Could you invest your own FICA taxes? The new Social Security proposal explained
As Elon Musk took a figurative chainsaw to the Social Security Administration earlier this year, there were those, like U.S. Rep. John B. Larson (D-Connecticut), who suspect the move had a lot to do with a desire to privatize Social Security.
Social Security privatization refers to transforming the current Social Security system, primarily a government-run program, into a system that allows Americans to invest their Social Security contributions into private accounts rather than paying into the federal program.
The challenge
If you've ever looked at a paycheck and wondered what FICA stands for, it's the Federal Insurance Contributions Act. Of your gross wages, 6.2% goes into FICA to pay for Social Security and another 1.45% goes toward covering Medicare. Your employer matches both amounts, resulting in a total contribution of 15.3% of your wages.
Contributions made today support benefits for retirees, people with disabilities, and survivors of workers who have died. Think of it as today's employees helping fund the benefits of today's retirees. Since Social Security was first established in 1935, the understanding has been that each generation of retirees will be supported by younger workers still on the job.
A perfect storm of demographic changes in the United States put the Social Security system in a vulnerable position. Between the declining fertility rate and increased life expectancies, there are fewer workers to support an ever-growing group of retirees. As of this year, 12% of the total population is 65 or older. By 2080, it will be 23%.
In other words, the worker-to-beneficiary ratio is expected to drop dramatically, potentially impacting the SSA's ability to fulfill promised benefit payments.
A move away from FICA?
Among the proposals being made is the suggestion that Americans retain the 6.2% of their wages currently allocated toward FICA. Instead, they can invest it in private investment vehicles and decide how the money should be allocated.
Supporters of Social Security privatization argue that the change would give individuals greater control over their retirement savings and potentially allow them to earn returns higher than those provided by the current system's fixed benefits. They also see it as a way to reduce the financial burden on the federal government.
On the other side are those who worry that some Americans may not have the financial literacy or resources to manage investments on their own. Not everyone has experience managing assets, and it's concerning to think about throwing millions of people into the investment pool who may never have learned to manage their finances effectively.
Another concern involves what happens to those who spend years investing for retirement only to hit a string of bad luck. That may mean making bad investment choices or even facing losses due to uncontrollable setbacks, like a recession or bear market. Opponents worry about what will happen to those who hit retirement age with little money put away through no fault of their own, and point out that the current Social Security system offers fixed benefits that retirees can count on.
Countless issues to work through
Even if Congress were able to come to a consensus and privatize Social Security, there are thorny issues that would need to be managed. For example:
Partial privatization?
Some supporters of Social Security privatization suggest allowing workers to invest a portion of their current Social Security contributions in private accounts, with the remainder allocated to the traditional pay-as-you-go system. While this model would lower the Social Security benefits earned by workers who choose this path, they would have a safety net of some sort to look forward to in retirement.
Given how difficult it can be to get Congress to agree on anything, there's no doubt that deciding to upend the entire Social Security system will be an uphill (and long-fought) battle.
In the meantime, the more immediate goal is to find a way to shore up the current system so that retirees will receive every dollar they've been promised.
The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
The Motley Fool is a USA TODAY content partner offering financial news, analysis and commentary designed to help people take control of their financial lives. Its content is produced independently of USA TODAY.
The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook
Offer from the Motley Fool: If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known "Social Security secrets"could help ensure a boost in your retirement income.
One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. JoinStock Advisorto learn more about these strategies.
