Americans remain divided over how to fix Social Security‘s finances as the program moves closer to a projected funding shortfall that could trigger automatic benefit cuts within the next decade.
A new survey from the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute has found there is little consensus around the major proposals regularly floated in Washington, from raising taxes to cutting benefits or increasing the retirement age. While voters broadly agree the system needs to be stabilized, many appear reluctant to support solutions that would directly affect their own finances.
Social Security, often referred to as the “third rail” in American politics, is a cornerstone of retirement income for millions of Americans, providing monthly payments for the post-work years. It is largely funded through payroll taxes collected from workers and employers. For decades, the program has brought in more money than it paid out, allowing trust fund reserves to build.
But demographic shifts in recent decades have put pressure on the program. Americans are living longer, birth rates have fallen, and a larger share of the population is now retiring. Now, Social Security is paying out more in benefits than it receives in tax revenue, and the program’s main retirement trust fund is projected to run short of reserves around 2032 to 2033 if Congress does not act.
Such a scenario would not mean Social Security disappears entirely. Payroll taxes would continue funding the majority of benefits. However, incoming revenue would only cover roughly 75 to 80 percent of scheduled payments, potentially resulting in automatic cuts of about 20 to 25 percent, if no solution is found.
Americans Reject Most Major Fixes
The Reagan Institute survey, which interviewed 1,244 registered voters between April 3 and 8, found voters are unenthused about the main options often proposed to address the shortfall.
“When confronted with Social Security’s $250 billion shortfall and inability to pay full claims starting around 2032, respondents did not rally around any particular path forward,” the report reads.
Support for reducing benefits, increasing taxes, raising the retirement age or adding to the national debt all remained relatively weak. Of the proposals tested, raising the retirement age received the highest support, though only 26 percent backed the idea.
The survey also found that “majorities of every partisan and ideological group rejected every specific reform presented.”
Many respondents instead selected an unspecified “other” category when asked how the funding gap should be resolved. According to the report, about 40 percent of those free-response answers supported increasing taxes on wealthy Americans or corporations, or lifting the cap on wages subject to Social Security taxes. Currently, the maximum amount of earnings on which you must pay Social Security tax is $184,500 for 2026.
Another 17 percent of responses suggested the shortfall stemmed from government mismanagement or theft, which the report noted reflects a misunderstanding about how the pay-as-you-go system operates. A further 13 percent wanted cuts to national security or defense spending to help fund Social Security.
Means Testing
The survey suggests that Americans appear more willing to support targeted sacrifices for wealthier groups than broad-based reductions affecting every beneficiary equally.
One proposal in particular generated significantly stronger support than others: reducing benefits for affluent retirees. When respondents were asked to choose between three options: paying an additional $1,500 in taxes, reducing existing retiree benefits by $5,000, or cutting benefits to moderately high-net-worth retirees by $15,000, a large majority selected the third option.
According to the survey, 71 percent favored reducing benefits for wealthier retirees, including 75 percent of Democrats, 72 percent of independents and 66 percent of Republicans. Even among households earning more than $200,000 annually, 60 percent preferred that option over broader tax increases or across-the-board cuts.
The report concluded there was “widespread agreement, including among the affluent, that means testing is preferable to broad-based tax increases.”
When voters were asked to choose directly between tax increases and benefit reductions, they favored raising taxes by roughly a two-to-one margin. Younger voters between 18 and 29 were more open to reducing benefits for existing workers, while voters aged 45 and older preferred tax increases.
The Reagan Institute findings align with other recent polling showing widespread public resistance to the most politically difficult solutions, and that Americans want the program preserved, but remain divided over how to distribute the financial burden.
A December 2025 survey conducted by the Cato Institute and YouGov found 77 percent of Americans opposed cutting benefits for current or future retirees, while an identical share opposed raising payroll taxes by roughly $1,300 annually. The same poll found 65 percent opposed increasing the retirement age to 70. When respondents were forced to choose among difficult options, 35 percent preferred tax increases, compared with 14 percent who favored benefit cuts and 17 percent who supported borrowing more money. About one-third remained unsure.
Gallup polling has also shown stronger support for tax increases than benefit reductions. In a 2023 survey of adults nationwide, 61 percent said they would rather see the government raise Social Security taxes, while 31 percent preferred reducing benefits.
What Can Be Done?
Lawmakers, both Democrat and Republican, have introduced proposals aimed at extending Social Security’s solvency, though the plans differ in approach.
One Democratic-backed proposal, the Social Security Expansion Act, was introduced in 2025 by Independent Democrat supporter Senator Bernie Sanders in the Senate and Democratic Representative Val Hoyle in the House. The legislation would increase Social Security benefits while applying payroll taxes to income above $250,000. It would also create a higher minimum benefit for low-income earners and use a senior-focused inflation measure to calculate annual cost-of-living adjustments.
Another Democratic proposal, the Fair Share Act, was introduced by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and Representative Brendan Boyle. The bill would require taxpayers earning more than $400,000 annually to pay Social Security taxes on all wage, self-employment and investment income above that threshold.
“This bill would protect Social Security and Medicare for generations by making the wealthiest Americans pay what they owe,” Whitehouse and Boyle said in a May 2025 statement.
A bipartisan proposal introduced last year by Republican Senator Bill Cassidy and Democratic Senator Tim Kaine would create a separate investment fund designed to generate higher returns through investments in stocks, bonds and other assets. Under the plan, the government would provide an initial $1.5 trillion investment, allowing the fund to grow over several decades before supplementing payroll tax revenue in the future.
Raising the retirement age is another option. For Americans born in 1960 or later, the full retirement age (FRA) for Social Security is 67, effective for those turning 65 in 2026. The Republican Study Committee last year proposed gradually increasing the full retirement age as part of its FY2025 budget plan, “Fiscal Sanity to Save America.” The proposal would eventually raise the retirement age to 69 for younger workers.