Markus Andrews

Pavlo Gonchar | SOPA Images | Getty Images

Company: Soho House & Co Inc (SHCO)

Business: Soho House provides a global membership platform of physical and digital spaces that connects diverse groups of members from across the world. The members use the platform to work, socialize, connect and create all over the world. The company’s segments include United Kingdom, North America and Europe, and the rest of the world. Soho House’s global portfolio consists of approximately 42 Soho Houses, nine Soho Works, Scorpios Beach Club in Mykonos, Soho Home (its interiors and lifestyle retail brand) and its digital channels.
Stock Market Value: ~$1.53B ($7.87 per share)

Stock chart icon

Soho House shares over the past year

Activist: Third Point

Ownership: 9.89%
Average Cost: $7.64
Activist Commentary: Third Point is a multi-strategy hedge fund founded by Dan Loeb, that will selectively take activist positions. Loeb is one of the true pioneers in the field of shareholder activism and one of a handful of activists who shaped what has become modern day shareholder activism. He invented the poison-pen letter in a time when it was often necessary. As times have changed, he has transitioned from the poison pen to the power of the argument. Third Point has amicably obtained board representation at companies like Baxter and Disney, but the firm will not hesitate to launch a proxy fight if it is being ignored.

What’s happening

On Jan. 29, Third Point sent a letter announcing that it supports Soho House’s decision to explore a take-private transaction but has concerns about the process that was undertaken which resulted in a proposed transaction with the chairman of the Board. They believe that several qualified parties with significant experience investing in the hospitality industry would be interested in paying a superior price to the current deal.

Behind the scenes

Soho House is a global membership platform of physical and digital spaces that connects a diverse group of members to work, socialize, connect, create and have fun. The company operates a global network of 45 Soho House private members’ clubs, along with other ventures such as 8 Soho Works co-working spaces. Soho House, previously Membership Collective Group, went public in 2021 raising $420 million at a $2.8 billion valuation and a $14 stock price. Since going public, revenue more than doubled from $561 million to $1.2 billion and earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization increased to $99 million, while the stock price declined from $14 to below $5 per share as of mid-December. The company has an attractive recurring revenue model, as opposed to hospitality peers who must constantly fight for their next customer, a substantial wait list for membership, and a reasonably priced, yet luxury offering. Importantly, their houses have a steep maturity curve, with new houses needing time to develop their membership base resulting in early loss-making. However, as they mature in profitability and durability, they can contribute, on average, 35%+ house-level margin, with some well above that. 

