Let's have some frank talk about Social Security

I first heard of 401(k) plans as a young reporter at a Long Island community newspaper in the mid-1990s. I had recently returned from U.S. Peace Corps service in Bulgaria and had no thoughts of retirement, only work.

My publishers gathered employees in a windowless room full of filing cabinets, and a steely toned financial planner drove home a singular point: When 20-somethings like me reached retirement age in 40 or so years, Social Security could be no more. It was likely headed toward insolvency, he insisted, so we should sign up for a 401(k) — sooner rather than later. Suddenly worried, I joined the company retirement plan.

Fast-forward 30 years, and Social Security remains at issue. The 2023 Social Security Trustees report predicted our hard-won benefits will decrease by 21% in 2034 if Congress does not enact a fix.

The House Republican Study Committee has proposed cuts sooner than that. Recent budget plans developed by the caucus of 176 conservative representatives would incrementally raise the retirement age to receive full Social Security benefits to 69 from the current 67. The proposal, which reportedly would be phased in over eight years starting in 2026, would affect anyone now 59 or younger.

Democratic representatives created an interactive online map to show how the GOP plan would, if enacted, affect individual congressional districts. In the 4th District in Nassau County, where I live, 75% of residents — 580,000 people — would see their benefits reduced to varying degrees. Meanwhile, President Joe Biden and Democratic lawmakers have called for an additional payroll tax on anyone earning over $400,000 a year, with proceeds going to shore up the Social Security Trust Fund. Currently, we only pay that tax on the first $168,000 of income. The proposal has met considerable GOP pushback.

Cutting Social Security is a frightening possibility for many. An April AARP report found 20% of Americans over age 50 have no retirement savings, and 61% worry they will not have enough to retire.

I’m now 57. Like so many 50-something and 60-something Long Islanders, I fret over the future, in particular whether ever-increasing property taxes will drive my wife and me from our cherished Merrick home and off the Island to some less expensive clime in our post-retirement years. Social Security could make the difference between staying and going.

With Social Security and other benefits facing reductions as people live longer because of medical advances and an increasing focus on exercise and nutrition, some financial experts are pitching a new solution: Work 60 years.

That might solve one's financial issues. But working into your late 70s would require you to maintain your skills and stay in good health well past what is currently considered "normal retirement age." On the national political stage, we have seen candidates pushing 60 years of work, and their obvious declines illustrate the myriad challenges of remaining in the workforce for six decades.

There are people who can, and do, work long past the expected retirement timeline. There are attorneys and professors, journalists and actors, business owners and teachers, who have stayed on the job into their 80s. They are not the norm, however. Many people want and need to retire at 67, or younger, often for health reasons.

As a voter, I have yet to hear a meaningful discussion about Social Security’s fate in this year’s presidential election. It’s about time that we had one to ensure that all Americans can retire with dignity on their own terms.

This guest essay reflects the views of Scott Brinton, assistant professor of journalism at Hofstra University’s Lawrence Herbert School of Communication.