Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Social Security

We're 8 Years Away From an Automatic 23 Percent Cut in Social Security Payouts

Social Security’s board of trustees expects the program to be insolvent in eight years.

Jack Nicastro | 6.19.2025 4:30 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
An illustration of an empty bank vault with a sign inside that reads "Bust 2034 Social Security Trust Fund" | Illustration: Eddie Marshall | Media Amazon
(Illustration: Eddie Marshall | Media Amazon)

Reckless spending has been driving Social Security toward a fiscal cliff. Scheduled benefits will have to be cut by 23 percent in 2033 to keep the program solvent.

This is the grim conclusion drawn by the trustees of Social Security's Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance (OASDI) trust funds, who published their annual report this week. OASDI comprises two trust funds, but the main one—the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) trust fund—is on track to be depleted in 2033. That means all retirees receiving benefits in that year will face a 23 percent cut to their monthly checks.

The trustees' report also warns that OASDI will become insolvent in 2034. The trustees calculate this earlier depletion date in part because of a law Congress passed late last year to expand Social Security benefits to some workers who previously did not receive them.

Reason's Eric Boehm explains that the Social Security Fairness Act expanded Social Security benefits to public sector workers hired before 1984, despite those workers being exempted from contributing to the payroll taxes that fund the program. The Cato Institute's Romina Boccia and Ivane Nachkebia affirm that the "significant worsening of the program's finances since last year is largely the result of the repeal of the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and Government Pension Offset (GPO)," which reduced Social Security payouts to public workers and their spouses.

The trustees highlight two other factors hastening the depletion of OASDI's trust funds. First, they project that the country's total fertility rate of 1.62 children per woman today won't reach 1.9 children per woman until 2050 (10 years later than originally anticipated), which means fewer workers to support beneficiaries. Second, they anticipate the ratio of total labor compensation to gross domestic product to be 61.2 percent in 2034—1.6 percentage points lower than projected in last year's report—which means lower taxable payroll income (OASDI is funded primarily by employment taxes).

OASDI's smaller trust fund, Disability Insurance (D.I.), provides monthly benefits to disabled workers and their families. Despite D.I. paying out $155 billion to 8 million recipients in 2024, D.I. ran a $36 billion surplus, increasing its reserves to $183 billion. OASI, meanwhile, paid out $1.316 trillion in Social Security benefits to 60 million Americans, running a $103 billion deficit and decreasing its reserves to about $2.5 trillion.

If Congress passes a law permitting the Social Security Administration to dip into the D.I. trust fund to cover OASI's shortfalls, then OASDI's combined reserves will be "depleted and unable to pay scheduled benefits in full on a timely basis in 2034," at which time the program's continuing income will be sufficient to pay only 81 percent of scheduled benefits. 

The fiscal crisis for OASDI began in 2010, when its costs exceeded its non-interest income. The outlook worsened in 2021, when Social Security's costs exceeded its income, including interest, forcing the program to dip into its $2.9 trillion "trust fund"—mostly an accounting gimmick consisting of claims on Treasury bonds bought from 1984 to 2009 with the program's surplus income—to make up the difference.

As of December 31, 2024, OASDI's total reserves were $2.7 trillion, roughly $200 billion lower than they were in 2021. And it's losing money at an increasing rate: OASDI's 2024 deficit of $67 billion was $26 billion greater than it was in 2023.

In short: More beneficiaries, fewer workers, and less taxable employment income than expected mean higher deficits and an earlier depletion of Social Security's reserves.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Texas Legislators Say They Are Protecting Free Speech on Campus by Banning 'Expressive Activities' at Night

Jack Nicastro is an assistant editor at Reason.

Social SecurityCongressEntitlementsGovernment SpendingFederal government
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (22)

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.

  1. sarcasmic   16 hours ago

    Don’t worry. DOGE will fix it.

    Log in to Reply
    1. JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)   15 hours ago

      Yes. We should let the fraud keep occurring because sarc hates any government spending cuts.

      Log in to Reply
      1. Fat Rush Limpcock (King of the Conservatives)   15 hours ago

        As of December 31, 2024, OASDI's total reserves were $2.7 trillion

        Hey dumbass, how is that "fraud"?

        Yes, it is being depleted (still not fraud).

        It has a lousy RofR (still not fraud).

        Why do you lie about it?

        Log in to Reply
  2. Fat Rush Limpcock (King of the Conservatives)   15 hours ago

    forcing the program to dip into its $2.9 trillion "trust fund"—mostly an accounting gimmick consisting of claims on Treasury bonds bought from 1984 to 2009 with the program's surplus income

    Why is trust fund in quotes? What is it if not a trsut fund?

