header pic

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


Author

Topic: Federal Debt and Deficit

 (Read 11625 times)

medinabuckeye1

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 10619
  • Liked:
Re: Federal Debt and Deficit
« Reply #56 on: July 25, 2024, 10:06:43 AM »
I agree of course with "starting somewhere", fine.  What politicians do is claim to cut $X "somewhere" when massive spending is going on elsewhere they didn't cut.
This is a major problem.  The numbers are so staggeringly large that even a MINISCULE cut sounds massive.  Then, to make it sound even bigger, the Politicians will assess the cut over 10 years.  So lets say they make a 10% cut to a $120 Billion program.  Ok, that is a $12 Billion cut and over 10 years that is a $120 Billion cut.  Then the politicians will announce to great fanfare that they've cut $120 Billion from the budget over ten years.  

Here is the thing:  2023 expenditures were $6.1 Trillion.  $10 Billion is 0.16% of 6.1 Trillion.  That is the equivalent of a guy with $100k in annual earnings/expenditures announcing that he has cut $3.15 per week from his spending.  

The hole we are in is currently $1.7 Trillion per year so when a Politician announces a $120 Billion cut over 10 years remember that we need 169 more of those with no increases anywhere to balance this.  I want to be clear that I'm not against making $10 Billion cuts, it is just that I understand that while they may be a good start, they aren't individually material.  

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 45434
  • Liked:
Re: Federal Debt and Deficit
« Reply #57 on: July 25, 2024, 10:09:34 AM »
I'm all for cutting 0.16% instead of adding 2%
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 82498
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: Federal Debt and Deficit
« Reply #58 on: July 25, 2024, 10:11:07 AM »
Meanwhile, "they" brag about cutting $X which is fine, and then they are increasing something else by $X times 10.

Then there is the Code of Federal Regulations out there which grows and grows and grows, and in many cases is uninterpretable anyway.

medinabuckeye1

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 10619
  • Liked:
Re: Federal Debt and Deficit
« Reply #59 on: July 25, 2024, 10:22:07 AM »
I guess I would need to take a deep dive into what our discretionary spending actually goes to.

3.4% of GDP seems very high.
I'm not saying that it IS NOT high but the Federal Government also does a whole lot of things that many people aren't even aware of and that most people wouldn't immediately think of but that are things the vast majority of us wouldn't want to have cut.  

If we did take that "deep dive" we'd find allocations for everything from Meat Inspectors at the FDA making sure we don't get sick to Coasties* ready to save your ass if you get drunk and crash your boat into a reef.  Then there are bridge inspectors, the people who keep lighthouses and other navigational aids functioning not only for pleasure-boaters like you but also for the intercoastal and Great Lakes freighters that bring things to us.  You'd find that there were a gazillion functions that each have built-in constituencies and that some of us might think of as critical while others think of them as a complete waste.  There are people keeping National Parks and Monuments open, people doing crash tests of automobiles, you name it, they are doing it.  


*Coasties:
OT little story.  My wife is a social worker and she dragged me along to a presentation of a suicide prevention movie.  The focus of this particular movie was on one particular guy who literally jumped off the Golden Gate Bridge and realized as he did it that he didn't actually want to die.  He somehow survived.  The Coasties who rescued him were in the movie and they were . . . interesting.  You could tell how jaded they were.  Obviously most Coasties sign up for exciting rescues or maybe drug interdiction and these guys had been assigned to San Francisco Bay where it appeared that one of their main functions was to fish suicides out of the Bay.  They didn't come right out and say it, but the way they were talking you could almost hear them:
Dispatch:  We need you go head over to the GG Bridge.  
Coastie:  In transit, what is the issue?
Dispatch:  Yeah, you gotta look for a guy.  
Coastie:  We have to fish another suicide out of the bay?

The Coastie's didn't quite admit this but you could tell from the between-the-lines that they saw this mission as "body recovery" not "rescue" then they said they were shocked that the guy was breathing.  

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 82498
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: Federal Debt and Deficit
« Reply #60 on: July 25, 2024, 03:31:09 PM »
The BEST we can aspire to is for GDP growth to be faster than debt growth, and that alone will be difficult.  Meanwhile, Social Security's Trust Fund will run dry in about a decade.  That is somewhat off budget in a sense, but the longer "we" wait to fix it, the more painful will be any fix.  Medicare is not in good shape either.

And one problem with fixing such things is any proposal is easily demonized by the other side.  So, no politician wants to step into it and touch the third rail.

betarhoalphadelta

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 14495
  • Liked:
Re: Federal Debt and Deficit
« Reply #61 on: July 25, 2024, 03:38:58 PM »
Meanwhile, Social Security's Trust Fund will run dry in about a decade.  That is somewhat off budget in a sense, but the longer "we" wait to fix it, the more painful will be any fix.
The problem is now.

The only thing that changes when the "trust fund" runs dry is that then the current law says that current benefits can no longer be paid. But right the current shortfall is being paid by deficit spending.

The way that we're "redeeming" the trust fund is by converting trust fund debt into general debt. 

I gotta hand it to the people that created the SSTF... They've snookered a LOT of smart people like you into thinking the problem is off someday in the future when it runs out. 

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 82498
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: Federal Debt and Deficit
« Reply #62 on: July 25, 2024, 03:46:14 PM »
It does exchange the Trust Fund for general debt.  And the problem is NOW, and was 20 years ago.  Obama claimed he could fix it easily, but didn't even try.

It's just one more rather massive issue our political structure makes nearly impossible to address.  I can't conceive of a nonpainful remedy.  Sure, you could add FICA to incomes over $400,000, but I don't think that really fixes it.  And thus far, you get out in proportion to what you pay in, broadly speaking.  That "fix" would mean they pay more in and get nothing for it.

