Social Security “crisis” is a budget choice, not fate

Social Security’s projected shortfall through the early 2030s is real, but the idea that Congress has “no choice” to address it doesn’t hold up against the scale of other federal tax breaks and spending priorities the government could change. The piece argues

For weeks. the same story has been looping across major newsrooms: Social Security’s trust fund is set to run low. benefits will have to be cut. and Congress must act. The deadline sounds inevitable—“by 2032. ” benefits “substantially” reduced without a fix—and it’s designed to make lawmakers look like firefighters racing a deadline.

But the claim of inevitability clashes with how the math actually shakes out. and with what Congress routinely chooses to protect instead. Social Security benefits are entitlements—earned through payroll taxes paid over working lives. And while there are real reasons the system’s revenue will eventually fall short—an aging population. a “Trumpian decline in immigration. ” and the way payroll taxes work at high incomes—the article’s core point is that the gap is not a natural disaster. It’s a policy outcome.

The article lays out the projected problem. A February analysis by the Urban Institute forecasts a gap of about $2.8 trillion over the five-year period from 2032 to 2036. It also points to why money flows change: the aging population; fewer workers paying in due to a decline in immigration; and the way high earners pay a relatively small portion of their incomes in payroll taxes because the SSI tax only applies to the first $184. 500 of a person’s earnings.

Then comes the comparison that drives the argument. The piece contrasts the Social Security shortfall with other federal budget decisions. especially those tied to taxes for wealth and investments. The nonprofit Bipartisan Policy Center reported—using scores from the Congressional Budget Office and the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation—that “Trump’s One Big Beautiful bill” would cost the federal government $4.5 trillion in lost tax revenues over a decade. even as it slashes $1.4 trillion from programs low-income Americans rely on: Medicaid. SNAP (food stamps). and federal student loans.

At the same time. it describes a set of military and investment priorities that it says far exceed the scale of the fix being treated as impossible. President Donald Trump is demanding a roughly 50 percent increase (to $1.5 trillion) in the US military budget. and the article says that budget had already exceeded the combined military budgets of the next seven countries. including China and Russia.

From there. the piece turns to the argument that closing the Social Security gap would require political choices—ones lawmakers could make quickly if they prioritized it. It says Congress could close the gap “tomorrow” if lawmakers shifted priorities toward the broader public instead of the richest 10 percent.

To show how, it points to tax breaks that cost far more than the headlines often suggest. It cites a “fun JCT document” listing what every federal tax break costs the US government. The latest version it names is JCX-45-25, covering the five years from 2025-2029.

One major item. according to the piece. is the “step-up in basis” rule—described as a way wealthy heirs inherit assets like stock at the current market value. erasing taxes on investment profits accumulated over a lifetime. The article says this is costing the government $379.3 billion over five years, according to the JCT.

It also focuses on housing-related tax advantages. It says the $500. 000 in tax-free gains the government grants a couple when they sell their primary residence. combined with a combined $750. 000 mortgage interest deduction for first and second homes. will run the government more than $574 billion. It adds that the second home allowance could at least be scrapped.

Next is a tax provision that it frames as a giveaway passed in 2017 as part of the first round of Trump tax cuts for the rich. The piece calls it the “deduction for qualified business income. ” saying it overwhelmingly benefits the richest 1 percent of the population and that killing it would return $390 billion to pay for Social Security.

To expand the options further, it returns to the central theme: investment income isn’t taxed the way wages are. The article argues that raising the tax rate on investment profits to match what workers pay on wages would free up $1.25 trillion.

The piece gives a specific example to illustrate the stakes it sees in retirement accounts and tax advantages. It says Peter Thiel reportedly has more than $5 billion in his Roth IRA, a type of account meant for middle-class retirement savers.

It then pivots to a broader category of retirement-related subsidies. It says that. after tallying the earlier items. the total is already more than $2 trillion. and asks which “bundle of tax breaks” costs the US government more than anything else. Its answer is subsidies for private retirement savings.

According to the article. tax deferrals on retirement contributions or the exclusion of capital gains from taxation for accounts like 401(k)s and 403(b)s. Keogh plans. and individual retirement accounts (IRAs and Roth IRAs) will cost the treasury $2.3 trillion for 2025-2029—nearly as much as the Social Security gap. It concedes that some of the support is well spent, including helping working people save for retirement. But it argues the benefit grows larger the more money you have.

To make that point, it cites the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances from 2022. It says less than half—about 43 percent—of families from the least-affluent three-quarters of the population had at least one private retirement account. but more than 87 percent of families in the top quartile had one. It adds that the rate for families in the richest 10 percent was 91.3 percent.

The piece then says Congress has passed legislation requiring companies to create retirement accounts for all employees (opt-out style). but “simply having a retirement account” doesn’t mean people can contribute meaningfully. It links this to “huge discrepancies in savings even among families who actually have a retirement account.”.

It also discusses a chart it describes from an earlier story: the yellow line represents average 2019 retirement savings for households in the top 10 percent, the green line represents the next 15 percent down, and the bottom line represents everybody else.

The piece adds another set of numbers about how retirement savings distribute across income. It says Americans held $23.8 trillion in tax-advantaged retirement accounts all told. It then gives by its calculations average household retirement savings by wealth tier: Bottom 25 percent: $2. 548; Second 25 percent: $15. 976; Third 25 percent: $66. 809; Top 25 percent: $640. 771; Top 10 percent: $1. 183. 877; and Top 5 percent: $1. 546. 050 (minimum). It states that the richest 5 percent of households held nearly half the nation’s total retirement savings in 2022—$10.15 trillion.

From there, it proposes a concrete policy lever: Congress could cap retirement savings at, say, $2 million per household. After reaching that cap, families could make no more tax-free contributions, and any further investment growth in their accounts would be subject to taxation.

The article says such caps were proposed—more modest versions—under President Barack Obama and later under President Joe Biden. but Congress refused to pass them. It suggests part of the reason may be that lawmakers feel beholden to rich investors and to Wall Street banks and money managers who profit from hosting wealthy clients’ large investment accounts.

The piece ends where it began, returning to the political framing of the moment. It argues that calling it a “crisis” is the wrong description. and that the shortfall is a “choice.” It says the key dispute is not whether Social Security faces a future gap. but whether Congress treats closing it as a priority—or as something that only “conservative politicians” need to use as leverage to push cuts to entitlements.

Social Security payroll taxes trust fund Congress tax breaks step-up in basis qualified business income investment income tax rate retirement account subsidies JCX-45-25 Urban Institute Bipartisan Policy Center Medicaid SNAP federal student loans