Boomers want higher taxes to save Social Security — but is there a better way?



Social Security’s funding shortfall has started a serious debate among young workers and their elders, with younger workers frustrated that older Americans are asking them to pay higher taxes to protect the benefits they’ve been counting on.

A new poll highlights the divide — 89% of Americans over 65 support preserving current retirees’ benefits, even if it means raising taxes. Among adults ages 30 to 44, support falls to 57%.

“There’s a new poll about Social Security,” BlazeTV host Ron Simmons explains on “Relatable.” “U.S. Boomers, which I’m included, support tax hikes on young workers to keep current Social Security checks.”

“I can imagine that’s controversial because I know that when I was your age, if you’re younger listening to this, I would have been against increasing my taxes to take care of people that had already paid in,” he continues.


“But, you know, now that I’m a Boomer, let me tell you the way I look at it,” he adds.

“When I first started, you could get full benefits at age 65. Then they came along and changed it,” Simmons says.

“They increased the retirement age. And increasing the retirement age means that people my age and younger would pay more in for a longer period of time before we were able to get benefits,” he explains.

Simmons, who qualifies to get full benefits in the next couple of years, has paid up to $360,000 in Social Security.

“If that would have been invested at 5% interest, that would have been a value of about $900,000. So, my account, if it was like in a 401(k), would probably be sitting there with about $900,000 in it,” he explains.

“If I went out and bought an annuity, meaning an annuity is something that pays me every month until the day I die, then that annuity would be about $5,000 a month. Now, that’s less than what I’m going to get from Social Security based on the estimates that I’ve found on the website,” he continues.

“The problem is, that money wasn’t invested like it should be. What happens is, we all put money in Social Security, and then the government takes that money and does other things with it, and they leave an IOU that essentially is not earning us any interest,” he adds.

What Simmons believes should be done is give people the ability to “direct the investment of the amount that you put in there.”

“If it was invested in a balanced portfolio, a mixture of stocks and bonds, that’s going to grow at 8 or 9% a year,” he explains.

“And over your career, that’s going to create a huge account that, again, you could draw on, or they could even just buy you an annuity and pay you a certain amount every month,” he continues.

“That’s the issue,” he adds.

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

It’s Not Billionaires Robbing The Middle Class, It’s Welfare Recipients

By 2023, government transfer payments to the lowest income quintile totaled roughly 70 percent of their average cash income.

Nick Freitas: Social Security is a ‘Ponzi scheme’ — and America is running out of time



Millions of Americans have spent their working lives paying into Social Security, counting on the government to deliver the retirement benefits they were promised — and that promise isn’t being kept.

BlazeTV host Nick Freitas argues that it’s because Social Security operates less like a traditional retirement account than a system that uses today’s workers’ contributions to pay today’s retirees, leaving future generations to shoulder an increasingly difficult burden.

“There’s been a lot of … Boomers that have said, ‘Well, of course, we, you know, younger people should pay more taxes in order to make sure Social Security is solvent,’” Freitas says.

“Social Security,” Freitas says, “essentially operates like a Ponzi scheme.”


“Now, when I say this, people get mad at me. But I want you to understand why these are the things which are actually going to throw us into a massive fiscal and monetary crisis, because when people paid in, it is perfectly reasonable for somebody that was forced to pay into Social Security their entire life to want to be able to pull from Social Security because they were promised it,” he explains.

“The problem is you were promised a bad program,” he says, “because in a typical retirement program, the money goes into a productive industry. It accrues interest while things are being built and being produced that are actually making the economy better.”

“They act like it’s just another retirement program, but in reality, all the money you put into Social Security was already spent,” he continues.

“It wasn’t sitting somewhere accruing interest. It wasn’t funding productive projects that actually yielded profit. It wasn’t doing any of that. It wasn't doing any of the things a private retirement fund would do for you. It was just paying the people that were already collecting Social Security,” he adds.

This is why he equates it to a “Ponzi scheme.”

