Congress last made major Social Security changes 43 years ago. 
The Wall Street Journal reports The Next Class of Senators Won’t Be Able to Dodge the Social Security Crunch
After years of Congress sidestepping and postponing the issue, the lawmakers will have to confront the program’s challenges before their new six-year terms conclude. Recent projections pegged late 2032 as the moment when Social Security’s reserves and incoming tax revenue won’t yield enough money to pay full benefits.
Failure to act would trigger automatic benefit cuts. Acting is no picnic either, because raising revenue or reducing promised payments could be politically painful.
The math is brutal for the program known for many years as the third rail of American politics. Social Security owes lifetime benefits to the huge generation of baby boomers who are already retired or almost there. That commitment locks in costs that are virtually impossible to dislodge and puts younger workers and future retirees on course for tax increases, benefit reductions or both.
Congress last made major Social Security changes 43 years ago in a less partisan Washington, staving off insolvency with just months to spare by adopting tax increases and benefit cuts intended to make the program last 75 years. Since then, Americans have been bracing for more changes, with polls showing many doubt they will get their full checks.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), seeking his fifth term this year, said the 1983 agreement between Republican President Ronald Reagan and Democratic House Speaker Tip O’Neill is the model.
“I’m willing to do my part,” Graham said. “You’ve got to look at age adjustments, you know, means-testing benefits. You’ve got to put it all on the table.” Asked about taxes, he repeated: “All on the table.”
President Trump has repeatedly ruled out Social Security benefit cuts, breaking from many Republicans’ openness to the idea. The debate has been mostly dormant for a decade, and the program now requires larger changes to preserve solvency because smaller options that accumulate over time no longer yield enough money.
Huge program runs short
Congress and Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt created Social Security during the Great Depression to prevent poverty among older Americans; it is now the largest federal program. In the latest fiscal year, the U.S. paid $1.6 trillion in Social Security benefits, which is 22% of federal spending and almost double the military budget.
Social Security is funded largely with payroll taxes split between workers and employers. People receive payments after retiring or becoming disabled, getting amounts linked to their earnings history. The program also pays survivor benefits to spouses and children of workers who die. The average monthly retiree payment is about $2,000.
Tax increases and benefit cuts?
Social Security is excluded from the simple-majority budget process Congress used for recent partisan fiscal laws such Trump’s tax cuts, meaning any bill would require 60 votes in the Senate. Any durable bipartisan solution will likely have tax increases and cuts to future payouts.
There is no shortage of ideas. On the tax side, the prime target is the cap on the 12.4% payroll tax. Currently, wages and self-employment income above $184,500 are exempt from the tax, with the figure rising annually with inflation. That tax now covers about 83% of earnings, down from about 90% just after the 1983 changes.
Just eliminating the cap would cut Social Security’s long-run deficits in half. Taxing earnings above $250,000 and tying no new benefits to those earnings would remove about two-thirds of the shortfall, but that approach would change Social Security’s basic architecture that links taxes paid with benefits earned. Both options would sharply raise top marginal tax rates.
Raising the cap and devoting the money to Social Security is probably one of the few palatable ways Congress could get significant revenue from high earners outside the top 1%, said Kathleen Romig, director of Social Security and disability policy at the progressive Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
On the benefit side, the system is progressive, replacing a greater share of income for workers with lower lifetime earnings than higher earners. Lawmakers trying to protect people who rely on Social Security as their main income source could alter calculations so higher earners get less money than under current rules.
“It makes sense to rethink what the benefit formula looks like,” Romig said, especially because higher-income retirees likely have significant savings in 401(k)-style plans.
Lawmakers could also increase the basic retirement age. The 1983 changes pushed that to 67 from 65. Romina Boccia, director of budget and entitlement policy at the libertarian Cato Institute, said she would keep that going up to 70, then link the retirement age to longevity.
Other ideas are out there too. Sen. Bill Cassidy (R., La.) is pitching a $1.5 trillion sovereign-wealth fund. General revenue would pay Social Security benefits for the next 75 years, then the new fund would reimburse those costs.
“Let’s get it done before it is too late,” said Cassidy, who is running for his third term.
Amid concerns about solvency, some Democrats have proposed minimum benefit increases. Warner said one possibility could be raising benefits for the bottom 20% of workers. That could be a political sweetener for any deal—but it would require more money that needed to simply make the fund solvent.
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D., Ore.), who is running for a fourth term this year, has co-sponsored a bill from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) that would increase minimum benefits and expand the payroll tax to cover high earners and investment income. In his town halls, Merkley said, raising the tax cap is particularly popular.
“We will solve this problem because it has to be solved,” Merkley said. “Even if it is in the ugliest possible fashion at the last second, it will be solved.”
Social Security Fairness Act
Instead of reforming Social Security to make it more solvent, this Congress made Social Security less solvent by extending benefits to the least deserving, that being public unions.
The bill was inappropriately named the Social Security Fairness Act. Cynics may suggest the name was perfect on grounds bills generally do the opposite of their name.
CATO discusses What the Social Security Fairness Act Tells Us About the Likely Future of Social Security Reform
Passing the so-called Social Security Fairness Act sends a clear message about how Washington approaches Social Security reform—and it’s a disturbing one. Congress and President Biden have chosen to ignore all expert advice, cater to organized special interest groups, and burden younger taxpayers with increasingly unaffordable costs.
Instead of sensible policy reforms that better align Social Security benefits with the ability of workers to pay for them, Congress will want to take the path of least resistance. Without significant public pressure to do the right thing, expect a multi-trillion-dollar general revenue transfer (meaning added borrowing) come trust fund depletion, and perhaps superficial fixes like the federal government borrowing money today to ‘invest’ to generate revenue from speculative gains tomorrow.
The Social Security Fairness Act increases the program’s financing gap yet further. Funding this policy with additional payroll taxes would burden 180 million workers with an additional $68 in annual taxes to fund higher benefits for 3 million public sector workers and their spouses by unfairly manipulating the Social Security benefit formula to their advantage. This is a textbook example of Mancur Olson’s theory of collective action, where small, concentrated groups secure disproportionate benefits at the expense of a diffuse majority.
The repeal of the Windfall Elimination Provision and Government Pension Offset creates outsized benefits for workers who had significant earnings that were exempt from payroll taxes compared to those who paid Social Security taxes over their entire careers. For example, economist Larry Kotlikoff highlights a schoolteacher whose lifetime benefits will soar by $830,625 (!) under this law, with her annual retirement benefit more than doubling and her widow’s benefit nearly tripling.
