Social Security Is in Bad Shape. Does It Still Make Sense to Wait?

Transcript of Podcast Episode 391

Hello, this is Bill Rainaldi, with another edition of Security Mutual’s SML Planning Minute. In today’s episode: Social Security is in bad shape. Does it still make sense to wait?

As you may have heard, the U.S. Department of Treasury released its 2026 Social Security and Medicare Trustees Reports on June 9. Neither program is doing particularly well, but the Social Security Trust Funds seem to be getting the most attention.

There are two Social Security Trust Funds: one for retirement and one for disability. According to the 2026 report, the retirement fund, or the “Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund,” will run out of money during the fourth quarter of 2032. The other (smaller) fund, the “Disability Insurance Trust Fund,” is in a much stronger position than it was a few years ago. The current report projects that this one will be able to pay 100 percent of total scheduled benefits at least through the year 2100.[1]

There’s a certain amount of public confusion over the projected finances of the two funds. The two funds are separate entities and cannot be combined into one without a change in the law. But if they did get combined, and many people assume they eventually will be, the resulting mega-fund is projected to last until the third quarter of 2034. From that point forward, they would only be able to pay approximately 83 percent of the scheduled benefits.[2]

There have been a number of proposed “fixes” to the Social Security problem. Right now, there are two approaches that seem to be getting the most attention: raising taxes and reducing benefits. One of the suggested ways of raising taxes is increasing or eliminating the Social Security “cap,” which is $184,500 in 2026.[3] If your wages exceed this amount, the Social Security withholding of 6.2 percent for the employee, plus 6.2 percent for the employer, no longer applies. Above that amount, there is no withholding, nor is there any benefit that would be payable from it. Note that unlike Social Security, Medicare’s withholding of 1.45 percent has no upper limit.

When it comes to benefit reductions, the most common suggestion is to increase Full Retirement Age, or FRA. FRA, the age at which you receive your full, unreduced Social Security benefit, is currently age 67. The belief is that, since people are living significantly longer than they were years ago, extending FRA is a sensible way to “fix” the Social Security Trust Funds.

It remains unclear which solution will eventually win out. When Congress last took on this issue back in 1983, the result was a combination of both: an increase in withholding taxes and an extension of Full Retirement Age.

Either way, the prevailing thought is that they will eventually do something to fix it, one way or the other. Given the popularity of Social Security among America’s seniors, it seems unlikely that they will ever allow that projected 17 percent reduction in benefits to take place.[4]

But what if they’re wrong, and the projected drop actually occurs? Should that possibility be a significant factor in your claiming decision? In most cases, no.

The logical response seems to be that if Social Security benefits are reduced by 17 percent in 2034, it would be a good reason to claim earlier, correct? In other words, it would make more sense to start collecting as early as possible, say age 62, before the benefit is reduced.

Keep in mind how the math works. If you start at 62, you’re collecting five years ahead of schedule, but the tradeoff is a 30 percent lifetime reduction. So, while you get off to a head start, at some point you’ll be better off waiting, assuming you live long enough. A quick analysis indicates that the breakeven occurs around age 79. So, if you live past that age, you’re theoretically better off waiting, although there are some other factors, such as cost-of-living adjustments and the time value of money, that you may want to consider.

The same thing applies to delaying when you collect. You have the option of waiting until after Full Retirement Age, possibly as late as age 70. The incentive is an 8 percent per year increase.

Survivor benefits can also play a big role in the calculation. For a married couple where both are past FRA, the survivor benefit is basically the higher of the two. So, if I’m collecting $3,000 per month and my wife is collecting $1,000 per month, if something happens to me, she would “step up” to the $3,000 per month benefit. When doing the analysis, this becomes a potential reason for me to delay collecting, especially if she has a longer life expectancy than I do or is at least a few years younger than me.

And don’t forget about the Earnings Test. Your benefit could be temporarily reduced if you collect before FRA and continue to work, earning over a certain amount in wages. For 2026, that amount is $24,480, and the benefit reduction is $1 for every $2 over.[5] In some circumstances, that makes it impractical to collect before FRA, even if that’s what you would prefer.

