Could you invest your own FICA taxes? The new Social Security proposal explained
Social Security privatization refers to transforming the current Social Security system, primarily a government-run program, into a system that allows Americans to invest their Social Security contributions into private accounts rather than paying into the federal program.
The challenge
If you've ever looked at a paycheck and wondered what FICA stands for, it's the Federal Insurance Contributions Act. Of your gross wages, 6.2% goes into FICA to pay for Social Security and another 1.45% goes toward covering Medicare. Your employer matches both amounts, resulting in a total contribution of 15.3% of your wages.
Contributions made today support benefits for retirees, people with disabilities, and survivors of workers who have died. Think of it as today's employees helping fund the benefits of today's retirees. Since Social Security was first established in 1935, the understanding has been that each generation of retirees will be supported by younger workers still on the job.
A perfect storm of demographic changes in the United States put the Social Security system in a vulnerable position. Between the declining fertility rate and increased life expectancies, there are fewer workers to support an ever-growing group of retirees. As of this year, 12% of the total population is 65 or older. By 2080, it will be 23%.
In other words, the worker-to-beneficiary ratio is expected to drop dramatically, potentially impacting the SSA's ability to fulfill promised benefit payments.
A move away from FICA?
Among the proposals being made is the suggestion that Americans retain the 6.2% of their wages currently allocated toward FICA. Instead, they can invest it in private investment vehicles and decide how the money should be allocated.
Supporters of Social Security privatization argue that the change would give individuals greater control over their retirement savings and potentially allow them to earn returns higher than those provided by the current system's fixed benefits. They also see it as a way to reduce the financial burden on the federal government.
On the other side are those who worry that some Americans may not have the financial literacy or resources to manage investments on their own. Not everyone has experience managing assets, and it's concerning to think about throwing millions of people into the investment pool who may never have learned to manage their finances effectively.
Another concern involves what happens to those who spend years investing for retirement only to hit a string of bad luck. That may mean making bad investment choices or even facing losses due to uncontrollable setbacks, like a recession or bear market. Opponents worry about what will happen to those who hit retirement age with little money put away through no fault of their own, and point out that the current Social Security system offers fixed benefits that retirees can count on.
Countless issues to work through
Even if Congress were able to come to a consensus and privatize Social Security, there are thorny issues that would need to be managed. For example:
Partial privatization?
Some supporters of Social Security privatization suggest allowing workers to invest a portion of their current Social Security contributions in private accounts, with the remainder allocated to the traditional pay-as-you-go system. While this model would lower the Social Security benefits earned by workers who choose this path, they would have a safety net of some sort to look forward to in retirement.
Given how difficult it can be to get Congress to agree on anything, there's no doubt that deciding to upend the entire Social Security system will be an uphill (and long-fought) battle.
In the meantime, the more immediate goal is to find a way to shore up the current system so that retirees will receive every dollar they've been promised.
The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
The Motley Fool is a USA TODAY content partner offering financial news, analysis and commentary designed to help people take control of their financial lives. Its content is produced independently of USA TODAY.
The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook
Offer from the Motley Fool: If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known "Social Security secrets"could help ensure a boost in your retirement income.
One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. JoinStock Advisorto learn more about these strategies.
View the "Social Security secrets" »
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
Ghislaine Maxwell's meetings with Justice Department shrouded in secrecy
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche completed nine hours of meetings over two days with Ghislaine Maxwell on Friday but made no public statements about what she said or the next steps in the Justice Department's much-criticized Jeffrey Epstein investigation. Former prosecutors said it was highly unusual — and potentially unprecedented — for a the department's No. 2 official to personally interview a witness. Secrecy in a criminal investigation is normal, but the prosecutors involved in the case would typically be included in questioning. 'I've never heard of a deputy attorney general doing anything like this before,' said a former senior Justice Department official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. Victims of Epstein and Maxwell, who was convicted in 2021 of recruiting and grooming multiple teenage girls to be sexually abused by the late financier, questioned the lack of transparency as well. Jack Scarola, a lawyer representing roughly 20 Epstein victims, said he asked to attend the Maxwell interviews but was not included. Berit Berger, a former federal prosecutor in New York, said the interviews by Blanche, who worked as Trump's former defense lawyer, may be performative. 'It may be just a way of being able to say, 'Look, we dotted every I and crossed every T,'' she said. 'There's value to being able to say that we've tried to speak to everyone we possibly could, including the co-defendant.' Attorney General Pam Bondi, Blanche and President Donald Trump himself have struggled to quell the uproar since the DOJ and FBI announced on July 6 that an exhaustive Epstein case review had not uncovered evidence that justified investigating other individuals. FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy Director Dan Bongino — who haveboth spread conspiracy theories about the Epstein case — backed those findings and a DOJ decision to release no other Epstein case documents. Catherine Christian, a former Manhattan assistant district attorney and an NBC News legal analyst, said the Maxwell interviews could also be an effort to protect Trump, who now faces one of the largest political crises of his second term in the furor over the Epstein investigation. Trump, like dozens of other wealthy Americans, socialized with Epstein. He is among hundreds of individuals whose names appear in 100,000 pages of Epstein case documents reviewed by the DOJ and the FBI. 