Social Security Solvency Solutions are drawing fresh attention as the program’s trust fund is projected to run out of money in just six years, triggering automatic cuts in retirement and disability benefits unless Congress acts. Experts say the program’s financial problems are fixable, but only if lawmakers are willing to make difficult choices about who bears the cost. The debate centers less on whether Social Security can be saved than on which Americans should pay to save it, through some combination of higher taxes, lower benefits, or both.
The Looming Deadline: Insolvency in 2032
Social Security Solvency Solutions trust fund is projected to run out of money in just six years, triggering automatic cuts in retirement and disability benefits. Yet experts say the program’s financial problems are fixable if lawmakers are willing to make difficult choices.
The latest trustees’ report found that Social Security’s finances are being strained by an aging population, lower immigration, and tax changes. According to the report, Social Security is set to spend $3.8 trillion more than it takes in over the next decade, and faces an actuarial deficit of 4.42% of taxable payroll over the next 75 years, up from 3.82% in last year’s report and marking the largest gap since 1977.
“It’s a simple math problem, it’s not a simple political problem,” Karen Glenn, the chief actuary of the Social Security Administration, said in a recent conference call to discuss the program’s finances. “We need to either raise scheduled revenue, reduce scheduled benefits, or some combination of the two.”
What Insolvency Actually Means for Beneficiaries
A common misconception is that Social Security’s insolvency would mean it would no longer offer benefits to the more than 70 million Americans who rely on the program for income.
Instead, beneficiaries would continue to receive monthly checks, though the typical payment, currently $2,071 per month, would be cut by roughly $500, according to a report published by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. At the point of insolvency, only 78% of scheduled benefits would be payable, reflecting the gap between what the program collects in payroll taxes and what it has promised to pay out.
“The program is incredibly beloved, so contemplating the idea of reducing those benefits is really difficult,” said Kathleen Romig, senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and a Social Security expert. “We really need to think hard about how to raise enough money so we can afford those benefits because that is what people want.”
Solution 1: Eliminate the Social Security Tax Cap
The most frequently discussed solution involves a longstanding feature of the program’s tax structure that exempts higher earners from payroll taxes above a certain threshold.
Social Security has applied a tax cap since the program debuted in the 1930s. The cap shields any income over a given amount from the payroll taxes that fund the program. In 2026, the threshold stands at $184,500, meaning that any earnings over that amount are exempt from a 6.2% payroll tax for workers and a matching 6.2% tax for employers.
There are multiple proposals for eliminating or reducing the cap, ranging from phasing it out over time to introducing a “donut hole,” meaning that people earning $184,500 to $250,000, or even $400,000, would not be subject to the payroll tax on those earnings, with the tax kicking back in above that higher threshold. The Social Security Administration’s scoring of these proposals found they could close between 22% and 67% of the program’s funding gap, depending on the approach.
Solution 2: Hike the Payroll Tax
A more direct, across-the-board approach would raise the rate everyone pays into the system, rather than changing who is subject to the tax.
The Social Security Administration estimated in this year’s report that a 4.6% tax increase would be needed to keep pace with the program’s requirements. Split between workers and employers, the tax would rise to about 8.5% for each, or a combined 17%, up from the current 6.2% for workers and 6.2% for employers, or 12.4% overall.
“You are getting close to a 20% payroll tax to fund these programs,” said Jason Fichtner, senior fellow at the Bipartisan Policy Center and a former Social Security Administration official. “That is a huge burden on payrolls, that might really be harmful to labor hiring and labor productivity.” A hybrid proposal from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget suggests replacing the employer’s side of the payroll tax with a flat employer compensation tax on all employer compensation costs, including wages, stock options, and employer-sponsored health insurance. Hiking the payroll tax by 4.6% would entirely erase Social Security’s gap, while the employer compensation tax would raise $2.5 trillion over a decade and close two-thirds of the shortfall, the CRFB estimated.
Solution 3: Raise the Retirement Age
A longer-standing policy lever, used the last time Congress addressed Social Security’s insolvency in the 1980s, involves delaying when Americans can claim full benefits.
Lawmakers pulled this lever in 1983 when the program was also on the verge of insolvency, raising the full retirement age from 65 to 67 over two decades, with people born in 1960 or later having 67 as their threshold for claiming full benefits. Republican lawmakers have previously proposed raising the retirement age further, reasoning that Americans should delay retirement to account for longer life expectancy.
