Trump's megabill could deplete Social Security's trust funds faster: Analysis
The Office of the Chief Actuary (OACT) at the Social Security Administration (SSA) released an analysis this week of the law's potential effects on the program's finances in response to a request from Sen. Ron Wyden (Ore.), the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee.
The report estimated that implementation of Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act would 'result in net increased program cost' beginning this year, while noting the spate of recent tax changes in the major package.
'Because the revenue from income taxation of Social Security benefits is directed to the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, implementation of the OBBBA will have material effects on the financial status of the Social Security trust funds,' the report stated.
With the recent tax changes, the office projected depletion of the combined Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI) trust funds will accelerate from 'the third quarter of 2034' under the recent board of trustees' report baseline to 'the first quarter of 2034 following implementation of the law.'
A closer look at just the OASI Trust Fund found its reserve depletion date could accelerate 'from the first quarter of 2033 to the fourth quarter of 2032,' while the DI Trust Fund reserves 'are not projected to become depleted during the 75-year projection period' when both funds are considered separately.
However, both accounts have usually been considered as a combined fund when discussing the program's solvency, as lawmakers have allowed for interfund borrowing between accounts to temporarily extend solvency in the past.
The analysis projected that the total net increase in OASDI program cost through 2034 would amount to $168.6 billion, as it estimates the trust funds will begin to see lower levels of tax revenue of Social Security benefits starting this year.
The Hill has reached out to the White House for comment.
The actuary also projected implementation of the law would 'decrease (worsen) the 75-year OASDI actuarial balance by 0.16 percent of taxable payroll.'
The office notes the analysis is limited to the effects of the income tax changes and how they'll affect 'taxation of benefits revenue to the trust funds.'
It added that it will use the results of the analysis as an updated baseline when evaluating 'effects of proposals that affect the OASI and DI Trust Funds, and particularly proposals intended to extend solvency, starting now and until the issuance of the 2026 Trustees Report next year.'
'The 2026 Trustees Report will incorporate the latest data, assumptions, and methods available at the time of its development, in addition to possible refinements in our understanding of the effects of the OBBBA,' the analysis states.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Here's How Much Upper Class Retirees Get in Social Security at Age 75
Social Security is a vital source of income for many retired Americans. More than 57 million Americans over age 65 received benefits as of May 2025, according to the Social Security Administration (SSA). Many depend on the income, with 63% of recipients claiming it makes up at least half of their income, per a 2024 Pew Research Center survey. Check Out: Trending Now: Not all recipients must rely heavily on benefits, though. Each situation is different, so it's advantageous to get an idea of what's possible to aid in retirement planning. How Much the Average Upper Class Retiree Receives in Benefits at Age 75 The average monthly benefit for a 75-year-old was $2,064 as of December 2024, according to the SSA. Men received slightly more, receiving $2,277, and women less at $1,856. That is merely the average. For those in the 90th percentile, the amount increases to $3,105 across genders, according to the SSA. Upper class individuals can reasonably expect to be within that range. The maximum someone aged 70 and over can receive is $5,108 in 2025. For You: How Social Security Calculates Your Monthly Benefit Amount The SSA uses two key variables when calculating your monthly benefits: lifetime earnings and when you claim benefits. Basically, the longer you work, the more Social Security payroll taxes you pay. This directly influences the amount you can receive, as the SSA uses the best 35 earning years of your work history. When you claim impacts the amount, too. Full retirement age (FRA) is currently 67 years of age, although retirees can claim benefits beginning at 62. According to the SSA, delaying claiming benefits adds 8% to your annual benefits once you begin receiving benefits, or you reach 70 years old. Claiming benefits early can be costly, however, reducing payouts by up to 30%. Social Security Is Just One Part of Retirement While many retirees depend on Social Security, it's only one piece of retirement. Knowing the average amount an upper class individual receives can help Americans make a more informed decision with their retirement resources. Americans with investments and other savings can use Social Security to augment the lifestyle they want in retirement. Upper class retirees who are 75 can expect to receive roughly $3,100 in monthly benefits at the end of 2024. With cost-of-living adjustments, that amount will continue to increase year over year. More From GOBankingRates 5 Ways Trump Signing the GENIUS Act Could Impact Retirees10 Cars That Outlast the Average Vehicle This article originally appeared on Here's How Much Upper Class Retirees Get in Social Security at Age 75
San Francisco Chronicle
27 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
I'm retiring in 7 years. Do I need to Trump-proof my assets?
