Social Security has long stood as a foundational financial safety net for millions of Americans, providing a crucial layer of support through various life stages. However, this vital program currently finds itself at a significant crossroads, facing increasing pressures that demand careful attention and proactive solutions from lawmakers and individuals alike. The latest projections from the Social Security Trustees paint a sobering picture, indicating that the trust fund which helps disburse benefits is anticipated to be depleted by the mid-2030s unless decisive actions are taken. This looming deadline underscores the urgency of understanding the potential shifts on the horizon.
Indeed, as Paul Miller, managing partner and CPA at Miller and Company, LLP, articulately noted, “Social Security is at a bit of a crossroads.” The depletion of the trust fund does not, by any means, signal the outright disappearance of Social Security. Instead, it implies a very real possibility that, absent any legislative intervention, future benefits could face substantial reductions, potentially by 20% or even more. Such a reduction would be a considerable blow, particularly for retirees who heavily rely on these payments to cover their essential living expenses.
In light of these projections and the pressing need for reform, financial experts and policy analysts have put forward various predictions and proposals regarding the changes we might see to Social Security in the coming decade. These aren’t just abstract policy debates; they are potential adjustments that could profoundly impact millions of current beneficiaries and future retirees, shaping their financial planning and retirement outlook. Let’s delve into some of the most significant predicted changes, offering a clear, forward-looking perspective on what these adjustments could mean for you.
1. **A Higher Full Retirement Age (FRA)**
The Full Retirement Age (FRA) is a pivotal concept in Social Security planning, representing the age at which individuals become eligible to receive 100% of the retirement benefit they have earned based on their lifelong work history. For those born in 1960 or later, the current full retirement age stands at 67. However, with demographic shifts and increasing life expectancies continually challenging the program’s long-term solvency, a significant change predicted by experts is a further increase in this benchmark age.
Paul Miller highlighted this likelihood, stating, “We may see the FRA increase from 67 to 68 or beyond for younger workers.” The rationale behind such a move is clear: by incrementally raising the FRA, the program can reduce its long-term payouts without directly cutting benefits for those already in retirement. This approach aims to spread the financial strain across a broader timeline and align the age of full benefits more closely with extended lifespans.
While no new legislation has been enacted yet to implement further increases, proposals have certainly been on the table. For instance, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analyzed an option that would gradually raise the FRA from 67 to 70. This specific proposal envisioned increasing the FRA by two months per birth year for workers born between 1964 and 1981, ultimately setting the FRA at 70 for anyone born in 1981 or later. Such a change would significantly alter retirement planning for many generations.
It’s also important to acknowledge an immediate, concrete step in this direction: the FRA is already increasing to 67 in 2026 for those born in 1960 or later. This culmination of a 42-year-long shift, initiated by the 1983 amendments to the Social Security Act, was specifically designed to reflect longer life expectancies and reduce financial strain. While workers will still retain the option to claim benefits as early as age 62, any further increases to the FRA would result in a steeper reduction in their monthly payments compared to current law, emphasizing the growing importance of strategic claiming decisions.
Read more about: Your Personalized Roadmap to Retirement: A Kiplinger Guide to Financial Independence
2. **Raising or Eliminating the Taxable Maximum**
One of the most frequently discussed proposals for shoring up Social Security’s finances involves adjustments to the taxable maximum, which is the cap on earnings subject to Social Security taxes. Currently, there’s a limit to how much of an individual’s income is taxed for Social Security purposes. In 2024, for example, only wages up to $168,600 were subject to this tax, with this limit rising to $176,100 in 2025 and an estimated $183,600 in 2026.
This cap, known as the taxable maximum, means that any wages earned above this threshold are not taxed for Social Security contributions. Consequently, higher-income earners, who often have a significant portion of their income exceeding this cap, contribute a smaller percentage of their total income to Social Security compared to those whose entire income falls below the limit. This structure has been a point of contention and a target for reform efforts aimed at increasing program revenue.
