U.S. Fiscal Future Won’t Be Like Its Carefree Past

cawacko

Well-known member
I feel like there aren't that many Gen Xers on this board. A lot of Boomers and a few millennials. I understand why this wouldn't be as important to Boomers because they are the beneficiaries. But those in the younger age brackets this will all come due in our lifetimes.




U.S. Fiscal Future Won’t Be Like Its Carefree Past

The country is shrinking its tax base just as interest expenses surge and social programs get harder to cut


If you think the federal debt is bad, the bigger picture is worse.

A recent report from Moody’s Investors Service shows why. Moody’s is to governments what Experian is to individuals: a monitor of creditworthiness. The U.S., Moody’s report shows, is blessed with extraordinary advantages when it comes to borrowing. Yet it is about to experience a dramatic loss of financial freedom because it is shrinking its tax base just as interest expenses surge and social programs get harder to cut. It is like someone who borrows freely thanks to his rich parents but can’t keep a steady job and won’t curb his lifestyle.

No, the U.S. isn’t about to turn into Greece. Indeed, Moody’s rates U.S. government credit as AAA, the highest possible, which means the probability a Treasury bondholder gets back less than 100 cents on the dollar is effectively zero. Moody’s notes the U.S. capacity to borrow is in a class of its own: trading in Treasury bonds exceeds that of the rest of the Group of Seven major industrial countries together. The dollar’s share of global currency reserves is double that of all others combined.

All this means that there are ample lenders when the U.S. wants to borrow.

The U.S.’s underlying economic prowess is also without peer: it is rich and diversified, produces most of its own food and energy, has a growing population, and it is entrepreneurial and competitive.

But those assets are all legacies of the U.S.’s past, and some are eroding: business dynamism by some measures and economic growth have both declined, and the population is aging. If the U.S. pivots toward less trade and immigration, the ratings company warns, that may “swing the balance of risks for long-term growth to the downside.”

Slow growth can be managed with the right fiscal policies. This is where it gets worrisome. In the U.S., interest swallowed 8% of federal revenue last year, the highest of all AAA-rated countries. As interest rates return to normal and debt keeps rising, Moody’s thinks it will hit 21.4% in 2027. This severely limits the government’s flexibility to respond to emergencies, whether a financial crisis, a recession, or a war, not to mention longer-term priorities such as education and research. It is “a good proxy of the stress you may see on the prioritization of funds,” says William Foster, an analyst at Moody’s. “As interest is rising, that crowds out other spending.”

U.S. taxes are relatively low, which in theory leaves plenty of room to raise them if needed. But creditworthiness depends not just on the ability but the willingness to pay. No country’s voters like to pay taxes but Americans are much more resistant than their counterparts in, for example, Scandinavia, where high government spending corresponds to high taxes.

While Moody’s doesn’t address partisan divisions in the U.S., those have also narrowed fiscal options. Republicans adamantly oppose tax increases, and indeed just passed a tax cut on party lines that is projected to slash revenue to just 16% of GDP, a level normally only seen when the economy is weak, not at full strength as it is now. Democrats have proposed rolling back some of those tax cuts—to fund new spending.

Republicans have long argued the solution to deficits is less spending, not higher taxes. This, however, vastly oversimplifies matters. Much of the upward pressure on federal social spending comes from aging, which can’t be reversed, which means benefits would have to be cut. Moody’s says in a crisis wealthy countries in theory can tolerate lower social benefits because that doesn’t impoverish people. But it goes on to note that income inequality and poverty are both higher in the U.S. than among its wealthy peers, and thus “it may have less flexibility” to cut entitlements.

Even Republicans have little appetite for cutting spending. President Donald Trumpthreatened Friday to veto a bill funding the government for the rest of the fiscal year because it didn’t spend enough on a border wall. “We’re in a full-blown era of free-lunch economics where no one says no to anyone anymore,” says Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a watchdog.

Does it matter? Japan’s debts are higher and the country long ago lost its AAA rating, yet it has no problem whatsoever borrowing. After Moody’s competitor, Standard & Poor’s Corp., stripped the U.S. of its AAA in 2011, interest rates went down, not up. As Moody’s says, the global pool of savings from which the U.S. borrows tends to grow in times of stress.