'It's hard to believe this is anything but performative,' Christian said. 'Or Todd Blanche, just wanting to have her on the record saying, 'Yes, President Trump had nothing to do with any of this. He was not a client.'' What was Maxwell asked? Maxwell's lawyer, David Oscar Markus, is a top Florida criminal defense lawyer and a friend of Blanche's. Blanche appeared on Markus' podcast in 2024, where the host praised Blanche's legal skills. After Friday's meeting with Blanche and Maxwell, Markus told reporters that the deputy attorney general 'did an amazing job' and asked Maxwell thorough questions. 'She was asked maybe about 100 different people,' said Markus, who did not disclose which individuals Maxwell was questioned about. 'She answered questions about everybody, and she didn't hold anything back,' he said. 'They asked about every single, every possible thing you could imagine, everything.' A senior administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly, said that Maxwell was granted limited immunity by the Justice Department to answer questions about the Epstein case. Granting limited immunity is common in criminal cases and allows defendants to provide information without fear that it will be used against them in court. The immunity is 'limited' because it only applies if the defendant is telling the truth. If it is determined that a defendant lied during the interviews, then the agreement becomes void. Prosecutors can take into consideration a defendant's cooperation and recommend a plea deal or a reduced sentence. This is not expected in Maxwell's case, as she has already been convicted and sentenced to 20 years in federal prison. Maxwell's lawyer, Markus, has argued that Maxwell's trial was unfair and an appeal of her conviction is pending before the Supreme Court. Potential pardon or commutation Trump, like all presidents, has the power to pardon or commute the sentence of anyone convicted of a federal crime. Asked about Epstein's case on Friday morning, Trump said the focus should be on other people who socialized with Epstein, such as former President Bill Clinton and Larry Summers, the former treasury secretary and Harvard University president. 'You should focus on Clinton,' the president told reporters. 'You should focus on the president of Harvard, the former president of Harvard. You should focus on some of the hedge fund guys.' 'I'll give you a list. These guys lived with Jeffrey Epstein. I sure as hell didn't,' Trump said. Asked if he was considering granting Maxwell a pardon or commuting her sentence, Trump said, 'It's something I haven't thought about.' 'I'm allowed to do it,' he added. Mimi Rocah, a former federal prosecutor in New York, said she believes the recent firing of Maurene Comey, a lead prosecutor in the Maxwell case and the daughter of former FBI Director James Comey, was an effort to give Trump appointees full control of the Maxwell case, limit transparency and silence dissent. 'That does not seem coincidental. It seems like they wanted Maurene not to be present in the Department of Justice,' Rocah said. 'To be able to say, 'What the heck, you can't go talk to my client or my defendant.'' Rocah, a Democrat who served as Westchester County district attorney from 2020 to 2024, criticized Blanche's meetings with Maxwell, saying his apparent failure to include a prosecutor with deep knowledge of her crimes was unfair to Epstein's victims. 'The head of that entire institution that is supposed to be about protecting victims is talking to her, giving her a platform to say God knows what, without much way to verify it or not,' Rocah said. 'The real people who could test her truth-telling are the people who worked on the case, not Todd.'
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Elon Musk 'ordered Starlink coverage blackout' during crucial Ukraine counterattack
ELON Musk allegedly ordered a shutdown of Starlink coverage in parts of Ukraine during a crucial counteroffensive at the beginning of the Russian invasion, it has been reported. The billionaire's command allegedly led to a communications blackout while Ukrainian forces attempted to retake the port city of Kherson in the south of the country in September 2022. The communication blackout, where staff at the American tech firm deactivated at least 100 Starlink terminals after being instructed to, reportedly caused the attack to fail, according to Reuters, which spoke with three people who were familiar with the demand. According to reports, the blackout caused Ukrainian soldiers to panic as drones surveilling Russian forces went dark, and long-range artillery units, reliant on Starlink to aim at their targets, struggled to hit them. READ MORE: 'He belongs in The Hague': Keir Starmer fiercely criticised over Gaza speech Although Ukrainian forces were able to reclaim Kherson, the incident was reported to have damaged the country's trust in the technology, along with shocking Starlink employees. One of the three people who were familiar with the instruction claimed it enabled Musk to take 'the outcome of a war into his own hands'. The Tesla-owner reportedly grew concerned that Ukrainian forces' advancements could provoke nuclear retaliation from Vladimir Putin. A spokesperson for SpaceX, the aerospace company that owns Starlink, told Reuters the reporting of the incident is 'inaccurate'. In March, Musk posted on his social media platform, X/Twitter: 'To be extremely clear, no matter how much I disagree with the Ukraine policy, Starlink will never turn off its terminals.' Starlink, which went live in 2019, is a satellite company that beams data across its network and is the world's largest satellite operator. It provides customers with internet access in remote and unreliable locations and has a network of around 8000 satellites in orbit. It has been a key tool in Ukraine's defence, as Musk has provided the country with more than 50,000 Starlink terminals during the war. The network has allowed Ukrainians to speak to relatives across the world, and President Zelensky uses the network to transmit broadcasts to the nation. It is also used by Ukrainian forces on the battlefield to communicate and is used to guide drones and long-range artillery units.
