In Swing States Majorities of Republicans and Democrats Agree on Measures to Eliminate Most of the Social Security Shortfall

Favor Raising Taxes and Reducing Benefits for High-Income Earners,
While Raising COLAs, Benefits for Low-Income and 85+

September 12, 2024 – A new public consultation survey finds significant bipartisan support for major proposals–including revenue increases and benefit cuts–that would reduce Social Security’s long-term shortfall by 78% and extend the program’s longevity for decades.

Without any reforms to revenues or benefits, the Social Security Trust Fund will be depleted by 2033, and benefits will be cut for all retirees by 21%.

This survey by the University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation (PPC) is the sixth in a series – the Swing Six Issue Surveys – being conducted in the run-up to the November election in six swing states and nationally. Unlike standard polling, respondents went through an interactive online ‘policymaking simulation’ in which they were briefed and evaluated pro and con arguments for proposed reforms. The survey content was reviewed by experts on different sides of the debate. All Americans are invited to go through the same policymaking simulation as the survey sample.

summary of findings

Very large bipartisan majorities support four reforms to revenues and benefits that would eliminate 101% of the Social Security Trust Fund’s long-term shortfall:

Make all wages over $400,000 subject to the Social Security payroll tax (reduces shortfall by 60%)
Gradually increase the payroll tax from 6.2 percent to 6.5 percent over six years (reduces shortfall by 15%)
Gradually raise the retirement age from 67 to 68 by 2033 (reduces shortfall by 15%)
Reduce benefits for the top 20 percent of income earners (reduces shortfall by 11%)

Bipartisan majorities also support three benefit increases, which increase the shortfall by 23%.

Raise the minimum monthly benefit for those who have worked for at least 30 years, from $1,066 to $1,570, and keep it at 125% of the Federal poverty line (increases shortfall by 7%)
Increase monthly benefits for those over 85 by five percent, or about $100 (increases shortfall by 4%)
Change how cost-of-living adjustments are calculated, so that they focus on the goods and services that the elderly tend to buy, which would slightly increase benefits for all (increases shortfall by 12%)

Combined, these proposals would eliminate 78% of the Social Security shortfall.

revenue increases

Overwhelming majorities of Democrats and Republicans support two proposals to increase revenues, which would cover three-quarters of the Social Security shortfall:

Making Wages Over $400k Subject to the Payroll Tax (reduces shortfall by 60%):
Currently, wages subject to the payroll tax are capped at $169,000. A proposal to make all wages over $400,000 subject to the payroll tax, which would eliminate 60% of the shortfall, is supported by an overwhelming 86% to 89% in the swing states. This includes large majorities of Republicans (83%-89%) and Democrats (83%-92%). Nationally, 87% are in support.

Responses to Pro and Con Arguments

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
The incomes of the wealthy have been growing by leaps and bounds, while the incomes of the middle class have been stagnating. It is time for the wealthy to step up and do their part by helping to make Social Security secure. Besides, all it means is that they pay the payroll tax all year (like everybody else), not just the first part of the year.

ARGUMENT AGAINST
Higher taxes will discourage high-income earners from working and encourage tax evasion. They will also have less money to make investments that create jobs and promote economic activity. This will hurt the economy.

Aggregated Demographics of Swing Six States

Increasing the Payroll Tax (reduces shortfall by 15%):
Respondents were given the option of gradually increasing the payroll tax from 6.2 percent to 6.5 percent over six years, to 6.9 percent over fourteen years, or to 7.2 percent over twenty years, or they could not choose any of those options. Increasing the payroll tax to at least 6.5 percent, which would eliminate 15% of the shortfall, is supported by 83% to 88% in the swing states. This includes majorities of Republicans (83%-88%) and Democrats (85%-88%). Nationally, 86% are in support.

Responses to Pro and Con Arguments

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
Social Security is a good investment because it provides a foundation for Americans’ retirement, as well as protection in the event of worker disability or a spouse’s death. Paying a little more now will shore up Social Security and make all Americans more secure later. It is also appropriate for employers to make slightly higher contributions to their employees’ retirement, since fewer and fewer offer any pensions.

ARGUMENT AGAINST
Raising the tax rate is bad for employees, especially people who are living paycheck to paycheck. Any increase leaves them with less to spend and less to save for retirement. It is also bad for employers because it increases their costs, leading them to cut back their employees, and makes it harder to create new jobs. And it is bad for the self-employed, who pay both the employer’s and employee’s share of the payroll tax.

Aggregated Demographics of Swing Six States

Benefit reductions

Two benefit reductions, which would cover a quarter of the Social Security shortfall, have robust bipartisan support:

Raising the Retirement Age (reduces shortfall by 15%):
Respondents were given options to gradually raise the full retirement age, which is currently set at 67 years old: raise it to 68 by 2033, to 69 by 2041, or to 70 by 2064, or they could not choose any of those options. Raising the retirement age to at least 68, which would eliminate 15% of the shortfall, is supported by an overwhelming 88% to 91% in the swing states. This includes majorities of Republicans (88%-94%) and Democrats (87%-92%). Nationally, 89% are in support.

Even among those who would be directly affected by raising the retirement age, support is overwhelming. There are only minor differences of a couple percent between age groups.

