Tag Archives for NCPSSM

Political and Philosophical Compromise Key to Saving Social Security

Published in RINewsToday on August 31, 2026.

Just before the nation celebrated Social Security’s 91st birthday on August 15, the Senate Finance Committee held an August 5 hearing titled “Exploring Process Approaches for Addressing Social Security Solvency.” The hearing put a spotlight on the program’s looming financial challenges.

It explored possible legislative approaches to shore up its finances before the trust fund reaches insolvency in roughly six years, resulting in significant benefit cuts if Congress fails to act. The hearing followed an earlier Senate Finance Committee hearing in June that also examined the future of Social Security.

At both hearings, lawmakers and witnesses warned about the looming fiscal crisis of Social Security, as documented in the 2026 Social Security Trustees Report, released in June.  The latest Trustees’ report projected that the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund will become insolvent by 2032. When this occurs, incoming payroll taxes would be sufficient to pay only about 78% of scheduled benefits unless Congress acts.

The Clock is Ticking

Last week, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) joined the Senate Finance Committee in sounding the alarm about the impending insolvency of Social Security.

Against this backdrop, an Aug. 26 CRFB blog posting challenges what the budget watchdog calls a long-held myth about Social Security — that the program works much like a personal retirement account. Under that view, workers contribute money through payroll taxes during their employment years and, when they retire, receive their own money back.

That is not how Social Security works, CRFB argues.

Benefits are calculated using a worker’s earnings history and a benefit formula, rather than an individual account containing that worker’s contributions. Social Security’s progressive benefit formula also provides what CRFB calls “proportionately greater protection” to lower-income workers. While Social Security benefits are earned benefits, CRFB argues that does not mean retirees are simply withdrawing money they personally deposited into the system over their working lives.

“Fixing the system will require putting this myth to bed,” says CRFB.

Citing a 2025 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis comparing lifetime Social Security taxes with benefits, CRFB says the data show that many workers will collect more in benefits than they and their employers paid in payroll taxes, even after adjusting those contributions to their present value.

Simply put, CRFB calculates that, on average, retirees are scheduled to receive back all of their contributions, plus interest, plus an additional 33 cents in benefits for every $1 they and their employers paid into the program. CRFB points out that individual experiences can vary widely. Someone who dies shortly after retirement may collect far less than someone who lives into their 90s. Married couples, surviving spouses, disabled workers and people with different earnings histories can also have very different outcomes.

But CRFB stresses that it is not arguing that Social Security benefits should be cut to match what individual workers contributed. It calls that the wrong conclusion to draw from its analysis. Instead, the organization argues that policymakers should stop treating every dollar of scheduled benefits as “untouchable personal savings.”

With Social Security’s financing deadline rapidly approaching, CRFB says Congress should consider changes on both sides of the ledger — benefits and revenues — as part of any bipartisan effort to ensure the long-term solvency of the program.

“The most important conclusion [of this study] is that there is nothing sacrosanct about the benefit that is directly tied to how much you paid in. And so, as we’re evaluating reform, this idea that, well, I paid for it, therefore you cannot adjust the benefit formula at all, is nonsense,” says Marc Goldwein, CRFB’s senior policy director, who has studied Social Security for more than 20 years.

Unraveling a False Narrative

Goldwein says that the argument that scheduled benefits are “untouchable” has created a “false narrative” used by some Social Security advocacy groups. He compares their unwillingness to consider changes to benefits to the anti-tax position long associated with conservative activist Grover Norquist, founder of Americans for Tax Reform.

Goldwein offers examples of potential Social Security reforms that Congress might consider as it hammers out legislation.  These reforms include: applying the employer payroll tax to all forms of compensation, including health care benefits and stock options; capping benefits at $100,000 per couple; raising the taxable wage maximum; and potentially adjusting the retirement age while protecting lower-income workers.

