7 ms·
> How severe? A sustainable U.S. debt trajectory would entail elimination of nearly all defense spending or almost all non-defense discretionary outlays, he est
by simonsarris 10mo ago
> 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.
- nobodyandproud 10mo agoGen-X here. I’ve grown up with the warning non-stop that Social Security will become insolvent. 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?
- phil21 10mo agoBecause 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.
- salawat 10mo agoIn other words: Ponzi scheme, rather than any sustainable retirement mechanism.
- lotsofpulp 10mo agoWithout sufficient automation, all forms of retirement are inherently a Ponzi scheme, unless there is a cap to the age or amount of benefits received in retirement.
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- setr 10mo agoIt’s a tax. You could describe any beneficiaries of a tax in the same manner; we’re paying taxes to at least partially cover group X - homeless, scientists, military, retirees, veterans, etc. There’s no debt being paid; money is simply taken from Peter, and money is simply given to Paul. It’s not a retirement program, it’s retirement subsidization.
- salawat 10mo agoI don't think I'm willing to grant you Social Security as a proper "tax" or "subsidy" unless you're going to pitch me that Social Security is really, in essence, an incentive program for unrestrained natalism to keep population above replacement with all the Manifest Destiny/imperialistic implications and aspirations that come with it, and further, a commitment by the people who started it to never under any circumstances inform descendants of it's true nature. If you are willing to concede the above, I'll reclassify it as a proper "subsidy" insomuch as it was a law that was passed, and it is a clear act by the government to incentivize activity "X". At which point my discussion will quickly turn to "Holy shit, why are we still trying to empire build in the year of our Lord 2025? Shouldn't we have changed this by now?" If not... Still seeing it as a Ponzi. A fundamentally degenerate and unstable financial model, intended only to benefit the people who have been in it the longest solely for the purpose of self-enrichment. Well branded, mind; who doesn't want Social Security? But a Ponzi in essence nevertheless.
- simonsarris 10mo agoThere'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.
- potato3732842 10mo ago>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. Why is "just pay current recipients enough to get them to STFU and phase out the program" not an option? It's not like anyone under 60 didn't at least have some expectation SS might go tits up. Younger genx on down have been raised to expect nothing so they won't be too sad. They'll be happy to stop paying if anything.
- whimsicalism 10mo agogen Xers would fight it tooth and nail, you underestimate. even many in my Gen Z cohort would be pissed, although i would be celebrating
- potato3732842 10mo ago>gen Xers would fight it tooth and nail, you underestimate. I think that's filter bubble speaking. People who aren't ideologically in favor of entitlements would likely be mildly for or against. People who are ideologically against entitlements would consider it a good thing.
- whimsicalism 10mo ago
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- slillibri 10mo agoReminder 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.
- whimsicalism 10mo agoYes that is what is being proposed.
- Taikonerd 10mo agoIIUC, in the future, the SS tax isn't going to cover the benefits that SS will be obliged to pay out. So some analyses model the shortfall as coming out of the government's general budget. So, yeah, it's "separate" spending in a sense, but it's not totally in its own sandbox.
- Acrobatic_Road 10mo agoThis is already the case. Social Security has been running a deficit since 2010. It's only stayed solvent because of the trust fund, which is expected to run out in around seven years. So the government is currently keeping it afloat using general budget revenue.
- expedition32 10mo agoAny kind of benefits system the middle class does not qualify for will find itself quickly cancelled through elections.
- whimsicalism 10mo agowe also yeet a ton of money on low efficacy medicare/medicaid where large scale experimental trials and lotteries show limited impact on health outcomes at all.
- qeternity 10mo ago> 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. The US Government is an enormous welfare program with a military on the side. Whenever people talk about the rich paying their fair share, they simply fail to grasp the enormity of the problem. There is no taxing your way out of this problem. Society's expectations have far outpaced our fiscal strength.