Social Security Is Running Toward Insolvency
Despite a few encouraging analyses, the numbers just don't add up.

Don't worry if you get confused reading accounts of the new Social Security Trustees Report. On one hand, you have some articles reporting that this document shows that Social Security will be insolvent in less than 15 years. Others prompt you to pop champagne corks in celebration of Social Security's financial footing being so strong that we can supposedly increase benefits.
But, of course, both can't be true.
Social Security Works, an advocacy group intent on expanding Social Security benefits, tweeted: "Expanding Social Security is a solution to: The nation's retirement crisis; The economic squeeze on working families; Rising income and wealth inequality. And the good news is the 2022 Trustees Report shows we can afford it!"
Similarly, the Alliance for Retired Americans writes that "the Trustees reports on the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds…[show] once again that Social Security's Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund is strong and solvent."
Meanwhile, over at the Committee for a Responsible Budget (CFRB), a center-left organization focused on fiscal responsibility, the reaction couldn't be more different. CFRB warns: "The latest Social Security projections show the program is quickly headed toward insolvency and highlight the need for trust fund solutions sooner rather than later to prevent across-the-board benefit cuts or abrupt changes to tax or benefit levels."
In reading their report, you encounter data about how "Social Security is only 13 years from insolvency," and how the program faces "large and rising imbalances" even though its finances have improved slightly. Alarmingly, CFRB warns that time is running out.
Wouldn't it be nice if the correct interpretation of the data is the optimistic one? Indeed, it would. But it ain't.
An actual careful look at the report reveals that Social Security's future remains grim. Since 2010, Social Security has been running a permanent cash-flow deficit, meaning taxes collected for the program consistently fail to cover the benefits paid to retirees. To fill the gap, the program has been drawing from its trust-fund balances—first using the interest, then dipping into the principal—to keep payments to retirees going.
If that's not bad enough for us taxpayers, note this fact: It's not as if we're drawing on actual savings to pay our current expenses. When Social Security draws from its so-called "trust fund," there's nothing there except for what the U.S. Treasury simultaneously borrows to put into this fund. Thus, the U.S. government digs itself even further into debt.
But it hardly matters. The Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund will run dry in 2034. This date is a year later than was projected last year, hence the cheerful sound bites from those who want to expand the program. If combined with the Disability Insurance Trust Fund, which standing alone is now projected to remain solvent for the next 75 years, the date moves to 2035.
The program is solvent for slightly longer in part because so many older Americans died of COVID-19 during the pandemic, coupled with the strong recovery in tax revenue and wage growth that followed. None of these three things are likely to last.
Therefore, "improvement" is a strong word to describe the situation. Whether in 2034 or slightly later, when the fund runs dry, retiree benefits will be cut by 20 percent across the board. Congress could restore the full benefits by raising the payroll tax rate from its current 12.4 percent to over 15 percent. But this tax hike would fall especially hard on low-income workers.
Even this may still be too optimistic. Speaking at a CFRB event, my Mercatus Center colleague Charles Blahous—a former public trustee for Social Security and Medicare—noted that some assumptions underlying these results should give us pause. First, the report incorrectly assumes only 4.5 percent inflation this year and 2.3 percent next year. This matters because benefits are adjusted for inflation, which means a larger cost-of-living adjustment than currently projected, and a higher program cost.
Second, the sudden improvement in the Disability Trust Fund is in part due to a recent downturn in disability incidence below historical averages. There's no reason to assume this reduction is permanent, throwing some cold water on the 75-year projected solvency of that trust. Equally unrealistic is the assumption that several decades of low birth rates will suddenly turn around and increase going forward.
When it comes to Social Security, there are few reasons to bring out the bubbly, and even fewer reasons to increase benefits.
COPYRIGHT 2022 CREATORS.COM.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Fine, just give me back what my employer and I paid in.
You'll never get back what you paid in; that money is gone. Past retirees have partied with you money like there's no tomorrow.
Your social security payouts are going to come from an inverted population pyramid and one way or another, they are going to be accordingly limited, probably through a combination of inflation, taxation, and accounting tricks.
