Will Baby Boomers Bankrupt Social Security
Will Baby Boomers Bankrupt Social Security
Will Baby Boomers Bankrupt Social Security
Baby boomers make up that huge demographic that came of age in the 1960s and 1970s. Born
between 1946 and 1964,1 this vast cohort began to reach age 62 in 2008. By 2031, the youngest
boomers will have passed the Social Security full retirement age of 67 (for people born in 1960 or
later), at which point there will be 75 million people over the age of 65—nearly twice the 39 million
who were 65 in 2008.
There’s a lot of talk about whether the baby boomer generation will bankrupt Social Security. It's not
just the size of this generation that's a concern; it's their life expectancy. In 1935, when Social
Security started, people who reached 65 could expect to live an additional 12.5 years. Now, women
who turn 65 can expect to live another 21.5 years, while for men, life expectancy at 65 is 19 more
years.
The Facts
Currently, there is a large Social Security surplus—at the beginning of 2020, there was almost $2.9
trillion in the trust funds that cover retirees and those with disabilities (there are two funds, together
known as OASDI).3 But according to the 2020 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees, which
oversees the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Federal Disability Insurance
(DI) trust funds, the OASI, which covers retiree benefits, is projected to run out of money in 2034.
The problem is demographics: The ratio of Social Security beneficiaries to workers who pay into the
system is shifting—in 2019, there were 2.8 workers for each beneficiary, but in 2035 the number of
workers per beneficiary is expected to drop to 2.2.5 About three-quarters of the funding for retirees
and disabled workers comes from Social Security taxes that current workers pay, so it's easy to see
how this change is straining the system. The remaining one-quarter of the system's funding comes
from the trust funds.
Does the depletion of the trust fund mean Social Security is bankrupt? In a word, no. As long as
workers are paying their taxes, there will be money to pay benefits. But once the reserves are gone
in 2034, only an estimated 76% of expected Social Security benefits will continue to be paid from the
government’s tax revenues.
Clearly, there's cause for concern. A reduction in benefits is not ideal, and 2034 is only 14 years
away. But this is not a "surprise" issue. Since Feb. 1, 2016, there have been 45 proposals reported by
the Social Security Administration currently in various stages of review by the U.S. government.6
Here are three ideas that have been proposed:
Raise the full retirement age for Social Security benefits. Full retirement age is already
scheduled to rise during the coming years to age 67 for those born in 1960 and later. Some
are arguing that it should be 69 or 70, given how lifespans have expanded since Social
Security was initiated.
Increase the payroll tax rate to 15.08%. This would involve raising the combined tax rate of
12.4% by 2.68%. Employers and employees would each pay 7.54% instead of the current
6.2%. However, even this increase may not cover the full amount needed.7
Raise or eliminate the payroll tax cap. The ceiling on which Social Security taxes must be
paid is $137,700 in 2020 and is adjusted for inflation every year.8 Completely eliminating the
payroll tax cap could cut the projected 75-year deficit in half.
The 2020 analysis of the Social Security trust funds' financial health doesn't reflect the potential
effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.
While the aging of the baby boom generation is changing the math for the future of Social Security,
it won't lead to the demise of the system. Even if the trust funds run out of money, benefits will be
covered by workers who pay Social Security taxes.
Changes could be made that prevent the depletion of the trust funds. Social Security was rescued in
1983 when taxes were increased and benefits curtailed—a bipartisan solution between the House
and Senate and President Reagan.9 Given that Social Security is one of the most prized social
programs in the U.S., there is reason to be hopeful that its funding problems will be addressed again.