Social Security funding is emerging as an issue in the 2026 midterm elections. Polls suggest many voters would accept some tax increases to prevent automatic benefit cuts, while official projections put the depletion of the retirement and survivors trust fund reserves in 2032. If Congress takes no action, ongoing revenue would cover about 78% of scheduled benefits, leaving recipients facing an across-the-board reduction of roughly 22%.
Polls show voters focused on preventing benefit cuts
A survey of 43 competitive congressional districts found that 83% of likely voters aged 50 and older consider Social Security “very important” or “extremely important” to their voting decisions. In a separate poll across five swing states, 81% said they would be more likely to support a Senate candidate who proposed a plan to prevent automatic benefit cuts.
Support for tax increases also featured in the surveys. Some 72% of respondents backed an additional 1% payroll tax on earnings above the 2026 wage cap. The results reflect voter attitudes, however, and do not mean a policy has been settled. Congress would still need to decide how to address the long-term funding gap and whether higher taxes should be paired with changes to the future benefits of higher earners.
Social Security is not “bankrupt,” and depleted reserves would not mean benefits stop altogether. Payroll taxes and other continuing income would still cover most scheduled payments. The 2026 trustees’ report estimates that, without congressional action, the retirement and survivors trust fund will run out of reserves at the end of 2032, after which it could pay about 78% of scheduled benefits. Lawmakers would need to adjust revenue, spending or both before then to avoid across-the-board cuts.
Raising the payroll tax cap is a leading proposal
In 2026, employees pay Social Security tax of 6.2% on wages up to $184,500, with employers paying an equal amount. Self-employed workers generally pay a combined rate of 12.4%. Wages above the annual cap are not subject to Social Security payroll tax.
One widely discussed option is to raise or eliminate the cap, requiring higher earners to pay tax on more of their income. The Social Security Administration estimates that eliminating the cap could close about 58% of the 75-year funding gap if the additional taxed earnings do not increase future benefits. If those earnings are also counted toward future benefits, the estimated share falls to about 45%. The impact would depend on how the cap is changed and how taxes are linked to benefits.
Another option is a gradual increase in the payroll tax rate. The Social Security Administration has modeled raising the combined employee and employer rate by 0.1 percentage point each year beginning in 2032, reaching 14.4% by 2051. The employee rate would rise from 6.2% to 7.2%, with employers facing the same increase. The proposal is estimated to close about 33% of the long-term funding gap, but unlike a tax increase limited to earnings above the cap, it would affect workers across income levels.
Investment taxes and benefit changes involve trade-offs
The Social Security Administration has also modeled taxing investment income for some higher-income households. Under the proposal, a 12.4% tax would apply to net investment income or income above the threshold, whichever is lower, for single filers with adjusted gross income above $200,000 and couples filing jointly above $250,000. The revenue would go to Social Security.
This would be in addition to the existing 3.8% net investment income tax, which generally applies to qualifying investment income and funds Medicare, not Social Security. The administration estimates the proposed tax could close about 30% of the long-term funding gap.
Benefit adjustments are another area under discussion. The annual cost-of-living adjustment, or COLA, is based on inflation and applies at the same percentage rate to all recipients; the dollar increase therefore varies with each person’s existing benefit. One alternative would give everyone the same dollar increase, based on the benefit of a recipient near the 20th percentile of the distribution. That could provide relative gains to people with lower benefits, while reducing annual increases for most recipients.
The AARP Public Policy Institute estimates that about 80% of beneficiaries would receive a smaller increase under a flat-dollar adjustment. In 2026, for example, the average retired worker would get an estimated monthly increase of $34.20, below the $57.90 increase under that year’s actual COLA. The difference could build over time: AARP estimates that a hypothetical retiree who began receiving benefits in 1998 would have a benefit about 20% lower in 2026 under the flat-dollar approach than under the current method.
A separate analysis commissioned by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget found that giving smaller adjustments to retirees with higher benefits could close about half of the long-term funding gap. The Social Security Administration has also modeled reducing COLAs by 0.5 or 1 percentage point each year, which it estimates would close about 24% and 46% of the gap, respectively.
Raising full retirement age would affect early claimants
The full retirement age is currently 67 for people born in 1960 or later. Workers can still claim benefits from age 62, but claiming before full retirement age permanently reduces their monthly payments. A gradual increase in the full retirement age would deepen those reductions for people who claim early.
The Social Security Administration estimates that raising the full retirement age gradually to 68 could close about 11% of the long-term funding gap; raising it to 69 could close about 32%. Voters are divided on the approach: in the five-state survey, 52% opposed gradually raising the retirement age for younger workers. Supporters cite life expectancy and program costs, but the effects would vary across groups.
Younger workers could also bear adjustment costs
Younger workers are far from retirement, but they already pay Social Security taxes and could face higher rates or lower benefits in the future. Under the modeled gradual payroll tax increase, the employee rate would eventually rise from 6.2% to 7.2%. A worker earning $50,000 a year would pay an additional $500 in Social Security tax annually once the increase was fully phased in.
Living costs, housing and healthcare expenses also shape younger workers’ ability to save for retirement. A December 2025 Cato Institute survey found that only 34% of respondents under 30 believed Social Security would still exist when they retired, while 78% expected to receive less than the full scheduled benefit. In a separate National Institute on Retirement Security survey, 45% of Gen Z respondents and 39% of millennials said they believed they would never receive Social Security benefits.
Social Security also provides survivor benefits to eligible children and spouses, as well as disability benefits to qualifying workers who can no longer work. Even after reserves are depleted, continuing revenue would support a substantial share of scheduled benefits. The central question is whether Congress can agree on tax changes, benefit adjustments or a combination of the two before 2032.