Goldwein warns Congress not to use general revenues to ensure the long-term financial stability of Social Security.  He estimates that doing so would add more than $190 trillion in borrowing in today’s dollars, potentially leading to skyrocketing debt and a fiscal crisis while fundamentally changing Social Security’s contributory structure.

Ultimately, Goldwein says neither political party is likely to get everything it wants.

Getting a Social Security reform package through Congress “will take compromise on all parties,” says Goldwein, pointing to the 60 votes generally needed to overcome a filibuster in the Senate.

“It’s either a deal or there’s a 22% benefit cut,” he adds.

On the Other Side of the Coin

Maria Freese, senior Social Security policy analyst for the Washington, D.C. based National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, stresses that Social Security is not an investment plan but social insurance.

“Like any insurance program, it’s wrong to calculate the worth of the program from the standpoint of a ‘rate of return.’ If you spend your entire life buying fire insurance but your house never burns down, would CRFB argue it’s a ‘bad investment’ and that homeowners should forgo insurance? Of course not. And why should we expect to get a specific ‘rate of return’ on Social Security when we don’t ask the same of any other federal program?” she says.

Workers with low lifetime earnings receive a much higher income replacement rate from Social Security than middle-income workers, who in turn receive a higher replacement rate than higher-income workers, says Freese, noting that Social Security is designed as a progressive benefit program.

“Also, Social Security ‘return’ arguments differ by birth cohort,” adds Freese. Baby Boomers, for instance, will end up receiving a higher income replacement rate than younger generations, she explains, in large part because of the increase in Social Security’s full retirement age enacted in 1983. So even if today’s retirees are getting a 133% “rate of return,” that rate will continue trending downward over time.

Freese says “legacy debt” is another way of looking at intergenerational differences.

“Early beneficiaries got a lot more back in benefits than they paid in payroll taxes, which kept the Trust Funds from building any assets in the first decades of the program. Ida Mae Fuller, the first person to receive a Social Security check (back in 1940), is the best example, as she paid in $22.75 and received almost $23,000 in benefits before she died at age 100,” she says.

CRFB is hiding behind a ‘money’s worth’ smokescreen to cover the truth that Social Security’s benefits, which are too low, are easily affordable if wealthier Americans start paying their fair share,” charges Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works, who also chairs the Strengthen Social Security Coalition. “The money’s worth argument is not new. Importantly, it willfully refuses to acknowledge that Social Security is insurance,” she says.

Altman asks: “Do those who do not become so disabled they can no longer support themselves through work get less than their money’s worth from Social Security’s disability insurance? If they don’t die prematurely, do they get less than their money’s worth from Social Security’s survivors’ insurance? Do those who do become disabled and those who die leaving dependents get more than their so-called money’s worth?”

Over the years, Altman has been consistent in her solution for shoring up Social Security’s finances. “As with other insurance, dozens of actuaries project the cost of benefits, and the income needed to finance them. Americans overwhelmingly agree that Social Security’s benefits are too low. They want the wealthiest to start paying their fair share, so the projected shortfall is eliminated, and the cost of increased benefits is covered,” she says.

For Goldwein, the choices facing Congress are clear – but hardly easy. Lawmakers can do “the grown-up thing” — as lawmakers did in passing the landmark 1983 reforms — and make the political compromises necessary to ensure Social Security’s financial stability.  Or they can keep kicking the can down the road, borrowing more and leaving an even bigger problem for the next generation of workers and retirees.

A Final Note…

That’s where the political and philosophical divide comes into clear focus.

CRFB’s Goldwein argues that scheduled benefits cannot be treated as untouchable simply because workers paid payroll taxes throughout their careers. Social Security Advocates Freese and Altman counter that Social Security is social insurance, not a personal investment account, and that its value cannot be measured simply by comparing dollars paid in with dollars received.