There are at least two reasons it matters. First, when the next recession hits, the U.S. may want to open the fiscal taps but instead have to do the opposite as tax collections sink and deficits mount. Second, while markets and the Federal Reserve both doubt interest rates will go much above 3% for the foreseeable future, the U.S. is acutely vulnerable if they are wrong because the debt is so large and so much of it comes due each year, and would have to be refinanced at higher rates.

“We are the greatest country with the strongest economy yet we seem intent on finding out when we can’t borrow any more in a painless way,” Ms. MacGuineas says.


https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/u-s-fiscal-future-wont-be-like-its-carefree-past-1522244675
 
I feel like there aren't that many Gen Xers on this board. A lot of Boomers and a few millennials. I understand why this wouldn't be as important to Boomers because they are the beneficiaries. But those in the younger age brackets this will all come due in our lifetimes.






U.S. Fiscal Future Won’t Be Like Its Carefree Past

The country is shrinking its tax base just as interest expenses surge and social programs get harder to cut


If you think the federal debt is bad, the bigger picture is worse.

A recent report from Moody’s Investors Service shows why. Moody’s is to governments what Experian is to individuals: a monitor of creditworthiness. The U.S., Moody’s report shows, is blessed with extraordinary advantages when it comes to borrowing. Yet it is about to experience a dramatic loss of financial freedom because it is shrinking its tax base just as interest expenses surge and social programs get harder to cut. It is like someone who borrows freely thanks to his rich parents but can’t keep a steady job and won’t curb his lifestyle.

No, the U.S. isn’t about to turn into Greece. Indeed, Moody’s rates U.S. government credit as AAA, the highest possible, which means the probability a Treasury bondholder gets back less than 100 cents on the dollar is effectively zero. Moody’s notes the U.S. capacity to borrow is in a class of its own: trading in Treasury bonds exceeds that of the rest of the Group of Seven major industrial countries together. The dollar’s share of global currency reserves is double that of all others combined.

All this means that there are ample lenders when the U.S. wants to borrow.

The U.S.’s underlying economic prowess is also without peer: it is rich and diversified, produces most of its own food and energy, has a growing population, and it is entrepreneurial and competitive.

But those assets are all legacies of the U.S.’s past, and some are eroding: business dynamism by some measures and economic growth have both declined, and the population is aging. If the U.S. pivots toward less trade and immigration, the ratings company warns, that may “swing the balance of risks for long-term growth to the downside.”

Slow growth can be managed with the right fiscal policies. This is where it gets worrisome. In the U.S., interest swallowed 8% of federal revenue last year, the highest of all AAA-rated countries. As interest rates return to normal and debt keeps rising, Moody’s thinks it will hit 21.4% in 2027. This severely limits the government’s flexibility to respond to emergencies, whether a financial crisis, a recession, or a war, not to mention longer-term priorities such as education and research. It is “a good proxy of the stress you may see on the prioritization of funds,” says William Foster, an analyst at Moody’s. “As interest is rising, that crowds out other spending.”

U.S. taxes are relatively low, which in theory leaves plenty of room to raise them if needed. But creditworthiness depends not just on the ability but the willingness to pay. No country’s voters like to pay taxes but Americans are much more resistant than their counterparts in, for example, Scandinavia, where high government spending corresponds to high taxes.

While Moody’s doesn’t address partisan divisions in the U.S., those have also narrowed fiscal options. Republicans adamantly oppose tax increases, and indeed just passed a tax cut on party lines that is projected to slash revenue to just 16% of GDP, a level normally only seen when the economy is weak, not at full strength as it is now. Democrats have proposed rolling back some of those tax cuts—to fund new spending.

Republicans have long argued the solution to deficits is less spending, not higher taxes. This, however, vastly oversimplifies matters. Much of the upward pressure on federal social spending comes from aging, which can’t be reversed, which means benefits would have to be cut. Moody’s says in a crisis wealthy countries in theory can tolerate lower social benefits because that doesn’t impoverish people. But it goes on to note that income inequality and poverty are both higher in the U.S. than among its wealthy peers, and thus “it may have less flexibility” to cut entitlements.

