Social Security payroll tax cap draws fire as wealth gap widens

A bipartisan effort in Washington to force the wealthiest Americans to pay more into Social Security is intensifying, driven by growing alarm over the program's approaching funding deadline and a decades-long erosion of its tax base amid widening income inequality.

At a Senate Finance subcommittee hearing on the future of Social Security, Senator Bernie Sanders called on lawmakers to require top earners to pay their fair share, arguing the current cap structure was indefensible.

The remarks came as the program's financial clock ticked louder: the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance trust fund is projected to be depleted in the fourth quarter of 2032, according to the latest Social Security Boadt of Trustees report released this month, at which point just 78% of benefits would remain payable.

The cap at the center of the debate

In 2026, earnings up to $184,500 are subject to Social Security payroll taxes. High earners stop contributing to the program for the remainder of the year once they reach that threshold. Workers and their employers each pay 6.2% on wages up to that limit, while Medicare taxes carry no such ceiling.

The math produces striking outcomes at the top of the income scale. In 2026, the maximum Social Security tax liability for someone earning $184,500 or more is $11,439. Self-employed individuals must pay the full 12.4% rate, making their maximum contribution $22,878. For someone like Elon Musk – whose net worth rocketed to $1.2 trillion in June 2026 after SpaceX went public – the dollar amount owed is functionally the same as that of a mid-level professional salary earner, assuming wage-based income triggers the tax at all.

Read more: SpaceX IPO rocket plunges $400B wiping $300B off Musk’s fortune (he’s still a trillionaire!)

Teresa Ghilarducci, a labor economist and professor at the New School for Social Research, told fact-checking organization PolitiFact that the maximum contribution is identical for a worker earning $184,500 and for the richest individual in the country. She added that in years when a high earner's compensation flows primarily through stock appreciation or capital gains rather than wages, their Social Security liability can be near zero – or potentially lower than someone earning the taxable maximum in salary.

Stephen Nuñez, director of stratification economics at the Roosevelt Institute, has noted that in 1983 the Social Security payroll tax cap was sufficient to cover 90 percent of eligible earnings, and the reforms of that era assumed that share would hold going forward. By 2000, the figure had dropped to approximately 82.5% and has remained near that level since.

Legislative proposals take shape – with rare bipartisan backing

Senators Bernie Moreno and Elizabeth Warren have been working together on legislation to remove the cap on Social Security taxes, arguing that members of Congress from both parties must come together to preserve the program for future generations. The bipartisan framing of the proposal has drawn attention in Washington, where Social Security reform typically divides cleanly along party lines.

Sanders has separately proposed the Social Security Expansion Act, co-sponsored by Sen. Warren and nine other Senate Democrats, which would raise taxes on wages, salaries and self-employment earnings above $250,000, while also increasing the net investment income tax and making certain active business income subject to those levies.

A separate approach, the Medicare and Social Security Fair Share Act introduced by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, would apply a $400,000 threshold for Social Security that also covers investment income and would close a loophole allowing some wealthy pass-through business owners to avoid Medicare taxes. Whitehouse has argued that the only way to extend solvency without cutting benefits or borrowing money is to raise more revenue.

Read more: Social Security’s 2032 cliff could hit retirees in every state

The opposition and the trade-offs

Not everyone supports eliminating the cap. The Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, has argued that such a change would affect upper-middle-class individuals and families, not only the ultra-wealthy, and would also limit the ability to raise taxes to address Medicare's own funding shortfall.

The Tax Foundation has raised a structural concern as well, namely that uncapping the payroll tax without adjusting benefits would sever the longstanding link between the taxes a worker pays over a career and the retirement benefits they ultimately collect – potentially transforming Social Security from an earned-benefit program into something closer to a conventional welfare program.

"Rather than concentrate the burden of funding the Social Security system on the small share of the workforce that earns above the taxable maximum, a better way to increase payroll tax revenue would be to apply the tax to certain fringe benefits, such as employer-sponsored health insurance (ESI)," the Tax Foundation argued. "We estimate that eliminating the exclusion for ESI would raise $1.8 trillion over the next decade with a smaller cost to the economy, reducing GDP by 0.2 percent."