Responses to Pro and Con Arguments

FIRST ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
With people living longer, the number of retirees receiving benefits is growing. At the same time birth rates are lower, diminishing the number of workers who contribute revenue to Social Security. Thus, it is not affordable and simply not realistic to have people retire as early as they have.

SECOND ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
People at 66 are now much healthier than in the past and most of the work people do is much less physically demanding, so it is appropriate for people to work a little bit longer before retiring. Raising the retirement age is a common-sense response to how life has changed in the modern era.

FIRST ARGUMENT AGAINST
Raising the retirement age is unfair because many workers in their 60s still hold physically demanding jobs--blue-collar jobs, or retail jobs where they are on their feet all day. For them, it is already a stretch for the retirement age to rise to 67 as planned; it should not rise any further.

SECOND ARGUMENT AGAINST
Raising the retirement age is just a benefit cut by another name--in fact each worker will get less over their lifetime. It is particularly unfair to people with lower incomes and minorities. Because on average they do not live as long, they get less back in Social Security benefits over their lifetime for the amount they put in; thus, raising the retirement age will cut a disproportionately large percentage of their average lifetime benefits.

Aggregated Demographics of Swing Six States

Reducing Benefits for High-Income Earners (reduces shortfall by 11%):
Respondents were given the options of reducing benefits for the top 20 percent of earners, the top 40 percent, or the top 50 percent, or they could not choose any of those options. Reducing benefits for the top 20 percent of income earners, which would eliminate 11% of the shortfall, is supported by an overwhelming 91% to 94% in the swing states. This includes majorities of Republicans (88%-93%) and Democrats (91%-94%). Nationally, 92% are in support.

Even among those who may be affected by this proposal, there is overwhelming support. For those in households making over $150,000, 89% are in support.

Responses to Pro and Con Arguments

FIRST ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
We have to cover the Social Security shortfall in one way or another. Wealthier retirees have other ways to fund their retirement, such as pensions and savings. But right now they get benefits that are higher than other people. This gap should be reduced so that their benefits are more like others. It’s only fair.
SECOND ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
Social Security was established with the express purpose of ensuring that older or disabled Americans would not fall into poverty. It really makes no sense that people with higher incomes even get higher benefits than people with lesser incomes.
FIRST ARGUMENT AGAINST
Many of the proposals for reducing benefits based on income would end up hurting some people who are part of the middle class, particularly people who live in areas of the country where the cost of living is high. We should not change Social Security in a way that forces seniors to lower their quality of life.SECOND ARGUMENT AGAINST
American workers have been paying Social Security payroll taxes for all their working lives on the promise that they would be getting this money back in the form of benefits. Reducing expected benefits to people who make more money is a violation of this understanding and changes Social Security from a retirement program into a welfare program.

Aggregated Demographics of Swing Six States

raising Benefits

Three benefit increases, which would increase the shortfall by a total of 23%, are supported by large majorities of Republicans and Democrats.

Raising the Minimum Benefit (increases shortfall by 7%):
Increasing the minimum monthly benefit for someone who worked 30 years from $1,066 to $1,570 which would increase the shortfall by 7%, is supported by 70% to 73% in the swing states. This includes majorities of Republicans (65%-72%) and Democrats (68%-78%). Nationally, 71% are in support. The minimum benefit would rise with inflation, and always be set at 125% of the federal poverty line.

While support for this proposal is highest among those who may benefit directly from this proposal (household income under $50,000, 77% support), even those with high incomes are still in support (household income over $150,000, 69% support).

Responses to Pro and Con Arguments

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
The current minimum benefit is below the poverty line. It should be a basic principle that if you work for 30 years and pay your Social Security taxes, your benefits should assure that you can retire with dignity and not be condemned to live in poverty.

ARGUMENT AGAINST
Given the difficulty of reducing the Social Security shortfall, we should not be considering any additional benefits. The main problem of covering the shortfall should be solved first and only then should we consider raising the minimum benefit.

Aggregated Demographics of Swing Six States

Increasing Benefits for 85+ (increases shortfall by 4%):
Raising benefits for those 85 and over by about $100 a month, which would increase the shortfall by 4%, is supported by 64% to 67% in the swing states. This includes majorities of Republicans (58%-67%) and Democrats (61%-70%). Nationally, 68% are in support.

Responses to Pro and Con Arguments

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
People in their 80s are often at the point of exhausting their savings and any other resources they may have. They are often quite frail and vulnerable, and need special services and assistance to help them cope with living. Their benefits are modest to begin with, and while people early in retirement can supplement their income by working part-time, this is unrealistic for people at this age.

ARGUMENT AGAINST
This idea is yet one more example of thinking that people should not be considered responsible for planning for their financial needs. If we go down this path, it will make people more dependent, discourage them from saving, and contribute to an overly big and unaffordable government.

Aggregated Demographics of Swing Six States

Increasing Cost of Living Adjustments (COLAs) (increases shortfall by 12%):
Changing the way COLAs are calculated by focusing on the goods and services that older adults tend to buy, which would increase the shortfall by 12%, is supported by 65% to 68% in the swing states. This includes majorities of Republicans (62%-68%) and Democrats (62%-70%). Nationally, 68% are in support.

Responses to Pro and Con Arguments

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
The whole idea of making cost of living adjustments is that Social Security recipients should not be hurt by inflation. The current system for calculating inflation does not really keep up with inflation for what seniors actually buy, thus reducing their purchasing power. The only fair thing to do is to change the method to reflect reality.