Congressional Republicans’ support for this expensive change likely stems from a political calculation. For a long time, backing the bill seemed like a low-cost way to curry favor with police and firefighter unions, key constituents in many members’ voter base without serious worry that the bill would pass. It took 24 years from when a version of the Social Security Fairness Act was first introduced in 2001 (with a congressional hearing held in 2003) to it being signed by President Biden on January 5, 2025.
The Wall Street Journal suggests the timing—a post-election passage—points to a political payoff for groups like the International Association of Fire Fighters, which lobbied heavily for the measure and declined to endorse Kamala Harris for president (after endorsing Joe Biden in 2020).
If Congress can’t say no to popular and shortsighted benefit increases, how will it tackle the tougher job of making Social Security long-term solvent? The sad truth is that politicians probably won’t even try—at least not until the crisis is too close to ignore.
It’s easy to blame Biden for this but Republicans had to go along or the unfairness act would never would have cleared the Senate.
And as for doing something now, Trump does not want to do anything.
What Will Happen?
A strong possibility is free money. By that I mean no changes other than to guarantee benefits without raising revenue.
Don’t worry. CATO reports the cost would only be $25 trillion over the next 75 years—after taxpayers have repaid the payroll tax surpluses that previous Congress squandered, with interest.
Basically, Congress would simply tell the Treasury to keep selling bonds to finance Social Security benefits, even after the so-called trust fund is depleted.
US Population 2010 vs 2024
Related Posts
July 7, 2025: The Peak 65 Moment and Why Social Security Is Going Bust
About 11,000 people turn 65 every day. This will last for 3 years.
Both Trump and Biden pledged to not touch Social Security. If you don’t touch it, there will be automatic cuts by 2032.
This will get resolved in the usual way, bigger deficits while doing nothing about the issues.
October 29, 2025: The Social Security COLA for 2025 is 2.8 Percent. Not Enough? Too Much?
The Social Security Cost of Living Adjustment is 2.8 percent.
February 12, 2025: Trump Says he Will Love and Cherish Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid
he new softer side of Trump now cherishes Medicaid. Is everyone happy?
When asked about potential budget reductions on Friday, Trump said the administration would “love and cherish” Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, according to Politico. His mention of Medicaid was notable, as he has in the past omitted it when discussing the programs his administration wouldn’t touch.
Lasting Until 2032 is Optimistic
Nobody has factored in recession and the accompanying reduction in FICA tax collection.
Insolvency in 5 years would not at all be surprising.
Addendum
I was asked how I would fix this. The only proper way is to balance the budget. Do that and entitlements take care of themselves.
I have posted ideas at least twice.
On May 25, 2025, I commented What Should We Do to Get Government Spending Under Control?
That’s the question I was asked today. 12 Ideas.
I added a bit on June 10, 2025 in Trump Has Declared 21 Emergencies. Exploding National Debt Is Not One of Them
We’re currently borrowing nearly $2 trillion annually. We spend almost $1 trillion annually just on interest on the national debt.
When a Shepherd can’t afford the entirety of the Herd he starts CULLING…
I am so tired of Washington DC, so tired of State / County / City Tax rates
They treat workers like cash cow’s for their re-election time give away’s
The Money stolen / Grafted / fraud, Nation building is why we are floundering
Time to end the Grifters- TERM LIMITS 2026
Last thing is I do not know how S Corp pass through income is NOT subject to Social Security & Medicare Tax
Every other pass thru entity is.
The two major parties are incompetent bozos AKA clowns insolvency will happen in 2029-2030 as you stated too many workers are out of work Mish
We can fund wars for oil but not social security
Bring 5% of Venezuela oil, annually, to social security benefits.
Make companies that employ foreign workers who are not eligible to participate in Social Security contribute the employer share of the payroll tax to a Social Security stabilization fund.
The employee would not pay, but the employer would. Ditto for Medicare. If an illegal alien is found to be working for them, they should have to contribute 2 years of SS and Medicare taxes on a predetermined annual salary to the fund.
One idea that may help in a small contribution is to tax robots in the equivalent amount as the worker(s) they replaced. Your welding robot on the assembly line is taxed at the same amount your $60K annual welder would have earned.
The state of TN just taxed my Hybrid vehicle an extra $100 to obtain tags this year. Full electric would have been an extra $200. I expect this to increase every year.
2 things that would help (but will never happen):
I think that it is not a coincidence that the happiest countries in the world manage to tax capital gains effectively. It’s not why they are happy but it shows what a decent society strives to do.
I accumulated ~ $6 million in savings and assets before retiring early at age 54, and thought it would be enough to see me through to the end. I’m now 72 and starting to get worried that my savings will run out before I pop my clogs.
SS was great when I started taking it at 62, but 10 years later after the never ending debasement of the dollar through inflation, it is certainly not enough to live on. COLA is a joke…inflation at 8% or so and they give you a 2% increase? Laughable.
I have a private pension but it is not index linked and after I have paid alimony half of that is gone.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not whining, I think that they should cut benefits, increase SS taxes, charge more for Medicare, increase the age at which benefits may be taken to 70, give individuals much more control over how their SS tax is invested (make it like a 401K without taxes on withdrawal).
I also think they should cut the military budget in half and use this to make up the deficit on SS. We cannot afford assholes like Trump starting wars all over the place.
As Mish says whoever has is holding the poisoned chalice in 5 or 6 years will pay a heavy penalty in political support. The only way to avoid this is bipartisanship.
I don’t agree with all your ideas but the last line is a no brainer for just about everything the govt is doing or going to do. Extremists on both sides will whine but it is the only way to get equitable laws and policies. Yes, I’d probably bitch with the rest of the left, but free speech….
Assholes like Trump? OMG you are a special 1
My father told me that there would be no SS by the time I retire and I started saving when I was 19. In addition to a regular contribution to my retirement/saving/investing account, I bought a Whole Life Policy from NML and maxed it out. This has been a stellar performer and the returns have eclipsed the projections by a wide margin. I do not need it but there is a huge pile of pre-tax cash sitting there if I ever really need it.
Another winner is my Roth IRA where I put post tax money into stocks and sell weekly call options against what has become highly appreciated stock. The returns are insane!
When I retire(ish), I will not need or care if SS exists. Why would I expect the government to carry me for thirty years on the few hundred thousand I put in to that shitty program.
