re: At what point does our debt cause the economy to crash and burn?

quote:

---

Is it going to take us to hit $1 quadrillion with the way Congress is spending? I know most of them don't care since the majority are so old that they will be long gone before they have to deal with the fallout.

---

As AI, automation and robots become a more prevalent component of the US economy like many prognosticators are forecasting there will undoubtedly be a major change to society, likely some upheaval in the short term. Long term? UBI here we come.

quote:

---

This is why we shouldn't elect all these old people including Trump. These people don't give a shite about what things will be like in 30 years and are only in it for themselves.

---

We're all in it....regardless of your age.

quote:

---

It will be sooner than a decade out. SSI is forecasted to default in 2028 which will trigger mandatory benefit cuts.

No elected D or R politician will tolerate that firestorm. Therefore, we will issue debt through more borrowing and/or QE. Fed rates will need to increase to attract buyers which will increase debt servicing obligations.

And neither party will do anything about it.

---

This is the correct answer.

People love to complain about the debt while completely ignoring that SS/Medicare is what is driving the debt.

And unless we import even more foreigners than Biden did or somehow dismantle the toxic scourge that is feminism and get our birth rate back up again, in about 30 years there will simply be no way to fund it. We won't be able to borrow enough to keep it going at that point...the shortfall will be too great.

We're already on that trajectory. I don't remember the exact numbers but I looked them up once. Right now we're sitting at something like 21% of the population drawing SS/Medicare with around 60% of the age to pay in.

In about 30 years given our current birth rate those numbers will have almost flipped. Imagine 20ish% of the population trying to pay the SS/Medicare benefits for 60ish% of the population.

quote:

---

This is the correct answer.

People love to complain about the debt while completely ignoring that SS/Medicare is what is driving the debt.

And unless we import even more foreigners than Biden did or somehow dismantle the toxic scourge that is feminism and get our birth rate back up again, in about 30 years there will simply be no way to fund it. We won't be able to borrow enough to keep it going at that point...the shortfall will be too great.

We're already on that trajectory. I don't remember the exact numbers but I looked them up once. Right now we're sitting at something like 21% of the population drawing SS/Medicare with around 60% of the age to pay in.

In about 30 years given our current birth rate those numbers will have almost flipped. Imagine 20ish% of the population trying to pay the SS/Medicare benefits for 60ish% of the population.

---

And SS/Medicare shouldn't be driving the debt when you consider how many trillions of dollars have been forcefully taken from hundreds of millions of US workers over the past 90 years.

If you earned $2 million in you lifetime and you were payroll taxed 15.2% (includes your employers match) and that money was in a very conservative investment (4-6% return annually) that was not accessible until you were of retirement age, you would be a lot better off than what the government is giving retirees today.

They will already be cutting the SS benefits of couples. It can be fixed, but as you said, neither party will do it. I see little hope for Medicare.

One thing is for certain: we cannot tax our way out of this.

quote:

---

And SS/Medicare shouldn't be driving the debt when you consider how many trillions of dollars have been forcefully taken from hundreds of millions of US workers over the past 90 years.

If you earned $2 million in you lifetime and you were payroll taxed 15.2% (includes your employers match) and that money was in a very conservative investment (4-6% return annually) that was not accessible until you were of retirement age, you would be a lot better off than what the government is giving retirees today.

---

Well, Medicare isn't a retirement vehicle, number one.

Neither is SS in reality. It was just marketed to the public as such.

But think about it...where do you think the first SS recipient's benefits came from? Not those people. That would have been impossible. They didn't start SS in 1935 and disburse the first benefits in 1965, after the money grew for 30 years.

SS has ALWAYS been designed for you to pay someone else's benefits and for someone else to pay your benefits.

You would do well to divest yourself of the, "But it's my money" mindset.

It's not your money and it was never designed to be.

It's just an entitlement, like any other entitlement. You pay taxes and someone else who qualifies for the entitlement gets the benefits that you funded with your taxes. Someone else pays their taxes and you get benefits when you qualify for the entitlement.

Just like SNAP or welfare or anything else. That's how it was designed from the beginning. It's not a retirement plan. It doesn't work like a retirement plan and it was never intended to.

I agree that people would be better off if they were allowed to keep more of their own money, but that's true no matter what entitlement the taxes we're talking about are going to fund.

quote:

---

We're already on that trajectory. I don't remember the exact numbers but I looked them up once. Right now we're sitting at something like 21% of the population drawing SS/Medicare with around 60% of the age to pay in.

---

When the social security program was started, the retirement age for the start of benefits was set at about 3 years after life expectancy at the time. Today it's about 12 years before life expectancy. Like you posted, it wasn't originally designed to be a retirement program.

Love that one!