However, Goldwein, Freese and Altman agree on this fact: Congress cannot continue to ignore the looming insolvency of Social Security. The real political challenge for both sides is to find common ground between  competing philosophies. Ultimately any legislative reform to Social Security must protect the financial security that this program provides while ensuring the program can keep its promises to future generations yet to come.

As this debate continues to unfold, you can see that there is no shortage of policy ideas being floated inside the beltway to fix Social Security. There is no shortage of experts, too.

What is in short supply is time, say CRFB and the Social Security advocates.

With the clock ticking toward 2032, Congress will eventually have to make hard political decisions, determining whether compromise is possible. For millions of Americans who depend on their monthly Social Security check, that decision is not a theoretical exercise. It is about whether the monthly check they count on will be there — and how much it will be.

After more than 90 years, Social Security deserves better than another round of political finger-pointing.  It deserves a bipartisan solution now.

To read CRFB’s Trust Fund Solutions that detail solutions to help improve the solvency of Social Security,  along with promoting economic growth, strengthening retirement security, enabling continued work, improving seniors’ health, and fixing the country’s finances, go to Trust Fund Solutions | Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

To watch the Aug. 5 Senate Finance Committee hearing on approaches for addressing Social Security’s Solvency, go to [2026-08-05] Hearing: Exploring Process Approaches for Addressing Social Security Solvency | The United States Senate Committee on Finance.

Senate Finance Panel Begins Discussion on Fixing Social Security

Published in RINewsToday on August 17, 2026

Social Security’s Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund (OASI) is projected to reach insolvency by late 2032, triggering an automatic 22% across-the-board benefit cut if Congress fails to act, according to the 2026 Social Security Trustees Report released June 9. The clock is ticking — fewer than 2,300 days remain.

What would that mean for older Americans? Marc Goldwein, senior vice president and senior policy director of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), put a dollar figure on the potential impact in his August 5 testimony before the Senate Finance Committee. Acomparable benefit reduction imposed today, he said, would mean an average loss of about $500 a month for beneficiaries.

For a typical newly retired couple, that could translate into an annual loss of roughly $12,000 in Social Security income — a substantial hit for households that depend on the program to pay for housing, food, utilities, health care and other basic expenses. Goldwein’s testimony underscores what the Trustees’ numbers mean beyond the percentages: a future across-the-board cut could have a very real impact on retirees’ daily lives.

Senate Finance Panel Takes Up Social Security’s Future

Just nine days before Social Security’s 91st birthday on Aug. 15, the Senate Committee on Finance held an Aug. 5 hearing, “Exploring Process Approaches for Addressing Social Security Solvency,” to spotlight the program’s looming financial challenges and explore possible legislative approaches. The hearing brought together policy experts and advocacy organizations to discuss how Congress might move toward a solution.

The more than two-hour hearing examined the merits of using a commission versus the regular legislative process. Senators and witnesses also discussed increasing revenue from higher earners, raising or eliminating the payroll tax cap, adjusting benefits, and changing the retirement age.

Chairman Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) opened the hearing by warning that Social Security’s OASI Trust Fund is projected to be exhausted in late 2032. If Congress fails to act, incoming program revenues would be sufficient to pay only about 78% of scheduled benefits, he said.

The last comprehensive congressional effort to address Social Security’s solvency took place more than 40 years ago, culminating in the Social Security Amendments of 1983. Signed by President Ronald Reagan, the bipartisan legislation gradually raised the full retirement age, subjected some higher-income Social Security benefits to federal income taxation and increased payroll taxes to strengthen the program’s finances.

Crapo pointed to the 1983 reforms as an example of how an outside commission might help break legislative gridlock. He also cited his participation in a later bipartisan fiscal commission, commonly known as the Greenspan Commission, whose recommendations ultimately failed to win the support needed to move forward.

Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) challenged the idea of creating another commission, arguing that Congress should take responsibility for solving the problem rather than sending it to an outside panel.

“Instead of ‘talking about talking,’ this body should get to work on finding a resolution to the Social Security solvency challenge and having that debate in public view,” Wyden said.

