional guarantee of citizenship for children born on American soil to non-citizen or undocumented parents remains intact. The case has already gone before the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which last month ruled that the order is unconstitutional, upholding a lower-court decision that blocked nationwide enforcement. A stock photo of a new USA passport. A stock photo of a new USA passport. Stock Photo - Getty Images What To Know The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday grilled Justice Department lawyer Eric McArthur over the core arguments of the administration's position on birthright citizenship, who reiterated Trump's argument that the 14th Amendment was only meant to extend citizenship to the children of former slaves—not the children of immigrants in the country either temporarily or unlawfully. The judges, all appointed by Democratic presidents, pointed to the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which guaranteed citizenship to any child born in the country to non-citizen parents. Chief U.S. Circuit Judge David Barron mused that the judges "aren't free to disregard" the Supreme Court's previous ruling. Shankar Duraiswamy, a lawyer for New Jersey, argued before the court that the Supreme Court has "repeatedly recognized children born to individuals who are here unlawfully or who are here on a temporary basis are nonetheless birthright citizens." While the Supreme Court in June ruled in favor of limiting nationwide injunctions, it allowed certain exceptions within the limits of a certified segment of people for class-action lawsuits to retain that power. U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin of Massachusetts in July ruled that a previously granted nationwide injunction against Trump's order could stay in place, even in light of the new Supreme Court restrictions, because "no workable, narrower alternative" would give the plaintiffs relief. A New Hampshire court in the same month also acted within the new ruling to certify a nationwide class of plaintiffs, which included all children born on U.S. soil. The Trump administration has sought to appeal this ruling alongside Sorokin's. What People Are Saying Judge Patrick Bumatay, who dissented in the 9th Circuit's ruling, wrote: "We should approach any request for universal relief with good faith skepticism, mindful that the invocation of 'complete relief' isn't a backdoor to universal injunctions." Former Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Aronberg via X, formerly Twitter, to Newsweek in July: "Easy decision. If President Trump wants to eliminate birthright citizenship, he needs to change the Constitution. But he can't repeal the language of the 14th Amendment via executive order." Representative Claudia Tenney, a New York Republican, posted to X on Wednesday: "Birthright citizenship was never meant to be a reward for breaking our immigration laws. The Constitutional Citizenship Clarification Act makes it clear: No citizenship for children born to illegal aliens, foreign spies, or terrorists." What Happens Next Legal experts and state attorneys general anticipate that the Supreme Court's possible review will provide a landmark ruling on the meaning of the 14th Amendment—a decision that may reshape the rights of children born on U.S. soil and the future of American immigration policy. This article includes reporting by the Associated Press.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store