Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute2Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors3Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesA report published October 6, 2026, says 89% of Americans over 65 supported protecting Social Security benefits even if younger workers paid higher taxes. That figure is attributed to a Cato poll in the report, but the underlying age-specific question and tabulation are not confirmed in Cato’s available survey report. The reported result prompted criticism from several conservative commentators, turning a policy question into a dispute over who should bear the cost of scheduled benefits.
What the report says—and what the 89% figure establishes
Summa Money’s October 6, 2026 article, reproducing a Newsweek report, says a Cato poll found that 89% of Americans over age 65 favored protecting Social Security benefits even if that meant higher taxes for younger workers. The article’s description is the basis for that age-specific figure; Cato’s December 2025 survey report does not independently verify the exact question wording or the 65-and-older tabulation. Read the report.
The distinction matters: the 89% should be treated as a result reported by that article, not as a verified Cato survey finding. The quoted wording is the report’s description of the question, not a confirmed reproduction of Cato’s questionnaire.
What Cato’s published survey separately found
Cato’s December 2025 Social Security survey report presents two related but distinct findings. Neither is the age-specific 89% figure.
#1 Best Overall
| Question framing | Reported result | How to interpret it |
|---|---|---|
| Choose between protecting current retirees’ benefits, even if younger workers pay higher taxes, and protecting younger workers from higher taxes, even if current retirees’ benefits are reduced. | 69% chose protecting current retirees’ benefits; 31% chose protecting younger workers from higher taxes. | A forced choice between those two stated priorities; not a finding specifically about respondents over 65. |
| Would respondents support raising Social Security payroll taxes to maintain current seniors’ benefits if current workers would eventually get back less than they paid in? | 39% favored the increase; 61% opposed it. | A different question with an explicit tradeoff about workers’ eventual return. It should not be combined with the 69%–31% result. |
Both results are from Cato’s December 2025 Social Security Survey. Together, they show how answers can shift with the precise choice presented: protecting retirees’ benefits in a comparison is not the same question as raising payroll taxes when workers may eventually receive less than they paid.
Why conservative commentators objected
The report says Dana Loesch, Matt Walsh, Chris Martz, and Meghan McCain criticized the reported result. Their reactions framed it as an intergenerational fairness dispute: whether younger workers and families should pay more to maintain benefits for older people. These are the views of named commentators, not evidence that conservatives generally—or all members of any generation—hold one position.
Loesch’s post, as quoted in the report, argued that younger generations should not have to give up more of their incomes to compensate for decisions by politicians. The report also quoted finance expert Michael Ryan saying, “Social Security has always had an intergenerational bargain underneath it. And now the bill is getting harder to ignore.” Financial literacy instructor Alex Beene said, “The reality is this issue is far more complex that simply raising taxes on some to pay for benefits for others.” These quotations are reproduced as the article attributed them; they do not settle the policy question.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What is at stake in Social Security reform
Maintaining scheduled benefits requires choices about revenue, benefit levels, eligibility ages, and which generations or income groups bear the costs. The report mentions options including increasing payroll taxes, changing the earnings cap, raising retirement ages, and reducing benefits for higher earners. These are policy directions under discussion, not enacted changes or a settled plan.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Cato’s Social Security policy hub says that, based on the 2026 Trustees Report and CBO long-term projections, closing the OASI shortfall without reducing scheduled benefits would require an immediate and permanent increase in the combined payroll tax rate from 12.4% to 16.95%. This is Cato’s stated estimate, not a policy decision. Cato’s Social Security policy hub identifies the projection basis and discusses reform.
- Higher payroll taxes: Increase revenue from covered workers and employers; the burden depends on the rate, timing, and design.
- Changing the earnings cap: Could shift more of the payroll-tax burden toward higher earners; the report does not quantify a specific version.
- Raising retirement ages: Would change when people qualify for benefits, with effects that vary by worker and timing.
- Reducing benefits for higher earners: Would preserve more benefits for some recipients while changing scheduled payments for others.
The reported commentary and survey findings illuminate competing priorities, but they do not provide comparable estimates for these options. They cannot, by themselves, show which reform would be fairest or most effective.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
