5 ms·

This is pretty cool, but I fear that it could distract from the obvious issue: the vast majority of federal expenditure goes to defense and elder welfare. The

This is pretty cool, but I fear that it could distract from the obvious issue: the vast majority of federal expenditure goes to defense and elder welfare. The problems are simple yet nobody in the political spheres wants to acknowledge them: we spend way too much on SS/Medicare relative to taxation, and the more people off the payrolls and on the old dole, the worse off the country is, year by year. Instead we get mislead about tax rates versus revenue, and are inundated with various "Welfare Queen"-type stories to keep us distracted from the most glaring budget problems we have. The thing that pisses me off the most is that by the time the bill comes due and the younger generations have to pay off the debt incurred by their parents and grandparents, most of them will be too long dead to see how their collective greed bankrupted their own progeny.

darawk 9y ago
> This is pretty cool, but I fear that it could distract from the obvious issue: the vast majority of federal expenditure goes to defense and elder welfare. That's what I always thought too. But the site seems to disagree? All of defense + social security is only 38%. Even if you also include all of medicare in that, you're only at 53%. Which is a majority, but not a vast one. And it probably isn't fair to really put social security in that category, because it is (sort of) self-funding (or at least, if you eliminated social security, that wouldn't just free up money to spend elsewhere).
- DesiLurker 9y ago
  > And it probably isn't fair to really put social security in that category, because it is (sort of) self-funding (or at least, if you eliminated social security, that wouldn't just free up money to spend elsewhere). thats their argument. if you take the ss tax away and privatize it then the wallstreet custodians get to play with it in market.. plus lower taxes and more fees for WS. one more thing , anytime you change the rules of the game you get to define the problems you are going to address and the problems you'll turn the blind eye to. so very high possibility of rigging the game. IMO even if you want to privatize SS current congress is the worst one to be allowed to.
  - biaachmonkie 9y ago
    > the wallstreet custodians get to play with it in market More like they get to siphon off a percentage as rent seeking leaches.
- valuearb 9y ago
  Social security and Medicare aren't self funded, that's the problem.
  - phkahler 9y ago
    Social security is for the most part. The problem is that they were required to invest the fund in treasury bonds, which mean congress "borrowed" them money and spent it. As the boomers retire and get their due, that money will have to be paid back. But congress will see that as a budget shortfall and complain about some "entitlement program".
    - catawbasam 9y ago
      No, social security is running an actuarial deficit. The older generation, which is already richer than the general population, is extracting money at an unsustainable rate.
      - phkahler 9y ago
        They are redeeming their bonds. The government spent the surplus on other things and issued IOUs to the SSA. Now they're just pissed that they're being called on to pay it back. This is not really a debate - Alan Greenspan even said these bonds are real assets of the fund.
coldcode 9y ago
Did you miss the part about SS and Medicare are paid for on an ongoing basis? You really should keep those separate as they pay for themselves plus a (decreasing) surplus. The remaining items are paid for with other taxes, mostly individuals. With including income expenses are pointless. I have paid and am paying into SS and Medicare my whole life, call it an old dole is pretty inconsiderate.
- catawbasam 9y ago
  Nope. Boomers are taking out $1 million more per head than they put in. See e.g. https://www.ssa.gov/policy/trust-funds-summary.html https://www.ssa.gov/policy/trust-funds-summary.html: "The projected actuarial deficit for the combined trust funds over the next 75 years is 2.66 percent of taxable payroll, which is slightly less than last year's projected deficit of 2.68 percent. As a share of the economy or gross domestic product (GDP), the actuarial deficit over the next 75 years is projected to be 1.0 percent."
  - coldcode 9y ago
    Currently the max payout is 2,639 per month. In order to get $1M you would have to live to age 97. That assumes you never put anything in. The average lifespan is only 13 years past 65. I don't know what kind of math that is but its misleading.
- valuearb 9y ago
  You haven't paid enough.
  - pishpash 9y ago
    Nobody pays enough. SS is pretty darn generous. Get ready for 50% SS tax when more people retire and the workforce shrinks, or substantial means testing. One or the other will happen.
  - catawbasam 9y ago
    People are going to have to work longer, including people like me.
bpodgursky 9y ago
There's a bit more subtlety there in that a lot of the SS growth is SS disability, which is in practice turning into a welfare system for the non elderly. But generally correct, yes.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
thrownblown 9y ago
according to USAfacts.org- social security: 15.8% of tax spending education: 14.3$ national defense: 11.2% medicare: 9.5% That's half of all Gov spending right there
- pishpash 9y ago
  Those are reasonable things for a government to spend half of its take on. The other half...

