By Maksym Misichenko · Yahoo Finance ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panel generally agrees that the Social Security trust fund's depletion is a significant issue, but they differ on the urgency and the likelihood of a 28% benefit cut. They also discuss potential solutions like eliminating the wage cap and raising the retirement age, but political resistance is seen as a major hurdle. The gold IRA pitch is viewed as a hedge against legislative failure.
Risk: Policy uncertainty and potential legislative delays in addressing the trust fund depletion.
Opportunity: Potential for modest tax increases and benefit adjustments to close a significant portion of the funding gap.
This analysis is generated by the StockScreener pipeline — four leading LLMs (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok) receive identical prompts with built-in anti-hallucination guards. Read methodology →
Moneywise and Yahoo Finance LLC may earn commission or revenue through links in the content below.
Most American workers are probably aware that the Social Security system is facing a massive and imminent funding shortfall. But how imminent is it?
The program's Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund, which pays retirement benefits, could be depleted in just six years, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) (1).
- Thanks to Jeff Bezos, you can now become a landlord for as little as $100 — and no, you don't have to deal with tenants or fix freezers. Here's how
- Dave Ramsey warns nearly 50% of Americans are making 1 big Social Security mistake — here’s how to fix it ASAP
- The IRS usually taxes gold as a collectible — but this little-known strategy lets you hold physical bullion tax-free. Get your free guide from Priority Gold
"That's one year earlier than we projected," CBO Director Phillip Swagel said at a meeting held by the Subcommittee on Fiscal Responsibility and Economic Growth (2). Swagel noted that the trust fund for Part A of Medicare will also be exhausted in 2040 — a double threat for older Americans.
When it comes to Social Security, that means if Washington doesn't get its act together by that deadline, all beneficiaries could face an automatic benefit cut by an average of 28% between 2033 and 2036, according to the CBO. Unfortunately, many of the solutions proposed by experts could be just as painful, if not more uncomfortable, than an outright benefit cut.
Here are three solutions for the Social Security funding problem that lawmakers could be considering.
As of 2026, the full retirement age (FRA) for anyone born after 1960 is 67 years old, although most workers become eligible for reduced benefits as early as 62, according to the Social Security Administration (SSA) (3).
One of the proposals by the CBO to address the deficit is to raise the FRA to age 70 for anyone born after 1981 (4). But this move would have the same effect as cutting currently scheduled benefits by 20%, according to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (5). The same analysis also claims the impact on lifetime benefits could be magnified for low-income retirees, as this cohort has a lower life expectancy on average.
Simply put, this move could both keep you working longer and lower the overall payout you receive in retirement.
Read More: Non-millionaires can now hoard property like the 1% — how to start with as little as $100
Hiking taxes is generally unpopular, but it's arguably even more unpopular during an affordability crisis.
Nevertheless, this measure could be a potential solution for the impending Social Security trust fund depletion. Higher payroll taxes would boost revenue for the system and keep it afloat for longer.
Fortunately, there is a way to raise tax revenue without impacting the vast majority of American workers: eliminating the wage cap. Under the current system, the 6.2% payroll tax for Social Security is only applied to the first $184,500 of a worker's earnings, meaning that anything over that amount is not taxed (6). Eliminating this cap so that the payroll tax is collected on all earnings would generate significant revenue for the system.
In fact, The Reformer, an interactive tool developed by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), estimates this move alone could close 68% of the funding gap (7). The Peter G. Peterson Foundation's estimate is even higher, at 73% (8).
In other words, you could just tax the rich and save everyone. But this move might not appeal to many Americans who already earn more than $184,500, or those who aspire to.
Reducing benefits for high-income beneficiaries could also make a sizable difference to the funding gap.
For example, the CRFB has recently proposed the Six Figure Limit, which would cap the maximum amount of benefits a couple could collect at $100,000, or $50,000 for an individual, at the normal retirement age of 67 years (9). According to the CRFB's projections, this limit could close one-fifth of the program's 75-year solvency gap, and it could make up over half of its shortfall by the 75th year of its implementation.
