Hacker News Reader

Comment by alistairSH | Hacker News Reader

It’s an old right wing trope. Fewer babies, fewer people paying into the system, eventual bankruptcy. Completely ignoring that we can just increase the tax.

View on HN

I wouldn't call it a trope if the "solution" is "just increase the tax". That's exactly what many many people want to avoid. Just because you don't see an issue with raising taxes, doesn't mean people aren't justified in wanting to avoid it.

There are many knobs we can turn. Increasing taxes on everybody is the "easy" one. We can reduce benefit payments. We can increase retirement age. We can remove the income max (income over $137k isn't taxed). We can import labor. Thee point is, SS only runs out of money if we allow it to do so. There is no law of nature that requires SS to become insolvent any time within our lives.

The typical conservative plan is to abolish SS and replace it with private savings. We tried that. It didn't work. Low income earners don't always have the capacity to save at the levels required to avoid destitution in old age or disability.

Why is it the government's responsibility to ensure an individual wont be destitute in old age?

We are the government/society. It does what we want. We decided in the 1930s that a minimum level disability and retirement income should be available. Watching granny starve in the gutter wasn't a pleasant sight.

Not everybody will be able to retiree on their personal savings. Many of those people will get that way through no fault of their own. Some people just have bad luck. They get injured and disabled. They have extenuating family circumstances. They might just be stuck in a dead-end, minimum wage job.

Also ignoring that social security payments as a percentage of GDP is not hitting some limit it has not over the past eight decades. The US was able to pay out social security in 1942 with a much smaller economy, there is no reason it should be unable to in the future. Some groups have been complaining about social security for eighty years - probably because it is the one benefit the average worker gets back from the federal government.

Social security expenditures will grow from 4% of gdp to 6% of gdp from 2000-2035. By 2035 Medicare will grow to 8% of GDP. So in a bit over a decade, one out of every six dollars produced in the economy will be going to take care of retired people.

Social security was a higher percentage of gdp in the early 1980s than it is now. Even if it goes back up it is to a level it was at before. People can come to different estimates about what future gdp growth rates will be and have different estimated.

All health care costs in the US are going up. The US government has to pay HMO corporation profits, Americans have to pay higher drug prices unlike other countries. The government can continue paying current Medicare rates, or it can hand more money to health companies if it wants to. As the government is still handing extra money to health companies apparently no one thinks it is a problem as of yet.

Ahh yes, just yoke and impoverish tomorrow's youth. Those kids'll be wishing for another covid- clear out some of the leeches.

Or, increase retirement age.

Or, tax income over $130k.

Or, reduce payments.

Like I said, the plan only goes bankrupt if we allow it.

https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/taxes/federal-income-tax-...

Income over $130k is heavily taxed at 24%. Retirement age can only be increased so many times before retirement is effectively gone for the lower class - I think I've heard the statistic that the majority of Americans will only ever collect on three social security checks.

You heard wrong. Full Social Security retirement age is 67. US life expectancy is 79. Social Security benefits are paid monthly. Do the math.

You do realize SS tax is a different line item on your taxes, right? Over $137k does not pay into the SS system.

The dwindling ratio of workers per retiree (from 16 to 1 in 1950 to under 3 to 1 today) is a real thing. The right wing runs with it because it plays into their politics, for the same reason the left runs with climate change. But that doesn’t make it a manufactured problem.

Working young people have to take care of non-working old people. That’s true in a Bangladeshi village and that’s true in America. There’s no policy knob you can turn to make that fundamental dynamic go away.

It’s math. Imagine you are the SSA. There is tax revenue, and there are payouts.

Both are controlled by policies enshrined into law by congress.

One of the things that can and has been done to control expenses is raising the retirement age.

Policy knobs can be used to determine how resources are allocated and, perhaps most importantly, the kind of resources.

There's a lot of elder-care that is fundamentally non-scalable and non-automatable. But there's also a lot that is. Policy can both incentivize development of / investment in the latter and paying people competitive wage and benefits to step up and work the former.

Meanwhile, with productivity per person higher than it's ever been thanks to general industrial and service automation, there should be more GDP than ever free to invest in such social programs.

> Working young people have to take care of non-working old people

> There’s no policy knob you can turn to make that fundamental dynamic go away.

Are all the productivity increases in the past century completely meaningless?

To take the most facile, direct example possible, if all the fast food jobs are automated, can't we train those people to take care of the elderly? Not medically, but as orderlies and other employees in nursing homes?

> Are all the productivity increases in the past century completely meaningless?

Based on the change in prices for long term care and skilled nursing facilities, the productivity increases due to automation/outsourcing have not offset supply and demand in labor for elder/disabled care.

It is highly undesirable work, plus medical advances keep people alive longer and longer who need assistance to live. Even during my life, the past 30+ years, these jobs were almost always done by immigrants because they were willing to accept low wages. It is not something an American with options is going to opt for without higher pay.

It'll have to be some combination of wages going up and other options shrinking for workers.

Of course people can be trained as nursing home workers. The problem is who is going to pay for all the nursing homes as our population ages? Most nursing homes charge more per month than the maximum Social Security benefit. And many elderly people have minimal other retirement income or assets. So nursing homes constantly squeeze their workers on pay, especially in HCOL areas. There doesn't seem to be any politically acceptable way of closing this gap.

> who is going to pay for all the nursing homes as our population ages?

The increased productivity from the economy. The money is there. It's obvious it's there because we produce way more than ever before with far fewer workers.

Just stating that the money is somewhere out there in the economy is rather facile. It's not as if there's some big vault full of cash that we can draw from to pay for nursing homes. That money is currently being spent on or invested in other things. Consumers are already tapped out. On the government side, there is no political will to drastically cut other spending or raise taxes to pay more nursing home workers. The industry is also not very amenable to automation.

> It's not as if there's some big vault full of cash that we can draw from to pay for nursing homes.

I'm talking about productive capacity in the economy, not cash in a vault. It exists. Instead of battering workers with higher taxes, try taxing companies more directly. They're the ones benefiting the most from productivity increases. Tax land value, since real estate prices also benefit from productivity increases in rich metro areas.

> That money is currently being spent on or invested in other things

If you pay care workers more money, they will also spend or invest it. It's not just stacks of dollar bills going into a furnace.

It's not as if there's some big vault full of cash that we can draw from to pay for...

The money is out there. The wealth generated by all that increased productivity is just being captured by a small group of ultra-wealthy.

We could "easily" tax those massive accumulations of wealth to fund societal needs. We only need to convince all the temporarily embarrassed millionaires that doing so is in their own best interest.

It's unpleasant but there is a policy "knob" you can turn, which is to just let people die when they can't support themselves in the society we've built. We already do it for large sections of the population and there's no reason to suppose we won't do it to grandma and grandpa when the SSA coffers are empty. It's much harder to do this in a village society, where you literally see people starving as you have your lunch, but in an industrialized, atomized western society it is extremely easy because you never even have to think about it.

You are completely ignoring the fact that you can't always "just increase the tax". Tax increases have their negative consequences, at some point they can kill the entire economy.

Or, increase retirement age.

Or, tax income over $130k.

Or, reduce payments.

Like I said, the plan only goes bankrupt if we allow it.

You’re saying old people could vote themselves more money? Sure, in theory.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com