Social Security: Young Americans May Lose $110,000 to Keep Program Afloat
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Social Security, a foundational program for U.S. retirees and disabled Americans, has come under renewed scrutiny as funding shortfalls loom.
A new report by the Cato Institute warned that today's young workers might lose up to $110,000 in lifetime earnings to keep the program afloat.
Why It Matters
With the Social Security Trust Fund projected to reach insolvency in the next decade, younger workers now face the possibility of significant financial sacrifices to maintain the system for current and future beneficiaries.
More than 60 million Americans receive benefits every month. And according to Justice in Aging, Social Security lifts more than 22 million people out of poverty, including over 16 million older adults and almost 1 million children.
he Social Security Administration office in Brownsville.
he Social Security Administration office in Brownsville.
Robert Daemmrich Photography Inc/Corbis via Getty Images
What To Know
Social Security faces a potential crisis as its trust fund is predicted to be depleted by the mid-2030s, according to recent projections.
The primary driver is an aging population, particularly as Baby Boomers retire and a shrinking base of younger workers are paying into the program. As a result, the Social Security Administration would only be able to pay about 80 percent of scheduled benefits unless funding solutions are enacted.
The Cato Institute reported that keeping Social Security solvent in its current form would require today's young workers—those just entering the labor market—to contribute significantly more over the course of their careers.
If changes are not made, these workers could see a reduction equivalent to $110,000 of their lifetime earnings due to higher taxes and/or reduced benefits, according to the Cato Institute.
That figure is based on the latest report from the Social Security Trustees, which said Congress would need to hike the payroll tax rate immediately and permanently by 3.65 percentage points, from 12.4 to 16.05 percent, to close the program's $25 trillion funding gap and continue to send out scheduled payments.
"That means less discretionary income in each paycheck, which could have ripple effects on their day-to-day finances and long-term savings," Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9 innings podcast, told Newsweek. "A tax increase would be a hit to growth as less discretionary spending means less in corporate earnings."
According to the Cato Institute, this cut would be equivalent to giving up 20 months of pay at the worker's average monthly wage.
"There are endless variables affecting Social Security, but in the end, the math does not lie," Drew Powers, the founder of Illinois-based Powers Financial Group, told Newsweek. "To keep the program going, there will be adjustments in the current payroll taxes, income caps, and full retirement age. We could see a return of the Retirement Earnings Test and may even see means testing for the highest income retirees."
This could cause outrage across the general public, which has generally favored targeting higher earners rather than taking away from future retirees' payments.
A University of Maryland Program for Public Consultation survey showed that 53 percent of American adults considered it acceptable to reduce Social Security benefits exclusively for the Top 40 percent of income earners. This targeted reduction would address approximately 23 percent of the program's projected funding shortfall.
There was also bipartisan support for raising the retirement age, which could close an additional 15 percent of the funding gap.
What People Are Saying
Drew Powers, the founder of Illinois-based Powers Financial Group, told Newsweek: "Younger workers, especially the youngest of the Millennials and all of Gen Z and beyond, should expect Social Security to look different for them than it does now. Adjustments to Social Security are rarely popular, but in the past Congress has been willing to act in the face of dire circumstances, such as in 1983 when the Full Retirement Age was extended."
Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9 innings podcast, told Newsweek: "While such an increase would extend the solvency of Social Security by about 75 years, it's not a complete solution. The real fix would likely require both raising the payroll tax and removing the income cap. But let's be honest—that kind of proposal is a tough sell politically. Running on a platform to raise taxes rarely gains traction, even when it's tied to securing the future of Social Security."
Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor for the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek: "There's been an assumption made by Americans for decades now, and that is regardless of warnings and political posturing, Social Security will always be there to provide for retirees. The reality is there's a tremendous shortfall coming in the next decade, and if Congress doesn't act, beneficiaries will see their monthly payments dramatically reduced."