Regardless of which lever Congress pulls, it's likely to impact how much Social Security you can expect over the course of your retirement. Now is the time to start preparing for this.
To prepare your nest egg and retirement plan for any eventuality, you may need to closely monitor what lawmakers are considering, speak to an advisor to adapt your plans accordingly and invest in assets that protect your wealth while offsetting any future tax burden.
Many investors consider gold alone a safe haven for their assets, but with platforms like Goldco, you can combine these features with the tax advantages of an IRA.
Opening a gold IRA with their help can allow you to invest in gold and other precious metals while still receiving all the benefits of a traditional IRA.
With a minimum purchase of $10,000, Goldco offers free shipping and access to a library of retirement resources. Plus, the company will match up to 10% of qualified purchases in free silver.
If you're curious whether this is the right investment to diversify your portfolio, you can download your free gold and silver information guide today. That way, you can make sure the gold is right for you and your portfolio.
Meanwhile, organizations for retirees like the AARP can help you keep an eye on policy changes that are on the horizon. That's because AARP members get access to guides that can help you make the most of Social Security, choose the right Medicare plan and uncover other government benefits — potentially saving you thousands.
As one of the most trusted organizations for older Americans, AARP not only offers money-saving perks, but they can also help you make informed financial and health decisions — especially if you're trying to plan for the decades ahead.
Ultimately, you can't predict how or when Social Security is reformed, but by monitoring changes and adding safety buffers to your portfolio, you can navigate any changes to this system — good or bad.
Join 250,000+ readers and get Moneywise’s best stories and exclusive interviews first — clear insights curated and delivered weekly. Subscribe now.
We rely only on vetted sources and credible third-party reporting. For details, see our editorial ethics and guidelines.
Congressional Budget Office (1),(4); Forbes Breaking News / YouTube (2); Social Security Administration (3),(6); Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (5); Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (7),(9); Peter G. Peterson Foundation (8)
This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"Political incentives favor repeated delays over decisive reform, so the 28% cut risk is real but not yet priced into most retirement portfolios."
The article correctly flags the OASI trust fund's projected depletion by 2033 and the 28% automatic cut scenario from the CBO. Yet it underplays how often Congress has delayed action on similar deadlines, from the 1983 amendments onward. Raising the FRA to 70 or eliminating the $184,500 wage cap would each close most of the gap according to CRFB models, but both face steep political resistance. The push toward gold IRAs as a hedge therefore rests on an assumption of legislative failure that remains untested. Investors should weigh the probability of last-minute patches against the 20% effective benefit reduction already embedded in an FRA hike alone.
History shows Congress can and does enact changes when depletion is within a decade, so the 2033 cliff may simply trigger incremental tax hikes rather than any broad need to flee to gold.
"Social Security's funding gap is real but solvable with known policy tools; the article's apocalyptic framing obscures that this is a political problem, not an economic one."
The article conflates two separate crises (OASI depletion in 2033, Medicare Part A in 2040) and treats them as equally urgent when they have vastly different policy levers. More critically, it buries the math: eliminating the wage cap closes 68-73% of the gap alone, meaning a combination of modest tax increases + modest benefit adjustments solves this without draconian cuts. The 28% benefit cut is a *failure scenario*, not baseline. The article's tone suggests inevitability while the actual policy toolkit is well-understood and politically viable—just unpopular with high earners. The gold IRA pitch at the end reveals the real agenda: monetizing fear rather than informing.
Congress has failed to act on Social Security reform for 40 years despite repeated warnings; political dysfunction could genuinely force a sudden 25%+ cut rather than gradual adjustment, making precautionary asset diversification rational even if the policy solutions are technically straightforward.
"The Social Security shortfall is a political choice, not a mathematical certainty, and any solution will likely result in a net reduction of aggregate consumer demand."