I will get back what I put into it in about 5-6 years, not adjusted for inflation.  Maybe it's ten years adjusted, maybe 15.

I'd look into raising the current tax on higher SS benefits for higher income earners.

medinabuckeye1

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 10619
  • Liked:
Re: Federal Debt and Deficit
« Reply #63 on: July 25, 2024, 04:48:44 PM »
The problem is now.

The only thing that changes when the "trust fund" runs dry is that then the current law says that current benefits can no longer be paid. But right the current shortfall is being paid by deficit spending.

The way that we're "redeeming" the trust fund is by converting trust fund debt into general debt.

I gotta hand it to the people that created the SSTF... They've snookered a LOT of smart people like you into thinking the problem is off someday in the future when it runs out.
I'm glad you pointed this out because it has been a pet peeve of mine for years.  People talk about the Trust Fund as if it was invested in something but it isn't, it is all IOU's drawn on the Federal Government so it is the equivalent of me telling you that I have $100 in my right pocket when in reality what I have in my right pocket is $50 and a note that says that my left pocket owes my right pocket another $50.  
It does exchange the Trust Fund for general debt.  And the problem is NOW, and was 20 years ago.  Obama claimed he could fix it easily, but didn't even try.

It's just one more rather massive issue our political structure makes nearly impossible to address.  I can't conceive of a nonpainful remedy.  Sure, you could add FICA to incomes over $400,000, but I don't think that really fixes it.  And thus far, you get out in proportion to what you pay in, broadly speaking.  That "fix" would mean they pay more in and get nothing for it.

I will get back what I put into it in about 5-6 years, not adjusted for inflation.  Maybe it's ten years adjusted, maybe 15.

I'd look into raising the current tax on higher SS benefits for higher income earners.
Current cap on SS tax is $168,600 per year.  There is no cap on Medicare and apparently people with very high earned income pay more.  

I was going to say that Medicare is in much worse shape than SS but when I looked at the most recent Trustee report they claim that it isn't.  Eventually I figured out that this is due to a neat accounting trick.  Approximately 40% of Medicare benefits are paid from General Government Revenues and NOT from Medicare taxes nor the Medicare "trust fund" (which doesn't actually exist, see @betarhoalphadelta 's point above).  

Then there is a requirement that the Trustees issue a warning if the percentage of Medicare benefits paid from GG revenue is projected to exceed 45% within five years.  They've been issuing the warning for a few years now and the 45% threshold is projected to be hit in 2027.  

As of 2023 SS and Medicare costs are about 6% and 3% of GDP respectively but according to the Trustee report they are projected to get to about 6% EACH in ~20 years.  

Measured as a percentage of covered payroll:
Social Security (Includes both OASI and DI - those are acronyms for Old Age and Survivor Income and Disability Income):
  • 14.71% of covered payroll as of 2024 - increases every year until
  • 18.60% of covered payroll projected in 2080 - then decreases to
  • 18.12% of covered payroll projected in 2098

Medicare:
  • 3.3% of covered payroll in 2024 - increases every year to
  • 4.5% of covered payroll in 2045 - then the rate of increase slows but continues to grow to
  • 4.69% of covered payroll in 2080
The current taxes are:
  • 12.4% for SS - split 50/50 between employer and employee for those employed by others
  • 2.90% for Medicare - split 50/50 between employer and employee for those employed by others
  • 15.3% Total

Total Expenditures as a percentage of covered payroll range from:
  • 18.01% for 2024 (14.71+3.3)
  • 23.1% for 2080 (18.6+4.5)

So the current combined tax of 15.3% is low by somewhere between 5-8% (NOT 5-8% of the 15.3% but 5-8% on top of the 15.3 which would be an increase of 33-52%)

medinabuckeye1

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 10619
  • Liked:
Re: Federal Debt and Deficit
« Reply #64 on: July 25, 2024, 04:50:40 PM »
I'd look into raising the current tax on higher SS benefits for higher income earners.
That raises a major philosophical and ideological question:

Is SS a Pension and Disability program or is it a welfare program?  

It has ALWAYS been sold as a Pension and Disability Program.  It likely would never have passed in the first place as a welfare program.  

medinabuckeye1

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 10619
  • Liked:
Re: Federal Debt and Deficit
« Reply #65 on: July 25, 2024, 04:51:31 PM »
It has ALWAYS been sold as a Pension and Disability Program.  It likely would never have passed in the first place as a welfare program. 
FWIW:
My view is that in reality it is both and my solution would work from that basis.  

847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 31044
  • Liked:
Re: Federal Debt and Deficit
« Reply #66 on: July 25, 2024, 04:52:17 PM »
That raises a major philosophical and ideological question:

Is SS a Pension and Disability program or is it a welfare program? 

It has ALWAYS been sold as a Pension and Disability Program.  It likely would never have passed in the first place as a welfare program. 
Both.
U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!

medinabuckeye1

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 10619
  • Liked:
Re: Federal Debt and Deficit
« Reply #67 on: July 25, 2024, 05:11:56 PM »
Both.
I agree:
FWIW:
My view is that in reality it is both and my solution would work from that basis. 

betarhoalphadelta

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 14495
  • Liked:
Re: Federal Debt and Deficit
« Reply #68 on: July 25, 2024, 05:31:12 PM »
Is SS a Pension and Disability program or is it a welfare program? 
Both.
As Tom Colicchio often says on Top Chef, when you try to do a dish "two ways", what you often present is something that's worse than if you just tried to do it one way, and do it right. 

And that's what we've got. 

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 82498
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: Federal Debt and Deficit
« Reply #69 on: July 25, 2024, 05:45:40 PM »
What about Cincy chili two ways?

 

Support the Site!
Purchase of every item listed here DIRECTLY supports the site.