A high-earning CEO who makes $1 million a year stopped paying into Social Security sometime in January 2026. A teacher earning $60,000 paid into it every single paycheck. By year’s end, the teacher contributed a larger share of her income to the program than the CEO did – and both will draw from the same depleted trust fund when the time comes. This structural feature has quietly eroded the program’s financial foundation for four decades, and it’s a big part of why the social security crisis is now arriving ahead of schedule.
The 2026 Social Security Trustees Report projects the OASI trust fund – the one that pays retirement and survivor benefits – will become depleted in the fourth quarter of 2032, with 78 percent of benefits payable at that time. That’s six years away. At that point, benefits for every recipient face an automatic cut, unless reform is enacted. According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, average monthly benefit cuts would surpass $500 in 29 states, with the largest cuts hitting retirees in Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Utah, and Washington. Nationally, that average monthly cut would total $500 – more than what the average retired household spends on groceries each month.
The standard explanation for this problem is the baby boom. Roughly 73 million Americans born between 1946 and 1964 have been flooding into retirement for years, tipping the ratio of workers to beneficiaries in the wrong direction. In 1960, there were five workers paying Social Security taxes per OASI beneficiary, but that ratio has dropped to 2.9-to-1 in 2026 and is projected to decline further to just 2.2-to-1 by the 2070s. The demographic pressure is real. But research from the Roosevelt Institute shows the projected shortfall also reflects a breakdown in payroll tax revenue, as income gains increasingly flowed to the highest earners – many of whose earnings are not subject to Social Security taxes.
How the Tax Cap Quietly Drained the System
The reserves of the combined OASI and DI trust funds declined by $160 billion in 2025 alone, falling to $2.56 trillion. Each year of inaction tightens the window. The speed of that decline has been accelerated by something the architects of the modern Social Security system didn’t anticipate: the dramatic upward redistribution of income over the past four decades.
The last major Social Security reforms, enacted in 1983, were designed to secure roughly 75 years of fiscal stability. The projections behind those reforms correctly anticipated population aging and longevity, fertility trends, labor force growth, and average real earnings growth. What they did not anticipate was a sharp and sustained shift in how income growth was distributed – and whether it was taxed to support Social Security.
Nearly all of the program’s revenues come from a 12.4 percent tax on workers’ wages, but only up to a cap. In 2026, the U.S. government collects payroll taxes only up to a taxable maximum of $184,500. Every dollar earned above that level escapes Social Security taxation entirely.
When the Greenspan Commission – formally the National Commission on Social Security Reform, chaired by economist Alan Greenspan – reformed Social Security in 1983, it set the cap at a level so that 90 percent of all earnings would be subject to taxes. The logic was that the cap would rise annually with average wages, keeping that 90 percent coverage roughly stable over time. What the commission didn’t account for was a sharp and sustained shift in how income growth would be distributed. Population aging and longevity were in the model. Skyrocketing executive pay was not.
Since wage growth for top earners has continued to outpace average wage growth, a growing share of total earnings spills over the cap and escapes taxation, eroding Social Security revenues. In 1983, only 10 percent of earnings exceeded the cap. By 2024, that figure had risen to more than 17 percent. The program’s funding base shrank not because of a law change, but because the economy changed – and the system had no mechanism to keep up.
The Social Security Chief Actuary Karen Glenn testified that actuaries had long accounted for people living longer, but what policymakers failed to anticipate was the sharp rise in income above the taxable threshold. Eliminating the payroll tax cap entirely, without changing Social Security’s benefit structure, would close approximately 73 percent of the program’s long-run funding shortfall. Even a partial fix carries significant weight: subjecting earnings above $250,000 to the payroll tax would generate $1.0 trillion in additional revenues over the next decade and eliminate 70 percent of Social Security’s 75-year funding shortfall.
The People Who Stop Paying in January
About 6 percent of the working population earns more than the taxable maximum. For that group, Social Security payroll tax is a brief, early-year obligation – settled before winter is over. Someone earning $1 million a year hits the $184,500 cap before the end of January and pays nothing into the system for the remaining ten months. Someone earning $60,000 pays in every pay period, all year, every year.
Payroll taxes are regressive, with low- and moderate-income taxpayers paying a higher share of their income in payroll taxes compared to high-income taxpayers. A middle-income worker contributes 6.2 percent of every dollar she earns. A hedge fund manager contributes 6.2 percent of his first $184,500 and zero percent of everything above it.
