U.S. Rep. Susan Wild and state Rep. Ryan Mackenzie, both vying for a seat in Congress, sharply disagreed on the future of Social Security, a critical issue for many seniors in Pennsylvania’s 7th District, during a televised debate Sunday night.

Wild expressed confidence that the solvency of the program could be secured by increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans.

“There is a relatively easy fix, and it’s called taxing billionaires as we should,” Wild stated.

Under the current system, Wild said, ordinary citizens pay into Social Security year-round while billionaires “stop contributing after their first day of work each year.”

“If we properly taxed people at the very top who are doing just fine, we would not run out of money in Social Security.”

A Times News article published Tuesday incorrectly reported that Mackenzie accused Wild of zero-based budgeting. It was Wild, however, who said Mackenzie’s zero-based budgeting would put Medicare and Social Security on the chopping block.

Mackenzie, however, argued that the biggest threat to Social Security is not insufficient taxation but rather the federal government’s reckless spending. He accused Wild of contributing to massive deficit spending, which he said is jeopardizing the program’s future.

“That massive reckless spending is not only infringing and hurting their ability to potentially receive Social Security down the road,” Mackenzie said, warning that by 2034, benefits could be cut by 20% if changes are not made.

He stressed the need for fiscal responsibility to ensure that Social Security and other benefits remain available for future generations.

“Susan Wild voted for every single plank of Bidenomics,” Mackenzie said. “That inflation is hurting our seniors.”