Social Security is now less than a decade away from insolvency. Contrary to what some people believe, this doesn't mean the program will disappear. Even today's youngest workers can expect something in retirement. But how much is a bit of an unknown.
The government has thrown out ideas for how to resolve this funding crisis and make much-needed updates to the program, but so far, nothing's gained traction. Some of these proposals are already unpopular among the American people.
A National Academy of Social Insurance (NASI) survey asked participants their feelings on several possible Social Security reforms and found these six elicited strong aversion from most of them.
Image source: Getty Images.
1. Not changing the taxable earnings cap
The taxable earnings cap refers to the amount of a person's annual income that is subject to Social Security payroll taxes. The cap changes every year. In 2025, it's $176,100.
The majority of Americans earn less than this, so they pay Social Security taxes on all their earnings. But that's not true for the wealthy. There's been a growing call for the government to raise or eliminate this cap to force the wealthiest Americans to pay more into the program. Though it wouldn't be enough to eliminate Social Security's funding crisis, it's one of the most popular proposals among Democrats and Republicans.
The NASI survey underscores that many Americans feel that leaving the taxable earnings cap where it is, with only small adjustments for inflation, is undesirable.
2. Gradually raising the full retirement age (FRA) to 69
The government assigns everyone a full retirement age (FRA) based on their birth year. Once upon a time, FRA was 65. But when Social Security faced insolvency issues in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the government passed a series of reforms that gradually increased the FRA, first to 66 and then to 67. That's where it currently sits for adults born in 1960 and later.
Your FRA is important because it determines when you become eligible for your full Social Security benefit. You're still eligible to claim as early as 62 regardless of your FRA.
But claiming early reduces your checks significantly. You lose five-ninths of 1% per month for up to 36 months of early claiming, and five-twelfths of 1% per month thereafter. On the other hand, delaying Social Security past your FRA increases your checks by two-thirds of 1% per month until you reach 70.
Raising the FRA would effectively act as a benefit cut for younger workers by increasing the early claiming penalty for those who apply in their early-to-mid-60s and decreasing the delayed retirement credits for those who claim later.
3. Decrease cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs)
Social Security cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) are annual adjustments the government makes in most years to help people's checks keep pace with inflation. However, COLAs also increase the program's expenditures every year. Some have proposed reducing COLAs as a way to lower the program's costs.
Many seniors are opposed to this, as there's evidence that Social Security's buying power is already declining despite COLAs. The Senior Citizens League (TSCL) reports that checks have already lost 20% of their buying power since 2010.
There's a strong push among seniors for the government to increase COLAs by calculating them based on the Consumer Price Index for the Elderly (CPI-E) instead of the current index that doesn't look at retiree spending. Making this switch would result in higher COLAs in most years, though it would also increase Social Security's annual expenses.
4. Increase benefits by $250 per month for all new beneficiaries
The NASI survey's goal was to figure out the average American's ideal package of Social Security changes that would resolve its funding issue while also providing improvements in key areas. One of the rejected proposals involved increasing monthly benefits by $250 per month for all new retirees.
This was less popular than other proposals like raising COLAs. It could be because raising benefits by a blanket $250 per month for new beneficiaries wouldn't help the millions of Americans already claiming checks. It also wouldn't address the underlying issue of COLAs not keeping up with inflation.
5. Raising the taxable earnings cap to $350,000, while paying the wealthiest beneficiaries more
Though the majority of Americans support raising or even eliminating the Social Security taxable earnings cap, the NASI survey revealed that many participants don't want these wealthy Americans to receive larger checks as a result. The Social Security benefit formula currently bases your checks on how much money you paid Social Security taxes on during your 35 highest-earning years. Raising the taxable earnings cap would theoretically entitle wealthy Americans to larger checks.
It's worth noting that the formula is set up so Social Security checks replace a smaller portion of pre-retirement income for high earners compared to low or average earners. Ensuring that high earners who pay more into the program don't also receive larger checks for doing so would require Congress to alter the benefit formula.
6. Not offering a bridge benefit for retired workers with declining health
One of the proposals that made it into NASI's package of preferred Social Security changes was the concept of a bridge benefit that reduced the early claiming penalty for seniors who had worked in physically demanding careers. These workers often have to choose between remaining in a job that's hard on their body or accepting smaller Social Security checks for the rest of their lives.
The survey found a reasonable amount of demand among ordinary Americans for this change. However, it didn't go into detail about what a bridge benefit might look like, or the criteria for earning it.
It's worth pointing out that the ultimate Social Security fix could involve some or none of these changes. It'll be up to Congress to decide what works best. It's possible some workers or seniors could see smaller benefits, but it's also possible that the government could increase funding another way so benefit cuts aren't necessary.