Still, research shows that most people stop working at about age 62, well before they had planned, due to issues beyond their control such as health concerns or job loss. Raising the retirement age would amount to a benefit cut because people would receive Social Security payments for fewer years. A 2024 Congressional Budget Office analysis found that increasing the full retirement age from 67 to 69 would reduce annual benefits by an average of 13%. Depending on how quickly and by how much the retirement age is raised, such a step could address between 16% and 64% of the funding gap, the Social Security Administration estimates.
Solution 4: Cut Benefits for Higher-Income Workers
Some policy experts and Republican lawmakers favor a more targeted approach, reasoning that wealthier retirees have other resources to draw on in retirement.
The 2025 Republican Study Committee, the largest conservative caucus in the House of Representatives, proposed changing the formula that calculates a worker’s benefits by reducing the amount for younger, high-income workers, while leaving people nearing retirement and lower-income workers unaffected. A similar idea from the American Action Forum, a center-right think tank, would tweak the formula for people earning about $90,000 annually. Under that proposal, a middle-income worker earning an average monthly wage of about $5,000 would see no cut, but a high-income worker with an average monthly wage of $10,000 would see their monthly Social Security check cut by about $260.
Earlier this year, the CRFB suggested capping Social Security benefits at $100,000 for couples. Changing the formula for high earners would close 9% of Social Security’s 75-year solvency gap, the American Action Forum said, while capping benefits at $100,000 per couple could save as much as $190 billion over a decade and close at least 20% of the program’s solvency gap, the CRFB found.
Solution 5: Tax Investment Income
A fifth approach targets a category of income that has historically escaped Social Security taxation entirely, regardless of how high it climbs.
Social Security relies on payroll taxes to fund its benefits, but investment income, such as capital gains and dividends, is shielded from tax. That primarily benefits the nation’s wealthiest, highest-earning workers, who also currently do not pay Social Security taxes on any income above $184,500.
Following the trustees’ report and Elon Musk becoming the world’s first trillionaire through the SpaceX IPO, Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont, touted his plan to shore up Social Security through new taxes on high-income Americans, proposing adding a 12.4% tax on all investment and business income in addition to raising the tax cap. “Blockbuster tech IPOs, such as SpaceX’s June 12 initial stock sale, could prove a boon for Social Security if they were taxed,” said Teresa Ghilarducci, a labor economist and professor at The New School for Social Research. “We would solve the problem now,” she added. Sanders’ proposal would close Social Security’s funding gap entirely, according to a Social Security Administration analysis.
Martin O’Malley: Raise the Cap, Don’t Cut Benefits
Beyond the formal policy proposals, former Social Security Administration Commissioner Martin O’Malley has emerged as one of the most vocal public advocates for a specific solution, arguing forcefully against benefit reductions.
In an interview that aired on NewsNation’s “The Hill,” O’Malley argued that requiring higher-income Americans to pay more into Social Security is the solution to the program’s looming funding shortfall. “It’s only 6 percent of us that experience any benefit from the cap and an even smaller percentage, three or four, who benefit from scrapping the cap on income above $250,000,” he told host Blake Burman. “Most Americans think it is unfair that wealthy people don’t pay the same tax rate as a custodian in a school or a teacher.”
O’Malley, who led the Social Security Administration between December 2023 and November 2024, rejected the characterization that Social Security contributes to the federal deficit. “Social Security doesn’t contribute to the deficit,” he said. “It is a pay-as-you-go program, which means, for the most part, the dollars paid in any given year are the dollars that go out.” O’Malley argued the trust fund is being drained faster than expected because income above the payroll tax cap is not subject to Social Security taxes: “That surplus, intentionally built up since 1982, is being depleted sooner than they thought back then because of income inequality. Because no person making more than $182,000 pays another penny in Social Security.” In comments to MarketWatch, O’Malley called the looming budget issues “an entirely solvable problem,” one that could be fixed if lawmakers “scrap the cap.” Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich similarly called eliminating the cap the “only way to reverse” the program’s fiscal trajectory.
Why This Is a Political Problem, Not a Math Problem
While Karen Glenn’s framing emphasizes the mathematical simplicity of the fix, multiple proposals reflect genuinely different political philosophies about who should bear the cost of preserving the program.
The Trump administration has stated that Social Security is a priority and believes many of the current difficulties can be remedied by eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse. “Combined with the administration’s efforts to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse across federal agencies, and ensure responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars, we are working to preserve Social Security and Medicare programs and recognize that more work remains to secure benefits for future beneficiaries,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said.