On Dec. 19, Soho House announced that it had received an offer from a new third-party consortium to acquire the company for about $9 per share conditioned on certain significant shareholders, including Soho House’s executive chairman Ron Burkle and The Yucaipa Companies and its affiliates, rolling over their equity interests as part of the transaction. The offer, supported by Burkle and Yucaipa, sent shares up 47%. Just a day earlier, shares closed at $4.91. Soho House did not disclose a lot of details about this offer, but one thing that you could probably assume is that with 46.7% of the outstanding shares and 62.3% of the voting power, Burkle would likely end up controlling the private entity. So, to recap, Burkle took the company public at $14 per share and used the $420 million raised to fund its growth. Management ran the company down from $14 per share to $4.91 per share. Now that they see an opportunity for a turnaround, they seem willing to take it private at a cheap price, which wouldn’t benefit the public shareholders.
Enter Dan Loeb and Third Point who, on Jan. 29, 2025, filed a 13D declaring beneficial ownership of 9.89% of the company’s Class A stock with an accompanying letter to the board of Soho House. In the letter, Loeb applauded the decision to return the company to private ownership, but he lambasted the board for its failure to ensure a fair sales process that maximizes value for all shareholders. Instead, he accused them of engaging in an opaque process that resulted in a “sweetheart deal” with Soho House’s chairman. Loeb thinks that an independent and rigorous sales process would yield several interested and qualified parties with significant investing experience in the hospitality sector. He urged the company to launch a process of this nature and warned that transactions involving controlling shareholders, especially in instances of super-voting control rather than economic interest, are subject to the most exacting standards under Delaware law, and that the board’s conduct could expose them to liability for failing to discharge their fiduciary duties.
This is not a typical activist campaign for Third Point. This is not Third Point opportunistically using activism to create value. Instead, Third Point was a cornerstone investor in the Soho House IPO and is not the type of investor to stand by quietly while management fails to maximize value for shareholders. This is a $40 million investment for Third Point that is now worth $43 million. Third Point manages more than $11 billion. This investment will not move the needle for the firm, but Loeb is the type of person who will do everything he can to maximize the value of every investment. Additionally, the best activists — like Loeb — have activism in their blood and cannot morally stand idly by while management harms shareholders.
There is no doubt that this is an example of poor corporate governance – an opaque, poorly disclosed sale of the company at a low price to the majority shareholder without running a sales process. But Ron Burkle is not a bad person. While some members of the board might be less sophisticated public company directors not fully aware of their duties and liability, they are not bad people either. As a 46.7% owner with super-voting Class B shares and voting control of a company he took public and ran for many years, Burkle and the board probably thought they could get this by the shareholders without any challenge. Well, that is not the case anymore. So, one of the following three things is going to happen now: (i) Burkle will increase his offer to a value closer to the IPO price, (ii) someone else will come in and offer more for the company – there are certainly interested buyers out there who might have seen any offer to Burkle as futile but might now see a path to an acquisition with Third Point involved; or (iii) Third Point will commence a lawsuit against Soho House and the directors. We do not see it coming to this. The board has smart lawyers and advisors who will inform the directors of their reputational and potential financial liability. We expect that Burkle and the board will ultimately do the right thing and make a fair offer to acquire the company if they really want it.  
Third Point is a multi-strategy hedge fund founded by Dan Loeb, a true pioneer of shareholder activism. In addition to selectively taking activist positions, the firm has generated impressive returns in credit, venture and growth strategies as well. While Third Point is known by many for its poison-pen letters, that was the Third Point of 15 years ago. The modern-day Third Point succeeds at its activism through the power of the argument and respect. Activists are often criticized and avoided, but this is a situation where one is spending his own money to protect the value for all shareholders, and just about everyone would welcome that.        
Ken Squire is the founder and president of 13D Monitor, an institutional research service on shareholder activism, and the founder and portfolio manager of the 13D Activist Fund, a mutual fund that invests in a portfolio of activist 13D investments. More

The 2.5% Social Security cost-of-living adjustment for 2025 is the lowest increase to benefits since 2021.
To increase those checks, retirees may consider two money moves.

A customer walks by a display of fresh eggs at a grocery store on Sept. 25, 2024 in San Anselmo, California.
Justin Sullivan | Getty Images

The first Social Security benefit checks for 2025 include a 2.5% increase — the lowest annual cost-of-living adjustment since 2021.
For retirees, that amounts to an increase of about $50 per month, on average, according to the Social Security Administration.

Still, amid stubborn inflation and persistent elevated costs for everyday items, some retirees may feel that the increase is not enough.
“I think overall folks are glad to see the raise,” said Jim Blair, founder at NSSA Professionals and a former Social Security administrator. “It’s not necessarily keeping up with everything, but it’s better than nothing.”
The latest government inflation data shows the measure used to calculate the annual Social Security COLA — the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, or CPI-W — was up 2.8% over the last 12 months as of December.
More from Personal Finance:Why retirees may feel the 2025 Social Security COLA isn’t enoughHere’s the changes Americans would make to close Social Security’s financing gapSocial Security Fairness Act beneficiaries face lengthy wait for higher payments
Another measure used by the Federal Reserve to gauge long-run inflation — core inflation excluding food and energy under the personal consumption expenditures price index — was up 2.8% in December, according to data released on Friday.

For retirees who would like to see bigger Social Security benefit checks, there are a couple of strategies they may consider trying, Blair said.

