Social Security Recipients Set to Get Benefit Cuts

[applegrove]

Social Security Recipients Set to Get Benefit Cuts

July 24, 2025 at 2:07 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard 108 Comments

https://politicalwire.com/2025/07/24/social-security-recipients-set-to-get-benefit-cuts/

“Retirees are facing the prospect of substantial Social Security cuts in just seven years, sooner than projected, due to the ‘big, beautiful bill,’ per an analysis out Thursday from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget,” Axios reports.

“If policymakers don’t stop this from happening, it would at least double the poverty rate of America’s seniors, per several estimates.”

[Lovie777]

1. That 50 billion and rural white American still won't help....................

re: medicaid.

Seniors are f'ed.

[Hornedfrog2000]

8. We are all fucked

I mean seriously. I am planning to have to take in my parents who are loving being retired, but things are going to get insanely expensive, soon.

[markodochartaigh]

19. I respect you for taking in your parents.

I very much doubt that 99% of the people in states with filial responsibility laws have any idea that those laws exist or how they might be used in the future.

[Silent Type]

3. I remember when Obama tried to do something about looming SS deficits. He was bashed mercilessly by GOPers and Dems.

So here we are with GOPers possibly deciding how to handle an issue that we’ve know about for at least 15 years.

[Wiz Imp]

13. Republicans will not do anything with Social Security.

The law doesn't allow them to change Social Security via reconciliation, and I can't imagine Democrats going along with any Republican ideas. So they can't get anything through the Senate unless they abolish the filibuster. Also, voting to cut SS benefits would possibly even put some "safe" Republican seats into play.

[Silent Type]

24. So, they'll do nothing and around 2033 SS will be cut by 20% automatically.

[babylonsister]

46. No way. Cooler heads will prevail. How could they not? nt

[Bettie]

50. I'd like to agree but....

look around. Cooler heads aren't prevailing. The worst people possible are in the driver's seat and have control of voting.

[Irish_Dem]

58. There are no cooler heads in the GOP.

And Dems are being steamrolled.

[NickB79]

66. Is this sarcasm?

If cooler heads existed, we wouldn't have a Trump second term.

[markodochartaigh]

20. I remember when Al Gore proposed

putting the Social Security Trust Fund in a "lock box". Even Saturday Night Live made fun of him.

[Evolve Dammit]

29. Like many things, Gore was right. Climate progress under his admin would have been a huge step forward. Alas...

SCOTUS stole 2000 for the Bush family. Stopping a recount was not democracy. They inserted a Yale frat boy, AWOL Texas Air National Guard, n'er do well party boy. And we attacked the wrong country after 9-11.

[markodochartaigh]

43. The supremacist court

certainly put the final nails in the coffin of democracy for that election, but the Republicans had already been hard at work setting up the funeral. The mass disenfranchisement of Black voters by a company hired by the Republican party, the hanging chad ballots, the Brooks Brothers ready to riot, all in a state where Bush the Second's brother was governor, it was all set up.

[Evolve Dammit]

61. And the people bussed down to disrupt the recount included Bolton and Stone.

[exboyfil]

60. It isn't failure honor the US debt the Trust Fund holds that is the problem

The problem is not collecting enough in SS taxes.

[mdbl]

64. I remember Al Gore in 2000 trying to protect social security

He was derided mercilessly by comedians for his "lock box" comment and then the issue got ignored completely.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

4. They need to just lift the cap n/t

[Rebl2]

6. So simple

Yet both republicans and democrats-when they had a chance refuse to do so.

[Lonestarblue]

14. The corporate lobby against raising the cap is probably fierce.

Congress has given corporations many loopholes for reducing and even avoiding federal income taxes entirely, but the SS and Medicare taxes are straightforward and difficult to evade. Raising the cap means that corporations also pay more tax, which the CEOs hate.

Another option is to include government employees in SS. Would teachers, firemen, and police be worse off under SS than their pensions? Probably depends on union contracts.

[Rebl2]

16. I thought

government employees did pay into SS. My husband worked for the post office for 35 years and paid in to SS.