Crapo responded that the hearing was not intended to promote a specific proposal but to examine a broad range of ideas.

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) pushed back against Democratic criticism that Republicans were seeking to cut benefits, saying Congress needs to be willing to consider different approaches to the problem.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) took a much harsher view of the program, calling Social Security a “Ponzi scheme” and arguing that money collected from taxpayers has already been spent.

Rhode Island’s Whitehouse Calls for Answers

Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse pressed Republicans for a specific plan to address Social Security’s finances.

“Where’s the Republican proposal? Where is it? It doesn’t exist,”

Whitehouse charged, arguing that Republicans were unwilling to publicly embrace proposals that could result in benefit reductions.

Whitehouse said Democrats have legislation that would make Social Security solvent “for as far as the actuarial eye can see” without cutting benefits.

Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) focused on raising more revenue from higher-income Americans by increasing the amount of earnings subject to the Social Security payroll tax.

Warren noted that the payroll tax currently applies only up to a certain level of earnings, meaning high-income workers pay Social Security taxes on a smaller percentage of their total income than most middle-income workers.

Sanders framed the issue in simpler terms, asking whether wealthy Americans should pay the same percentage of their income into Social Security as firefighters and nurses.

But not every senator framed the debate in partisan terms.

Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) observed that conversations about Social Security often “immediately” become fear-mongering, with the discussion centered on taking benefits away.

“We’re actually trying to be able to get to a point where no one loses benefits,” Lankford said, noting that the goal should be long-term stabilization.

Lankford acknowledged that having a “grown-up conversation” about stabilizing Social Security’s finances and resolving the problem remains a real challenge.

Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) also called for bipartisan action.  “We’ve got to fix this and that means working together. There’s a lot of great ideas out there. If we would just make this a focus and a priority, we can get something done,” she said.

Their comments underscored a central question facing Congress: Can lawmakers move beyond the political rhetoric surrounding Social Security and find enough common ground to actually fix the program?

AARP: Keep Social Security at the Table

Nancy A. LeaMond, AARP’s executive vice president and chief advocacy and engagement officer, questioned whether another special commission is the best way forward.

“The history of special commissions is littered with very good intentions and failed results,” LeaMond told the committee. She argued that Social Security’s future should be addressed directly by Congress, which has jurisdiction over the program and a long history of tackling difficult Social Security issues.

LeaMond reminded senators that Social Security remains the foundation of retirement security for millions of Americans. She noted that it provides more than half of household income for 43% of older American households and provides at least 90% of income for nearly 12 million Americans age 65 and older.

Social Security’s impact also extends beyond individual beneficiaries, LeaMond said. “Every dollar paid in Social Security benefits generates two dollars of economic activity, supporting 12.2 million jobs and $2 trillion in economic output each year,” she said.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) acknowledged AARP’s efforts to protect Social Security, including its television advertising campaign warning against benefit cuts. But Grassley urged AARP and other organizations to do more to educate the public about the looming automatic reductions.

“We’ve got to wake this entire nation up to the fact that there’s going to be 22% cuts if we don’t do something right now,” Grassley said.

Goldwein told the committee that Social Security’s financial problems can be addressed if Congress begins the process rather than continuing to delay action.

In his testimony, Goldwein described CRFB’s Trust Fund Solutions initiative, which offers potential approaches for restoring Social Security’s solvency. Among the ideas discussed are changes to the taxation of benefits, expanding the payroll tax base, limiting benefits for some high earners, and encouraging longer workforce participation.

The dollar figure Goldwein cited — an average reduction of about $500 a month under a comparable benefit cut — puts the Trustees’ warning into perspective. For retirees already struggling to keep pace with rising housing, food and health care costs, losing another $500 a month would not be an abstract budget number. It could mean difficult choices between paying bills, buying groceries or filling a prescription.

