It’s rare for politicians to openly advocate cutting Social Security benefits, and currently, both Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump have promised to protect the federal program. However, a recent analysis suggests that Trump’s Social Security plan could lead to significant cuts—potentially as high as 33%.
Image source: Getty Images.
Trump’s Policies and Their Effect on Social Security
Trump has proposed two major changes related to Social Security. First, he plans to eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits. Second, he suggested increasing revenue for the program by boosting U.S. oil and gas drilling.
At first glance, these changes might appear beneficial. Yet, the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) warns that removing taxes on benefits would eliminate a crucial funding source. In 2023, taxes on Social Security benefits contributed $51 billion to the program, as per the Social Security Administration.
Regarding his proposal to increase drilling, CRFB’s analysis indicates that it is unlikely to have a substantial impact on funding Social Security, relying on what may be unrealistic economic growth to bridge the program’s long-term funding gap.
Other elements of Trump’s plan could further harm Social Security. His promise to abolish taxes on overtime pay and tips would cut into payroll taxes that support the program. Additionally, his suggested deportation of millions of unauthorized immigrants may decrease the payroll tax revenue. Tariffs on imports could drive inflation higher, which would result in increased annual cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs), further straining Social Security’s finances.
Looking at the Big Picture
Although Trump’s overall Social Security plan may not explicitly cut benefits by 33%, CRFB estimates that all of his proposed policies combined could lead to that outcome. The organization projects a $2.3 trillion increase in Social Security’s cash shortfall over the next decade, threatening to deplete the program’s trust funds by 2031—three years earlier than current forecasts from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
Importantly, about half of those relying on Social Security would be affected by the projected 33% cuts, particularly lower-income individuals who do not currently pay federal taxes on their benefits. Those who do pay lower rates may face a reduction of around 30%, while earners with about $100,000 in household income could see cuts of approximately 26%. The wealthiest households might only endure a modest 3% reduction.
The essence of these projections is that if Trump’s policies contribute to social security insolvency, cuts will likely happen. CBO suggests a potential 23% reduction in benefits by 2035 if reforms do not take place.
Real-World Implications
The effects of Trump’s proposals may not be as severe as predicted. In CRFB’s most favorable outlook, Social Security could run out of funds in 2034, leading to a 29% cut in benefits, while a more pessimistic assessment suggests a 36% reduction. Evaluating political proposals often involves speculation, making uncertainty a constant factor.
History shows that politicians can abandon campaign promises once in office. They often find it challenging to push their agenda through Congress. Thus, it remains too soon to predict the full impact on Social Security if Trump wins a second term. Ultimately, regardless of political leadership, the urgent need for reform is clear to avoid future benefit cuts—if the right changes are made.
The $22,924 Social Security Bonus Most Retirees Overlook
Many Americans might be behind on retirement savings, but several under-the-radar “Social Security secrets” could significantly enhance retirement income. For example, one simple strategy could potentially boost your benefits by $22,924 per year! Learning to maximize Social Security benefits might be the key to retiring with confidence and security. Click here to explore these strategies.
Discover the “Social Security secrets” »
The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
The viewpoints expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.
