How the Warren-Moreno Social Security plan taxes everything but caps your benefits
In a striking break from typical gridlock, an unexpected legislative partnership has emerged aimed at solving one of the nation’s most pressing financial dilemmas. Senators Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat, and Bernie Moreno, an Ohio Republican, recently urged Congress in a joint op-ed for The New York Times to take immediate action to stabilize the country’s retirement safety net. The pair outlined a bipartisan plan they say would “save Social Security for generations of Americans.”
The partnership between Warren and Moreno stands out because of their vastly different political backgrounds. Warren has spent her career as a progressive focused on protecting consumers from financial tricks and traps, while Moreno is a conservative businessman who built a company generating hundreds of jobs. Despite their ideological disagreements, they found common ground on the urgent need to protect retirement benefits. “Instead of cutting benefits for the retirees who count on Social Security, we need to take bipartisan action to protect those benefits, reward work and restore fairness,” Warren and Moreno wrote. Their shared vision represents a notable shift away from party-line bickering.
The ticking clock on the Social Security trust fund
The push for reform comes as the program faces an ever-tightening budget squeeze. Historically a cornerstone of retirement security for tens of millions of Americans, the retirement trust fund is rapidly running out of time. According to the latest trustees report released by the Social Security Administration, the main trust fund will run dry by late 2032.
However, if Congress combines the old-age and disability funds, insolvency would arrive in 2034. Either way, the timeline is shorter than previous estimates. If Congress fails to act before depletion, administrators will be forced to implement automatic cuts, dialing back Social Security benefits by about 25% in 2032.
Why the retirement safety net is losing water
The program generates its revenue through a payroll tax paid by employees and employers, keeping its income separate from the overall federal budget. However, since the early 2010s, Social Security has paid more in benefits than it takes in through taxes, shrinking its available reserves.
According to a study issued by the Urban Institute, this shortfall has been exacerbated by long-term demographic shifts, including a decline in births, which has resulted in fewer active taxpayers. At the same time, the massive Baby Boomer generation has entered retirement and begun drawing benefits.
This baseline demographic strain has been sharply accelerated by two major, recent policy changes enacted by Congress:
The Social Security Fairness Act (Biden): Signed into law on January 5, 2025, this bipartisan bill repealed the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and the Government Pension Offset (GPO). While praised for restoring full benefits to government employees (like teachers, police officers, and firefighters), it increased payouts to a select group by an estimated $196 billion to $233 billion over ten years without establishing any new revenue stream to offset the cost.
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (Trump): Enacted in July 2025, this sweeping tax reconciliation package expanded senior standard deductions by additional $6,000 to shield nearly 90% of retirees from paying federal taxes on their benefits. Because federal income taxes on benefits are legally designated to credit directly back into the Social Security trust funds, this tax cut inadvertently choked off a critical revenue pipeline, costing the trust funds approximately $169 billion over a decade.
Together, these legislative changes expanded the program’s long-term funding gap, pulling the projected OASI insolvency date forward from 2033 to late 2032.
Uncapped taxes but capped benefits under the proposed fix
To address this gap, Warren and Moreno’s proposal targets the payroll tax structure. Currently, workers and their employers each pay a $6.2% rate (self-employed individuals pay 12.4%) up to a maximum cap of $184,500 in annual income. Any earnings beyond that threshold are completely tax-free.
Under the current system, a worker cannot pay more than $22,878 into Social Security annually.
The bipartisan plan would lift this taxable maximum entirely, requiring high earners making more than $184,500 per year to pay the 12.4% combined tax on the entirety of their earnings.
Critically, the proposal does not raise retirement benefits for these high earners. While they would pay taxes on 100% of their income, their eventual retirement payouts would remain capped at the original $184,500 contribution limit. This structural asymmetry ensures that all newly generated revenue goes directly toward rescuing the trust fund, rather than being paid back out in larger checks to wealthy retirees.
The fairness argument driving the proposal
The senators have framed this tax asymmetry as a fundamental issue of economic fairness. Because the vast majority of Americans earn less than the taxable limit, they effectively pay Social Security taxes on every single dollar they earn, while the ultra-wealthy only pay on a small fraction of theirs.
“Why should a middle-class nurse pay a larger share of her paycheck — than a wealthy corporate lawyer?” Warren and Moreno wrote in their op-ed. They further argued: “Since the vast majority of Americans make less than that, most people are paying Social Security taxes on 100 percent of their earnings while the highest earners are paying on only part of theirs.”
They asserted that the wealthiest citizens; who have benefited most from the nation’s economic opportunities; should contribute the same percentage of their income as “a factory worker in Chillicothe, Ohio, or a teacher in Worcester, Mass.”
Projected trillion-dollar impact on funding and solvency
Proponents highlight the massive financial rescue this policy would achieve. According to an analysis from the non-partisan Peterson Institute, eliminating the tax cap would inject approximately $3.4 trillion in additional revenue over the next decade. The institute estimates that this single policy change would close more than half of the program’s long-term funding gap.