Charles Blahous of the Mercatus Center also called for Congress to move quickly, arguing that the most important part of Social Security reform may simply be getting the process started before continued delays make the problem harder and more expensive to solve.

Rebecca D. Vallas, CEO of the National Academy of Social Insurance, told the committee that the decisions Congress makes about Social Security will rank among the most important work lawmakers undertake in generations.

Vallas cited a survey of more than 2,200 Americans conducted by NASI in partnership with AARP, the National Institute on Retirement Security and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The survey found that 85% of respondents favored preventing benefit reductions or increasing benefits, even if that would require raising taxes on some or all Americans. Only 15% preferred benefit reductions to tax increases.

Support for raising revenue rather than cutting benefits crossed party, income, education, and generational lines, Vallas said.

A Final Note…

“Social Security is too important to millions of Americans for Congress to take shortcuts or empower fast-track commissions to do their job. This is an opportunity to show that Washington can work, that it can deliver the results that the American people are demanding, and that it can achieve this goal without waiting until the very last minute to act,” says submitted testimony by Max Richtman, President & CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.

The message from the hearing was clear: Social Security’s financial problems are real, the clock is ticking, and Congress has no shortage of policy ideas.

What remains uncertain is whether Democrats and Republicans can put aside their philosophical differences long enough to agree on a bipartisan solution.

After 43 years and 4 months since the enactment of Social Security reforms in 1983, the stakes are simply too high for millions of older Americans to wait much longer.  Lawmakers must roll up their sleeves and get the work done.

Unpaid Caregiving Takes a Toll on Retirement Security

Published in RINewsToday on August 10, 2026

Unpaid family caregiving is often viewed as a labor of love. But a new national study shows that caring for a loved one can also come with a significant financial price — one that may well follow caregivers right into their retirement years.

On July 22, the Washington, D.C.-based Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI), a nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization that studies employee benefits, released its 42-page report, “Caregivers and Retirement: Findings From the 2026 Retirement Confidence Survey.” The report examines how unpaid caregiving affects financial security, employment, health and retirement planning.

Not surprisingly, the findings paint a very troubling picture. Caregivers are more likely than non-caregivers to report lower financial assets, debt problems, poorer health and less confidence about having enough money to live comfortably throughout retirement.

The report is part of a broader caregiving project being developed by EBRI and Greenwald Research. The goal is to provide employers with educational resources and strategies to help employee caregivers better prepare for retirement while managing the all-consuming demands of caring for a family member.

A Growing Retirement Security Issue

The 2026 Retirement Confidence Survey, now in its 36th year, found that nearly three in 10 Americans age 25 and older are unpaid caregivers.

For purposes of the study, caregivers were defined as people who provided unpaid care for an adult or child during the previous 12 months in a non-institutional setting and helped the care recipient with at least one activity of daily living or instrumental activity of daily living.

The findings were discussed during a July 22 EBRI and Greenwald Research webinar featuring Craig Copeland, EBRI’s director of wealth benefits research; Lisa Greenwald, CEO of Greenwald Research; Kerry Sette of Voya Financial; and Cynthia Hutchins of Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

Throughout the discussion, the message was quite clear: caregiving is not simply a family or health issue. It must also be viewed as a retirement security issue.

“Caregiving is often discussed as a family, health or workplace issue, but this research shows it is also an important retirement security issue,” Copeland and Greenwald said in announcing the report.

“Caregivers are doing many of the same planning activities as non-caregivers, but they are more likely to face debt, lower assets, mental health strain and lower confidence about their long-term financial future,” they noted.

The 2026 report builds on an earlier 2023 EBRI/Greenwald Research study that also examined caregivers. Comparing the two surveys, Copeland said caregivers continue to fall behind their non-caregiving counterparts.

