Social Security's 2026 Changes: A $56 Raise and a Side of BS?
Alright, let's talk about this Social Security song and dance for 2026. A whole $56 extra a month, huh? That's the big news? I'm supposed to be thrilled that after decades of paying into this system, I'm gonna get enough extra to, what, buy a slightly nicer bottle of wine? Once a month? Give me a freakin' break.
The Social Security Administration is patting itself on the back about this 2.8% cost of living adjustment (COLA). They announced it "earlier this fall," like it's some kind of freakin' Christmas gift. Here's the translation: inflation is eating away at your already meager benefits, so we're throwing you a bone to keep you from completely starving. When does the Social Security COLA take effect? What to expect in 2026
And don't even get me started on the "my Social Security" account. Oh, goody, another website I have to create an account for, managed by ID.me or Login.gov – because those are paragons of security and user-friendliness, right? If you can't navigate that digital labyrinth, just schedule an appoinment at your local Social Security office. Assuming it's still open, offcourse.
They're raising the earnings limits too, for those who retire early. So, basically, if you’re young-ish and still working, they're gonna ding you for every extra dollar you earn above $24,480. One dollar less in benefits for every two you earn over that limit. It's like they're actively discouraging people from being productive.
And then there's the full retirement age (FRA) nonsense. They keep moving the goalposts. Used to be 65, then 66, now it's creeping up to 67. For anyone born in 1960 or later, FRA is going to remain at 67 unless lawmakers make modifications to the program. So, in 2026, anyone turning 66 will have to wait until they are 67 to start claiming Social Security. It's like a twisted game of keep-away with your own damn money.
Why are they doing this? Oh, right, because back in the '80s, some geniuses decided that pushing the retirement age back would "shore up the finances" of Social Security. Clever, real clever. Instead of, you know, actually fixing the underlying problems, they just make us work longer and collect later. And they call that progress.
Speaking of progress, my internet provider just upped my rates again. Apparently, "unlimited" data now comes with a limited bank account.
Here's the kicker: a disturbing number of people – around 21% – actually think Social Security will be enough to fund their entire retirement. Seriously? These are the same folks who probably think trickle-down economics actually works. 1 in 5 Americans Are Making a Social Security Mistake That Could Ruin Their Retirement
Social Security was never meant to be a sole source of support. It's supposed to be one leg of a three-legged stool, along with pensions and personal savings. Pensions are basically extinct now, unless you're a government employee or in a union. So, that leaves us with Social Security and whatever we can scrape together in a 401(k). And good luck with that when wages are stagnant and the cost of everything is skyrocketing.
Experts are saying that 62 is the worst age to claim Social Security. No kidding! You get a reduced benefit for the rest of your life. But hey, what if you need the money? What if you lose your job at 62 and have zero savings? Are you supposed to just starve until you're 67? It's easy for "experts" to sit in their ivory towers and crunch numbers.
Then again, maybe I'm the crazy one here. Maybe I'm just too cynical. Maybe $56 a month is a life-changing amount of money. Maybe I should just shut up and be grateful for whatever scraps the government throws my way. Nah.
It's a slow-motion train wreck, and they're selling us tickets to watch it happen.
