2026年6月22日 / 美国东部时间上午10:00 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻
社会保障体系迫在眉睫的资金危机通常被归咎于人口结构问题:美国人口老龄化和出生率下降,导致供养退休人员的劳动者数量减少。但另一个因素也在消耗该项目的财政:不断扩大的收入不平等。
在过去几十年里,美国高薪人群的收入飙升,远远超过中低收入劳动者。这对社会保障体系来说已成问题,因为该体系仅对18.45万美元以下的年度收入征税,这意味着高收入群体更快增长的收入中有很大一部分未被纳入征税范围。
根据该项目最新的受托人报告,其结果是社会保障体系的收入基础正在萎缩。报告发现,需缴纳社会保障税的工资总额占比已从1984年的近87%降至如今的约83%,这在很大程度上是因为高收入者的薪资增长速度远快于其他人群,使得他们更多的收入超出了纳税上限。
“社会保障信托基金面临压力,是因为国会未能根据我们当前的实际经济状况对该项目进行调整,”进步智库罗斯福研究所所长伊丽莎白·威尔金斯本月早些时候表示。“如今太多收入流向了顶层人群,而这些收入规避了社会保障税。”
一些政策专家表示,取消18.45万美元的纳税上限是修复社会保障体系的方案之一,该方案可通过要求高收入美国人缴纳更多费用来支持这项退休和残疾保障项目,从而改善其财政状况。
受托人报告本月早些时候称,如果不进行全面改革,社会保障信托基金预计将在2032年底前耗尽资金。届时,该项目约7000万受益人每月的社会保障金将被削减22%,平均每月减少约500美元。
专家表示,这一结果将导致老年人、残疾人以及已故劳动者的子女和配偶陷入普遍的财务困境。社会保障体系此前也曾面临资金短缺问题,1980年代初,由于前十年的经济动荡,其信托基金曾濒临破产。
不平等如何削弱社会保障体系
1983年,美国立法者对社会保障体系进行了全面改革,其中包括逐步提高退休年龄和提高薪资税等多项调整。虽然薪资纳税上限每年会根据通胀情况进行调整,但1983年的改革并未针对随后几年的劳动力市场变化进行相应修改。
罗斯福研究所1月的一份报告显示,这可能是因为当时的预测认为,薪资分配和薪资增长将与过去保持相似。国会在1980年代依赖的精算预测假设,未来75年里,社会保障体系将持续对相同比例的薪资征税——约87%。
但随着高收入人群与其他美国人的收入差距拉大,越来越多他们的收入规避了社会保障薪资税,该组织的分析发现。
罗斯福研究所的报告显示,1983年至2000年间,美国前6%的劳动者的实际收入增长了62%。相比之下,收入低于薪资纳税上限的94%的劳动者,平均实际收入仅增长了17%。
罗斯福研究所称,自1983年以来,信托基金“在无意间被剥夺了必要的收入”。
取消纳税上限
自1930年代社会保障体系诞生以来就存在的纳税上限,经常被纳入强化社会保障体系的方案中。一些提案建议逐步取消该上限,另一些提案则会为收入在18.45万美元至25万美元甚至40万美元之间的人群设置“甜甜圈漏洞”。
根据这种方案,“甜甜圈漏洞”区间内的收入无需缴纳薪资税,但超过更高收入门槛的部分则需恢复征税。
根据美国社会保障管理局对这些提案的评估,取消或逐步取消纳税上限可填补该项目资金缺口的22%至67%。
罗斯福研究所表示,另一种选择是设置自动触发机制,当收入低于预测值时启动。例如,如果需缴纳社会保障税的薪资占比跌破87%,可自动调整纳税上限,以维持该比例。
美国退休人员协会公共政策研究所社会保障与储蓄高级主任乔尔·埃斯科维茨在最近一次讨论该项目资金问题的电话会议上表示,社会保障是“一个非常强大的项目,是可以被修复的”。“大多数美国人希望通过不削减福利的方式来修复它。”
Growing U.S. inequality is worsening Social Security’s financial crunch, group says
June 22, 2026 / 10:00 AM EDT / CBS News
Social Security’s looming funding crisis is usually blamed on demographics, with an aging U.S. population and declining birth rates leaving fewer workers to support retirees. But another force is also draining the program’s finances: widening income inequality.