“Lifting the cap so that all income is treated the same would generate substantial revenue that would extend the solvency of Social Security for another generation,” wrote the senators, pointing to the stable foundation the program must provide. “With rising prices and artificial intelligence causing economic uncertainty for the future, Social Security must remain a stable foundation to help retirees afford life’s basic necessities.”
Growing opposition to a giant tax increase
Despite the plan’s popular appeal, it faces significant pushback from fiscal conservatives. Critics argue that lifting the cap represents a massive tax hike on businesses and high-income professionals, particularly in high-tax states like California.
Republican Sen. Jon Husted of Ohio strongly criticized the plan, calling the proposal a “giant tax increase.” Husted noted: “We need to secure social security, we need to protect it, we need to make it stronger. But I’m not on board with the approach that they’ve outlined.”
Financial experts also warn of the economic drag of such a tax hike and by itself may not close the entire long-term shortfall.
Alternative fixes to avoid a 25% benefit cut
If Congress rejects lifting the tax cap and restricting the benefits, they will have to consider other unpopular choices to prevent the looming 25% benefit cut. One alternative proposed by researchers involves raising the baseline payroll tax rate by 1% percentage point across the board, moving the combined rate from 12.4% to 13.4%. The Peterson Institute notes this move would generate $601 billion over 10 years, though it would only close about a quarter of the program’s funding gap.
Other lawmakers have proposed establishing a bipartisan, 13 member independent commission appointed by congressional leaders and the president to design a package of revenue increases and expense reductions. Regardless of the path chosen, policy experts warn that procrastination is dangerous. As the Urban Institute cautioned, “Waiting only makes the changes larger and more difficult.”
The political battle ahead for the proposed legislation
While Warren and Moreno are actively working on drafting legislation, formal bills reflecting the proposal have not yet been introduced in either chamber of Congress, and spokespeople for both senators have declined to comment on the status of the measures.
The bipartisan sponsorship gives the idea more credibility than a typical party-line proposal, but passage remains highly uncertain. Many lawmakers remain staunchly opposed to increasing payroll taxes at any level, while others argue that the wealthiest retirees should see benefit cuts via means-testing instead of taxing workers further.
“Social Security was created by overwhelming bipartisan congressional majorities,” Warren and Moreno concluded in their call to action. “Today, members of Congress from both parties must come together again to save it… Preserving the American dream for our children and grandchildren depends on it.”
Like Financial Freedom Countdown content? Be sure to follow us!
14 essential strategies to maximize your Social Security and avoid costly mistakes
Social Security is a vital lifeline for many seniors, providing crucial income support during retirement. With inflation at its highest in four decades, Social Security’s inflation-adjusted benefits offer protection against rising costs.
Rising interest rates have disrupted many retirement portfolios, causing bond fund values to plummet. In this volatile financial landscape, Social Security can stabilize a typical stock-bond retirement portfolio. By implementing smart strategies, retirees can maximize their Social Security benefits and ensure a more secure financial future.
14 Essential Strategies to Maximize Your Social Security and Avoid Costly Mistakes
11 reasons you should claim Social Security early
Deciding when to claim Social Security is often about maximizing your benefit. Financial planners usually advise delaying your claim for as long as possible to secure the highest monthly payment. Your benefit is based on your lifetime earnings, with a full payout available at your full retirement age (FRA), which is currently between 66 and 67 depending on your birth year. Claiming before FRA results in a permanent reduction in your monthly benefit, while waiting beyond FRA leads to a permanent increase. However, the decision isn’t solely about maximizing the monthly check. Personal factors such as health, family circumstances, and financial needs can play a significant role in determining the right time to claim.
11 Reasons You Should Claim Social Security Early
Did you find this article helpful? We’d love to hear your thoughts! Leave a comment with the box on the left-hand side of the screen and share your thoughts.
Also, do you want to stay up-to-date on our latest content?
1. Follow us by clicking the [+ Follow] button above,
2. Give the article a Thumbs Up on the top-left side of the screen.
3. And lastly, if you think this information would benefit your friends and family, don’t hesitate to share it with them!
John Dealbreuin came from a third world country to the US with only $1,000 not knowing anyone; guided by an immigrant dream. In 12 years, he achieved his retirement number.
He started Financial Freedom Countdown to help everyone think differently about their financial challenges and live their best lives. John resides in the San Francisco Bay Area enjoying nature trails and weight training.
Here are his recommended tools
Personal Capital: This is a free tool John uses to track his net worth on a regular basis and as a retirement planner. It also alerts him wrt hidden fees and has a budget tracker included.
Platforms like Yieldstreet provide investment options in art, legal, real estate, structured notes, venture capital, etc. They also have fixed-income portfolios spread across multiple asset classes with a single investment with low minimums of $10,000.