Max Richtman, president of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, characterized the urgency directly: “The Social Security Trustees report is a clarion call for Congress to strengthen the program NOW before the looming depletion of the trust fund becomes a full-blown crisis.” The last time Congress passed major Social Security reform was in the 1980s, when lawmakers waited until the eleventh hour to enact changes including the gradual retirement age increase, a pattern many observers worry could repeat itself as the 2032 deadline approaches.
Latest Updates
The Social Security trustees’ report and associated policy discussion were confirmed across multiple outlets in mid-June 2026. CBS News confirmed the full details of all five solvency solutions, the specific dollar figures and percentage impacts of each, and quotes from Karen Glenn, Kathleen Romig, Jason Fichtner, and Teresa Ghilarducci. The Hill via NewsNation confirmed Martin O’Malley’s full interview comments advocating for raising the tax cap rather than cutting benefits, and his rejection of claims that Social Security contributes to the federal deficit. USA Today’s coverage, along with Newsweek and Congressman John Larson’s office, confirmed O’Malley’s broader public advocacy campaign, the four major proposals gaining traction on Capitol Hill, and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s statement on the administration’s approach to the issue.
Full sources: CBS News | The Hill | USA Today
Broader Implications
The Social Security solvency debate illustrates a recurring pattern in American fiscal policy: a problem that experts widely agree is mathematically solvable through some combination of well-understood policy levers, but that has remained unaddressed for years because each potential solution distributes costs and benefits unevenly across different groups of Americans. Raising the tax cap primarily affects higher earners. Raising the retirement age affects future retirees more than current ones. Cutting benefits for high earners affects a different slice of the population than raising the payroll tax broadly.
Both Republican and Democratic policymakers and advocates have proposed credible paths to closing the gap, reflecting genuinely different philosophies about whether the solution should come primarily from those earning more, from retirees accepting smaller or later benefits, or from a broad-based tax increase shared across the workforce. Each approach reflects defensible policy reasoning, and the political stalemate around Social Security reform reflects genuine disagreement about values rather than confusion about the underlying math.
With the 2032 insolvency date now just six years away, the historical pattern of waiting until the last possible moment, as Congress did in the 1980s, suggests lawmakers may continue delaying action until the deadline forces a decision, even though every analyst quoted agrees the problem is well understood and the available solutions are clearly defined.
For more Social Security, retirement planning, and personal finance coverage, visit The Tech Marketer.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. When will Social Security become insolvent?
Social Security’s trust fund is projected to become insolvent in 2032. At that point, the program would not stop paying benefits entirely, but payments would be limited to what is collected in payroll taxes each year, resulting in an estimated 22% cut to monthly benefits, reducing the typical $2,071 monthly payment by roughly $500.
2. What is the Social Security tax cap and why does it matter?
The Social Security tax cap exempts income above a certain threshold, $184,500 in 2026, from the 6.2% payroll tax that funds the program. Eliminating or raising this cap is one of the most discussed solvency solutions, with Social Security Administration scoring finding it could close between 22% and 67% of the program’s funding gap depending on the specific approach.
3. How much would the payroll tax need to increase to fix Social Security?
The Social Security Administration estimated that a 4.6% increase to the payroll tax would be needed to fully close the funding gap, raising the combined employer-and-employee rate from the current 12.4% to approximately 17%, split as roughly 8.5% each for workers and employers.
4. What does Martin O’Malley propose to fix Social Security?
Martin O’Malley, former Social Security Administration Commissioner, advocates for raising or eliminating the payroll tax cap on higher earners rather than cutting benefits. He has called the insolvency problem “entirely solvable” and argues that requiring wealthy Americans to pay the same effective tax rate as average workers would address most of the funding shortfall.
5. Would raising the retirement age fix Social Security’s solvency problem?
Raising the retirement age could address between 16% and 64% of the funding gap depending on how quickly and significantly it is implemented, according to Social Security Administration estimates. However, a 2024 Congressional Budget Office analysis found that raising the full retirement age from 67 to 69 would reduce annual benefits by an average of 13%, effectively functioning as a benefit cut for future retirees.
Sources and References
- CBS News: Social Security Recipients Face Looming Benefit Cuts. Can the Program Be Saved?
- The Hill: O’Malley Calls for Raising Cap on Social Security as Insolvency Looms
- USA Today: Ex-Social Security Commissioner Says Rich Should Pay More Into Program
