As concerns grow over Social Security’s long-term finances, a new proposal would limit the maximum benefits high-earning retirees can receive.

The non-partisan think tank Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) has suggested placing a ceiling on the largest Social Security payments in a bid to save the program money.

Currently, the highest-earning couples—those who consistently earn at or above the taxable maximum and delay claiming benefits until the Normal Retirement Age—can receive close to six-figure annual payments.

Why It Matters

The proposal comes at a time when Social Security faces increasing financial strain. Demographic shifts have placed growing pressure on the system, with more Americans entering retirement while fewer workers contribute to the program.

The number of people aged 65 and older has risen sharply, from 43 million in 2010 to 68 million in 2025. Meanwhile, the ratio of workers paying into Social Security compared to beneficiaries has declined, dropping from 2.9 workers per recipient in 2010 to 2.7 in 2025. This imbalance has contributed to rising costs and a worsening financial outlook for the program that serves tens of millions of Americans.

According to the report, Social Security is now less than seven years away from insolvency. If no action is taken, the law would trigger an automatic 24 percent reduction in benefits across the board.

The report’s release also comes just ahead of a Senate Budget Committee meeting scheduled for Wednesday, where lawmakers are set to discuss funding issues related to the program.

A Cap on Top Earners

The plan, outlined in a white paper from the CRFB, would introduce what it calls a “Six Figure Limit” (SFL). Under this approach, no couple retiring at the normal eligibility age—set to reach 67—would receive more than $100,000 per year. For single retirees, the cap would be set at $50,000.

Although relatively few retirees currently qualify for such high payouts, the report warns that six-figure benefits are likely to become more common unless changes are made. As it stands, the maximum benefit for a single person per month is $5,181, which totals more than $62,000 per year. For a couple both claiming the same maximum amount, they would take home more than $120,000 annually before taxes.

The analysis suggests that introducing the SFL could close about one-fifth of Social Security’s long-term funding gap if it were indexed to inflation. Under alternative versions, such as temporarily freezing the cap before linking it to wage growth, the policy could eliminate between one-quarter and one-half of the solvency gap. Over a decade, the proposal is estimated to generate savings between $100 billion and $190 billion.

The report also highlights distributional effects, noting that a large share of savings would come from higher-income retirees. By 2060, between 60 percent and 90 percent of the savings would come from the top fifth of beneficiaries.

Shifting Benefits Distribution

Beyond reducing costs, the proposal aims to make the system more progressive. The analysis indicates that limiting top-end benefits could allow for increases among lower- and middle-income retirees.

Under the plan, the bottom 70 percent to 80 percent of beneficiaries could see higher payable benefits, with those in the lowest quarter potentially receiving increases of between 4 percent and 25 percent by 2060.

U.S. Social Security benefits remain comparatively high compared to other similar economies. In 2024, a couple retiring at the normal age could receive more than $93,000 annually, far exceeding the maximum benefits available in many other developed countries.

For comparison, maximum payments in countries such as the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand range between $30,000 and $36,000 per couple. Even in countries with relatively generous systems, such as France and Japan, maximum benefits remain significantly lower than those in the U.S.

Correction 3/24/2026, 12:56 p.m. ET: This article has been updated to correct the figures for how much a Social Security recipient can receive in a year.

In a polarized era, the center is dismissed as bland. At Newsweek, ours is different: The Courageous Center—it’s not “both sides,” it’s sharp, challenging and alive with ideas. We follow facts, not factions. If that sounds like the kind of journalism you want to see thrive, we need you.

When you become a Newsweek Member, you support a mission to keep the center strong and vibrant. Members enjoy: Ad-free browsing, exclusive content and editor conversations. Help keep the center courageous. Join today.