Ideas cited by the Brookings Institution from the Progressive Policy Institute, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Cato Institute all recommend shifting the program away from its current wage-replacement structure toward a flat benefit aimed primarily at preventing poverty in old age.
Supporters say a flat benefit would guarantee a basic income floor. Critics warn it would weaken a program that most Americans view as earned insurance — and could expose middle-income retirees and homeowners to greater financial risk.
Why structure matters to homeowners
Social Security currently replaces a percentage of a worker’s past earnings, with lower-wage workers receiving a higher replacement rate.
That structure provides predictability — a key concern for homeowners budgeting for long-term housing costs.
Under a flat benefit model, retirees with decades of higher earnings would receive roughly the same monthly payment as lower earners, Brookings said.
Andrew Biggs of AEI proposes a benefit equal to 28% of the national average wage for single retirees and 41% for couples. Using 2024 wage projections, that would translate to about $19,600 annually for singles and $28,600 for couples.
While those amounts exceed the federal poverty threshold, they are significantly lower than current benefits for many middle-income retirees.
For senior homeowners facing rising property taxes, insurance premiums and home repair costs, a flatter benefit could mean less margin for unexpected expenses, Brookings said.
Poverty among seniors already low
Advocates of flat benefits emphasize poverty reduction, but data in the report suggests poverty among older Americans is already relatively low.
When underreported income is accounted for using the U.S. Census Bureau’s National Experimental Well-Being Statistics, poverty among adults 65 and older was about 6% in 2021. Among older citizens, the rate was even lower.
That matters because Social Security was designed primarily as wage insurance, not a welfare program.
Experts note that changing its core purpose could weaken public support and make benefits more vulnerable to future cuts — a risk for homeowners who depend on stable income streams.
Alternative paths to solvency
Other proposals cited by Brookings show that insolvency can be addressed without dismantling Social Security’s structure.
A 2025 bipartisan blueprint by former lawmakers and economists — along with an earlier plan from the Bipartisan Policy Center — would restore long-term solvency through a mix of modest tax increases and targeted benefit adjustments.
Those plans preserve wage replacement while gradually raising the taxable wage cap, slightly increasing payroll tax rates and trimming benefits for higher earners.
They also include benefit improvements, such as stronger survivor protections, that help households stay financially stable after the loss of a spouse — a common concern among older homeowners.
Importantly, these approaches avoid abrupt benefit reductions and maintain the link between lifetime earnings and retirement income.
Policy analysts argue that if Congress wants to further reduce elderly poverty, more efficient tools exist outside Social Security, such as expanding Supplemental Security Income, lowering Medicare premiums or increasing housing assistance — all without risking benefit predictability.
With insolvency approaching, Brookings said lawmakers face a stark choice: adjust Social Security’s finances while preserving its core promise, or remake the program in ways that could leave many senior homeowners with less security in retirement.
