DB2
1 Like
2031 is the year seniors born in 1964 can retire with full benefits. While 2034 that cohort can retire at age 70 to collect SS maxed out. the difference between the tail end of the baby boomers number of births and the earlier years is close to 1 million births per year.
What is missing in that chart the years after 2033 may level off as the baby boomers pass.
Going into the tail end of the baby boomers getting into advanced aged yes Medicare expenses rise.
DB2 if this is your case for denying younger generations SS and Medicare it is an evil case full of misdescriptions amounting to cheating and lying to the American public. I get that is how things are done by some people. In fact the American public is ultra aware of who never stops lying and trying to cheat them.
5 Likes
How in the world did you make the jump from that graph to that conclusion/suggestion?
Rob
He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.
1 Like
Where did I write anything about denying SS and Medicare to anyone?
Actually, what jumps out at me is what little difference changes in defense spending would make.
DB2
3 Likes
What jumps out to me is the interest amount, which is projected to surpass defense spending in about 5 years.
And the “All Other” category, which I assume includes things like highways and bridges, unemployment compensation, education, the various farm programs, and military retirement (unless that is subsumed under defense). Was there a link that describes what goes into the All Other?
Pete
2 Likes
What jumps out at me is that All the other spending does not have any cashflows, While Social Security and Medicare have money coming into them. So does the chart show what the government spends with the income stream or without it?
Andy
5 Likes
Here is the new CBO report. Check out, for example, Table 1.4
And here is spending expressed as percentages of GDP:
DB2
2 Likes
How did I make such a jump? Stick around and get to know us. We generally know where things stand.
DrBob already questioned your statement, ALSO pointing out you were off base.
You have not provided a logical response. Yet.
Rob
He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.
1 Like
I gave the answers careful consideration. Thought over what they were worth. Nothing more I can do.
I will break it down for you. There are a few major items in the budget. Some folks call for less defense spending. Some folks call for less money being spent on SS and Medicare. DB2 defended defense spending. Now I also defend defense spending but that means I think taxes should be higher on the rich. That is where DB2 and I would differ. While DB2 deflected that he was not talking SS and Medicare cuts I am sure he is. I was not born yesterday.
Just like his current discussion elsewhere on woke. We are not talking honest opinions we are talking taking shots at the US economy and women, minorities, etc…etc…etc…
When I say shots at the US economy the last period of supply side econ was outsourcing and creating $31 tr in federal debt. No one today says we need supply side econ. All those hounding voices from 1981 to 2020 wont utter we need supply side econ.
I do not believe or think for one minute that supply side econ will solve single problem in our economy. But the same old voices do not know better.
1 Like
You can live in whatever world you want to create in your head, Leap, but I have never called for those cuts. Please stop making things up.
DB2
4 Likes
However incoherent Leap may be at times, he does have a valid point when he says that the Boomers will start dying in rather large numbers by 2033 (age 88 for the oldest Boomers), which will reduce Social Security and Medicare payments. Since Gen X is much smaller, the SS line will flatten and start decreasing about that time.
We do need to increase the base income amount that is charged for SS payments, in the meantime.
Decreasing SS payments or Medicare payments would frequently transfer the expense to state or local governments, unless we are going to just abandon old people, which seems unlikely, so I can’t see that that would help the economy.
1 Like
I haven’t looked at the projections in any detail, but I think rather than saying it will reduce the payments it would be more accurate to say it will start to slow the growth rate. The curve may not turn over for another 10 years after that.
DB2
1 Like
I will ask then how do you want to see social security reformed so that it is solvent?
2 Likes
WilliB,
It is not incoherent. I am not expecting people even on a econ board to understand econ without cracking a textbook on econ.
I find many of the discussions here to be provincial instead of on topic.
This article is for the UK, but the overall sense of longer life is realistic. They say 2044 is the maximum death year for Boomers in the UK, but the US has shorter average lives than the UK, so 2040-2042 is the likely peak death year for Boomers in the US.
1 Like
Jerry,
Interesting point of view. The timing of which matters to healthcare costs.
2040 is only 17 years from now.
There are some pressures to cut expenses in the US. That would be bad for business. It would be an injustice…as usual.
1 Like
Cut executive pay and bonuses. Problem 80% solved.
3 Likes
Leap, you may well understand economics better than I do, but you don’t explain what you know very well. And I really don’t think a lack of knowledge is the reason that people disagree with you so often. We are a friendly bunch here, so you need to take a deep breath and smile before you start typing. Also, you really don’t want to trigger me. You really don’t.
4 Likes
The reason anyone disagrees with me is ideological.
There is a clear split here and in all my circles between supply side econ/capital policies v demand side econ/industrial policies. The rub is watching fox news and getting angry. I get it, the angrier the better for some people. I can watch fox and get angry as well but for different reasons.
Those watching fox have wanted me to STFU for decades. Meanwhile $31 tr later? NO! I have a very thick skin, I mean NO! Along with no to the misogyny, racism, homophobia, etc etc etc…NO!
I am actually a very nice guy, the feedback of a lot of people. But it also depends on what I meet.
I could careless if you are triggered. I am sure you can manage yourself well. No one has ever provoked you. You can take care of what you say to me or anyone else here properly.
If you are seeing anyone here as provoking you then your being in a public space might be problematic for you.
I am not going to delineate a lot of econ stuff in every post. I am not responsible at all for people on an econ board who do not study econ or never have. I expect them to meet me by studying the topic.
I continue to research and study economics. There are posts here by others where I put in specialized research and develop my thinking on topic. Sharing those thoughts in some pretty good dialogs.
You are judging how a few people disagree with me over their older outdated concepts of how our economy should be run to enrich a few people at everyone else’s expense. Especially by paying women and minorities less money. Or by deregulating to hurt a lot of people and enrich a few people. Old fashioned corruption.