Adjust your tax withholdings

Social Security beneficiaries may have up to 22% of their benefits withheld for taxes.
“If you’re struggling a little bit, particularly if you’re not in too high of a tax bracket, you can always adjust that,” Blair said.
If you’ve been getting refunds, reducing how much you have withheld will allow you to access those funds sooner, though you will get back less during next year’s tax filing season, Blair said.
But there may be a risk you may owe money at tax time next year, depending on your personal circumstances, he said.
Beneficiaries can adjust the tax withholdings on their benefits by filing Form W-4V with the Social Security Administration.

Ask to have your Medicare premiums adjusted

Most retirees pay a standard monthly premium rate for Medicare Part B, which covers preventive care, medically necessary services and durable medical equipment.
In 2025, that standard monthly premium is $185 per month.
But higher-income retirees pay more for what’s known as an income-related monthly adjustment amount, or IRMAA.
That also applies to monthly premiums for Medicare Part D prescription drug plans, which have average estimated monthly premiums of $46.50 in 2025.
The premiums are based on income tax filings from two years prior. If you’ve since had a life changing event that has prompted your income to go down — such as if you’ve retired, sold an income-producing business or survived the death of a spouse — you can apply to have your Medicare withholdings adjusted.
To do that, complete Form SSA-44 and submit it to the Social Security Administration. More

Consumers have demonstrated a high tolerance for the increasing price tag of attending live events, also known as “funflation.”
The cost of concert tickets has especially soared, mostly due to dynamic pricing.
Although most music fans would rather not have to pay sky-high prices, there is also a “devil-may-care” attitude when it comes to these types of experiences, says Greg McBride, Bankrate’s chief financial analyst.

From Billie Eilish and Sabrina Carpenter to Kendrick Lamar and SZA, 2025 promises to be another big year for live music events. That may also mean concertgoers will be shelling out more for their favorite shows.
After rising steadily post-pandemic, admission to movies, theaters and concerts jumped 20% since 2021, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ consumer price index data.

And yet, consumers have demonstrated a high tolerance for the increasing price tag, also known as “funflation.”

Concertgoers attended an average of seven shows in 2024, and most plan to see more in 2025, according to a recent report by CouponCabin.
The survey of more than 1,000 music fans in December found that nearly 36% said they will spend $100 to $499 on concert tickets in 2025, while more than 17% plan to spend up to $1,000.

Chalk it up to ‘funflation’

After testing new limits in 2024, Americans proved a willingness to splurge — even travel abroad — to catch shows like Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour, bringing so-called passion tourism into the spotlight, some experts say.
Younger adults, particularly Generation Z and millennials, have even said they would go into debt to pursue some of these experiences, other recent reports show.

Nearly two out of five Gen Z and millennial travelers have spent up to $5,000 on tickets alone for destination live events, one recent study from Bread Financial found.

Why concert tickets got so expensive

Dynamic pricing is partly to blame for the escalating price tag, according to Joe Bennett, a forensic musicologist at Berklee College of Music.
Originally coined by economists in the late 1920s, dynamic pricing refers the charging of a higher price at a time of greater demand. Consumers often associate it with shifting airline ticket prices or how ride-hailing services adjust fares at busy times, Bennett said.
“We all know that if you are looking for an Uber or Lyft, there are certain times of night when it’s more expensive. The market seems to have adapted to that,” he said. “But concert tickets were generally a fixed price.”
That’s no longer the case. And now there is heightened awareness — and controversy — around the practice when it comes to buying highly sought-after event tickets.
More from Personal Finance:’I cry a lot but I am so productive, it’s an art’Recession pop: How music hits on economic trends’I’m looking for a man in finance’
How and when dynamic pricing is used is at the discretion of the artist or management, according to Andrew Mall, an associate professor of music at Northeastern University — and it is often determined under the radar.
However, with so many recent high-profile tours, “for sure, dynamic pricing has surged to the forefront of concertgoers’ attention,” he recently told CNBC.
Ticketmaster is under investigation in the U.K. for its recent use of dynamic pricing in sales of reunion concerts from Britpop band Oasis.
Many Oasis fans took to social media to complain that they ended up paying more than double the face value of the ticket without warning. The band said it would abandon the practice for the North American leg of its tour.
Swift reportedly refused to dynamically price her Eras Tour tickets because “she didn’t want to do that to her fans,” Jay Marciano, chairman and CEO of AEG Presents, which promoted the event, told HITS Daily Double in October.

