Where Social Security Cuts Could Have the Greatest Economic Impact

Social Security is a major source of retirement income for millions of Americans, but its economic importance varies sharply by locality. In some communities, benefits represent a relatively small share of total income. In others, they account for a substantial portion of money flowing into the local economy. That reliance may become more consequential as the Social Security trust funds face long-term solvency pressure, with benefit reductions of 22% now projected as early as 2032.

SmartAsset estimated annualized Social Security Old Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) benefits paid in more than 3,000 U.S. counties as a percentage of total county personal income — the income received by all residents of a county from employment wages, investments and other sources — to identify where Social Security benefits represent the largest share of local income. These findings may indicate where a benefit cut could have the greatest local economic impact.

Key Findings

Michigan counties may be especially exposed to Social Security benefit cuts. Eight of the 20 counties where annualized Social Security benefits account for the largest share of local income are in Michigan, led by Montmorency County, where benefits equal 18.6% of the county’s total personal income.
Teton County, Wyoming may have limited exposure. One of the highest-income counties in the United States and home to the resort town of Jackson, Teton County had the lowest measured exposure in the analysis. Annualized Social Security benefits equal less than 1% of county personal income.
Lee County, Florida sits near the middle of the distribution. Lee County is one of more than two dozen counties at the median measured exposure level, where annualized Social Security benefits equal 8.2% of county personal income.
Two states have no counties above the median exposure level. Connecticut and Rhode Island have no counties where annualized Social Security benefits equal 8.2% or more of county personal income.
Los Angeles County has the most Social Security beneficiaries, while Loving County, Texas, has the fewest. More than 1.5 million beneficiaries live in Los Angeles County, among approximately 9.7 million residents. By comparison, Loving County has 10 beneficiaries among roughly 50 residents.

Most Exposed County in Each State

• Cherokee County, Alabama
◦ Local income from Social Security: 11.6%
◦ Social Security beneficiaries: 8,585

• Wrangell Borough, Alaska
◦ Local income from Social Security: 8.8%
◦ Social Security beneficiaries: 615

• Mohave County, Arizona
◦ Local income from Social Security: 14.0%
◦ Social Security beneficiaries: 80,245

• Marion County, Arkansas
◦ Local income from Social Security: 14.8%
◦ Social Security beneficiaries: 6,305

• Amador County, California
◦ Local income from Social Security: 11.4%
◦ Social Security beneficiaries: 12,280

• Custer County, Colorado
◦ Local income from Social Security: 13.5%
◦ Social Security beneficiaries: 2,135

• Northeastern Connecticut Planning Region, Connecticut
◦ Local income from Social Security: 7.4%
◦ Social Security beneficiaries: 23,680

• Sussex County, Delaware
◦ Local income from Social Security: 10.9%
◦ Social Security beneficiaries: 91,430

• Sumter County, Florida
◦ Local income from Social Security: 18.1%
◦ Social Security beneficiaries: 86,875

• Towns County, Georgia
◦ Local income from Social Security: 16.6%
◦ Social Security beneficiaries: 5,770

• Hawaii County, Hawaii
◦ Local income from Social Security: 8.7%
◦ Social Security beneficiaries: 53,290

• Lewis County, Idaho
◦ Local income from Social Security: 14.0%
◦ Social Security beneficiaries: 1,745

• Pope County, Illinois
◦ Local income from Social Security: 13.5%
◦ Social Security beneficiaries: 1,250

• Starke County, Indiana
◦ Local income from Social Security: 11.0%
◦ Social Security beneficiaries: 6,700

• Appanoose County, Iowa
◦ Local income from Social Security: 10.2%
◦ Social Security beneficiaries: 3,565

• Elk County, Kansas
◦ Local income from Social Security: 13.0%
◦ Social Security beneficiaries: 815

• Lyon County, Kentucky
◦ Local income from Social Security: 11.3%
◦ Social Security beneficiaries: 2,620

• West Carroll Parish, Louisiana
◦ Local income from Social Security: 9.8%
◦ Social Security beneficiaries: 2,855

• Piscataquis County, Maine
◦ Local income from Social Security: 10.3%
◦ Social Security beneficiaries: 5,885