“Because now the critical part is we don’t have enough people working. When Social Security was first put into existence, there was something like 45 workers for every one person drawing Social Security,” he explains, noting that “it’s about to be three to one.”

And in addition, Freitas points out that “the left brings in a bunch of people that don’t pay taxes or actually go on to other welfare benefits.”

“Now they’re a net drain on the economy,” he adds.

“Making the Argument with Nick Freitas” is available on BlazeTV+, YouTube, and major podcast platforms.

Start watching Nick Freitas NOW at blazetv.com and use the promo code NICK for $20 off your BlazeTV+ subscription.

Democrats can't erase the price shock of the Biden years



House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) says Republicans have "done nothing to make life more affordable for the American people" and instead have "made life more expensive." That’s a remarkable accusation from a party that presided over a historic jump in consumer prices and continues to defend policies that add to the bills families pay.

With the November midterms approaching, Democrats want voters to blame Donald Trump for the cost of groceries, rent, power, and gasoline. They should first account for the prices Americans inherited when Trump returned to office — and for the costs imposed by Democrat-led states.

Americans did not forget what groceries and rent cost four years ago. Democrats should not expect them to forget who held power when those prices took off.

Start with inflation. The Federal Reserve aims for 2% annual inflation over time. Even when inflation slows, prices generally keep rising. A smaller annual increase does not reverse the larger increases that came before it.

According to the consumer price index, overall prices climbed about 21% during Joe Biden's presidency. They rose roughly another 5% between January 2025 and August 2026, the latest available monthly data. Inflation has not stopped: The August report put the 12-month rate at 3.4%. But the distinction between the rate of inflation and the price level explains why families still feel the squeeze from the Biden years.

Household essentials tell the story. The Bureau of Labor Statistics recorded increases of more than 20% in grocery prices and residential rents during Biden's term. Electricity costs rose by roughly 30%. Slower subsequent increases leave those earlier jumps in place.

At the pump, the weekly national average hit $5.01 a gallon in June 2022, during Biden's term. It peaked at $4.50 so far in Trump's second term, amid disruptions to oil supplies due to the Iran war. Nominal term averages have run $3.46 under Biden and $3.43 so far under Trump, according to federal energy data.

Still, the household costs Democrats now denounce were already elevated when Biden left office. The party cannot credibly campaign as though American families began paying those bills in January 2025.

State policy makes the contradiction sharper. The Federation for American Immigration Reform, which favors stricter immigration enforcement, estimated in 2023 that illegal immigration imposed a net fiscal cost of $150.7 billion a year on federal, state and local taxpayers. The report raises a question Democrat officials cannot dismiss: Who pays for education, health care, and other public services as migration increases?

RELATED: The diesel panic cure could make the disease worse

Frederic J. BROWN/AFP/Getty Images

Housing supplies another pressure point. A September 2026 Brookings study estimated that the post-pandemic immigration surge raised rents in receiving metropolitan areas by 1.4% to 1.6%. Policymakers who expand immigration without making room for more housing should expect renters to notice.

Electricity offers an even clearer test of state choices. An analysis publicized by the American Energy Alliance found that rates rose 32.4% from 2014 to 2024 in states that backed the Democrat presidential nominee in 2020 and 2024, compared with 18.5% in Republican-voting states. States with mandatory renewable portfolio standards also saw larger increases than those without them. Voters should ask what those mandates cost.

When House lawmakers passed legislation requiring state utility regulators to consider shielding ratepayers from new data-center infrastructure costs, Senate Democrats blocked its advance. Families watching their power bills climb deserved a better result.

Taxes provide another point of comparison. Visual Capitalist's analysis estimated that a New Jersey resident would pay about $1.36 million in federal, state, and local taxes over a lifetime, equal to 48.2% of estimated earnings. Eight of the 10 highest-tax states in that ranking had Democrat governing trifectas in 2026. The concentration is striking.