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Amidst terrible tragedy in Texas, debates over misinformation cloud the truth
As search and rescue teams in Texas continue to search for those lost in extreme flash floods and communities try to piece together lives, claims quickly spread about what happened and who was to blame. Many on the left blamed the Trump administration 's cuts to the National Weather Service. On the right, keyboard warriors accused cloud seeding technologies of causing the devastating floods. Others in the community spread news of the miraculous survival of some of those caught in the flood. These claims and accusations have been called misinformation, commonly understood as 'false' or 'misleading' information. The floods in Texas have inundated news cycles with a broader discussion of what misinformation is, how it works, and the impacts it can have. It is not surprising that Americans are worried about misinformation. Recent polling by the Cato Institute shows that Americans believe misinformation is the greatest threat to their freedom. This finding is true for Republicans and Democrats, though they likely consider misinformation to be a threat for different reasons. Other polls have reported that 80 percent of Americans view misinformation as a major problem. And according to a 2023 Pew poll, 55 percent of Americans believe the U.S. government should take action to restrict false information, even if it limits freedom of information. Research on misinformation, though, shows that it is not as serious a threat as it is made out to be, and we must be careful that in our efforts to address it, we don't make matters worse. Misinformation is an incredibly subjective issue to which people respond to in complex ways. In fact, misinformation is most often adopted and spread by those who are already predisposed to believe it, as we can see clearly in the recent events in Texas. The cycle is familiar: Politically motivated actors spread false or misleading information that was too good to check because it reinforced their beliefs. Similarly, locals hoping for some good news shared and believed information that they desperately wanted to be true, but sadly, it was not. And as often happens during significant disasters, false or misleading information spreads because of the rapidly evolving nature of the tragedy — we often simply don't know what the truth is yet. So, while misinformation can be harmful, it is often more of a symptom than a disease. Research shows that misinformation itself often does not change the beliefs and actions of those who encounter it; rather, it tends to reinforce existing beliefs or behaviors. In that sense, misinformation does not have the powerful impact of which the media and political world commonly speak. Unfortunately, despite this evidence minimizing its impact and power, the clouds of misinformation loom large over our society today. Americans have been told for years now that we are in the midst of an 'infodemic' of powerful misinformation that infects our minds like a virus. For example, last year, the World Economic Forum's risk report labeled AI-powered misinformation and disinformation as the greatest threat facing the world in the next couple of years. The number of academic research, books, journalism and fact-checking resources has surged over the past decade. Rather than panicking about misinformation and opening the door to government censorship, the threat of misinformation must be addressed from the ground up rather than the top down. For tech companies, this means rebuilding user trust and helping users be better consumers of information. Tools like community notes — as being adopted or tested in some form by X, Meta, TikTok, YouTube and other platforms — are likely to be helpful in getting users to trust the fact-checks they are seeing. And efforts to 'pre-bunk' misinformation through better media literacy will help by empowering users. When the government begins funding counter-misinformation research, things tend to go awry. This may sound counterintuitive, but we often disagree about what misinformation is and tend to favor our political biases, as seen in the news around the Texas floods. So when the government doles out money to research misinformation, it is inevitably funding those biases, which over time contributes to polarization and a lack of trust in our institutions. Similarly, the U.S. government should limit what it deems 'foreign disinformation' to include only the most clear-cut and harmful cases. When not handled carefully, such efforts can and have turned into government attacks on Americans' speech and political views — see the intelligence experts getting the Hunter Biden laptop story wrong — further polarizing and degrading Americans' trust in their leaders. The flood waters are receding in Texas, but the storm of misinformation still rages within our society. Instead of doubling down on misplaced panic over misinformation, we must instead trust and help Americans discover the truth. More speech, more discussions — not less speech and more government control — are the way we sort through information and find a brighter tomorrow.
