As of 2025, 68 million people receive benefits from the Social Security Administration (SSA). Seventy-six percent of these beneficiaries are retired workers, 11% are disabled workers, 8% are survivors of deceased workers, and the remaining 5% are spouses and dependents of retired or disabled workers.
Social Security policy directly impacts women. Fifteen percent of women receiving benefits are survivors or spouses of retired or disabled workers, while less than 1% of men receive benefits as survivors or spouses of retired or disabled workers.
Further, because of lower average lifetime earnings, retired women receive a lower average monthly benefit from Social Security. This does change if a woman’s benefits are based on another person’s work record, such as a spouse or survivor. Women disproportionately rely on Social Security benefits as spouses or survivors, and with lower average monthly benefits, any cut to benefits would disproportionately affect women.
However, despite the high dependency on Social Security benefits, the Social Security retirement trust fund will go insolvent in just seven years. When the trust fund goes insolvent, beneficiaries will face a 24% benefit cut across the board.
This needs urgently to be addressed. With such a short timeline before cuts take place, politicians who have promised not to touch Social Security will have to make changes or allow beneficiaries to suffer cuts under a rising cost of living.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CFRB) has proposed several different policies addressing Social Security, insolvency, and preventing drastic benefit cuts. One solution is raising the retirement age while raising the replacement formula for the lowest income brackets and lowering the replacement formula for the middle and upper income brackets. This is an approach that protects those who rely on Social Security benefits the most and cuts benefits to those who may be able to afford the cuts.
Another solution would be to cap the Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) at the adjustment received by the 75th percentile retiree. This has the potential to close one-tenth of the solvency gap.
Many solutions that would change the trajectory of the solvency gap are not popular because it requires cutting benefits that many people have come to rely on. Unfortunately, not touching Social Security is no longer an option. Social Security must change, or there will be even harsher consequences.
The most recent solution from the Center for Responsible Federal Budget is what they call a six-figure limit for Social Security. This would set a $100,000 cap on the total benefit a couple retiring at the normal retirement age can receive. The limit would be adjusted based on marital status and claiming age.
Only those couples who have earned the Social Security taxable maximum of $184,500 for at least 35 years are currently eligible to receive up to $100,000. This is a very small number right now, but CFRB expects this population to grow over time.
Some options come with a six-figure limit, including a nominal limit or indexing the limit to inflation or wages. Depending on how the limit is implemented, the six-figure limit could close up to 50% of the solvency gap.
A six-figure limit is also intriguing because it is highly progressive. Up to 90% of the savings would come from the top fifth of retirees while boosting benefits for the bottom 70% of beneficiaries.
Solutions that target retirees receiving the highest benefits take the Social Security program back to its original intent: protection against poverty in old age. Currently, this program does far more than protect against poverty, and in the process, will create greater harm by eventually failing to pay benefits to people who have become reliant on them. That is not protection; that is leaving a vulnerable population in trouble.