How ticket pricing evolved

Throughout the 21st century, revenue from recorded music has gone down while revenue from live music events has gone up. By the mid-2000s, concerts “provided a larger source of income for performers than record sales or publishing royalties,” economist Alan Krueger wrote in a paper on the economic issues and trends in the rock and roll industry.
Live music industry revenue jumped 25% in 2023 alone, according to data from Statista.
Ticketmaster in 2011 first introduced an early version of dynamic ticket pricing, which is now the standard for live music ticketing sales.

In more recent years, “ticket sales went crazy” driven by post-pandemic pent-up demand and a surge in megastar stadium tours, Bennett said.
“You can see why it’s tempting,” he said. “The live music industry is constantly leaving money on the table that fans would pay. Dynamic pricing is sort of a capitalist inevitability given the forces at play, but I don’t want to live in a world where it costs $1,000 for my daughter to see Taylor Swift.”
Still, it’s now common for ticket-selling platforms to charge more per ticket depending on demand for the event at any given time — whether consumers like it or not, according to Matt Schulz, LendingTree’s chief credit analyst.
“It’s not very popular, as you might imagine,” Schulz said. “Businesses and musicians are trying to see what the market will bear, and it makes things really difficult for the consumer.”

Why pricey tickets are here to stay

“Consumers don’t like the idea of dynamic pricing, but there is a renewed ‘YOLO’ [you only live once] attitude over the past few years since the pandemic and, increasingly, that drives a devil-may-care approach when it comes to spending on discretionary experiences,” said Greg McBride, chief financial analyst at Bankrate.com.
Even with household budgets strained, “you get to a point where there are just some experiences where consumers draw the line and say, that’s not something I’m willing to give up,” he said.
Ticket sellers are apparently aware of this mentality, too.
“Our research consistently tells us that concerts are a top priority for discretionary spending, and one of the last experiences fans will cut back on,” Live Nation said on a quarterly earnings call in 2023. 
But as consumers continue to spare no expense to see their favorite artist or group, that means that means dynamic pricing is here to stay, at least for now.
“The live music sector has been leaning into this attitude for a long time,” Northeastern University’s Mall said.

Don’t miss these insights from CNBC PRO More

If you’re a renter, the market may be shifting in your favor.
Rental affordability is improving in part because of a “construction boom” of new apartment buildings during the pandemic, according to Daryl Fairweather, chief economist at Redfin.
Here’s what to consider if you’re renting or plan to rent this year.

Vgajic | E+ | Getty Images

If you’re a renter, the market may be shifting in your favor.
As of December, the median asking rent price in the U.S. was $1,695, down 0.5% — or $8 — from November, according to a new report by Realtor.com.

The latest rent price is 1.1% lower — or $18 — from a year before, and down 3.7% from peak highs in July 2022.

We’re calling it a renter’s market.

Daryl Fairweather
chief economist at Redfin, an online real estate brokerage firm

Rental affordability is improving in part because of a “construction boom” of new apartment buildings during the pandemic, according to Daryl Fairweather, chief economist at Redfin.
“There are still units coming online now from projects that were started back in 2021, 2022,” she said.
With more new units available, some property managers are considering lowering their asking prices to attract tenants, experts say.
This means renters should have more negotiating power when it comes to the terms of their leases, Fairweather explained.

