Why Social Security could face a 22% benefit cut in 2032 — and the possible solutions
“There will never be a convenient time to address Social Security,” wrote Sens. Dick Durbin and Bill Cassidy in an aisle-crossing op-ed last month. But the gap between what Social Security collects in taxes and what it pays out in benefits is only growing.
If the current model stays the same, the program (separate from Social Security Disability Insurance) is projected to run out of reserve funds in 2032 and to be able to pay only 78% of benefits. That shortfall threatens both the millions who rely on Social Security payments and all the Americans currently contributing to the program who want security in retirement.
Polling from the Bipartisan Policy Center found that 93% of Americans consider Social Security to be a valuable federal program — the highest rating of all the programs they polled people about. Some calculations say Social Security lifts more people out of poverty than any other program in the country.
A unified 83% of Americans think addressing the program’s challenges “should be a top priority for Congress.” Here’s what to know about the gap.
The cause isn’t just a demographic mismatch
The primary reason cited for Social Security’s shortfall is that the number of retirees claiming benefits is outpacing the working population because of demographic changes, like the larger-than-average size of the baby boomer generation, longer lifespans that translate to more time receiving benefits, and lower birth rates among young Americans.
That’s true: In 1960, there were five workers paying Social Security taxes for every person receiving benefits from the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund, but that ratio has dropped to 2.9 to 1 in 2026. According to a 2025 congressional report, demographic change is the biggest driver of the projected shortfall.
But projections in the Social Security Reform Act of 1983 predicted many of those shifts, analysis from the Roosevelt Center, a progressive think tank, says. Two additional factors help explain why we’re facing the gap sooner than expected.
The first is the Great Recession, which decreased tax revenue and led some older workers to retire early, thereby removing them from the contribution pool.
The second is income inequality. The payroll tax that funds Social Security is capped after a certain amount, meaning that earnings beyond it aren’t taxed. In 1983, 90% of all Social Security-eligible earnings fell below that cap. But incomes have grown unevenly since then, with the highest-paid earners’ incomes increasing more than expected while the lower 94% of eligible workers saw lower real increases in income.
As a result, only about 82.5% of eligible earnings were falling below the cap in 2000, after which the share of earnings affected more or less stayed the same. That means more income is falling outside the cap and therefore not directed into the pool of Social Security taxes.
Several solutions are proposed
Workers and employers usually split the payroll tax that funds Social Security equally, and the rate currently sits at 12.4%. Estimates for how much that rate would have to go up to close the gap vary slightly, but the Congressional Budget Office calculates the necessary rate at 17.31%. The libertarian-leaning Cato Institute estimates that for a median worker who makes about $62,000 a year, raising the tax to 17% would add about $2,600 to $3,000 in taxes per year, split between them and their employer.
Unsurprisingly, trying to solve the shortfall by raising taxes alone isn’t a popular solution among lawmakers. An alternate solution would be to raise the aforementioned cap on how much income is taxed for Social Security, which currently sits at $184,500, to capture more of high earners’ income. Senators Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, and Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, have called for Congress to take this path.
The 2025 Bipartisan Policy Center poll found that 65% of Democrats and 62% of Republicans support lifting the cap on income subject to Social Security payroll taxes, including a “significant majority” of respondents with annual household income over $200,000.
Other areas for change include reducing benefits paid out, such as paying out less to those with the highest incomes; adjusting the law that governs social security to account for “perks” like 401(k)s as well as direct wages; or changing payout rates to track with longevity as the average life expectancy rises. The current age for full retirement benefits is 67, even though the median age of retirement in the U.S. is 62.
But encouraging people to retire later is generally unpopular and could put people who work in physically demanding jobs at greater risk. In fact, a bill introduced this week by Rep. Haley Stevens, D-Mich., called the Blue Collar Social Security Fairness Act, would lower Social Security’s full retirement age for workers in those jobs to 60.
Social Security isn’t going anywhere
One common doomsday understanding, spurred by shorthand like saying Social Security will “go bankrupt,” is that Social Security will fail entirely and not be able to pay out any benefits. This is not likely, especially in the relatively short term. Even if the program’s setup were to stay the same, beneficiaries would still receive payouts. They would, however, be reduced by about 22%, in the case of old-age (retirement) benefits, or possibly delayed, depending on how the administration responds.
Experts say the sooner, the better
The longer lawmakers wait to address the shortfall, the more challenging addressing it will become. Raising taxes or decreasing contributions sooner rather than later would allow those changes to be smaller, as they’d have more time to add up.
It’s an issue lawmakers are reluctant to touch, since addressing the shortfall means someone will either pay more or receive fewer benefits. Sens. Durbin and Cassidy wrote in their op-ed that “even setting up a process to consider proposals has opposition.” Nevertheless, Americans continue to express consistent concern about a sustainable future for the program they pay into.