[Lonestarblue]

17. I think state employees like teachers and police do not pay SS because they have state pensions.

Such pensions might be better than SS, but I’ve never been a public employee so I’m not sure. Even with state pensions, though, if Republicans are in charge of the funds, they can erode value with huge fees to private managers or invest in risky hedge funds, as the Republican legislature did a few years back. The Republican governor wanted to severely cut benefits for current retirees to help make up for their huge losses, which cost him his re-election. I’ve read that Ohio’s teacher pension program is also being mismanaged by Republicans, enriching advisers and cheating teachers.

[Rebl2]

18. Correct

Teachers, police, firefighters, railroad employees. Teachers in private schools not sure. I believe in the past KS has had problems with their state pensions. Haven’t heard about it in a long while.

[wishstar]

32. Most teachers do pay SS taxes except in 15 states where they are exempt

[ancianita]

21. But if they ever worked any other jobs with FICA deductions , they will get benefits. Pres Joe Biden signed the Social

Security Fairness Act into law on January 5, 2025. I've been getting SS checks along with my union pension since April because of other jobs I'd had before I was a teacher and union AFT member.

This act repeals the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and the Government Pension Offset (GPO).

These provisions had unfairly reduced Social Security benefits for millions of public service workers, including teachers, firefighters, and police officers, who also receive pensions from work not covered by Social Security.

The law applies to benefits payable after December 2023.

[Ananda62]

22. Federal employees

Under FERS do pay into SS. I’m a federal retiree. I first started working for the federal government in 1987. I retired in 2022 and receive a SS check.

[PufPuf23]

56. Was a Fed from 1970 to 1985 and then did not pay in to SS.

Get SS from post Fed employment.

[TBA]

62. Some do Some Do Not

I was a teacher in Florida for 20 years. We had a pension plan and we also paid into SS. I also worked for the City of Tallahassee. There is also a pension but I do not pay into SS for the City job.

[Silent Type]

25. No chance, other than a small increase. If we can increase taxes by 12 percentage points by removing cap, we need

money for things like education, healthcare, climate, jobs, debt and deficit reduction, infrastructure, and much more.

Congress will make a few tweaks at last minute to kick can down the road.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

35. Sorry, but if they lift the cap on Social Security taxes...

...that money should go to Social Security and Social Security only.

[Silent Type]

42. Well, yeah, if they do. Point is if Congress can increase taxes by 12 points, it needs to go to many things. SS is not

this country's only social need by a longshot. And I depend on SS.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

45. Well, they wouldn't be increasing it by 12 points on everyone

With median individual income being around $54,000/year, it would be on far less than half of workers.

And if they are able to eliminate the cap and feel like they can raise income taxes to meet other needs, fine, do it. But any increase in the cap should be purely for Social Security.

[ProfessorGAC]

26. A Second Thing To Do

Is to come up with sellable reasons why the benefit would still be capped where it is today.
Raising the cap doesn't help as much if the outlays go up, too.
Even if they have to means test above the cap, to sell the idea, I'd be good with it.
It is silly that someone who makes $175k pays 6.2%, but someone who makes $875k pays 1.24%.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

37. I think the outlays would have to go up some...

...but it certainly wouldn't need to be in proportion to what is being paid in.

[lostnfound]

36. No, they just need to cut benefits for mothers, raise retirement ages, and shift money to private accounts

The author of that paper ‘Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget” is effectively pushing for those things.
What I’m calling ‘cut benefits for mothers’ is referring to the idea of ‘counting all years’ instead of an average of 35 years. Women are more often caregivers and stay at home moms, and therefore more likely to have lost a decade or more — 30 years of wages than 40 or 50 — to unpaid labor, ironically raising the next generation of young workers.

The document definitely recommends higher retirement ages and shifting money to private accounts. https://www.crfb.org/papers/promoting-economic-growth-through-social-security-reform.

Directors include Mitt Romney, John Kasich, Joe Manchin, Jane Harman.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

39. Maybe my calculations are off...

...but it seems to me that only counting the years that a woman is in the workforce would actually help her benefits. Right now, if there are only 30 years of work, the average used to calculate benefits is based on 30 years of wages and five years with zero wages, bringing down the average.

If a woman was only in the workforce for 30 years, and the average was based on that 30 years, then her average would be higher.

For example (using very simple numbers, no pay raises, etc.), a woman working for 30 years at $50,000/year would make $1,500,000.
Using the current formula, her average salary for determining benefits would be $42, 857.14 ($1,500,000/35)
Using only her working years, her average salary for determining benefits would $50,000 ($1,500,000/30).

