2026年9月23日 美国东部时间上午10:25 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻
卡托研究所的一位经济学家表示，如果仅通过提高薪资税来填补社会保障体系的资金缺口，普通美国工人及其雇主每年可能需多支付数千美元——这对许多美国人来说是“经济上不可能承担的”负担。
薪资税是社会保障体系的主要资金来源，但由于美国退休人数不断增加，该项目目前的福利支出已超过通过薪资税募集的收入。由于税收收入存在缺口，该项目正动用退休信托基金填补差额。
福利削减风险
除非国会采取行动，否则社会保障信托基金预计将在2032年耗尽，届时福利可能被削减约22%。
主张自由市场和有限政府的无党派智库卡托研究所表示，填补资金缺口的一种方法是将薪资税从当前的12.4%提高至17%。该机构称，将税率设定在这一水平将补充信托基金，确保社会保障体系在可预见的未来能够全额支付福利。
通常情况下，工人和雇主各承担一半薪资税，而个体经营者需缴纳全额税费。该税率在1937年社会保障体系启动时为2%，几十年来一直在稳步上调。
卡托研究所估计，将税率提高至17%后，年薪约6.2万美元的中等收入工人每年需多缴纳2600至3000美元的税费，由工人和雇主分摊。卡托研究所预算与权益政策主任罗米娜·博恰在接受哥伦比亚广播公司新闻采访时表示，因此许多工人将难以承受这一增幅。
“我们讨论的大多数人……甚至连400美元的应急储备金都没有，”她说，“对大多数工人来说，承担额外成本在经济上是不可能的，因此国会需要考虑其他方案。”
更好的选择？
仅通过提高薪资税来稳定社会保障体系，似乎并未得到议员或政策专家的广泛支持。一项吸引两党关注的替代方案是提高或取消社会保障税的最高应税收入限额，当前限额为18.45万美元。
取消该限额将要求高收入工作者就其更多收入缴纳社会保障税，但不会提高限额以下收入的税率。
今年7月，马萨诸塞州民主党参议员伊丽莎白·沃伦和俄亥俄州共和党议员伯尼·莫雷诺呼吁提高薪资税限额，他们称这将建立一个更公平的体系，让高收入者与中低收入者按相同收入比例为该体系缴费。
许多政策专家认为，巩固社会保障体系需要综合多种方案：要么小幅提高薪资税，要么提高应税限额，同时削减未来福利，比如逐步提高退休年龄或限制高收入家庭的福利。
博恰表示，提高或取消应税限额“部分是因为人们乐见让其他人承担成本”，这一方案正获得越来越多的支持。
两党政策中心2025年对4000多名美国人进行的一项民调显示，65%的民主党人和62%的共和党人支持提高或取消应税限额。民调发现，年收入超过20万美元的家庭中的大多数也支持这一想法。
博恰称，提高或取消应税限额可能会带来意想不到的后果，比如在多个州将高收入家庭的最高边际税率推至60%以上。她说，这可能会促使一些高收入者提前退休，而非缴纳更高的税费。
博恰认为，反而需要进行更大力度的改革以确保社会保障体系的长期存续。她指出，该体系是在91年前创立的，当时尚未出现401(k)计划、目标日期基金和退休计划自动 enrollment机制。尽管有了这些进步，仍有数百万美国人在临近退休时几乎没有或根本没有老年储蓄。
“我们需要一种更侧重于削减福利的方案，因为看看该体系的运作方式，资金缺口的主要驱动因素是福利随着时间推移变得越来越慷慨，”她说。
高收入者应获得更少福利吗？
诚然，高收入者每月领取的福利金高于低收入工人，2026年退休人员的最高月度福利金为5181美元，即每年超过6.2万美元。领取最高福利金的工人通常是那些收入接近或超过收入限额的人。
“双高收入家庭每年可从社会保障体系领取12万美元，与大多数其他国家的公共退休福利相比，这一数额过高，”博恰说。
另一项策略是将退休年龄与预期寿命挂钩。博恰表示，过去几十年来美国人的预期寿命有所提高，也就是说，由于人们寿命更长，他们也应该工作更长时间。
但根据美国退休研究中心的数据，美国的平均退休年龄为62岁，这类改革可能在政治上不受欢迎。该机构发现，大多数人提前退休并非出于自愿，而是由于失业、健康问题或其他挫折。
博恰本人更倾向于统一福利方案，即设定一个可预测的金额，让工人能够据此规划并通过个人储蓄补充福利。社会保障体系的复杂性可能会阻碍人们规划退休，因为许多工人不确定自己退休后能领取多少福利。
“当前的计算公式太过复杂，大多数人都不知道能领到多少，因此他们也无法合理规划退休，”她说。
Should the U.S. raise payroll taxes to save Social Security?
