https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/06/18/social-security-predictions-questions-answers/ Not really big news, but it is 2 years sooner than last years projections That’s a big change in one year. It would have been much worse if Trump had social security tax ended but that was cut of the big terrible bill. I did find this interesting: They also reassessed their predictions about the U.S. birth rate. While Wednesday’s report still predicts the U.S. fertility rate eventually will reach 1.9 children per woman, up from 1.6 currently, the trustees now see that change fully occurring by 2050, instead of their previous prediction of 2040 — which means a longer period of fewer workers paying into the program. Speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the report before its official release, a senior government official said that a crackdown on immigration — which generally harms Social Security’s bottom line because immigrants pay more money into the program than they claim in benefits — might prevent that fertility rate from ever being realized. “Historically, the immigrant population has had higher fertility rates,” the official said.
Already indirectly mentioned there is a very simple solution to the declining number of workers paying into the system. It's called legal immigration.
Any plan to save social security should include a sunset of spousal benefits (those received by the non-worker, non-disabled spouse while the other still lives) and survivor benefits (those received by the non-worker or less-well-paid-throughout-life spouse who is now a widow or widower), though I wouldn't object to a revenue/cost-neutral civilian version of the military SBP to replace the latter. (That is: if you and your spouse decided one of you would be the "provider", said provider bears the risk of the other spouse living a long time, instead of everyone chipping in.) Social security is a fine program to insure those who outlive the actuarial tables and those who get disabled through no fault of their own. It shouldn't ever have been a means to prop up single-earner couples. Certainly now, when we are much closer to gender equality than 50+ years ago; we need to move on from the notion that house-spouses (face facts, housewives, mostly) are some social good to whom we all owe support. This would be a big step towards long-term (i.e.; 2060-range) stability, though I confess it would still create a "doughnut hole" problem in the intermediate term.
This is what happens when you give redistribute other peoples key to pay people that did not pay enough to cover the cost of the benefits promised. It is time to means test and work to shrink the program. Part of the problem is it has grown into the bipartisan monster it is. Pub and Dem will tell you “I” paid in so…yet they can never give an answer for their kids and grandkids other than “I” paid in. They are oblivious to the fact that yes they paid in and it stinks. A large portion was redistributed to their parents and grandparents. And now their kids will have even more redistributed because we cannot accept this reality and turn SS into the program it was suppose to be. Not the disaster fdr implemented.
The solution to the problem to the potential problem of depletion of the social security trust fund is fairly simple. Unfortunately the political will address the problem isn't there. It should include the following: Significantly raising or eliminating the cap on earnings subject to the FICA tax. Raising the age for full benefits to 70 with an exception for retirees in physically demanding jobs. Increasing legal immigration to increase the number of payees into the system. Possibly investing a small percentage of the trust fund in equities.
Where “fiscal conservative” and “social conservative” collide. On the one hand, women belong in the home raising kids. Traditional wives. But also, those trad wives are leeches taking on benefits they didn’t “earn”! I don’t think that argument will play well anywhere. Pretty much just comes off as sexist, even to those who aren’t a fan of Harrison Butker type creepy viewpoints which push the idea women shouldn’t even have careers. But for those that push the trad-wife lifestyle, how could they possibly be on board with punishing it? Obviously the math needs to be addressed. As you suggest maybe there needs to be specific premium paid for non-working spouse just as some other pension plans might have (I believe their benefits are already 50% after the husband dies, so that already seems rational). Obviously the situation is that social security was designed when people lived to be 65. So that the average person never collected. Now people on avg live to 78, and women in particular live 6 years longer than men! So the “average” is for a person to receive this income for 10 or more years and women are taking the lions share. Widows are indeed the “mathematical” problem! It’s a bit paradoxical in that these benefits (esp Medicare) are also what allow people to live these extended lives.
It is like insurance. Some folks pay premiums their entire lives and never use it. Others use it their entire life. You need the numbers to make the math work.