Even Republicans have little appetite for cutting spending. President Donald Trumpthreatened Friday to veto a bill funding the government for the rest of the fiscal year because it didn’t spend enough on a border wall. “We’re in a full-blown era of free-lunch economics where no one says no to anyone anymore,” says Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a watchdog.

Does it matter? Japan’s debts are higher and the country long ago lost its AAA rating, yet it has no problem whatsoever borrowing. After Moody’s competitor, Standard & Poor’s Corp., stripped the U.S. of its AAA in 2011, interest rates went down, not up. As Moody’s says, the global pool of savings from which the U.S. borrows tends to grow in times of stress.

There are at least two reasons it matters. First, when the next recession hits, the U.S. may want to open the fiscal taps but instead have to do the opposite as tax collections sink and deficits mount. Second, while markets and the Federal Reserve both doubt interest rates will go much above 3% for the foreseeable future, the U.S. is acutely vulnerable if they are wrong because the debt is so large and so much of it comes due each year, and would have to be refinanced at higher rates.

“We are the greatest country with the strongest economy yet we seem intent on finding out when we can’t borrow any more in a painless way,” Ms. MacGuineas says.


https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/u-s-fiscal-future-wont-be-like-its-carefree-past-1522244675

I guess the republicans didnt learn this when they passed the recent tax cut, or the spending bill, or maybe a massive infrastructure plan.
 
If anointed King I would increase taxes and cut spending until there was no deficit. It would cause a recession, maybe even a world wide recession. But it's the medicine we have to take.
After the books are balanced we'd spend only what we take in adjusted every two yrs.
Of course it would take a king to do this because it's political suicide in a democracy.
 
If anointed King I would increase taxes and cut spending until there was no deficit. It would cause a recession, maybe even a world wide recession. But it's the medicine we have to take.
After the books are balanced we'd spend only what we take in adjusted every two yrs.
Of course it would take a king to do this because it's political suicide in a democracy.

One has to pay the fiddler eventually right? Good common sense approach there Doc.
 
One has to pay the fiddler eventually right? Good common sense approach there Doc.
It works for me and it pays off in the long run. Probably you too from what you've posted in the past.
I'm no longer concerned about 'da deficit' because da gubmint always spends more than it takes in. And I blame repubs every bit as much as dims and in a way you can't blame them either, they both promise free shit in one form or another to their constituents and it's their constituents that vote them in.
But to have the personal responsibility to live within your means is something most don't have which puts folks like me and you well ahead of the masses regardless of what our irresponsible gubmint does.

I remember when I first finished professional school girls I dated couldn't understand why I drove an old used truck or lived in a box . I didn't care because those weren't the type of girls that would fit into my master plan anyway . It has paid off in spades .

Net interest payments on the debt are estimated to total $276.2 billion this fiscal year, or 6.8% of all federal outlays. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...about-the-national-debt-what-you-should-know/
Imagine if we had an addition 7% to spend every yr. without increasing taxes.
 
It works for me and it pays off in the long run. Probably you too from what you've posted in the past.
I'm no longer concerned about 'da deficit' because da gubmint always spends more than it takes in. And I blame repubs every bit as much as dims and in a way you can't blame them either, they both promise free shit in one form or another to their constituents and it's their constituents that vote them in.
But to have the personal responsibility to live within your means is something most don't have which puts folks like me and you well ahead of the masses regardless of what our irresponsible gubmint does.

I remember when I first finished professional school girls I dated couldn't understand why I drove an old used truck or lived in a box . I didn't care because those weren't the type of girls that would fit into my master plan anyway . It has paid off in spades .

Run for office Doc. I will get my share of folks to vote you!
 
I feel like there aren't that many Gen Xers on this board. A lot of Boomers and a few millennials. I understand why this wouldn't be as important to Boomers because they are the beneficiaries. But those in the younger age brackets this will all come due in our lifetimes.




U.S. Fiscal Future Won’t Be Like Its Carefree Past

The country is shrinking its tax base just as interest expenses surge and social programs get harder to cut


If you think the federal debt is bad, the bigger picture is worse.

A recent report from Moody’s Investors Service shows why. Moody’s is to governments what Experian is to individuals: a monitor of creditworthiness. The U.S., Moody’s report shows, is blessed with extraordinary advantages when it comes to borrowing. Yet it is about to experience a dramatic loss of financial freedom because it is shrinking its tax base just as interest expenses surge and social programs get harder to cut. It is like someone who borrows freely thanks to his rich parents but can’t keep a steady job and won’t curb his lifestyle.

