US Federal Government spends too much.

[longview]

At current spending levels the Federal Government spends about $12,000 per person per year.
Since the majority of our citizens do not pay $12,000 per person per year in taxes.
The Government is spending too much!
Many will say that micro and macro economics are very different,
but if you spend more than you make, sooner or later it will bite you.
The whole base line budgeting thing is a bit of smoke and mirrors also.
(I know the Federal government has averaged an 8% annual raise for over 200 years,
but did they think it would go on forever?)
It is getting time for some tough questions?
To preserve Social Security, Do we have a means test phase out between $3K and $6K of monthly income?
How do we fix Medicare?
What functions of the federal government, are required in the Constitution?
If it's not required, leave it to the states.

 

[Neomalthusian]

To preserve Social Security, Do we have a means test phase out between $3K and $6K of monthly income?

The age has to be raised, and it probably needs to be asset tested. This hasn't already been done because it would change its fundamental nature (how it functions), and deplete it of public support over time. The very reason the program survives is because beneficiaries (including even its harshest critics) are all under the delusion that it's "their" money they get back at the end, so they put up with it and wouldn't vote to abolish it (until after they're dead, of course).

How do we fix Medicare?

There's no fix for that sort of program. You just have to "turn the benefits off," as one economist put it. Start by abolishing Medicare D.

 

[evangambit]

At current spending levels the Federal Government spends about $12,000 per person per year.
Since the majority of our citizens do not pay $12,000 per person per year in taxes.
The Government is spending too much!
Many will say that micro and macro economics are very different,
but if you spend more than you make, sooner or later it will bite you.
The whole base line budgeting thing is a bit of smoke and mirrors also.

I (and most people) agree: the deficit is a problem

(I know the Federal government has averaged an 8% annual raise for over 200 years,
but did they think it would go on forever?)

People thought/think that tax cuts would/will go on forever too

It is getting time for some tough questions?
To preserve Social Security, Do we have a means test phase out between $3K and $6K of monthly income?
How do we fix Medicare?
What functions of the federal government, are required in the Constitution?
If it's not required, leave it to the states.

Yep, it is time. Personally, I'd start by raising the retirement age and cutting defense spending.

 

[specklebang]

I assume you know that the means test applies to those who take "early retirement". An asset test would be an interesting approach, what do you suggest be the asset definition and limits?

From what I can tell, if SS were simply eliminated, many people would starve and be homeless.

Lastly, you have problems with people like me. Yeah, I DO feel I paid in a lot and I damn well insist on getting my monthly check or I'll be marching on the Capitol armed with my Hello Kitty Knife.

I've often suggested a Mandatory Savings Account but as far as I can tell, nobody listens to me. What a shame:roll:



.

The age has to be raised, and it probably needs to be asset tested. This hasn't already been done because it would change its fundamental nature (how it functions), and deplete it of public support over time. The very reason the program survives is because beneficiaries (including even its harshest critics) are all under the delusion that it's "their" money they get back at the end, so they put up with it and wouldn't vote to abolish it (until after they're dead, of course).



There's no fix for that sort of program. You just have to "turn the benefits off," as one economist put it. Start by abolishing Medicare D.

 

[Neomalthusian]

I assume you know that the means test applies to those who take "early retirement". An asset test would be an interesting approach, what do you suggest be the asset definition and limits?

From what I can tell, if SS were simply eliminated, many people would starve and be homeless.

If we're always running from fears that people will starve and be homeless, over time we will eliminate the incentives for Americans to strategize how not to starve and be homeless. Know what I mean? Our economic model requires the imprudence of spending beyond our means, so in a sense, yeah, withdrawing the statist supports would result in some initial pain. But society would learn to be more self-reliant if it knew it had to.

Lastly, you have problems with people like me. Yeah, I DO feel I paid in a lot and I damn well insist on getting my monthly check or I'll be marching on the Capitol armed with my Hello Kitty Knife.

