Democrats' big election win revives a difficult Social Security question: Who pays?

By Alessandra Malito

There are many ideas for saving Social Security. All of them will hurt.

Congress must act sooner rather than later if it intends to keep Social Security solvent.

The so-called blue wave of the 2026 midterm elections may be the beginning of Social Security reform - and increased taxes, at least for some Americans.

Senatorial terms last six years, and the program's trust funds are expected to run out of money in the next six years. The overlapping timelines mean Congress must act sooner rather than later if it intends to keep the program solvent, and those who will take office as a result of the midterm elections may have a say in the matter.

Millions of Americans - including nearly 69 million people who receive benefits - depend on Social Security. If the program's funds are exhausted, recipients could see their benefits cut by more than 20%.

Affordability captured voters' attention this year. Inflation affects everyone, but especially older Americans, many of whom rely heavily on Social Security checks. At least 13.7% of older Americans relied on those payments for 90% or more of their family income, a 2024 report from the Census Bureau's Center for Economic Studies found.

Democrats' domination at the polls could lead to policies focused on maintaining and expanding the program, some Social Security advocates said. Republicans tend to look at solutions that could be considered benefit cuts, such as raising the full retirement age, as was the case during the 2024 presidential election.

"In the next two years, Democrats can and should take several pro-Social Security actions. They should vote on legislation that expands benefits with no cuts," Nancy Altman, president of advocacy group Social Security Works, said in a statement. "This legislation should restore Social Security to long-range balance by requiring the wealthiest Americans, like Elon Musk, to finally start paying their fair share."

What Democrats might do

With a Democrat-led House of Representatives and Senate, the focus will more likely be on increasing taxes, experts said. Although legislators have not discussed Social Security reform at length, proposals have floated around about ways to fix the program's financing woes.

One option is to eliminate the income-tax cap, which is the limit for wages taxed for the benefit of the program. In 2026, the limit is $184,500; anyone with earnings above that only pays taxes for Social Security up to that point.

Eliminating the income-tax cap has received bipartisan support. Sens. Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat, and Bernie Moreno, an Ohio Republican, have put out a joint statement on the idea.

"Social Security was created by overwhelming bipartisan congressional majorities," the pair of senators said in a New York Times Opinion piece earlier this year. "Today, members of Congress from both parties must come together again to save it. That's why the two of us are working together on legislation to remove the cap on Social Security taxes and extend the solvency of our retirement system. Americans deserve nothing less. Preserving the American dream for our children and grandchildren depends on it."

The idea has garnered bipartisan support. While 18 senatorial candidates had no comment on the proposal during the election season, only one actually opposed the increase or elimination, according to an analysis from Jonathan Schwabish, a senior fellow focusing on taxation at the Urban Institute, an economic- and social-policy think tank, and analyst Zane Snyder Cox. Two candidates leaned toward the proposal and 20 supported it, they found. Incumbent Sen. Jon Husted, an Ohio Republican, was the only one who outwardly opposed eliminating the tax cap, and just lost his seat to Democrat Sherrod Brown.

There is a difference between increasing or eliminating the income-tax cap and increasing the tax rate, which is 12.4% and split between employees and employers.

"When the conversation turns to increasing taxes, the devil is in the details," Schwabish said. "Increasing taxes can mean very different things in Social Security."

An ongoing fight

Social Security reform needs 60 votes in the Senate, and some legislators will delay efforts for change, said Romina Boccia, director of budget and entitlement policy at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.

"Politicians will procrastinate for as long as they can. Democrats are also incentivized to hold out on Social Security reform because there is a chance they may take the White House in two years," Boccia said. "The greater risk is that gridlock preserves an unsustainable status quo, leaving younger workers to shoulder growing costs while vulnerable seniors face the prospect of across-the-board benefit cuts when the trust fund is exhausted in fewer than six years."

Democrats may have taken a hold on Congress, but that doesn't mean finding a solution to Social Security's shaky finances will be straightforward, said Andrew Biggs, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a right-leaning think tank.

"The problem the new Democratic majorities will face is, despite promising never to cut Social Security benefits and even to expand them, fixing Social Security entirely by taxing the rich won't work," Biggs said, adding that the ultrawealthy will find ways to shift around their money. "Democrats in Congress will now have greater power, but they'll find their political promises hedged in by economic reality."

-Alessandra Malito

This content was created by MarketWatch, which is operated by Dow Jones & Co. MarketWatch is published independently from Dow Jones Newswires and The Wall Street Journal.

(END) Dow Jones Newswires

11-07-26 1243ET