Ponzi scheme
Absolutely. But we can at least pretend the scheme can continue when a reasonable factor of workers pay in for every recipient. Unless we can magically (and absurdly) keep expanding entrants into the work force, or, equally absurdly, reduce the senior population, then the logical--if politically suicidal--thing is to ratchet the retirement age up and down.
Or make robots pay taxes.
The Covid vaccines are going to shorten lives, saving Social Security substantial funds. People who were going to suffer heart attacks in 20 years are going to suffer them in 10 years, instead.
Stop. You have no evidence.
Waitwaitwait...hold on. "reduce the senior population". Hmmm...what have you got in mind? Even if it's nothing specific for now, we can at least do the prep work. Have Outside Influence prep some "Gerontological Ethics" and "Responsible Aging in an Era of Climate Change" articles. You know the type of thing we need.
.
Maybe tout a "Euthanasia and Abortion: Burning the Population Candle at Both Ends" approach?
Sorry, I got that money last month. I spent it to help the economy.
Yeah, me too. I spent it on shit I wanted, but your story sounds better.
If you want it to sound really cool, tell people you spent it on commodities and real estate.
(paid rent and bought groceries)
Plus a modest 4% interest a year for all the years the government stole my money with a broken promise.
Also how can SS be going insolvent when the government is pushing universal basic income?
Why could we print $5 trillion for a covid pandemic but we can't print a few billion to keep SS solvent/
This is all BS. Remember Social Security was always meant to be theft. FDR set the age for retirement at 65 when the average expectancy was much less at the time Social Security was implemented.
1935 recorded "life expectancy" rates of the era: 58 for men and 62 for women. "
Lets be clear on this. The employer didn't pay anything into the system. They paid you less and gave your money away.
this is what inflation is for
"Therefore, "improvement" is a strong word to describe the situation. Whether in 2034 or slightly later, when the fund runs dry, retiree benefits will be cut by 20 percent across the board."
Ha! If Democrats have anything to say, who wants to bet that the program will be reconfigured to "progressively" distribute cuts and benefit increases?
Ever since I was fifteen they've been giving Social Security fifteen years to live.
They've done that by drastically increasing Social Security taxes. In the future, they'll use money from the general fund.
Trump's fault. Vote Democrat so they can fix it.
#TemporarilyFillingInForButtplug
Good God, the ghost of 1992 just started rattling chains in the halls of Reason.
Insolvent, you say?
Must be racism. Against securities.
I'm old enough now that I think we should start expanding SS.
I'm middle aged so I'll retire in what? 15, 20 years? Let's phase it in over the next 15 years, starting in 2025, and make sure our future retirees can live safe comfortable lives as a reward for having paid taxes all those years.
I mean, I don't have kids, and I have really grown to hate millennials who think I'm a baby boomer, and all those fuckers who think I should pay for their college debt, so screw them. Doing otherwise would be voting against my best self interest.
And I have a 401K, but if we do a good job getting this expanded social security in place in the next 15 years, I won't need it. So I can just blow it all on hats.
Seems like a win-win to me.
I'm in.
Don't worry Pelosi and Warren want to go after your 401k next
Savings, like any other thing of value that some people "own" and others want, defy equity and justice, and must be eliminated.
And it’s happening through inflation.
Modern monetary theory 2020to…..,,,,,,,,
Hey I got a 401K that they be wanting to take.
Wow. How about JFK, is he still dead too?
As dead as Elvis.
I new it jfk faked his death
Elvis is real!
Why should we care? Between monkeypox, global warming, dangerous vaccines, election fortification, insurrection, and the Mises Caucus, ain't we all going to be dead in 10 years?
Statistically, I've got a 50/50 chance.
"Insolvency" implies some kid of well-defined pot of money. There is no such thing. Social Security is an intergenerational money transfer governed by political considerations and demographics only.
Any politician trying to cut it would be in deep trouble. So, contributions are going to increase, taxes are going to increase, the debt is going to increase, and inflation is going to increase, all in an attempt to rescue/finance it.
You have hit it right on the money.
There is no fund.
Benefits will have to decrease because demographics have caused the pyramid scheme to collapse. However, benefits won't be cut, they will likely just be inflated and taxed away.