The way it funds itself means it's not in fact "your" monthly check, technically. Your attitude is quite common though, and as I said, it's how the program retains its public support.

I've often suggested a Mandatory Savings Account but as far as I can tell, nobody listens to me. What a shame:roll:

Savings accounts are limited in terms of other people (e.g. Congress) being able to spend them, making it a terrible idea. /sarcasm

 

[specklebang]

Some of my examples are my tenants and neighbors.

These are single women in their 70s and 80s. Their SS checks are about $800-something a month. Even with the ridiculously low rent I charge them ($550 a month), they are simply not eligible to find work. As it is, I don't know how they survive on what little is left after they pay their rent, power, gas and water bills. I know at least one goes to food pantries.

As for the Mandatory Savings Account, if they had put in 10% of their income and had an employer match of 5-10%, they might have had a similar or larger monthly allotment which would indeed be their own money, not part of a pool.

If we're always running from fears that people will starve and be homeless, over time we will eliminate the incentives for Americans to strategize how not to starve and be homeless. Know what I mean? Our economic model requires the imprudence of spending beyond our means, so in a sense, yeah, withdrawing the statist supports would result in some initial pain. But society would learn to be more self-reliant if it knew it had to.

]

 

[Neomalthusian]

Some of my examples are my tenants and neighbors.

These are single women in their 70s and 80s. Their SS checks are about $800-something a month. Even with the ridiculously low rent I charge them ($550 a month), they are simply not eligible to find work. As it is, I don't know how they survive on what little is left after they pay their rent, power, gas and water bills. I know at least one goes to food pantries.

As for the Mandatory Savings Account, if they had put in 10% of their income and had an employer match of 5-10%, they might have had a similar or larger monthly allotment which would indeed be their own money, not part of a pool.

I am not arguing, by any stretch of the imagination, that abolishing social welfare benefits would not result in emergencies for those who have become reliant on those benefits to scrape by. This does not require further explanation. I understand and do not disagree. What I am doing is reminding people about hidden, long-term consequences of programs that take care of people. Over time people learn to use it as a crutch. Look at the savings rate over the life of Social Security. Clearly no one fears for what life is like after working.

No one wants people to suffer, but we also don't want them to learn that they don't have to plan. But they do learn this over time, if we legislate away the possibility of serious suffering.

 

[PirateMk1]

I assume you know that the means test applies to those who take "early retirement". An asset test would be an interesting approach, what do you suggest be the asset definition and limits?

From what I can tell, if SS were simply eliminated, many people would starve and be homeless.

Lastly, you have problems with people like me. Yeah, I DO feel I paid in a lot and I damn well insist on getting my monthly check or I'll be marching on the Capitol armed with my Hello Kitty Knife.

I've often suggested a Mandatory Savings Account but as far as I can tell, nobody listens to me. What a shame:roll:



.

You paid into a Ponsey sceme and you know it. Quite frankly if I were president I would cut it imeadiately. Its unconstituional. As far as I am concerend let the old bastards starve. It will make a fine lesson for the youngsters, save your pennies and invest wisely ,or your are gona starve to death. I know one thing I will never see the money I paid in because it wont be there. Its going to pay you.

 

[longview]

I assume you know that the means test applies to those who take "early retirement". An asset test would be an interesting approach, what do you suggest be the asset definition and limits?

From what I can tell, if SS were simply eliminated, many people would starve and be homeless.

Lastly, you have problems with people like me. Yeah, I DO feel I paid in a lot and I damn well insist on getting my monthly check or I'll be marching on the Capitol armed with my Hello Kitty Knife.

I've often suggested a Mandatory Savings Account but as far as I can tell, nobody listens to me. What a shame:roll:



.

When I am talking about means testing, I am talking about considering all forms of income with SS.
Several years ago, a person on SS who still worked before age 70, had their SS check reduced by
$1 for each $2 earned in wages.
I was thinking of something like the SS phase out starts at $3000 monthly income from any source.
So a person who makes $3000 per month from a pension would still get their entire SS check,
outside incomes between $3000 and say $7000 a month would see a reduction in their SS check.

