News Article: Treasury secretary says US to hit debt limit on Jan. 19

[crimsonaudio]

Maybe the key phrase is "as we know it." I certainly remember people from my grandparents generation who planned for retirement and retired.

Well, my point is really that it's consideration as 'the norm'.

I'm just not sure that its long-lived in a country that literally borrows money every year just to offer the services it claims are needed.

 

[Bamaro]

80 for retirement. Jeez. I want to be able to enjoy retirement, not roll into my coffin.

'80 for retirement' doesn't mean you have to continue to work until 80. Plan and prepare and many/most can still easily retire 20 or so years sooner. I assume that '80' was just referring to SS 'full' retirement age which is currently 67. It does need to be increased.

 

[Go Bama]

Well, my point is really that it's consideration as 'the norm'.

I'm just not sure that its long-lived in a country that literally borrows money every year just to offer the services it claims are needed.

That's fair, but what services do you want to get rid of? SS has been needing to be revamped since the 60's or before. My father, who died in 2002, was convinced the country was going belly up in the 80's.

I'm not convinced that it's fair to compare national economics to family economics.

 

[crimsonaudio]

That's fair, but what services do you want to get rid of? SS has been needing to be revamped since the 60's or before. My father, who died in 2002, was convinced the country was going belly up in the 80's.

Most everything needs to cut back. We don't have to eliminate things overnight, but we have to face the reality that if we don't reduce spending we will eventually default, or God forbid the dollar lose its status as the global reserve currency. Either way, this cannot go on indefinitely.

I'm not convinced that it's fair to compare national economics to family economics.

I don't recall anyone making that comparison in this thread.

 

[AWRTR]

Most everything needs to cut back. We don't have to eliminate things overnight, but we have to face the reality that if we don't reduce spending we will eventually default, or God forbid the dollar lose its status as the global reserve currency. Either way, this cannot go on indefinitely.


I don't recall anyone making that comparison in this thread.

If we lose global reserve currency status that’s a huge deal. All oil transactions are in dollars. We have resisted all attempts to change that because it would undermine the supremacy of the dollar. The IS at this point is the best of all the bad choices.

 

[crimsonaudio]

That's fair, but what services do you want to get rid of?

Additional thought - we can tackle this issue now, while we have some options and time to make plans, etc., or we can wait until we hit the wall and scramble to try to keep things together.

Even with planning we're unable to tackle spending in this country, so I guess we'll just have to wait until the collapse and panic, kinda like how the government seems to handle most everything.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

'80 for retirement' doesn't mean you have to continue to work until 80. Plan and prepare and many/most can still easily retire 20 or so years sooner. I assume that '80' was just referring to SS 'full' retirement age which is currently 67. It does need to be increased.

It does need to be increased. However, increasing it to beyond the general lifespan is a fiscal cheat. It's just a backdoor way of reducing benefits. Surely you can understand that...

 

[JDCrimson]

Thank you for the research.

What frustrates me is all we really focus on.is cutting spending for SS or the military necessary sure. But the ultra-wealthy dont value their SS benefit because they dont need. However, they value military spending because they either need to keep their wealth from being confiscated by a foreign adversary or they directly profit from the military industry. Its seems like I read somewhere the wealth of Amazon, Apple, Google, etc. increased collectively by $1T during covid with a minimal of it being taxed. The working class can't continually bear the burden of digging this country out of holes.

I was suggesting expanding Medicare because it would provide quality to individuals and small businesses that can't afford it. Those businesses would directly benefit from immigrant workforce. It would also increase lifespans and encourage a higher birth rate all of which would grow the tax base and the economy. I believe the ROI would be positive because we would be expanding it to age groups that are younger more healthy than those currently insured by Medicare.

Given our demographic trends, a 100y bond at 4-5% yield may be cheap compared to the future if we are going to inflate our debt as opposed to paying it down.

Youre right 80 is too high for a retirement age. But prior to the New Deal retirement really wasnt a thing. We were still in the "if you dont work you dont eat" era.

Expanding the discussion, if you could take what was withheld in your check or owed on your tax return and direct it to payment of principal on the national debt rather than collection of income tax, would you do this? Would you have a better outlook about filing your return?

You made me curious.
How much would these help in solving the problem? I did a little research. (My comments in red)

 

[crimsonaudio]

It does need to be increased. However, increasing it to beyond the general lifespan is a fiscal cheat. It's just a backdoor way of reducing benefits. Surely you can understand that...

Not sure, but wasn't the general lifespan in 1935 <65?

 

[Tidewater]

Here is the way the debate (at least in Washington) usually pans out.
Spending cutters argue for less spending, and can usually provide ridiculous examples of federal spending to bolster the argument.
Spending advocates point to the most benign and essential spending and demand to know why budget cutters want to cut the benign, essential spending.
Taxes fluctuate up and down (a bit), spending continues its relentless upward trajectory. Nothing ever really gets done on either side because (through the magic of partisan politics, which says, "I will accept just about anything my party does because the other guys are so wrong and evil."). Budget deficits fluctuate between bad and really, really bad.

And the country is slowly dying.

 

[Tidewater]

Thank you for the research.

What frustrates me is all we really focus on.is cutting spending for SS or the military necessary sure. But the ultra-wealthy dont value their SS benefit because they dont need. However, they value military spending because they either need to keep their wealth from being confiscated by a foreign adversary or they directly profit from the military industry. Its seems like I read somewhere the wealth of Amazon, Apple, Google, etc. increased collectively by $1T during covid with a minimal of it being taxed. The working class can't continually bear the burden of digging this country out of holes.