    By the way, this was the same "surplus income" that was used to buy Treasuries during Clinton's surplus years of 1999-2000 thus increasing US debt. The very same surplus that several of the Peanuts here claim never happened under Clinton.

    Social Security is what it is. There is no point in lying about it.

    Bring the 23% reduction on.

    Log in to Reply
    1. See Double You   14 hours ago

      Do Congress and the President have fiduciary duties to manage this fund on behalf of the fund's beneficiaries? No? Then it is not a trust fund.

      Log in to Reply
    2. Outlaw Josey Wales   2 hours ago

      mostly an accounting gimmick

      Your answer is right there. The money is a 'trust fund' because it doesn't actually exist. It has been spent. And like any accounting gimmick when the books are reconciled the money will be missing.

      Log in to Reply
  3. Sometimes a Great Notion   15 hours ago

    That will come with an automatic 23% reduction in taxes? Right...

    Log in to Reply
    1. Fat Rush Limpcock (King of the Conservatives)   15 hours ago

      Wihout legislation the FICA rate stays the same and benefits are cut by 23%.

      Of course it will be the #1 issue in the 2032 election.

      Democrats will want to raise the FICA threshold up from the $176,000 it is today.

      Republicans will sprinkle their majic bullshit lies on the situation like they always do.

      As much as I hate Trump his correct instinct is to leave this hot potato for the next guy to deal with.

      Log in to Reply
  4. Dillinger   15 hours ago

    >>More beneficiaries, fewer workers, and less taxable employment income

    you assholes keep promoting and voting up the Ruling Class, not me

    Log in to Reply
  5. Incunabulum   15 hours ago

    How could Trump do this to America!

    Log in to Reply
  6. Homer Thompson   15 hours ago

    no worries ... there are 20 million new americans paying into social security who will not be drawing on the benefits 🙂

    Log in to Reply
    1. Outlaw Josey Wales   2 hours ago

      Sure, Jan.

      Log in to Reply
  7. MollyGodiva   14 hours ago

    Cut all Social Security off for all.

    Log in to Reply
    1. Don't look at me! (I miss having inflation)   14 hours ago

      Why do you want to kill grandma?

      Log in to Reply
      1. MollyGodiva   14 hours ago

        Grandma has been hording wealth from the younger generations for too long. Time to end their grift.

        Log in to Reply
        1. Don't look at me! (I miss having inflation)   10 hours ago

          Gimme dat!

          Log in to Reply
        2. Outlaw Josey Wales   2 hours ago

          Oh, my. Good to know where you line up in the 'earned it myself' crowd. That is some Libertarian take, even from you. haha

          Log in to Reply
  8. Uncle Jay   13 hours ago

    I wouldn't worry.
    A few years ago Congress voted themselves a 21% increase in salary, so at least our obvious betters in the District of Corruption will live well while senior citizens will be eating out of dumpsters.

    Log in to Reply
    1. Outlaw Josey Wales   2 hours ago

      The fear mongering used to be the seniors would be eating cat food. Now even that is too expensive.

      Log in to Reply
  9. Marshal   11 hours ago

    despite those workers being exempted from contributing to the payroll taxes that fund the program.

    This is even worse than I remember. Not only are they giving them full SS benefits for barely working, they're not even making them pay in to get them.

    All Dems care about is shoveling our money to their voters. Pathetic.

    Log in to Reply
  10. Gaear Grimsrud   10 hours ago

    I have no problem with pointing out the ultimate failure of the SS ponzi scheme but these claims that current recipients will see a 23 percent reduction in their checks is just hysterical nonsense. There is no way any Congress Republican, Democrat or other will let that happen. They will just borrow more to balance the ledger. The Fed will of course respond by inflating the currency so everybody's spending power drops by 23 percent. Problem solved.

    Log in to Reply
  11. Earth-based Human Skeptic   9 hours ago

    'We're 8 Years Away From an Automatic 23 Percent Cut in Social Security Payouts'

    But not for unionized federal retirees, right?

    Log in to Reply

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Militarized Response to California Riots Seeks To Expand Federal Power

Steven Greenhut | 6.20.2025 7:30 AM

War With Iran Should Be Determined by Congressional Debate, Not Presidential Whim

J.D. Tuccille | 6.20.2025 7:00 AM

Review: What the Hell Is a 'Libertarian Authoritarian'?

Brian Doherty | From the July 2025 issue

Review: A Doctor Changes His Mind About Opioid Prescriptions

Jacob Sullum | From the July 2025 issue

Brickbat: Hole in the Wall

Charles Oliver | 6.20.2025 4:00 AM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!