 

[evangambit]

When I am talking about means testing, I am talking about considering all forms of income with SS.
Several years ago, a person on SS who still worked before age 70, had their SS check reduced by
$1 for each $2 earned in wages.
I was thinking of something like the SS phase out starts at $3000 monthly income from any source.
So a person who makes $3000 per month from a pension would still get their entire SS check,
outside incomes between $3000 and say $7000 a month would see a reduction in their SS check.

Or just raise the retirement age.

 

[imagep]

The age has to be raised, and it probably needs to be asset tested. This hasn't already been done because it would change its fundamental nature (how it functions), and deplete it of public support over time. The very reason the program survives is because beneficiaries (including even its harshest critics) are all under the delusion that it's "their" money they get back at the end, so they put up with it and wouldn't vote to abolish it (until after they're dead, of course).



There's no fix for that sort of program. You just have to "turn the benefits off," as one economist put it. Start by abolishing Medicare D.

I am totally against means or asset testing for any gov benefit. What locks poor people into poverty is not welfare, its the fact that welfare is means tested. If they make too much, they loose their benefits, so by means testing welfare, we encourage people to not make much money. The same thing would happen if we asset tested social security, people would intentionally not develop personal wealth because if they did, they would loose the social security income that they paid into the system for.

Increasing the age that one can start receiving social security at makes a lot more sense.

 

[Neomalthusian]

I am totally against means or asset testing for any gov benefit. What locks poor people into poverty is not welfare, its the fact that welfare is means tested. If they make too much, they loose their benefits, so by means testing welfare, we encourage people to not make much money.

This is a drawback of means testing, not asset testing. My in-laws are millionaires (technically) and will soon get SS checks on top of it. While this will likely allow them to pass more of their money down to us, which is great for us privately, it's not so great for the sustainability of SS. As I hinted above, the real reason this doesn't happen is because it would lose its public support. Even haters of SS look forward to the day where they can draw from it.

The same thing would happen if we asset tested social security, people would intentionally not develop personal wealth because if they did, they would loose the social security income that they paid into the system for.

That's a little better argument against asset testing than the locked-in-poverty argument, but I don't think the incentive to save is immediately lost. People prudent enough to save enough money to be asset-tested out of SS should be able to see the advantage to saving anyway, because it's not as though reliance on the SS will afford them a better retirement. Those nearest the cutoffs would probably see a reason to blow enough cash pre-retirement to lock in the income, but I bet there are ways to phase it so that not too many can game the cutoff. I still think the biggest impediment to an asset test is that it would create enormous public opposition to the program altogether pretty much right away.

But I know what you're saying. None of the fixes to social programs are popular-sounding ideas. And anyway, Medicare/old age welfare requires ten times more immediate attention, financially speaking, than SS.

 

[specklebang]

Respectfully, that's PONZI not PONSEY.

Let the old bastards starve? That's your approach? Do you not have any family? Neighbors? Fellow citizens?

I heard exactly the same diatribe when I began paying into SS in - are you ready? - 1957. SS was a rip-off. We'd never see a dime. Yeah, whatever, here we are in 2012 and today happens to be the day I get my SS payment. Meeeeeow.

I really happen to agree with means testing. I think it should be both net worth AND income based. Longview has a pretty good idea although I don't understand the $7K cap. Do you mean that those with over 7K get no check at all? If so, I agree.

Right now, even Romney would get a SS check. I'm just using him as an example of a high income/high net worth. This is not a crack at Romney. The more I think about it, the more I agree with Longview. How about net worth though? Let's say you have a million dollars in the bank. Your interest income is only $2K a month. Do you get a check or not? Discussion appreciated.

I've suggested Mandatory Savings Accounts in lieu of SS. Each person would have their own money and what they didn't use could go to their heirs. That's a whole separate topic and I'm sure we'll have a chance to discuss it in a more appropriate thread.