Reader Christian in Oakland asks: I'm in my 50s and planning to retire in seven years. Does Trump represent a systemic risk to the economy that should be reflected in my retirement plan's asset allocation, i.e., reducing my exposure to U.S. stocks broadly now? Presidents come and presidents go, and the markets rise and fall. A durable retirement portfolio should be able to weather it all. And everyone who's approaching retirement should be making plans to de-risk their asset allocation. First, let's talk about that de-risking process. Like everything about investing and retirement, there's no one-size-fits-all approach. The fundamentals of risk reduction Broadly speaking, you want some portion of your investments in bonds and other low-risk vehicles. JL Collins, the author of 'The Simple Path to Wealth,' said he recommends starting to move some percentage of your investments to bonds about five years before you plan to retire, scaling up depending on your tolerance for risk, but never having less than 50% of your total investments in stocks. Christine Benz, the director of personal finance and retirement planning for Morningstar and the author of the book 'How to Retire: 20 Lessons for a Happy, Successful and Wealthy Retirement,' said she advises people to start thinking about de-risking their portfolio around age 50. Statistically speaking, most people think they'll work longer than they actually end up working, she said, so it makes sense to start hedging your planned retirement age well ahead of your desired timeline. However, that's not to say you should dump half your stocks once you hit the half-century mark. It should be a slow, measured transition toward what you want your finances to look like when you clock out for the last time. For what that financial picture should look like, she's written about what's known as the bucket approach: Bucket 1 is enough liquid funds to cover a year's worth of expenses (two if you're risk-averse), minus guaranteed funds coming in from sources such as Social Security, pensions or annuities; Bucket 2 has primarily low-risk investments to cover five to eight years of expenses; and the rest goes into Bucket 3, which consists of high-risk, high-reward investments like stocks. Brian Pollak is a partner and portfolio manager at Evercore Wealth Management, which handles primarily clients with net worth of more than $10 million. He said even for very wealthy people, it makes sense to diversify into short- and long-term bonds. As for international stocks, it's certainly not a bad idea to own some, no matter how far you are from retirement. Both Benz and Pollak recommend people maintain a blend of stock investments that roughly mirrors the global market capitalization of the national and international markets. The U.S. represents around two-thirds of it, so have two-thirds of your stocks in the U.S. market. Collins advocates for a simpler investment strategy that focuses on the U.S. market, though he's written that he's not inherently opposed to owning foreign stock. So: With retirement on the horizon, should you diversify? Yes. Should you diversify into international stocks? It could fit nicely into your overall investment strategy. The S&P 500 typically outperforms global equities, though certainly not always, and international stocks have done better so far in 2025. What about the Trump factor? But does Trump present such an existential risk to the long-term health of the U.S. economy that it should make you move away from U.S. stocks? It's true that Trump 2.0 has included a lot of policy decisions that most market watchers aren't thrilled about. Crackdowns on immigration strangle the labor supply in industries including construction and agriculture, both of which are incredibly important in California. The tariff turbulence from 'Liberation Day' in April sent the market into bear territory, though it seems to be shrugging off the latest round of levies that kicked in last week. Those are policy decisions that have historically increased inflation, something Trump campaigned on fighting. But the thing about policy decisions is that bad outcomes can be reversed, either by this president or whoever comes into office next. What's more concerning, experts say, is Trump's recent decision to fire Bureau of Labor Statistics Commissioner Erika McEntarfer. Trump, who has a documented history of making false or misleading statements about people he views as political opponents, claimed without evidence that the agency's recent negative jobs report was 'rigged' against him. Historically, there has been a division between members of a presidential administration and the bureaucrats who put together reports like that, said Jim Wilcox, a professor of the graduate school at UC Berkeley and the former chief economist at the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and economist at the Board of Governors for the Federal Reserve. The political appointee who runs the Department of Labor may advocate for presidential policy priorities like labor laws, union rules or pension reform, he said. But the hard numbers on things like employment reports were 'considered out of bounds' for partisan tampering. 