logo
Are Social Security taxes going to rise? 39% of workers worry about it

Are Social Security taxes going to rise? 39% of workers worry about it

USA Today22-05-2025

Are Social Security taxes going to rise? 39% of workers worry about it
Show Caption
Hide Caption
Retirement worries grow as seniors face Trump tariffs, stock selloff
Retired educator and part-time yoga instructor Vicki Knight says she feels stretched thin. "I'm semi-retired." The Marietta, Georgia, resident says her Social Security income is not enough to live on and that a recent stock market selloff fueled by tariff uncertainty has complicated her plans.
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.
Age for Social Security benefits: What's retirement age for full Social Security benefits? It's not the same for everyone.
Could lawmakers increase Social Security taxes?
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.
What increases in Social Security taxes could look like
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.
The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
The Motley Fool is a USA TODAY content partner offering financial news, analysis and commentary designed to help people take control of their financial lives. Its content is produced independently of USA TODAY.
The $
22,924 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook
Offer from the Motley Fool: If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known "Social Security secrets"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. JoinStock Advisorto learn more about these strategies.
View the "Social Security secrets" »

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

This Week: Are Tariff Price Hikes Finally Here?
This Week: Are Tariff Price Hikes Finally Here?

Business of Fashion

time18 minutes ago

  • Business of Fashion

This Week: Are Tariff Price Hikes Finally Here?

What's Happening: On Wednesday, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics will release inflation data for May, the first inflation reading taken entirely after Trump's tariffs went into effect. In April, consumer prices rose 2.3 percent, just under the economists' consensus. Delayed Impact: Forecasters are calling for a mild uptick in prices, if that. Many fashion and beauty brands have announced price increases, often to be implemented on select products over the summer rather than right away. This gives consumers a bit of time to acclimate to their new, more expensive reality. And it builds in room to change course on the off chance Trump calls the whole trade war off in the meantime. Rock and a Hard Place: This strategic approach to price increases is savvy, but for many brands also borne out of a lack of options. After raising prices so much in the post-pandemic years, companies are worried they'll lose customers by hiking further, even if they have a good reason. Questioning Reality: Whether consumers believe prices are rising can have a big impact on inflation, so all those early warnings from brands may become a self-fulfilling prophecy even if Trump doesn't announce a single new tariff. There are also growing questions about the numbers themselves. Last week, economists raised questions in the financial press about whether inflation data could still be trusted, noting hiring freezes and layoffs had curtailed the government's ability to conduct its massive monthly survey of consumer prices. What to Expect at The Business of Beauty Global Forum 2025 What's Happening: On June 9 and 10, The Business of Beauty holds its third annual gathering in Napa Valley. A second class of entrepreneurs will also receive The Business of Beauty Global Awards. In the News: Speakers include Hailey Rhode Bieber, fresh off her $1 billion deal. Tracee Ellis Ross will share her observations on the needs of the Black and texturised hair community at a time when DEI is under siege. Global Perspective: Founders from international brands including Beauty of Joseon, Ultra Violette, Byoma and Nykaa will address challenges and opportunities in the global beauty market. Attorney Lindsay Toczylowski will speak on her efforts to help her client, Andry José Hernández Romero, the Venezuelan makeup artist currently detained in an El Salvador prison. See for Yourself: If you won't be in Napa Valley, catch these speakers and more on the livestream. The Week Ahead wants to hear from you! Send tips, suggestions, complaints and compliments to

LA Protests: Trump's National Guard Move Sparks Legal Concerns
LA Protests: Trump's National Guard Move Sparks Legal Concerns