You paid into a Ponsey sceme and you know it. Quite frankly if I were president I would cut it imeadiately. Its unconstituional. As far as I am concerend let the old bastards starve. It will make a fine lesson for the youngsters, save your pennies and invest wisely ,or your are gona starve to death. I know one thing I will never see the money I paid in because it wont be there. Its going to pay you.

When I am talking about means testing, I am talking about considering all forms of income with SS.
Several years ago, a person on SS who still worked before age 70, had their SS check reduced by
$1 for each $2 earned in wages.
I was thinking of something like the SS phase out starts at $3000 monthly income from any source.
So a person who makes $3000 per month from a pension would still get their entire SS check,
outside incomes between $3000 and say $7000 a month would see a reduction in their SS check.

 

[longview]

Respectfully, that's PONZI not PONSEY.

Let the old bastards starve? That's your approach? Do you not have any family? Neighbors? Fellow citizens?

I heard exactly the same diatribe when I began paying into SS in - are you ready? - 1957. SS was a rip-off. We'd never see a dime. Yeah, whatever, here we are in 2012 and today happens to be the day I get my SS payment. Meeeeeow.

I really happen to agree with means testing. I think it should be both net worth AND income based. Longview has a pretty good idea although I don't understand the $7K cap. Do you mean that those with over 7K get no check at all? If so, I agree.

Right now, even Romney would get a SS check. I'm just using him as an example of a high income/high net worth. This is not a crack at Romney. The more I think about it, the more I agree with Longview. How about net worth though? Let's say you have a million dollars in the bank. Your interest income is only $2K a month. Do you get a check or not? Discussion appreciated.

I've suggested Mandatory Savings Accounts in lieu of SS. Each person would have their own money and what they didn't use could go to their heirs. That's a whole separate topic and I'm sure we'll have a chance to discuss it in a more appropriate thread.

The $7000 cap was about a max. let's say Bob would get $2000 a month fro SS,
but planned well, so has a $4000 a month annuity.
Because Bob's total income exceeds the $3000 minimum,
His SS will be reduced by half of the delta($500).
So Bob's SS check would be $1500 per month.
So Sam would also get a $2000 SS, But his investments did really well,
and his annuity pays him $8000 per month.
Sam would not get a SS check, as his income exceeds the minimum by more
than twice his SS check amount.
The idea would be to save SS as a safety net, while weening off those who have the means to do without it.
(I know some will plan to accelerate their pensions and file for SS later, but the result will be they start SS later.)

 

[specklebang]

I happen to agree with you 100% on this. Are you a secret member of The Logical Party? You're being rational and non-partisan. Many will be confused

The $7000 cap was about a max. let's say Bob would get $2000 a month fro SS, but planned well, so has a $4000 a month annuity.
Because Bob's total income exceeds the $3000 minimum, His SS will be reduced by half of the delta($500).
So Bob's SS check would be $1500 per month.
So Sam would also get a $2000 SS, But his investments did really well, and his annuity pays him $8000 per month.
Sam would not get a SS check, as his income exceeds the minimum by more than twice his SS check amount.
The idea would be to save SS as a safety net, while weening off those who have the means to do without it.
(I know some will plan to accelerate their pensions and file for SS later, but the result will be they start SS later.)

 

[longview]

I happen to agree with you 100% on this. Are you a secret member of The Logical Party? You're being rational and non-partisan. Many will be confused

I do like logic, but it doesn't seem to be a group activity.
I am a fiscal conservative, We are faced with limited future funds for SS.
The best we can do, is apply the limited funds where they can do the most good.
Wants vs needs, at a personal level all economics are micro!

 

[PirateMk1]

Respectfully, that's PONZI not PONSEY.

Let the old bastards starve? That's your approach? Do you not have any family? Neighbors? Fellow citizens?

