Should Wealthy Retirees Give Back Their Social Security Checks? A Modest Proposal to Save the System

7 min read

Just now

Listen

Press enter or click to view image in full size

The clock is ticking on Social Security. In just eight years, the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance trust fund will run dry, forcing automatic benefit cuts of 23 percent for all recipients — grandmothers living on $1,200 a month and billionaires alike. While politicians debate raising taxes or cutting benefits, a simpler solution sits untapped: asking America’s wealthiest retirees to voluntarily return benefits they don’t need.crfb+1

Consider Warren Buffett. The 95-year-old investor, worth over $100 billion, is eligible for the maximum Social Security benefit of $5,108 per month — more than $61,000 a year. For Buffett, that sum is a rounding error. For millions of others receiving the average benefit of just $2,009 per month, it’s the difference between paying rent and homelessness.nasdaq+1

The Growing Divide in Retirement Security

America’s retirement system creates a peculiar paradox: those who need Social Security least often receive the most. The program’s benefit formula rewards high lifetime earners, with maximum benefits reaching $5,108 monthly for those who earned at or above $176,100 for 35 years and delayed claiming until age 70. Meanwhile, low-wage workers who never earned more than minimum wage might receive less than $1,000 per month.bankrate

The wealth gap among retirees is stark. For families in the top 10 percent of the wealth distribution, Social Security represents only 8 percent of their total assets. These retirees typically have substantial 401(k) accounts, paid-off homes, investment portfolios, and pension income. In contrast, Social Security accounts for 30 to 49 percent of assets for families in other wealth groups — often their only buffer against poverty.cbo

Currently, approximately 56.1 million retired workers and their families receive Social Security benefits. Among them are thousands of millionaires and multi-millionaires collecting checks they could easily forgo. A retired physician with $3 million in retirement accounts and a paid-off $800,000 home might receive $4,500 monthly from Social Security — money that barely registers in their budget. Yet a former home health aide who worked equally long but earned far less might receive $1,400 monthly, struggling to cover basic expenses.kiplinger

The Looming Crisis

The 2025 Social Security Trustees Report paints a dire picture. The program faces a 75-year actuarial imbalance of 3.82 percent of payroll — the largest shortfall since 1977. When the trust fund depletes in 2033, the law requires benefits be cut to match incoming tax revenue. That 23 percent cut would devastate low-income seniors while merely inconveniencing wealthy ones.bipartisanpolicy+1

To restore full solvency without cutting benefits would require raising payroll taxes by 29 percent — an increase of roughly 3.7 percentage points for both workers and employers. Alternatively, benefits could be reduced by 22 percent immediately. Neither option has garnered sufficient political support, leaving the program careening toward insolvency.crfb

A Voluntary Solution: The Patriotic Repatriation Program

Rather than imposing mandatory means testing — which remains politically contentious — Congress could create a simple, voluntary system allowing wealthy retirees to return some or all of their benefits. Call it the Voluntary Benefit Repatriation Program, or more evocatively, the “Patriotic Repatriation” initiative.

Here’s how it would work: Any Social Security recipient could elect online, by phone, or by mail to waive 25, 50, 75, or 100 percent of their monthly benefit. The forfeited amounts would flow into a dedicated sub-fund within the Social Security trust, legally earmarked for two purposes: extending the program’s solvency and boosting benefits for the lowest-income recipients.

Real-World Examples

Michael, Retired Corporate Executive: After a successful career in finance, 68-year-old Michael receives $4,800 monthly from Social Security. He also draws $12,000 monthly from his $2.8 million 401(k) and owns his home outright. His annual expenses run about $120,000, easily covered by his 401(k) alone. Michael elects to return 100 percent of his Social Security benefit — $57,600 annually.

Patricia, Former Small Business Owner: Patricia, 72, sold her successful boutique and netted $1.5 million, which she invested conservatively. Her portfolio generates $60,000 annually, and she receives $3,200 monthly from Social Security. Comfortable but not extravagant, she chooses to return 50 percent of her benefit — $19,200 per year — keeping the other half as inflation protection.

David, Retired Teacher: David worked 40 years teaching high school, earning modest wages. His pension provides $2,400 monthly, and his Social Security adds $2,200 monthly. He and his wife own a paid-off home but have limited savings beyond a small emergency fund. David does not participate in the repatriation program, keeping his full benefit.