2026-09-23 10:25 AM EDT / CBS News
Eliminating the funding shortfall in Social Security solely by raising payroll taxes could cost the typical U.S. worker and their employer thousands of dollars — a “financially impossible” burden for many Americans, according to an economist with the Cato Institute.
Payroll taxes are the primary funding source for Social Security, although the program now pays out more in benefits than it collects through those taxes due to America’s growing number of retirees. Because of the shortfall in tax revenue, the program is drawing on its retirement trust fund to cover the gap.
Risk of benefit cut
Unless Congress acts, the Social Security trust fund is projected to run out in 2032, when benefits could be cut by about 22%.
One way to close the funding gap would be to raise the payroll tax from its current rate of 12.4% to 17%, according to Cato, a nonpartisan think tank that advocates for free markets and limited government. Setting the tax at that level would replenish the fund and ensure that Social Security could pay benefits in full for the foreseeable future, Cato said.
Workers and employers generally split the payroll tax equally, while self-employed workers pay the full amount. The tax, which was set at 2% when Social Security launched in 1937, has steadily risen over the decades.
Cato estimates that raising it to 17% would add $2,600 to $3,000 per year in taxes for a median worker earning about $62,000 annually, split between the worker and their employer. As a result, many workers would struggle to absorb the increase, Romina Boccia, Cato’s director of budget and entitlement policy, told CBS News.
“Most of the individuals we’re talking about … don’t even have $400 set aside to respond to an emergency,” she said. “It’s financially impossible for most workers to bear that additional cost, so Congress will need to look at other options.”
A better option?
Stabilizing Social Security by raising the payroll tax alone doesn’t appear to have widespread support from lawmakers or policy experts. One alternative attracting bipartisan interest is raising or eliminating the maximum amount of individual income subject to the Social Security tax, currently at $184,500.
Eliminating that cap would require high-income workers to pay the Social Security tax on more of their income, but without raising the tax rate on earnings below the cap.
In July, Sens. Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat from Massachusetts, and Bernie Moreno, a Republican from Ohio, called for lifting the payroll tax cap, which they say would create a fairer system in which high-income earners pay the same share of their income into the program as low- and middle-class workers.
Many policy experts believe shoring up Social Security will require an approach that combines both raising additional revenue, either through a small payroll tax increase or lifting the cap, and reducing future benefits, such as by gradually increasing the retirement age or limiting benefits to high-income households.
Raising or eliminating the payroll tax cap is gaining support “in part because people like the idea of making someone else pay,” Boccia said.
A 2025 poll of more than 4,000 Americans from the Bipartisan Policy Center found that 65% of Democrats and 62% of Republicans supported lifting or removing the cap. A majority of households earning more than $200,000 a year also backed the idea, the poll found.
Boccia said increasing or removing the cap could result in unintended consequences, such as raising the top marginal rates for high-income households to above 60% in several states. That could push some high earners to retire early, rather than pay the higher tax, she said.
Instead, Boccia thinks bigger reforms are needed to ensure Social Security’s long-term survival, noting that the program was created 91 years ago, before the advent of 401(k)s, target-date funds and auto-enrollment in retirement plans. Despite those advancements, millions of Americans approach retirement with little to no savings for old age.
“We need an approach that’s much heavier on the benefit reduction side because, if you look at how the program works, the key driver of the shortfall is that benefits are growing more generous over time,” she said.
Should high earners get less?
To be sure, higher-earning individuals can collect more in monthly benefits than low-earning workers, with monthly payments maxing out for people who retire in 2026 at $5,181, or more than $62,000 a year. The workers who claim the maximum benefit are typically those who earned near or above the income cap.
“A dual high-earning household can collect $120,000 annually from Social Security, which is excessive in comparison to most other nations’ public retirement benefits,” Boccia said.
Another strategy would be to peg the retirement age to longevity, which has risen for Americans over the past few decades, Boccia said. In other words, because people are living longer, they should also work longer.
But such a change could prove politically unpalatable, given that the median retirement age in the U.S. is 62, according to data from the Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies. Most people also retire years before they expected — not by choice, but due to layoffs, health issues or other setbacks, the organization found.
Boccia’s own preference is a flat benefit, meaning a predictable amount that workers could plan around and supplement with their own savings. The complexity of Social Security may discourage planning because many workers aren’t sure of what they’ll receive in retirement.
“The current formula is so complex that most people have no idea what to expect, so they can’t reasonably plan for it either,” she said.