A one-time wealth tax on the richest 1% of households is highly unlikely to generate enough revenue to make Social Security's retirement trust fund solvent for 75 years, the Congressional Budget Office told senators.
CBO was responding to questions submitted after a March hearing on Social Security. The agency did not estimate a tax rate or score legislation; it explained why a simple comparison of wealth and the program's financing gap would overstate potential collections.

The Social Security trustees estimate the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance program's unfunded obligation over 75 years at $30.3 trillion. Federal Reserve data put wealth held by the top 1% at $55 trillion in the first quarter of 2026.
Those figures are not directly interchangeable. CBO said a tax broad enough to cover housing, closely held businesses and retirement accounts would be difficult to design and administer, while households would have strong incentives to reduce taxable wealth.
Behavioral responses would substantially reduce revenue relative to multiplying a headline tax rate by current wealth, CBO said. The agency also said a one-time levy large enough to pursue the target would have significant effects on the broader economy.
CBO therefore concluded that the effective rate would need to be very high and would probably still miss the 75-year goal. The agency noted that the Joint Committee on Taxation, not CBO alone, would estimate the revenue from an actual wealth-tax bill.

The answer also cautioned that 75-year balance would not guarantee lasting solvency because the projected gap between Social Security revenue and outlays widens after the projection window.
CBO projects that the OASI trust fund will be exhausted in fiscal 2032 under current law, while the Disability Insurance trust fund remains solvent for more than 30 years. Its baseline must assume scheduled benefits continue for budget projection purposes even when a trust fund lacks enough resources.
The document analyzes financing mechanics rather than endorsing a policy. Any real proposal would depend on statutory definitions, enforcement, valuation rules, taxpayer responses and broader economic effects that are not captured by the two headline dollar amounts.
