The United States has a major problem. An unsustainable $1.6 trillion (about 23% of the budget) was spent on Social Security in 2025, which was funded through a payroll tax. With time running out, politicians are considering different options to fix this institution, and they'll need to act quickly. If the cuts don't come now, more drastic changes will be necessary in the future, and such changes will almost certainly place a large burden on younger generations, like Gen Z.
So what should be done? It's hard to tell, but one option stands out, and it doesn't include touching the Social Security budget. Part of the answer is legal immigration.
To trace Social Security's future, one must investigate its past, which — like most subjects of public debate — is quite complicated, especially given Social Security is nearly a hundred years old.
Social Security was signed into law by Franklin Delano Roosevelt on August 14th, 1935, as part of the New Deal. It has received significant expansions since then. One major example is October 1950, when Congress authorized the first Social Security cost-of-living adjustment. This one-off increase raised the benefit by 77% and was done to expand the purchasing power of Americans after high levels of inflation. Another major example is 1960, when benefits were expanded to include disabled people under 50.
Yet Social Security's expansions eventually required contractions. In 1983, Reagan signed the Social Security Amendments of 1983 into law. This gradually increased the age needed to retire with full benefits and made Social Security income taxable for high-income beneficiaries.
This stopped Social Security from becoming insolvent. The Brookings Institution says the 'reforms were expected to ensure solvency through 2060,' but decreasing birth rates have changed this projection, partially because there are fewer workers. So what are the heroic lawmakers interested in doing?
They're interested in waiting. Some ideas have been thrown out, but the pressure isn't quite strong enough to force a change. Still, at least our country is having a semblance of a conversation about budgeting.
Here's one idea. Democrats are interested in removing the income cap. Currently, workers employed by a business pay 6.2% of their income, up to a $184,500 cap. If it were removed, this would extend Social Security's lifespan by 30 years.
Given that this wouldn't close the hole entirely, there is a need for politically unpopular decisions, like raising the retirement age or reducing benefits. In France, a wealthy democracy like the U.S., this had intense consequences. Raising the retirement age led to massive protests.
A potential solution is legal immigration. Immigrants generate a lot of value, some of which is captured by the payroll taxes that fund Social Security. Given that they often arrive later in their careers, they generally earn less in benefits as a result, and may leave the country altogether for retirement.
Unfortunately, Trump's presidency has hurt legal immigration. According to the Cato Institute, international student visas have fallen by around 40%, while visas for fiancés have fallen by about 65%.
Some of this decrease can certainly be attributed to Trump's actions. He weaponized ICE against political opposition in the United States, such as Mahmoud Khalil. He has also falsely claimed that Haitians were 'eating the dogs'.
Assuming our next President adopts more reasonable policy and rhetoric, once Donald Trump leaves office, legal immigration to the U.S. can be expected to rise. Because of this, everything from Social Security to American culture will benefit. This influx of people won't solve Social Security's issues completely — underlying issues will remain — but it will have a notable effect while avoiding other costs.
Mark Butler is an Economics major at Florida State University and a Staff Writer for the Views section of the FSView & Florida Flambeau, the student-run, independent online news service for the FSU community. Email our staff at contact@fsview.com.
(0)Comments