No—not on the terms of this debate. Romina Boccia argued for replacing Social Security’s broad earnings-related benefits with a smaller, poverty-focused benefit; Teresa Ghilarducci argued for preserving the program and raising more revenue from higher earners. As Fortune’s Nick Lichtenberg reported on October 5, 2026, the economists differed on the remedy but converged on a political and economic point: people with the greatest capacity to absorb reform’s costs are likely to bear more of them.
What did the economists agree on—and what did they not?
The agreement was about who could shoulder the cost of reform, not about phasing out Social Security or adopting a shared replacement plan. Boccia’s proposal would narrow the program to a predictable benefit intended to prevent poverty. Ghilarducci’s would retain its broad insurance structure and collect more revenue from higher earners.
In Fortune’s account, Boccia said, “It’s going to be those Americans who have the greatest capacity to absorb either benefit reductions or higher taxes that are going to bear the brunt of the cost of reforming the system.” Ghilarducci’s preferred route was more explicitly tax-focused: “The way to get money for Social Security…is going to be at the top.” Both statements are quoted as Nick Lichtenberg reproduced them in Fortune; they are not independently checked against a debate transcript here.
Is Social Security about to disappear?
No. Trust-fund reserve depletion means the reserves are projected to run out; it does not mean that payroll-tax and other continuing income stop or that benefits fall to zero. The Social Security Administration’s 2026 Trustees Report projects that combined Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance (OASDI) reserves will be depleted in 2034. At that point, continuing income is projected to cover 83% of scheduled benefits.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →#1 Best Overall
The often-cited 2032 date refers to the separate Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) fund, which pays retirement and survivor benefits—not to combined OASDI. The 2026 Trustees Report projects OASI reserve depletion in the fourth quarter of 2032, when continuing income would cover 78% of scheduled OASI benefits. The Social Security Administration announced these projections on June 9, 2026.
These dates and payable-benefit percentages are projections under current law, not a prediction that Congress will leave the system unchanged. They also describe different trust-fund measures: combined OASDI and OASI alone. The SSA’s 2026 report estimates a combined OASDI actuarial deficit of 4.42% of taxable payroll over 2026–2100. That is a long-range financing measure, not a claim that all benefits stop in a particular year.
What would phasing out or restructuring the program mean?
Social Security is not solely a retirement check. Retirement, survivor, and disability benefits together accounted for 99.2% of OASDI cost in 2025, according to the SSA’s 2026 Trustees Report. A change in the program’s design therefore affects more than retirees: it can also affect disabled workers, surviving spouses, and children who qualify through a worker’s record.
The debate is partly about the purpose of social insurance. Should it provide a broad, earnings-related benefit across income levels, or should it guarantee a narrower floor against poverty and leave more retirement provision to individuals? Neither answer is just a question of whether people save privately: it also determines which family risks are pooled, how much protection benefits provide over a long retirement, and how costs are distributed among workers and generations.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
How do the two proposals compare?
| Question | Romina Boccia’s proposal | Teresa Ghilarducci’s proposal |
|---|---|---|
| Benefit design | Replace the broad earnings-related approach with a predictable flat benefit intended to protect against poverty. | Keep the broad benefit structure rather than reduce the program to a poverty floor. |
| Role of private saving | Lower payroll burdens would leave middle- and higher-income workers with more income to save and invest privately. | Private savings products cannot easily reproduce the program’s lifetime, inflation-adjusted benefits and family-insurance coverage. |
| How to address financing | Reduce the public benefit commitment and payroll-tax burden as part of a redesigned system. | Raise more revenue from higher earners, including by extending payroll taxation above the current earnings cap. |
| People affected | A shift toward a flat benefit would reduce the role of earnings-related public benefits, with private saving expected to play a larger part for many workers. | Retain protection across retirement, disability, and survivor benefits while collecting more from higher earners. |
| Main trade-off | More room for individual saving versus less broad public earnings-related protection. | Preserve broad insurance versus a greater tax burden on higher earners. |
The debate does not establish what a flat benefit would pay, how a transition would work, or how much any particular household would gain or lose. Those details matter: a proposal’s effects depend on its benefit formula, treatment of people already receiving benefits, and financing rules.
Who pays if the system changes?
Every path allocates costs, even when it is described as a way to increase choice or preserve benefits. Under a reduced-benefit design, the cost can show up as less public protection and a greater need to build private savings. Under a revenue-focused approach, it can show up as higher taxes for affected earners. Transitioning from one system to another can also impose costs while workers support existing beneficiaries and a new arrangement is being built.
Fortune reported that economist Kent Smetters acknowledged the potential for privatization to increase saving and capital, while emphasizing that transition costs still have to be paid by someone. Lichtenberg quoted him saying, “Somebody has to pay” and “There’s no free lunch.” Those are Fortune’s reported remarks, not claims independently verified against a primary interview transcript.
The SSA lists raising the payroll-tax rate, raising the taxable maximum, and dedicating other revenue among possible financing options in its 2026 Trustees material. These are policy choices, not enacted changes. Their distributional effects would depend on the details—such as which earnings are taxed, whether benefits also change, and how any added revenue is used.
Best Value
What did Fortune report about public support?
Fortune reported that Ghilarducci cited an AARP/National Academy of Social Insurance survey in which 85% supported maintaining or raising benefits even if taxes rose; the article gave the breakdown as 90% of Democrats and 75% of Republicans. Fortune also reported her citing 73% support for taxing income above $400,000, including 60% of Republicans. These are figures as reported by Fortune from Ghilarducci’s citation; the underlying survey was not independently verified here. They should not be read as a fresh or independently confirmed poll result.
What should a reader take from the debate?
The question is not simply whether to phase out Social Security. The practical choice is how to balance a broad public insurance system against a more targeted poverty floor, and how to distribute any shortfall across benefit reductions, taxes, and transition costs. The economists’ reported common ground—that people with greater capacity can absorb more—does not settle which of those mechanisms is fair, how much protection should remain, or how a reform should treat current beneficiaries and workers.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
