Social Security: Confidence in program's future dips 7 percent since 2020
The survey found that of the 3,599 respondents polled, 36 percent were very or somewhat confident in the future of Social Security – a 7-point drop from 2020. Lower confidence levels were mainly driven by younger Americans, the survey found, as those in their 30s were found to be the most pessimistic.
A closer look at party affiliation signaled shifts in confidence levels based on who was in the White House.
This year, Republican respondents were found to be the most confident about the system's future, with a level of 44 percent, compared to 30 percent for those who identified as independent and 32 percent who identified as Democratic.
By contrast, those who identified as Republicans during the Obama administration were least confident about Social Security's future, while confidence levels topped 50 percent for Democratic-identifying respondents at the time.
More retired respondents now say they either rely on or plan to rely on Social Security in a substantial way for retirement income, rising from 51 percent in 2005 to 65 percent in 2025. In the same time frame, the percentage of those who say they don't rely on the program for retirement income has only slightly risen, hitting 13 percent this year, compared to 10 percent in 2005.
The combined trust funds for Social Security are projected to run out in 2034, a year earlier than previously predicted, a board of trustees of the program's accounts said in a report released last month.
The report said the depletion dates for the funds had advanced by 'about three calendar quarters' compared with the previous year's projections. The report cited last year's passage of the Social Security Fairness Act as a key factor behind the shift in the funds' projected depletion dates.
The bipartisan bill repealed two tax rules that proponents say unfairly reduced benefits for many Americans who also receive government pensions. But many experts sounded the alarm over its expected price tag and raised questions of fairness around the legislation.
In the latest survey, 74 percent of all respondents said they see Social Security as one of the most important government programs, up from 68 percent recorded in 2020.
Older Americans were found to be more likely to believe it's unfair to make major changes to the program that would affect retirees or those close to retiring, with 95 percent of those ages 50 and older saying as much, compared to 85 percent of those between 18 and 49 years of age.
The survey was conducted from June 18-23. The nonprofit organization said the data has been weighted by 'age, sex, census division, race/ethnicity, education attainment and AARP membership.' The survey also listed a confidence interval of the total sample of 2.04 percentage points at the 95 percent confidence level.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
23 minutes ago
- Fox News
Watters: Obama did exactly what Putin wanted by ‘home cooking' intelligence
Fox News host Jesse Watters gives his take on the Russiagate scandal of former President Barack Obama and his administration on 'Jesse Watters Primetime.'
New York Post
24 minutes ago
- New York Post
House panel votes to subpoena Bill and Hillary Clinton over possible links to Ghislaine Maxwell
A House Oversight panel subcommittee voted to subpoena Bill and Hillary Clinton Wednesday over their alleged ties to notorious pedophile Jeffrey Epstein's convicted accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell. Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) introduced the motion for subpoenas during a Federal Law Enforcement Subcommittee hearing, and it was approved by the Republican-led panel via voice vote, with no roll call taken. The Clintons and several former top Justice Department officials – ex-FBI Director James Comey, one-time special counsel Robert Mueller and former attorneys general Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder, Merrick Garland, Bill Barr, Jeff Sessions and Alberto Gonzales – were included in the list of subpoenas sought by Perry in order to 'expand the full committees investigation into Ms. Maxwell.' Advertisement 3 Epstein was a frequent White House visitor when Clinton was in office. The William J. Clinton President / MEGA House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) would need to formally issue the subpoenas to the Clintons and the others for them to be compelled to provide testimony or documents to the panel. 'Subpoenas will be issued in the future,' a spokesperson for the House Oversight Committee told The Post. Advertisement The former president acknowledged in his 2024 book 'Citizen: My Life After the White House' that he flew aboard Epstein's private plane – nicknamed the Lolita Express — in connection to his work with his Clinton Global Initiative nonprofit. 'I wish I had never met him,' Clinton wrote of Epstein, adding that traveling on his plane was 'not worth the years of questioning afterward.' The former president, who has not been accused of any wrongdoing in the Epstein case, claimed that he had no idea Epstein and Maxwell were sex trafficking minors. According to visitor logs, Epstein visited the White House at least 17 times, beginning shortly after Clinton was sworn into office in 1993. Advertisement 3 Epstein and Maxwell met with the former president during a 1993 tour of the White House. William J. Clinton Presidential Library 3 Maxwell was sentenced to 20 years in prison after her 2022 conviction on sex trafficking conspiracy charges. SDNY The subcommittee also approved a measure directing Comer to subpoena the Justice Department for the release of all communications between Biden administration officials – including former President Joe Biden – and the DOJ related to the Epstein case. Advertisement The subcommittee's actions come after Comer subpoenaed Maxwell, who has been serving a 20-year prison sentence since 2022, to sit for a deposition with the Oversight Committee. The deposition has tentatively been scheduled for Aug. 11, at the Federal Correctional Institution Tallahassee, where Maxwell has been incarcerated since her conviction on sex trafficking conspiracy charges.
The Hill
24 minutes ago
- The Hill
Second court blocks Trump's birthright citizenship order nationwide after Supreme Court ruling
A second court ruled that President Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship still cannot go into effect anywhere in the country following the Supreme Court's recent decision that claws back nationwide injunctions. The 9 th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 on Wednesday that four Democratic-led states were entitled to a nationwide injunction, because any narrower block would fail to provide them complete relief. 'States' residents may give birth in a non-party state, and individuals subject to the Executive Order from non-party states will inevitably move to the States,' wrote U.S. Circuit Judge Ronald Gould. Gould's decision was joined by U.S. Circuit Judge Michael Hawkins, both appointed by former President Clinton. U.S. Circuit Judge Patrick Bumatay, a Trump appointee, dissented, saying the states had no legal right to bring the case. 'Courts must be vigilant in enforcing the limits of our jurisdiction and our power to order relief,' Bumatay wrote. 'Otherwise, we risk entangling ourselves in contentious issues not properly before us and overstepping our bounds,' he continued. 'No matter how significant the question or how high the stakes of the case—at all times, we must adhere to the confines of 'the judicial Power.'' The ruling comes after the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision late last month, curtailed the ability of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions that go beyond the parties suing to block the president's policies for anyone in the country. But the high court preserved pathways for plaintiffs to still receive nationwide relief in certain circumstances. Individuals can file class-action lawsuits, and states may still receive a universal injunction if it is needed to afford them complete relief, the justices noted. Plaintiffs have since pursued both pathways to block Trump's order, which would deny citizenship to anyone born in the country if they don't have at least one parent with permanent legal status. Every court to opine on the legality of it so far has found it to be unconstitutional. Wednesday's ruling is the second time Trump's order has been blocked nationwide following the Supreme Court's decision. A federal judge in New Hampshire agreed to the American Civil Liberties Union's request to certify a nationwide class of unborn babies and indefinitely block the administration from enforcing Trump's birthright citizenship order against them. The 9 th Circuit heard a case brought by Democratic attorneys general in Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon. The panel majority said Wednesday that only blocking Trump's order in some parts of the country would continue to burden the four states. 'To account for this, the States would need to overhaul their eligibility-verification systems for Medicaid, CHIP, and Title IV-E. For that reason, the States would suffer the same irreparable harms under a geographically-limited injunction as they would without an injunction,' Gould wrote.
