Re:US debt surpasses $23T for first time
by AnthonyMouse on Monday November 04, 2019 @01:36PM
(#21444804)
> In the case of government bonds, barely.
Interest on the debt totals nearly $600B/year -- about the same amount we spend on the military.
> Sub-inflation interest payments mean that wealth flows in the opposite direction.
People are paying a premium in order to have a risk-free place to park their money. It's worth something to not have to hoard gold in a hole in your back yard (and pay money to insure it against theft). That cost often gets partially or entirely offset by the return on capital, but it remains a valuable service that they are in fact receiving even when it costs more than the risk-free rate of return.
Meanwhile the taxpayer is still paying ~$600B/year. There is no way to spin that as a profit; it's money that wouldn't have to be paid if we had borrowed less in years past.
> Life expectancy has dropped for the 3rd year in a row.
Basically entirely due to an increase in suicides, and in particular suicides of working-aged people, which makes the problem worse rather than better.
More to the point, it remains the case that the life expectancy today is significantly longer than it was when social security was created, and yet we still have the same retirement age.
Have a look at the "Total Federal Spending" chart near the end. The Social Security and Medicare slices are each significantly larger than Military.
> but yes, it would be better if it was spent on infrastructure instead...
But that's the entire point! As it is it's an inter-generational transfer. If the money went to something else -- or even just middle class tax cuts -- then it might not be, but that isn't the case.
Interest on the debt totals nearly $600B/year -- about the same amount we spend on the military.
> Sub-inflation interest payments mean that wealth flows in the opposite direction.
People are paying a premium in order to have a risk-free place to park their money. It's worth something to not have to hoard gold in a hole in your back yard (and pay money to insure it against theft). That cost often gets partially or entirely offset by the return on capital, but it remains a valuable service that they are in fact receiving even when it costs more than the risk-free rate of return.
Meanwhile the taxpayer is still paying ~$600B/year. There is no way to spin that as a profit; it's money that wouldn't have to be paid if we had borrowed less in years past.
> Life expectancy has dropped for the 3rd year in a row.
Basically entirely due to an increase in suicides, and in particular suicides of working-aged people, which makes the problem worse rather than better.
More to the point, it remains the case that the life expectancy today is significantly longer than it was when social security was created, and yet we still have the same retirement age.
> I think you misspelled pointless wars
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-bud...
Have a look at the "Total Federal Spending" chart near the end. The Social Security and Medicare slices are each significantly larger than Military.
> but yes, it would be better if it was spent on infrastructure instead...
But that's the entire point! As it is it's an inter-generational transfer. If the money went to something else -- or even just middle class tax cuts -- then it might not be, but that isn't the case.