Social Security is facing a financial shortfall. There’s really no way to sugarcoat it. In the coming years, it expects to spend more on benefits than what it takes in thanks to the large number of baby boomers existing the workforce.
Thankfully, Social Security has trust funds it can tap to make up its revenue shortfall. But once those trust funds are depleted, benefit cuts will be on the table unless lawmakers manage to come up with a fix.
Now there are different solutions that have been introduced along those lines, and one is to raise full retirement age (FRA), which is when filers are entitled to their monthly benefits without a reduction. Currently, FRA is 67 for anyone born in 1960 or later, but lawmakers have suggested pushing it back to 68. Doing so could eliminate 14% of Social Security’s projected shortfall, according to the University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation.
But while raising FRA may be a good way to prevent future benefit cuts, it could make a lot of people unhappy by forcing them to delay their retirement plans. And that’s a possibility you may have to get on board with.
Social Security shortfall: Limiting benefits based on need could fix it. But is it fair?
Will you have to delay retirement?
To be clear, changing FRA from 67 to 68 is just a proposal – it’s nowhere close to being an official solution to Social Security’s financial woes. But it’s a reasonable idea that lawmakers are apt to consider, namely because life expectancies have…
