Harris has hinted at making the wealthy pay their fair share, but the whole story is more complicated.
Social Security has taken a backseat in this presidential campaign to issues like abortion, immigration, and the overall economy. But with the program’s trust funds now expected to be depleted in 2034, according to a recent Congressional Budget Office report, it’s not something candidates can ignore entirely.
Donald Trump has expressed his intent to eliminate Social Security benefit taxes on seniors if elected, a move that would provide short-term gains while exacerbating the existing funding crisis. His opponent, Kamala Harris, has been much quieter on the subject, but there are a few things we can reasonably infer about where she stands.
Image source: Getty Images.
What Kamala Harris has said about her plans for Social Security
Kamala Harris’s campaign website has just three sentences about her vision for Social Security:
Vice President Harris will protect Social Security… She will strengthen Social Security and Medicare for the long haul by making millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share in taxes. She will always fight to ensure Americans can count on getting the benefits they earned.
It doesn’t tell us a lot. But there are a few things we can reasonably assume when we pair it with President Biden’s Social Security proposals and Harris’s past actions as a Congressperson.
Currently, workers only pay Social Security taxes on the first $168,600 they earn in 2024. This will climb to $176,100 in 2025. Because of this, the majority of workers pay these taxes on all of their incomes, but not high earners.
President Biden ran on a platform that would require high earners to pay more in Social Security payroll taxes. He instituted a “donut hole” approach that only required those earning $400,000 or more to pay additional taxes. Someone earning only $200,000 per year, for example, wouldn’t owe any more than they do under the current system.
Harris has expressed support for requiring the wealthy to pay more Social Security payroll taxes as well, though in the past, she’s taken a different approach. She co-sponsored the Social Security Expansion Act with Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) in 2019. This bill proposed raising the ceiling on income subject to Social Security payroll taxes to $250,000.
It’s unclear from her recent statements if she has now changed her stance to favor Biden’s “donut hole” approach. However, it seems likely that she would approve some type of proposal to increase Social Security payroll taxes on the wealthy.
It’s a strategy with a lot of bipartisan support, according to a recent University of Maryland survey conducted on swing-state voters. But it’s not as straightforward as it seems.
What Harris isn’t saying about her plans for Social Security
Harris’s plan to increase Social Security payroll taxes for the wealthy would help reduce Social Security’s projected shortfall, but it wouldn’t eliminate it. The Manhattan Institute estimates that it would only get rid of about half of the program’s current shortfall. The University of Maryland survey mentioned above, which looked at Biden’s “donut hole” plan, determined this would eliminate 60% of the shortfall.
Regardless of the actual amount, it’s clear that increasing the ceiling on payroll taxes isn’t enough to fix all of Social Security’s problems. The government will need to do more, and most of the other options are far less popular.
Some past proposals have included:
- Raising the Social Security payroll tax rate: This would increase the percentage that everyone pays toward Social Security taxes from 12.4% to as much as 16.7%, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
- Raising the full retirement age (FRA): This is the age when you become eligible for your full Social Security benefit. Claiming under it reduces your checks. FRA currently sits between 66 and 67, but some have proposed increasing it, effectively reducing benefits for future claimers.
- Reducing benefits: A direct benefit cut would help the program get by on less income, though it would make life more difficult for retirees.
- Reducing cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs): COLAs are supposed to help benefits keep pace with inflation, though many claim it doesn’t do this. The 2025 COLA came in at just 2.5%, sparking more interest in raising COLAs among seniors.
There’s really no way out of this situation that doesn’t involve someone paying a price. If Harris’s proposal was enacted, it could mitigate the extra costs that get passed on to average workers or retirees. But right now, all we can do is speculate. As we get closer to the 2034 deadline, a more concrete plan will likely take place. Until then, all we can do is focus on our own finances and save as much as we can for retirement.