Rather than reading this opinion piece, you can learn more about the “debt crisis” by just studying this chart which shows what percentage of the federal budget goes toward paying off the debt:
The situation is similar to what it was in the late 1980s, and it can mostly likely be managed with the same level of spending restraints we saw in response to that.
> How severe? A sustainable U.S. debt trajectory would entail elimination of nearly all defense spending or almost all non-defense discretionary outlays, he estimated.
Reminder that infrastructure is ~3% of the budget, the military is ~13%. Almost all of the rest are benefits, either health or money, for old people or various poverty reduction schemes. Or debt.
Social Security was made when there were ~130:1 worker:retiree ratio, now its closer to 3:1 and getting worse. The budget is largely an exercise in transferring money from the younger to the older. Unlike when SS started and the older generations were the poorest, right now they are the richest, so its an exercise in making the richest generations a bit richer at the expense of the current working generations.
Since debt is now a large part of the US budget, this represents the retiree generation (again, the richest generation!) borrowing from even farther in the future to give themselves more money.
There is no solution that doesn't confront this. The old are eating the young at an accelerated pace. People will say things like "But seniors are on a fixed income" as if that didn't represent most people, more or less, or justify the sheer scale of the wealth transfer.
The most realistic solution is that we would have to stop all kinds of benefits to already-rich people and make it solely and exclusively on poverty reduction for the retirees that are in fact poor.
There's no steering anything. You are not paying for yourself, you are paying for current retirees on the hopes that there will be enough people to pay for your. Current retirees are not getting enough from that, so they are accumulating debt to pay themselves even more, hence the article.
Since the population pyramid has not worked that way, you will simply have a worse time, and younger people even worse, unless you can convince the people after to take on even more debt.
"Children are the retirement plan" has been true all along, only obfuscated. It would have been more sensible if social security payouts were contingent on how much tax revenue your children made, rather than the current model.
Because social security tax is simply a tax like any other, and social security is a pay as you go means tested entitlement program like any other.
Current workers pay for current retirees. There is no account anywhere with your name on it earmarked for your retirement.
It was enacted with lawmakers well knowing this - it was simply marketed in such a way to make it politically possible to enact and keep around long-term. If it were pitched as an additional tax and spend welfare program it’d have never gotten off the ground to begin with.
Without your dollars going in today, current retirees would not be receiving meaningful benefits - as their contributions largely went towards those retired while they were working. The whole idea is more of a social contract between generations than anything else.
Reminder that social security is funded entirely by a separate tax and not debt, so unless you are planning to cut benefits but continue the tax it would do nothing to reduce the deficit or debt.
No, solution is to go back to a tax structure we and in the 1950s, were the very rich and corporations paid real taxes.
Starting with Reagan, taxes cuts corporations and the rich has been the main driver of the debt. And I will add to that, falling wages for the middle and lower classes based upon inflation.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYOIGDA188S
The situation is similar to what it was in the late 1980s, and it can mostly likely be managed with the same level of spending restraints we saw in response to that.
Reminder that infrastructure is ~3% of the budget, the military is ~13%. Almost all of the rest are benefits, either health or money, for old people or various poverty reduction schemes. Or debt.
Social Security was made when there were ~130:1 worker:retiree ratio, now its closer to 3:1 and getting worse. The budget is largely an exercise in transferring money from the younger to the older. Unlike when SS started and the older generations were the poorest, right now they are the richest, so its an exercise in making the richest generations a bit richer at the expense of the current working generations.
Since debt is now a large part of the US budget, this represents the retiree generation (again, the richest generation!) borrowing from even farther in the future to give themselves more money.
There is no solution that doesn't confront this. The old are eating the young at an accelerated pace. People will say things like "But seniors are on a fixed income" as if that didn't represent most people, more or less, or justify the sheer scale of the wealth transfer.
The most realistic solution is that we would have to stop all kinds of benefits to already-rich people and make it solely and exclusively on poverty reduction for the retirees that are in fact poor.
My question is this: If I can’t get some or most it, why can’t I steer the money to where I believe the money ought to go?
Since the population pyramid has not worked that way, you will simply have a worse time, and younger people even worse, unless you can convince the people after to take on even more debt.
"Children are the retirement plan" has been true all along, only obfuscated. It would have been more sensible if social security payouts were contingent on how much tax revenue your children made, rather than the current model.
Current workers pay for current retirees. There is no account anywhere with your name on it earmarked for your retirement.
It was enacted with lawmakers well knowing this - it was simply marketed in such a way to make it politically possible to enact and keep around long-term. If it were pitched as an additional tax and spend welfare program it’d have never gotten off the ground to begin with.
Without your dollars going in today, current retirees would not be receiving meaningful benefits - as their contributions largely went towards those retired while they were working. The whole idea is more of a social contract between generations than anything else.
Bad headline. No biscuits.
Starting with Reagan, taxes cuts corporations and the rich has been the main driver of the debt. And I will add to that, falling wages for the middle and lower classes based upon inflation.