Social Security Faces Cuts Even Though There's A Fix For Its Problems
Social Security continues to be in trouble. Pundits and congressional representatives often argue at length about what needs to be done to keep an important safety net that has repeatedly proven its value by reducing poverty. Suggestions include raising the retirement age and cutting benefits.
No need to worry about the latter as that will happen automatically in 2033. And yet, it doesn't need to, as there's a straightforward solution to the problem. It's just one that people in Congress seem to dislike.
The Growing Problem
The recent The 2025 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds — called the 2025 OASDI Trustees Report for short — had, as has become usual, more sobering news about Social Security.
Using current assumptions, the cost of the two funds 'exceeds total income in every year of the long-range period, which runs from 2025 through 2099.' By 2033, the OSAI reserves will be exhausted, triggering an automatic cut of 23%. Every older retired person you know who has eked out living expenses from Social Security will find themselves losing almost a quarter of their income. (The Disability Insurance Trust Fund wouldn't be depleted and so doesn't face the same deadline.)
Backfilling the program will be difficult. First, the United States continues to bet on borrowing money to pay its bills by selling Treasury notes and bonds. These instruments have a price that one pays to provide a loan, and a yield — the interest paid on the money the country borrows. Social Security.
On secondary markets, the price and yield move inversely. The higher the yield, the lower the price, meaning there's less demand, which has increasingly been the case. Borrowing money through selling Treasury instruments means paying higher interest rates, increasing the national debt. Service on that debt is already more than a trillion dollars a year. That's already more than the annual Department of Defense budget and will continue to grow.
A General Fix
The typical discussion about fixing the retirement fund is that the shortfall is due to an aging population. That frequently gets people upset because they say they paid into the system and should get everything back. That's not how Social Security works. It was never a personal savings account.
Instead, it's more like insurance. People pay into the system over the long haul, with the collected funds used to cover payouts when necessary. Like insurance premiums, the regular payment of Social Security-related taxes aren't yours. They go into keeping the system going.
According to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, to set things right, either an immediate 29% increase in payroll taxes or a 22% cut in benefits would be necessary to set things straight. Or some combination of the two. Wait to start until 2034 and it would require a 34% increase in payroll taxes, or 26% benefits cut. That's points to the power of compound interest.
A Different Twist On Taxes
When considering taxes, the expectation is that everyone's payroll taxes should go up. But according to a long-standing view of the Social Security Administration's Chief Actuary Stephen Goss, there is a slightly different take.
The big problem has been rising income inequality, particularly between 1983 and 2000. The best-paid 6% of people saw their incomes rise by 62% in inflation-adjusted terms. The other 94% saw their incomes increase by only 17%. The large portion of income gains of the top 6% were above the maximum taxable income level. They got out of paying the same percentage of their incomes into the system that everyone else paid.
There is also the compounding factor that, for many years, the Federal Reserve kept interest rates low, meaning yields of Treasury instruments fell and Social Security, which is required by law to invest only in these, made a lot less investment income.
