But again (as I said below and was completely unfairly downvoted) we have no way to raise that much money to pay the seniors. Because Tax revenue tends to stay consistent as a % of GDP(http://tinyurl.com/3dgkupq) even when the top tax rate is raised to 80 or 90% (which it was in the 50s).
So the person who really owns America is whoever is going to lend us the money to pay the seniors (and those becoming seniors) in the next 30 or so years.
(And yes I'm prepared to be Downvoted here too but I'd rather be downvoted while trying to get people to face an obvious truth than hide from a bully with a quick mouse finger)
You won't be downvoted because what you say is true. It's going to be very challenging to pay for all of these entitlement programs.
We've essentially outsourced to the government what for millennia has been taken care of by families- caring for our seniors and elderly. If we want to have a sustainable path forward, this is something that we as a society will eventually have to confront, come to terms with, and hopefully solve.
Did you read your own chart? Between 1942 and today, it ranges from ~14% to ~21%. I don't know if you're aware of this, but 7% of GDP is a big deal. Incidentally, the same chart you point to shows how tax income is about as low of a share of GDP as its ever been since 1950.
I've seen the same point made elsewhere, and the point isn't really that tax revenue stays constant as a % of GDP, it's that there seems to be a ceiling around 20%. The implication being that attempts to raise tax revenue greater than 20% of GDP are likely to fail.
And the people implying this are usually anti-government nuts.
The fact is tax increases of any kind are currently hard to get. Maybe as benefits for seniors start disappearing we'll see that change since seniors vote. If we ever get back to 20% of GDP for Federal tax revenues there's no special reasoning that says getting to 21% is going to be any harder then going from 18% to 19%. The whole 20% thing is just silly.
"Did you see the chart? That's what the empirical data shows."
It doesn't show any such thing. The whole truth is that from 1940 to 2000 average taxes paid including state and local went from 18% to 32%. Plenty of governments around the world and a number of US states are over 20% in federal taxes alone.
"Tax avoidance behavior increases as tax rates increase, you have moving targets."
This is obvious but, unfortunately, does not get you to "it's impossible to collect more then 20% federal taxes"
Social security and medicare are both insurance funds. You pay in now to get benefits later.
The current generation of seniors going into retirement spent all their retirement before they retired. They elected the politicians who bankrupted social security through generous tax cuts and costly wars.
The solution isn't an end to social security. The solution is a temporary reduction in benefits for the baby boomers.
Considering the ridiculous prices for health care in the US, we could easily knock 50 trillion off that by just sending all those seniors to Canada for health care. Or perhaps reforming our health care system to not charge 3x as much for worse services than are available in more civilized countries? I think someone tried that, but the people who plan to pocket most of that $99 trillion weren't happy at all about the prospect.
If the concepts of queuing theory and attrition are familiar to you, then you won't be surprised at the efficiency of Canadian health care. Providing fewer services is cheaper, and the resultant long queues (months, sometimes years) results automatically in fewer critically ill people left to serve, and hence more savings.
I've lost multiple loved ones to precisely this "feature", and have gained a sister that almost certainly would have died in the queue -- because she happened to be studying in the US when she fell ill.
I think I personally prefer the risk, and choice, presented by a medical system with (expensive) oversupply.
I've been self employed for my entire adult life, and have not seen a doctor since I was under 18, which was a long time ago. I can't afford insurance, which is very expensive when you're not part of some large pool, and by the same token, can't afford retail, a la carte health care, which is extremely expensive if you don't have insurance (to the tune of 5-30 times as much as insurers pay for a service).
I'd take waiting months or years over a choice between no health care or extensive debt/bankruptcy.
If I was in the country illegally, or had no assets or desire for future credit, I could go to an emergency room and receive plenty of services without a need to pay a cent. As a law abiding, legal citizen with moderate assets, my options are very limited in the US. In all directions regarding healthcare, there is an absurd subsystem seemingly designed to require that one works for a large corporation which provides health benefits.
".. If I was in the country illegally, or had no assets or desire for future credit, I could go to an emergency room and receive plenty of service.."
That is simply not true. When was the last time you've been in the emergency room?
Unless you are close to death, private hospitals won't even treat you. They ship you off to the closest public hospital. Where, if you don't have the money you are the last seen. And in South Florida that can take days, depending on how busy the hospital is. And you get the minimal care to keep you alive. Period. Not to mention, the local governments pay for it. Trust me, public hospitals don't give services out of the goodness of their hearts. It's a terrible situation I know. But the solutions (universal health care) haven't work out so well.
True, it depends on the state. Either way, people with much lower incomes (or paper trails) than people like me have better care, and people with higher incomes have much better care. As far as receiving health care in the US, being self employed at about 25-60k a year seems to be a particularly bad position.
Its never good to lose a loved one, and i am sorry for your loss - but i have never experienced this issue my 30 years in Canada. im very surprised that you have had "multiple" loved ones die due to "queuing theory and attrition". From time to time there is a story in the media about someone dying in the waiting room with a burst appendix, but those are rare, and i am sure happen in the USA just as often (if not more so in the public facilities).
some points to back up what i say:
-my grandfather was diagnosed with colon cancer last year. they caught it early, and the next week he was undergoing treatment.
-i was diagnosed with a rare eye condition. within a week i was in the specialists office.
-i was in a car accident. it was fairly minor, but they insisted i stay in overnight for observation. i had cat scan, x-ray, etc as soon as possible
-me and my wife have had 3 kids. we never had any delays seeing a doctor, all were born healthy, and every one of them sees a doctor on a regular basis without long delays.
Sorry, when one part of a government "owes" another part money, the only meaning is political rather than economic.
As far "unfunded liabilities" liabilities go, that's another politically-motivated relabeling.
The US will spend more on military spending than social security next year, just as it did last year and intends to do ten years from now. But social security is called an "unfunded liability" and military isn't. Guess why?
I'd look it up but it's orthogonal to main my argument. Defense and Social Security are roughly equivalent expenses but one counts 100% as an "unfunded liability" and the other count 0% as such.
Social security liability: 15 Trillion
Prescription drug liability: 20 Trillion
Medicare liability: 79 Trillion
US unfunded liabilities: 114 Trillion
http://www.usdebtclock.org/