darawk 9y ago

> This is pretty cool, but I fear that it could distract from the obvious issue: the vast majority of federal expenditure goes to defense and elder welfare. That's what I always thought too. But the site seems to disagree? All of defense + social security is only 38%. Even if you also include all of medicare in that, you're only at 53%. Which is a majority, but not a vast one. And it probably isn't fair to really put social security in that category, because it is (sort of) self-funding (or at least, if you eliminated social security, that wouldn't just free up money to spend elsewhere).

DesiLurker 9y ago
> And it probably isn't fair to really put social security in that category, because it is (sort of) self-funding (or at least, if you eliminated social security, that wouldn't just free up money to spend elsewhere). thats their argument. if you take the ss tax away and privatize it then the wallstreet custodians get to play with it in market.. plus lower taxes and more fees for WS. one more thing , anytime you change the rules of the game you get to define the problems you are going to address and the problems you'll turn the blind eye to. so very high possibility of rigging the game. IMO even if you want to privatize SS current congress is the worst one to be allowed to.
- biaachmonkie 9y ago
  > the wallstreet custodians get to play with it in market More like they get to siphon off a percentage as rent seeking leaches.
valuearb 9y ago
Social security and Medicare aren't self funded, that's the problem.
- phkahler 9y ago
  Social security is for the most part. The problem is that they were required to invest the fund in treasury bonds, which mean congress "borrowed" them money and spent it. As the boomers retire and get their due, that money will have to be paid back. But congress will see that as a budget shortfall and complain about some "entitlement program".
  - catawbasam 9y ago
    No, social security is running an actuarial deficit. The older generation, which is already richer than the general population, is extracting money at an unsustainable rate.
    - phkahler 9y ago
      They are redeeming their bonds. The government spent the surplus on other things and issued IOUs to the SSA. Now they're just pissed that they're being called on to pay it back. This is not really a debate - Alan Greenspan even said these bonds are real assets of the fund.

coldcode 9y ago

Did you miss the part about SS and Medicare are paid for on an ongoing basis? You really should keep those separate as they pay for themselves plus a (decreasing) surplus. The remaining items are paid for with other taxes, mostly individuals. With including income expenses are pointless. I have paid and am paying into SS and Medicare my whole life, call it an old dole is pretty inconsiderate.

catawbasam 9y ago
Nope. Boomers are taking out $1 million more per head than they put in. See e.g. https://www.ssa.gov/policy/trust-funds-summary.html https://www.ssa.gov/policy/trust-funds-summary.html: "The projected actuarial deficit for the combined trust funds over the next 75 years is 2.66 percent of taxable payroll, which is slightly less than last year's projected deficit of 2.68 percent. As a share of the economy or gross domestic product (GDP), the actuarial deficit over the next 75 years is projected to be 1.0 percent."
- coldcode 9y ago
  Currently the max payout is 2,639 per month. In order to get $1M you would have to live to age 97. That assumes you never put anything in. The average lifespan is only 13 years past 65. I don't know what kind of math that is but its misleading.
valuearb 9y ago
You haven't paid enough.
- pishpash 9y ago
  Nobody pays enough. SS is pretty darn generous. Get ready for 50% SS tax when more people retire and the workforce shrinks, or substantial means testing. One or the other will happen.
- catawbasam 9y ago
  People are going to have to work longer, including people like me.

bpodgursky 9y ago

There's a bit more subtlety there in that a lot of the SS growth is SS disability, which is in practice turning into a welfare system for the non elderly. But generally correct, yes.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

thrownblown 9y ago

according to USAfacts.org- social security: 15.8% of tax spending education: 14.3$ national defense: 11.2% medicare: 9.5% That's half of all Gov spending right there

pishpash 9y ago
Those are reasonable things for a government to spend half of its take on. The other half...