Get educated, work hard, play harder, plan ahead, work independently, stay healthy and prosper. Screw the entire concept of the government carrying your ass when you get old!
I’ll slide sideways into my grave completely worn out and spent, yelling “Holy Shit! What a Ride!!!”
I am sure you grew up in normal middle class environment ………
You are a stunning asshole
US social security—which is basically an old-age poverty relief system—wouldn’t be too difficult to balance using the Greenspan 1983 approach if the US government would be seriously interested in solving America’s real and urgent problems. It’s much easier to bomb suspected drug-smuggling Latin American fishing boats—which in the end have nothing to do with the US drug crisis—than to use brains and compromise to get results that would help all Americans.
Boomers screwing gen x again.
they dont need any help
Cry Baby……… Shut up
Social Security will not be insolvent because it has no assets, never has, probably never will. Fiscally, the only difference between SS and any other government program is that SS does not require annual appropriations. The Trust Funds have spending authority, not assets. The issue with SS is spending authority, not assets.
To judge SS as part of the government, cash flow is the only meaningful measure. SS has been cash flow negative since 2009. SS has revenues from payroll taxes and income taxes on benefits (a backdoor benefit decrease). SS has outflows for benefits and administrative expenses. Interest on Trust Fund bonds are not cash flow as the Treasury must borrow for all negative cash flow.
Your headline is misleading although you clearly understand the problem. A more precise headline is “SS will lack spending authority in 6 years unless Congress acts.”
In 2005, Bush II tried to interest Congress in a partially funded retirement program to replace SS. He was brutally savaged about the risk of a partially privatized system. In reality, the choice was to continue an entirely unfunded program or replace it with a partially funded program. Unfortunately, Democrats won this debate with the ridiculous argument that SS is risk-free as an unfunded government program.
If you are a retired public employee and do not have the require 40 Social Security credits then you do not qualify for benefits under the new Social Security Fairness Act. So, let’s say you were a public school teacher who worked a part time job where you paid into Social Security and earned the necessary 40 Social Security credits and you were denied Social Security benefits when you retired – would that be “fair?” When your spouse (not a public employee) retired and received reduced Social Security benefits because you were a public employee would that be fair?
The issue is jumping from a progressive benefits program to another program where there is no coordination. It is not hard to see that it takes advantage of the taxpayers in the first progressive program.
Jeff
Not sure where you’re going with your reply. But my question is pretty simple – should a retired public employee who earned 40 Social Security credits be allowed to collect Social Security benefits? Yes or no? Another simple question is – should a retired spouse of a public employee receive a reduced Social Security Benefits? Yes or no?
That’s not the issue. It’s the bend points and income replacement formula that would unfairly reward public employees if their untaxed public pension earnings were disregarded.
“The Social Security income replacement formula is a progressive system using “bend points” to replace a higher percentage of earnings for lower-income workers, calculated from your highest 35 years of indexed earnings. For 2026, it’s roughly 90% of the first $1,286 of AIME, 32% of earnings between $1,286 and $7,749, and 15% of earnings above $7,749, resulting in varying replacement rates.
absolutely Jh. You know your stuff on this topic.
nope and nope; public employee ………. who works for who?
fair in a crumbling evil empire of nonstop world wide warfare is sort of a trick question. don’t ya think. think about israel and the MICC……and wall street bailouts…..
Members of Congress will retire and let others deal with the situation, which they will have successfully avoided addressing up until such time as it becomes unavoidable.
In 6 years, unemployment will be over 20% due to AI/robots. There will be less workers to tax.
Best strategy is a Manhattan project to replace as many human workers with robots as possible.
Then everything will be provided for free as robots are ceaseless, uncomplaining workers who will toil 24 X 7 for humans.
Which is a disaster…unless we awaken to how to strategically integrate monetary gifting into the economy. In history it will be called The Window Cleaner’s, as in “Cleansing the doors of perception” paradigm change.
You people do not understand. In this coming world, money buys you nothing extra. The concept of money is obsolete. There will be no tipping. Money has no value. There is no need for “monetary gifting”!
This will bring forth the socialism that so many who voted for Mandami in NYC and favor politicians like Sander’s and AOC pine for.
Just machines to make big decisions
Programmed by fellows with compassion and vision
We’ll be clean when their work is done
We’ll be eternally free, yes, and eternally young.
What’s in it for the robot owners if they do not need labor and nobody has earned income to buy robot products?
he robots will be built under order from the AI in charge. They will not be “owned” by humans.
Soylent Green… it’s What’s for Dinner!
idiocracy. trump is combo president comacho and bozo the clown. so are most amerikans. they want to rule the world but have kids who want heroin and fentanyl………and cut their own balls off and call themselves a female. long live pax dumbfuckistan. just another twisted evil empire of assholes. history books littered with them.
Camacho actually cared about his people, and found an expert to help them. He was also a bit of a badass, as opposed to the obese, litigious, pig we have.
“Brawndo…it has electrolytes!”
Get your hands off me, you damned stinking apes!
Ponzi schemes always fail. End the program and let people invest more in 401k. Give people ownership of the money.
Bush 2 proposed a partially funded retirement program in 2005. He was lampooned without mercy by the left. Somehow, an unfunded program and explosive government spending is risk-free.
You are assuming the risk they were referring to wasn’t losing control of the electorate.
Mr. Ponzi better hurry up. In 5 years this completely unponzi-like scheme will have no money for him to steal. The very last thing SS is, is a Ponzi scheme.
Like every current economic problem a 50% Discount/Rebate policy at the retail/exchnge point of the problem…is the solution. So just have the central bank pay 50% of everyone’s monthly social security payment and the trust fund is secured until basically forever. If the FED can inject hundreds of billions of free debtless dollars into a handful of too big to fail banks in a matter of days as I posted here they did a few days ago…then they could do the same for the human civilization-long neglected individual economic agent at the various retail/exchange points throughout the economy…and resolve inflation, potentially double the demand for every enterprise’s goods and services and prevent the Debt Only paradigm wielded by the banking/money system from serially de-stabilizing the economy since forever. You want beneficial deflation like every libertarian says they do? Then implement a 50% Discount/Rebate at retail sale and get $100 of groceries for $50, a $60k EV for $30k and a $500k house for $250k…and avoid all of the pain of allowing the current way deflation occurs and that libertarians tend to overlook. You want tax cuts? Then have the FED fund a reasonable universal dividend of say $1000/mo. to everyone 18 years of age and older…not with treasuries/debt instruments but as electronic cash. Then who needs the payroll taxes for welfare and unemployment insurance? Make the 50% retail Discount include sales taxes and you’ve increased the funding to non-sovereign governments decentralizing and increasing their ability to provide infrastructure etc.
