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.

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.
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
Don’t worry. DOGE will fix it.
Yes. We should let the fraud keep occurring because sarc hates any government spending cuts.
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?
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.
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.
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.
That will come with an automatic 23% reduction in taxes? Right...
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.
>>More beneficiaries, fewer workers, and less taxable employment income
you assholes keep promoting and voting up the Ruling Class, not me
How could Trump do this to America!
no worries ... there are 20 million new americans paying into social security who will not be drawing on the benefits 🙂
Sure, Jan.
Cut all Social Security off for all.
Why do you want to kill grandma?
Grandma has been hording wealth from the younger generations for too long. Time to end their grift.
Gimme dat!
Oh, my. Good to know where you line up in the 'earned it myself' crowd. That is some Libertarian take, even from you. haha
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.
The fear mongering used to be the seniors would be eating cat food. Now even that is too expensive.
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.
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.
'We're 8 Years Away From an Automatic 23 Percent Cut in Social Security Payouts'
But not for unionized federal retirees, right?