One possibility is to remove the cap from payroll taxes and let the wealthiest pay the same percentage of their income as everyone else. Even though that won't immediately make up for the 17-year period of sharp growth, it would help bring in more revenue.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Triumphant in trade talks, Trump and his tariffs still face a challenge in federal court
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump has been getting his way on trade, strong-arming the European Union, Japan and other partners to accept once unthinkably high taxes on their exports to the United States. But his radical overhaul of American trade policy, in which he's bypassed Congress to slam big tariffs on most of the world's economies, has not gone unchallenged. He's facing at least seven lawsuits charging that he's overstepped his authority. The plaintiffs want his biggest, boldest tariffs thrown out. And they won Round One. In May, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade, a specialized federal court in New York, ruled that Trump exceeded his powers when he declared a national emergency to plaster taxes — tariffs — on imports from almost every country in the world. In reaching its decision, the court combined two challenges — one by five businesses and one by 12 U.S. states — into a single case. Now it goes on to Round Two. On Thursday, the 11 judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, which typically specializes in patent law, are scheduled to hear oral arguments from the Trump administration and from the states and businesses that want his sweeping import taxes struck down. That court earlier allowed the federal government to continue collecting Trump's tariffs as the case works its way through the judicial system. The issues are so weighty — involving the president's power to bypass Congress and impose taxes with huge economic consequences in the United States and abroad — that the case is widely expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, regardless of what the appeals court decides. Trump is an unabashed fan of tariffs. He sees the import taxes as an all-purpose economic tool that can bring manufacturing back to the United States, protect American industries, raise revenue to pay for the massive tax cuts in his 'One Big Beautiful Bill,'' pressure countries into bending to his will, even end wars. The U.S. Constitution gives the power to impose taxes — including tariffs — to Congress. But lawmakers have gradually relinquished power over trade policy to the White House. And Trump has made the most of the power vacuum, raising the average U.S. tariff to more than 18%, highest since 1934, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University. At issue in the pending court case is Trump's use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs without seeking congressional approval or conducting investigations first. Instead, he asserted the authority to declare a national emergency that justified his import taxes. In February, he cited the illegal flow of drugs and immigrants across the U.S. border to slap tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico. Then on April 2 — 'Liberation Day,'' Trump called it — he invoked IEEPA to announce 'reciprocal'' tariffs of up to 50% on countries with which the United States ran trade deficits and a 10% 'baseline'' tariff on almost everybody else. The emergency he cited was America's long-running trade deficit. Trump later suspended the reciprocal tariffs, but they remain a threat: They could be imposed again Friday on countries that do not pre-empt them by reaching trade agreements with the United States or that receive letters from Trump setting their tariff rates himself. The plaintiffs argue that the emergency power laws does not authorize the use of tariffs. They also note that the trade deficit hardly meets the definition of an 'unusual and extraordinary'' threat that would justify declaring an emergency under the law. The United States, after all, has run trade deficits — in which it buys more from foreign countries than it sells them — for 49 straight years and in good times and bad. The Trump administration argues that courts approved President Richard Nixon's emergency use of tariffs in a 1971 economic crisis. The Nixon administration successfully cited its authority under the 1917 Trading With Enemy Act, which preceded and supplied some of the legal language used in IEEPA. In May, the trade court rejected the argument, ruling that Trump's Liberation Day tariffs 'exceed any authority granted to the President'' under the emergency powers law. 'The president doesn't get to use open-ended grants of authority to do what he wants,'' said Reilly Stephens, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center, a libertarian legal group that is representing businesses suing the Trump administration over the tariffs. In the case of the drug trafficking and immigration tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico, the trade court ruled that the levies did not meet IEEPA's requirement that they 'deal with'' the problem they were supposed to address. The court challenge does not cover other Trump tariffs, including levies on foreign steel, aluminum and autos that the president imposed after Commerce Department investigations concluded that those imports were threats to U.S. national security. Nor does it include tariffs that Trump imposed on China in his first term — and President Joe Biden kept — after a government investigation concluded that the Chinese used unfair practices to give their own technology firms an edge over rivals from the United States and other Western countries. Paul Wiseman, The Associated Press Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
UBS Lifts PT on QUALCOMM Incorporated (QCOM) to $165 From $145, Keeps a Neutral Rating
QUALCOMM Incorporated (NASDAQ:QCOM) is one of the most undervalued blue chip stocks to buy according to hedge funds. On July 21, UBS raised the firm's price target on QUALCOMM Incorporated (NASDAQ:QCOM) to $165 from $145, keeping a Neutral rating on the shares. A technician testing the latest 5G device, demonstrating the company's commitment to innovation. The firm told investors in a research note that it expects a modest upside bias to the company's Q3 results in a backdrop showing solid signs of tariff-related pull-ins for Android and Apple units in the quarter. However, it also added that it does not expect this momentum to be sustained into the second half of the year as pull-ins usually wane, primarily because the end consumption for smartphones and PC has failed to get any better. QUALCOMM Incorporated (NASDAQ:QCOM) develops and commercializes foundational technologies for the wireless industry, including 3G, 4G, and 5G wireless connectivity and high-performance and low-power computing, including on-device AI. While we acknowledge the potential of QCOM as an investment, we believe certain AI stocks offer greater upside potential and carry less downside risk. If you're looking for an extremely undervalued AI stock that also stands to benefit significantly from Trump-era tariffs and the onshoring trend, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock. READ NEXT: 30 Stocks That Should Double in 3 Years and 11 Hidden AI Stocks to Buy Right Now. Disclosure: None. This article is originally published at Insider Monkey.