As Paul Miller noted, “Higher-income earners might face increased payroll taxes or see more of their benefits taxed. Currently, only wages up to $168,600 (in 2024) are subject to Social Security tax. Congress could raise or eliminate that cap.” The idea behind raising or eliminating this threshold altogether is to ensure that top earners contribute more substantially to the system, thereby boosting the program’s overall tax revenue. The American Academy of Actuaries, in their report, indicated that eliminating the taxable maximum could cover an impressive 78% of the projected 2034 shortfall, though it would still require other changes to fully address the issue.
The debate around this proposal often centers on fairness and the progressivity of the tax system. By either raising the cap significantly or removing it entirely, the burden of funding Social Security would be more evenly distributed across all income levels, theoretically strengthening the trust fund. Such a change would mean that, for individuals with very high incomes, a greater portion of their annual earnings would be subject to the 6.2% Social Security payroll tax, directly increasing the system’s financial intake.
Read more about: Social Security at 90: Debunking 14 Stubborn Myths That Could Jeopardize Your Retirement
3. **Increasing the Social Security Payroll Tax Rate**
Beyond adjusting the taxable maximum, another direct and impactful approach to bolster Social Security’s funding involves increasing the actual payroll tax rate. Currently, both employers and employees each contribute 6.2% of an individual’s wages (up to the taxable maximum) to Social Security, totaling 12.4%. This established rate has been consistent for many years, but experts suggest it could be subject to change in the face of the program’s financial challenges.
Ash Ahluwalia, managing director and head of Social Security planning at OneTeam Financial, explicitly recommended this course of action. He wrote, “Increase the SS tax rate from 6.2% (which applies to employers and employees) to a higher amount.” The primary advantage of such an increase is its potential to generate an immediate and significant boost to Social Security tax revenue, providing a more robust funding stream to help cover projected benefit payments.
While straightforward, raising the payroll tax rate is often viewed as a politically challenging move due to its direct impact on virtually all workers and businesses. Even a modest increase could translate into noticeable reductions in take-home pay for employees and higher labor costs for employers. Despite these considerations, the American Academy of Actuaries’ report examined scenarios where such an increase could be highly effective.
For example, the report noted that by raising the Social Security payroll tax rate to 7.75% from the current 6.2% for both workers and employees (representing a 25% increase in the rate), it “may result in enough to pay 100% of benefits in 2034.” However, the report also cautioned that such a higher tax rate “may not be enough to cover all benefits in subsequent years” and, importantly, “may be burdensome for low-income workers,” highlighting the complex trade-offs involved in this particular solution.
Read more about: Kiplinger’s Guide: 12 Essential Strategies for Americans to Navigate and Thrive Through an Economic Recession
4. **Revising the Benefit Formula for High Earners**
Social Security benefits are meticulously calculated by the Social Security Administration (SSA) using a specific formula that considers an individual’s “average indexed monthly earnings” and their age at retirement. This formula is designed to be progressive, meaning it replaces a higher percentage of pre-retirement earnings for lower-income workers than for high-income workers. Experts predict that lawmakers might tweak this formula to further adjust the benefits received by different income groups.
Paul Miller pointed to this possibility, observing, “Lawmakers could revise the benefit formula to be less generous for high earners, while preserving or even enhancing benefits for lower-income retirees.” The aim here would be to maintain the program’s safety net for those who rely on it most, while potentially reducing payouts for those with greater financial resources, thus freeing up funds to ensure the system’s overall viability.
The American Academy of Actuaries’ report delved into various ways such a reduction for high-income individuals could be implemented. One approach involves reducing the “replacement rate” for people at the high end of the benefit formula, perhaps lowering it from 15% to 5% over a period of five years. Another option suggested that people earning above a median income could see their replacement rate reduced from 32% to 10%, significantly altering their expected benefits.
