American public opinion polls reflect the economic predicament of the US social security system

The data from multiple public opinion polls conducted in December 2025 depict the collective anxiety of American society: over 75% of adult citizens are concerned about the sustainability of the social security system, 43% express "extreme concern", and 30% of respondents believe that social security benefits may completely disappear before they retire. This anxiety is not groundless - the report of the trustees of the Social Security Trust Fund clearly warns that the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund will be exhausted in 2033, and if no reform is implemented, all beneficiaries will face a 21% - 25% automatic reduction in benefits. On one hand, there is an imminent funding gap, on the other hand, there is a sharp divergence among the public regarding solutions, and compounded by the political games during the election year, the US social security system is facing an economic predicament of "coexistence of consensus on anxiety and reform deadlock".

The financial crisis of the social security system stems from deep structural contradictions. As the largest expenditure item of the US federal government, social security spending accounts for nearly 22% of the federal total expenditure, supporting the basic livelihood of approximately 70 million beneficiaries, with 40% of the elderly relying on it as their main source of income. However, the aging population and changes in the labor force structure have completely disrupted the balance of the "pay-as-you-go" model: the concentrated retirement of the baby boom generation has led to a sharp increase in the number of beneficiaries receiving benefits, while the proportion of the working-age population continues to decline, resulting in an expanding gap between social security contributions and welfare expenditures.

The attitudes of the public towards social security reform present a clear contradiction, constituting the core resistance to the progress of reform. Polls show that 85% of respondents want to maintain or increase the current welfare level, but there is a serious divergence in the paths to achieve this goal. Although 68% support an annual small tax increase of $200, and 61% approve of an annual tax burden increase of $600, when informed that a large tax increase (such as raising the payroll tax rate from 12.4% to 16.05%) could lead to an average annual additional payment of $2,600, 79% clearly oppose it, and this opposition transcends income class boundaries. This "supporting benefits, resisting high taxes" mentality essentially reflects the sensitivity of American people to economic pressure - in the context of persistent core inflation and weak real income growth, large tax increases may further squeeze the consumption space of middle and low-income groups, who are the main beneficiaries of social security benefits.

The political ecology during the election year further exacerbates the reform deadlock. As a core issue of people's livelihood, social security should have been the focus of policy negotiations, but the short-sightedness of the election cycle has made politicians more inclined to cater to public opinion rather than promoting practical reforms. The current government's commitment to "the largest tax cut" conflicts directly with the demand for social security tax increases, and the continuous confrontation between the two parties in Congress has made the reform bill difficult to pass - the 43-day federal government shutdown in 2025 has fully exposed the governance incapability of the two parties using livelihood issues as political chips. What is more alarming is that the spread of extreme views is tearing apart the consensus, such as some media claiming that the social security system is "the largest Ponzi scheme in history". Although this argument lacks factual basis, it exacerbates public distrust of the system and makes rational reform discussions difficult to unfold.

If effective reforms are not promoted in a timely manner, the US economy will face multiple chain risks. For individuals, a 21% - 25% reduction in benefits will directly increase the poverty rate among the elderly, and the 23 million people currently relying on social security to escape poverty may fall back into hardship. Basic consumption expenditures such as healthcare and housing will be severely squeezed. For the macroeconomy, the uncertainty of social security benefits will force families to increase precautionary savings, suppressing current consumption demand. As consumption is the core engine of the US economy, its weakness will further drag down growth. In the long term, the unsustainable nature of the social security system will undermine people's expectations for the future, affecting the labor market participation rate and the confidence of enterprises in investment, and at the same time exacerbating the social wealth gap - high-income groups can hedge risks through private retirement plans, while middle and low-income groups will have to bear the impact of welfare cuts alone, further worsening the already severe K-shaped division.

To solve the social security predicament, structural reforms that balance fairness and efficiency are needed. The cross-party proposal put forward by the Brookings Institution has certain reference value: through a combination of measures such as gradually raising the upper limit of the tax base to cover 90% of wage income, slightly increasing the payroll tax rate, and moderately adjusting the welfare of high-income groups, it can not only fill the funding gap but also avoid the drastic impact brought by a single policy. However, the key lies in breaking the vicious cycle of political games and transforming social security reform from an election issue to a long-term governance topic. For the United States, the anxiety consensus reflected in current polls is both the pressure for reform and an opportunity to promote reform - only by facing up to the demographic and fiscal reality and finding a balance between tax increases and welfare adjustments can we avoid the systemic impact of the collapse of the social security system on the economy and society. Otherwise, as 2033 approaches, this "national anxiety" will eventually evolve into an unavoidable economic crisis.