No, the U.S. isn’t about to turn into Greece. Indeed, Moody’s rates U.S. government credit as AAA, the highest possible, which means the probability a Treasury bondholder gets back less than 100 cents on the dollar is effectively zero. Moody’s notes the U.S. capacity to borrow is in a class of its own: trading in Treasury bonds exceeds that of the rest of the Group of Seven major industrial countries together. The dollar’s share of global currency reserves is double that of all others combined.

All this means that there are ample lenders when the U.S. wants to borrow.

The U.S.’s underlying economic prowess is also without peer: it is rich and diversified, produces most of its own food and energy, has a growing population, and it is entrepreneurial and competitive.

But those assets are all legacies of the U.S.’s past, and some are eroding: business dynamism by some measures and economic growth have both declined, and the population is aging. If the U.S. pivots toward less trade and immigration, the ratings company warns, that may “swing the balance of risks for long-term growth to the downside.”

Slow growth can be managed with the right fiscal policies. This is where it gets worrisome. In the U.S., interest swallowed 8% of federal revenue last year, the highest of all AAA-rated countries. As interest rates return to normal and debt keeps rising, Moody’s thinks it will hit 21.4% in 2027. This severely limits the government’s flexibility to respond to emergencies, whether a financial crisis, a recession, or a war, not to mention longer-term priorities such as education and research. It is “a good proxy of the stress you may see on the prioritization of funds,” says William Foster, an analyst at Moody’s. “As interest is rising, that crowds out other spending.”

U.S. taxes are relatively low, which in theory leaves plenty of room to raise them if needed. But creditworthiness depends not just on the ability but the willingness to pay. No country’s voters like to pay taxes but Americans are much more resistant than their counterparts in, for example, Scandinavia, where high government spending corresponds to high taxes.

While Moody’s doesn’t address partisan divisions in the U.S., those have also narrowed fiscal options. Republicans adamantly oppose tax increases, and indeed just passed a tax cut on party lines that is projected to slash revenue to just 16% of GDP, a level normally only seen when the economy is weak, not at full strength as it is now. Democrats have proposed rolling back some of those tax cuts—to fund new spending.

Republicans have long argued the solution to deficits is less spending, not higher taxes. This, however, vastly oversimplifies matters. Much of the upward pressure on federal social spending comes from aging, which can’t be reversed, which means benefits would have to be cut. Moody’s says in a crisis wealthy countries in theory can tolerate lower social benefits because that doesn’t impoverish people. But it goes on to note that income inequality and poverty are both higher in the U.S. than among its wealthy peers, and thus “it may have less flexibility” to cut entitlements.

Even Republicans have little appetite for cutting spending. President Donald Trumpthreatened Friday to veto a bill funding the government for the rest of the fiscal year because it didn’t spend enough on a border wall. “We’re in a full-blown era of free-lunch economics where no one says no to anyone anymore,” says Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a watchdog.

Does it matter? Japan’s debts are higher and the country long ago lost its AAA rating, yet it has no problem whatsoever borrowing. After Moody’s competitor, Standard & Poor’s Corp., stripped the U.S. of its AAA in 2011, interest rates went down, not up. As Moody’s says, the global pool of savings from which the U.S. borrows tends to grow in times of stress.

There are at least two reasons it matters. First, when the next recession hits, the U.S. may want to open the fiscal taps but instead have to do the opposite as tax collections sink and deficits mount. Second, while markets and the Federal Reserve both doubt interest rates will go much above 3% for the foreseeable future, the U.S. is acutely vulnerable if they are wrong because the debt is so large and so much of it comes due each year, and would have to be refinanced at higher rates.

“We are the greatest country with the strongest economy yet we seem intent on finding out when we can’t borrow any more in a painless way,” Ms. MacGuineas says.


https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/u-s-fiscal-future-wont-be-like-its-carefree-past-1522244675

This is the results of being on a war footing for 78 years. It is just a matter of priorities. If we remove the FICA caps we could wipe out about one quarter of the deficit. Do the same to Medicare taxes and we take care of half the deficit. Putting in AMT for corporations and cutting defense spending by abut 25% and we are in surplus.
 