What am I missing?

[lostnfound]

49. The criteria to achieve maximum benefits

Right now the threshold is the highest 35 years . From age 20 to 65 is 45 years. That leaves 10 years of taking time off to raise kids, get an advanced degree, work a part time job while kids are in school, or take care of a disabled parent. Doing ten years of those things doesn’t hurt your social security benefit very much, although there may be fewer years to choose from for the 35 highest.

If you only work 30, or you are part time for much of it, you are correct that your average will be lower..

They are trying to essentially raise the br or the expectation that to get full benefits you must work from 20 (or 16…) until say 70… So 50 years. Women are often the caregivers. The benefit reduction for only having 30 years (or 35, for that matter) is likely to be much higher if the max benefits are correlated with people working 50 years.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

52. That's not what it said at the link but ok n/t

[Mr.Bee]

5. Great...

Make America Harder Again!

[The Madcap]

7. Well, I guess I'll just have to live it up until I run out of money.

At that point, who knows? They might have carted me off to the death camps by then.

[Kid Berwyn]

9. More tax breaks for the rich!

Solves their problems, just-us.

[not fooled]

10. And it would happen because of the massive growth in income inequality

Because so much of income growth in recent decades has gone to individuals making over the cap, more income than projected has escaped Social Security taxation. Alex Lawson of Social Security Works is all over this.

So, the obvious solution is to raise the cap to recapture some of the income that previously would have been taxed.

Not raising the cap is a backdoor way of destroying the program, the longtime goal of pukes. And, apparently, some Dems.


Too bad 'Murica is too dumb and distracted to recognize what's going on.

[at140]

11. After 22 years on SS

I have received total benefits many times larger than total SS tax I paid. And very thankful for this generosity by young workers who support me. Without my monthly SS check, I would be in serious trouble.

[Stargazer99]

41. Agreed!!!

! lets make sure the younger ones don't get short changed by the selfish wealthy

[Kaleva]

12. I've already had to go back to work part time when Biden was in office

[BoRaGard]

15. "Ha ha. Senior Suckers. Ha ha!" - G.O.P.

They must have the money for their republican-billionaire tax cuts.

[cstanleytech]

23. Republicans will rightfully get crucified at the polls I hope and maybe in real-life as well.

[GoodRaisin]

53. Hope you are right, because we will literally need to have a blue trifecta in 2028

and 60 Senate seats to prevent this from happening. There will be no help coming from Republicans.

[Ocelot II]

27. Take with a grain or two of salt - the cited analysis is from CPRFB,

the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a centrist pro-business think tank with ties to to billionaire Peter G. Peterson and The Peter G. Peterson Foundation.

[applegrove]

28. Thanks.

[Smokster]

44. Yep...

https://prospect.org/economy/2024-03-22-center-for-a-responsible-federal-budget-criticism-biden/

[progree]

69. Four high level Democratic officials - in their 2024 SS Trustees report projected a 2035 depletion date

https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2024/
https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/2024/index.html

• The Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund will be able to pay 100 percent of total scheduled benefits until 2033, unchanged from last year's report. At that time, the fund's reserves will become depleted and continuing program income will be sufficient to pay 79 percent of scheduled benefits.

• The Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Fund is projected to be able to pay 100 percent of total scheduled benefits through at least 2098, the last year of this report's projection period. Last year's report projected that the DI Trust Fund would be able to pay scheduled benefits through at least 2097, the last year of that report's projection period.

• If the OASI Trust Fund and the DI Trust Fund projections are combined, the resulting projected fund (designated OASDI) would be able to pay 100 percent of total scheduled benefits until 2035, one year later than reported last year. At that time, the projected fund's reserves will become depleted and continuing total fund income will be sufficient to pay 83 percent of scheduled benefits. (The two funds could not actually be combined unless there were a change in the law, but the combined projection of the two funds is frequently used to indicate the overall status of the Social Security program.)

. . .

the hypothetical OASDI asset reserves would be projected to become depleted in 2035 and 83 percent of scheduled Social Security benefits would be payable at that time, declining to 73 percent by 2098.

(all emphasis added)

The report is signed by four high Democratic officials. It is not some scraping from some Facebook page or Heritage Foundation or some Pete Peterson gang

Janet Yellen, Secretary of the Treasury, and Managing Trustee of the Trust Funds.
Xavier Becerra, Secretary of Health and Human Services, and Trustee.
Julie A. Su, Acting Secretary of Labor, and Trustee.
Martin O'Malley, Commissioner of Social Security, and Trustee.