View the "Social Security secrets" »
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
Tony Robbins sends strong message to Americans on 401(k)s
Many Americans preparing for retirement through savings and investments often encounter significant financial hurdles as they work toward a secure and enjoyable future. They eventually come to realize that while Social Security provides a foundational stream of income, it was never designed to fully support every cost of living throughout the entirety of retirement. According to renowned motivational speaker and author Tony Robbins, although 401(k) plans offer valuable opportunities, workers frequently encounter scenarios that could jeopardize their long-term financial well-being. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter Regularly contributing to retirement accounts that offer tax advantages - such as 401(k) plans and Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) - is a smart financial strategy. Taking full advantage of these contributions, particularly with regard to 401(k) plans when an employer match is available, can greatly enhance retirement savings over the long term. Robbins has emphasized the importance of financial awareness when it comes to retirement planning. One of his key messages is a warning to American workers regarding misconceptions about Social Security and 401(k) plans. Related: Jean Chatzky sends strong message to Americans on Social Security A crucial part of effective retirement planning certainly involves understanding how Social Security benefits are determined and carefully choosing when to begin claiming them. By postponing benefits beyond one's full retirement age, retirees can receive higher monthly payouts from the program. Considering this background, Robbins highlights a critical caution about how 401(k) plans are used - urging workers to avoid common pitfalls that could affect their financial futures. Tony Robbins points out that for three decades, companies managing 401(k) plans were not required to reveal how much they were charging in fees. Now that disclosure is mandatory, he believes many providers hide those costs in lengthy, complex documents - making it hard for individuals to truly grasp what they're paying and keeping them largely uninformed. "What the majority of Americans don't realize is that an increase in 1% in fees will cost you 10 years in retirement income," Robbins wrote. More on retirement: Dave Ramsey offers urgent thoughts about MedicareJean Chatzky shares major statement on Social SecurityTony Robbins has blunt words on IRAs,401(k)s Robbins uses a straightforward hypothetical scenario to underscore the long-term impact of investment fees on retirement savings. In his example, three employees - let's call them Employee 1, Employee 2, and Employee 3 - each invest $100,000 at age 35 into separate mutual funds. All three investments generate the same steady annual return of 8%, and none of them withdraw any funds for 30 years. However, each employee is subject to a different annual fee: 1%, 2%, and 3%, respectively. By the time they reach age 65, Robbins clarifies, the variation in fees has created a striking difference in their account balances. Despite identical contributions and returns, Employee 1, who paid the lowest fee, has nearly double the retirement savings of Employee 3, who paid the highest. Related: Dave Ramsey sends strong message to Americans on Medicare Robbins emphasizes that the cost of high investment fees doesn't end at retirement. Using the scenario of each employee needing $60,000 annually to fund their retirement, he notes that the long-term consequences become even clearer. The employee facing the highest fees - Employee 3 - depletes their savings before reaching 75, while Employee 1, who paid the lowest fees, sees their nest egg last until age 95. According to Robbins, this stark contrast demonstrates how even small differences in fees can compound into significant financial disparities. It's a powerful reminder, he says, that being mindful of investment costs isn't just a matter of saving money - it's a crucial step in safeguarding long-term financial security. "I learned about these abuses while writing 'Money: Master the Game,' and it made me so angry that people were getting robbed blind," Robbins wrote. "So I brought in America's Best 401(k)." America's Best 401(k) is a retirement plan provider that says it aims to reduce the high fees commonly associated with traditional 401(k) plans. Robbins asked the firm to asses the 401(k) plan used by his own research company and ended up using their proposed solution. "They showed me that we were paying 276% more than we needed to for the same exact stocks," Robbins wrote. "It saved my employees $5 million in their retirement, and it cost nothing." Related: Shark Tank's Kevin O'Leary warns Americans on 401(k)s The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Robotaxis Could Redefine Tesla or Rattle Its Stock
Tesla's (NASDAQ:TSLA) much-anticipated robotaxi pilot, set to roll out June 22 in Austin, is pivotal for the company's next growth chapter. Success could redefine its revenue model; failure could dent valuation and long-term prospects. Jacob Falkencrone, Saxo's global head of investment strategy, warns that the launchElon Musk's next trillion-dollar chapteris as much about regulatory navigation as true autonomy. Roughly ten Model Y robotaxis running Tesla's Full Self-Driving software will operate in geo-fenced zones under remote human oversight, reflecting cautious, phased deployment rather than a turnkey self-drive revolution. Skepticism lingers amid Democratic lawmakers urging a delay until new Texas safety laws kick in on September 1, and an ongoing NHTSA probe into Tesla's autonomous systems. Historically, Tesla share prices spike on hype and retreat on reality. A smooth pilot could position Tesla as a mobility services leader, slashing urban travel costs by up to 70% and potentially eclipsing its core car-sales business. Conversely, any misstepsregulatory pushback, tech hiccups, or safety incidentscould spook investors and create tactical buying windows. Early user feedback, regulatory responses, and incident reports will be key barometers. Investors should watch those signals closely to gauge whether robotaxis truly deliver transformative upside or morph into another Musk-driven mirage. This article first appeared on GuruFocus.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Where troops in Middle East are most vulnerable to Iran strikes
