And no, I do not agree that guaranteeing political support for $20,000 benefits for poor seniors requires also paying millionaire couples $100,000 in benefits. How about $70,000 a year instead? Besides, uncapping their payroll tax would anger high-earners just as much.

No, I'm not proposing cutting anyone off. But I model several reforms that would save TRILLIONS of dollars by modestly paring back benefits for high-earning seniors. Progressives could instead use more of their proposed new taxes on education, childcare, health care, & climate.

Result: Over the next decade, Washington will spend $5.6 trillion on Social Security and Medicare B&D benefits for families earning more than $100,000 in retirement income not including benefits. That includes $2 trillion on those earning more than $200,000 after retirement.

And before you say "too bad, their payroll taxes earned every penny," average-earning seniors collect 50% more combined Social Security and Medicare benefits than they paid in - even after adjusting for net present value.

The maximum Social Security benefit not only far exceeds other nations, it has also grown substantially faster than working family incomes - nearly doubling after inflation. No other country spends so much on its richest seniors. No other U.S. age group is doing this well.

eniors also have the most wealth, least debt, least trouble paying bills, and highest financial satisfaction. That comfort is good news! But why are we cutting everyone else's spending and reserving all tax hikes to pay the wealthiest ones nearly $100,000/yr in benefits?

In fact, when adjusting for household size, senior income now roughly matches that of younger families - even as most seniors no longer face mortgage, childraising, or student loan costs. Most of them are doing very well.

Yes, we should absolutely protect poor seniors. But measured correctly, seniors have the lowest poverty of any age group - and their incomes have grown substantally faster than younger families.

Washington currently spends $43,700 per senior - vs. $4,300 per person under 26. So if we're going to max-out on taxing the rich and also cut other spending, do we really want to give 100% of the savings to SocSec and Medicare benefits instead of kids & working families?

Because upper-income taxes are limited, we've already spent several decades paying for Social Security and Medicare by slashing discretionary spending and social programs. And that will only accelerate as retirement costs soar ever-higher.

Uncapping the payroll tax raises 0.9% of GDP, but also pushes upper-income tax rates as high as 63% - which approximates the revenue-maximizing rate. That leaves no room to raise upper-income tax rates to pay for Medicare or any other progressive priority - all goes to SocSec.

The "just tax the rich" solution is far insufficient because it requires eventually raising roughly 5% of GDP which is virtually impossible from just 5% of the population. Yes, we should tax the rich more. No, it doesn't come anywhere close to funding Social Security & Medicare.

Over 30 years, Social Security and Medicare face a $157 trillion cash deficit that dominates the $200 trillion in projected deficits under a current policy baseline. This far exceeds what can be financed by taxing the rich or cutting defense.

Some voters got mad about people listing their pronouns, so now we're sending law-abiding, legal immigrants to torture prisons and being hit with the largest middle class tax hike in at least 40 years.