Key Notes
- Goldman Sachs found 36.6% of respondents with household income above $500,000 described their finances as primarily paycheck to paycheck.
- The survey definition includes difficulty saving and making progress toward long-term goals, rather than a verified inability to pay bills.
- Housing, healthcare and family costs compete with saving, while higher-income households can also face larger commitments and expectations.
More than a third of respondents with annual household incomes above $500,000 say they primarily live paycheck to paycheck, according to Goldman Sachs Asset Management’s 2026 retirement survey. The share was 36.6%, highlighting a gap between high earnings and perceived financial security.
The finding concerns household income, which can include multiple earners. It is also a self-assessment of saving and financial progress, rather than evidence that every respondent has exhausted their bank balance or cannot pay essential bills.
Goldman Sachs published the research on September 30. It surveyed 5,106 Americans in July, including 3,612 working people and 1,494 retirees ages 45 to 75. Behavioral economics firm Escalent helped develop questions and analyze responses.
What the Survey Means by Paycheck to Paycheck
Respondents selected among three descriptions of their finances. The paycheck-to-paycheck option combined difficulty saving with difficulty advancing long-term goals. The alternatives described moderate or significant financial progress.
That distinction matters because income, wealth and available cash answer different questions. A household can own an expensive home or retirement investments while having little flexibility in its monthly budget. Another can meet current bills but feel far behind an ambitious retirement target.
The responses do not establish that high earners are financially illiterate. Nor do they prove that inflation alone explains their position. Understanding the causes would require information about individual spending, obligations, assets and goals.
Financial Strain Does Not Fall Steadily With Income
The detailed income breakdown shows how reported strain varies:
| Annual Household Income | Primarily Living Paycheck to Paycheck |
|---|---|
| Below $50,000 | 60.8% |
| $50,000–$100,000 | 34.0% |
| $100,000–$200,000 | 22.2% |
| $200,000–$300,000 | 24.9% |
| $300,000–$500,000 | 34.2% |
| Above $500,000 | 36.6% |
Source: Goldman Sachs Asset Management, Retirement Survey and Insights Report 2026.
The highest-income group’s percentage exceeded every band except the lowest. These are shares within the surveyed groups, not counts of Americans.
Housing and Family Costs Compete With Saving
Goldman Sachs’ research overview identifies housing, healthcare, education, caregiving and everyday expenses as pressures on retirement saving. Its analysis argues that several essential costs have risen faster than wages over the longer term, reducing the income available for future needs.
Higher earnings can absorb some of that pressure without guaranteeing a large surplus. The report also associates strain among higher-income respondents with larger fixed commitments, more complex finances and higher lifestyle expectations.
A bigger mortgage, ongoing family support or recurring discretionary commitments can each affect monthly flexibility. Those are possible mechanisms, rather than a diagnosis of every household in the survey. The same income can support very different budgets depending on family size, location and existing obligations.
As we previously reported, even switching to a supposedly cheaper pastime helps the budget only if it replaces another expense. When it becomes an additional commitment, total spending can still rise.
Retirement Progress Is Slowing Across the Survey
The broader findings extend beyond top earners. Goldman’s release says 39% of respondents increased retirement saving, while 14% reduced it, up from 8% the previous year. The share of retirement savers reporting that they were on track or ahead fell to 58% from 68% in 2025.
Additional work is another response to financial pressure. Sixty-one percent of workers reported work outside their primary job; among that group, 71% said financial need motivated the extra work. Those percentages use different denominators and do not mean that 71% of all workers hold a second job.
Postponing a savings goal and missing a required payment also describe different problems. As we reported, the Federal Reserve separately tracks late loan payments. Those results cannot be substituted for Goldman’s measure of perceived financial progress.
Cash Reserves Provide a More Concrete Check
The Fed’s separate household survey offers a different test. In 2025, 63% of adults said they would cover a hypothetical $400 emergency with cash, savings or a credit card paid off at the next statement. Twelve percent said they could not pay by any means.
Those figures concern all adults and a specific expense, not Goldman’s highest-income respondents. They illustrate why a question about cash resilience can produce different results from one about satisfaction with long-term goals.
For households reviewing their own position, Consumer.gov’s budgeting guidance starts with bills, pay stubs and a comparison of monthly income with expenses. It recommends recording spending and using the results to revise the next month’s plan. Savings can be included as a planned budget item.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau recommends a dedicated reserve for unexpected expenses, with the target based on the household’s circumstances and past financial shocks. Even a small buffer can reduce the need to turn a surprise bill into interest-bearing debt.
The useful personal-finance question is therefore broader than the salary figure: after required payments and planned saving, how much cash remains available, and what happens if income stops or an unexpected bill arrives?