What Happens Next
With Social Security's financial future uncertain, Congress and the public are set to debate possible reforms, including benefit reductions for higher earners, payroll tax increases, and changes to the retirement age. The conversation will likely intensify as insolvency draws nearer in the next decade, with any enacted policy changes affecting both current retirees and younger generations entering the workforce.
No official policy changes have yet been passed, but the heightened awareness and survey support for targeted reform suggest continued bipartisan attention to the problem in upcoming legislative sessions.
"There are obviously different solutions to the shortfall that don't involve raising that percentage, but it does present a grim prediction for the American workforce if Congress doesn't act on a more efficient solution," Beene said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
18 minutes ago
- Forbes
As The EPA Moves To Gut A Key Climate Rule, The Risks To Public Health Intensify
WASHINGTON, DC - JANUARY 30: A bronze sign marks an entrance to the US Environmental Protection ... More Agency (EPA) headquarters building on January 30, 2024, in Washington, DC. (Photo by J.) In a sweeping move today, the Environmental Protection Agency has sought to undo the legal scaffolding for confronting climate change. EPA head Lee Zeldin announced that the agency would forge ahead with a proposal to repeal the 'endangerment finding,' a rule established in 2009 that enables the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions vis-à-vis the Clean Air Act. The Trump-era EPA had set its sights on the endangerment finding at least as early as March, when the agency unveiled '31 historic actions in the greatest and most consequential day of deregulation in U.S. history.' These actions, a set of large-scale environmental rollbacks, included a call for 'reconsideration of the 2009 Endangerment Finding and regulations and actions that rely on that Finding.' The endangerment finding comprises two key parts, both explicitly centered around 'public health and welfare.' The first clause states that the increased atmospheric levels of six greenhouse gases imperil humanity's well-being, and the second clause specifically implicates new motor vehicles and their engines for helping drive harmful pollution by way of these emissions. In an interview on Fox News, Administrator Zeldin provided further context on the EPA's new proposal to gut the endangerment finding, saying, 'We're not going to go along with applying extreme economic pain on Americans who can least afford it.' He also provided a characterization of the opposition to the proposal, noting, 'There's going to be a lot of hyperbole, scare tactics, extreme rhetoric that will come from climate zealots.' Indeed, that the EPA would seek to unravel the endangerment finding is part and parcel with President Trump's longstanding portrayal of climate action as a policy nuisance and economic impediment. The administration's storyline has repeatedly set up a binary between climate action and economic prosperity, painting advocates of the former as indifferent to the latter. In fact, on his first day in office, when President Trump sought to extricate the U.S. from the Paris Agreement for a second time, he issued an executive order that reinforced the economic framing, stating, 'It is the policy of my Administration to put the interests of the United States and the American people first in the development and negotiation of any international agreements with the potential to damage or stifle the American economy.' But the facts remind us that viewing climate action as a zero-sum game with economic growth is counterproductive on several fronts. First, the explosion of renewable energy capacity means that forfeiting the opportunity to be at the vanguard of this global movement is a veritable disservice to economic prospects. While the Trump administration has sought to stifle clean energy commitments in favor of unleashing fossil fuels, other countries are taking note and expanding investments in renewables research and technologies that promise to define the future. Moreover, the notion that reigning in greenhouse gas emissions undermines economic prosperity overlooks the mountain of evidence that the climate crisis is injurious to public health, a reality that the endangerment finding acknowledged and sought to address. For example, this summer alone, millions of Americans have sweltered under extreme heat, with climate change being implicated in the greater 'intensity, frequency and duration' of heatwaves. Several studies have attempted to quantify the economic disruption wrought by heat, with the estimates including some $100 billion or 2.5 billion hours of labor. Children are especially vulnerable to high heat and have logged learning losses when schools are ill-fitted with sufficient cooling measures. Elementary and middle school students in multiple states have historically seen their school days cut short when the temperatures pose unmitigable risk. While the Biden administration had compiled a comprehensive National Heat Strategy to begin counteracting these widespread effects, it's safe to say that, in the current moment, a robust response of comparable magnitude appears to be all but lacking. This means that not only are we presently failing to scale up adaptations to the downstream effects of unchecked greenhouse gas emissions, but we're also torpedoing our preventative stopgap by targeting the endangerment finding. And this is just one facet of how the climate crisis and public health are intertwined and why regulating greenhouse gas emissions is core to breaking this cycle. This is to say nothing of wildfires, floods, tropical cyclones, allergy seasons, infectious disease transmission, food insecurity, and associated mental health impacts that are reshaping life on a climate change-stricken planet. From this cascade, the World Health Organization projects 250,000 more annual fatalities from 2030 to 2050, as well as $2-4 billion in annual health expenses by the next 5 years. Just last year, the U.S. suffered more than $182 billion in losses from weather and climate-related catastrophes. The images of victims of Hurricane Helene, which decimated homes and left people without clean water for weeks, are still searing. The EPA's proposal to reverse course on a critical tool for combating climate change will have far-reaching consequences. 'The public health and welfare of current and future generations,' a prescient phrase from the text of the endangerment finding, will be squarely among them.
