
Social Security Warning Issued as Retirees Could Face $18,000 Cut
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Retirees could face a huge cut to benefits in the next seven years if a new funding solution isn't found for Social Security, a new report from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) has outlined.
The committee has estimated that a couple with medium dual income retiring in 2033 would lose $18,100 per year in benefits if the trust fund conundrum is not solved. For a single income couple, this would be $13,600.
Why It Matters
Social Security is relied on by tens of millions of Americans who collect monthly benefits, which help form the bedrock of income in retirement. The program is funded by a combination of payroll taxes and government reserve funds.
But according to the latest Social Security Trustees report, the program's two trust funds—the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI) funds—when combined are projected to reach insolvency by 2034. At that point, benefits would rely entirely on incoming payroll taxes, resulting in an automatic cut of approximately 21 percent, unless Congress intervenes.
What To Know
The size of future Social Security benefit cuts would vary significantly depending on a couple's age, marital status, and employment history. Dual-earner couples with low incomes would face a slightly smaller cut of around $11,000 per year, while high-income couples might experience reductions approaching $24,000 annually.
While the dollar amount is lower for low-income couples, the impact would be more severe relative to their total income and lifetime earnings.
These projected reductions are higher than those outlined in the latest Social Security Trustees' report, which projected a 21 percent cut in benefits if no solution is found. The CRFB calculations are based on a 24 percent cut, due to the recent passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), which include tax rate cuts and an expanded senior standard deduction.
The OBBBA ensures that almost 90 percent of Social Security recipients will no longer be required to pay income taxes on their benefits, according to the Social Security Administration (SSA).
"The tax rate cuts and increase in the senior standard deduction from the recently enacted OBBBA would reduce Social Security's revenue from the income taxation of benefits, increasing the required cut by about a percentage point upon insolvency," CRFB said in its report. "If the expanded senior standard deduction and other temporary measures of OBBBA are made permanent, the benefit cut would grow larger."
Social Security has weathered similar financial challenges before. In the early 1980s, the program neared insolvency, making Congress implement a series of reforms. These included increases in payroll taxes, gradually raising the full retirement age, and introducing taxes on a portion of Social Security benefits.
Stock image/file photo: A Social Security card with U.S. Dollars.
Stock image/file photo: A Social Security card with U.S. Dollars.
GETTY
What People Are Saying
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said in its report: "Policymakers pledging not to touch Social Security are implicitly endorsing these deep benefit cuts for 62 million retirees in 2032 and beyond. It is time for policymakers to tell the truth about the program's finances and to pursue trust fund solutions to head off insolvency and improve the program for current and future generations."
Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano said in a news release earlier this month about the OBBBA: "This is a historic step forward for America's seniors. For nearly 90 years, Social Security has been a cornerstone of economic security for older Americans. By significantly reducing the tax burden on benefits, this legislation reaffirms President Trump's promise to protect Social Security and helps ensure that seniors can better enjoy the retirement they've earned."
What Happens Next?
Lawmakers are offering proposals to shore up the system. Among them is the reintroduced Medicare & Social Security Fair Share Act from Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Representative Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania, both Democrats. Their bill would impose payroll taxes on wages and investment income exceeding $400,000.
A bipartisan effort comes from Republican Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, who have proposed establishing a $1.5 trillion investment fund for Social Security. The Treasury would front the funding, which would be invested across a broad portfolio of stocks, bonds, and other assets to generate higher long-term returns. After 75 years, the Treasury would be repaid, and the accumulated gains would be directed toward supporting Social Security benefits.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a minute ago
- Yahoo
Mark Johnston withdraws from Democratic field in Nebraska's 2nd District
Omaha-area doctor Mark Johnston said he's stepping back from his run for Congress. (Courtesy of Mark Johnston) OMAHA — The Democratic primary race in Nebraska 2nd Congressional District got less crowded Wednesday. Mark Johnston, 69, told the Nebraska Examiner this week that he has withdrawn from the race for the Democratic nomination to represent the Omaha area in Congress. Johnston said he lacks the infrastructure to raise funds and feels Democrats have an 'extremely good chance' of winning the open seat with the number of candidates running. 'Given the fact that this race has heated up very quickly … it's going to be a very crowded field and a very high money field.' In the latest federal fundraising reports, newcomer Denise Powell led, raising nearly half a million dollars. State Sen. John Cavanaugh of Omaha, another high-profile candidate in the Democratic primary, raised $130,341. Douglas County District Court Clerk Crystal Rhoades, who announced her bid in mid-July, discussed no specifics, but said she is 'feeling good' about her fundraising. Retired Navy veteran Kishla Askins says she has raised $175,000 over the past two weeks, according to Danielle Salanitri, Askins' campaign manager. Johnston reported raising $6,976.58 and listed $1,628.31 in cash on hand, according to the latest fundraising report. The retired eye surgeon said campaigning was pretty new to him, but he has been active in the state Democratic Party as a volunteer. Johnston told the Omaha World-Herald previously that he had volunteered for Democratic congressional and presidential campaigns. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Johnston said he enjoyed having meetings with people in the district and having 'great conversations.' He said he plans to help any way he can to make sure Democrats can win the seat being vacated by U.S. Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb. Two Republicans are vying to replace the retiring Bacon as the GOP nominee, State Sen. Brett Lindstrom of Omaha, a former GOP gubernatorial candidate from 2022, and Omaha City Council Vice President Brinker Harding. The 2nd District includes all of Douglas and Saunders Counties and a significant slice of western suburban and rural Sarpy County. The district includes the state's largest concentration of Democrats and was redistricted to include a larger swath of Republican-leaning rural voters in Wahoo and surrounding areas. National political observers view the Omaha-area House seat as a possible pickup for Democrats, although the district retains a slight GOP lean. Many pundits expect the 2nd District race to be one of the more competitive races in Congress in the 2026 midterms, with potential impact on which party controls the House of Representatives. Johnston, who said Democrats have a 'very good field' of candidates, won't be endorsing anyone right now. The Democratic primary had already lost another candidate in July, when Evangelos Argyrakis switched his party registration. At least one more Democrat has been rumored to be joining the race. 'I'm excited to have been part of that process,' Johnston said. 'I'm excited where this process is going to go because this excitement is going to take us all the way to Congress.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX


San Francisco Chronicle
2 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Senate rejects bid to halt sale of bombs and rifles to Israel, but Democratic opposition grows
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate rejected an effort Wednesday from Sen. Bernie Sanders to block the sale of U.S. bombs and firearms to Israel, though the vote showed a growing number of Democrats opposed to the arms sales amid widespread hunger and suffering in Gaza. Sanders, an independent from Vermont, has repeatedly tried to block the sale of offensive weapons to Israel over the last year. The resolutions before the Senate on Tuesday would have stopped the sale of $675 million in bombs as well as shipments of 20,000 automatic assault rifles to Israel. They again failed to gain passage, but 27 Democrats — more than half the caucus — voted for the resolution that applied to assault rifles, and 24 voted for the resolution that applied to bomb sales. It was more than any of Sanders' previous efforts, which at a high mark in November last year gained 18 votes from Democrats. The vote tally showed how the images of starvation emerging from Gaza are creating a growing schism in what has traditionally been overwhelming support for Israel from both Democratic and Republican lawmakers. 'U.S. taxpayers have spent many, many billions of dollars in support of the racist, extremist Netanyahu government,' Sanders said, referring to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. 'Enough is enough. Americans want this to end. They do not want to be complicit in an unfolding famine and deadly civilian massacres.' As the war approaches its second year, the leading international authority on food crises said this week that a 'worst-case scenario of famine is currently playing out in the Gaza Strip.' International pressure, including from President Donald Trump, has led Israel to announce measures, including daily humanitarian pauses in fighting in parts of Gaza and airdrops. But the U.N. and Palestinians on the ground say little has changed, and desperate crowds continue to overwhelm delivery trucks. The Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Jim Risch of Idaho, argued that Hamas was to blame both for the conflict and the current situation in Gaza. All Republican senators voted against Sanders' resolutions. 'They use the people of Gaza as human shields, and they steal the food that the people of Gaza need,' Risch said. 'It is in the interest of America and the world to see this terrorist group destroyed.' Known as joint resolutions of disapproval, the measures would have had to pass both houses of Congress and withstand any presidential veto to become binding. Congress has never succeeded in blocking arms sales with the joint resolutions. Democratic senators spent an hour on Wednesday evening with a series of floor speeches calling attention to the children who have starved to death in Gaza. They are also calling on the Trump Administration to recalibrate its approach to the conflict, including a large-scale expansion of aid into Gaza channeled through organizations experienced working in the area. Sen. Patty Murray, a Washington Democrat who voted against similar resolutions from Sanders in the past, said she would vote for the legislation this time. 'As a longtime friend and supporter of Israel, I am voting yes to send a message: the Netanyahu government cannot continue with this strategy,' she said in a statement. 'For many of us who have devoted our congressional careers to supporting Israel, standing by them through difficult times, it is impossible to really explain or defend what is going on today,' Durbin said. 'Gaza is starving and dying because of the policies of Bibi Netanyahu.' ___


Axios
2 minutes ago
- Axios
Senate Dems' bid to block $675 million Israeli arms deal fails
The Senate on Wednesday rejected two measures to block over $675 million in arms sales to Israel — but a growing number of Democrats supported the embargo. Why it matters: Israel's bipartisan coalition in Congress hasn't quite crumbled, but more Democrats are disillusioned by the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The Senate voted 70-27 and 72-24 to block the resolutions, with 27 Democrats voting "yes." The resolutions would have blocked the U.S. sale of about 5,000 bombs and related guidance equipment, along with tens of thousands of assault rifles to Israel. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a leading critic of the Israeli government, forced the votes. The big picture: Some moderate, historically pro-Israel Democrats are starting to split with the party over the levels of starvation and violence in Gaza. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, voted in support of both resolutions. Her vote helped open up the support of other moderates. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) voted against the resolutions. In total, over half of Schumer's caucus supported the measures to restrict offensive arms sales to Israel. In January, 10 Democrats voted to support such a move. Between the lines: But bipartisan support for arming Israel in the conflict hasn't collapsed, with every Senate Republican voting to kill the resolutions and still a majority of Democrats joining them.