DOGE Recommendations: Social Security
Reform Social Security to protect vulnerable seniors, ease burden on working Americans, and enhance retirement autonomy
As part of the “Cato Institute Report to the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE),” we submitted the following recommendations to address the looming Social Security insolvency and its impact on the federal budget.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/380fe/380feb38d3a114451e8007c57b2062fffb2ecb01" alt=""
Social Security is not a savings system but a pay-as-you-go scheme, where taxes collected from today’s workers fund the benefits of today’s beneficiaries. This makes Social Security susceptible to adverse demographic shifts, as its financial stability relies on a favorable worker-to-beneficiary ratio. In essence, the program operates like a Ponzi scheme: Paying benefits promised to earlier generations depends on new revenues from current and future workers. With an aging population, the worker-to-beneficiary ratio has been decreasing, making Social Security’s finances increasingly unsustainable and placing a growing fiscal burden on workers. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the payroll tax would need to immediately increase by 4.3 percentage points, from 12.4 percent to 16.7 percent, to cover the program’s long-term funding shortfall. This means an additional $2,600 in annual payroll taxes for a median earner ($61,000 annually), bringing their total payroll tax burden to more than $10,000 each year.
Furthermore, older generations tend to be wealthier than the younger generations paying for their Social Security benefits. This creates a system in which the federal government effectively redistributes hard-earned dollars from poorer workers to wealthier retirees. Notably, high-earning retirees can receive up to $60,000 in Social Security benefits annually, regardless of their other income and assets. Moreover, an excessively expensive Social Security system discourages private savings and offers poor returns for most workers, who would be better off investing their payroll taxes in stocks and bonds through private accounts.
Beyond these issues, Social Security is a significant contributor to the US fiscal imbalance. Old Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI)—the largest federal program—spent more than $1.2 trillion in 2023 but collected only $1.1 trillion in revenues, covering the $130 billion shortfall by relying on new borrowing from redeeming the Treasury IOUs in the so-called Social Security trust fund. These are not real savings. Every dollar that Social Security spends in excess of incoming payroll taxes and taxes on benefits adds to the federal debt. Since 2010, the OASI program has added $1.08 trillion to the federal debt and is projected to add $4.1 trillion more by 2033, when the program runs out of borrowing authority and confronts a 21 percent shortfall.
One cannot make significant headway balancing the federal budget without reforms to Social Security. Those reforms should focus on eliminating its fiscal shortfall and reducing the payroll tax burden on workers by slowing the growth in future benefits and reducing benefits for wealthier retirees.
The federal government should reform Social Security by doing the following:
Slow the growth in future benefits. Under the current system, initial benefits are adjusted based on wage growth, which typically outpaces inflation. This causes initial Social Security benefits to rise faster than necessary to maintain purchasing power, providing absolute benefit increases to newer cohorts. Switching to a formula that indexes initial benefits to prices would preserve current benefits and protect their purchasing power while eliminating 85 percent of the program’s long-term funding shortfall.
Modernize and reduce cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs). The Social Security Administration should replace the outdated Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI‑W) with the chained Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (C‑CPI‑U) for calculating COLAs. This index covers a broader share of Americans and factors in the substitution effect, in which consumers opt for cheaper alternatives when the prices of goods rise. The CBO estimates that this adjustment would reduce Social Security spending by $175 billion between 2024 and 2032. Congress should further consider eliminating COLAs for wealthier retirees, as was proposed in the Social Security Reform Act of 2016. This change, in addition to switching to the C‑CPI‑U for all other beneficiaries, would erase 37 percent of the program’s long-term actuarial deficit.
Raise eligibility ages. To better align with longer life expectancies and declining fertility rates, Social Security’s early and full retirement ages should be increased by three years each, to 65 and 70, respectively, and indexed to increases in longevity afterward. This change would enhance intergenerational fairness, distributing the fiscal burdens of an aging population across generations. The CBO has estimated that increasing the full retirement age to 70 while keeping the early retirement age unchanged would reduce Social Security’s costs by $121 billion between 2024 and 2032.
Transition to a flat benefit scheme. Social Security should return to its intended mission of alleviating old-age poverty. By transforming Social Security from an earnings-related scheme intended to replace income into a flat benefit scheme focused on poverty prevention, the government can focus income support on those individuals who need financial help the most while allowing most Americans to save for more of their personal retirement security in ways they deem best. Shifting to a predictable flat benefit based on years worked would return Social Security to its stated goal of preventing senior poverty and should reduce the program’s costs, thereby reducing the payroll tax burden on workers.
The question I always ask is that if we cut SS benefits, what are we going to get in return?
Lower taxes (for my personally)? Or is it just going to get spent on something else.
With SS as it is I don't have to support my mother. If SS goes away or gets cut a lot (even if some poverty wage remains) I will need to support her. That's bad for me. What do I get in return?
If we go to a flat benefit formula, are we also going to make SS taxes a flat tax. If I'm paying 10% of 165k and someone else is paying 10% of 16k obviously my benefit should be bigger (I'm not into welfare).
Look, I'm down with the idea of not having to pay payroll taxes for this dumb program, but I'm skeptical that the taxes will remain and just get re-directed to something I get even less of a benefit from then my mom getting a check.
If Soc Sec is supposed to be a real pension (not just an anti-poverty safety net for oldsters) it would make sense to index wages by the wage base, I think, which reflects economy-wide productivity improvements in addition to price-level increases. Wages at retirement reflect those improvements, as would defined contribution plan balances invested in the stock market, for example.
But I agree that Soc Sec should be mostly an anti-poverty safety net, which requires changing the whole I-paid-my-dues mindset. Good luck with your efforts on that (not being sarcastic). The last solution you offer - flat benefits - kind of does that, except in giving it also to rich people who don't need it, and renders all your other suggestions moot, right?
Seems like the first step should be to decide what we want Soc Sec to be.
My personal favorite solution: mandatory (maybe, sorry) defined contribution savings accounts with target-date-fund-like default investments with an anti-poverty safety net at retirement for those who need it - following a messy and contentious transition.
One other nit: if I understand (please correct me otherwise), you're counting "trust fund" depletion as an addition to the Federal debt. If you're just replacing the all-Tsy trust fund with debt held by others, how is that an increase in the Federal debt? Isn't the increase in debt determined by non-SocSec spending minus non-SocSec taxes? (At least until they start using general tax revenues to pay benefits?) The SocSec trust fund is just a holder of some of that debt. Replacing that debt as the trust fund is liquidated with debt held by others doesn't increase the debt - you're just refinancing existing debt. What's wrong with how I'm thinking about this?
Thanks