Raising Taxes on Higher Earners to Save Social Security Has (Shocking) Bipartisan Support
Social Security is running out of time, and a surprising political alliance may have found a way to fix it without raising taxes on most Americans. But critics say the plan has a serious flaw that could change the program's…
This post may contain links from our sponsors and affiliates, and Flywheel Publishing may receive compensation for actions taken through them.
Social Security is facing a major financial crisis. The program’s Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund, which pays retirement and survivor benefits, is projected to become depleted by 2032.
Now that doesn’t mean Social Security will have to stop paying benefits at that point. The program gets most of its funding from payroll taxes, so benefits can continue once the OASI Trust Fund is empty. Those benefits just won’t be payable in full.
That, however, is a huge potential problem for seniors who get all or most of their income from Social Security. As such, lawmakers are facing a big challenge. They need to find a way to prevent Social Security cuts without inflicting too much financial pain on the public.
One idea that’s gained traction is having higher earners contribute more to the program by increasing or eliminating the cap on wages subject to Social Security taxes. And surprisingly, some lawmakers on both sides of the political spectrum seem to be on board with this solution.
A rare bipartisan agreement emerges on Social Security
In a surprising political pairing, Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno have backed a proposal to lift the Social Security payroll tax cap.
Most workers pay Social Security taxes on nearly all of their wages, while the highest earners stop paying once they reach the annual taxable maximum. For 2026, that cap is $184,500.
Under the Warren-Moreno approach, the payroll tax would apply to earnings above that limit, requiring wealthy workers to continue contributing more than they do today. Supporters argue that the change would restore fairness to the program. It could also bring roughly $3 trillion into Social Security over a decade.
Why some say the proposal falls short
The appeal of raising the Social Security wage cap is easy to understand. It places the largest tax increase on people with the greatest ability to pay and allows lawmakers to avoid having to tax workers across the board. But critics argue the proposal has flaws.
The Tax Policy Center has questioned whether removing the cap would actually save Social Security on its own. The group estimates that such a policy might help the program avoid a deficit for only four years and close only about half of the current projected long-term shortfall.
Critics also argue that applying the full payroll tax to all earnings could change the nature of Social Security by making it less connected to the traditional insurance model, where benefits are tied to contributions.
Currently, the program has a maximum monthly benefit in retirement that’s tied to the wage cap. If the wage cap is lifted but that maximum retirement check doesn’t increase, it makes Social Security more of a welfare program than it’s supposed to be.
Furthermore, higher payroll taxes don’t just affect workers who earn that money. They could also affect business costs, since employers have to split that tax bill.
The debate over raising the wage cap actually reflects a broader challenge for Social Security. The program’s financial problems are driven by demographic changes, including an aging population and fewer workers supporting each retiree. A combination of solutions may be required to solve the funding shortage at play.
But for now, the idea of raising taxes on higher earners stands out because it has something rare in Washington — support from both sides of the political spectrum. Whether that agreement can translate into legislation remains uncertain.
Contact [email protected] for any questions or corrections.
Maurie Backman has more than a decade of experience writing about financial topics, including retirement, investing, Social Security, and real estate. Her work has appeared on sites that include The Motley Fool, USA Today, U.S. News & World Report, and Kiplinger.
Prior to becoming a full-time financial writer, Maurie worked in the financial industry trading distressed debt. She then changed course and spent a few years designing electronic toys. After a stint in content marketing and UX, she shifted back into writing and has since covered everything from the housing market to estate planning to Medicare.
When she's not busy writing, Maurie can be found hiking, walking her dogs, driving her kids to their various sports practices and games, and curling up with a good book. She cooks on occasion and bakes way too often.