Earnings inequality has contributed to Social Security’s current trust fund shortfall, according to research from the Roosevelt Institute. As Elizabeth Wilkins, CEO of the Roosevelt Institute, put it after the 2026 trustees report was released: “The Social Security trust fund is under strain because Congress has failed to update the program for the economy we actually have. Too much income now flows to the top, where it escapes Social Security taxation.”
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has also noted that rising inequality, driven by rapid wage growth among the highest earners, means a greater proportion of wages are above Social Security’s tax cap.
The Center for Economic and Policy Research has calculated that if the 90 percent wage coverage established in 1983 had been maintained through to the present, Social Security’s long-term shortfall would be 43.5 percent smaller than it currently is. Nearly half the gap, closed – not by raising tax rates, not by cutting benefits, but simply by preserving the original design.
What Changed in 2026 – and Why the Deadline Moved Up
The 2026 trustees report identified three specific factors that moved the depletion date one year earlier than last year’s projection. The 2025 “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” included multiple provisions that together lower tax liability for Social Security beneficiaries, meaning the trustees project less trust fund revenue from income taxes on Social Security benefits going forward. Lower fertility rate projections also played a role: independent experts had long believed SSA’s fertility projections were overly optimistic, and the 2026 report adjusted them downward, with the long-run total fertility rate now expected to settle at 1.75. The trustees also significantly revised immigration assumptions, largely reflecting more restrictive policies – further shrinking the future pool of workers whose payroll taxes fund current benefits.
The program’s long-run outlook worsened significantly this year. The projected actuarial deficit over the 75-year long-range period rose to 4.42 percent of taxable payroll, up from 3.82 percent projected in last year’s report.
For the more than 70 million Americans currently receiving Social Security benefits, the math is not theoretical. According to Fidelity’s 2026 retirement study, 76 percent of Baby Boomers cite Social Security as a top source of retirement income. Social Security transfers totaled $1.6 trillion in the first quarter of 2026, with Medicare adding another $1.3 trillion. For many retirees, the monthly check is the only reliable floor under their finances. A 22 percent cut doesn’t mean a smaller vacation fund – it means choosing between groceries and prescription costs.
The combined OASI and DI trust funds tell a slightly longer story. The combined reserves are projected to have dedicated revenue to pay all scheduled benefits until 2034, the same as last year, with 83 percent of benefits payable at that time. At that point, according to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, any action taken becomes proportionally more painful. Waiting until 2034 means the tax increases or benefit reductions required to stabilize the program would be larger than if action were taken now.
The Bottom Line
The social security crisis isn’t waiting for a political solution, and neither should your retirement planning. Social Security is not going bankrupt – benefits may be reduced when the program reaches the trust fund depletion date, but monthly payments would not stop entirely. Claiming benefits early to “get yours before it runs out” can permanently reduce your lifetime payout. Claiming at 62 instead of 70 locks you into a maximum benefit of $2,969 per month compared to $5,181 at 70 – a gap that compounds over decades.
The policy debate over the cap is gaining momentum. The Economic Policy Institute has documented that each one percentage point drop in the share of total earnings subject to Social Security taxes reduces program revenue by roughly $12.6 billion per year. Opponents of removing the cap entirely argue it could push top marginal tax rates on labor income above 60 percent when combined with federal and state income taxes, and that it would weaken the link between what workers pay in and what they receive in retirement. Those are legitimate concerns. The current structure, however, taxes a teacher on every dollar she earns while exempting a CEO’s income above $184,500 – and closing even part of that gap changes the trajectory of the trust fund meaningfully.
What you can control is your own preparation. If you’re within 15 years of retirement, request your Social Security statement at ssa.gov and review your projected benefit at ages 62, 67, and 70. The difference between those numbers is your most consequential retirement variable. Build a plan that doesn’t assume full benefits – model your retirement at 78 percent of projected benefits, which is what the law would require if no changes are made. If that scenario leaves a hole in your budget, the time to close it is now, through additional savings, delayed claiming, or both. Congress fixed Social Security once before – in 1983, when the trust fund was literally months from insolvency – but the mechanism that time was a bipartisan commission, a crisis-level deadline, and a political will to share the pain. None of those three ingredients are visibly in place today.
Disclaimer: This information is not intended to be a substitute for professional financial advice, investment advice, tax advice, or legal advice, and is provided for informational purposes only. Always seek the guidance of a qualified financial advisor, accountant, or other licensed professional regarding your personal financial situation or investment decisions. Do not make financial, investment, or tax decisions based solely on information presented here. Past performance is not indicative of future results, and all investments carry risk, including the potential loss of principal.
AI Disclaimer: This article was created with the assistance of AI tools and reviewed by a human editor.
Read More: 8 Costly 401(k) Mistakes Most Workers Are Still Making in 2026