ARGUMENT AGAINST
People can come up with all kinds of arguments for why this group or that group needs to get higher benefit payments. The reality we have to face is that Social Security is in trouble because it will not have the means to meet its obligations. We should be thinking of ways to reduce the shortfall, not make it worse by increasing the cost-of-living adjustment.

Aggregated Demographics of Swing Six States

“While some of these proposals–such as raising the retirement age or raising payroll taxes–are not popular in themselves, when Americans consider the full picture, large bipartisan majorities support taking tough steps to secure the Social Security program. We were struck by how similar the Republicans and Democrats are on all these questions.”

Steven Kull, Director, Program for Public Consultation

state survey reports

Arizona

In Arizona Majorities of Republicans and Democrats Agree on Measures to Eliminate Most of Social Security Shortfall

Favor Raising Taxes and Reducing Benefits for High-Income Earners,
While Raising COLAs, Benefits for Low Income and Age 85+

September 12, 2024 - A new public consultation survey in Arizona, five other swing states and nationally, finds significant bipartisan support for major proposals–including revenue increases and benefit cuts–that would reduce Social Security’s long-term shortfall by 78% and extend the program’s longevity for decades. [Full Report]

Without any reforms to revenues or benefits, the Social Security Trust Fund will be depleted by 2033, and benefits will be cut for all retirees.

Revenue Increases

Overwhelming majorities of Democrats and Republicans in Arizona support two proposals to increase revenues, which would cover three-quarters of the Social Security shortfall:

Making Wages Over $400k Subject to the Payroll Tax: Currently, wages subject to the payroll tax are capped at $169,000. A proposal to make all wages over $400,000 subject to the payroll tax, which would eliminate 60% of the shortfall, is supported by 88% in Arizona, including 86% of Republicans and 91% of Democrats. Bipartisan majorities in all swing states are in support (86-89%), as well as nationally (87%). [GRAPH]

Increasing the Payroll Tax: Respondents were given the option of gradually increasing the payroll tax over several years from 6.2 percent to 6.5 percent by 2030, 6.9 percent by 2038, or to 7.2 percent by 2044, or not raise it. Increasing the payroll tax to at least 6.5 percent, which would eliminate 15% of the shortfall, is supported by 88% in Arizona, with no difference between Republicans and Democrats (88%). Bipartisan majorities in all swing states are in support (83-88%), as well as nationally (86%). [GRAPH]

Benefit Reductions
Two benefit reductions, which would cover a quarter of the Social Security shortfall,
also have robust bipartisan support:

Reducing Benefits for High-Income Earners: Respondents were given the options of reducing benefits for the top 20 percent of earners, the top 40 percent, or the top 50 percent, or they could not choose any of those options. Reducing benefits for the top 20 percent of income earners, which would eliminate 11% of the shortfall, is supported by an overwhelming 94% in Arizona, including 93% of Republicans and 94% of Democrats. Bipartisan majorities in all swing states are in support (91-94%), as well as nationally (92%). [GRAPH]

Raising the Retirement Age: Respondents were given options to gradually raise the full retirement age, which is currently set at 67 years old: raise it to 68 by 2033, to 69 by 2041, or to 70 by 2064, or they could not choose any of those options. Raising the retirement age to at least 68, which would eliminate 15% of the shortfall, is supported by 91% in Arizona (Republicans 91%, Democrats 92%). Bipartisan majorities in all swing states are in support (88-91%), as well as nationally (89%). [GRAPH]

“While some of these proposals–such as raising the retirement age or raising payroll taxes–are not popular in themselves, when Americans consider the full picture, large bipartisan majorities support taking tough steps to secure the Social Security program,” commented Steven Kull, director of PPC.
Kull adds, “We were struck by how similar the Republicans and Democrats are on all these questions.”

Raising Benefits

The four reforms endorsed by majorities–to increase revenues and reduce certain benefits– would eliminate 101% of the shortfall. However, majorities also favor benefit increases which increase the shortfall by 23%. Combined, all of these proposals would reduce the shortfall by 78%.

Raising the Minimum Benefit: Increasing the minimum monthly benefit for someone who worked 30 years from $1,066 to $1,570 which would increase the shortfall by 7%, is supported by 73% in Arizona (Republicans 67%, Democrats 78%). Bipartisan majorities in all swing states are in support (70-73%), as well as nationally (71%). The minimum benefit would rise with inflation, and always be set at 125% of the federal poverty line. [GRAPH]

Increasing Benefits for 85+: Raising benefits for those 85 and over by about $100 a month, which would increase the shortfall by 4%, is supported by 64% in Arizona (Republicans 62%, Democrats 65%). Bipartisan majorities in all swing states are in support (64-67%), as well as nationally (68%). [GRAPH]

Increasing Cost of Living Adjustments (COLAs): Changing the way COLAs are calculated by focusing on the goods and services that older adults tend to buy, which would increase the shortfall by 12%, is supported by 68% in Arizona (Republicans 66%, Democrats 70%). Bipartisan majorities in all swing states are in support (65-68%), as well as nationally (68%). [GRAPH]

About the Survey
Respondents were initially briefed on and evaluated each proposal separately. At the end of the survey, they were presented all options on the same page, with information about the potential impact of each on the Social Security shortfall. They were told they need not select any of the options. As they made selections, they could see the total impact of their choices on the shortfall. Estimates of shortfall effects came from the Social Security Administration.

