Retirement Blog

Finance Blogs » Retirement Blog » Why Social Security isn’t fixed

Why Social Security isn’t fixed

By Jennie L. Phipps ·
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
Posted: 3 pm ET

That we have a Social Security problem is not in dispute. The 2013 report of the Social Security Board of Trustees projects that the Social Security Trust Fund will be exhausted in 2033 -- 19 years. After that payroll taxes revenue will be sufficient to pay only three-quarters of scheduled benefits through the year 2087.


© Jack Kurtz/ZUMA Press/Corbis

Fixing the problem isn't rocket science, and it would reassure millions of future recipients that their retirement planning is secure. So why don't we just bite the bullet, fix Social Security now and get it over with?

Over the last five years, the Institute for Women's Policy Research has been looking at issues surrounding Social Security and talking to politicians and policy experts about fixing its problems. Recently, it released a report on the findings. Heidi Hartmann, president of the institute, says most people in positions to do something about Social Security agree on what needs to be fixed, but disagree on how to pay for it.

"Republicans say we should pay for it by reducing the benefits for those with higher incomes. Democrats have introduced several bills that say we're going to pay for Social Security by raising the tax on people with higher incomes," Hartmann says.

Institute researchers say policy makers and politicians are factoring the following issues into any potential plan to fix Social Security.

Mixing Social Security with the debt problem. Democrats told interviewers that the driving issue now is the national debt. Introducing Social Security reform into this discussion would muddle both issues. Delaying the discussion five years might distance it from the debt crisis, plus more boomers will be collecting at that point, making the need for fixing the shortfall more immediate.

Higher benefits for lower earners. Many people think that there ought to be longevity payments -- a bump in benefits for those who live beyond a certain age. Others would revise the cost of living formula to reflect the cost of health care and other things on which older people spend the most. Still others suggest eliminating the part of the calculation that gives credit for 35 years of work, basing benefits on fewer years of work. That change would mostly aid women who take time out from the workforce to care for families. "This is something the women's movement used to talk about a lot in the '70s and '80s," Hartmann says. "But since then there have been fewer homemakers and we haven't talked about this as much."

Improved benefits for single people. A bipartisan majority of those interviewed supported the idea of adding caregiving "work" credits to the Social Security records of men or women taking care of children or elders instead of holding full-time jobs. Other people would eliminate spousal benefits altogether and compensate lower earners with a higher minimum benefit. A few would modify spousal benefits by adding an earnings-sharing plan that combines and averages total earnings for dual-earner couples across the duration of their marriage. This would potentially make it easier to share retirement benefits after divorce.

Restore or add benefits for students. Before 1983, college students were eligible for Social Security benefits if they had a working parent who died or became disabled. Some support restoring that benefit because it would be good for the economy overall.

Put more money into the system. Raising the earnings cap for the payroll tax was viewed by several experts as the simplest way to fix the funding gap. Other ideas included expanding the payroll tax to cover non-wage benefits like tax-free spending accounts and generous health insurance plans sometimes received by higher earners. Many resisted the idea of tapping other types of taxation such as estate taxes because it would make the system seem less self-sufficient.

Cutting benefits. Ways to cut benefits include adopting the chained consumer price index, which reduces cost-of-living increases; indexing the retirement age to future longevity increases, and requiring later retirement. Both Democratic and Republican respondents doubted the wisdom of further increasing the retirement age past 67 because there are "simply not enough employers willing and able to provide jobs to older workers."

In the meantime, Social Security is very complicated, and it is difficult for workers to know what they are entitled to. Social Security is closing offices and pushing recipients to go online to find information just at a time when increasing numbers of people are entering the system. "Social Security does very little to make it clear how your benefits would increase over time based on your choices," Hartmann says. "This was identified as a problem by a substantial minority of those interviewed. They thought people should be helped to understand the system better."

Amen to that.

Bankrate wants to hear from you and encourages comments. We ask that you stay on topic, respect other people's opinions, and avoid profanity, offensive statements, and illegal content. Please keep in mind that we reserve the right to (but are not obligated to) edit or delete your comments. Please avoid posting private or confidential information, and also keep in mind that anything you post may be disclosed, published, transmitted or reused.

By submitting a post, you agree to be bound by Bankrate's terms of use. Please refer to Bankrate's privacy policy for more information regarding Bankrate's privacy practices.
July 16, 2014 at 10:32 pm

Instead of calling it social security, let's combine it with Medicare and food stamps and call it Eldercare and make it available to any US citizen who lives to be 65 and wants to quit working. It's all electronic credits transferred from the government to the corporations at this point anyway. If you are younger than 65 and can't work, you can apply for Medicaid, Disability, and food stamps. If you have kids, you can apply for Welfare, Medicaid, and food stamps. Let's get realistic about how many people actually need to work full time at a job in order to get everything done we need to do in this country.

Wallace Carter
July 16, 2014 at 10:04 pm


A good start would be to reduce fraud in the system--reported to be $900 Million in the past several years. There is no excuse for continued payments to people who are dead and for the gross abuse of disability benefits. The most reasonable quick fix in addition to reducing fraud is to remove the salary cap on FICA deductions which is already the case for Medicare.

charles stephens
July 16, 2014 at 9:57 pm

Why not have congress return the money they have removed for "other items" since SS began (With the interest in would have earned)!! Don't pay any benefits to anyone who never paid in!! All will be OK!!

July 16, 2014 at 9:37 pm

i think that we could pay for social security indefinitely if people running for office gave their campaign money to SS. It would be win win, money wouldn't control elections any more either. and to others that are against 'free handouts.' just pray one day you don't ever need a handout. but you are probably untouchable so you don't have to worry.

July 16, 2014 at 9:19 pm

Plain and simple fix is to stop free handouts if you didn't pay into it you DON'T get anything out of it

william kelly
July 16, 2014 at 9:04 pm

Perhaps the government should slow down on free handouts, and the money saved might funnel down to socal security

donovan neubauer
July 16, 2014 at 9:03 pm

I think that the big people in the white house should take a look at all the money being wated on wars, and immigration expenses. That in itself would free up a lot of money.

July 16, 2014 at 8:53 pm

Sorry about some typos above, the computer doesn't type as fast as do I.

July 16, 2014 at 8:51 pm

There are so many good ideas reported above (previously). First and foremost, stop raiding Social Security for any reason except benefits; Second, those who have NOT paid into in for a specific number of terms (quarters, whatever) should NOT GET ANY MONEY; Third; all federal government workers should get SS depending upon how much they paid into it PLUS how much was added to their pensions by their government employers (it may be more than regular employees, but the government doesn't have to fund this separately); Forth; ALL senators and congressmen should NOT RECEIVE FULL PAY AFTER THEY RETIRE, OR ARE NOT RE-ELECTED, they should receive SS depending upon how much they paid into it PLUS how much was added to their pensions by their government employers (same as government employees - that's what they are), HOW LONG THEY SERVED; Fifth, spouses and their dependents should receive SS, and children should receive it as long as they are full-time students; and Finally, SSI, those who receive SS while they are disabled, sick, etc. should receive benefits - but should have to prove they are still disable, sick, etc. every year to receive benefits(although this will cost extra to manage this program, it will save money overall.)

stephen pesavento
July 16, 2014 at 8:48 pm

Instant solution? Raise the cap and cut the B.S. from the Republicons about the system going broke.