What meaning could “insolvency” possibly have in these times of fiscal idiocy?
After all, it’s only money, right?
We've still got the paper and the ink and the plates, right?
=Limitless money.
Well, no, its just an IOU from the federal Treasury.
"Solvency" implies an actual fund. There isn't one. SS always has, and always will, just be a different name on general taxes. And a bizarre tax at that. The most regressive tax in the USA.
So end all government benefits except social security so the lazy bums go to work and get taxed to fund my monthly deposits.
(at least until we die from global climate warming change)
Well, if we're really lucky, maybe inflation will destroy the value of the benefits to the point where the government can easily pay everyone what they are owed. You might be getting $3k a month or whatever and that will buy you dinner at McDonalds.
This is the most likely scenario. You'll get "full benefits" that don't get you shit.
Luckily for me, SS only makes up about 7% of my income...
Nothing is more annoying in politics than those of you who feel the need to lie about your interests or plans. Social Security cannot go "insolvent." The federal government prints money out of thin air. It uses the force of law to put it in people's pockets.
Libertarians and Republicans should say what they really think: old people who can't work should eat cat food and live in filth. Because it's good for their morals.
Every asshole billionaire who's been peddling the idea that SS should end for decades owes his fortune to government favors so vast and unaccountable that it can only be the case that libertarianism is, essentially, the deceptive maneuvers of psychopaths who want to plunder our collective wealth for themselves. Some Russian bitch telling them they deserve it is all the rationalization they need.
Tony, you add nothing to any discussion. You won’t even address my refutation of your inane gun grabbing raving. So a more technical economic discussion is beyond you, given you tested IQ of 85.
“The federal government prints money out of thin air. It uses the force of law to put it in people's pockets.”
Your party is about to get wiped out in the mid terms, in large part because there’s too many dollars chasing not enough goods. But, go ahead and knock yourself out.
“Never interrupt your enemy when he’s making a mistake.”
"When your enemy is digging a hole in the wrong place, don't offer him advice, ask if he'd like a larger shovel."
Social Security cannot go "insolvent."
It can't GO insolvent, because to do so, it would have to have been solvent at some point in the past.
It's a scam, and you're a moron for believing in it.
-jcr
Government does print money out of thin air, but so do banks. Money created by banks represents debt, however.
But you are right, SS cannot go insolvent. It is always insolvent, or never insolvent, depending on the spin you wish to put on the math.
What does that have to do with Libertarians and Republicans? Do you think people should not save for retirement? That they should just use the government to coerce the money out of others?
Social secuirity is hardly a bunch of sad old people who can't work, since they can retire at 62, and most people are living into their 80's now, and your an idiot if you think that the choices are so starkly binary, either keep throwing money at it or end it.
Step One: Pull the 501c listing for the AARP. Force them to deal with the fact that they are a blatantly political entity focused on keeping the ponzi scheme of socialist insecurity going.
Actually, they are a shill for insurance companies.
For the last few decades.
I'm so old, I can remember when Republicans were in favor of privatizing Social Security. In fact, I'm so old, I can remember when even Democrats were in favor of structurally reforming Social Security to put it on a sounder footing.
Now we argue about which bathroom transgendered individuals ought to use. You know, serious stuff.
Social Security should be privatized for everyone more than 10 years out from retirement age. In its place, as a transitionary program, a Singapore-style social insurance program should be established.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Provident_Fund
But why? If the end result is that old people have financial security, it's all the same dollars. SS is beautifully simple. If its only real problem is that it contradicts some philosophy of yours, revise the philosophy.
It's about control. Whose money is it? Is it the government's money, or is it the retiree's money?
It's all the government's money. You can tell by the dead heads of state on it.
It's one simple outlay that guarantees that no old or disabled person will go without access to the basic necessities of life. Even ones who committed the horrible crime of not investing enough when they were younger.
That money is being devalued at a record place thanks to your masters. You have cheered on the greatest theft of the pool’s money on the history of the republic.
I'm going to assume that you mean all of the Social Security money is the government's money, not that you mean that every single dollar in existence is actually the government's money. I mean, that would be absurd, right?