'That's one reason that financial markets pay so much attention to these data, because they are so informative and reliable and unbiased,' he said. Now, that's at risk. Odysseas Papadimitriou, the CEO of WalletHub, said he saw this play out in his native Greece ahead of the country's debt crisis and economic collapse. 'The people responsible for the economic statistics were essentially political operatives' in Greece, he said. 'The government wanted to manipulate the stats to their liking. When the financial crisis came all of this changed. It's very concerning if we get to the place where we don't believe the stats.' Trump's decision to remove McEntarfer 'is the most concerning of anything that he has done, economic-wise,' Papadimitriou said. If we 'come to the place where we cannot believe the statistics, then I believe that is an existential threat (to the economy). Investors will not believe what they see. Foreign investment will collapse because no one will know what the hell is going on.' The president's pressure to replace Jerome Powell as head of the Federal Reserve is also a cause for concern. Like the BLS, the Fed is meant to operate outside of political whims, and if Trump installs someone there whose chief concern is keeping him happy, we could lose the progress we've made in the post-pandemic economy. Another move that caused a stir Friday was Trump's executive order opening the door to putting higher-risk private equity and cryptocurrency investments into 401(k)s. But those are risks to keep an eye on, not current reality. Collins said while there are a lot of things about the Trump administration that have him concerned about the near future of the economy, investors should 'tune out the noise' and stick to their long-term plan. It's fair to assume the market will go down at some point. What the specific catalyst will be is really anyone's guess. Attempting to time the market — in this case, hedging your retirement plans on the American economy's downfall — rarely works out. You should diversify in a way that makes you feel comfortable about your capability to hang in there through a protracted dip until the markets come back up, which they historically always have.
San Francisco Chronicle
27 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Will UCLA wilt like an Ivy? Trump extortion threat is the ultimate test
California's public universities have the chance to do something elite Ivy League schools didn't have the guts to: stand up to Donald Trump's latest extortion plot. Trump is demanding $1 billion in California taxpayer dollars to avoid a lawsuit over the administration's finding that the campus broke the law in its handling of antisemitism claims last year. Presumably the payout would mean the administration would also agree to restore hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding it recently yanked. (Californians already pay $83 billion more in taxes than we receive in federal benefits as a state.) Plus, according to terms of the proposed settlement as CNN reported Friday, Trump wants to prohibit overnight demonstrations, require UCLA to discontinue race- and ethnicity-based scholarships, and provide a resolution monitor with admissions data. UCLA Chancellor Julio Frenk said in a letter to the university community this week that $584 million 'is suspended and at risk.' The loss of those funds, Frenk said, would 'be devastating for UCLA and for Americans across the nation.' The Trump administration has already blocked more than $5 billion in funding from at least seven private universities: Harvard ($2.3 billion), Cornell ($1 billion), Northwestern ($790 million), Brown ($510 million), Columbia ($400 million), Duke ($108 million) and the University of Pennsylvania ($175 million). San Francisco Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, a Harvard Law grad, assessed the situation best. He described Trump's shakedown as 'classic mob boss behavior' and said 'far too many major institutions are caving to this fascist.' 'The idea that UCLA would pay Trump tribute (California taxpayer dollars), adopt his bigoted policies, or give him even an ounce of control of the University's operations turns my stomach and should turn the stomach of every Californian. I'm confident UCLA will not enter into such an agreement, since doing so would violate California law, would violate our state's core values, and would be straight up morally unacceptable,' Wiener wrote in a statement. Gov. Gavin Newsom also urged the UC to stay strong, unlike the paper tigers of the Ivy League, against what he described Friday as Trump 'threaten(ing) us through extortion with a billion-dollar fine unless we do his bidding.' 