“We’re calling it a renter’s market. We think that’s going to continue for the next year,” she said.
More from Personal Finance:This should be your ‘last resort’ to cover an emergency expenseYour tax return could be ‘flagged for audit’ without these formsChanges Americans would make to close social security’s financial gap
To be sure, the volume of newly built apartments is concentrated in some areas more than others, making rent prices decline faster in certain parts of the country.
By way of example, Austin, Texas, where the median rent is $1,394 as of December, saw some of the highest levels of multifamily housing construction over the past few years, according to Redfin. That figure is down from $1,482 in August when the median price fell 17.6% from a year prior.
Rents in Austin are likely to continue to fall as supply grows and demand balances itself out, experts say.
What you’re able to leverage as a renter will depend on what’s happening in your current market or where you plan to live.
Here are three key steps to consider if you’re on the rental market this year: 

1. Find out what other units are renting for in the area

You might live in an area that is becoming more affordable. To find out, compare what other units in the neighborhood similar to yours are renting for — it’s the “best way to arm yourself” in negotiations with your landlord or property manager, Fairweather said.  
“If your property manager is trying to raise your rent, you can come to them with information to show them that your rent shouldn’t be increased,” she said. “In some markets, it should even go down.” 

If you’ve been living in the same unit for a couple years and have consistently paid rent on time, try to use that history to negotiate for a lower monthly rent, said Joel Berner, a senior economist at Realtor.com.
A “good point to negotiate from” is to show your landlord that rent prices are coming down for similar properties but you have no desire to move ― unless you can save money elsewhere, he said.
Tenant turnover can be expensive for landlords, especially if the property sits unoccupied for a few months.

2. Negotiate any additional fees you pay

On that note, think about what other costs you pay for in addition to your rent, Fairweather said. These can be fees for parking space or access to other amenities.
Fees for amenities like a parking garage, a shared community space, an on-site fitness center or bike storage can range from $30 a month for basic offerings or one-time charges of $200 to $500, according to Apartment List.
If you see ads where other properties are calling out concessions like waived parking costs or reduced fees for an amenity, see if your landlord is willing to match that.

3. Consider teaming up with housemates

Meanwhile, if you’re living in an area that’s still “really expensive to rent,” consider splitting a larger unit with other people, Berner said.
Having roommates or housemates is a tried-and-true way to lower housing costs. It’s more effective now because the cost for larger units in some places is not growing as fast as rents for smaller units, he said.
“You can find a pretty good deal on maybe a three-bedroom apartment and split it with other folks,” he said.  More

Amid concerns over Trump’s funding freeze, colleges and universities reliant on federally-backed research grants and aid are scrambling, Morehouse College President David Thomas told CNBC.
A freeze on federal aid “would create another existential threat as great as the pandemic,” he said.

Morehouse College President David Thomas speaks during Morehouse College’s graduation ceremony, before US President Joe Biden delivers his commencement address, in Atlanta, Georgia on May 19, 2024. 
Andrew Caballero-Reynolds | Afp | Getty Images

David Thomas, the president of Morehouse College, said his office fielded a surge of calls this week from worried students and their families concerned the Trump Administration’s “federal funding freeze” would directly impact college access. 
The sudden scramble was “perhaps only rivaled by what happened in March of 2020 when we realized that the Covid pandemic was truly a threat,” Thomas told CNBC. He became president of Morehouse, one of the country’s top historically Black colleges and universities, or HBCUs, in 2018.

This freeze on federal aid “would create another existential threat as great as the pandemic,” he said.
More from Personal Finance:White House freeze on federal aid will not affect student loansConsumer protection agencies at risk in Trump’s second termHow this DC-area high school is trying to close the wealth gap
Thomas’ comments come amid ongoing confusion about how a freeze on federal grants and loans could potentially impact students and schools.
A Jan. 27 memo issued by the Office of Management and Budget, which would affect billions of dollars in aid, said the pause on federal grants and loans “does not include assistance provided directly to individuals.”
Although the memo was later rescinded, the White House said a “federal funding freeze” remains in “full force and effect.” It is currently on hold amid legal challenges.

Thomas, who is also on the Board of Trustees at Yale University, said college leaders across the country have spent the better part of the week focused on “the consequences of this action.” Morehouse immediately initiated a hiring freeze in preparation for a potentially significant financial disruption.
“All of the institutions are still in limbo,” he said.