Elena, Former Retail Worker: Elena spent 35 years working retail and food service, never earning above $32,000 annually. Her Social Security benefit is $1,380 monthly — barely covering her rent. Under the program, Elena would receive a supplemental payment funded by repatriated benefits, boosting her monthly check to $1,800 — enough to cover rent and food with dignity.

If just 10 percent of recipients in the top earnings brackets participated at an average 50 percent waiver rate, the program could generate billions annually to shore up the trust fund and assist low-benefit recipients.

The Precedent for Voluntary Public Contribution

This isn’t unprecedented. Wealthy individuals regularly donate to causes they believe in. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett founded the Giving Pledge, asking billionaires to give away most of their wealth. Why not extend this ethos of patriotic giving to Social Security?thestreet

Buffett himself has advocated for Social Security reform, including raising the maximum income subject to Social Security tax. Returning his own benefits would be consistent with his stated values. Many other high-net-worth retirees might welcome a straightforward mechanism to contribute directly to the system’s stability while helping struggling seniors.thestreet

Addressing the Skeptics

“Rich people will never voluntarily give up money.” Perhaps not all, but many might. If the program included public recognition — an optional honor roll of participants, certificates acknowledging their contribution, or similar recognition — some would participate out of genuine concern for the system and desire for public acknowledgment of their patriotism.

“It won’t raise enough money to matter.” Even modest participation could make a meaningful difference. The program wouldn’t solve the entire funding gap alone, but combined with other reforms — raising the payroll tax cap, adjusting cost-of-living formulas, or gradually increasing the retirement age — it could be part of a comprehensive solution.

“This is just means testing by another name.” No. Means testing is mandatory and based on government-imposed income or asset thresholds. This proposal is entirely voluntary — a patriotic choice, not a government mandate. Those who need or want their full benefit keep it; those who don’t can contribute.

Get David Gower’s stories in your inbox

Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.

“Why should wealthy retirees get to decide who gets help?” They wouldn’t. The repatriated funds would be distributed according to congressionally enacted formulas targeting low-benefit recipients, administered by the Social Security Administration under the same rules and oversight as the rest of the program.

How Congress Could Act

Legislation could be drafted within months. The bill would need to:

Authorize the voluntary waiver mechanism, allowing beneficiaries to elect waiver percentages that adjust annually
Create a legally segregated trust sub-fund for repatriated benefits, protected from use for any purpose except Social Security
Establish formulas for supplemental payments to low-benefit recipients, ensuring transparency and stability
Clarify tax treatment so participants aren’t taxed on benefits they immediately return
Protect vulnerable beneficiaries from coercion, with special safeguards for those under guardianship
Require annual public reporting on participation rates, amounts repatriated, and impacts on trust fund solvency

Implementation could begin within two years. The Social Security Administration would add a simple online interface allowing beneficiaries to elect their waiver percentage during an annual enrollment period, similar to Medicare open enrollment.

Beyond Volunteerism: Optional Means Testing

If voluntary repatriation proves insufficient, Congress could add an optional companion provision imposing modest mandatory reductions on very high-income retirees. For example, benefits could phase down gradually for retirees with non-Social Security income exceeding $200,000 annually (individual) or $400,000 (married). The Heritage Foundation has proposed starting reductions at $55,000 individual income, with benefits phasing out entirely at higher levels.actuary

Such means testing remains politically divisive, with Democrats generally opposing it in favor of raising taxes. Keeping mandatory reductions separate from the core voluntary program would allow Congress to pursue the less controversial approach first.money

The Moral Case

Social Security is insurance against poverty in old age, not a universal entitlement regardless of need. When the system was created during the Great Depression, few Americans accumulated substantial private wealth. Today, millions of retirees have seven-figure nest eggs. Asking — not forcing — those with ample resources to step aside so those with nothing can survive is not radical; it’s decent.

In 2033, when the trust fund runs dry, the government will be forced to cut benefits for everyone, including the desperately poor. A 23 percent cut to a $5,000 monthly check leaves a wealthy retiree with $3,850 — uncomfortable but manageable. A 23 percent cut to a $1,200 monthly check leaves a poor widow with $924 — potentially catastrophic.bipartisanpolicy+1

Giving wealthy retirees the opportunity to prevent that outcome by voluntarily returning benefits they don’t need isn’t just good policy. It’s an appeal to the better angels of our nature — a chance for Americans who have prospered to ensure that those who struggled aren’t abandoned in their final years.

The question isn’t whether we can save Social Security. The question is whether we have the collective will to do so before it’s too late.