In the last few decades, incomes of higher-paid Americans have soared, far outpacing those of low- and middle-class workers. That’s become a problem for Social Security because the program only taxes annual earnings up to $184,500, meaning it loses out on much of the faster income growth among top earners.
As a result, Social Security’s revenue base is eroding, according to the program’s latest trustees’ report. The share of total wages subject to Social Security taxes has fallen from almost 87% in 1984 to roughly 83% today, largely because high earners’ pay has grown much faster than everyone else’s, lifting more of their income above the tax cap, the report found.
“The Social Security trust fund is under strain because Congress has failed to update the program for the economy we actually have,” Elizabeth Wilkins, CEO of the Roosevelt Institute, a progressive think tank, said earlier this month. “Too much income now flows to the top, where it escapes Social Security taxation.”
Eliminating the $184,500 tax cap, one proposal for fixing Social Security, could shore up the program’s finances by requiring high-income Americans to contribute more to support the retirement and disability program, according to some policy experts.
Without an overhaul, Social Security’s trust fund is on track to become insolvent by the end of 2032, the trustees’ report said earlier this month. At that point, the program’s roughly 70 million beneficiaries would see a 22% cut to their monthly Social Security checks, an average reduction of about $500 per month.
That’s an outcome that experts say would lead to widespread financial hardship among seniors, disabled people, and children and spouses of deceased workers. Social Security has faced a financial shortfall before, when in the early 1980s its trust funds were on the brink of insolvency due to economic turbulence over the previous decade.
How inequality is weakening Social Security
In 1983, U.S. lawmakers overhauled Social Security by gradually increasing the retirement age and raising payroll taxes, among other changes. While the tax cap on wages adjusts each year to track inflation, it wasn’t tweaked in the 1983 reforms to account for the labor market shifts that followed in ensuing years.
That was likely due to projections at the time that the distribution of wages and wage growth would remain similar to the past. Actuarial projections that Congress relied on in the 1980s assumed that the program would continue to tax the same share of wages for the next 75 years — about 87% — according to a January report from the Roosevelt Institute.
But as higher earners pulled ahead of other Americans, more of their income has escaped the Social Security payroll tax, the group’s analysis found.
Real earnings for the top 6% of American workers rose 62% from 1983 through 2000, the Roosevelt report said. By comparison, the 94% of workers whose incomes were below the payroll tax cap saw average real earnings gains of 17%, the group found.
The trust fund has been “inadvertently starved of necessary revenue” since 1983, according to the Roosevelt Institute.
Removing the tax cap
The tax cap, which has been in place since the program debuted in the 1930s, is frequently mentioned in plans to strengthen Social Security. Some proposals would phase it out over time, while others would create a “donut hole” for people earning $184,500 to $250,000, or even $400,000.
Under that approach, earnings in the donut hole would not be subject to payroll taxes, but the tax would resume above the higher income threshold.
Removing or phasing out the tax cap could close between 22% and 67% of the program’s funding gap, according to the Social Security Administration’s scoring of these proposals.
Another option would be to include automatic triggers that kick in when revenue is below projections, the Roosevelt Institute said. For instance, if the share of wages subject to Social Security taxes fell below 87%, the taxable maximum could automatically adjust to keep the share at that level.
Social Security is “a very strong program that can be fixed,” said Joel Eskovitz, a senior director of Social Security and savings at the AARP Public Policy Institute, in a recent conference call to discuss the program’s funding issues. “Most Americans want it to be fixed by not cutting benefits.”
发表回复