What college aid may be affected

At Morehouse College, about 40% of the student body relies on Federal Pell Grants, a type of federal aid available to low-income families.
Following the memo’s release, the Education Department announced that the freeze would not affect student loans or Pell Grants.
“The temporary pause does not impact Title I, IDEA, or other formula grants, nor does it apply to Federal Pell Grants and Direct Loans under Title IV [of the Higher Education Act],” Education Department spokesperson Madi Biedermann said in a statement.
In addition to the federal financial aid programs that fall under Title IV, Title I provides financial assistance to school districts with children from low-income families. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA, provides funding for students with disabilities.
The funding pause “only applies to discretionary grants at the Department of Education,” Biedermann said. “These will be reviewed by Department leadership for alignment with Trump Administration priorities.”

But questions remain about other aid for college.
The freeze could affect federal work-study programs and the Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant, which are provided in bulk to colleges to provide to students, according to Kalman Chany, a financial aid consultant and author of The Princeton Review’s “Paying for College.”
The disruption to federally backed research funding also poses a threat to college programs and staff.

‘Lots of reasons to still be concerned’

“There are lots of reasons to still be concerned,” said Jonathan Fansmith, a senior vice president at the American Council on Education.
“The administration has made it clear the executive orders will have implications for a huge range of existing awards and grants,” he said. “Those have implications for campuses and there is no more clarity in that regard than there was before.”
At Morehouse, “a huge portion of our faculty is supported by grants,” Thomas said. “If we can’t run the college, colleges like ours will probably be forced to drastically shrink themselves or close.”
Morehouse, located in Atlanta and founded in 1867, has more than 2,200 students. 
Subscribe to CNBC on YouTube. More

For 2024 returns, the child tax credit is worth up to $2,000 per kid under age 17, and decreases once income hits certain thresholds.
The refundable portion, known as the additional child tax credit, or ACTC, is up to $1,700, which you can claim without taxes owed.
However, common mistakes could delay your refund, experts say.

Getty Images

Millions of families claim the child tax credit every year — and filing mistakes can delay the processing of your return and receipt of your refund, according to tax experts. 
For 2024 returns, the child tax credit is worth up to $2,000 per kid under age 17, and decreases once adjusted gross income exceeds $200,000 for single taxpayers or $400,000 for married couples filing jointly.  

The refundable portion, known as the additional child tax credit, or ACTC, is up to $1,700. Filers can claim the ACTC even without taxes owed, which often benefits lower earners.
However, a lower-income family who doesn’t know how to claim the credit “misses out on thousands of dollars,” National Taxpayer Advocate Erin Collins wrote in her annual report to Congress released in January. 
More from Personal Finance:Your tax return could be ‘flagged for audit’ without these key formsEducation Department: Trump’s federal aid freeze won’t affect student loansWhy you may be getting ‘shortchanged’ on CD interest rates
More than 18 million filers claimed the additional child tax credit in 2022, according to the latest IRS estimates. 
By law, the IRS can’t issue ACTC refunds before mid-February. But the Where’s My Refund portal should have status updates by Feb. 22 for most early filers, according to the IRS.  

Here’s how to avoid common child tax credit mistakes that could further delay your refund.

Know if you have a ‘qualifying child’

One child tax credit mistake is not knowing eligibility.
The rules can be “very confusing,” according to Tom O’Saben, an enrolled agent and director of tax content and government relations at the National Association of Tax Professionals.
To claim the child tax credit or ACTC, you must have a “qualifying child,” according to the IRS. The qualifying child guidelines include:

Age: 17 years old at the end of the tax year
Relationship: Your son, daughter, stepchild, eligible foster child, brother, sister, stepbrother, stepsister, half-brother, half-sister or a descendant of these
Dependent status: Dependent on your tax return
Filing status: Child is not filing jointly
Residency: Lived with you for more than half the year
Support: Didn’t pay for more than half of their living expenses
Citizenship: U.S. citizen, U.S. national or a U.S. resident alien  
Social Security number: Valid Social Security number by tax due date (including extensions) 

You may avoid some eligibility errors by filing via tax software or using a preparer versus filing a paper return on your own, O’Saben said. Tax software typically includes credit eligibility, which can minimize errors.

