As the "Department of Government Efficiency" campaign gains momentum, President Donald Trump has been given a tip on how to effectively exploit Elon Musk's experience in "relentlessly innovating and constantly cutting costs": reform entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare before they become insolvent. This is not a new strategy, as corporate media has been perpetuating the myth of looming Social Security insolvency for decades.
Many leading newspapers have criticized Musk's interventions into Social Security and other administrative programs, but few have challenged the narrative that Social Security is struggling and on the brink of bankruptcy. The Washington Post, in particular, has played a significant role in spreading this myth.
In 2025, income up to $176,100 is taxed for Social Security purposes. Anything beyond that is not. This means that the architect making close to $200 grand a year pays the same amount into Social Security as the chief executive who takes home seven figures. One simple way to increase funding for Social Security is to raise this regressive cap.
Despite acknowledging that "many Americans support the idea" of raising the limit, the Post's editorial board lumps this idea in with other unpopular solutions like raising the retirement age and slowing benefit growth for the top half of earners. However, raising the cap on income is a popular solution that would only affect the top 6% of income-earners.
President Joe Biden's proposed billionaires tax, which would place a 25% levy on households worth more than $100 million, is also an option that has been explored. This plan taxes accumulated wealth, so it ends up hitting money that often goes untaxed under current laws.
Raising the cap on income or implementing a billionaire's tax are both easy and popular solutions that have been overlooked in favor of more complex and unpopular options.
Reports of Social Security's impending demise are greatly exaggerated. The trustees' projections suggest that Social Security will not disappear when today's young adults retire, and that young workers will receive no benefits. Instead, the program needs a fairer tax system and better benefits to ensure its long-term sustainability.
"Social Security is an important part of our social safety net, and it's time for us to rethink our approach to funding it," said economist Paul Van De Water. "The current system is regressive and unfair, but with some simple changes, we can make Social Security more sustainable and equitable."
FAIR's work is sustained by generous contributors who allow us to remain independent. Donate today to support our mission to promote fair and accurate reporting on social issues.