Connecticut retirees will see the largest benefit reduction in the country if the Social Security Trust Fund is allowed to run out of money by 2032, according to a new report by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFR).

The No State Spared report from the nonpartisan CRFR is based on figures from several different sources, including the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Trust Fund (OASDI), and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which occasionally offer slightly differing estimates of both when the trust fund will run out of money and how much social security benefits would have to be reduced.

According to CRFR’s report, published in June 2026, if the Social Security Trust Fund is allowed to become insolvent by 2032, the average monthly benefit nationwide would be reduced by 24 percent, equating to $500 less per month in social security payments to the average retiree.

Connecticut seniors, however, would see the largest reduction nationwide at a $556 per month, impacting nearly 18 percent of Connecticut’s population, more than 657,000 residents, and amounting to a total $4.2 billion loss to the state’s economy. The 1.1 percent negative impact to Connecticut’s gross domestic product would be in line with the national average, according to the report. States like Maine, West Virginia, and Mississippi, however, would see some of the largest impacts in the number of residents affected and GDP loss.

CRFR’s report is based on data that is between one and two years old, but revised numbers offer a slightly longer window of time before the Trust Fund is insolvent, and also slightly larger projected losses for beneficiaries. 

According to the latest 2026 report by the OASDI Board of Trustees, they now estimate both the Old Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund and the Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Fund, and their reserve funds will “become depleted in 2034.” 

The Disability Insurance Fund, however, is better funded than the OASI, which accounts for typical retiree social security payments. While the combined funds will bottom out in 2034, the OASI will bottom out in 2032, whereupon “income is sufficient to pay 78 percent of scheduled OASI benefits for the rest of 2032, declining to 62 percent for 2100,” according to the Board of Trustees 2026 report.

According to the OASDI report, the Social Security Trust Fund has been paying out more than it is taking in since 2010. By law, Social Security cannot pay out more in benefits than it receives in revenue once the trust fund is exhausted, according to the report. Lawmakers in Congress have long been aware of the coming crisis, yet efforts to shore up the Trust Fund with some kind of reform have so far stalled. 

Payments into Social Security are deducted from paychecks, however the payments are capped at $184,500 in income for 2026 – any earnings beyond the cap receive no social security deduction. Monthly social security payments are likewise capped at $4,152 for 2026 for individuals who reach the full retirement age of 67, although benefits can be higher if one retires at 70 years old.

Congressman John Larson, D-CT, proposed his Social Security 2100 bill in 2023 to bolster the Trust Fund and “provide an across-the-board benefit increase for all recipients, ensure benefits better reflect seniors’ expenses, repeal the WEP/GPO that penalizes public servants, cut taxes for 23 million beneficiaries, and extend the solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund,” according to a press release.

The proposal would require those making over $400,000 to contribute to social security, while exempting those between the current cap and the $400,000 mark. The proposal also imposes “an additional 12.4 percent net investment income tax for those making over $400k.

Reached for comment regarding the CRFR’s findings, Larson said benefit cuts were “closer than ever, due in large part to Trump Administration policies.”

“Connecticut seniors will be hit the hardest, with a more than $500 monthly benefit cut, on average, if nothing is done,” Larson said in an emailed statement. “So far, the only plan Republicans in Congress have put forward is raising the retirement age. Benefit cuts are not the answer—we need to make the wealthy pay their fair share. Our plan will prevent cuts in 2032 and enhance benefits now, so they keep pace with rising costs, and no one can work their entire life and retire into poverty.”

The longtime representative from East Hartford, however, faces primary from three challengers this election cycle, all of whom said they support removal of the cap, which recently received bipartisan support from Senators Elizabeth Warren, D-MA, and Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-OH, who penned an op-ed in the New York Times claiming the change would inject $3 trillion into social security to extend the program to the next generation without cutting benefits.

“After years of talk, Congress needs to act to make Social Security a program people can depend on. I support the proposal introduced by Senators Sanders and Warren to impose a Social Security tax on wages above $250,000 and apply the same 12.4% tax rate to capital gains and business income,” said Jillian Gilchrest, a four-term state representative now seeking Larson’s seat. “This ensures Social Security solvency for 75 years, and recognizes the need to increase retiree benefits by $200 a month to reflect the true cost of living.”

Primary challenger Ruth Fortune, an attorney and Hartford Board of Education member who pulled off the challenging feat of petitioning onto the primary ballot, likewise supports complete removal of the cap and criticized Larson for leaving a “donut hole that protects income between the current cap and $400,000 from any contribution at all.”

“That’s not scrapping the cap, that’s moving it,” Fortune said. “If we’re serious about fully funding Social Security for the next generation, we shouldn’t be picking new stopping points for the wealthy. Eliminate the cap completely, and do it now, not after another decade of proposals that never get a vote. The additional revenue from workers who earn over $3 million annually should go toward increasing benefit payouts to those who receive Social Security checks below the poverty limit.”  

A request for comment to former Hartford Mayor Luke Bronin’s campaign was not returned, however his campaign website states that “as a member of Congress, I’ll work to ensure that Social Security is there for everyone receiving it now, and for everyone who’s paying into it now and depending on it in the future.”

Lifting or removal of the cap has been criticized by the Tax Foundation as a massive tax increase that wouldn’t solve the problem in a report written in response to Senators Warren and Moreno’s op-ed.

“The Social Security Administration (SSA) has modeled uncapping the payroll tax with no benefit changes and found it would return the program to annual surpluses for just three years, through 2029, at which point annual deficits would resume,” wrote Alex Durante of the Tax Foundation. “At best, it would close 67 percent of the long-run shortfall, leaving the remaining third to be covered by higher taxes on other workers or by benefit cuts.”

“Restoring solvency to Social Security will require navigating difficult tradeoffs,” the CRFR report concluded. “With insolvency projected to occur during the terms of the next elected Senators and President, candidates and policymakers must decide how they will secure a program vital to millions of Americans.”

Republish This Story

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.