No, Social Security will not run out. The program’s trust fund reserves are projected to be depleted in the early 2030s, but payroll taxes keep flowing in the whole time — so even with no action from Congress, the system would still have enough incoming revenue to pay roughly 77% of scheduled benefits. That is a meaningful cut worth planning around, not a zero. The 2025 Social Security Trustees Report projected the retirement trust fund (OASI) would be depleted in 2033, with the combined retirement and disability funds lasting until 2034 at about 81% payable.
From the Retirement Planning hub — Evergreen Wealth Management — flat-fee retirement income, withdrawal, and Social Security planning for Massachusetts retirees.
I get this question in almost every first meeting. Someone in their late fifties or early sixties sits down across from me in our Boston office, we start talking about when to claim, and eventually they say some version of: “Honestly, I’m not sure it’ll even be there for me.” Usually they have read a headline about the trust fund “going broke” or “running dry.”
Those headlines are technically describing something real. They are also describing it in the most alarming way possible, and that framing leads people to make genuinely expensive decisions — most commonly, claiming benefits at 62 to “get mine before it’s gone.” Let me walk through what the projections actually say and what a reasonable plan does about them.
What does “the trust fund runs out” actually mean?
It means the savings account is empty, not that the income stopped. Social Security has two separate money sources, and only one of them runs out.
The first is ongoing payroll tax revenue. Every working American pays 6.2% of wages into Social Security, matched by another 6.2% from their employer, on earnings up to the wage base — $184,500 in 2026, up from $176,100 in 2025. That money goes straight out the door to today’s retirees. It does not sit anywhere. It does not run out as long as people are working and paying into the system.
The second is the trust fund reserve — the surplus accumulated over decades when payroll taxes brought in more than benefits paid out. That reserve is now being drawn down, because there are more retirees per worker than there used to be. That is the pot projected to hit zero.
When the reserve is exhausted, incoming payroll taxes still cover the large majority of promised benefits. According to the Social Security Trustees’ summary of the annual report, that share was projected at roughly 77% for the retirement fund at depletion. So the realistic worst case — the “Congress does absolutely nothing for the next decade” case — is a benefit reduction of about 23%, not an elimination.
What would a 23% cut actually cost me?
For most of the households I work with, it lands somewhere between $10,000 and $20,000 a year. Here is the math at a few benefit levels:
| Current monthly benefit | At 77% payable | Monthly loss | Annual loss |
|---|---|---|---|
| $2,500 | $1,925 | $575 | $6,900 |
| $3,800 | $2,926 | $874 | $10,488 |
| $4,500 | $3,465 | $1,035 | $12,420 |
| $6,800 (couple, combined) | $5,236 | $1,564 | $18,768 |
For a couple with $2 million in investable assets, losing $18,768 a year of guaranteed, inflation-adjusted income is not a rounding error. It is roughly a 0.9% increase in the withdrawal rate they need from the portfolio. That is worth planning for. It is not worth panicking over, and it is definitely not worth restructuring an entire retirement around.
How likely is Congress to actually let benefits get cut?
Historically, very unlikely — but I want to be honest that this is judgment, not arithmetic. Two things inform my view.
First, precedent. Social Security faced a nearly identical crisis in 1983, when the trust fund was months from depletion. Congress passed a bipartisan fix that gradually raised the full retirement age from 65 to 67, brought federal employees into the system, and began taxing benefits for higher-income recipients. It was not painless, but it happened, and it bought fifty years.
Second, arithmetic. The seventy-five-year shortfall was projected at about 3.82% of taxable payroll. Closing it entirely with one lever would mean something like raising the combined payroll tax from 12.4% to roughly 16%, or cutting benefits across the board by about 22%, or some blend. Those are politically painful numbers. They are not impossible ones. Realistically, any fix will be a combination — a higher wage base, a slightly later retirement age for younger workers, adjusted cost-of-living formulas.
The pattern in past reform is worth noting: changes have generally protected people at or near retirement and phased in over decades for younger workers. If you are 60 today, you are very likely in the protected group. If you are 40, you should probably assume your benefit formula looks somewhat less generous than today’s.
Should I claim early to lock in my benefit before cuts?
No — and this is the single most expensive mistake the “it’ll be gone” narrative causes. Claiming early does not immunize you. Reserve depletion would apply to everyone receiving benefits, whether they claimed at 62 or 70. There is no grandfather clause in a trust fund shortfall.
Meanwhile, claiming early has a certain, permanent cost. For someone born in 1960 or later with a full retirement age of 67, claiming at 62 cuts the benefit by 30% for life. Waiting from 67 to 70 adds 8% per year in delayed retirement credits, or 24% total.
