2026 SS Trustees Report

[MBSC]

2026 Medicare Trustees Report: https://www.cms.gov/oact/tr/2026

"The HI trust fund [Part A] is projected to become depleted in the second quarter of 2033, which is one quarter earlier than projected in last year’s report. Upon reserve depletion in 2033, projected income is sufficient
to pay 89 percent of scheduled benefits. This percentage increases gradually to 93 percent by 2100."

"... The OBBBA also adds a temporary additional standard deduction for taxpayers over age 65. As a result, less income tax will be paid on Social Security benefits, and the HI trust fund will receive lower levels of revenue in the future from income taxation of Social Security benefits."

 

[GenXguy]

2026 Medicare Trustees Report: https://www.cms.gov/oact/tr/2026

"The HI trust fund [Part A] is projected to become depleted in the second quarter of 2033, which is one quarter earlier than projected in last year’s report. Upon reserve depletion in 2033, projected income is sufficient
to pay 89 percent of scheduled benefits. This percentage increases gradually to 93 percent by 2100."

"... The OBBBA also adds a temporary additional standard deduction for taxpayers over age 65. As a result, less income tax will be paid on Social Security benefits, and the HI trust fund will receive lower levels of revenue in the future from income taxation of Social Security benefits."

Also the end of WEP/GPO is draining the social security fund faster than previously calculated.

 

[USGrant1962]

Also the end of WEP/GPO is draining the social security fund faster than previously calculated.

Nothing new there, that was accounted for in last year's report.

 

[MichaelB]

2026 Medicare Trustees Report: https://www.cms.gov/oact/tr/2026

"The HI trust fund [Part A] is projected to become depleted in the second quarter of 2033, which is one quarter earlier than projected in last year’s report. Upon reserve depletion in 2033, projected income is sufficient
to pay 89 percent of scheduled benefits. This percentage increases gradually to 93 percent by 2100."

"... The OBBBA also adds a temporary additional standard deduction for taxpayers over age 65. As a result, less income tax will be paid on Social Security benefits, and the HI trust fund will receive lower levels of revenue in the future from income taxation of Social Security benefits."

Interesting. I would have guessed Medicare was less well funded. Considering the benefit is so heavily subsidized, it actually looks to be in almost good shape.

 

[GenXguy]

Nothing new there, that was accounted for in last year's report.

That doesn't matter - it's a change lawmakers made that actually drains the SS fund faster. Have a big problem? Let's intentionally make it worse.

 

[crule42]

And for the full picture for 2026:

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/tr/2026/II_A_highlights.html

Table II.A1.—Key Results

		OASI	DI	OASDI
Year of projected trust fund reserve depletion		2032	N/A	2034
Percent of scheduled benefits that are payable:
	Before reserve depletion	100	100	100
	Upon reserve depletion	78	N/A	83
	In 2100	62	100	65
75-year actuarial balance (percentage of payroll)		-4.55	.13	-4.42

Didn't understand the difference between OASI, DI, and OASDI until now. The Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund provides benefits to retired workers and their families, while the Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Fund offers benefits to workers who are unable to work due to disabilities.

 

[Car-Guy]

Means test.

Income or net worth or both?

Income "means" testing is already being done e.g. IRMAA. So they could just lower the tier 1 threshold to, lets say 100k or even 50k for MFJ. Me thinks this is the one of the most likely scenarios.

Net worth would be a lot more complex. IMO

 

[pb4uski]

Means test.

No, just reduce benefits. People who failed to save for retirement most likely lived above their means and there needs to be consequences for financially irresponsible behavior. Sorry.

 

[marko]

So, a cut would reduce my taxable income, right?

As SS would reduce, my RMD would be increasing, leaving me a possible net zero change rather than an increase at a time when I'd need the extra money the least.

 

[martyp]

In 1983, Social Security was facing a similar deadline. The 1983 changes were enacted 3 months before that deadline. It is a long time before 2032.

 

[Koolau]

Income or net worth or both?

Income "means" testing is already being done e.g. IRMAA. So they could just lower the tier 1 threshold to, lets say 100k or even 50k for MFJ. Me thinks this is the one of the most likely scenarios.

Net worth would be a lot more complex. IMO

INCOME: Maybe stop the indexing of IRMAA for inflation??

NET WORTH: Yes. It would be complicated. For instance, what counts? The spare change in your pocket? One thing the USA doesn't want is the economy moving further underground to hide assets from the gummint.

 

[RetiredHappy]

INCOME: Maybe stop the indexing of IRMAA for inflation??

NET WORTH: Yes. For instance, what counts? The spare change in your pocket? One thing the USA doesn't want is the economy moving further underground to hide assets from the gummint.

Move most of the money into irrevocable trust to reduce net worth.

 

[pb4uski]

IMO a net worth test it totally unworkable because there are many assets that are hard to value.

 

[pb4uski]

Move most of the money into irrevocable trust to reduce net worth.

Or a life annuity.