Missing Social Security number

Typically, parents apply for a Social Security number in the hospital when completing their baby’s birth certificate. But it can take one to six weeks from application to receive that number, according to the agency, which can create time pressure for families with a new addition around tax season.
Filing a tax return and claiming the child tax credit before receiving the Social Security number is a mistake, O’Saben said.
“I have seen [the child tax credit] denied for people who have filed before they got the Social Security number for a dependent,” he said. “And there’s no going back.”
If you don’t have the number before the tax deadline, you should request an extension, which gives you six months more to file your return, O’Saben explained.
However, you still must pay taxes owed by the original deadline. More

Social Security benefits may be reduced in the next decade due to a financing shortfall, if Congress fails to act sooner.
A new survey asked Americans what changes they would make to fix the program.
Most respondents would be willing to raise taxes for some or all Americans in order to keep benefits the same or increase them.

Halfpoint Images | Moment | Getty Images

It’s no secret that Social Security faces a long-term financing gap.
If nothing is done by 2035, 83% of combined benefits will be payable if Congress does not act sooner to prevent that shortfall, according the latest projections from the program’s trustees.

What’s more, new legislation, the Social Security Fairness Act — which increases benefits for more than 3 million workers who also receive public pensions — is expected to move that depletion date six months sooner.
A new survey asked more than 2,200 Americans — most of who expect Social Security to be an important part of their monthly retirement income — how they would solve the problem.
Most respondents, 85%, said they would prefer benefits remain the same or are even increased — even if that means raising taxes for some or all Americans, according to the survey from the National Academy of Social Insurance, AARP, the National Institute on Retirement Security and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in collaboration with Greenwald Research.
More from Personal Finance:Why retirees may feel the 2025 Social Security COLA isn’t enoughNew Social Security benefit legislation worsens program’s funding woesSocial Security Fairness Act beneficiaries face lengthy wait for higher payments
“They’re willing to pay more, not to get extra benefits for themselves, but just to close the financing gap to prevent indiscriminate across the board benefit cuts,” said Tyler Bond, research director for the National Institute on Retirement Security.

Meanwhile, 15% of respondents said they would prefer tax rates not increase, even if that means benefits are reduced.

What changes Americans would prefer

The survey used a tradeoff analysis to let respondents pick the policy changes they would not only prefer to see — but also for which they would also be willing to pay.
The results found a combination of changes was preferred by most respondents, regardless of their political affiliation, income, age or education.
The most popular policy option with respondents was eliminating the payroll tax cap for individuals earning more than $400,000.
For 2025, employees and employers pay taxes toward the program on up to $176,100 in earnings. Once high earners hit that cap, they stop contributing Social Security payroll taxes for the year.
The change would reapply payroll taxes starting at $400,000 in earnings. Individuals affected would not receive additional benefits.
A second policy option that was nearly as popular was raising the payroll tax rate. Currently, employees and employers each pay 6.2% toward Social Security. The change would raise that to 7.2%.

Other changes favored by respondents aim to make benefits more generous by adjusting the annual cost-of-living adjustment to more accurately reflect the spending habits and inflation affecting older Americans; providing a caregiver credit for people who stop working to take care of children under age 6; and providing a bridge benefit to workers in physically demanding jobs to help soften cuts for claiming early.
The least popular change was to reduce benefits for people with higher incomes. That would affect individuals with $60,000 or more in annual retirement income excluding Social Security, and married couples with $120,000 or more.
Taken together, the changes would close Social Security’s funding gap and result in a minor 1% surplus, according to NIRS’ Bond.
Notably, other changes that have been suggested elsewhere — raising the retirement age, across-the-board benefit increases and changing taxation of benefits — were not selected by the survey respondents.

Long history of strong public support

The new report coincides with another report released by NIRS this week that analyzed Social Security polling over more than four decades and found public support for the program remains strong.
“Not only do people consider Social Security a really important program, but they really want to make sure we’re spending enough on the program so that it can be there when people are ready to collect their benefits,” Bond said.
Notably, confidence that Social Security benefits will still be available tends to increase as people get closer to retirement age, he said. More