I heard exactly the same diatribe when I began paying into SS in - are you ready? - 1957. SS was a rip-off. We'd never see a dime. Yeah, whatever, here we are in 2012 and today happens to be the day I get my SS payment. Meeeeeow.

I really happen to agree with means testing. I think it should be both net worth AND income based. Longview has a pretty good idea although I don't understand the $7K cap. Do you mean that those with over 7K get no check at all? If so, I agree.

Right now, even Romney would get a SS check. I'm just using him as an example of a high income/high net worth. This is not a crack at Romney. The more I think about it, the more I agree with Longview. How about net worth though? Let's say you have a million dollars in the bank. Your interest income is only $2K a month. Do you get a check or not? Discussion appreciated.

I've suggested Mandatory Savings Accounts in lieu of SS. Each person would have their own money and what they didn't use could go to their heirs. That's a whole separate topic and I'm sure we'll have a chance to discuss it in a more appropriate thread.

Yes I do and you know what? I help them MYSELF. If they need something though circumstances of no fault of their own I am willing and HAPPY to help. I dont need the government, I dont want the government taking from MY charitable giving. Those confiscatory taxes I pay to support YOU, I could be using to provide for mebers of MY family and MY community. NOT yours. I dont know you. I know my neighbors. Charitable works are not the business of government. And Social Security is not retirement its a government charitable work. If you dont believe me google it. The Supreme court has already ruled on this. They flat stated the govenment owes you NOTHING. So while you may be happy now that you are getting money now, I wont be getting a single dime even if it wasnt means tested, due to the simple fact that we have NO money to pay it NOW. It will be a bloody miricle if I see any of what I supposedly payed in. You, me, and everyone else was lied to. And we ALL know it. So please spare me your indignity. You and I both know WHEN this ends I will be left with no chair and NOTHING to show for what I paid in. As I KNOW I am screwed I have taken steps to ensure that I can take care of myself. I dont appreciate it when my fellow citizens steal from me in some misguided attempt to assuge their conconounce because they dont do very much charitable work and they feel guilty.

 

[specklebang]

Wow. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree or something like that.

I paid in $180K of those "confiscatory taxes" you refer to SS as. I bet you haven't paid in anything like that. Yet you casually refer to this as charity? Hardly the case.

I agree the system needs to be changed and made individual. I should have gotten interest on that 180K and they should have annuitized this based on actuarial tables when I came to retirement. My current check would probably be very similar and if I died tomorrow (wishful thinking) the balance should go to my heirs.

Actually, SS has quite a lot of money which Congress has stolen to use fo other things. Had this money been left alone, there would be plenty to support the system although with the population growth, it should be converted to Mandatory Savings. Your shrill cries of "there won't be anything left for me", as I said, have been heard for the last 60 years but guess what - SS still functions.

I'm sure you have plenty of poor in your community. Do you actually help them? I help mine, using some of that payment I receive that you so resent.

Yes I do and you know what? I help them MYSELF. If they need something though circumstances of no fault of their own I am willing and HAPPY to help. I dont need the government, I dont want the government taking from MY charitable giving. Those confiscatory taxes I pay to support YOU, I could be using to provide for mebers of MY family and MY community. NOT yours. I dont know you. I know my neighbors. Charitable works are not the business of government. And Social Security is not retirement its a government charitable work. If you dont believe me google it. The Supreme court has already ruled on this. They flat stated the govenment owes you NOTHING. So while you may be happy now that you are getting money now, I wont be getting a single dime even if it wasnt means tested, due to the simple fact that we have NO money to pay it NOW. It will be a bloody miricle if I see any of what I supposedly payed in. You, me, and everyone else was lied to. And we ALL know it. So please spare me your indignity. You and I both know WHEN this ends I will be left with no chair and NOTHING to show for what I paid in. As I KNOW I am screwed I have taken steps to ensure that I can take care of myself. I dont appreciate it when my fellow citizens steal from me in some misguided attempt to assuge their conconounce because they dont do very much charitable work and they feel guilty.