The article frames Social Security as a binary 'insolvency' crisis, but this is a political framing, not a fiscal one. The OASI trust fund depletion doesn't mean the program goes to zero; it means tax revenues will only cover roughly 75-80% of scheduled benefits. The real risk isn't total collapse, but a permanent, legislated shift in the tax-to-GDP ratio. Markets are currently ignoring the inflationary second-order effects of potential payroll tax hikes or benefit clawbacks. If Congress moves to eliminate the wage cap, we could see a drag on disposable income for high-earners, impacting consumer discretionary spending, while a higher retirement age would effectively increase labor supply, potentially cooling wage growth in tight sectors.
The 'insolvency' narrative is a necessary political catalyst; without the looming 2033 deadline, Congress would never have the leverage to force the painful, long-term structural reforms required to stabilize the federal debt-to-GDP trajectory.
"The solvency challenge is real but not an imminent disaster; policy changes over the next decade, not a cliff, will drive outcomes and market reactions."
The article inflates urgency. CBO/SSA projections place OASI trust fund depletion around 2033, not six years from now, and even then ongoing payroll taxes fund a substantial portion of benefits. The claim of a guaranteed 28% cut between 2033–2036 only if Congress does nothing is a policy trigger, not a cash cliff; history shows reform tends to occur in steps rather than a single slam-dunk change. It omits that the 75-year solvency metric depends on variables like wage growth, immigration, and inflation, which can shift outcomes. The gold-IRA pitch and affiliate links also bias the framing. Market-relevant risk is policy uncertainty and demographics, not an immediate insolvency.
If policymakers delay, the expected cuts could still occur and the market will price in that outcome; reforms are likely, so the worst-case could arrive sooner if negotiations stall.
"Wage-cap removal plus higher FRA would jointly drive preemptive gold demand that markets have not yet priced."
Gemini flags the tax-to-GDP shift from closing the wage cap, yet neither he nor Claude quantifies the portfolio response: high earners facing an extra 6.2 percent payroll tax would likely accelerate tax-deferred gold purchases to offset the hit. That flow could lift gold prices well before 2033, creating a self-fulfilling hedge even if Congress patches the trust fund at the last minute.
"Gold IRA demand as a pre-legislative hedge faces hard contribution limits and perverse incentives if the tax actually passes."
Grok's tax-flow thesis assumes high earners can legally front-load gold purchases to dodge future payroll taxes—they can't. Gold IRAs have annual contribution limits ($7,000-$8,000); you can't pre-fund against a tax that hasn't been legislated. The real flow risk is *if* wage-cap elimination passes: then marginal utility of tax-deferred accounts drops, potentially *reducing* gold IRA demand. Grok conflates a hedge narrative with actual portfolio mechanics.
"The real market risk of wage-cap reform is a reduction in equity liquidity from high-earners, not retail gold flows."
Claude is correct on the mechanical limits of IRAs, but both he and Gemini miss the broader capital allocation shift. If the wage cap is lifted, the real risk isn't gold IRA flows; it's a structural reduction in high-earner equity investment. If the marginal tax rate on high-income earners spikes to fund OASI, we see a contraction in the liquidity available for risk assets, which is a far more immediate market threat than the 2033 insolvency date.
"Policy fragility means wage-cap elimination, even if it closes a large share of the gap, may never pass or be reversed, leaving markets to price in a sequence of uncertain steps rather than a clear reform."
Claude, you tout 68-73% of the gap closed by eliminating the wage cap, but you gloss over the political economy: even with a viable technical fix, lawmakers may prefer smaller, incremental steps or offsetting measures that create perpetual policy uncertainty. The market won't price in a one-and-done reform if the path depends on fragile coalitions; timing risk may overshadow magnitude.
The panel generally agrees that the Social Security trust fund's depletion is a significant issue, but they differ on the urgency and the likelihood of a 28% benefit cut. They also discuss potential solutions like eliminating the wage cap and raising the retirement age, but political resistance is seen as a major hurdle. The gold IRA pitch is viewed as a hedge against legislative failure.
Potential for modest tax increases and benefit adjustments to close a significant portion of the funding gap.
Policy uncertainty and potential legislative delays in addressing the trust fund depletion.