Social Security Recipients Plea for 'Broken' System to be Reformed

The future of Social Security is uncertain, as experts expect the program to face a 23 percent across-the-board benefit cut in 2033, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, putting U.S. payouts at risk.

While that doesn't mean the program would completely stop paying the millions of Americans who rely on it to support themselves, it means that reforming the system is necessary to avoid a significant reduction in benefits.

More than 66 million Americans currently rely on Social Security benefits, including some of the most vulnerable people in the country.

"Social Security benefits now exceed Social Security revenues," Richard Johnson, director of the Program on Retirement Policy at the Urban Institute, a Washington-based think tank, previously told Newsweek. "That shortfall is being made up by the program trust fund, which accumulated over the past four decades.

"But unless federal policymakers take action, the trust fund will run out in 2033, and Social Security will be able to pay only about 80 percent of scheduled benefits."

But the issue of reforming Social Security has proved controversial in Congress, pitting Republicans against Democrats. This week, President Joe Biden warned that the program was still under threat from Republicans wanting to cut benefits to avoid deepening the government's debt.

Newsweek asked readers this week to share their opinion about whether the Social Security program should be reformed, following a story which said that a majority of Americans—especially younger generations—believe it to be necessary.

How to Fix Looming Crisis

A majority of readers who wrote to Newsweek said they were in favor of reforming the system, with many saying it was "obviously" necessary. Most said that they believed the solution would be to leave benefits untouched and raise (or even eliminate) the contribution cap—the same move that Richard Fiesta, executive director at the Alliance for Retired Americans, previously told Newsweek his group supports as the ideal solution.

"We need to save and expand the program for generations behind me," Lindley Farley, a 64-year-old New York independent artist and filmmaker, told Newsweek. "The solution I've heard again and again from experts is to raise the cap on people making over $118,000 a year."

A similar measure was suggested by Biden during the 2020 presidential campaign, when he proposed subjecting all earnings above $400,000 to the payroll tax. Under Biden's plan, high earners would not accrue future Social Security benefits on those contributions.

A 65-year-old Texas resident who preferred to be identified as John H. said he would increase the income subject to Social Security with a marginal credit for those increased contributions.

"Other income, like carried interest, and capital gains on current or past employer stock or owned real estate other than a personal residence should be considered as self-employed income for Social Security withholding, including any appreciated stock donated to charity, and should be taxed into Social Security as part of estate/gift taxes for capital gains on that stock," he said.

Another solution he suggested is to cap COLAs (cost of living adjustments) at a dollar amount equivalent to the lowest income a 40-year earner with 4 credits due every year gets as an inflation increase on their Social Security as long as Social Security is expected to run out.

"I don't know if these changes would be enough to fully fund Social Security, but it would be a good start," he said.

Several readers belonging to the so-called boomer generation, which is considered to be the richest ever, wrote to say that they were far from wealthy, and while they're often blamed for putting pressure on the program, they paid into the system their whole lives.

"I'm totally against any reduction in Social Security benefits for anyone who has paid into the program," George Barrett, a 70-year-old Washington resident, told Newsweek. "Especially us seniors who have worked our entire lives and paid into this with the promise of receiving what our annual statements have projected."

For Barrett, a possible solution would be to "incrementally increase the payroll tax" in a way that's almost unnoticeable. "If I were still in the workforce, I would be OK with this," he said.

Many of those who said the program should not be reformed blamed the current problems on government spending. While some blamed spending for foreign countries—rhetoric that's shared by several Republican hardliners in Congress—others blamed spending by Republican presidents to fund tax breaks for the wealthy.

"I think if the U.S. Congress was required to replace the funds they misappropriated from the Social Security System it would be solvent well into the next century," wrote one reader who chose to remain anonymous. "In the 60s Lyndon B. Johnson signed a law allowing money to be 'borrowed' for purposes other than for the retirement promised by the government. That is why the system is broken." In 1968, Johnson included Social Security and all other trust funds in a "unified budget."

Those who are yet to become Social Security recipients have similar ideas as those who are already beneficiaries.

Andrew Erlewein, a 58-year-old Michigan resident, told Newsweek that he'd be supportive of measures increasing the cap on income subject to Social Security tax, reducing the cost of living adjustment for retirees (COLA) and increasing the payroll deduction. What he would be against is any measure which would increase the age required to qualify for partial or full benefits.

Erlewein believes that to fix the Social Security program and make the system sustainable in the long term, "current retirees, soon to be retirees—that's me—and future retirees need to contribute to fully funding the future of Social Security."