And yes all of the Social Security money is the government's money, collected via taxation, and the government can choose what to do with it. They choose to fund Social Security benefits at their pleasure. I would prefer that my retirement funds be much more under my direct control.
My problem with social security is that it uses scarce resources to take care of all old people regardless of how they interact with society. If an old person wants to be taken care of, they could take care of themselves by doing things for others. Perhaps being an adorable old man or woman who earns respect, or at least adoration.
In the other hand, cranky, selfish, entitled old people are undesirable. There’s really no need to encourage that. If the only reason you like SS is because that’s your endgame, find something less ridiculous to be.
SS is not simple. It is an accounting shell game, always has been. By design.
The issue is, and always has been, that the younger generation has to pay to support the retired generation. It doesn't matter if it is a public or private fund, or if the government prints the money or uses debts. The actual stuff has to be produced so that people can consume it. And the younger generation is the producer, the older generation (and children) the consumers.
So lay the tax situation out like that. Get rid of this silly concept of "SS Fund". It doesn't exist. Define a situation for retirees to get funds from the central government, and change the taxes from being regressive.
I won't be watching the Stalinist hearing tonight, but I'm in the car so I listened to a few minutes.
This country is completely fucked.
We The People are nothing but subjects.
Representative government, the American experiment, is over.
They've made a great case so far for how all avenues outside of actual, physical revolution for change/influence/representation are completely closed off and controlled by The Party.
You will lose more than you'd ever imagined in the coming years.
Meanwhile
https://twitter.com/JonathanTurley/status/1535046244095098890?t=qWBPxoB1AMQKwcC81Pvtbw&s=19
Protesters have now descended upon the home of Justice Amy Coney Barrett and her family, including seven children. This is just a day after the alleged attempted murder of her colleague, Justice Kavanaugh.
...These protesters are screaming into bullhorns to harass a justice because she disagrees with them on the interpretation of the Constitution. Yet, even law professors have praised the targeting of the homes of justices and even become "more aggressive."
[Link]
Everyone involved in that farce should be put in front of a tribunal and sentenced to death. Then hung in the capitol steps, with their corpses left to rot as a reminder to the next ten generations that treason has a price.
O/T: So is this where we are going to talk about the Jan. 6 show?
Just heard Liz Cheney talk about the Jeff Clark letter plan. See that is the type of crap that we should be talking about when it comes to "overturning the election". Not the morons wearing horns and smearing poop in the hallways. But the lawyers and the politicos who devised plans of very questionable legality, as well as blatantly illegal plans, to try to keep Trump in power. THAT is the real "insurrection" here.
Still pushing democrat lies Jeffy? Do you really think they will accept you as a ‘good one’ when your Marxist friends take power? No, you will not likely make it that far. In all probability you will be torn apart by some angry democrat mob. After you miscalculate their acceptance of you. Your morbid obesity will preclude any effective retreat, and I doubt you can fight your way out of a wet paper sack.
I like how you completely ignore the substance of my comment and went straight for the insults and personal attacks.
The program is solvent for slightly longer in part because so many older Americans died of COVID-19 during the pandemic...
Boy, I sure called that one.
Red SUVs, General; don't forget red SUVs.
Me too, but I was expecting a bigger bump.
No offense to your insightful article, but I wrote a college economics paper about this in 1986. I think I still have it if you are interested in furthering your background research.
So I hear a group of elite operatives dressed in bear costumes stormed the capitol on January sixth and nearly toppled the United States of America.
As believable as the Thursday night comedy hour.
The rise in long-term interests rates has improved Social Security's solvency, though actuarially assumed rates change significantly more slowly than actual rates.
Up until about 2 years ago I figured I'd wait until I was 70-1/2 to start drawing SS: wait and get a larger benefit, right? Now I'm thinking I should go ahead and start when I'm eligible for "full" benefits. (Which because of my birth year is over age 65.) I might as well draw that income while I can.
Run the numbers.
When I compared the total amounts, the lines crossed at 84 years old.
If you can get by on the early payout, go for it. A bit less for a lot longer. As long as you have some kind of pension or savings to fill in.
