Social Security is facing questions about its long-term future, with the program’s trust funds projected to be depleted by 2034. Unless Congress acts, beneficiaries could face across-the-board cuts of about 21 percent, raising the stakes in a debate that has surfaced repeatedly in U.S. politics: Should the retirement age go up?

A Familiar Challenge

This is not the first time the program has neared a crisis. In 1983, when the trust funds were on the verge of insolvency, a bipartisan agreement extended Social Security’s life by raising payroll taxes, requiring federal employees to contribute, and gradually increasing the full retirement age (FRA) to 67. That change fully phased in last year for people born in 1960 or later.

Today, it is likely that a mix of incremental changes will once again form the backbone of the next fix. One possibility on the table is raising the FRA once again.

What Washington Is Saying

Although Social Security Administration commissioner Frank Bisignano has insisted that “raising the retirement age is not under consideration,” the prospect is something already on the mind of many Republicans. The Republican Study Committee, which counts 170 GOP lawmakers, proposed making “modest adjustments” to the FRA for future retirees in its 2024 budget, framing the change as a reflection of longer life expectancy.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, raising the retirement age from 67 to 69 would cut lifetime benefits by up to 13 percent for those born after 1971. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates such a move would only cover about 35 percent of the funding shortfall—leaving policymakers to pursue additional steps.

Some lawmakers are already taking action. Democrats Sheldon Whitehouse and Brendan Boyle have introduced the Fair Share Act, which would require Americans earning over $400,000 to pay Social Security taxes on all income above that threshold, including wages, self-employment, and investments. Currently, contributions stop once earnings exceed $160,200, allowing higher earners to pay proportionally less. Meanwhile, a bipartisan plan from Senator Bill Cassidy and Senator Tim Kaine proposes a new $1.5 trillion investment fund, separate from existing trust funds, to be invested in stocks, bonds, and other assets. Treasury would cover costs until the fund matures, with the goal of boosting long-term Social Security solvency.

Public Resistance

Despite pressure to act, Americans are, by and large, opposed to raising the FRA. A 2023 Quinnipiac University poll found 78 percent of adults disapproved of increasing the age from 67 to 70. Even when framed as necessary to extend Social Security’s lifespan, support never rose above 30 percent.

That widespread opposition makes the issue a political minefield, even as the program’s finances grow more uncertain.

What Are The Options?

Bobbi Redell, certified financial planner and personal finance expert at BadCredit.org, told Newsweek the debate is often overstated.

“First, it is important to remember that this is not an all-or-nothing situation. It is also not new or surprising. It’s math,” she told Newsweek.

She added that lawmakers have multiple levers at their disposal: “They could move the needle a little bit on the retirement age. They also could raise the amount of income that is subject to social security tax, which is now taxed at $176K. They could also raise the tax rate on the highest earners. … None of these would be cheered as victories but small changes could really add up.”

Weighing the Politics

For Redell, raising the FRA is not necessarily a last-resort option. “While it is unpopular, it has been done before and is far from a last resort. The question really will be by how much and when it will go into effect. The more warning and the more incremental, the less backlash there is likely to be.”

She also argued that raising the retirement age may be less disruptive than other fixes. “Raising the retirement age, especially if it is done well ahead of time and gradually … is going to be easier to take on for most citizens than increasing taxes or cutting benefits.”

Still, she suggested current discussions could be designed to test the waters rather than signal immediate change: “It is possible that there is an effort to get a sense of how different levers … could be out there as a trial balloon. This is after all both a financial and a political decision.”

The Road Ahead

With insolvency just under a decade away, Congress faces a narrowing window to act. Lawmakers could consider a mix of tax adjustments, changes to inflation formulas, and modest increases to the retirement age. Whether raising the FRA proves inevitable or avoidable will depend on how policymakers weigh political risks against fiscal urgency. But as the 2034 deadline approaches, the debate over whether Americans must work longer before claiming full benefits is unlikely to disappear.

Read Newsweek’s full interview with Bobbi Redell below

Q: With the trust funds projected to run out by 2034, is raising the retirement age one of the only realistic tools left to extend solvency? What other policy options could shore up the trust funds without changing the retirement age?

Let’s take the drama down a notch. First, it is important to remember that this is not an all-or-nothing situation. It is also not new or surprising. It’s math. What people may not be aware of in just reading the headlines is that the report also doesn’t show that benefits would go to zero if nothing is done. In fact, there would still be enough money to cover 81% of scheduled benefits. It is about closing the gap and not as dire as needing to come up with a way to cover 100% of benefits. Think of it like a potential pay cut at a company. It would be really, really challenging to find a way to avoid it, but it is not as daunting as if the company went bankrupt and you had to come up with money to pay the entire payroll from scratch. Also keep in mind that the government doesn’t have to choose just one strategy. They can choose to do a little bit of a lot of things. For example, they could move the needle a little bit on the retirement age. They also could raise the amount of income that is subject to social security tax, which is now taxed at $176K. They could also raise the tax rate on the highest earners. Social security is also indexed to inflation. The government could change the way that is calculated as well. None of these would be cheered as victories but small changes could really add up. 

Q: Raising the retirement age is often politically unpopular. Do you think Congress will view it as inevitable, or is it still a last-resort option?

While it is unpopular, it has been done before and is far from a last resort. The question really will be by how much and when it will go into effect. The more warning and the more incremental, the less backlash there is likely to be. 

Q: Is raising the retirement age politically more feasible than increasing taxes or cutting benefits outright?

Raising the retirement age, especially if it is done well ahead of time and gradually for those coming up in retirement, is going to be easier to take on for most citizens than increasing taxes or cutting benefits. In fact, cutting benefits could create a huge backlash from those who are counting on very specific payments in their retirement years. 

Q: Does floating the idea of raising the FRA now reflect a genuine shift in policy direction, or is it possibly a trial to gauge public reaction?

It is possible that there is an effort to get a sense of how different levers to manage the social security shortfall would be something that could be out there as a trial balloon. This is, after all, both a financial and a political decision, and so the decision makers want to tread carefully with this important challenge.