Newsweek
18 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Senate Democrats Go to Battle Against Each Other
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Senate Democrats openly sparred on Tuesday in the upper chamber over police bills, as the wrangling intensified when New Jersey Senator Cory Booker called out his colleagues for being "complicit" to the Trump administration. Newsweek reached out to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer's office for comment via email. Why It Matters The Democratic Party has been in disarray since its November presidential election loss, searching for a central message to stand behind and potential leaders to emerge as midterm election campaigns begin ramping up. Republicans currently control the House of Representatives and the Senate. Democratic Senator Cory Booker walks off the Senate floor at the U.S. Capitol on June 30 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by) Democratic Senator Cory Booker walks off the Senate floor at the U.S. Capitol on June 30 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by) What To Know Booker, Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar and Senator Catherine Cortez-Masto of Nevada were at the center of the feud on Tuesday after Cortez-Masto asked for consent for the passage of the policing bills. Booker said he disagreed with the legislation moving forward unless there were assurances that the money would not be denied in Democratic states like Connecticut, New Jersey or New York. "This, to me, is the problem with Democrats in America right now," Booker said. "Is we're willing to be complicit to Donald Trump to let this pass through, when we have all the leverage right now there is." "Don't be complicit to the president of the United States, who we both know doesn't understand that language, oh please, oh please, don't hurt blue states," he added. According to The New York Times, Booker yelled so loudly during the confrontation that his voice was heard outside of the Senate chamber. Klobuchar called out Booker for missing a Senate committee hearing where the bills were discussed, saying in part, "I can't help it if someone couldn't change their schedule to be there. I think these hearings should mean something," the Times reported. "Don't question my integrity," Booker yelled. "Don't question my motives. I'm standing for Jersey, I'm standing for my police officers, I'm standing for the Constitution and I'm standing for what's right. And dear God, if you want to come at me that way, you're going to have to take it up with me. Because there's too much on the line right now in America." Cortez-Masto also took a swipe at Booker, saying in part, "I'm not sure the answer here is to stop bipartisan legislation that gives tools to law enforcement across the community to keep our communities safe." After the public back-and-forth, Booker took to X, formerly Twitter, saying, "Democrats need to fight. I'm standing for Jersey." Democrats need to fight. I'm standing for Jersey. — Sen. Cory Booker (@SenBooker) July 29, 2025 What People Are Saying X account amuse on Tuesday: "CIVIL WAR: The Democrats are melting down in realtime. Senator Cory Booker goes NUCLEAR on Senator Catherine Cortez-Masto." Conservative podcaster Benny Johnson posted to X on Tuesday: "Yikes. Cory Booker is screeching at Democrats, Universities, CBS and everything under the sun for not pushing harder against President Trump: 'Complicity with an authoritarian leader. It's time for Democrats to have a backbone and draw lines.'" Cortez-Masto posted to X on Tuesday after the bill passed: "Even though Police Chief Herbert D. Proffitt was murdered for his work keeping his community safe, his family was denied survivors benefits because he was retired. Thanks to a bipartisan bill I passed today, his family and others like them are one step closer to the support they deserve." The Nevada lawmaker continued: "Supporting our law enforcement officers isn't about party politics, it's about standing with the brave men and women who keep us safe every day. I'm proud to have worked across the aisle with @SenMcConnell to get this done for our officers." What Happens Next Democrats are expected to continue working out divisions on key party platforms as campaigns gear up.