 

[GenXguy]

I can't see net worth being a factor in means testing. And IRMAA is not social security. A more appropriate means test should be based on household income and a resulting cut in SS benefits for high income households.

But before any benefits are cut for those who rightfully earned them, handouts should be eliminated, and GPO/WEP reinstated.

 

[NameTaken2]

Income or net worth or both?

Income "means" testing is already being done e.g. IRMAA. So they could just lower the tier 1 threshold to, lets say 100k or even 50k for MFJ. Me thinks this is the one of the most likely scenarios.

Net worth would be a lot more complex. IMO

Perspectives on whether income means testing would include qualified Roth withdrawals?
How current Roth accounts could be affected, and whether any consideration should be given by those currently doing Roth conversions?

 

[Mulligan]

I can't see net worth being a factor in means testing. And IRMAA is not social security. A more appropriate means test should be based on household income and a resulting cut in SS benefits for high income households.

But before any benefits are cut for those who rightfully earned them, handouts should be eliminated, and GPO/WEP reinstated.

So a teacher who works 15 years in a SS state and then 15 years is a non SS state and retires with 2 partial pension should lose a chunk of their SS? And somebody who just works 15 years of SS with a similar salary profile and thats it, should get more SS than that person? I dont call that situation a handout. Those people definitely rightfully earned theirs too.

 

[Car-Guy]

Perspectives on whether income means testing would include qualified Roth withdrawals?
How current Roth accounts could be affected, and whether any consideration should be given by those currently doing Roth conversions?

Of course I don't have any better insight to what might happen than anyone else here, but IMO, they'll include everything they can as income. The easy or low hanging fruit will be first with all other sources to follow. They didn't build all the IRS computer complexes for no reason. Will be interesting to see how they use AI too.

Fair or unfair? I mean, look at IRMAA today. That's unfair IMO.

 

[GenXguy]

So a teacher who works 15 years in a SS state and then 15 years is a non SS state and retires with 2 partial pension should lose a chunk of their SS? And somebody who just works 15 years of SS with a similar salary profile and thats it, should get more SS than that person? I dont call that situation a handout. Those people definitely rightfully earned theirs too.

They're already getting public funds, so they shouldn't be double dipping with full scoops, where they are now getting as much as someone who only worked regular jobs getting SS with no public pension. That was the whole idea behind GPO/WEP. It made no sense to end it, especially when the trust fund is running out of money. It's ridiculous, but not surprising from our legislators.

 

[pb4uski]

.... and a resulting cut in SS benefits for high income households.

How do you justify this? For example, Joe and Ernie have identical earnings records and paid the exact same amount in SS taxes. Joe has saved and Ernie lived paycheck-to-paycheck and didn't save.

So they paid the exact same in SS taxes and the spender will get rewarded with a full benefit and the saver will be penalized with a reduced benefit?

That is totally warped and unAmerican IMO. Any funding reduction should be pro rata and Ernie should have to live with the consequences of not saving and Joe should get the benefit of saving.

 

[pb4uski]

They're already getting public funds, so they shouldn't be double dipping with full scoops, where they are now getting as much as someone who only worked regular jobs getting SS with no public pension. That was the whole idea behind GPO/WEP. It made no sense to end it, especially when the trust fund is running out of money. It's ridiculous, but not surprising from our legislators.

Many people worked for companies where a defined benefit pension plan was part of their benefits package so in retirement they get SS and a pension. So if the employer that provided a defined benefit pension happened to be a governmental entity rather than a private company then it should be treated different? That is dumb.

The trust fund running out of money is irrelevant to the issue and to the situation. Please stop with the socialist solutions to SS.

 

[GenXguy]

Many people worked for companies where a defined benefit pension plan was part of their benefits package so in retirement they get SS and a pension. So if the employer that provided a defined benefit pension happened to be a governmental entity rather than a private company then it should be treated different? That is dumb.

The trust fund running out of money is irrelevant to the issue and to the situation. Please stop with the socialist solutions to SS.

Well read up on GPO/WEP so I don't have to explain it in detail. This just reinforces the need for income based means testing of SS benefits.

 

[marko]

That is totally warped and unAmerican IMO. Any funding reduction should be pro rata and Ernie should have to live with the consequences of not saving and Joe should get the benefit of saving.

Very unfair, but sadly quite "American" IMO. I can think of several examples where "doing the right thing" doesn't pay, yet, we good guys keep doing it.

 

[Just_Steve]

They're already getting public funds, so they shouldn't be double dipping with full scoops, where they are now getting as much as someone who only worked regular jobs getting SS with no public pension. That was the whole idea behind GPO/WEP. It made no sense to end it, especially when the trust fund is running out of money. It's ridiculous, but not surprising from our legislators.

Not every govt employee with a govt pension was covered by GPO/WEP to start with.

 

[GenXguy]

Not every govt employee with a govt pension was covered by GPO/WEP to start with.

Yeah, offsets should have been put in place for anyone with a pension, even private sector pensions. That would have sustained the trust fund longer.