So many solutions…if one only opens their mind and looks at the effects of the new monetary and economic paradigm instead of only computing on orthodoxies that paradigm invalidates.
What you are proposing would result in roughly 20% yoy inflation for several years, a net loss to “beneficiaries”.
Being able to purchase $100 worth of groceries for $50 is a funny kind of inflation. And of course you expose yourself as a liberatarian moral and ethical moron by not recognizing (or not carring) that individual commercial agent inflation is actually an anti-social act. It also exposes the fact that “free” market theoretics isn’t free at all but rather the chaotic delusion of COMPLETE FREEDOM…including the freedom to commit unethical behavior. The minds of terminally orthodox libertarians live on a different planet than other humans do where ethics are real and necessary. And your problem is solved by allowing commercial agents to increase their prices 2-3% per annum and any revenue they may garner from higher inflation is taxed at a rate of at least 100%.
You don’t understand how money works. The only thing subsidies accomplish is higher prices. When interest rates for mortgages fell below 3% and QE “subsidies” were handed out simultaneously, housing prices doubled in some areas. The ACA subsidies resulted in actual premiums paid to insurance companies more than doubling. The best way to lower prices is to increase interest rates and take away subsidies. The best way to increase consumer prices is to lower interest rates and hand out free money (aka subsidies). This is economics 101. Make currency abundant, and the value of currency goes down. Make currency scarce, and the value of existing currency goes up.
That is ORTHODOX economics 101. I’m SHOWING YOU how with a single policy a paradigm change in money and in economics is accomplished. Consider: retail sale is the terminal expression point of inflation because it is the terminal ending point of the entire economic process where production exits the economy and becomes consumption. Hence it is the best point to implement a 50% Discount which MATHEMATICALLY transforms CHRONIC INFLATION INTO BENEFICIAL DEFLATION…FOR EVERYONE BECAUSE EVERYONE DOES AND MUST PARTICIPATE IN RETAIL THIS WOULD BE A TEMPORAL UNIVERSE REALITY…UNLESS YOU ARE SO FAR UP SOME ORTHODOXY’S A$$ THAT YOU JUST WON’T LOOK AT IT.
The taxation policy I mentioned would allow the commercial agent the freedom to inflate their price 3% but tax away any and all revenue they may get from any further inflation.
Did you get that? Or are you so terminally orthodox like better than 50% of the posters here that you can’t think a new thought and won’t look at the the realities the policy creates?
Your dream world economics is not the way the real world works. People operate on sin, not benevolence. They will raise prices until they lose sales, no matter how large the subsidy is, or what form it takes. Your proposal just results in even higher wealth concentration.
YOU are the one stuck in the long-acculturated dominated dream that Finance has foisted on every economic agent since day one. That makes you an erudite dunce.
The governor candidates for election who see the efficacy of including sales taxes in the 50% Discount/Rebate at retail sale…will all win. Think about it.
Could work with price controls, including controls on corporate profits and markups on new products and services. But that wouldn’t please your libertarian friends, or the capitalists who’s only goal is extract as much capital from the working class as possible, by any means possible. Stealing your wallet at the point of a gun is just too slow, that’s the only reason they don’t do it.
I’m not a libertarian. I’m a paradigm changer that will enable the beneficial effects libertarians want but can’t accomplish without causing great unnecessary pain. What I espouse will also bring about economic democracy which is what liberals want but cannot achieve without the policies of the new monetary paradigm. I’m an innovator, integrater and synthesizer of opposites so as to create a true thirdness greater oneness of unresolvable dualities. That is the intellectual process known as wisdom which has always been associated with “the third resolving way”.
OK. I finally figured it out. The whole character is an elaborate joke, just like Lazlo Toth was created by Don Novello, getting into back and forth arguments with Richard Nixon and corporate McDonalds. Bravo. I bow to your creativity.
“The Lazlo Letters refers to a humorous book series by Don Novello (creator of the character Father Guido Sarducci), featuring real, often absurd letters written by his alter ego, Lazlo Toth, to famous people, politicians (like Nixon, the Bushes), and corporations, and the often polite, baffled replies he received, showcasing hilarious cultural misunderstandings and American politeness.”
just hit the cursor button at the fed and treasury and wire into everyone’s account a few million of new currency and call it freedumb bucks. why complain kids as long as israel and the micc and ukraine and the hundreds of thousands of us troops playing gangsters all over the globe are ok. please keep the priorities straight in this crumbling empire of pax dumbfuckistan. democracy works. assholes elect themselves. trump to schumer to miss lindsay and your local rep. perhaps 2 % of people and congress are worth a lick.
I’m really encouraged by this post. I was beginning to worry that you changed medications because the anger was missing from your posts around the holidays. Keep up the good work.
End wage threshold, tax capital gains like ordinary, then set the rate to breakeven each year…
Payroll tax rate would go down.
As for means testing… raise federal tax rates to cover more of the budget and keep SS taxable. Those you make more give more of it back through the federal income tax. If they lose other income, they keep more SS after.
US total tax revenue to GDP = 18%
Developed world average = 26%
Don’t tell me we have to only cut the budget. But do make healthcare more affordable.
Eliminate fraud
In Federal Income Taxation? Great idea. But white people like their income taxation frauds. Once a year they go on federal income taxation fraud binges. It’s their right. You go eliminate fraud by colored people. Trump and Musk got rid of the income tax auditors so white people can cheat on their taxes and never get caught.
Holy Moses and you people think I’m nuts?
One trillion a year in income tax fraud:
“While exact, real-time percentages vary, white individuals consistently pay the largest share of total U.S. federal income tax, primarily because they represent the majority of taxpayers and high-income earners, with projections showing their share of taxpayers decreasing but still dominant (around 63% in 2024) while high-income earners overall (top 1% paying ~40%) contribute the most revenue. Data from sources like the Tax Foundation and SSA show White people are the largest group of taxpayers, even as demographics shift.”
Rampant fraud.
One trillion a year in US and state income tax fraud:
“While exact, real-time percentages vary, white individuals consistently pay the largest share of total U.S. federal income tax, primarily because they represent the majority of taxpayers and high-income earners, with projections showing their share of taxpayers decreasing but still dominant (around 63% in 2024) while high-income earners overall (top 1% paying ~40%) contribute the most revenue. Data from sources like the TX Foundation and SS show White people are the largest group of taxpayers, even as demographics shift.”