Confused yet? Imagine how people feel when they add in the potential 17 percent benefit cut in 2034. How could that potentially impact your decision?

There are no simple answers, of course. But just understand that the projected cut, if it happens, would be across the board. In other words, if you wait until age 70, even if your benefit is reduced, it will still be 24 percent higher than it would have been had you collected at 67. So, when it comes to your decision, the effect of a potential insolvency of the Trust Funds is limited.

David Blanchette, Head of Retirement Research at Prudential Financial, has studied this issue in detail. His conclusion is that when you assume a potential benefit cut, the math is different, but not very much.[6] Other factors, such as life expectancy, survivor benefits and cost-of-living adjustments, could play a bigger role.

Other academic studies have reached a similar conclusion.[7] In many—but not all—cases, whatever works best before what could be called “Social Security doomsday” will still be the best choice afterwards, whether we actually see that day or not.

Every case is different, but one possible exception might be someone with a shorter life expectancy.  In that case, collecting as early as possible might make sense.

[1] Social Security Administration. “A Summary of the 2026 Annual Reports.” SSA.gov. https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html (accessed June 15, 2026).

[2] Id.

[3] Social Security Administration. “2026 Social Security Changes.” SSA.gov.  https://www.ssa.gov/news/en/cola/factsheets/2026.html (accessed June 16, 2026).

[4] Nuñez, Stephen. “Will Social Security Run Out?” Is the Wrong Question: How Lawmakers Can Protect Beneficiaries and Strengthen OASI.” Rooseveltinstitute.org. https://rooseveltinstitute.org/publications/will-social-security-run-out-is-the-wrong-question/ (accessed June 15, 2026).

[5] Social Security Administration. “Exempt Amounts Under the Earnings Test.” SSA.gov.  https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/rtea.html  (accessed June 15, 2026).

[6] Blanchette, David. “The Case for Delaying Social Security–Even if You Think Benefits Will Be Cut.” wsj.com. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-case-for-delaying-social-securityeven-if-you-think-benefits-will-be-cut-01603298761 (accessed June 15, 2026).

[7] Pfau, Wade and Parrish, Steve. “Which Social Security Claiming Strategy Generates the Highest Legacy Value?” FPA.org. https://www.financialplanningassociation.org/learning/publications/journal/JAN23-which-social-security-claiming-strategy-generates-highest-legacy-value-OPEN (accessed June 15, 2026).

This podcast is brought to you by Security Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, The Company That Cares^®. The content provided is intended for educational and informational purposes only. Information is provided in good faith. However, the Company makes no representation or warranty of any kind regarding the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of the information.

The information presented is designed to provide general information regarding the subject matter covered. It is not to serve as legal, tax or other financial advice related to individual situations, because each individual’s legal, tax and financial situation is different. Specific advice needs to be tailored to your situation. Therefore, please consult with your own attorney, tax professional and/or other advisors regarding your specific situation.

To help reach your goals, you need a skilled professional by your side. Contact your local Security Mutual life insurance advisor today. As part of the planning process, he or she will coordinate with your other advisors as needed to help you achieve your financial goals and objectives. For more information, visit us at SMLNY.com/SMLPodcast. If you’ve enjoyed this podcast, tell your friends about it. And be sure to give us a five-star review. And check us out on LinkedIn, YouTube and Twitter. Thanks for listening, and we’ll talk to you next time.

Tax laws are complex and subject to change. The information presented is based on current interpretation of the laws. Neither Security Mutual nor its agents are permitted to provide tax or legal advice.

The applicability of any strategy discussed is dependent upon the particular facts and circumstances. Results may vary, and products and services discussed may not be appropriate for all situations. Each person’s needs, objectives and financial circumstances are different, and must be reviewed and analyzed independently. We encourage individuals to seek personalized advice from a qualified Security Mutual life insurance advisor regarding their personal needs, objectives, and financial circumstances. Insurance products are issued by Security Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, Binghamton, New York. Product availability and features may vary by state.​