Social Security is very popular – prefer public surveys.

Overview Since it was established in 1935, the Social Security program has been very popular among the American people. For about half of beneficiaries, Social Security provides at least 50 percent of their income, and for about one-fifth of older adults, such benefits make up at least 90 percent of their income. However, for some time the benefits of the program have been in jeopardy. According to the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) 2022 Trustees’ Report, if no steps are taken by Congress to reform Social Security, its trust fund will be exhausted in 2034, and after that the program will only be able to deliver benefits based on current receipts—which would result in a 23% benefit cut to retirees. The SSA determines when the Trust Fund will be depleted by calculating Social Security’s funding shortfall: the amount by which benefit payments exceed revenues over a 75-year period. To give lawmakers options for how the shortfall could be reduced, the SSA publishes a list of revenue-increasing and benefit-reducing proposals, along with how much each would reduce the long-term shortfall. They also publish proposals to increase benefits, along with how much they would increase the shortfall. A major reason that these proposals have not been passed by Congress, and thus Social Security’s solvency has not been addressed, is a widespread assumption by many representatives that the American public is not willing or able to face the issue and thus bringing it up is too politically risky. Social Security has been called a “third rail,” implying that it is political suicide to address it. Much of the existing polling data tends to reinforce the belief that the public’s attitudes toward Social Security are too conflicted and anxious to support any kind of constructive action. While majorities believe that Social Security is headed for a crisis, when asked, in stand-alone questions, about raising the retirement age, cutting benefits, or raising taxes, majorities often say they do not find these options appealing. Public consultation surveys take a different approach that goes beyond initial reactions. Rather than a series of separate, stand-alone questions, respondents go through a process called a ‘policymaking simulation’ in which they are asked to go into a problem‐solving mode. The objective is to put respondents in the shoes of a policymaker. Respondents are given a background briefing, presented arguments for and against policy options, and then finally make their recommendations in a context in which they understand the impact of their choices on the viability of current benefit levels. In addition to concerns about the Social Security shortfall, there are proposals in recent legislation for increasing certain benefits (Social Security 2100: A Sacred Trust and Social Security Expansion Act). Naturally these would worsen the shortfall and the SSA has determined by how much. Design of the Social Security Policymaking Simulation Respondents first went through a briefing about the Social Security program which included: ● how the program is structured; and ● the nature and extent of the Social Security shortfall, along with its multiple causes. AMERICANS ON SOCIAL SECURITY 2 PROGRAM FOR PUBLIC CONSULTATION Respondents were then presented a series of reform options that have been put forward by the SSA, along with their effect on the long-term shortfall. These included ones that mitigated the shortfall: ● Raising the full retirement age ● Increasing the payroll tax ● Increase the amount of wages subject to the payroll tax ● Reducing benefits for high-income earners In addition, they evaluate options for increasing benefits. These included: ● Increasing the minimum benefit for those who have worked for 30 years ● Increasing benefits for beneficiaries 85 and over ● Reforming the cost-of-living adjustments so that it reflects what older adults tend to buy, which would make the adjustments to benefits higher than the current method In addition to a brief explanation of the option, they were told what impact it would have on the Social Security shortfall. For each option, respondents: ● evaluated 1‐2 arguments for and 1‐2 arguments against the option, in terms of how convincing they found the argument, and then ● evaluated each option in terms of how acceptable it would be on a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 being completely unacceptable, 10 being completely acceptable and 5 being just tolerable. Finally, respondents were presented all the reform options in a spreadsheet together with the impact of each option on the shortfall, in terms of the percentage of the shortfall. Respondents were asked to make their own comprehensive and integrated set of recommendations. An interactive feature gave respondents immediate feedback on the total impact of their recommendations on the shortfall.

Fielding of Survey The survey was conducted online from April 11 - May 15, 2022, with a national probability-based sample provided by Nielsen Scarborough from its sample of respondents, who were recruited by mail and telephone using a random sample of households. The full sample consisted of 2,545 respondents (margin of error 1.9%). Responses were weighted by age, gender, education, race and geographic region. Benchmarks for weights were obtained from the US Census’ Current Populations Survey of Registered Voters. The sample was also weighted by partisan affiliation. Democrats and Republicans identified below include those who lean toward one or the other party. A further analysis was conducted by dividing the sample six ways, depending on the PVI Cook rating of the respondent’s Congressional district. This enabled comparison of respondents who live in very red, somewhat red, leaning red, leaning blue, somewhat blue, and very blue districts. AMERICANS ON SOCIAL SECURITY 3 PROGRAM FOR PUBLIC CONSULTATION Key Recommendations Large bipartisan majorities favored a set of proposals that would, together, reduce the shortfall by 95%, by increasing revenues, reducing benefits for high-income earners and raising the full retirement age, as well as increasing the minimum monthly benefits (which increased the shortfall). More modest, but still bipartisan majorities favored two other proposals that would increase benefits for all beneficiaries, by changing the inflation index used to recalculate benefits, and increasing benefits for those 85 and over. These proposals would increase the shortfall by 17%. Taking all of the majority-supported proposals together, the shortfall would be reduced by 78 percent and push back the Trust Fund’s insolvency by decades. Addressing the Social Security Shortfall Making More Wages Subject to the Payroll Tax: Currently, wages subject to the payroll tax are capped at $147,000. An overwhelming majority of eight-in-ten, including eight-in-ten Republicans and nearly nine-in-ten Democrats favored a plan to also make all wages over $400,000 subject to the payroll tax. With inflation, the cap would continue to rise so that decades from now, all wages could become subject to the payroll tax. This proposal would eliminate 61% of the shortfall. Increasing the Payroll Tax: Three-in-four favored increasing the payroll tax from 6.2 to 6.5 percent including seven-in-ten Republicans and nearly eight-in-ten Democrats. This would eliminate 16% of the shortfall. Raising Retirement Age: Three-in-four favored gradually raising the retirement age from 67 to 68 including three-in-four Republicans and Democrats. This would eliminate 14% of the shortfall. Reducing Benefits for High Earners: Eight-in-ten favored reducing benefits to the top 20% of earners including nearly eight-in-ten Republicans and over eight-in-ten Democrats. This would eliminate 11% of the shortfall. Raising Benefits Raising the Minimum Benefit: Nearly two-in-three favored increasing the minimum monthly benefit for someone who has worked 30 years from $951 to $1,341, including six-in-ten Republicans and seven-in-ten Democrats. This would increase the shortfall by 7%. Supplementing Benefits for those 85 and Over: A slight majority favored increasing benefits for those 81 by about five percent, including small majorities of both Republicans and Democrats. This would increase the shortfall by 5%. Cost of Living Adjustments (COLAs) Changing the COLA to Account for What Older Adults Buy: A modest majority favored changing the way COLAs are calculated by focusing on the goods and services that older adults tend to buy, which would make them higher than the current method. A modest majority of Republicans and six-in-ten Democrats were in support. This would increase the shortfall by 12%.