Rampant fraud.
I agree with you. And I owe you an apology………….
There is white rampant fraud no doubt. But its concentrated on those paying the 37% highest fed tax rate and don’t forget CA 13%.
The majority of that concentration is not middle class whites or anybody cheating. Hell the standard deduction for a married couple is so high now most homeowners are taking the standard deduction.
What do you think the voter population concentration is on that 37% tax bracket and throw in Cal 13%……………………..?? Virtue signal white liberals? LOL . Sorry, I can’t help it
“According to the Tax Foundation, Pew Research, 79% percent of people think that it is morally wrong to cheat on their taxes. According to the IRS, individual taxpayers do 75% of the cheating – mostly middle-income earners. …”
75% of the cheating mostly middle income earners? and 79% of people think its morally wrong to cheat? But they do any way lol.
Not justifying cheating on your taxes for anyone.
I bet that so called 75% of middle income cheaters equates to 1/4 of the dollar amount that the 37% tax cheaters are.
And we have to define cheating.
Perfectly legal getting your wages off W-2 and turning everything into capital gains if you can.
Its the w-2 wage earner that gets fucked over.
I am all for a type of flat tax with consumption based tax with $ amount exemption for low income taxpayers
Seen too many tax returns of people that own multiple businesses and show no income yet have money for boats motorcycles expensive vacations and a host of other over rated crap.
Make them pay some type of a consumption tax
You want a massive tax increase and substantial benefit decrease. There is no free lunch. A massive tax increase will curtail private investment. You are proposing to make SS a total welfare program with benefits tied to retirement savings (lack of retirement savings). Save less, government benefits increase, great incentive to invest for retirement.
The tariffs were a massive tax increase with no representation. The “Patriots” seem to like it.
Just a few propositions to throw out:
they are going to question carmakers on why cars are so expensive.
congress is run by people just like katherine maher. Self important, but can’t do their job. Incompetence is their watch word.
There should be no income cap. You pay based on 100% of your income. Raise retirement age to 70 and ss tax taken from checks from employees and employers. Don’t expect ss to be around. It will go probably go bankrupt. That’s why I started saving early and started collecting ss when I was 62. I can invest the money better than the government.
“Raise retirement age to 70”
OK, anyone who collected social security before age 70 needs to pay it all back and then once they hit 70 they can collect. If they don’t have the money or already spent it then they get cut off until the balance is paid.
????
why i took mine at 62 too. i payed myself such a low salary for decades the ROI has been wonderful. i feel sorry for the idiots that didn’t collect at 62. such innocent little lambs. like baby seals almost begging to be clubbed by the system of life.
Lol. My Dad waited until 70 and collected the SS max until 93.
You married? I’m thinking no. I too took mine at 62.
I’m divorced, married over 10 years single never remarried and my ex wife made a lot of money. Her family life span on avg is lower than mine.
While breakeven is not the total way to look at it, for me its age 79. By then my ex might be dead and I collect the survivor benefit so it made little sense for me not to take it at 62.
Married couples its a different equation with many variables and if you have a life span past 85 JCH below is also correct.
Everyones situation is unique and needs to be planned accordingly. So stating everyone else is a clubbed little lamb is foolish.
Married people have to look out for the lower earning spouse
I am thinking you are a single guy. Which is smart in a different kind of way.
Mom made it to 98. She lost hers, and got his for rest of her life. My parents made out like bandits. Liberal Dad, full of shrapnel from WW2, did not actually stop working until well past 80.
God Bless them. Old school liberals. The true liberals not like the ones of today.
Their actions and how they conducted themselves spoke louder than their words
The majority of todays liberals are the exact opposite
So, traders on wall street can pay 70k in ss taxes? Now, SS is too much of a penalty for high income people and eliminating the tax would be ridiculous. It’s a terrible investment for high earners let’s not make it unwieldy.
Fine with me as long as their benefits continue to rise as well. Whoopsie.
In best Roy Scheider deadpan, with cigarette dangling from mouth –
“You’re gonna need a bigger pandemic.”
I gave you an upvote for remembering the that classic line but the pandemic sped up by about 18 months the timeframe when SS will not be able to pay out 100% of the benefits beneficiares are entitled to.
That’s because it was a bullshit pandemic that hardly killed anyone who wouldn’t have been dead within two years anyway, and they shut down the economy for no good reason and handed out free money for doing nothing. The one they’re working on now will be more effective.
I agree. Now can you admit it the Democrats went along with it because it was a way to destroy Trump?
And I love when they compare Trump 1.0 economic statistics with Biden 4 years as if shutting down the U.S. economy had no effect.
“Billionaires added record $2.2tn in wealth in 2025
Just eight billionaires accounted for a quarter of the gains, led by Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Larry Ellison and Larry Page”
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2025/dec/31/billionaires-added-record-wealth-2025
Where, or where will we ever find the money to pay Social Security promises?
One solution is to get all the fat lazy fu ks collecting ss disability off the system. I am betting at least 10% are on this scam of the taxpayer. It started when clinton made welfare recipients work if able bodied. Also I believe immigrants can collect this even if they never paid into it.
Your last sentence is incorrect
The following people, mostly illegal immigrants, can collect Supplemental Security Income (SSI) with $0 required pay-in at any point in their lifetime, disabled or not:
Granted conditional entry under Section 203(a)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) as in effect before April 1, 1980;Paroled into the U.S. under Section 212(d)(5) of the INA for a period of at least one year;Refugee admitted to the U.S. under Section 207 of the INA;Granted asylum under Section 208 of the INA;Deportation is being withheld under Section 243(h) of the INA, as in effect before April 1, 1997; or removal is being withheld under Section 241(b)(3) of the INA;
Supplemental Social Security is NOT Social Security. Big mistake made by many people. Its abbreviated as SSI. SSI is the equivalent of Federal Welfare
That is what all of these migrants and illegal aliens are getting. SSI
The confusion the Social Security Admin actually helps administer that program.
That is NOT part of social security medicare or social security disability funds and not paid from those funds
Look it up
I typed that incorrectly.
SSI is Supplemental Security Income. But it is NOT part of the Social Security system , either through social security medicare or Social Security Disability
Double check that JeffD
That’s funny.
Sorry about the formatting. Whenever you edit a comment on this site, bulleted/numbered lists get “turned off”.