Taking a Look at the Key Findings

Caregiving can take a toll on health. Only 36% of caregivers said their health was excellent or very good, compared with 45% of non-caregivers. Caregivers were also less likely to have household incomes of $75,000 or more — 53%, compared with 62% of non-caregivers. Women represented 61% of caregivers, compared with 47% of non-caregivers. 

Caregivers have fewer financial resources to build wealth. Thirty-four percent of caregivers reported having less than $10,000 in savings and investments, compared with 25% of non-caregivers. Debt was also more likely to be a problem: 69% of caregivers said debt was a problem, compared with 57% of non-caregivers.

Caregiving can hit the family wallet. Thirty-four percent of caregiving workers and 20% of caregiving retirees said they provide financial support to the person they care for. In addition, 20% of caregiving workers and 15% of caregiving retirees said they had taken on new or additional debt as a result of caregiving.

The emotional toll is substantial. Sixty-four percent of working caregivers and 52% of caregiving retirees said caregiving had negatively affected their mental health. Among working caregivers, the financial tasks most affected were saving for emergencies (56%) and working the hours they wanted or needed to work (54%).

The financial pressures of caregiving can make it harder for people to prepare for their own futures. Caregivers in both the lower- and upper-income groups were more likely than non-caregivers with similar incomes to lack confidence that they would have enough money to live comfortably throughout retirement.

Among households earning less than $35,000, 75% of caregivers said they were not confident they would have enough money for retirement, compared with 55% of non-caregivers. Among households earning $75,000 or more, 32% of caregivers lacked confidence, compared with 23% of non-caregivers.

Caregivers were also more likely to worry about the impact of an economic recession, rising housing costs, and having to provide care for a loved one with a health condition or disability.

When Caregiving Changes Retirement Plans

For some caregivers, the demands of providing care can even change when they leave the workforce.

The survey found that caregiving retirees were more likely than non-caregiving retirees to have retired earlier than planned. Among those who retired earlier than expected, caregivers were more likely to say they did so because they had to care for a spouse or another family member.

Caregiving retirees were also more likely to describe their current retirement lifestyle as fair rather than excellent. They were more likely to say their retirement lifestyle was not what they had envisioned and that several retirement expenses were higher than expected.

Higher-income caregivers also lagged behind non-caregivers with similar incomes in completing several important retirement-planning tasks, including calculating how much they needed to save, saving for retirement, planning for emergency expenses and estimating future health care costs.

The report points to a number of ways employers can help working caregivers, including flexible scheduling, remote-work opportunities, caregiver resources, education and benefits designed to reduce some of the financial pressures associated with caregiving.

Lisa Greenwald, CEO of Greenwald Research, says caregiving creates financial, health and social-emotional pressures at different stages of life — while people are working, preparing for retirement and after they retire.

For employers, she says, recognizing these challenges can help them provide the flexibility and support caregivers need to remain productive at work while continuing to save for retirement.

Having Their Say…

Washington insider Dan Adcock, director of government relations and policy for the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, agrees with the report’s findings about the financial and personal pressures facing caregivers.

Unless unpaid family caregivers receive greater support through respite care or paid Home- and Community-Based Services, Adcock says, caregiving responsibilities can take a toll on their physical and emotional health.

He also points to another concern not fully captured by the EBRI survey: working-age caregivers who leave the workforce to care for a loved one can end up with lower Social Security benefits because the program’s benefit formula is based in part on a worker’s earnings history.

That is one reason Adcock supports a Social Security caregiver credit.

He urges Congress to pass the Social Security Caregiver Credit Act of 2026 (S. 4396/H.R. 8490). The legislation was introduced by Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) in the Senate, with Rep. Brad Schneider (D-Ill.) introducing the House companion measure.

The legislation would allow qualifying unpaid caregivers to receive up to five years of deemed wages for purposes of calculating Social Security benefits. To qualify, a caregiver would generally have to provide at least 80 hours of care per month to a dependent child under age 12 or a chronically dependent relative.

