5 ms·

The vast majority of the unfunded liabilities of the government (most Social Security obligations, Medicare, pensions, various new bailout programs) aren't capt

by ckinnan 18y ago

The vast majority of the unfunded liabilities of the government (most Social Security obligations, Medicare, pensions, various new bailout programs) aren't captured in the official national debt data at all...total federal obligations under business accounting standards amounted to $65.5 trillion in 2008. If you really want to geek out there is a lot here: http://fms.treas.gov/fr/08frusg/08frusg.pdf http://fms.treas.gov/fr/08frusg/08frusg.pdf

DarkShikari 18y ago
"Unfunded liabilities" are an incredibly terrible and misleading measure of debt; it's like saying I owe two million dollars because of the money I'm going to have to pay over the rest of my life for food and housing. Obviously, I'm going to have to pay it one way or another--that doesn't mean you can count it as part of my "debt"!
- jibiki 18y ago
  Your argument makes perfect sense for people, no sense for corporations ("it's like saying GM owes X billion dollars because of the money they're going to have to pay in retirement benefits"), and some sense for governments.
- anamax 18y ago
  > Unfunded liabilities" are an incredibly terrible and misleading measure of debt; it's like saying I owe two million dollars because of the money I'm going to have to pay over the rest of my life for food and housing. Except that it's not. The money that you'll pay for food in the future comes from money that you'll earn in the future. Note that both are "the future". If you stop earning, you're only on the hook for future eating. We've promised (via SS) to pay people money in the future based on what they've already paid, that is, in the past. If we stop taking in money, we still owe. The food comparison would be that you owe money for food that you've consumed in the past and you're plannning to pay for it with future earnings. If you're eating in the future while you're earning, said future earnings will have a shortfall or will have to cover both future and past eating. Unless you're really careful, and we haven't been, at some point, the "future earnings" will exceed what is owed for past consumption. In the case of SS, workers will see see 20-30% of their income being given to old people. They're going to wonder whether their children will pay enough to them to make up for that 20-30%. If they decide that their children won't, they'll figure out that keeping said 20-30% for themselves is their best move. At that point, where does the money to pay old people for their "contributions" come from?

by ckinnan 18y ago

DarkShikari 18y ago

"Unfunded liabilities" are an incredibly terrible and misleading measure of debt; it's like saying I owe two million dollars because of the money I'm going to have to pay over the rest of my life for food and housing. Obviously, I'm going to have to pay it one way or another--that doesn't mean you can count it as part of my "debt"!

jibiki 18y ago
Your argument makes perfect sense for people, no sense for corporations ("it's like saying GM owes X billion dollars because of the money they're going to have to pay in retirement benefits"), and some sense for governments.
anamax 18y ago
> Unfunded liabilities" are an incredibly terrible and misleading measure of debt; it's like saying I owe two million dollars because of the money I'm going to have to pay over the rest of my life for food and housing. Except that it's not. The money that you'll pay for food in the future comes from money that you'll earn in the future. Note that both are "the future". If you stop earning, you're only on the hook for future eating. We've promised (via SS) to pay people money in the future based on what they've already paid, that is, in the past. If we stop taking in money, we still owe. The food comparison would be that you owe money for food that you've consumed in the past and you're plannning to pay for it with future earnings. If you're eating in the future while you're earning, said future earnings will have a shortfall or will have to cover both future and past eating. Unless you're really careful, and we haven't been, at some point, the "future earnings" will exceed what is owed for past consumption. In the case of SS, workers will see see 20-30% of their income being given to old people. They're going to wonder whether their children will pay enough to them to make up for that 20-30%. If they decide that their children won't, they'll figure out that keeping said 20-30% for themselves is their best move. At that point, where does the money to pay old people for their "contributions" come from?