One interesting observation: for the most part, the accumulated debt of the country, at least to date, has had almost no impact on the deficit. In fact, the accumulated deficit would be several trillion dollars higher without SS. How can that be? One has to distinguish between public debt, where the government issues treasury bonds and bills and people buy the debt with intra-government debt. Intra government debt is when one entity of the federal government borrows money from another entity of the federal government. Federal accounting methodology has to at least account for this and thus you end up with an IOU debit as opposed to public debt issuance. The SS Trust fund is a form of intra-government debt. In this case, Treasury has “borrowed” accumulated SS surpluses from the SS Administration. SS had 35 years give or take after the Reagan era SS reforms where the program produced massive surpluses. The surpluses negated to an almost equal amount the public debt that did not have to be issued because you had all this free SS money flowing into the Treasury. Very easy to pass tax cuts in this environment. When SS no longer has structural surpluses several things happen: 1) more public debt has to be issued 2) interest on that debt increases because the debt pile expands 3) structural deficits expand because all the SS revenue gets paid out to recipients and 4) everyone starts talking about SS Reform because the good old days of structural SS surpluses are gone!
I meant to say in the opening sentence that SS, to date, had almost no impact on the accumulated debt.
Good analysis.
Social security recipients can be ordered to do all the labor on Trump’s big battleships.
If taco and his band of misfits remain in control, the date could come sooner.
Means tests
Yes, means tests, those with means shouldn’t pay into social security.
Yes, means tests.
If you are not living in a refrigerator box under the overpass or in a van down by the river, you don’t qualify.
There is no “trust fund” that pays for social security benefits. There is only the taxing and borrowing power of the Federal government. I’m surprised that Mish would even act like there is some pot of money to pay recipients of Social Security. It’s all borrowing at this point folks.
Search for Al Gore’s lockbox.
The so-called “lock-box” pre-dates Clinton/Gore. It was essentially created, at least in theory, as part of the last SS reform under Reagan where the payroll tax was increased and the full retirement year was gradually extended. George Bush 1 often made reference to the lock box because while no such lock box existed (structural SS surpluses flow to the Treasury and are spent as part of the general operating budget of the federal government). Clinton/Gore were actually beneficiaries of the Reagan era SS reforms in that their 2 terms coincided with peak Social Security surpluses flooding into the Treasury. So large, in fact, that for several budget years, no public debt had to be issued to cover the small but still structural fiscal deficits that existed. Clinton/Gore benefited not just from the Regan era SS tax increases. They benefited from favorable demographics as the baby boom retirement surge was not yet in full swing. That comes later under Obama where you start seeing the structural SS surpluses flatlining and then falling sharply due to known demographic trends. Just sayin’.
and well said. And that term was the last year the federal budget was balanced.
2001
Actually no. The budget was not balanced in the Clinton years. You still had deficits, although they were small. Technically, SS is considered “off-budget” although that is a technicality that is almost meaningless today. What happened was that the Government did not have to issue public debt to cover those small deficits because they had massive “borrowed” SS surpluses which negated the need for Treasury to issue public debt. Clinton was able to benefit from Federal Trust Fund accounting methodology.
I get an agree with your point on SS money being slid over but wasn’t that done before 2001? I just checked an that started in 1986.
But you make a great point and technically you are correct and I am wrong.
How about I say that was the closest we have been to a balanced budget in a long long long time?
Social security was always a rotten deal for almost everyone. This will just make it clear how big of a dumpster fire it was. We never should have put congressional grifters in charge of our retirement.
There are many good reasons why our forefathers created Social Security back during the Great Depression. Many people today have no idea or appreciation of why it was created. I think it will take another actual Great Depression for people to learn what was already learned by our forefathers.
Well said!
well said indeed.
Back in those days one could actually own land. Now the revenuers get their cut every year – don’t pay and lose the land you thought you owned.
Property taxes have been part of our existence since the Colonies. You don’t pay, the sheriff sells your home and land at auction on the courthouse steps.
… to his buddies.
YOU are in charge of your retirement. YOU should be saving and investing.
SS is a safety net, not a comfortable retirement option.
…and not guaranteed.
Yes, in 1935 for some strange reason the fools had little faith in the stock market.
And some had rather strange faith in government. I think we now know who was right. The market has been a retirement bonanza, and that government pension promise that can be taken away at any time for any reason is at best questionable.
Putting them in charge, ok, but everything else you said is monday morning quarterbacking at best, or worse
Did you want America to be the only country without some form of a federal retirement system? There are 3rd world countries that have their own countries retirement system.
Its actually a brilliant system as it was originally set up. Then modified to take care of a spouse, in those days the woman when her husband died young. And then to take care of her children. What is wrong with that?
Its all the changes that have gone on since its creation in the 1930s that are the reason why its struggling.
Longer life spans, less people now putting into as taking out, divorces. The system could be paying out to all 3 of someones ex wives if their ex wives worked the system by not remarrying.
It is a Social program, its in the name. One of the rare times the government initially got it right.
Now yes, it will need some serious tweaking
Yes its really hard to create an annuity, and not spend all the money before the liabilities come due. No insurance company has ever solved that intractable problem.
As far as other countries:
But the other kids were all doing it isn’t an argument. Another phrase for monday morning quarterbacking is “evaluating success”.
Social security was a rotten deal from moment one, and is now much worse. Who cares what other countries did? At least Australia had the sense to create real private accounts that couldn’t be stolen by grifting politicians.
Its a social program. It is not a private 401K
I do think it should be invested in an S&P funds and if it was when Bush Jr tried to I highly doubt it would be underfunded right now
So you want the United States of America to not have a retirement fund set aside for its “citizens” ????
Do I want the government to manage my retirement by providing an annuity with a negative present value that can be taken away any time by political whim? No, its a rotten deal. If you insist on doing so despite a century or more of general incompetence from the federal government a private account system
like Australia is at least superior.
I agree on Australia. And Chile as well.
I would go with a private system but you dam well know that millions of people will somehow screw that up and come asking the federal government to bail them out
So I am ok with the SS funds being invested in some type of S&P fund in the market
Sure there is a danger there too. But lets be honest.
The Federal Reserve or someone has socialized the stock market many years ago so I think there is less of a chance of a disaster in and S&P fund than a private account
I could be wrong.
What are the safeguards Australia has in place on a private account?
High income people and corporations are basically the ones who write the tax laws and they will never go for a tax increase or an increase in the wage limit subject to social security taxes. Those options will never be on the table.