RELATED: The kindness con: Fraudsters exploit America’s safety net

Aleksei-veprev/Getty Images

New Jersey, my home state, levies the nation's highest top corporate income tax rate, 11.5%. Burlington has announced plans to shift its headquarters to Philadelphia, and Samsung has announced a headquarters move to Texas. ExxonMobil moved its legal domicile to Texas. Lawmakers should consider what those departures say about the state's tax and regulatory climate.

The state's employment figures offer another warning. New Jersey's initial estimate of 25,600 jobs lost in July was subsequently revised to 21,900. Officials have reason to examine the burdens they put on employers.

Americans have also seen welcome gains. The Census Bureau reported that real median household income reached a record $87,460 in 2025, up 2.6% from 2024, while the official poverty rate fell to 10.2%. Median income for black households rose 4.8%.

Democrats are free to make their case that Republican policies have made life more expensive. Voters should require them to answer for their own record: the price surge under Biden, the tax burdens in Democrat-led states, the cost of energy mandates, and the fiscal consequences of immigration policy.

Americans did not forget what groceries and rent cost four years ago. Democrats should not expect them to forget who held power when those prices took off.

NYT Op-Ed Shows Why Voters Worried About Affordability Should Be Wary Of Democrats

The affordability shtick is nothing more than a campaign myth.

Here’s Every Major 2026 Ballot Initiative You Need To Know About

The Federalist has assembled a list of the biggest 2026 ballot initiatives to help inform voters of what's at stake this election season.

Need A Reason To Vote? GOP Just Stopped Your Taxes From Paying Noncitizens’ Medical Bills

If Democrats win in November they will flood the country with Third World foreigners and force Americans to foot the bill for all of it.

Can a $1.2 trillion giveaway become a fiscal bargain?



President Trump’s call for a $5,000 “dividend” payment to all adult U.S. citizens is being widely criticized as fiscally unsound, grossly irresponsible, a cynical vote-buying scheme, and another political promise that will never come to fruition.

Trump’s plan, as he presented it in just a couple of throwaway sentences at the Republican Midterm National Convention in Dallas last week, is indeed all those things. It amounts to a Keynesian-style attempt to stimulate the economy temporarily by making people feel richer than they are, to be followed by the usual consequences of such fiscal monkeyshines: violent inflation and a subsequent grinding recession.

An unprecedented economic boom or dramatic revenue surge cannot be assumed in advance.

Trump, however, is a habitual dealmaker. What if congressional leaders were to respond to the president’s idea as a starting point for negotiations?

My suggestion: Agree with the president to pass a one-time tax cut of $5,000 for the 2027 fiscal year, paired with a permanent spending cap set at the 2019, pre-COVID-19 level and mandatory 2% additional reductions in the spending cap each year through 2040.

The tax cut would be payable immediately upon enactment and designated as refundable to all U.S. households that file a personal income tax return (whether they pay any income tax or not), thus fulfilling Trump’s promise.

Republicans would make a simple deal with the American people: $5,000 today for every adult citizen, in exchange for serious, desperately needed cuts in federal spending beginning in the next fiscal year and continuing through the next decade. Any congressional Democrats who want to do the right thing will be welcome to vote for it as well, of course.

For practical reasons, the spending cuts would need to begin with the 2028 fiscal year in October 2027, but the 2% annual spending cuts thereafter would easily offset the extra interest costs on the additional federal debt that the delay would create.

To implement the cuts, Congress would convert the federal portion of spending on Medicaid, SNAP, housing programs, higher education, and the like into block grants to the states, with the expenditures scaled down to the 2019 level. The legislation would institute 5% annual reductions in those block grants for subsequent years through 2040, essentially phasing them out of the federal fisc.

The move to block grants with annual downsizing would steadily transfer responsibility for welfare spending to the states, where it belongs. Federal redistribution programs are not explicitly permitted under the Constitution, and the Supreme Court should never have allowed Congress to establish those programs.

These welfare programs account for about 24% of the $7 trillion-plus federal budget, around $1.7 trillion. In 2019, they composed about $1 trillion. A return to that number would pay off a $1.3 trillion refundable one-year tax cut in less than two years, with a dozen years of much lower federal spending on the way.