The bills remain in committee. S. 4396 was referred to the Senate Finance Committee, while H.R. 8490 was referred to the House Ways and Means Committee.

The issue is particularly important here in Rhode Island, where thousands of family members provide unpaid care that helps loved ones remain in their homes.

Maureen Maigret, policy advisor with the Senior Agenda Coalition of Rhode Island (SACRI), says the EBRI findings confirm what advocates have been seeing for years.

“Caregiving takes a significant physical, emotional, and financial toll on our unpaid caregivers,” she says.

Maigret notes that Rhode Island caregivers provide thousands of hours of unpaid care that can allow people to remain at home longer, potentially delaying or avoiding more costly nursing facility care.

SACRI is pushing for policies to strengthen support for caregivers, including expanding the state’s Temporary Caregiver Insurance program, adequately funding respite services, and creating a state caregiver tax credit.

Rhode Island has already taken steps to support working family caregivers through its Temporary Caregiver Insurance program. Aging advocates, however, continue to push for expanded eligibility and additional weeks of paid leave.

Taking a Close Look at AARP’s Caregiver Study

After a media briefing last year, AARP and the National Alliance for Caregiving (NAC) published a report, Caregiving in the U.S. 2025, that warns of a looming crisis that will impact America’s 63 million caregivers, an increase of 45% over the past decade. The report, released June 24, 2025, noted that caregivers are at a “crisis point.” Nearly half reported major financial problems, one in five reported fair or poor health, and more troubling, nearly a quarter felt completely alone.

One in five caregivers report poor health; a quarter are taking on debt due to caregiving. Half report negative financial impact due to caregiving, and one in five cannot afford basic needs like food.

EBRI’s new survey adds an important retirement-focused perspective to an ongoing national conversation about unpaid caregiving.  The research shows how caregiving can affect not only today’s household decisions but a person’s long-term financial security.

And that may well be the most important takeaway from the new EBRI report.

Millions of Americans step up to the plate when a parent, spouse, child or other loved one needs help. They do it because it is what families do. But caregiving should not mean that the person providing that care has to sacrifice his or her own financial future.

Like AARP’s 2025 caregiver study, EBRI’s report examines how caregiving responsibilities are associated with retirement confidence, debt, savings, financial stress, workplace needs and long-term retirement preparation among workers and retirees.

The EBRI research, complementing AARP’s definitive caregiving research, makes it clear that unpaid caregiving carries consequences that can extend far beyond the time spent providing care. For many Americans, the price may be paid not only today, but again when they reach retirement.

A Final Note…

EBRI’s Copeland points out: “The survey results clearly show caregiving has significant impacts on both workers and retirees, not only now but in the future as well. While you may not be a caregiver currently, if you have parents or children, you are likely to be one in the future. Thus, preparing for this need, or better handling current caregiving needs, can make a huge difference in retirement preparations and current expenses. Caregiving can take a toll on all aspects of life, so anything individuals can do to plan for it or better educate themselves can foster a caregiver’s well-being, both financially and emotionally.”
.

The 2026 Retirement Confidence Survey was conducted online from January 2 through January 28, 2026, among 2,544 Americans age 25 and older. It included a general population sample of 2,052 people — 1,007 workers and 1,045 retirees — plus an oversample of 492 caregivers. The final analysis included 701 caregiving workers and 305 caregiving retirees.

The 2026 survey was supported by the American College of Financial Services, American Funds/Capital Group, Bank of America, Bright Horizons, CareScout, Edward Jones, Empower, Fidelity Investments, FINRA Foundation, Jackson National, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Mercer, Nationwide, Principal Financial Group, Protective, Prudential/PGIM, T. Rowe Price and Voya Financial.

To watch the EBRI Webinar and for a copy of the slides, go to https://www.ebri.org/publications/webinars/past-webinars

To read AARP’s 2025 Caregiver Study, go to Caregiving in the U.S. 2025 – AARP Research Report