If the U.S. pivots toward less trade and immigration, the ratings company warns, that may “swing the balance of risks for long-term growth to the downside.”
but that ain't happening
 
This is the results of being on a war footing for 78 years. It is just a matter of priorities. If we remove the FICA caps we could wipe out about one quarter of the deficit. Do the same to Medicare taxes and we take care of half the deficit. Putting in AMT for corporations and cutting defense spending by abut 25% and we are in surplus.

Ought to be a means test for entitlements. It won't happen easily, but when millionaires are picking up social security checks you know there is room for improvement. However, as soon as it is bought up your going to hear the argument "that they paid in"

"Every eligible American can collect benefits at retirement, and that includes millionaires. In 2010, 47,535 millionaires received Social Security benefits totaling $1.438 billion."

https://www.facethefactsusa.org/facts/millionaires-receiving-social-security
 
This is the results of being on a war footing for 78 years. It is just a matter of priorities. If we remove the FICA caps we could wipe out about one quarter of the deficit. Do the same to Medicare taxes and we take care of half the deficit. Putting in AMT for corporations and cutting defense spending by abut 25% and we are in surplus.

Massively increasing taxes without addressing entitlement growth will do little (other than suffocate our already slow growing economy even more). It will turn us into a western European style country with high youth unemployment and massive liabilities.
 
If anointed King I would increase taxes and cut spending until there was no deficit. It would cause a recession, maybe even a world wide recession. But it's the medicine we have to take.
After the books are balanced we'd spend only what we take in adjusted every two yrs.
Of course it would take a king to do this because it's political suicide in a democracy.

Why? People think it should be run like a household. cannot spend what you do not have. That would be apropos if a house owner could print money. It just isn't the same, not that important. Both Clinton and Obama showed you can cut the deficits. But the Repubs increase it due to an overwhelming strategy. They want to break the country to eliminate spending on social programs So Trump will set a new records in debt. The real Repub mantra is cut taxes and spend like crazy. Then when Dems get ,in scream long and loud about the debt.
 
Why? People think it should be run like a household. cannot spend what you do not have. That would be apropos if a house owner could print money. It just isn't the same, not that important. Both Clinton and Obama showed you can cut the deficits. But the Repubs increase it due to an overwhelming strategy. They want to break the country to eliminate spending on social programs So Trump will set a new records in debt. The real Repub mantra is cut taxes and spend like crazy. Then when Dems get ,in scream long and loud about the debt.

Wow, you just flat out lie Nordberg.
 
Massively increasing taxes without addressing entitlement growth will do little (other than suffocate our already slow growing economy even more). It will turn us into a western European style country with high youth unemployment and massive liabilities.

Getting rid of FICA and Medicare payroll tax caps is addressing entitlement growth by increasing the revenue. There is only on other option and that is to cut Medicare and Social Security. So we can go back to the bad old days of Grandma buying catfood to survive.
 
nope. merit based immigration but not overall reduced numbers . Unless you also mean cutting back on illegals as well

The senate bill would reduce legal immigrants. And CIS has long called for reduction in legal immigration
 
Getting rid of FICA and Medicare payroll tax caps is addressing entitlement growth by increasing the revenue. There is only on other option and that is to cut Medicare and Social Security. So we can go back to the bad old days of Grandma buying catfood to survive.

No ones talking about eliminating S.S. and Medicare. But they are underfunded by trillions of dollars, we will have less people paying into them and people are living longer. This reforms have to be made
 
The senate bill would reduce legal immigrants. And CIS has long called for reduction in legal immigration
really? I'd have to look at that bill. reduced everywhere or just s-hole countries?..and what is CIS?

As far as I know Trump and company want reform,but not necessarily numbers
 
really? I'd have to look at that bill. reduced everywhere or just s-hole countries?..and what is CIS?

As far as I know Trump and company want reform,but not necessarily numbers

There have been multiple articles written on it but here's one.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.po...30/trump-legal-immigration-republicans-378041


CIS is the Center For Immigration Studies. They have long wanted reduced legal immigration. The CEO is close with Trumps folks and those in congress
 
Back
Top