Further proposals include limiting the growth of the initial benefit for individuals who consistently earn at or above the taxable maximum ($160,200 in a previous example). Additionally, the concept of a “means test” has been floated, which could potentially eliminate or significantly reduce benefits for individuals with very high incomes or substantial assets. These proposals underscore a legislative inclination to ensure the program’s sustainability by adjusting the benefit structure to reflect varying levels of financial need and contribution throughout a worker’s career.
5. **Changes to Cost of Living Adjustments (COLA) Calculation**
The annual Cost of Living Adjustment, or COLA, is a critical mechanism by which the Social Security Administration endeavors to protect the purchasing power of beneficiaries from the erosive effects of inflation. Each year, the SSA increases benefits by a certain percentage to help recipients keep pace with rising prices. For instance, the COLA for 2025 was announced at 2.5%, translating to an average increase of $48 per month for beneficiaries.
However, experts predict that the very method by which COLA is calculated could undergo significant changes in the coming decade. Paul Miller remarked, “There may be changes to how COLAs are calculated, possibly switching to a different inflation measure, like the chained CPI, which typically grows more slowly.” The current measure, the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W), is often criticized for not fully reflecting the spending patterns of seniors, particularly in areas like healthcare and housing.
Switching to an alternative measure, such as the chained Consumer Price Index (chained CPI), is a common proposal to save money for the program. The chained CPI generally indicates a lower rate of inflation compared to the CPI-W because it accounts for how consumers adjust their spending habits by substituting cheaper goods when prices rise. The American Academy of Actuaries’ report confirmed that adopting the chained CPI “would reduce benefit increases by about 0.3 percentage points each year,” providing a cumulative saving to the Social Security system over time.
Conversely, some advocacy groups argue for a different measure, like the Consumer Price Index for the Elderly (CPI-E), which would likely result in higher annual benefit adjustments, increasing costs for the program. The report found that changing the COLA measure to CPI-E would increase annual benefit adjustments by 0.2 percentage points on average, leading to an increase in costs. The choice of inflation measure is therefore a key battleground in the efforts to balance the program’s financial health with beneficiaries’ needs.
Read more about: In-Depth Analysis: Decoding the 2026 Social Security COLA Forecast and Its Financial Implications for Retirees
6. **Alterations to Social Security Filing Strategies**
Beyond the headline-grabbing discussions of retirement age and tax rates, experts also anticipate potential changes to the more intricate aspects of the Social Security system, particularly concerning various filing strategies and specific benefit categories. These adjustments could impact how individuals claim benefits and the eligibility criteria for certain family members.
Ash Ahluwalia noted that the agency “could also make changes to other parts of the Social Security system, such as the reduction or elimination of spousal benefits, ex-spousal benefits, child benefits and child-in-care benefits or other Social Security benefits.” These types of benefits are currently available to provide financial support to dependents or former spouses of a primary beneficiary, and their alteration or removal would have significant implications for family financial planning.
Ahluwalia further pointed out that “Similar changes have happened in the past,” citing the example of the elimination of “filing and suspending.” This was a strategy that allowed a worker to voluntarily suspend receiving benefit payments at or after their full retirement age, enabling their spouse or dependent children to collect benefits based on their record, while the worker’s own benefit continued to grow through delayed retirement credits. The elimination of this strategy illustrates the willingness of policymakers to close what some perceive as ‘loopholes’ within the Social Security code.
Read more about: A Comprehensive Look at Governor Ron DeSantis’s Tenure and Policy Initiatives in Florida
The potential for further adjustments to these filing strategies or specific benefit categories underscores a broader effort to ensure the program’s financial sustainability. By tightening eligibility requirements or modifying the calculation of these ancillary benefits, lawmakers aim to streamline expenditures and direct resources more efficiently. For future beneficiaries, this means a need for even greater diligence in understanding the rules and planning their claiming strategies meticulously to maximize their entitled benefits under evolving regulations.