The Arizona survey was fielded August 2-17, 2024 with 610 adults by the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy. Sample was obtained from multiple online opt-in panels, including Cint, Dynata and Prodege. Sample collection and quality control was managed by QuantifyAI under the direction of the Program for Public Consultation. Samples were pre-stratified and weighted by age, race, gender, education, income, metro/non-metro, marital status, home ownership and partisan affiliation to roughly match the general adult population. The survey was offered in both English and Spanish. The confidence interval for the Arizona sample is +/-4.5%.

Arizona Questionnaire with Toplines, Crosstabs and Methodology

National and Six State Questionnaire with Toplines, Crosstabs and Methodology

National and Six State Full Report, Including Sources of Proposals Tested

Go Through the Policymaking Simulation on Social Security

Georgia

In Georgia Majorities of Republicans and Democrats Agree on Measures to Eliminate Most of Social Security Shortfall

Favor Raising Taxes and Reducing Benefits for High-Income Earners,
While Raising COLAs, Benefits for Low Income and Age 85+

College Park, MD - A new public consultation survey in Georgia, five other swing states and nationally, finds significant bipartisan support for major proposals–including revenue increases and benefit cuts–that would reduce Social Security’s long-term shortfall by 78% and extend the program’s longevity for decades. [Full Report]

Without any reforms to revenues or benefits, the Social Security Trust Fund will be depleted by 2033, and benefits will be cut for all retirees.

Revenue Increases

Overwhelming majorities of Democrats and Republicans in Georgia support two proposals to increase revenues, which would cover three-quarters of the Social Security shortfall:

Making Wages Over $400k Subject to the Payroll Tax: Currently, wages subject to the payroll tax are capped at $169,000. A proposal to make all wages over $400,000 subject to the payroll tax, which would eliminate 60% of the shortfall, is supported by 86% in Georgia, including 87% of Republicans and 83% of Democrats. Bipartisan majorities in all swing states are in support (86-89%), as well as nationally (87%). [GRAPH]

Increasing the Payroll Tax: Respondents were given the option of gradually increasing the payroll tax over several years from 6.2 percent to 6.5 percent by 2030, 6.9 percent by 2038, or to 7.2 percent by 2044, or not raise it. Increasing the payroll tax to at least 6.5 percent, which would eliminate 15% of the shortfall, is supported by 86% in Georgia, including 86% of both Republicans and Democrats. Bipartisan majorities in all swing states are in support (83-88%), as well as nationally (86%). [GRAPH]

Benefit Reductions

Two benefit reductions, which would cover a quarter of the Social Security shortfall,
also have robust bipartisan support:

Reducing Benefits for High-Income Earners: Respondents were given the options of reducing benefits for the top 20 percent of earners, the top 40 percent, or the top 50 percent, or they could not choose any of those options. Reducing benefits for the top 20 percent of income earners, which would eliminate 11% of the shortfall, is supported by 92% in Georgia (Republicans 92%, Democrats 91%). Bipartisan majorities in all swing states are in support (91-94%), as well as nationally (92%). [GRAPH]

Raising the Retirement Age: Respondents were given options to gradually raise the full retirement age, which is currently set at 67 years old: raise it to 68 by 2033, to 69 by 2041, or to 70 by 2064, or they could not choose any of those options. Raising the retirement age to at least 68, which would eliminate 15% of the shortfall, is supported by 90% in Georgia (Republicans 92%, Democrats 89%). Bipartisan majorities in all swing states are in support (88-91%), as well as nationally (89%). [GRAPH]

“While some of these proposals–such as raising the retirement age or raising payroll taxes–are not popular in themselves, when Americans consider the full picture, large bipartisan majorities support taking tough steps to secure the Social Security program,” commented Steven Kull, director of PPC.
Kull adds, “We were struck by how similar the Republicans and Democrats are on all these questions.”

Raising Benefits

The four reforms endorsed by majorities–to increase revenues and reduce certain benefits– would eliminate 101% of the shortfall. However, majorities also favor benefit increases which increase the shortfall by 23%. Combined, all of these proposals would reduce the shortfall by 78%.

Raising the Minimum Benefit: Increasing the minimum monthly benefit for someone who worked 30 years from $1,066 to $1,570 which would increase the shortfall by 7%, is supported by 70% in Georgia (Republicans 70%, Democrats 68%). Bipartisan majorities in all swing states are in support (70-73%), as well as nationally (71%). The minimum benefit would rise with inflation, and always be set at 125% of the federal poverty line. [GRAPH]

Increasing Benefits for 85+: Raising benefits for those 85 and over by about $100 a month, which would increase the shortfall by 4%, is supported by 64% in Georgia (Republicans 66%, Democrats 61%). Bipartisan majorities in all swing states are in support (64-67%), as well as nationally (68%). [GRAPH]

Increasing Cost of Living Adjustments (COLAs): Changing the way COLAs are calculated by focusing on the goods and services that older adults tend to buy, which would increase the shortfall by 12%, is supported by 65% in Georgia (Republicans 67%, Democrats 62%). Bipartisan majorities in all swing states are in support (65-68%), as well as nationally (68%). [GRAPH]

About the Survey

Respondents were initially briefed on and evaluated each proposal separately. At the end of the survey, they were presented all options on the same page, with information about the potential impact of each on the Social Security shortfall. They were told they need not select any of the options. As they made selections, they could see the total impact of their choices on the shortfall. Estimates of shortfall effects came from the Social Security Administration.