Additional key quotes are at https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143369508#post9
which was posted 1/9/25 and covering the 2024 Social Security Trustees report -- the last one produced by Democratic trustees

So, it is not right-wing propaganda that the SS trust funds are projected to be depleted in the mid-2030's, resulting in an automatic benefits cut -- (unless Congress acts to change the law) and I don't know of any progressive website that disputes that.

The exact year of trust funds depletion can be disputed by a year of two or three as conditions change, but not the near-term end result. For example the so-called Social Security Fairness Act of 2025 will reduce the trust funds' longevity by about half a year, according to Kiplinger.

[whathehell]

30. ...Not going to happen, in my view.

I believe that Social Security is still the 3rd Rail of politics and 7 years is a long time, long enough, certainly, for the turnover of 'policymakers' mentioned in the report.

[Joinfortmill]

31. Some day, when I am long dead, we'll learn the Trump presidency was illegitimate...and, thus, so was this bill.

[Raftergirl]

33. My H worked for the State of NY. He paid into SS and receives a pension. Ditto for my mother who was a teacher

in NYS.

I get half of my H’s SS and haven’t worked in over 32 years. Some of what I get is what I earned, but the majority of my SS come from his benefit.

We also don’t pay for Medicare or our supplemental health insurance (which includes prescriptions coverage.) That is paid by his retirement benefits. I will also keep getting his pension if he dies before I do, and the full amount of his SS.

We barely make a dent in our monthly income covering our living expenses.

We likely will never have to touch our investment accounts.

We are very fortunate.

[Karasu]

34. Of course. Fascists have no use for seniors or retirement. All they want is for people to drop dead so they can penny

pinch.

[FakeNoose]

38. And why do retirees so stupidly vote R, year after year?

That's the question ...

If any of them were paying attention, they would never vote R.

[Irish_Dem]

59. Turkeys voting for Thanksgiving dinner.

[Mariana]

70. Because they don't believe THEIR benefits will ever be cut.

They think any benefit cuts are going to be borne by younger people sometime in the future, the same way benefit cuts have been made in the past.

[Igel]

40. Anything that draws down the Trust Fund more quickly does the same thing.

The Social Security Fairness Act did the same thing. Increased outlays. Income's fixed, savings are a fixed amount. Simply put, anything that drains assets faster hurts seniors in the not so very long-run. (But it helps current seniors receiving OASDI who are experiencing the urgency of now, of course.)

Inflation did a number, too--yes, it makes the base for the FICA tax higher, but it increased payouts even more.


As for the "per several estimates," Axios cites one--just one--which apparently is so important it achieves "royal they" status. And it's from 2004, with the cuts predicted to occur when the trust fund runs out in, uh, 2039. Not, um, 2032 or 2033. (Yes, the estimate, because of inflation and increased outlays has advanced by 6-7 years. Don't know what that means for the poverty rate among seniors in 2032-3--higher, lower, or the same as predicted in 2004.)

/snark off.

If we'd fixed the problem back in 2004 the fixes would have to be far less extreme.

[Norrrm]

47. 1+

[valleyrogue]

48. Bullshit.

Look up this organization before posting and commenting. This outfit has an agenda.

From Wiki:

Michael Hiltzik, writing in the Los Angeles Times, called the CRFB "a billionaire's front group that likes to portray itself as a neutral budget watchdog" due to the group's ties to billionaire Peter G. Peterson and The Peter G. Peterson Foundation.[36] Paul Blumenthal and Christina Wilkie, writing in HuffPost, made a similar criticism of the group's connection to Peterson.[37]

Economist Paul Krugman, writing in The New York Times, criticized "deficit scolds" like the CFRB for having bad policy suggestions and being hypocritical, as well as having hidden intentions to "shred the social safety net". Krugman argued that "the deficit scolds, while posing as the nation's noble fiscal defenders, have in practice shown themselves both hypocritical and incoherent. They don't deserve to have a central role in policy discussion; they really don't even deserve a seat at the table."[38] In July 2025, however, he said that the CFRB is "an honest, highly competent think tank".[39]


___

Peter G Peterson was one evil son of a bitch who wanted to get rid of Social Security.

