Opinions cited by Brookings Institution from the Progressive Policy Institutei American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and Cato Center all recommended that the program be moved from a wage replacement to a comprehensive benefit aimed at preventing poverty in old age.
Proponents say a flat rate of return would ensure a stable income base. Critics warn that it would weaken the system that many Americans view as the insurance they got — and could expose middle-income retirees and homeowners to greater financial risk.
Why structure is important to homeowners
Social Security currently replaces a percentage of a former employee’s earnings, and low-wage workers receive a higher replacement rate.
That structure provides predictability — a primary concern for homeowners budgeting for long-term housing costs.
Under the low-income model, retirees with decades of high earnings would receive about the same monthly payment as low-income earners, Brookings said.
AEI’s Andrew Biggs proposes a benefit equal to 28% of average national income for single retirees and 41% for married couples. Using 2024 salary estimates, that would translate to about $19,600 a year for singles and $28,600 for singles.
While those numbers exceed the federal poverty threshold, they are much lower than current benefits for most middle-income earners.
For high-income homeowners facing rising property taxes, insurance premiums and home repair costs, lower profits may mean less margin for unexpected expenses, Brookings said.
Poverty among the elderly is already low
Advocates of flat benefits emphasize poverty reduction, but the data in the report suggests that poverty among older Americans is already very low.
When underreported income is calculated using the US Census Bureau‘s National Vital Statistics, poverty among adults 65 and older was nearly 6% in 2021. For older citizens, the rate was even lower.
That’s important because Social Security is designed primarily as income insurance, not a welfare program.
Experts note that changing its primary purpose could weaken public support and put benefits at risk of future cuts – a danger to homeowners who rely on a steady income.
Alternative routes to solvency
Some proposals cited by Brookings show that debt can be solved without dismantling the Social Security system.
A bipartisan 2025 plan for former lawmakers and economists — and an earlier plan from Bipartisan Policy Center – will repay long-term debt through a combination of moderate tax increases and targeted benefit adjustments.
Those plans maintain wage adjustment while gradually increasing the taxable wage rate, slowly increasing low-income tax rates and cutting benefits for high earners.
They also include benefits improvements, such as stronger survivor protection, which help families stay financially stable after losing a spouse — a common concern among older homeowners.
Importantly, these methods avoid sudden reductions in benefits and maintain a link between lifetime earnings and retirement income.
Policy analysts argue that if Congress wants to continue reducing poverty in the elderly, more effective tools exist outside of Social Security, such as increasing Supplemental Security Income, reducing Medicare premiums or increasing housing assistance – all without risking the predictability of benefits.
As the bills loom, Brookings said lawmakers face a stark choice: fix Social Security’s finances while keeping its core promise, or reshape the program in ways that would leave many older homeowners less secure in retirement.