RELATED: Free money wins elections — and that’s why America’s debt will keep growing

Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call Inc./Getty Images

If a 40% cut in spending on federal welfare programs sounds draconian and cruel, remember that the 2019 spending level was far from stingy. We needed cuts then, and we need them much more urgently now, even without Trump’s dividend payments. Investigations during President Trump’s current term suggest that elimination of entitlement fraud could lead to even greater cuts than what this plan would call for.

Congress should also consider cutting defense spending to provide further spending reductions.

In short, this would be a temporary tax cut and permanent spending cuts — the very opposite of the way things are ordinarily done in Washington D.C. The key element, and the unique opportunity here, is the political goodwill and appealing trade-off the $5,000 dividend checks would provide.

The only way to reverse the spending cuts would be through legislation signed by the president or a veto override. Trump would have every reason to refuse any attempt by Congress to restore the spending, especially given his track record of trying to implement limits on entitlement programs through executive orders. The same would be true for any Republican successors.

Moreover, the transfer of welfare responsibility to the states would eliminate congressional spending junkies’ ability to use these programs as a slush fund for buying votes. In addition, the money simply will not be there, given the rising cost of Social Security and Medicare.

This plan would allow Congress fiscal breathing space to develop a plan to transition Social Security and Medicare into private taxpayer accounts and transfer future responsibilities for those programs to the states. Social Security and Medicare are just as unconstitutional as the other entitlements, with the important difference that these were funded by people’s paychecks with the direct promise of repayment, a pledge the government must keep for current and prospective retirees.

Americans would be relieved to know that major Social Security cuts are off the table.

The plan should also make permanent all of Trump's executive orders that have reduced federal regulations — and add further regulatory relief.

RELATED: Trump’s interest-rate fantasy runs into debt gravity

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

The large, one-year tax cut would spark an economic boom of possibly unprecedented proportions. Economic growth would cause federal revenues to rise dramatically in subsequent years, which would enable the government to begin paying down the existing federal debt.

The spending cuts would push down interest rates by greatly reducing the federal deficit and thereby raising the assurance that the federal government will be able to pay its debts, thus increasing the value of Treasury bonds and lowering interest costs.

This would reduce interest rates for all Americans, including for mortgages. That would help relieve the housing affordability problem.

The entitlement cuts would also put able-bodied people back to work and make them taxpayers instead of tax takers, raising revenues and cutting costs further. That would spur even more economic growth.

These would be impressive achievements. A political party that instituted this plan could create a permanent majority despite the inevitable mistreatment by the media and the opposition party, while returning the nation to constitutional rule. Most people dislike the current overspending, and people recognize that far too much of it goes to cheaters, grifters, and government cronies.

For the good of the American people, Trump and the congressional Republicans should prepare legislation to implement this full plan in the lame-duck session, immediately after the election, regardless of whether they win House and Senate majorities this fall. They would be giving the American people a great gift of economic prosperity and better government, and Democrats would not be able to reverse any of it, with a Republican president holding veto power.

Mommy's Little Senate Candidate May Have Taken His First Steps Toward Financial Adulthood

James Talarico, 37, may have finally taken his first step on the road to financial independence. The Democratic candidate appears to have drawn down the checking account he shares with his mommy, Tamara Talarico, according to his latest financial disclosure.

The post Mommy's Little Senate Candidate May Have Taken His First Steps Toward Financial Adulthood appeared first on .

‘I Don't Wanna Pay It Back’: Socialist Senate Nominee Angie Nixon Says It's ‘Crazy’ She Has To Pay Her Taxes And Student Loans

Florida Democratic Senate nominee Angie Nixon, an avowed Democratic Socialist who owns two homes and raked in at least $270,000 from her jobs and investments last year—in addition to her husband's unpublished income—is lamenting the injustice of having to pay taxes on her outsized income.

The post ‘I Don't Wanna Pay It Back’: Socialist Senate Nominee Angie Nixon Says It's ‘Crazy’ She Has To Pay Her Taxes And Student Loans appeared first on .