Will Lawmakers Increase Social Security Taxes? 39% of Workers Worry About It.
Social Security's main source of funding is payroll taxes.
The program is facing a revenue shortfall as baby boomers retire in droves.
Lawmakers could raise Social Security taxes to prevent benefits cuts, but that has many Americans concerned.
The $22,924 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook ›
At this point, you may have heard the rumor that Social Security is on the verge of going broke. But thankfully, that's completely false.
Social Security can't go broke because it gets the bulk of its revenue from payroll taxes. So, as long as people continue to hold down jobs and pay into the program, it can continue to get funded.
That said, Social Security is facing a serious revenue shortfall as baby boomers stage a mass exodus from the U.S. labor force in the coming years, and an inadequate number of replacement workers come in. Social Security can use the money in its trust funds to keep up with benefit payments as needed. But once those trust funds are emptied, Social Security may have to cut benefits.
And it's not like that scenario is decades away. We could be roughly 10 years from seeing Social Security slash benefits broadly if lawmakers don't manage to intervene.
Thankfully, lawmakers do have solutions they can employ with the goal of preventing a broad reduction in Social Security benefits. But one popular solution could come with a world of backlash.
There are a number of different steps lawmakers could take to boost revenue for Social Security. One is to move full retirement age up by a year or two so that workers have to wait longer to collect their monthly benefits without a reduction.
Another option is to raise Social Security taxes. But that's not something workers want. And not surprisingly, they're very concerned about lawmakers going down that road.
In a recent survey by the Employee Benefit Research Institute, 39% of workers said they're worried about increased taxes for Social Security. That's understandable, given that many Americans feel tax-burdened to begin with.
Lawmakers have a couple of choices for raising Social Security taxes. First, they could increase the Social Security tax rate. Or, they could raise the Social Security wage cap.
Currently, workers pay a 12.4% tax rate for Social Security purposes. Of that, half comes out of their paychecks, and their employers pay the rest. People who are self-employed, however, must cover the entire 12.4% Social Security tax.
It's possible for lawmakers to opt to raise that tax rate to a number that's higher than 12.4%. If so, it would pretty much burden every member of the workforce with heftier taxes.
Meanwhile, Social Security's wage cap currently sits at $176,100, which means workers with higher incomes don't pay into the program beyond that earnings threshold. If lawmakers were to raise the wage cap, higher earners would pay Social Security taxes on more of their income. And if lawmakers were to eliminate the wage cap completely, higher earners would pay into Social Security on every dollar they earn.
It might seem like raising or getting rid of the wage cap is the better solution, since it would only impact higher earners. But this option introduces a conundrum that lawmakers might struggle to manage.
Social Security pays a maximum monthly benefit based on the wage cap. It wouldn't be equitable to raise the wage cap without also increasing the program's maximum benefit. But in that case, it's unclear how much revenue the program would net.
Either way, lawmakers do need to do something to prevent Social Security cuts. Whether that means raising Social Security taxes is still up in the air. But it's a change that workers may unfortunately have to brace for.
If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known could help ensure a boost in your retirement income.
One easy trick could pay you as much as $22,924 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Join Stock Advisor to learn more about these strategies.The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
Will Lawmakers Increase Social Security Taxes? 39% of Workers Worry About It. was originally published by The Motley Fool
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
19 minutes ago
- New York Times
Texas Governor Will Deploy National Guard to Immigration Protests
Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas said late Tuesday that he would deploy National Guard troops across the state, making him the first governor to do so as protests against the Trump administration's immigration crackdown spread across the United States. Mr. Abbott, a Republican and a vocal supporter of President Trump's immigration agenda, said on social media that he would not tolerate violence as protests are planned in San Antonio on Wednesday. The protests that began in Los Angeles last Friday against federal immigration raids have spread to more than a dozen U.S. cities, including Dallas, Austin, Houston and San Antonio. While many of the protests have been peaceful, police have clashed with demonstrators at some of them. Mr. Trump has threatened to override governors who don't want to send National Guard troops to stop protests, like the president did in California, where he sent nearly 5,000 National Guard troops and Marines over the strong objections of state leaders. That has made California ground zero for Mr. Trump's immigration agenda, which includes ramping up deportations of undocumented immigrants with the help of local law enforcement agencies and, in a rare action, active-duty military forces. Mr. Abbott's announcement said that the Texas National Guard will 'use every tool & strategy to help law enforcement maintain order.' 'Peaceful protest is legal,' he added. 'Harming a person or property is illegal & will lead to arrest.' The announcement did not specify where and when the troops will be deployed. Mr. Abbott's office, the San Antonio Police Department, the Texas National Guard and U.S. Northern Command did not immediately respond to requests for comment. On Monday night, more than a dozen protesters were arrested in Austin during a demonstration at the Texas Capitol in Austin, Mr. Abbott had said. Law enforcement officials used tear gas and pepper ball projectiles, the Texas Department of Public Safety said.
CNN
19 minutes ago
- CNN
LAPD pull CNN crew through police line as they disperse protesters
Tensions were high in downtown Los Angeles, as authorities tried to quell a fifth day of anti-ICE protests. CNN Senior Investigative Correspondent Kyung Lah was reporting on the ground.