It will turn out you need a lot less money when you no longer commute, or wear suits. (if you do the office thing)
Unless your retirement plans include a lot of first class travel, you can live cheap.
DISCLAIMER:
You absolutely have to be completely out of debt.
Yeah, I "retired" at 62. I'd get more/month if I waited till 67, but I did the same calculation and that increase/month would make up for the amount I'd collect between 62 and 67 at about age 81.
My anticipated "cost of living" if I make it to 81, is going to be pretty low, even including (crossed fingers) a sporty hoverchair.
It's one thing if you have a well-compensated occupation you can stay in till you're 67 or later, one that provides good pay, and that you enjoy, AND good health. At decision time, I did not. So I cashed in and we've never been more prosperous.
Social Security will have to be scrapped and replaced with a means-tested welfare program for the poor elderly. Well-off taxpayers who exceed the eligibility will get a big fuck you.
This despite awful AARP scare campaigns aimed at the elderly going all the way back to the 70s!
The simple and immediate step is to lift the salary cap on SS taxes.
Democrats should love the 'tax the rich' side, and the extra corporate share.
Republicans should love the 'we saved ss' part.
Never can figure out why this isn't done.
Eh, I think we saw how fond the Dems ACTUALLY are of "tax the rich" schemes with their reaction to the SALT tax policy.
As in the past, minor adjustments made soon enough keep SS running well into mid century when projections show the problem resolved.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/everything-weapon-us-government-waging-psychological-warfare-nation
Once the Baby Boom ended the program was in trouble. I'm sure there were an endless string of actuarial reports detailing this. All of them ignored.
The system could have been/should have been privatized in the '80s/90s at minimal transition costs. But it was too easy to demagogue the few calling for it. Now we're screwed.
So fuck you, pay me.
FDR's Ponzi scheme has NEVER been solvent in its entire history. Any organization other than the federal government that looted retirement savings would land its perps in prison. The "trust fund" is nothing but a pile of IOUs backed by fuck-all, issued by the biggest debtor in human history.
-jcr
Whatever John. As was done in 1983 under Reagan, minor changes the Congress needs to do - and will with seniors as the most potent voting block - will extend it well past mid century when demographics begin to moderate it's need. It's over 80 years old now, will be over a century then, and next to Medicare the most popular of federal programs.
If you want to lose elections, put ending it in your platform.
The reform's under Reagan were a horrible mistake. The surpluses generated were immediately spent, not only increasing the size of the federal government but also creating a future problem when the time came to pay back that money. $2.9 trillion pissed away and now we have to borrow to pay it back.
A proper reform would have incrementally increased the amount withheld under FICA to match benefits paid.
A better system would have bought a durable commodity with that money and sold it as benefits were paid back out. Crude oil, precious metals, etc. That way there really is a SS trust fund.
Bit of a flaw in your presentation there.
The "horrible mistake" was not necessarily Reagan's reforms, but rather are found in your next sentence: "The surpluses generated were immediately spent". See, Reagans' reforms generated the surpluses as desired (good thing), BUT those surpluses were immediately spent (bad thing).
Maybe those reforms were short-sighted in not preventing the looting that was probably predictable. Maybe investing the fund somewhere would have made it more difficult to loot. as you say, though the ability of Congress to steal everything is pretty impressive for such a confederacy of dunces.
You can't separate the two. Immediately spending the surpluses is a feature of the reform, not a bug.
Joe Friday tell us again about your contracting skills.
You're never going to actually tax the super wealthy what you should so just remove the cap. Done and done.
Why doesn't anyone acknowledge that social security is in trouble not just because of fewer people being born to support it? Most people live into their 80's now. We let people start collecting at 62. Social security wasn't meant as a long happy vacation for people who are perfectly capable of working as most people in their 60's and even 70's are able to do. Almost everyone starts collecting at 62 because they are afraid of waiting to 67. Change the minimum age where you can start SS to 67 with full benefits at 72. Ss was meant to provide income for people who were too old to work, not as a welfare program for older people who have decided they don't want to work.
You must be young. You'll be finding out in a few years why most old people can't continue working. And you'll also learn that no one will hire you when you're old, especially for a job you haven't done before.