The Georgia survey was fielded August 2-17, 2024 with 611 adults by the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy. Sample was obtained from multiple online opt-in panels, including Cint, Dynata and Prodege. Sample collection and quality control was managed by QuantifyAI under the direction of the Program for Public Consultation. Samples were pre-stratified and weighted by age, race, gender, education, income, metro/non-metro, marital status, home ownership and partisan affiliation to roughly match the general adult population. The survey was offered in both English and Spanish. The confidence interval for the Georgia sample is +/-4.5%.

Georgia Questionnaire with Toplines, Crosstabs and Methodology

National and Six State Questionnaire with Toplines, Crosstabs and Methodology

National and Six State Full Report, Including Sources of Proposals Tested

Go Through the Policymaking Simulation on Social Security

Michigan

In Michigan Majorities of Republicans and Democrats Agree on Measures to Eliminate Most of Social Security Shortfall

Favor Raising Taxes and Reducing Benefits for High-Income Earners,
While Raising COLAs, Benefits for Low Income and Age 85+

College Park, MD - A new public consultation survey in Michigan, five other swing states and nationally, finds significant bipartisan support for major proposals–including revenue increases and benefit cuts–that would reduce Social Security’s long-term shortfall by 78% and extend the program’s longevity for decades. [Full Report]

Without any reforms to revenues or benefits, the Social Security Trust Fund will be depleted by 2033, and benefits will be cut for all retirees.

Revenue Increases

Overwhelming majorities of Democrats and Republicans in Michigan support two proposals to increase revenues, which would cover three-quarters of the Social Security shortfall:

Making Wages Over $400k Subject to the Payroll Tax: Currently, wages subject to the payroll tax are capped at $169,000. A proposal to make all wages over $400,000 subject to the payroll tax, which would eliminate 60% of the shortfall, is supported by 89% in Michigan, including 89% of Republicans and 91% of Democrats. Bipartisan majorities in all swing states are in support (86-89%), as well as nationally (87%). [GRAPH]

Increasing the Payroll Tax: Respondents were given the option of gradually increasing the payroll tax over several years from 6.2 percent to 6.5 percent by 2030, 6.9 percent by 2038, or to 7.2 percent by 2044, or not raise it. Increasing the payroll tax to at least 6.5 percent, which would eliminate 15% of the shortfall, is supported by 83% in Michigan (Republicans 83%, Democrats 86%). Bipartisan majorities in all swing states are in support (83-88%), as well as nationally (86%). [GRAPH]

Benefit Reductions

Two benefit reductions, which would cover a quarter of the Social Security shortfall,
also have robust bipartisan support:

Reducing Benefits for High-Income Earners: Respondents were given the options of reducing benefits for the top 20 percent of earners, the top 40 percent, or the top 50 percent, or they could not choose any of those options. Reducing benefits for the top 20 percent of income earners, which would eliminate 11% of the shortfall, is supported by 92% in Michigan (Republicans 91%, Democrats 94%). Bipartisan majorities in all swing states are in support (91-94%), as well as nationally (92%).
[GRAPH]

Raising the Retirement Age: Respondents were given options to gradually raise the full retirement age, which is currently set at 67 years old: raise it to 68 by 2033, to 69 by 2041, or to 70 by 2064, or they could not choose any of those options. Raising the retirement age to at least 68, which would eliminate 15% of the shortfall, is supported by 90% in Michigan (Republicans 94%, Democrats 89%). Bipartisan majorities in all swing states are in support (88-91%), as well as nationally (89%). [GRAPH]

“While some of these proposals–such as raising the retirement age or raising payroll taxes–are not popular in themselves, when Americans consider the full picture, large bipartisan majorities support taking tough steps to secure the Social Security program,” commented Steven Kull, director of PPC.
Kull adds, “We were struck by how similar the Republicans and Democrats are on all these questions.”

Raising Benefits

Raising the Minimum Benefit: Increasing the minimum monthly benefit for someone who worked 30 years from $1,066 to $1,570 which would increase the shortfall by 7%, is supported by 73% in Michigan (Republicans 70%, Democrats 74%). Bipartisan majorities in all swing states are in support (70-73%), as well as nationally (71%). The minimum benefit would rise with inflation, and always be set at 125% of the federal poverty line. [GRAPH]

Increasing Benefits for 85+: Raising benefits for those 85 and over by about $100 a month, which would increase the shortfall by 4%, is supported by 66% in Michigan (Republicans 65%, Democrats 67%). Bipartisan majorities in all swing states are in support (64-67%), as well as nationally (68%). [GRAPH]

Increasing Cost of Living Adjustments (COLAs): Changing the way COLAs are calculated by focusing on the goods and services that older adults tend to buy, which would increase the shortfall by 12%, is supported by 66% in Michigan (Republicans 64%, Democrats 67%). Bipartisan majorities in all swing states are in support (65-68%), as well as nationally (68%).
[GRAPH]

About the Survey

The Michigan survey was fielded August 2-17, 2024 with 601 adults by the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy. Sample was obtained from multiple online opt-in panels, including Cint, Dynata and Prodege. Sample collection and quality control was managed by QuantifyAI under the direction of the Program for Public Consultation. Samples were pre-stratified and weighted by age, race, gender, education, income, metro/non-metro, marital status, home ownership and partisan affiliation to roughly match the general adult population. The survey was offered in both English and Spanish. The confidence interval for the Michigan sample is +/-4.5%.