Business Insider
44 minutes ago
- Business Insider
'A new normal': Office life goes on after mass shooting rattles New York City
The Park Avenue building where Monday's shooting occurred remains closed, as the NYPD investigates. Midtown workers expressed anxieties about the recent violence but planned to return to their jobs. Workplace-crisis experts said there are ways companies can support affected employees. Scores of workers funneled into New York city offices this morning just like any other weekday, hours after a lone gunman killed four people in a Midtown building. While the site remains closed, nearby workers who spoke with Business Insider expressed sorrow over the shooting and anxiety about returning to their in-person jobs. Workplace-crisis experts, however, told BI they didn't anticipate a lasting effect on office attendance. "Unfortunately these things are happening all the time," said Bo Mitchell, president of 911 Consulting, a Wilton, Connecticut-based provider of emergency-preparedness services. Less than a year ago, UnitedHealthcare's CEO Brian Thompson was gunned down in the same vicinity. There were 524 fatal injuries due to homicides in the workplace in 2022, up 8.9% from 2021, according to the latest figures available from the US Department of Labor. "It's a little bit eerie" and "weirdly feeling like a new normal," said Virginia Gersham, who works at the Museum of Modern Art, close to where Thompson was killed. Another local worker, Jim Santana, who works at an assisted-living facility in Midtown, described the incident as nerve-racking. He told BI he was still on his way to his job. "Yeah, I'm going to go to work," he said, "just to get my mind off of that." How impacted employers are reacting The Park Avenue building where Monday night's shooting occurred remains surrounded by barricades as police conduct their investigation. The property is home to several companies including investment firm Blackstone and the National Football League. In multiple interviews, Mayor Eric Adams said the NFL was the gunman's apparent target. Wesley LePatner, a star executive in Blackstone's real-estate business, was among those killed. She was 43 years old. Blackstone's employees worldwide have been given the option to work from home for now and are being encouraged to take as much time off as they need, according to a person familiar with the matter. They are also being provided counseling and other resources, this person said. Another building resident, accounting firm KPMG, told staff in a memo late Monday that its office there would be closed Tuesday and that they should work from home or from a different company office. The memo, which Business Insider has seen, was signed by Yesenia Scheker Izquierdo, the managing partner for KPMG's New York office. Other companies directly impacted didn't respond to requests for comment. Employer support is crucial Ross Eisenberg works a few blocks from both shooting locations and said despite the somber mood, it's mostly been business as usual for him and his staff. "There's a strong pattern of New Yorkers putting things aside and staying strong," Eisenberg, CEO of real-estate brokerage firm RDE Advisor, told Business Insider. "It's not a matter of forgetting about it, but it's not letting it interrupt their life." If workers are worried, though, leaders ought to reiterate their safety policies and protocols to help ease everyone's anxiety, said Michelle Sinning, a principal at Bernstein Crisis Management in Mission Viejo, California. "It should be made clear that this topic isn't taboo, and the company will provide any resource necessary to help employees feel comfortable and confident returning to work," she said. It might also make sense to let employees temporarily work from home and allow them to ease back into the office, Sinning added. "A gradual or phased approach would help employees acclimate," she said. "Employees will need time to heal." For people who experience workplace violence firsthand, employers should go out of their way to provide support, added Mitchell, the emergency-preparedness executive. "They need a lot of counseling, communication, and hand-holding," he said. "They're suffering from PTSD."