So Congress will make cuts in one form or another. Raising the age limit, eliminating the COLA or decreasing payouts are all possibilities.
I predict we are entering a period of ‘austerity for the masses’ that will continue for many years. They just got the ball rolling with the Medicaid cuts and they will continue to cut social spending more and more as time goes on.
If this resulted in the elimination of deficit spending or actually paying down the national debt, then I could understand the cuts even if I don’t agree with them.
But that’s not what’s happening. The deficit spending is continuing and the national debt continues to rise.
The continuous rise in government debt and private debt makes no sense unless you understand debt has to constantly increase to prevent the system from collapsing.
It’s just that instead of directing deficit spending towards social spending, they’ve decided to direct it towards military and law enforcement spending. They’ve chosen that path because they see what’s coming.
Yes, they just got the austerity ball rolling: Medicaid cuts, no extension of ACA credits, and now just flat-out cutting daycare aid prior to investigation.
corporatism 101. aka known as fascism. benito mussolini, said it was socialism turned on it’s head. the gov controls but does not own the means of production. the C suite crowd are in high cotton from this. the middlebrows and poor can eat cake. amerikan middle brows are passive. they will take anything.
There is currently an over abundance of credit availability, and “austerity for the masses” won’t be coming anytime soon. Janet Yellen let “the public” know about this shift in Fed policy in 2017 when she said there would be, “no new financial crisis in our lifetimes.” Credit and QE, “To Infinity and Beyond!”
The challenge is formidable, but it is much worse than actually talked about. Firstly, being linked to a bad measure of inflation (COLA, 2.8%… really? in the year of tariff increases?). Secondly, the argument that because lower earners have a ‘larger income replacement % benefit’ than higher earners justifies labeling the system is unfair is absurd: The more accurate question is what percentage of total income is a receipient’s nondisretionary spending, and the benefits should be adjusted (discounted) inversely: if the pre-retirement/pre-draw nondiscretionary expenses represent a very small percentage of total after tax income, then that recipient’s benefit would be majorally reduced and vice versa. Finally, while the foregoing is a form of means testing, which I support, the idea of ‘raising the eligibility age’ is absolutely ludricous. Being alive and healthy does not mean you are a valuable employment candidate if you are 65, 67 or gulp 70! Considering the pool of manual laborers and final 5% of the ‘age at first hiring’ distribution, that 5% has very likely put in their 20-25 years by age 55-60. Bodies don’t last, and swinging a hammer, driving a truck, or hauling bricks make continued employment after 60 rare. Delaying that cohort’s ability to get benefits only expands poverty, which ultimately comes back as a social expense. This issue of ’employability’ is even more critical in the finance and tech sectors. In the typical pyramid corporate structure (up, or your out), the survival rate for those in finance drops dramatically at 45, 50 and 60. The vast majority of the wide base at the bottom never survives to make it to the top, and after 45, 50 and certainly 60 – especially in light of the ’employer’s proportion of healthcare payments’ – the applicant is very unlikely to successfully re-enter the workforce in that field. Typically, the result is sliding down the income ladder, if any employment is secured. Thus, the need for assistance remains high even if you did not spend your earning years swinging a hammer. I am cynically confident that Congress will apply bandaid after bandaid, but as has been suggested, as long as the dollar doesn’t crater, it will be funded by ever more debt.
The fund is technically insolvent already because the only buyer for paper assets of the trusts is the US government which is also the borrower. As such, when the inflows are exceeded by the outflows, the result in an increase in the current deficit. The “investments” made involuntarily over the years by wage earners have been “lost” by Congress. Any solution proposed should be accompanied by balanced budgets and the elimination of price inflation resulting from monetary inflation. Don’t hold your breath for that.
So what would Mish propose as a solution?
Fair question.
But the real goal should be to balance the budget.
Do that and the SS problem goes away as well.
I already commented on how to do that.
Two posts
https://mishtalk.com/economics/what-should-we-do-to-get-government-spending-under-control/
https://mishtalk.com/economics/us-debt-now-grows-by-1-trillion-every-150-days/
There’s always the printing press… Too bad for the the countries that the USA owes money to – their claim will vanish slowly, they’ll have produced valuable things for nothing.
There’s always those houses that were meant for our children…
stop stealing from it
make every legislator past and present that had anything to do with spending previous soc sec funds, personally liable for the missing funds
let me know when we can all stop laughing
When they say SS will be “bankrupt” in 5 years what that means is the United States of America – the government – will have paid back every single dime ever borrowed from SS plus the interest. That’s not how stealing works. Nothing – hard to believe – is missing. Not one red cent.
You are correct in that it will not be “bankrupt” in 5 years.
It will not be able to pay out 100% of the benefits beneficiares are entitled to, I think the % it would be able to pay out is about 80%
That is not the definition of bankrupt
Sacrifices need to be made for the good of America and I’m ok cutting off the leeches. These guys can pick themselves up from their bootstraps. Reading comments from all the older folks here they are all proud to be self-sufficient and can take care of themselves without big brother over them.
The real question is where is the money supposed to come from? Tax young people more on top of already soaring health care costs, inflation, and debt? Tax the rich?
None of those options will provide enough funding, maybe cut the military budget by a trillion or cut the benefits. It’s the only way. The reality is nothing will happen until it breaks.
For the intelligent person it’s all about got exit strategy?
Older people who have lost their savings in a crash will turn to SS for a safety net (which is what it is).
The premise of the question is what is going to happen when social security is bankrupt, the safety net is gone.
I want to see the politicians that will not do anything and let this go bankrupt. There have been something like 20 or more changes to the SS system and more will have to be more implemented
“Bankrupt” means about a 20% cut vs current benefits, not insolvency. It is a Pay-go system funded by payroll taxes, that can’t go “bankrupt”.
“However, the Bank can never go bankrupt. So, in a scenario where the Bank runs out of money, the banker should start implementing poker chips, cheques and ordinary paper to raise money back to the Bank for the gameplay to continue”
.
from some boomer’s estate sale item.
the old geezers will freak out. like i saw in russia in the 90s when their evil empire crumbled and the currency went teats up. it was a sight to see.
Heavily armed codgers wreaking vengeance upon the society that forsook them? Every dude I know that’s 70 or older has a freaking arsenal.
Lol – they’ve already wreaked their vengeance & elected this Admin
Actually, around 80% of it is still there.