Michigan Questionnaire with Toplines, Crosstabs and Methodology

National and Six State Questionnaire with Toplines, Crosstabs and Methodology

National and Six State Full Report, Including Sources of Proposals Tested

Go Through the Policymaking Simulation on Social Security

Nevada

In Nevada Majorities of Republicans and Democrats Agree on Measures to Eliminate Most of Social Security Shortfall

Favor Raising Taxes and Reducing Benefits for High-Income Earners,
While Raising COLAs, Benefits for Low Income and Age 85+

College Park, MD - A new public consultation survey in Nevada, five other swing states and nationally, finds significant bipartisan support for major proposals–including revenue increases and benefit cuts–that would reduce Social Security’s long-term shortfall by 78% and extend the program’s longevity for decades. [Full Report]

Without any reforms to revenues or benefits, the Social Security Trust Fund will be depleted by 2033, and benefits will be cut for all retirees.

Revenue Increases

Overwhelming majorities of Democrats and Republicans in Nevada support two proposals to increase revenues, which would cover three-quarters of the Social Security shortfall:

Making Wages Over $400k Subject to the Payroll Tax: Currently, wages subject to the payroll tax are capped at $169,000. A proposal to make all wages over $400,000 subject to the payroll tax, which would eliminate 60% of the shortfall, is supported by 87% in Nevada, including 83% of Republicans and 91% of Democrats. Bipartisan majorities in all swing states are in support (86-89%), as well as nationally (87%). [GRAPH]

Increasing the Payroll Tax: Respondents were given the option of gradually increasing the payroll tax over several years from 6.2 percent to 6.5 percent by 2030, 6.9 percent by 2038, or to 7.2 percent by 2044, or not raise it. Increasing the payroll tax to at least 6.5 percent, which would eliminate 15% of the shortfall, is supported by 85% in Nevada (Republicans 85%, Democrats 87%). Bipartisan majorities in all swing states are in support (83-88%), as well as nationally (86%). [GRAPH]

Benefit Reductions

Two benefit reductions, which would cover a quarter of the Social Security shortfall,
also have robust bipartisan support:

Reducing Benefits for High-Income Earners: Respondents were given the options of reducing benefits for the top 20 percent of earners, the top 40 percent, or the top 50 percent, or they could not choose any of those options. Reducing benefits for the top 20 percent of income earners, which would eliminate 11% of the shortfall, is supported by 91% in Nevada (Republicans 88%, Democrats 93%). Bipartisan majorities in all swing states are in support (91-94%), as well as nationally (92%). [GRAPH]

Raising the Retirement Age: Respondents were given options to gradually raise the full retirement age, which is currently set at 67 years old: raise it to 68 by 2033, to 69 by 2041, or to 70 by 2064, or they could not choose any of those options. Raising the retirement age to at least 68, which would eliminate 15% of the shortfall, is supported by 88% in Nevada, with no difference between Republicans and Democrats (88%). Bipartisan majorities in all swing states are in support (88-91%), as well as nationally (89%). [GRAPH]

“While some of these proposals–such as raising the retirement age or raising payroll taxes–are not popular in themselves, when Americans consider the full picture, large bipartisan majorities support taking tough steps to secure the Social Security program,” commented Steven Kull, director of PPC.
Kull adds, “We were struck by how similar the Republicans and Democrats are on all these questions.”

Raising Benefits

Raising the Minimum Benefit: Increasing the minimum monthly benefit for someone who worked 30 years from $1,066 to $1,570 which would increase the shortfall by 7%, is supported by 73% in Nevada (Republicans 69%, Democrats 75%). Bipartisan majorities in all swing states are in support (70-73%), as well as nationally (71%). The minimum benefit would rise with inflation, and always be set at 125% of the federal poverty line. [GRAPH]

Increasing Benefits for 85+: Raising benefits for those 85 and over by about $100 a month, which would increase the shortfall by 4%, is supported by 67% in Nevada (Republicans 67%, Democrats 69%). Bipartisan majorities in all swing states are in support (64-67%), as well as nationally (68%). [GRAPH]

Increasing Cost of Living Adjustments (COLAs): Changing the way COLAs are calculated by focusing on the goods and services that older adults tend to buy, which would increase the shortfall by 12%, is supported by 68% in Nevada (Republicans 67%, Democrats 70%). Bipartisan majorities in all swing states are in support (65-68%), as well as nationally (68%). [GRAPH]

About the Survey

The Nevada survey was fielded August 2-17, 2024 with 604 adults by the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy. Sample was obtained from multiple online opt-in panels, including Cint, Dynata and Prodege. Sample collection and quality control was managed by QuantifyAI under the direction of the Program for Public Consultation. Samples were pre-stratified and weighted by age, race, gender, education, income, metro/non-metro, marital status, and home ownership to match the general adult population. The survey was offered in both English and Spanish. The confidence interval for the Nevada sample is +/-4.5%.