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
We're Lying to Ourselves About Taxes, Spending, and the Debt
Having extended most of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and added even more tax breaks, Congress is once again punting on the central fiscal question of our time: What kind of government do Americans want seriously enough to pay for? Yes, the "Big Beautiful Bill" avoided a massive tax increase and includes pro-growth reforms. It also adds to the debt—by how much is debatable—and that's before we get to the budgetary reckoning of Social Security and Medicare's impending insolvency. Against that backdrop, it's infuriating to see a $9 billion rescission package—one drop in the deficit bucket—met with cries of bloody murder. The same can be said of the apocalyptic discourse surrounding the Big Beautiful Bill's reduction in Medicaid spending. In spite of the cuts, the program is projected to grow drastically over the next 10 years. In fact, the reforms barely scratch the surface considering its enormous growth under former President Joe Biden. Maybe we wouldn't keep operating this way—pretending like minor trims are major reforms while refusing to tackle demographic and entitlement time bombs ticking beneath our feet—if we stayed focused on the question of what, considering the cost, we're willing to pay for. Otherwise, it's too easy to continue committing a generational injustice toward our children and grandchildren. That's because all the benefits and subsidies that we're unwilling to pay for will eventually have to be paid for in the future with higher taxes, inflation, or both. That's morally and economically reprehensible. Admitting we have a problem is hard. Fixing it is even harder, especially when politicians obscure costs and fail to recognize the following realities. First, growing the economy can, of course, be part of the solution. It creates more and better opportunities, raising incomes and tax revenue without raising tax rates—the rising tide that can lift many fiscal boats. But when we're this far underwater, short of a miracle produced by an energy and artificial intelligence revolution, growth alone simply won't be enough. Raising taxes on the rich will fall short too. Despite another round of loud calls to do so, like those now emanating from the New York City mayoral campaign, remember: The federal tax code is already highly progressive. Here's something else that should be common knowledge: Higher tax rates do not automatically translate to more tax revenue. Not even close. Federal revenues have consistently hovered around 17 percent to 18 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) for more than 50 years—through periods of high tax rates, low tax rates, and every combination of deductions, exemptions, and credits in between. This remarkable stability is no fluke. It reflects a basic reality of human behavior: When tax rates go up, people don't simply continue what they've been doing and hand over more money. They work less, take compensation in nontaxable forms, delay selling assets, move to lower-tax jurisdictions, or increase tax-avoidance strategies. Meanwhile, higher rates reduce incentives to invest, hire, and create or expand businesses, slowing growth and undermining the very revenue gains legislators expect. It's why economic literature shows that fiscal-adjustment packages made mostly of tax increases usually fail to reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio. Real-world responses mean that higher tax rates rarely generate what static models predict as we bear the costs of less work, less innovation, and less productivity leading to fewer opportunities for everyone, rich or poor. If the underlying structure of the system doesn't change, no amount of rate fiddling will sustainably result in more than 17-18 percent in tax collections. Political dynamics guarantee further disappointment. When Congress raises taxes on one group, it often turns around and cuts taxes elsewhere to offset the backlash. Then, when the government does manage to collect extra revenue—through windfall-profits taxes, inflation causing taxpayers to creep into higher brackets, or a booming economy—that money rarely goes toward deficit reduction. It gets spent, and then some. It's long past time to shift the conversation away from whether tax cuts should be "paid for." Instead, ask what level of spending we truly want with the money we truly have. I suspect that most people aren't willing to pay the taxes required to fund everything our current government does, and that more would feel this way if they understood our tax-collection limitations. That points toward the need to cut spending on, among other things, corporate welfare, economically distorting subsidies, flashy infrastructure gimmicks, and Social Security and Medicare. Until we align Congress' promises with what we're willing and able to fund, we'll continue down this dangerous path of illusion, denial, and intergenerational theft—as we cope with economic decline. COPYRIGHT 2025 The post We're Lying to Ourselves About Taxes, Spending, and the Debt appeared first on Solve the daily Crossword
