The climbing U.S. national debt remains a primary concern for lawmakers, particularly for the presidential candidates who are in the home stretch of the 2024 race.
While both former President Trump and Vice President Harris have outlined their economic vision, one financial expert argued “both camps are doing a disservice to America” by ignoring the “tremendous cost” of Social Security.
“I’m a little bit upset that both Harris and Trump have said there will be no change,” “What Should I Do With My Money?” author Bryan Kuderna told Fox News Digital.
FINANCE EXPERT ISSUES WARNING OVER THE ‘ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM’ THAT HARRIS HAS BEEN QUIET ABOUT
“There will be no cut whatsoever to Social Security. I think that that is appeasing our older voters, but ignoring some of the long term consequences to the U.S. economy and to these gigantic deficits that we run.”
The national debt surpassed $35 trillion for the first time in the nation’s history in July, surging past the $34 trillion threshold which the U.S. eclipsed in early January.
Both Trump and Harris’ economic agenda are expected to add trillions to the pot, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB). Trump’s plan could add roughly $8 trillion to the debt by 2035 compared to roughly $4 trillion under Harris.
Social Security is one of the largest line items in the U.S. budget. According to fiscal data from the Treasury Department, it accounted for 22% of the 2024 fiscal year spending.
“If you look at the inflows and outflows, they’ve gotten so far out of balance as opposed to what Social Security was initially meant to do, which is to be a supplemental source of income for a very small time period of life in retirement,” Kuderna said.
Concerns have been mounting for years over Social Security, but neither leading political candidate has taken on the topic.
“Trump, before he ever ran for president, was very vocal about reforming Social Security. Bringing that back into a state of balance. And the obvious way to do that was to index the normal retirement age, which has happened before.”
SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS ARE FALLING SHORT. THE PROBLEM COULD SOON GET WORSE
When the Social Security Act was signed into law in 1935, the initial base retirement age was 65. Roughly nine decades later, the retirement age has only moved back two years to 67.
“So if you look at it from 1945, when the normal retirement age was 65, and now we fast-forward all the way to 2024, and we get to see how many Americans there are and how long we live, all you’ve done is index that from age 65 to 67,” Kuderna observed.
Trump and Harris have both vowed to protect Social Security. On the former president’s campaign website, he pledged to “fight for and protect social security and Medicare with no cuts, including no changes to the retirement age.”
The former president has called for ending taxes on Social Security benefits as part of his vision to cut back taxation and government regulations. The CRFB notes, however, this proposal alone would reduce revenue by roughly $1.30 trillion by 2035.
The vice president’s campaign promises to “protect Social Security and Medicare against relentless attacks from Donald Trump and his extreme allies.” Harris also plans to “strengthen Social Security and Medicare for the long haul by making millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share in taxes,” a core aspect of her economic vision.
Neither campaign has offered specific solutions to the threats facing the program.
Kuderna said a “logical” fix would be to move the normal retirement age to 70.
“It’s very reasonable, especially if you’re talking to younger cohorts, to millennials and to Gen Z, many of whom think that, ‘hey, when I retire, Social Security won’t even be there.’ If you tell them, ‘yes, it will be there,’ but you’re not going to collect at 62 or at 67 — you may have to wait until 70 to get your full benefit — I think that that is a fair proposal, and I think it’s one that can immediately save a tremendous amount of liability against the Social Security system.”
GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE
FOX Business’ Eric Revell contributed to this report.
Financial adviser Bryan Kuderna explains why both presidential candidates are doing a ‘disservice’ to the country by not taking on Social Security woes.
The climbing U.S. national debt remains a primary concern for lawmakers, particularly for the presidential candidates who are in the home stretch of the 2024 race.
While both former President Trump and Vice President Harris have outlined their economic vision, one financial expert argued “both camps are doing a disservice to America” by ignoring the “tremendous cost” of Social Security.
“I’m a little bit upset that both Harris and Trump have said there will be no change,” “What Should I Do With My Money?” author Bryan Kuderna told Fox News Digital.
FINANCE EXPERT ISSUES WARNING OVER THE ‘ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM’ THAT HARRIS HAS BEEN QUIET ABOUT
“There will be no cut whatsoever to Social Security. I think that that is appeasing our older voters, but ignoring some of the long term consequences to the U.S. economy and to these gigantic deficits that we run.”
The national debt surpassed $35 trillion for the first time in the nation’s history in July, surging past the $34 trillion threshold which the U.S. eclipsed in early January.
Both Trump and Harris’ economic agenda are expected to add trillions to the pot, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB). Trump’s plan could add roughly $8 trillion to the debt by 2035 compared to roughly $4 trillion under Harris.
Social Security is one of the largest line items in the U.S. budget. According to fiscal data from the Treasury Department, it accounted for 22% of the 2024 fiscal year spending.
“If you look at the inflows and outflows, they’ve gotten so far out of balance as opposed to what Social Security was initially meant to do, which is to be a supplemental source of income for a very small time period of life in retirement,” Kuderna said.
Concerns have been mounting for years over Social Security, but neither leading political candidate has taken on the topic.
“Trump, before he ever ran for president, was very vocal about reforming Social Security. Bringing that back into a state of balance. And the obvious way to do that was to index the normal retirement age, which has happened before.”
SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS ARE FALLING SHORT. THE PROBLEM COULD SOON GET WORSE
When the Social Security Act was signed into law in 1935, the initial base retirement age was 65. Roughly nine decades later, the retirement age has only moved back two years to 67.
“So if you look at it from 1945, when the normal retirement age was 65, and now we fast-forward all the way to 2024, and we get to see how many Americans there are and how long we live, all you’ve done is index that from age 65 to 67,” Kuderna observed.
Trump and Harris have both vowed to protect Social Security. On the former president’s campaign website, he pledged to “fight for and protect social security and Medicare with no cuts, including no changes to the retirement age.”
The former president has called for ending taxes on Social Security benefits as part of his vision to cut back taxation and government regulations. The CRFB notes, however, this proposal alone would reduce revenue by roughly $1.30 trillion by 2035.
Financial adviser Bryan Kuderna outlines his concerns over former President Trump and Vice President Harris’ stances on Social Security. (Getty Images/FOX Business / Fox News)
The vice president’s campaign promises to “protect Social Security and Medicare against relentless attacks from Donald Trump and his extreme allies.” Harris also plans to “strengthen Social Security and Medicare for the long haul by making millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share in taxes,” a core aspect of her economic vision.
Neither campaign has offered specific solutions to the threats facing the program.
Kuderna said a “logical” fix would be to move the normal retirement age to 70.
“It’s very reasonable, especially if you’re talking to younger cohorts, to millennials and to Gen Z, many of whom think that, ‘hey, when I retire, Social Security won’t even be there.’ If you tell them, ‘yes, it will be there,’ but you’re not going to collect at 62 or at 67 — you may have to wait until 70 to get your full benefit — I think that that is a fair proposal, and I think it’s one that can immediately save a tremendous amount of liability against the Social Security system.”
GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE
FOX Business’ Eric Revell contributed to this report.
Latest Business News on Fox Business