CNN
20 minutes ago
- CNN
Federal appeals court to hear arguments in Trump's long-shot effort to fight hush money conviction
Five months after President Donald Trump was sentenced without penalty in the New York hush money case, his attorneys will square off again with prosecutors Wednesday in one of the first major tests of the Supreme Court's landmark presidential immunity decision. Trump is relying heavily on the high court's divisive 6-3 immunity ruling from July in a long-shot bid to get his conviction reviewed – and ultimately overturned – by federal courts. After being convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records, Trump in January became the first felon to ascend to the presidency in US history. Even after Trump was reelected and federal courts became flooded with litigation tied to his second term, the appeals in the hush money case have chugged forward in multiple courts. A three-judge panel of the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals – all named to the bench by Democratic presidents – will hear arguments Wednesday in one of those cases. Trump will be represented on Wednesday by Jeffrey Wall, a private lawyer and Supreme Court litigator who served as acting solicitor general during Trump's first administration. Many of the lawyers who served on Trump's defense team in the hush money case have since taken top jobs within the Justice Department. The case stems from the 2023 indictment announced by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, who accused Trump of falsely categorizing payments he said were made to quash unflattering stories during the 2016 election. Trump was accused of falsifying a payment to his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, to cover up a $130,000 payment Cohen made to adult-film star Stormy Daniels to keep her from speaking out before the 2016 election about an alleged affair with Trump. (Trump has denied the affair.) Trump was ultimately convicted last year and was sentenced without penalty in January, days before he took office. The president is now attempting to move that case to federal court, where he is betting he'll have an easier shot at arguing that the Supreme Court's immunity decision in July will help him overturn the conviction. Trump's earlier attempts to move the case to federal court have been unsuccessful. US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, nominated by President Bill Clinton, denied the request in September – keeping Trump's case in New York courts instead. The 2nd Circuit will now hear arguments on Trump's appeal of that decision on Wednesday. 'He's lost already several times in the state courts,' said David Shapiro, a former prosecutor and now a lecturer at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. And Trump's long-running battle with New York Judge Juan Merchan, Shapiro said, has 'just simmered up through the system' in New York courts in a way that may have convinced Trump that federal courts will be more receptive. Trump, who frequently complained about Merchan, has said he wants his case heard in an 'unbiased federal forum.' Trump's argument hangs largely on a technical but hotly debated section of the Supreme Court's immunity decision last year. Broadly, that decision granted former presidents 'at least presumptive' immunity for official acts and 'absolute immunity' when presidents were exercising their constitutional powers. State prosecutors say the hush money payments were a private matter – not official acts of the president – and so they are not covered by immunity. But the Supreme Court's decision also barred prosecutors from attempting to show a jury evidence concerning a president's official acts, even if they are pursuing alleged crimes involving that president's private conduct. Without that prohibition, the Supreme Court reasoned, a prosecutor could 'eviscerate the immunity' the court recognized by allowing a jury to second-guess a president's official acts. Trump is arguing that is exactly what Bragg did when he called White House officials such as former communications director Hope Hicks and former executive assistant Madeleine Westerhout to testify at his trial. Hicks had testified that Trump felt it would 'have been bad to have that story come out before the election,' which prosecutors later described as the 'nail' in the coffin of the president's defense. Trump's attorneys are also pointing to social media posts the president sent in 2018 denying the Daniels hush money scheme as official statements that should not have been used in the trial. State prosecutors 'introduced into evidence and asked the jury to scrutinize President Trump's official presidential acts,' Trump's attorneys told the appeals court in a filing last month. 'One month after trial, the Supreme Court unequivocally recognized an immunity prohibiting the use of such acts as evidence at any trial of a former president.' A White House spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. If Trump's case is ultimately reviewed by federal courts, that would not change his state law conviction into a federal conviction. Trump would not be able to pardon himself just because a federal court reviews the case. Bragg's office countered that it's too late for federal courts to intervene. Federal officials facing prosecution in state courts may move their cases to federal court in many circumstances under a 19th century law designed to ensure states don't attempt to prosecute them for conduct performed 'under color' of a US office or agency. A federal government worker, for instance, might seek to have a case moved to federal court if they are sued after getting into a car accident while driving on the job. But in this case, Bragg's office argued, Trump has already been convicted and sentenced. That means, prosecutors said, there's really nothing left for federal courts to do. 'Because final judgment has been entered and the state criminal action has concluded, there is nothing to remove to federal district court,' prosecutors told the 2nd Circuit in January. Even if that's not true, they said, seeking testimony from a White House adviser about purely private acts doesn't conflict with the Supreme Court's ruling in last year's immunity case. Bragg's office has pointed to a Supreme Court ruling as well: the 5-4 decision in January that allowed Trump to be sentenced in the hush money case. The president raised many of the same concerns about evidence when he attempted to halt that sentencing before the inauguration. A majority of the Supreme Court balked at that argument in a single sentence that, effectively, said Trump could raise those concerns when he appeals his conviction. That appeal remains pending in state court. 'The alleged evidentiary violations at President-elect Trump's state-court trial,' the Supreme Court wrote, 'can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal.'
