In 1969, The Beatles released Abbey Road, the final album they recorded together. The second side of the record contains one of the most famous medleys in rock history, with pieces of unfinished songs stitched together into something greater than the individual parts.
Source: Reddit
Two of those songs feel especially appropriate as we continue our three-part series on the future of Social Security: "You Never Give Me Your Money" and "Carry That Weight."
To set the stage and give you something to reflect on as we begin delving into these complex issues, I have included YouTube links to both songs below:
You Never Give Me Your Money (Remastered 2009)
Carry That Weight (Remastered 2009)
At first, that may sound like a strange place to begin a conversation about payroll taxes, trust funds, demographics, and retirement policy. But like many great Beatles songs, there is more going on beneath the surface. “You Never Give Me Your Money” was written during a period of business disputes, financial frustration, and broken trust inside the Beatles’ own world. Then, later in the medley, comes the unforgettable warning: “Boy, you’re gonna carry that weight a long time.”
That is where we find Social Security today.
In Part 1, we talked about the weight Social Security is now carrying. The 2026 Trustees Report projected that the retirement trust fund could be depleted by 2032 if nothing changes, at which point incoming payroll taxes would still cover a large portion of promised benefits, but not all of them. That is not the same as bankruptcy, but it is a serious shortfall.
So how did we get here?
The easy answer would be to blame one president, one Congress, one political party, or one generation. That might make for a more entertaining cable news segment, but it would not be very honest. The truth is more complicated and, in some ways, more frustrating.
Social Security did not end up here because one person dropped the weight on the system overnight.
It accumulated slowly... year after year... decade after decade... until here we are today.
It reminds me of one of the most famous exchanges involving the character Mike Campbell in Hemingway's classic 1926 novel, The Sun Also Rises.
Source: x.com
Social Security's financial challenges developed much the same way.
The last major rescue came in 1983. At that time, Social Security was not facing a problem decades in the future. It was facing a near-term crisis. The system was getting dangerously close to being unable to pay full benefits on time. President Ronald Reagan, a Republican, and Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill, a Democrat, were hardly natural political allies. They disagreed on almost everything else. But they also understood that Social Security was too important to become just another political weapon.
Working together, Reagan and O'Neill supported the creation of a bipartisan panel known as the Greenspan Commission, chaired by future Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. Both the President and the Speaker appointed members to this commission. Greenspan later noted that the single most important factor in the success of the reforms was a private "pact" between Reagan and O'Neill, in which they quietly agreed to support whatever bipartisan compromise the commission ultimately recommended.
The result was a bipartisan compromise. As shown in our first chart below, payroll taxes were increased. Some Social Security benefits became taxable for higher-income retirees. Newly hired federal employees were brought into the system. The full retirement age was gradually increased from 65 to 67. None of those changes were painless, and nobody got everything they wanted.
Source: Free the Facts
But the deal worked. It bought time, restored confidence, and created large future surpluses designed to help prepare for the Baby Boom generation's retirement.
In other words, the 1983 reforms were not a failure. They were a rescue, born out of necessity and a willingness to work collaboratively across the aisle.
For a long time, the rescue worked remarkably well. Social Security collected more in payroll taxes than it paid out in benefits. Those excess dollars were credited to the trust fund, which built up large reserves. Think of it as filling a reservoir before a long dry season. The policymakers of the early 1980s knew the Baby Boomers would eventually retire. The goal was to collect extra water while the workforce was still large enough to fill the lake.
That was the Baby Boom bargain. The plan wasn't to avoid the demographic wave. It was to prepare for it.
For decades, the math looked manageable because there were many workers supporting relatively fewer retirees. As you can see in our second chart below, in 1960, there were roughly five workers paying into Social Security for every one beneficiary receiving benefits. That is a very different system from the one we have today, when approximately 2.7 workers pay FICA taxes for every retiree collecting Social Security benefits. When many people are paying in, and fewer people are taking out, a pay-as-you-go retirement system can function smoothly.
Source: Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget
Then demographics did what demographics do.
Americans had fewer children. And as you will see in our final chart below, people are living longer as life expectancy has continued to increase over the decades since Social Security was first created.
Source: Social Security Administration
If you reach age 65 in the US today, you can expect to live an additional 19.5 years on average, which means you would live into your 80s. Specifically, men aged 65 can expect to live 18.2 more years, while women can expect to live around 20.7 more years. But the even bigger difference was the sheer number of Americans who were surviving to age 65. The average life expectancy for someone who reaches age 65 is about 7 years longer than it was in the 1930s.
That may not sound dramatic, but in actuarial terms, seven additional years of benefit payments represent a profound change in the economics of the program.
The Baby Boomers moved from paying into the system to drawing benefits from it. Workforce growth slowed. Retirements accelerated. None of this happened all at once. It happened year after year, birthday after birthday, retirement party after retirement party.
This is the part of the story that often gets lost. Lower birth rates were not caused by one political party. Longer life expectancy was not caused by one administration. The Baby Boom was not created by a single Congress, and the Baby Bust was not created by a single president. These were broad demographic trends that played out over decades.
Demographics do not vote, argue, compromise, or care who is in office. They simply arrive.
The Social Security Administration estimated that there were about 2.7 covered workers per beneficiary in 2023, and that ratio is expected to fall further in the years ahead. That may sound like a small change, but it is enormous when applied to a program supporting tens of millions of Americans.
This is why Social Security’s finances have become more strained. It is not because the program stopped mattering. If anything, it matters more than ever. For many retirees, Social Security remains the foundation of retirement income. For younger workers, it represents a promise they have been paying into throughout their careers. Having entered this profession in 1987, I have spent nearly four decades incorporating Social Security into retirement planning conversations.
But the underlying mathematics has changed, and mathematics doesn't negotiate.
That is also why this should not be viewed primarily as a political story. Both parties inherited the same demographic challenge. Both parties understood, at least at some level, that changes would eventually be needed. And both parties found it easier to postpone difficult decisions than to ask voters to accept higher taxes, lower benefits, later retirement ages, or some combination of all three.
That is less an accusation than an observation about human nature.
Nobody likes being told the bill is coming due, especially when the bill was created slowly over many decades. But the longer the country waits, the fewer easy choices remain. That does not mean Social Security cannot be fixed. It means the next fix will require the same kind of seriousness that Reagan, O’Neill, and others brought to the table in 1983.
The Beatles understood something about carrying burdens. By the time Abbey Road was recorded, years of business disagreements, personal tensions, and accumulated frustrations had become too heavy to ignore. Yet somehow, they transformed that weight into one of the greatest closing sequences in rock history.
That may be the right way to think about Social Security as well. The weight was not dropped on us in a single day. It accumulated slowly, one promise, one payroll tax, one retirement, one longer life expectancy, and one demographic shift at a time.
And yes, we are going to carry that weight a long time.
But carrying weight is not the same as surrendering to it. In Part 3, we will turn to the question everyone really wants answered: what can be done to strengthen Social Security without breaking the promise it has represented for nearly ninety years?
Because the goal should not be to walk away from the stage. The goal should be to keep the show going, keep the promise alive, and keep Moving Life Forward.
© 2026 Jesse Hurst
Senior Wealth Manager
The views stated are not necessarily the opinion of Cetera and should not be construed directly or indirectly as an offer to buy or sell any securities mentioned herein. Due to volatility within the markets mentioned, opinions are subject to change without notice. Information is based on sources believed to be reliable; however, their accuracy or completeness cannot be guaranteed. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Investors cannot directly invest in indices.
Featured Blog Image Source: iStock.com/berndwalter