Newsweek

time18 minutes ago

  • Newsweek

LA Protests: Trump's National Guard Move Sparks Legal Concerns

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump's announcement of the deployment of the National Guard in California to quell protests against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) actions has raised legal concerns. Why It Matters Federal immigration enforcement operations sparked protests across California for a second day in a row on Saturday. ICE carried out raids in Paramount, Los Angeles County, following similar actions at several locations throughout other parts of city on Friday. Governor Gavin Newsom criticized the move, saying that local law enforcement was already mobilized and the presence of the National Guard was "purposefully inflammatory," would "escalate tensions" and "erode public trust." What To Know On Saturday, the White House ordered the deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles under a provision called Title 10 to "temporarily protect ICE and other United States government personnel who are performing federal functions." The National Guard is a state-based military force that serves as both a state and federal reserve branch of the U.S. Army and Air Force. It typically operates under state command and is funded by the state. However, in some cases, troops may be assigned to federal missions while still under state control, with funding provided by the central government. The law referenced in Trump's proclamation allows National Guard troops to be placed under federal command, and permits this under three conditions: if the U.S. is invaded or faces the threat of invasion; if there is a rebellion or imminent rebellion against federal authority; or if the president is unable to enforce federal laws using regular forces. A protester stands on a burned car holding a Mexican flag at Atlantic Avenue on June 7, 2025, in Paramount, Los Angeles County, California. A protester stands on a burned car holding a Mexican flag at Atlantic Avenue on June 7, 2025, in Paramount, Los Angeles County, California. Apu Gomes/GETTY The memorandum from the White House reads: "To the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws, they constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States." However, the law also stipulates that such orders should be "be issued through the governors of the states." It is not immediately clear if the president can activate National Guard troops without the order of that state's governor. Newsweek contacted the White House for clarification via email outside of regular working hours. "President Trump's deployment of federalized National Guard troops in response to protests is unnecessary, inflammatory, and an abuse of power," said Hina Shamsi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's National Security Project. The Trump administration has not invoked the Insurrection Act, according to anonymous U.S. officials who spoke to Reuters this weekend. The act of 1807 serves as the primary legal authority allowing a president to deploy the military or National Guard during times of rebellion or civil unrest. A memo issued by the White House on the matter specifies that the National Guard has been deployed to "temporarily protect ICE and other United States government personnel who are performing federal functions, including the enforcement of federal law, and to protect federal property, at locations where protests against these functions are occurring or are likely to occur based on current threat assessments and planned operations." This means that National Guard troops will not be permitted to aid local law enforcement—they will be used to protect and provide logistic support to federal ICE agents. "There's nothing these troops will be allowed to do that, for example, the ICE officers against whom these protests have been directed could not do themselves," Steve Vladeck, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in military justice and national security law, wrote in a blog post. "There is the obvious concern that, even as they are doing nothing more than 'protecting' ICE officers discharging federal functions, these federalized troops will end up using force—in response to real or imagined violence or threats of violence against those officers. In other words, there's the very real possibility that having federal troops on the ground will only raise the risk of escalating violence—not decrease it." What People Are Saying A White House memo reads: "Numerous incidents of violence and disorder have recently occurred and threaten to continue in response to the enforcement of federal law by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other United States government personnel who are performing federal functions and supporting the faithful execution of federal immigration laws. In addition, violent protests threaten the security of and significant damage to federal immigration detention facilities and other federal property." Border czar Tom Homan on Fox News: "We're already mobilizing. We're gonna bring the National Guard in tonight and we're gonna continue doing our job. This is about enforcing the law." He continued: "American people, this is about enforcing the law, and again, we're not going to apologize for doing it." California Governor Gavin Newsom on X, formerly Twitter, following the National Guard announcement: "The federal government is moving to take over the California National Guard and deploy 2,000 soldiers. That move is purposefully inflammatory and will only escalate tensions. L.A. authorities are able to access law enforcement assistance at a moment's notice. We are in close coordination with the city and county, and there is currently no unmet need." Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU's National Security Project: "By taking this action, the Trump administration is putting Angelenos in danger, creating legal and ethical jeopardy for troops, and recklessly undermining our foundational democratic principle that the military should not police civilians." Newsom's office also told Newsweek on Friday: "Continued chaotic federal sweeps, across California, to meet an arbitrary arrest quota are as reckless as they are cruel. Donald Trump's chaos is eroding trust, tearing families apart, and undermining the workers and industries that power America's economy." Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, told the Los Angeles Times: "It is using the military domestically to stop dissent. It certainly sends a message as to how this administration is going to respond to protests. It is very frightening to see this done." What Happens Next After Trump announced he was deploying National Guard troops on Saturday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said other measures could follow. Hegseth wrote on X that active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton, south of Los Angeles, were on "high alert" and could also be mobilized "if violence continues."

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store