'We're not Brown, we're not Columbia, and I'm not going to be governor if we act like that, period full stop,' Newsom said Thursday in San Francisco when I asked him whether the UC should cut a deal with Trump. 'I will fight like hell to make sure that doesn't happen. There's principles, there's right and wrong, and we'll do the right thing. And what President Trump is doing is wrong, and everybody knows it.' On Friday, after the DOJ floated the $1 billion ransom, Newsom doubled down: 'We will not be complicit in this kind of attack on academic freedom, on this extraordinary public institution. We are not like some of those other institutions that have followed a different path.' California has always billed itself as a backstop against Trump. But it's hard to imagine a more clear and urgent test of whether it will live up to that role. There is a lot at stake here, as all 10 UC campuses rank among the top research universities in the world, according to the U.S. News & World Report 2025-26 Best Global Universities ranking in June. UC researchers produce four new inventions a day and the system is home to nearly 300 of the world's top researchers. Fueled by federal funding, UC researchers conduct 8% of all academic research in the U.S. (Full disclosure: I'm the very proud father of a UC Davis graduate. Go, Aggies!) Top UC campuses usually land near the Ivies in rankings of top colleges and compete for the nation's elite students. They frequently outperform the more expensive Ivies in terms of a financial return on investment, according to a 2022 study by Georgetown University's Center on Education and the Workforce. 'They have the power and the position and the funding to hold the line and serve as an example to universities,' Veena Dubal, a professor of law at UC Irvine and general counsel to the American Association of University Professors, told WBUR. Ivy Leaguers, meanwhile, love to brag about how many A-list lawyers they mint — including eight of the nine current Supreme Court Justices. But what good is all that power if they couldn't tap their elite alums to fight back against Trump? Instead, they wilted. They did what the wealthy often do when confronted with a difficult situation: They bought their way out. Columbia paid $220 million in 'tribute' to Don Donald. Brown paid $50 million to the state of Rhode Island, adopted the federal government's definition of 'male' and 'female,' and promised to remove any consideration of race from the admissions process, according to NPR. Harvard is willing to pay up to $500 million, the New York Times reported, a figure Harvard denied. The Ivy grads among you might be asking: Why doesn't the UC just pay Trump to go away? First, UC, which relies heavily on public funding, doesn't have the deep pockets the privately funded Ivies do. And there are strict rules on what the UC can tap its endowment for. (Paying off mob bosses is not on the list.) 'Withdrawals are limited to a portion of interest earnings from the funds and only a limited amount of annual earned income can be withdrawn and spent in any given year. Those funds are not sufficient to replace the state and federal funds that UC relies on for its day-to-day operating costs,' according to the UC. But there's a more existential reason the system cannot pay this ransom: As anyone familiar with a mob shakedown knows, once you start paying for 'protection,' you can't stop. Even more insidious is that Trump is cloaking his shakedown in the guise of addressing antisemitism on campus. To appease him, the Ivy League agreed to take certain Trump-approved steps to address such allegations. 'Trump is now using Jews as human shields to achieve political goals having nothing to do with antisemitism,' said Wiener, a co-chair of the Legislative Jewish Caucus who has faced antisemitic attacks while in office. 'Trump doesn't give a damn about Jews or antisemitism. He has antisemites in his Administration, he tried to elect a Nazi-aligned government in Germany, he dined with Nazi Nick Fuentes, and he spread antisemitic conspiracy theories. … Revoking science research funding in the name of the Jews is utterly is making Jews less safe, and he's making it harder for us to fight actual antisemitism.' So the next move is yours, UC. The system has long competed with the Ivies for students, talent and prestige. Now it could have the ultimate, well, trump card: It could say it refused to buckle when the very future of higher education was on the line.
