On your first point I absolutely agree. But if you’re implying from it that benefits programs don’t matter because the payroll taxes pay for them, that’s not c

On your first point I absolutely agree. But if you’re implying from it that benefits programs don’t matter because the payroll taxes pay for them, that’s not correct. In 2020, the cost of the programs I mentioned above was approximately 2.3 trillion dollars. Payroll tax revenue was 1.3 trillion, income tax revenue was about 1.6, everything else is half a trillion. So if you waved a magic wand and poofed these programs out of the budget, you could get rid of the payroll taxes and 2/3 of the receipts of the income tax without changing the deficit. Or, you could get rid of payroll taxes, all the other taxes, and still reduce the income tax receipts by about 1/3. > People paid into social security and medicare to get it. If they get more than they paid in for (sans interest earned on what they put in), then you have a case for a "wealth transfer". Otherwise, it is just like a 401K, which is also save now and use later. The problem with this line of argumentation is that people have gotten (and are promised to get) more out of these programs than they pay in. The CBO provides projections for the solvency of the assets of these programs, which it calls trust funds [1]. The projections show the bulk insolvent by 2026. So clearly people are receiving more than their contributions are capable of sustaining. [1]: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56541 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56541