Run those together. Say your benefit at 67 would be $3,800/month:
| Claiming age | Monthly benefit | If later reduced to 77% |
|---|---|---|
| 62 | $2,660 | $2,048 |
| 67 (FRA) | $3,800 | $2,926 |
| 70 | $4,712 | $3,628 |
Notice what happens. Even in the reduced-benefit scenario, the person who waited until 70 receives more than the early claimer does in the full-benefit scenario. Trying to outrun a hypothetical 23% cut by accepting a guaranteed 30% cut is a bad trade. I go through the full timing analysis in the real costs of claiming early vs. waiting for Massachusetts retirees, and if you’re still working while weighing this, claiming at 62 while still employed adds an earnings-test wrinkle worth understanding first.
What should I actually do about this?
Build a plan that survives either outcome. That is different from predicting which outcome happens. Three practical steps:
1. Stress-test your plan at 77%. Run your retirement projection twice — once at full scheduled benefits, once with benefits reduced by 23% starting in 2033. If the plan still works in the reduced scenario, you can stop worrying about the headlines entirely. If it breaks, you have found something real to address, and roughly seven years of lead time to address it.
2. Don’t let it drive your claiming decision. Claim based on longevity, marital situation, tax bracket, and whether you need the cash flow. Those factors dominate. A possible future reduction that applies equally to every claiming age simply is not a tiebreaker.
3. Build the flexible assets that give you options. The households that would barely notice a 23% Social Security reduction are the ones with meaningful Roth balances, a taxable brokerage account, and control over their withdrawal sequencing. Getting there is a tax-planning project that takes years, which is exactly why we start it well before someone claims. Tax-efficient withdrawal sequencing is where a lot of that flexibility gets built.
One Massachusetts-specific note that works in your favor: Massachusetts does not tax Social Security benefits at all. The state’s flat 5% income tax exempts them entirely, unlike federal treatment, where up to 85% of benefits become taxable once combined income exceeds $34,000 single or $44,000 married filing jointly — thresholds that have not been adjusted for inflation since 1993.
How does Evergreen approach this with clients?
Every plan we build at Evergreen Wealth Management includes a reduced-benefit scenario by default. Not because I expect a 23% cut, but because a plan that only works under favorable assumptions is not really a plan.
Here is where our structure matters for a question like this one. Evergreen is a flat-fee firm — a flat monthly fee, bundled, regardless of portfolio size. We charge the same to a household with $1.5 million as to one with $6 million. That means when you ask me whether to claim Social Security at 62 or 70, my compensation is identical either way. An advisor billing a percentage of assets under management has a quiet structural incentive when you consider spending down the portfolio to delay claiming: that spend-down shrinks the balance they bill on. I am not suggesting most advisors act on that. I am saying the conflict exists, and under a flat fee it does not. You can see exactly how the pricing works on our fee structure page.
The same logic runs through how we handle investment management — and you can see how these decisions play out for real households in our client scenarios.
Frequently Asked Questions
Will Social Security be there when I retire in 20 years?
Yes, in some form. Payroll taxes will continue funding roughly three-quarters of scheduled benefits indefinitely even with no legislative action. If you are more than 20 years from retirement, the prudent planning assumption is that your benefit formula may be somewhat less generous than today’s, and that you should save accordingly — not that benefits disappear.
Has the trust fund depletion date changed recently?
Yes, it moves each year. The Trustees issue a new report annually, and the projected depletion date shifts by a year or so in either direction depending on wage growth, immigration, birth rates, and legislation. Treat any specific year as an estimate with a margin of error, not a deadline on a calendar. Always check the most recent Trustees Report at SSA.gov for current figures.
Does Massachusetts tax Social Security benefits?
No. Massachusetts fully exempts Social Security benefits from its 5% state income tax. Federal taxation still applies, and up to 85% of your benefit can be federally taxable depending on your combined income.
Does Evergreen build benefit cuts into its retirement plans?
Yes. As a fee-only fiduciary firm in Boston, we model every plan at both full scheduled benefits and a reduced level so clients can see whether their retirement holds up either way. Because Evergreen charges a flat monthly fee rather than a percentage of assets, the recommendation on when to claim is driven by your situation, not by what it does to our billing.
The bottom line
Social Security is not going away. It has a funding gap that is real, well-documented, and mathematically solvable, and the most likely outcome is a reform package that arrives late and lands hardest on people who are decades from retirement. The right response is to stress-test your plan at reduced benefits and then get back to the decisions that actually move the needle — claiming age, withdrawal sequencing, and tax planning.
If you would like to see what your retirement looks like under both scenarios, that is a normal part of the first conversation we have with prospective clients. You can learn more about becoming a client, or read more about Nick Stevens and Evergreen.
Nick Stevens, CFP® is the founder of Evergreen Wealth Management in Boston, a flat-fee financial planning and investment management firm. Evergreen charges a fixed monthly fee regardless of portfolio size. Learn more about how we work at our fee structure or get in touch at contact us.