This reliance on Social Security benefits is also expected to be passed on to future generations. Gallup’s April poll found that 84% of non-retired people expect to rely on their monthly allowance as a “big” or “small” source of income during their golden years.

But despite the importance Social Security plays in the financial well-being of retirees, our country’s most successful retirement program is in serious trouble.

Based on the latest report from the Social Security Board of Trustees, the program expects a long-term cash shortfall of $20.4 trillion, defined as the next 75 years. In addition, the Old-Age and Survivors Trust (OASI), which is responsible for paying the aforementioned 48.1 million retired workers on a monthly basis, is expected to reduce its cash reserves (i.e., the excess money accumulated since its inception) by 2034. If and when the OASI’s cash reserves run out, an overall 23% cut in Social Security checks may be necessary to avoid additional payout cuts through 2096.

Changes need to be made to strengthen Social Security, and the American public is looking to President Joe Biden and lawmakers on Capitol Hill to make this happen.

Democrats and Republicans have approached a Social Security solution from opposite sides

The $64,000 question is: If Congress has known since 1985 that Social Security is not expected to have enough revenue in the long run to cover the current payout schedule, why haven’t lawmakers done anything to fix it?

The answer, to put it bluntly, is political hubris from both political parties.

Democrats are in favor of raising payroll taxes on high-paid workers to generate more income for Social Security. In 2022, all earned income (wages and salary, but not investment income) between $0.01 and $147,000 is subject to the 12.4% payroll tax. But for the 6% of workers earning more than $147,000, every dollar after this point is exempt from payroll taxes. This allows more than $1 trillion in income to escape payroll taxes annually.

Meanwhile, Republicans prefer to raise the full retirement age — the age at which an eligible employee can receive their full retirement benefits. In the 82 years that Social Security has been distributing a monthly benefit, the full retirement age has risen by just two years (65 to 67). By comparison, the average life expectancy in the U.S. has risen from about 63 in 1940 to 77 in 2020. Raising the full retirement age will force retirees to choose between an early claim that would permanently lower their monthly payout, or wait, which would eventually drop the amount of benefits received during their lifetime. In other words, it would reduce Social Security spending over time.

Both fundamental solutions work to strengthen social security, meaning neither side is incentivized to find common ground with their opposition. So the stalemate we have today.

This quote from Joe Biden leaves the door open for sweeping changes in Social Security

However, it is also worth noting that neither individual solution solves the long-term financing gap of Social Security.

Raising payroll taxes for high earners gives an immediate boost to revenue collection and has the potential to extend the solvency of the OASI by years or a few decades, depending on the source of the analysis. But simply raising taxes on the rich won’t bring in enough forecasted revenue to close the projected $20.4 trillion cash deficit through 2096.

Likewise, the GOP’s plan to raise the full retirement age has a flaw. While it would help reduce program spending, raising the retirement age would take decades to take effect. This does not help OASI avoid the potential depletion of its asset reserves and a 23% cut in social security checks by 2034.

But President Biden may have another solution in mind that could completely change Social Security and solidify its foundation.

In 2007, when then-Senator Biden ran for president on the 2008 ticket, he was asked a straightforward question about America’s “third track” by host Tim Russert on Meet the press. Said Russert, “Senator, we have a deficit, we have Social Security and health care lurking. Would you consider looking at those programs, the age at which you qualify, the cost of living, to put it all on the table.” to lay?”

Biden’s final ten-word response to Russert was, “You have to put everything on the table.”

What this response implies is a willingness to break with strict party views and open the discussion to compromise. While neither side’s solution will solve Social Security’s long-term funding gap on its own, a bipartisan proposal could do just that.

Keep in mind that Joe Biden played a part in the last major overhaul of Social Security, which took place in 1983 under President Ronald Reagan. This bipartisan piece of legislation that gradually increased payroll taxes and the full retirement age, and introduced taxes on Social Security benefits above certain income thresholds, was supported by 88 senators, including Biden.

Is President Biden still open to a two-pronged solution?

Of course, a lot has changed in the 15 years since Biden was willing to “put everything on the table”. Senator Biden is now President Biden, and his views on Social Security have evolved a bit.

While campaigning ahead of winning the 2020 election, Biden released a four-point plan to strengthen Social Security:

1. Increase payroll taxes for high earners: As noted, any earned income between $0.01 and $147,000 is subject to payroll taxes. Biden’s plan creates a donut hole that exempts earned income between the maximum taxable income limit ($147,000) and $400,000, while reinstating payroll taxes on earned income above $400,000.
2. Increased benefits for long-lived recipients: Expenditure for elderly beneficiaries tends to increase later in life. Biden proposed a 1% annual increase in the primary insurance amount (PIA) from ages 78 to 82. Ultimately, this 5% cumulative increase to the PIA would increase benefits for older recipients.
3. Increase the special minimum benefit: In 2022, a lifetime low earner with 30 years of coverage will bring home $951 a month, which is well below the federal poverty level. Biden’s proposal would raise the special minimum benefit to 125% of the federal poverty level.
4. Switch the Social Security inflationary chain to the CPI-E of CPI-W: Finally, Biden’s plan uses the consumer price index for the elderly (CPI-E) as an inflationary measure, rather than the consumer price index for urban wage earners and white-collar workers (CPI-W). The CPI-W has done a poor job of tracking the inflation that the program’s retirees face.

As you’ll notice, no aspect of Joe Biden’s latest Social Security proposal mentions raising the full retirement age.

Without a supermajority of 60 seats in the Senate, the only way to solve the Social Security funding gap is with votes from the opposition. While Senator Biden has been part of important bipartisan Social Security legislation before, it’s not clear whether he’s open to the idea of ​​”putting everything on the table” as president.

While Biden’s candor in his 2007 interview offers hope that real change is possible, it seems more likely that the deadlock in Capitol Hill will continue.