Social Security is the primary source of government-funded retirement support in the United States. Since its establishment in 1935, Social Security has grown to become the largest program in the federal budget; outlays in 2024 were 22 percent of total federal spending. The Social Security Trustees project that with the retirement of baby boomers and lengthening of life expectancies, the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund will spend more every year, as it has since 2010, on payments to beneficiaries than it collects in payroll taxes, taxation of benefits, and interest earnings. As a result, the trust fund will be depleted by 2033. At that time, an estimated 70 million recipients would see a 21 percent reduction in their benefits.
Many options exist to shore up the solvency of OASI, including increasing revenues dedicated to the program, decreasing the program’s benefits, and raising the full retirement age. A balanced approach that includes components from each option would likely provide the fairest, most lasting, and least painful adjustment for the future. What follows is an examination of proposed modifications to Social Security that would adjust benefits under the program.
How Much Do We Spend on the Social Security Retirement Program?
In 2023, the federal government spent nearly $1.4 trillion on Social Security (OASI and Disability Insurance), mostly for retired workers.
How Are Social Security Benefits Calculated?
Generally, an individual must work for at least 10 years and pay into the Social Security system to be eligible for retirement benefits. A prospective retiree’s initial monthly retirement benefit, or primary insurance amount (PIA), is calculated using the individual’s average indexed monthly earnings (AIME). The AIME is determined by taking the sum of monthly earnings for the 35 highest years of earnings (if one was in the workforce for fewer than 35 years, the total number of working years is used). Then, the sum is divided by the number of months being considered. For 2025, the PIA calculation is the sum of 90 percent of the first $1,226 monthly earnings, 32 percent of average earnings between $1,227 and $7,391, and 15 percent of the average earnings over $7,391. Each change in the percentage of monthly earnings is known as a “bend point”.
Under current law, the full retirement age is 67 years for all individuals born in 1960 or later. A retired worker is eligible to begin collecting Social Security benefits as early as age 62, but doing so would result in a permanent reduction to that individual’s monthly benefits. Likewise, a retired worker who delays collecting benefits beyond the full retirement age would receive higher monthly benefit payments than if the retiree began collecting sooner. However, despite the reduction in benefits, many workers begin collecting Social Security payments as early as possible. In 2023, 24 percent of retired workers began claiming Social Security benefits at the earliest eligible age of 62, and 53 percent of retirees began collecting benefits some time before reaching full retirement age.
What Are the Approaches for Reducing Social Security Benefits?
All 70 million Social Security beneficiaries in 2033 will face a sizeable reduction in benefit payments if the OASI Trust Fund is actually depleted in that year. In particular, retirees with the lowest lifetime earnings and for whom Social Security payments represent the majority of total retirement income will be most affected.
To delay the depletion date, benefit modifications could be part of a balanced approach to improve the program’s solvency. Proponents of such an approach argue that a well-designed benefit reduction policy would improve equity in Social Security by better balancing the payouts between low-income and high-income earners. The following are some approaches to adjusting benefits that could improve the solvency of the trust fund.
Reduce Benefits for Newly Eligible Retirees
Some plans evaluated by the Social Security Administration (SSA) would reduce benefits for newly eligible retirees. One would reduce total benefits for all new beneficiaries by 5 percent starting in 2025. Such a reform would raise $134 billion over 10 years, according to SSA, but would have significant effects in the long term — it would increase the long-range (75 years) actuarial balance by 18 percent. This reform would harm lower-income recipients as seniors at the bottom of the income distribution rely on Social Security as their main source of income.
Reduce Newly Eligible Retirement Benefits for High Earners
Another option also reduces benefits for high earners rather than all earners. One proposal evaluated by SSA aims to reduce individual Social Security benefits if modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) is above $60,000 for single filers or $120,000 for taxpayers filing jointly. MAGI is a taxpayer’s adjusted gross income minus taxable Social Security benefits plus nontaxable interest income. The percentage reduction would increase linearly up to 50 percent for single filers with MAGI of $180,000 and above or joint filers with MAGI of $360,000 and above. Thresholds would be indexed to the SSA average wage index and the proposal would take effect for newly-eligible beneficiaries in 2029 or later. That approach is expected to improve the long-range actuarial balance by 14 percent. The option could also be scaled to different income thresholds.
Another plan would slowly reduce benefits by changing the PIA formula. That plan would have two changes beginning in 2031. The first would create a fourth bend point while the second would alter the existing bend points. Together, the bend points would move from 90, 32, and 15 percent of an individual’s AIME to 90, 30, 10, and 5 percent. In general, this plan would reduce benefits for higher-income earners and keep benefits the same for lower-income earners. Such a change would increase the long-range actuarial balance by 29 percent.
Apart from critiques about future beneficiaries receiving less in benefits than they are presently scheduled to receive, some also argue that reducing Social Security benefits for high earners is unfair and could threaten longstanding support for the program across all income levels. The current replacement rate of income — the percentage of an individual’s employment income that is received in retirement — is already larger for low earners. Decreasing retirement benefits for only high earners would widen that discrepancy.
Reduce Future Benefits by Changing Indexing
Changing how quickly benefits grow is another way to reform Social Security and decrease expected spending on scheduled benefits. Currently, Social Security benefits grow at the same rate as average wages. Pure price indexing would instead link the growth of initial benefits to the increase in prices, which generally grow at a slower rate (by an average of 0.25 percentage points per year since 2001). That approach would utilize the Chained Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (C-CPI-U) rather than the current Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W). Pure price indexing would cause the real value of average initial benefits to remain the same across time (based on purchasing patterns), but benefits for each future beneficiary would be smaller than current law. Modifying the cost of living adjustments in other ways could also further change the program’s long-term balance. According to CBO, that option would reduce outlays by $204 billion over 10 years. Such a reform would improve the long-run actuarial balance by 16 percent according to SSA.
Establish a Uniform Social Security Benefit
CBO also analyzed two options to establish a uniform benefit for all retirees. Under the first alternative, beneficiaries would receive 150 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL), which would equal about $1,990 per month in calendar year 2026. The FPL is indexed to the consumer price index for all urban consumers (CPI-U), so the benefit amount would increase annually. In 2026, about one-third of newly eligible beneficiaries would receive higher benefits than under current law and the rest would receive lower benefits. Another alternative would set the benefit amount to 125 percent of the FPL, totaling $1,660 per month in the same year. In that scenario, one-fourth of newly eligible beneficiaries would receive higher benefits. That option would reduce outlays by $607 billion over 10 years. SSA estimates that such an option would improve the long-run actuarial balance by 183 percent.
Conclusion
Social Security faces major financial challenges that threaten abrupt and substantial benefit cuts for the program’s beneficiaries. Adopting a policy that gradually and equitably adjusts benefits is one of many viable options that can be enacted to narrow Social Security’s solvency gap and put the program on sound fiscal footing.
Image credit: Mario Tama/Getty Images
Further Reading
A Bipartisan Roadmap for Social Security Reform
Lawmakers are running out of time before automatic reductions to benefits are activated; the Brookings Institution plan is a valuable contribution to the policy discussion.
U.S. Population Growth Is Slowing Down — Here’s What That Means for the Federal Budget
Understanding how demographic challenges contribute to the United States’ fiscal challenges can help policymakers adopt fiscally sustainable policies.
What Is the Farm Bill, and Why Does It Matter for the Federal Budget?
The Farm Bill provides an opportunity for policymakers to comprehensively address agricultural, food, conservation, and other issues.