This group is not "non-partisan."

[vanessa_ca]

63. Thank you! Shines a different light on this -eom

[DBoon]

51. Are there no prisons?

"Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge.
"Plenty of prisons," said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
"And the Union workhouses?" demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"
"They are. Still," returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not."
"The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?" said Scrooge.
"Both very busy, sir."
"Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course," said Scrooge. "I am very glad to hear it."

- Charles Dickens, describing how Victorian England deal with a similar situation

[Jack Valentino]

54. GOP: "so what, they're just going to die anyway"

[IbogaProject]

55. Gen X is smallest cohort so we will get screwed

[rickyhall]

57. Take it from the goddamned billionaires any way we can. Give nothing back, by G-d.

[patphil]

65. They need to lift the cap.

It's currently $176,100, and the tax is 6.2% paid by employers and another 6.2% paid by employees.
The cap is the problem. It needs to be at least $350,000 right now, with a yearly raise up to at least $500,000 by 2035.
This is the simplest, neatest, most practical, and most doable solution for the problem.
But Republicans don't want that kind of solution. They'd like to make it a private, money making, business that can reap billions each year for the super rich.
I don't think you'll find a single Republican in Congress who actually wants to rescue Social Security.

[pbmus]

67. CFRB wants cuts to SS and other entitlement programs

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization focused on educating the public about fiscal policy and advocating for deficit reduction. It was founded in 1981 by former U.S. Representatives Robert Giaimo (Democrat) and Henry Bellmon (Republican), and its board includes former members of both parties, such as past heads of the House and Senate Budget Committees, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Office of Management and Budget. The CRFB emphasizes bipartisan leadership and describes itself as nonpartisan, a claim supported by sources like its own website, Wikipedia, and the Library of Congress.[](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_a_Responsible_Federal_Budget)[](https://www.loc.gov/item/lcwaN0006868/)[](https://www.crfb.org/about-us)

However, some analyses, such as Media Bias/Fact Check, rate the CRFB as slightly right-center biased due to its advocacy for reducing entitlement spending (e.g., Social Security and Medicare), which can align more closely with conservative fiscal priorities. Additionally, critics like Paul Blumenthal and Ryan Grim have pointed to past funding from corporations like Philip Morris and the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, which some associate with conservative-leaning agendas, though these ties don’t explicitly make the organization Republican.[](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/committee-for-a-responsible-federal-budget/)[](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_a_Responsible_Federal_Budget)[](https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Committee_for_a_Responsible_Federal_Budget)

On the other hand, the CRFB’s work, such as its analyses of both Democratic and Republican fiscal policies, is often cited by fact-checkers and media across the political spectrum for its objectivity. Its board has included prominent Democrats like Erskine Bowles and Republicans like Alan Simpson, reinforcing its bipartisan structure. A 2024 report from the CRFB critiquing both Trump and Biden’s fiscal policies drew criticism from the Republican-led House Budget Committee, suggesting it doesn’t align strictly with either party.[](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_a_Responsible_Federal_Budget)[](https://budget.house.gov/press-release/fact-check-alert-debunking-crfbs-analysis-of-trump-and-biden-impacts-on-the-national-debt)

In short, the CRFB is not a Republican organization; it’s officially nonpartisan but may be perceived as slightly right-leaning due to its focus on deficit reduction and entitlement reform. Its leadership and funding reflect a mix of influences, but it doesn’t affiliate with any political party.

[whathehell]

73. I'm sorry, but I don't believe any "non partisan" organization

"wants to cut SS and other entitlement programs" and it requires more than a slight " lean to the Right" to do so...If, as they claim, they want to "focus on deficit reduction", they can do so by raising taxes on the Super Rich, not cutting programs for the poor and middle classes.

[turbinetree]

68. You think people need to vote.....................after there parents come to live with them..............

[applegrove]

72. And you turn your livingroom into their bedroom

as you only have a three bedroom home, two kids and your parents can't do the stairs.

I took care of my parents as they aged but not in my own home and I had lots of excellent, hilarious, people who helped and did the hard work. I loved it. I was glad I could do it but they were in assisted living and then my Dad in a nursing home after my my mom passed away.

[twodogsbarking]

71. Hey fuckheads. Stop yelling woe is me and come up with a plan.

The possibilities are there you are just assholes.