Nevada Questionnaire with Toplines, Crosstabs and Methodology

National and Six State Questionnaire with Toplines, Crosstabs and Methodology

National and Six State Full Report, Including Sources of Proposals Tested

Go Through the Policymaking Simulation on Social Security

Pennsylvania

In Pennsylvania Majorities of Republicans and Democrats Agree on Measures to Eliminate Most of Social Security Shortfall

Favor Raising Taxes and Reducing Benefits for High-Income Earners,
While Raising COLAs, Benefits for Low Income and Age 85+

College Park, MD - A new public consultation survey in Pennsylvania, five other swing states and nationally, finds significant bipartisan support for major proposals–including revenue increases and benefit cuts–that would reduce Social Security’s long-term shortfall by 78% and extend the program’s longevity for decades. [Full Report]

Without any reforms to revenues or benefits, the Social Security Trust Fund will be depleted by 2033, and benefits will be cut for all retirees.

Revenue Increases

Overwhelming majorities of Democrats and Republicans in Pennsylvania support two proposals to increase revenues, which would cover three-quarters of the Social Security shortfall:

Making Wages Over $400k Subject to the Payroll Tax: Currently, wages subject to the payroll tax are capped at $169,000. A proposal to make all wages over $400,000 subject to the payroll tax, which would eliminate 60% of the shortfall, is supported by 88% in Pennsylvania, including 86% of Republicans and 89% of Democrats. Bipartisan majorities in all swing states are in support (86-89%), as well as nationally (87%). [GRAPH]

Increasing the Payroll Tax: Respondents were given the option of gradually increasing the payroll tax over several years from 6.2 percent to 6.5 percent by 2030, 6.9 percent by 2038, or to 7.2 percent by 2044, or not raise it. Increasing the payroll tax to at least 6.5 percent, which would eliminate 15% of the shortfall, is supported by 85% in Pennsylvania (Republicans 86%, Democrats 85%). Bipartisan majorities in all swing states are in support (83-88%), as well as nationally (86%). [GRAPH]

Benefit Reductions

Two benefit reductions, which would cover a quarter of the Social Security shortfall,
also have robust bipartisan support:

Reducing Benefits for High-Income Earners: Respondents were given the options of reducing benefits for the top 20 percent of earners, the top 40 percent, or the top 50 percent, or they could not choose any of those options. Reducing benefits for the top 20 percent of income earners, which would eliminate 11% of the shortfall, is supported by 91% in Pennsylvania, with no difference between Republicans and Democrats (91%). Bipartisan majorities in all swing states are in support (91-94%), as well as nationally (92%). [GRAPH]

Raising the Retirement Age: Respondents were given options to gradually raise the full retirement age, which is currently set at 67 years old: raise it to 68 by 2033, to 69 by 2041, or to 70 by 2064, or they could not choose any of those options. Raising the retirement age to at least 68, which would eliminate 15% of the shortfall, is supported by 89% in Pennsylvania, with no difference between Republicans and Democrats (89%). Bipartisan majorities in all swing states are in support (88-91%), as well as nationally (89%). [GRAPH]

“While some of these proposals–such as raising the retirement age or raising payroll taxes–are not popular in themselves, when Americans consider the full picture, large bipartisan majorities support taking tough steps to secure the Social Security program,” commented Steven Kull, director of PPC.
Kull adds, “We were struck by how similar the Republicans and Democrats are on all these questions.”

Raising Benefits

Raising the Minimum Benefit: Increasing the minimum monthly benefit for someone who worked 30 years from $1,066 to $1,570 which would increase the shortfall by 7%, is supported by 72% in Pennsylvania (Republicans 72%, Democrats 74%). Bipartisan majorities in all swing states are in support (70-73%), as well as nationally (71%). The minimum benefit would rise with inflation, and always be set at 125% of the federal poverty line. [GRAPH]

Increasing Benefits for 85+: Raising benefits for those 85 and over by about $100 a month, which would increase the shortfall by 4%, is supported by 65% in Pennsylvania (Republicans 67%, Democrats 65%). Bipartisan majorities in all swing states are in support (64-67%), as well as nationally (68%). [GRAPH]

Increasing Cost of Living Adjustments (COLAs): Changing the way COLAs are calculated by focusing on the goods and services that older adults tend to buy, which would increase the shortfall by 12%, is supported by 66% in Pennsylvania (Republicans 68%, Democrats 66%). Bipartisan majorities in all swing states are in support (65-68%), as well as nationally (68%). [GRAPH]

About the Survey

The Pennsylvania survey was fielded August 2-17, 2024 with 614 adults by the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy. Sample was obtained from multiple online opt-in panels, including Cint, Dynata and Prodege. Sample collection and quality control was managed by QuantifyAI under the direction of the Program for Public Consultation. Samples were pre-stratified and weighted by age, race, gender, education, income, metro/non-metro, marital status, and home ownership to match the general adult population. The survey was offered in both English and Spanish. The confidence interval for the Pennsylvania sample is +/-4.5%.

Pennsylvania Questionnaire with Toplines, Crosstabs and Methodology

National and Six State Questionnaire with Toplines, Crosstabs and Methodology

National and Six State Full Report, Including Sources of Proposals Tested

Go Through the Policymaking Simulation on Social Security

Wisconsin

In Wisconsin Majorities of Republicans and Democrats Agree on Measures to Eliminate Most of Social Security Shortfall

Favor Raising Taxes and Reducing Benefits for High-Income Earners,
While Raising COLAs, Benefits for Low Income and Age 85+

College Park, MD - A new public consultation survey in Wisconsin, five other swing states and nationally, finds significant bipartisan support for major proposals–including revenue increases and benefit cuts–that would reduce Social Security’s long-term shortfall by 78% and extend the program’s longevity for decades. [Full Report]

Without any reforms to revenues or benefits, the Social Security Trust Fund will be depleted by 2033, and benefits will be cut for all retirees.