Wage Cap should be raised to minimum of 500K gradually to 750K
I am ok with a government run but not single payer government health insurance for people age 26 to 64(off parents plan at 26 before 65 medicare)
Funny how older republicans(did I say that?) complain about not wanting government healthcare when they have Medicare.
And I don’t know if people realize it but Medicare is better than NYS Health exchange med insurance(most other states are even worse) when you factor in cost, deductibles and how many Drs & hospitals take medicare compared to a state plan
Desk job retirement age(me) should be 70 not 67.
Manual labor stays the same, mostly 67 for most of us today
I am hesitant on raising the SS rate taken out of employee checks but if there is a government run healthcare maybe an adjustment to the employer share side
They can also play around with the Bend Points in the calculation
Now higher earners are not going to be happy but the reality is even today if you make 3 times what I make, your SS payout compared to mine will only be about 50% more. They can make those bend points pay the higher wage earner even less
They have cut out some of the strategies that while I wont say were abusive, they were not really intended to be an option when SS was setup, I don’t think anyway. I am referring to File and suspend for married couples which now has gone away
PS. A lot of illegals, those that somehow used a number to get on the books for payroll only to find social security is not crediting them, not the IRS social security, that has contributed millions annually to the plus side of the fund
That is a big reason for all of these new types of visas because they folks are legitimately putting into the SS system and paying their taxes(at least on those wages), that’s a new plus, hard to quantify.
Yeah, I’m ok with people coming here and getting legal papers to work but you can deport the illegals coming here and commiting crimes and using up the various federal and state welfare benefits.Something to many liberals cant admit needs to be done.
Last but not least, invest those federal government SS funds into the stock market via an S&P fund or similiar and not the just receiving a small amount of interest paid from the U.S. Treasury.
WTF, Social Security, it is a Social program and tell me we have not socialized the stock market with the PPT or the Fed or whomever hits the buy futures bottom at the most critical of times.
I fully support raising the minimum amount of earned income before no more SS is taken from paycheck. Unfortunately stock options will get really abused, so stock options need to be done away with.
That said, I would also like to see estate tax on every dollar above $1 million. This would create a “right of survivorship” where the old pay for the other old people, and young people get some relief to build a family and life.
George Clooney now qualifies for full medical care over in France 😉 along with all the social safety nets…..lol!
dual citizens of usa and italia can choose which pension and healthcare to use. the embassy staff at italia literally revel in telling one about all the great free shit army stuff they have. btw the biggest swindle of the 20th century was italia and greece getting into the euro. per economist newspaper and i must concur.
Surfing on the back of the German mark
Germany let it happen, just like they let their country be overrun by foreign cultures and let America cut off their access to cheap Russian energy. Dumb krauts.
Clooney delivered to his 15 best friends $1 million each in cash in briefcases a while back. He doesn’t need a medical plan.
Is that true? LMAO
Now there’s something for you to aspire to.
If the system is operating at a deficit, raising the wage cap will do very little. Unless you are suggesting the increase in SS taxes on high earners should result in no additional benefits. I can hear the billionaires howling in pain. The injustice of it all!
raising the wage cap is not a 1 stop fixes all but it will help. And probably more than we think. I have some sources I can check on that.
Millionaires and billionaires have to realize its a Social program skewed to the lower earner
If they raised the minimum retirement age from 62 to 67 starting phase-in today, and completing five years from now (aka in real-time), that would fix a lot of the current “pig in the python” problem related to Baby Boomer retirements.
That is true. And another reason I took mine early. I am also single, not remarried so do not have a wife to consider when I am gone and my ex wife life expectancy(I know only a guess) is lower than mine from health issues on her side.
No guarantee but I do know if she died the added Survivor benefit ups my social security like $750 a month. She was a very high earner.
Hey its the least I could get for putting up with her and my ex mother in law.
Print.
Or invade and plunder.
Or steal from foreigners like yourself once you leave. Just tax your properties at a really high rate.
Those are the 3 easiest ways.
“Or invade and plunder.”
That’s going to be hard to do with a geriatric army, just ask Russia how well that’s going for them. They already had a demographic time bomb and it just got 10x worse.
Any new wars are going to grind away all the young men away from this point moving forward unless you’re the middle east or Africa or parts of India.
The goal is regime change in Venezuela and/or Iran to ensure endless cheap oil for the USA. I imagine neither will require much in the way of US forces beyond the regime change as we can then install a puppet government friendly to the USA.
Its GOING to happen.
listen up you little whipper snapper. we had it tough in the 50s and 60s as kids. we had to walk across ten feet of shag carpet or hardwood floors to turn the stations on the idiot boxes. we didn’t have any remote controls. life was really tough. like our own little world wars…….with GI joes.
I thought it was walk to school with a hot potato in your hand to keep warm?
In Dakotas there were no hot potatoes. What we did was walk backwards into a wind, which was present most of the time. When it was 10 (real) or more degrees below zero, Mom would take pity on us and load us into the car for a ride. The car would fail to start (before block heaters), and then we would walk backwards to school anyway. Walking backwards prevented frostbite.
LMAO! Touche
I used to do that – walk backwards into the wind. I had a mile-long walk to the bus stop, all weather.
Once at the stop, we’d stand behind trees to block the wind.
Cut off the leeches? But they’re our greatest ally – the only “democracy” in the Middle East.
S/S, like some other Taxpayer Expenditures, that cause havoc with their financial situation at times, needs 1 Major Change. That’s it. Just One!
Wealth (Set @ ? Top 10%?), and Income Check (Set @ ? $500K?) before your benefits begin each and every year. Very simple procedure to do, and accomplishes what’s needed I do believe. Not taking anything away from the existing lifestyle, and passing it on to an “Earmarked” Fund for Less Fortunate Peoples Programs. Say a Finance, Time Management, Public Speaking, Etc. To help get their careers on track!
It could and maybe should work, and workout well. Qualifiers in place and changes like s/s income does each year, for raises.
We don’t need taxes to pay the Gov’t bills, and the US will simply print more money like they do for every other blown-up budget.
“The government can pay any bill it has to pay. It can always print money to do that. What it can’t guarantee is the purchasing power of that money.”
no printing. just hit the zero cursor on the NYFED computer. get an intern to do the heavy typing.
Punt.
Eject! Eject!
Raise the debt ceiling, borrow and spend. Problem solved.
electronic currency is so simple to produce. no need to cut down trees or confiscate newspaper printing presses. not sure what the problem is. remember when a millionaire meant you were like thurston howell the 3rd and lovey? now a million dollars is middle class net worths.
Your running for Congress I see