Social Security Becomes a Flashpoint as Lawmakers Clash Over Funding

Social Security is facing some serious problems in the coming years. And policymakers can no longer afford to sit on their hands.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that Social Security’s Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund will be out of money by 2032. Once that happens, benefits could be subject to substantial cuts.

Lawmakers need to take action to prevent a broad reduction in Social Security. The problem is that they’ve yet to come to a consensus on how to prevent cuts.

Lawmakers aren’t on the same page

There have been multiple solutions floated to prevent Social Security cuts. But lawmakers aren’t in agreement over which is best. And each potential fix does have inherent flaws.

One popular suggestion is raising Social Security’s full retirement age (FRA), which is when retirees are eligible to collect their monthly benefits without a reduction. FRA is currently 67 for anyone born in 1960 or later.

Some lawmakers want to push FRA back by a few years to keep workers in the labor force longer. Fans of this approach argue that it’s a good way to pump more revenue into Social Security, and that longer lifespans make this a reasonable course of action.

Opponents, however, argue that raising FRA is effectively a backdoor benefit cut, particularly among workers who can’t extend their careers, like those who do physical labor.

Another idea is making changes to the way taxes are paid into Social Security. Some lawmakers suggest raising the current Social Security tax rate or lifting or eliminating the wage cap so that higher earners pay more into the program.

Proponents of these tax changes argue they’re the cleanest fix. More taxes means more clear revenue for Social Security.

But higher taxes could burden working Americans and their employers alike. It’s hard to know what backlash might ensue if companies start facing higher costs. But the repercussions could run the gamut from workplace benefit cuts to broad downsizing if corporations face higher payroll taxes.

Raising taxes on higher earners also opens another can of worms. Social Security has a maximum benefit it pays that’s tied to the program’s wage cap. If that cap is lifted and benefits don’t increase proportionally, it changes the nature of Social Security.

Finally, some lawmakers want to means-test higher-earning retirees or cap benefits for Social Security recipients who are entitled to larger paychecks. Those who support this idea argue that wealthy retirees don’t need Social Security, and that means-testing or capping benefits helps ensure that seniors who are dependent on that income can get more of it.

But those opposed argue that Social Security is not meant to be a welfare program. Rather, it’s designed to reward people who pay in at a higher level.

Lawmakers need to take action soon

Clearly, there are numerous options for preventing Social Security cuts, or at least minimizing the extent to which benefits might have to be reduced. But each one clearly has its pros and cons. And if lawmakers are unable to reach a consensus, the results could be disastrous.

With the clock ticking down, the time for lawmakers to come to an agreement is now. But that also means prioritizing Social Security and taking steps to ensure that any potential solution to benefit cuts has ample time to be phased in.

Given that 2032 deadline, Social Security recipients will have to hope that policymakers agree to make the prevention of benefit cuts a very near-term priority.