Revenue Increases

Overwhelming majorities of Democrats and Republicans in Wisconsin support two proposals to increase revenues, which would cover three-quarters of the Social Security shortfall:

Making Wages Over $400k Subject to the Payroll Tax: Currently, wages subject to the payroll tax are capped at $169,000. A proposal to make all wages over $400,000 subject to the payroll tax, which would eliminate 60% of the shortfall, is supported by 88% in Wisconsin, including 85% of Republicans and 92% of Democrats. Bipartisan majorities in all swing states are in support (86-89%), as well as nationally (87%). [GRAPH]

Increasing the Payroll Tax: Respondents were given the option of gradually increasing the payroll tax over several years from 6.2 percent to 6.5 percent by 2030, 6.9 percent by 2038, or to 7.2 percent by 2044, or not raise it. Increasing the payroll tax to at least 6.5 percent, which would eliminate 15% of the shortfall, is supported by 86% in Wisconsin (Republicans 85%, Democrats 88%). Bipartisan majorities in all swing states are in support (83-88%), as well as nationally (86%). [GRAPH]

Benefit Reductions

Two benefit reductions, which would cover a quarter of the Social Security shortfall,
also have robust bipartisan support:

Reducing Benefits for High-Income Earners: Respondents were given the options of reducing benefits for the top 20 percent of earners, the top 40 percent, or the top 50 percent, or they could not choose any of those options. Reducing benefits for the top 20 percent of income earners, which would eliminate 11% of the shortfall, is supported by 93% in Wisconsin (Republicans 90%, Democrats 94%). Bipartisan majorities in all swing states are in support (91-94%), as well as nationally (92%). [GRAPH]

Raising the Retirement Age: Respondents were given options to gradually raise the full retirement age, which is currently set at 67 years old: raise it to 68 by 2033, to 69 by 2041, or to 70 by 2064, or they could not choose any of those options. Raising the retirement age to at least 68, which would eliminate 15% of the shortfall, is supported by 88% in Wisconsin (Republicans 89%, Democrats 87%). Bipartisan majorities in all swing states are in support (88-91%), as well as nationally (89%). [GRAPH]

“While some of these proposals–such as raising the retirement age or raising payroll taxes–are not popular in themselves, when Americans consider the full picture, large bipartisan majorities support taking tough steps to secure the Social Security program,” commented Steven Kull, director of PPC.
Kull adds, “We were struck by how similar the Republicans and Democrats are on all these questions.”

Raising Benefits

Raising the Minimum Benefit: Increasing the minimum monthly benefit for someone who worked 30 years from $1,066 to $1,570 which would increase the shortfall by 7%, is supported by 70% in Wisconsin (Republicans 65%, Democrats 77%). Bipartisan majorities in all swing states are in support (70-73%), as well as nationally (71%). The minimum benefit would rise with inflation, and always be set at 125% of the federal poverty line. [GRAPH]

Increasing Benefits for 85+: Raising benefits for those 85 and over by about $100 a month, which would increase the shortfall by 4%, is supported by 65% in Wisconsin (Republicans 58%, Democrats 70%). Bipartisan majorities in all swing states are in support (64-67%), as well as nationally (68%). [GRAPH]

Increasing Cost of Living Adjustments (COLAs): Changing the way COLAs are calculated by focusing on the goods and services that older adults tend to buy, which would increase the shortfall by 12%, is supported by 66% in Wisconsin (Republicans 62%, Democrats 68%). Bipartisan majorities in all swing states are in support (65-68%), as well as nationally (68%). [GRAPH]

About the Survey

The Wisconsin survey was fielded August 2-17, 2024 with 602 adults by the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy. Sample was obtained from multiple online opt-in panels, including Cint, Dynata and Prodege. Sample collection and quality control was managed by QuantifyAI under the direction of the Program for Public Consultation. Samples were pre-stratified and weighted by age, race, gender, education, income, metro/non-metro, marital status, and home ownership to match the general adult population. The survey was offered in both English and Spanish. The confidence interval for the Wisconsin sample is +/-4.5%.

Wisconsin Questionnaire with Toplines, Crosstabs and Methodology

National and Six State Questionnaire with Toplines, Crosstabs and Methodology

National and Six State Full Report, Including Sources of Proposals Tested

Go Through the Policymaking Simulation on Social Security

The survey was fielded August 2-17, 2024 with 4,677 adults by the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy, including approximately 600 in each state of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and 1,224 nationally. Samples were obtained from multiple online opt-in panels, including Cint, Dynata and Prodege. Sample collection and quality control was managed by QuantifyAI under the direction of the Program for Public Consultation. Samples were pre-stratified and weighted by age, race, gender, education, income, metro/non-metro, home ownership, marital status, and partisan affiliation (nationally and in some states) to match the general adult population. The survey was offered in both English and Spanish. The confidence interval for the national sample is +/-3.2% and for each state sample it is +/-4.5%.