• Worcester County, Maryland
◦ Local income from Social Security: 9.5%
◦ Social Security beneficiaries: 17,075

• Barnstable County, Massachusetts
◦ Local income from Social Security: 8.3%
◦ Social Security beneficiaries: 78,625

• Montmorency County, Michigan
◦ Local income from Social Security: 18.6%
◦ Social Security beneficiaries: 4,525

• Aitkin County, Minnesota
◦ Local income from Social Security: 11.8%
◦ Social Security beneficiaries: 5,145

• Yalobusha County, Mississippi
◦ Local income from Social Security: 12.5%
◦ Social Security beneficiaries: 4,475

• Hickory County, Missouri
◦ Local income from Social Security: 14.9%
◦ Social Security beneficiaries: 3,585

• Golden Valley County, Montana
◦ Local income from Social Security: 13.8%
◦ Social Security beneficiaries: 370

• Deuel County, Nebraska
◦ Local income from Social Security: 12.7%
◦ Social Security beneficiaries: 575

• Nye County, Nevada
◦ Local income from Social Security: 13.5%
◦ Social Security beneficiaries: 18,980

• Coos County, New Hampshire
◦ Local income from Social Security: 10.7%
◦ Social Security beneficiaries: 11,320

• Cape May County, New Jersey
◦ Local income from Social Security: 9.2%
◦ Social Security beneficiaries: 30,995

• Catron County, New Mexico
◦ Local income from Social Security: 18.1%
◦ Social Security beneficiaries: 1,680

• Hamilton County, New York
◦ Local income from Social Security: 11.7%
◦ Social Security beneficiaries: 1,725

• Cherokee County, North Carolina
◦ Local income from Social Security: 15.8%
◦ Social Security beneficiaries: 11,605

• Slope County, North Dakota
◦ Local income from Social Security: 13.0%
◦ Social Security beneficiaries: 170

• Monroe County, Ohio
◦ Local income from Social Security: 11.4%
◦ Social Security beneficiaries: 4,010

• McIntosh County, Oklahoma
◦ Local income from Social Security: 12.2%
◦ Social Security beneficiaries: 6,685

• Curry County, Oregon
◦ Local income from Social Security: 13.9%
◦ Social Security beneficiaries: 10,130

• Forest County, Pennsylvania
◦ Local income from Social Security: 17.8%
◦ Social Security beneficiaries: 1,960

• Washington County, Rhode Island
◦ Local income from Social Security: 7.4%
◦ Social Security beneficiaries: 34,935

• McCormick County, South Carolina
◦ Local income from Social Security: 18.6%
◦ Social Security beneficiaries: 4,715

• Fall River County, South Dakota
◦ Local income from Social Security: 10.6%
◦ Social Security beneficiaries: 2,700

• Cumberland County, Tennessee
◦ Local income from Social Security: 15.1%
◦ Social Security beneficiaries: 25,870

• Sabine County, Texas
◦ Local income from Social Security: 15.0%
◦ Social Security beneficiaries: 3,830

• Emery County, Utah
◦ Local income from Social Security: 11.0%
◦ Social Security beneficiaries: 2,410

• Essex County, Vermont
◦ Local income from Social Security: 12.1%
◦ Social Security beneficiaries: 2,180

• Highland County, Virginia
◦ Local income from Social Security: 14.4%
◦ Social Security beneficiaries: 980

• Pacific County, Washington
◦ Local income from Social Security: 14.9%
◦ Social Security beneficiaries: 9,480

• Webster County, West Virginia
◦ Local income from Social Security: 14.6%
◦ Social Security beneficiaries: 2,690

• Adams County, Wisconsin
◦ Local income from Social Security: 15.0%
◦ Social Security beneficiaries: 8,440

• Weston County, Wyoming
◦ Local income from Social Security: 10.9%
◦ Social Security beneficiaries: 2,010

Methodology

SmartAsset multiplied December 2024 Old Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) benefits paid to all beneficiaries in each county, as reported by the Social Security Administration, by 12 to estimate annualized OASI benefits. That estimate was compared with annual county personal income reported by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. More than 95% of U.S. counties and county-level equivalents were included; others were omitted due to insufficient or incompatible data. Source data providers are not affiliated with, and do not endorse or sponsor, this study or its findings.