AUG 14, 2025 SOCIAL SECURITY

Social Security turns 90 today – but its retirement program is on course to be insolvent by age 97 – according to new estimates from the program’s Chief Actuary. Even if combined with the disability trust fund, Social Security will deplete its reserves before it turns 100.

In this piece, we show:

Social Security's retirement trust fund will be insolvent in just seven years – by late 2032 – at which point benefits will be cut automatically by 24 percent across the board if nothing is done to prevent it.

A typical couple retiring just after insolvency will face an $18,400 cut in annual benefits.

Recent legislation – particularly the One Big Beautiful Bill Act but also the Social Security Fairness Act – has accelerated insolvency alongside well-known demographic challenges.

Trust fund solutions are needed soon to prevent insolvency and the statutorily required benefit cut.

Social Security is Seven Years from Insolvency

Social Security is the nation’s largest federal program and largest retirement program. It helps to support 68 million seniors, dependents, survivors, and disabled workers and insures an additional 183 million workers against the risks of aging, disability, and death of a spouse or parent.

Unfortunately, Social Security is in financial trouble. According to new estimates from the program’s Chief Actuary, Social Security’s retirement trust fund is just seven years from insolvency. That’s when today’s 60-year-olds reach their normal retirement age and when today’s youngest retirees turn 69. The insolvency date was accelerated by the reconciliation law’s effect on taxation of benefits, moving from early 2033 as projected in the June 2025 Trustees’ report to late 2032.

On a theoretically combined basis, Social Security’s retirement and disability trust funds are projected to run out just two years later in 2034. That’s just nine years from today, when today’s 58-year-olds reach the normal retirement age and today’s youngest retirees turn 71.

Beneficiaries Face a Deep Cut Without Congressional Action

Under the law, the Social Security program cannot pay out more in benefits than it has collected in revenue (plus accrued interest). As a result, all current and new retired beneficiaries, regardless of age or income, will face an across-the-board 24 percent benefit cut when the retirement trust fund is depleted in 2032.

Based on the latest Chief Actuary projections, we estimate a typical couple retiring shortly after the trust fund runs out will face an $18,400 benefit cut.

Depending on a couple’s age, marital status, and work history, the actual size of the benefit cut would vary. For example, a typical single-earner couple would face a $13,800 cut, while a dual-earner low-income couple would face an $11,200 annual cut. High-income couples could see a cut closer to $24,400. While the absolute size of the cut would be smaller for a low-income beneficiaries than high-income beneficiaries, it would represent a larger share of their income and their past earnings.

https://www.crfb.org/blogs/social-security-turns-90-its-racing-towards-insolvency

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5784969&forum_id=2Ã#49338799)

So they’ve done a lot to extend it but they were within 5-10 years.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5784969&forum_id=2Ã#49339022)

"The projected Social Security taxable wage base for 2026 is estimated to be $183,600, which is an increase from the 2025 limit of $176,100. This means that employees and employers will each pay 6.2% on earnings up to this new limit."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5784969&forum_id=2Ã#49340723)

Author: Taylor Swift is not a hobby she is a lifestyle(🇺🇸 🇵🇱)

for the overemployed like me, it really sucks. I'm effectively paying 3x more than any of you fucks.

Quoted to prove that TSINAH is a fraud (as if proof is needed). If you were actually overemployed, you would know that if too much Social Security tax is withheld when you work multiple jobs, you get it back when you file your taxes. (Or you simply adjust your withholding with one employer to avoid the problem in the first place.) But you're a morbidly obese, failed shitlawyer LARPing as an overemployed programmer on xoxo, so of course you don't know that.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5784969&forum_id=2Ã#49340990)

But he spends everything he has and more, and employers won’t NOT withhold social security/medicare from your paycheck even if you show them paystubs showing you’ve maxed out your base. I had an issue with this when I changed jobs. Of course, you get it refunded, and you could probably fuck with withholding if it’s that important to you, but I’m sure this is a problem for a consumption pig like TSINAH.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5784969&forum_id=2Ã#49341081)

Lmao Gen X

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5784969&forum_id=2Ã#49338836)

People should just work until they die like they did in the old days. There is no dignity in sitting around in a facility that smells like bleach and urine all day because you're still alive but can no longer do anything for yourself.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5784969&forum_id=2Ã#49338878)

"The recent tax cuts under Trump's administration do not eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits but instead introduce a temporary $6,000 standard deduction for seniors aged 65 and older."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5784969&forum_id=2Ã#49340731)

Also lol at voluntarily paying more money into social security, the second they don’t have to worry about running out of money they will just increase benefits for boomers and bankrupt it again.

Like the last thing “Biden” did as president is sign this BIPARTISAN boomer bailout for 200 billion

https://www.ntu.org/foundation/detail/the-social-security-fairness-acts-true-cost-to-taxpayers

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5784969&forum_id=2Ã#49339097)

lol wow

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5784969&forum_id=2Ã#49339104)

Spouses are able to claim 50 percent of their “life partners” social security benefits. If you worked for a staTTTe government and didn’t pay into social security (but got a state pension) the law previously said you got jack from the Feds. But now you can also claim DAT half pension (even though you and your employer weren’t paying dat 6.2 percent).

Which is why the CBO says it will cost additional 200 billion.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5784969&forum_id=2Ã#49341033)

https://i.4pcdn.org/pol/1725400476910755.png

republicans, explain. that was a good plan. why didn't you stick with it?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5784969&forum_id=2Ã#49340446)

The reality is that if you gave me (or anyone) dictatorial powers for a day, I could fix Social Security in about 20 minutes. You just need to do some combination of raising taxes, reducing benefits, or raising the retirement age. The issue is that all three of these ideas are enormously unpopular, so it's easier for politicians to kick the can down the road and pretend that the problem doesn't exist. But if there is one thing that will make voters angrier than the three aforementioned fixes, it is Social Security checks getting reduced (or not going out at all).

Social Security almost ran out of money once before in the 1980's, and Congress didn't fix it until literally the night before Social Security checks started bouncing. I expect that they won't fix it this time until the last possible minute, either. But they will fix it, because the consequences of not fixing it when the trust fund runs out will be much worse than the consequences of fixing it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5784969&forum_id=2Ã#49341014)