HR-9519-119
Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committees on Education and Workforce, and Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Sponsored by John Larson (D-CT)
What it does
This bill would increase Social Security benefits across the board (raising the benefit formula from 90% to 93% for 2027-2036), adopt a new cost-of-living adjustment based on the higher of two consumer price indexes, raise the minimum benefit for long-term low earners, raise the income thresholds before benefits are taxed, improve widow/widower benefits, add benefit increases after 15 years of eligibility, create Social Security credits for unpaid caregivers, eliminate the 5-month waiting period for disability benefits, phase out the earnings cliff for disabled beneficiaries who work, extend child benefits to college students under 26, and fund these changes by applying Social Security payroll taxes to wages above the current cap and to net investment income. It also creates a dedicated Social Security Trust Fund and adds provisions on SSA staffing, field offices, data protection, and beneficiary representation.
Who benefits
Current and future Social Security beneficiaries, including retirees, widows/widowers, disabled workers, low-income long-term workers, unpaid family caregivers, disabled workers who want to return to employment, and college-age dependents of deceased or disabled workers. SSA field office staff and beneficiaries who rely on in-person service would benefit from workforce and office provisions.
Who is hurt
High-income workers earning above the current Social Security wage base (about $168,600 in 2024) and individuals with substantial net investment income, who would face new payroll or investment taxes. Employers who match payroll taxes on high earners would also see increased costs. Some fiscal conservatives and future taxpayers may bear costs if trust fund projections do not materialize as expected.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that Social Security benefits have not kept pace with seniors' actual cost of living, particularly medical and housing expenses, and that the current wage cap allows high earners to pay proportionally less into the system. They contend that lifting the payroll tax cap and taxing investment income would extend the trust fund's solvency for decades while providing meaningful benefit increases to disabled workers, widows, caregivers, and low-income retirees who are most vulnerable to poverty.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that removing the wage base cap amounts to a substantial tax increase on higher earners without a corresponding cap on their future benefits, undermining the historical wage-insurance structure of Social Security. They contend that expanding benefits so broadly, including new categories like caregiver credits and extended child benefits, could strain the program's finances further if projected revenue from new taxes falls short, shifting the burden to future workers and taxpayers.
Constitutional context
Social Security taxes and benefits rest on Congress's taxing and spending power under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, the same authority the Supreme Court upheld in Helvering v. Davis (1937) when it found the original Social Security Act's payroll tax and benefit scheme a valid exercise of the spending power for the general welfare.
Checks and balances
Congress would set new tax rates and benefit formulas by statute, while the Social Security Administration, an executive branch agency, would implement recomputation and administrative rules, with courts available to review disputes over benefit determinations.
Historical precedent
Similar comprehensive Social Security expansion and payroll tax cap removal proposals, including earlier versions of the Social Security 2100 Act, have been introduced in prior Congresses without enactment.