Tens of thousands of U.S. troops are within Iran's striking distance should President Trump decide to wade into Israel's conflict with Tehran and directly attack the country. More than 40,000 American service members and civilians – as well as billions of dollars in military equipment – are in the Middle East, spread out across bases in Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. Those working in countries closest to Iran, including Iraq and Kuwait, would conceivably have only minutes to prepare for an incoming Iranian strike, a likely outcome should Trump order the U.S. military to join Israel's bombing campaign, experts say. 'If [Iran] had the ballistic missiles ready to go, those strikes could happen in under 15 minutes. Launched to target,' retired Col. Seth Krummrich, vice president at security consultancy firm Global Guardian, told The Hill. 'They move very quickly.' Israel last week unleashed a barrage of airstrikes on Iran that set off the largest conflict ever between the two regional adversaries, with Tehran responding with its own attacks. The war has threatened to pull in the U.S., which says it supports Israel's right to defend itself but has not directly involved itself in the bombing. Trump has not yet decided on possible American military action against Iran, telling reporters through his top spokesperson that he would make his decision within a fortnight. 'Based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiation that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go in the next two weeks,' according to the Trump statement relayed by White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt on Thursday. But Iran has already threatened to directly attack U.S. forces should they enter Israel's war campaign, with the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, warning on Wednesday that 'Americans should know that any U.S. military intervention will undoubtedly be accompanied by irreparable damage.' Tehran's threats aren't idle, as the country has retaliated against Washington in the past, most notably in January 2020, when Trump in his first term ordered an airstrike that killed Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran's elite Quds Force. The strike, which happened as Soleimani traveled to Baghdad, prompted a swift response from Iran, which days later hammered Al Asad Air Base in Iraq and another U.S. base in Erbil with 13 ballistic missiles. While no Americans were killed in the largest ballistic missile attack ever against U.S. forces abroad, more than 100 were later diagnosed and treated for traumatic brain injuries. Now, with Trump reportedly considering using the GBU-57 – known as the Massive Ordnance Penetrator or so-called 'bunker buster' bomb – to damage Iran's Fordo nuclear enrichment facility, a similar attack from Tehran could soon be at hand. 'If there was to be a U.S. attack like they dropped the big bunker buster, if that happened, then I would assume that you would see an Iranian missile strike aimed at one or multiple U.S. bases,' said Krummrich, a former Special Forces officer in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the face of such a threat, military officials move to pull valuable assets out of the bases deemed most likely to be attacked, he said, pointing to the departure of some aircraft from Al Asad Air Base, as seen in public satellite imagery this week. He guessed that Al Asad Air Base, where many of the roughly 2,500 U.S. troops stationed in Iraq are located, as the most likely target given its close proximity to Iran and the fact that it's been hit in the past. Iran 'would tend to not want to poke the eye' of the United Arab Emirates, where 3,500 U.S. military personnel are located, or Qatar, home of Al Udeid Air Base, the largest U.S. military site in the Middle East, Krummrich predicted. About 10,000 American forces are at Al Udeid, the regional headquarters for the U.S. Central Command. In addition, 13,500 U.S. troops are stationed across five bases in Kuwait, 9,000 military and civilian personnel are at the Navy's Fifth Fleet headquarters in Manama, Bahrain, and hundreds more troops placed elsewhere on bases run by Jordan, Syria and Oman. The former head of Centcom, retired Army Gen. Joseph Votel told The Hill that Middle East bases have protective measures built into them to reduce risk, pointing to the aircraft moved from more vulnerable installations, 'But of course, we have a lot of diplomatic facilities, we have a lot of private sector interests there that could be vulnerable as well,' said Votel, now at the Middle East Institute. So, There's a lot of opportunity for Iran here.' U.S. bases and those that house American troops are also at risk of being attacked by Iran-back militias in the region, like in the case when three Army soldiers were killed in a drone attack on a small U.S. outpost in Jordan in January 2024. Following Israel's strikes on Iran on June 13, three drones were shot down near Ain al-Asad air base in western Iraq, The Associated Press reported. At least four other U.S. bases in Iraq and Syria have come under fire from Tehran-supported militants since Israel's bombing campaign began, including three installations in northeastern Syria between June 14 and 15, according to local reports. Asked about the attacks, a spokesperson from U.S. Central Command would not confirm or deny whether they took place. 'We are aware of these reports but have nothing operational to provide,' they said, pointing further queries regarding the conflict between Israel and Iran to the White House. U.S. officials this week have insisted that U.S. forces are well prepared to respond to any Iranian-launched attacks, surging more firepower to the Middle East including the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier strike group. The Pentagon also has moved refueling tanker aircraft to the nearby European theater, and placed warships in the Mediterranean Sea to help shoot down Iranian missiles targeting Israel. The Nimitz is set to take over from the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier, currently in the Arabian Sea to provide security for U.S. forces near the Gulf of Oman and the Persian Gulf, but the two vessels will likely overlap for several days. More covertly, the Air Force earlier this week moved a dozen F-16 fighter jets from a base in Italy to Prince Sultan, Saudi Arabia, according to Aurora Intel, which reviews open source information in the Middle East. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Wednesday declined to say whether he had been asked to provide Trump with military options for Tehran, saying during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing that he 'wouldn't disclose that in this forum.' But he added that his job is 'to make sure the president has options, is informed of what those options might be, and what the ramifications of those options might be.' Hegseth also on Wednesday told senators that 'maximum protection' measures were in place in the region. Asked by The Hill whether the protections could adequately repel an Iranian attack, a Pentagon spokesperson referred the outlet to Hegseth's post to X on June 16, when the Defense secretary announced the 'deployment of additional capabilities' to the Middle East. 'Protecting U.S. forces is our top priority and these deployments are intended to enhance our defensive posture in the region,' he said.
