Bill Overview
Title: Social Security Guarantee Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires the Department of the Treasury to issue certificates to Social Security beneficiaries that guarantee them the full monthly benefit amount to which they are entitled and at least an annual cost-of-living increase to their benefits. It also provides additional mandatory funding for those benefits. Currently, Social Security beneficiaries are entitled to their benefits, but benefits are primarily funded through a payroll tax (including assets derived from the tax held in reserve). Actuarial projections reported by the Social Security Board of Trustees indicate that in 2035 there will be insufficient tax revenue and reserved assets to cover the full amount of benefit payments.
Sponsors: Rep. Mooney, Alexander X. [R-WV-2]
Target Audience
Population: Social Security beneficiaries
Estimated Size: 70000000
- The Social Security Guarantee Act of 2022 directly affects Social Security beneficiaries, ensuring the continuity and predictability of their benefits.
- Social Security is a program that provides benefits to retirees, disabled individuals, and survivors of deceased workers.
- Over 65 million people receive Social Security benefits in some form as of 2023.
- Including retirees, disabled individuals, and surviving family members, this demographic is large and diverse, covering a significant portion of the global elderly and disabled population.
Reasoning
- The Social Security Guarantee Act of 2022 directly affects Social Security beneficiaries, ensuring the continuity and predictability of their benefits.
- This policy primarily impacts retirees, disabled individuals, and survivors who rely on Social Security as a primary source of income.
- Ensuring cost-of-living adjustments helps in maintaining the purchasing power of beneficiaries in face of inflation.
- 75% of beneficiaries are retirees, while the rest are divided among disabled individuals and survivors.
- Not all beneficiaries will feel the impact equally; those who rely solely on Social Security for income will likely experience the greatest benefit.
- Budgetary constraints imply that although guarantees are issued, there may still be challenges if future funding and economic conditions do not improve further.
- The estimated beneficiary count is consistent with the American population's aging trends, with over 70 million involved, making the diversity of impact broad.
- Those with substantial additional retirement savings or income may perceive less immediate effect.
Simulated Interviews
retired teacher (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 70 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I rely on Social Security for a large part of my income, so any assurance helps me sleep better at night.
- Knowing there will be cost-of-living adjustments is a relief, especially with inflation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 2 |
retired engineer (Houston, TX)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is important, but I have other sources of income.
- It’s comforting, yet not as crucial for my lifestyle plans.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
disabled and unemployed (Chicago, IL)
Age: 65 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The guarantee will help me manage my medical expenses.
- I'm worried about future reductions without something like this policy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 2 |
retired (Miami, FL)
Age: 78 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The cost of living increases really matter since everything is getting more expensive.
- My military pension helps, but Social Security is still important.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 2 |
retired nurse (Boston, MA)
Age: 85 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I wouldn't be able to live without Social Security, so this policy's assurance is critical.
- Worries about inflation have kept me up at night.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 2 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 1 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 1 |
living with disability (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 55 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see some security in this for the future.
- I still worry about the larger economic picture.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
workforce entrant (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's reassuring to know that such guarantees are being considered for when I need them.
- I'm worried about future funding though.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
retired librarian (Seattle, WA)
Age: 67 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a great relief. Knowing I can depend on these checks helps me budget monthly.
- A cost-of-living increase is especially helpful.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 2 |
retired auto worker (Detroit, MI)
Age: 82 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's necessary to have guarantees such as this, given inflation.
- My healthcare costs are my biggest concern.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 2 |
retired artist (New York, NY)
Age: 74 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm partially reliant on Social Security, so knowing it's guaranteed helps me plan.
- I’m concerned about how inflation will affect my total income over time.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000000 (Low: $4000000000, High: $6000000000)
Year 2: $5200000000 (Low: $4200000000, High: $6200000000)
Year 3: $5410000000 (Low: $4370000000, High: $6450000000)
Year 5: $5836800000 (Low: $4713600000, High: $6960000000)
Year 10: $6749296000 (Low: $5441096000, High: $8057496000)
Year 100: $-1 (Low: $-1, High: $-1)
Key Considerations
- The bill would ensure the long-term security of Social Security benefits despite anticipated limitations in the current funding model post-2035.
- Additional mandatory funding implies higher federal spending, exerting further pressure on the federal budget deficit unless offset by increased revenues or reduced spending elsewhere.