 

[Voltaire X]

Universal healthcare-

It will end up costing less and providing better healthcare than the current system, which hands almost all the money that goes into it over to the insurance industry.


Source: Every country with universal healthcare has less PER CAPITA health costs:

List of countries by total health expenditure (PPP) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



High end private clinics will always exist for the wealthy, no need to worry about not being able to get a $300,000 heart transplant.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Universal healthcare-

It will end up costing less and providing better healthcare than the current system, which hands almost all the money that goes into it over to the insurance industry.

Source: Every country with universal healthcare has less PER CAPITA health costs

That is quite the interesting correlation. Can you show causation?

 

[Voltaire X]

That is quite the interesting correlation. Can you show causation?

It's healthcare spending. It's not like The Netherlands and Denmark have different healthcare needs than we do. Yes, we have more obese people, but not by all that much.

If other countries are able to provide better services for a lower cost, where does all the money that the US spends go?

 

[Neomalthusian]

It's healthcare spending. It's not like The Netherlands and Denmark have different healthcare needs than we do. Yes, we have more obese people, but not by all that much.

If other countries are able to provide better services for a lower cost, where does all the money that the US spends go?

In other words, no, you are not able to show causation.

An example would be that Country X used to have per capita health care spending that was astronomical, so they implemented UHC and consequently the per capita costs dropped. If, on the other hand, Country X has always had cheaper health care and better outcomes, and as a result of the already-affordable health care they were more easily able to afford UHC in the first place, that is quite a different story, isn't it?

UHC in and of itself does not necessarily control any costs. Regulation must accompany it and things have to get capped, docked, rationed, or what have you. That's not a deal-breaker of UHC, it's just a necessity. Every country that has had more reasonable health care costs in addition to a universal entitlement has to have some sort of protective mechanisms preventing the entitlement from being exploited, right? If we just stamp every American entitled to whatever health care they need for their entire lives, and the health care to which they are entitled happens to be the most expensive health care that's ever existed, you haven't solved any cost problem, you've just expanded access and put the taxpayer on the hook for astronomically more burden than s/he already is.

 

[Voltaire X]

In other words, no, you are not able to show causation.

An example would be that Country X used to have per capita health care spending that was astronomical, so they implemented UHC and consequently the per capita costs dropped. If, on the other hand, Country X has always had cheaper health care and better outcomes, and as a result of the already-affordable health care they were more easily able to afford UHC in the first place, that is quite a different story, isn't it?

UHC in and of itself does not necessarily control any costs. Regulation must accompany it and things have to get capped, docked, rationed, or what have you. That's not a deal-breaker of UHC, it's just a necessity. Every country that has had more reasonable health care costs in addition to a universal entitlement has to have some sort of protective mechanisms preventing the entitlement from being exploited, right? If we just stamp every American entitled to whatever health care they need for their entire lives, and the health care to which they are entitled happens to be the most expensive health care that's ever existed, you haven't solved any cost problem, you've just expanded access and put the taxpayer on the hook for astronomically more burden than s/he already is.

But why would the same services cost more here? Right now private companies are the ones setting the prices, because they know they can get away with murder with the current healthcare system.

 

[Klown]

Yes the US goernment spends way too much.

The USA spends more on military and defense than the rest of the world combined

The USA also spends almost three times the amount per capita on health care than the next Developed nation and yet the level health care quality and accessibility is ranked 47th in the world.

Seems like its a case of waste, corporate inefficiency and corruption as well as priorities and an addiction to war and the military industrial complex

 

[Neomalthusian]

But why would the same services cost more here? Right now private companies are the ones setting the prices, because they know they can get away with murder with the current healthcare system.

I've heard of oodles of overpriced and medically unnecessary health care being provided to seniors, and Medicare is no private company. Whether private or public, an "insurance" scheme is tasked with setting limits for what it will reimburse, whether it will reimburse a certain service at X amount, etc.