I was suggesting expanding Medicare because it would provide quality to individuals and small businesses that can't afford it. Those businesses would directly benefit from immigrant workforce. It would also increase lifespans and encourage a higher birth rate all of which would grow the tax base and the economy. I believe the ROI would be positive because we would be expanding it to age groups that are younger more healthy than those currently insured by Medicare.

Given our demographic trends, a 100y bond at 4-5% yield may be cheap compared to the future if we are going to inflate our debt as opposed to paying it down.

Youre right 80 is too high for a retirement age. But prior to the New Deal retirement really wasnt a thing. We were still in the "if you dont work you dont eat" era.

Expanding the discussion, if you could take what was withheld in your check or owed on your tax return and direct it to payment of principal on the national debt rather than collection of income tax, would you do this? Would you have a better outlook about filing your return?

Would you consider running for Congress?

 

[Go Bama]

Not sure, but wasn't the general lifespan in 1935 <65?

Well this is an eye opener.

Life expectancy in the USA, 1900-98

 

[Tidewater]

Not sure, but wasn't the general lifespan in 1935 <65?

True, but I found this.
Life Expectancy and Social Security

Life expectancy at birth in 1930 was indeed only 58 for men and 62 for women, and the retirement age was 65. But life expectancy at birth in the early decades of the 20th century was low due mainly to high infant mortality, and someone who died as a child would never have worked and paid into Social Security. A more appropriate measure is probably life expectancy after attainment of adulthood.

In a table, this chart shows that men living until 65 in 1940 could expect to live 12.7 more years. (Women 14.7 years)
As ever, when debating anything, it is essential to define one's terms up front.

 

[Tidewater]

Youre right 80 is too high for a retirement age. But prior to the New Deal retirement really wasnt a thing. We were still in the "if you dont work you dont eat" era.

Interestingly, when I was studying at Alabama, I took a course in Tudor England. In the late medieval period, the church handled the welfare function for society. The parish priest would make sure the widow down the street did not starve. This system came to the US from England. In Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, the Episcopal Church used tithes (mandated by the state prior to the 1780s) to ensure the poor were provided for. (In Mass and Conn. Congregationalism was the established religion and the parish cared for the poor and destitute.)
The rise of the government social safety net in the early 1900s killed that system.

Expanding the discussion, if you could take what was withheld in your check or owed on your tax return and direct it to payment of principal on the national debt rather than collection of income tax, would you do this? Would you have a better outlook about filing your return?

If I could direct my taxes go to pay principal, I would probably direct that all of it go to retire the debt. Others might direct that their entire tax amount go to social safety net programs.
I think we might be close to having the technical ability to do that as a country.
The Congress critters would have little to do except set the tax rates. That would be refreshing.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

Not sure, but wasn't the general lifespan in 1935 <65?

Yes, but it's not 80 now, with the exception of one state. Also important is healthy lifespan. There are many more in their 70s now but not that many who can turn in a full day of work. If you give people the option of reduced benefits before 80, you've just cut benefits without calling it that...

 

[Bamaro]

Yes, but it's not 80 now, with the exception of one state. Also important is healthy lifespan. There are many more in their 70s now but not that many who can turn in a full day of work. If you give people the option of reduced benefits before 80, you've just cut benefits without calling it that...

Yes to a certain extent but it also depends on how long they live. I dont think 80 is appropriate at this time but it surely should be over 67.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

Yes to a certain extent but it also depends on how long they live. I dont think 80 is appropriate at this time but it surely should be over 67.

I think the maximum it could reasonably be raised to for full benefits would presently be 70. It can always be raised in the future with medical advances...

 

[AWRTR]

Interestingly, when I was studying at Alabama, I took a course in Tudor England. In the late medieval period, the church handled the welfare function for society. The parish priest would make sure the widow down the street did not starve. This system came to the US from England. In Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, the Episcopal Church used tithes (mandated by the state prior to the 1780s) to ensure the poor were provided for. (In Mass and Conn. Congregationalism was the established religion and the parish cared for the poor and destitute.)
The rise of the government social safety net in the early 1900s killed that system.

If I could direct my taxes go to pay principal, I would probably direct that all of it go to retire the debt. Others might direct that their entire tax amount go to social safety net programs.
I think we might be close to having the technical ability to do that as a country.
The Congress critters would have little to do except set the tax rates. That would be refreshing.

The churches were the center of the community along with the local school in most small to medium-sized towns. They were on the ground and knew who was legit and who was not. They took care of the needs. The decline of church attendance in our country is a key to our decline. People are better when they are part of a structured community that helps guide morality. The church has many flaws because it is made up of people, and there are plenty of examples of bad things coming from specific churches, but overall the structure the church provided in communities including caring for those in need is sorely missed in our society.

 

[JDCrimson]

Thank you but probably not. I would just be chum in a tank of full sharks. I don't think we realize how real the kompromat, real or contrived, is nowadays used to control our legislators.

Pragmatism and fresh ideas arent what neither party wants now.

Would you consider running for Congress?

 

[JDCrimson]

I would direct all my taxes directly to principal as well. Let Congress figure out what how budget the use of the savings.

Interestingly, when I was studying at Alabama, I took a course in Tudor England. In the late medieval period, the church handled the welfare function for society. The parish priest would make sure the widow down the street did not starve. This system came to the US from England. In Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, the Episcopal Church used tithes (mandated by the state prior to the 1780s) to ensure the poor were provided for. (In Mass and Conn. Congregationalism was the established religion and the parish cared for the poor and destitute.)
The rise of the government social safety net in the early 1900s killed that system.

If I could direct my taxes go to pay principal, I would probably direct that all of it go to retire the debt. Others might direct that their entire tax amount go to social safety net programs.
I think we might be close to having the technical ability to do that as a country.
The Congress critters would have little to do except set the tax rates. That would be refreshing.