$5 billion budget boost for pensions

Eric Perez9 said:The way things have been run up until now has been a bit of a mess. It makes you wonder how much we can actually fix, but I think we should at least try to change the game for the future by building a whole new system.

Getting rid of the second pillar isn't the answer—honestly, that feels like a total scam. If we scrapped it, we'd claw back about $4 billion. That would bring our deficit down from $12 billion to just $7 billion.
See, there’s about $30 billion in capital sitting in that second pillar. If we used those funds to pay down the national debt, we wouldn't just lower the principal; we'd also slash the interest payments. That would save the Treasury several billion more in the long run.
Look at it this way: if the national debt is $150 billion and we knock $30 billion off that—which is 20%—then our interest costs would also drop by 20%. Right now, we're spending roughly $24 billion just on debt service. A 20% cut there means saving $4.8 billion.

So, let's do the math: $12 billion gap minus the $5 billion from the second pillar, minus the $4.8 billion saved on interest... we're left with a shortfall of only $2.2 billion.
And if we implemented some debt offsetting, the situation would look even better. The truth is, while the government owes money, plenty of people and companies owe the government in unpaid taxes and social security contributions. By offsetting those debts, we could really stabilize the pension system by tackling the issue of people dodging their mandatory contributions.

What an idiot!

The thing is, that money is already gone. There isn't some magical "$5 billion" just sitting there waiting to be "accumulated."😁

Andrew Booth29 said:The thing is, that money is already gone. There isn't some magical "$5 billion" just sitting there waiting to be "accumulated."😁

What I mean is the total assets held in those private retirement accounts. A huge chunk of that wealth is tied up in government bonds. If we nationalized those assets, we could essentially wipe out those debts—then sell off whatever is left to chip away at our national debt.

What an idiot!

But honestly, it’s nothing short of highway robbery... it feels more like organized theft than anything else. Why just sit there and take it? If we actually seized the cars, the real estate, and all those accumulated assets, we could probably wipe out the debt in one fell swoop. 😬

Andrew Booth29 said:But honestly, it’s nothing short of highway robbery... it feels more like organized theft than anything else. Why just sit there and take it? If we actually seized the cars, the real estate, and all those accumulated assets, we could probably wipe out the debt in one fell swoop. 😬

No, no, no, no, no, no......
I say we stick to the old ways. Everything they've been doing with Social Security and pension laws all these years is basically a shakedown. But you rarely hear anyone shouting "robbery!" in the streets.

Let's hold a national referendum on it and see if people actually consider nationalizing the private retirement funds as being "theft."

The real kicker is that those banks are going to fleece you the moment you retire. They promise that these private accounts will secure better benefits. But how, really?
Imagine having a million people hitting retirement age over the next 40 years, and everyone is counting on their private fund payouts $1000. That would mean these funds have to pull something like $30 billion out of thin air every single year just to cover pensions. That is an insane amount of money, and I seriously doubt the economy can keep up that kind of pace indefinitely.
And what happens if a massive recession wipes out most of those savings? What are you left with when you're old? Will inflation just eat your life savings alive? Or what if everyone starts panic-switching from one fund to another? The people who get stuck in the original fund at the end will be left with absolutely nothing.
See, your money in these private accounts is tied to shares. If the fund has to pay out huge sums for retirees, or if a ton of people jump ship to another fund, the value of your individual share just tanks. When you switch funds, you only get whatever your share is currently worth—which might mean after 30 years of saving, you're looking at maybe $20,000 or $30,000 $0.00 instead of the $200,000 or $300,000 $0.00 you were expecting.

http://donkey-one.blogspot.com/

Look, robbery is more of a moral failing than some legal category you decide on via a referendum... but fine, if that's how you want to play it.
And why on earth would you think the government is suddenly going to conjure up pension funds out of thin air just because the economy can't support them? The state doesn't actually own money—it can only take what it can squeeze out of the private sector. Pension funds have the option to diversify their assets globally, spreading wealth abroad to insulate themselves from a local crisis here in the States.
When you transfer your balance from one fund to another, you’re taking your assets with you. 😬

Andrew Booth29 said:Look, robbery is more of a moral failing than some legal category you decide on via a referendum... but fine, if that's how you want to play it.
And why on earth would you think the government is suddenly going to conjure up pension funds out of thin air just because the economy can't support them? The state doesn't actually own money—it can only take what it can squeeze out of the private sector. Pension funds have the option to diversify their assets globally, spreading wealth abroad to insulate themselves from a local crisis here in the States.
When you transfer your balance from one fund to another, you’re taking your assets with you. 😬

I don't know, these funds are owned by big banks, and we all know how they operate. They need to turn a profit, so they hike interest rates—they’ll likely do the same thing with pensions, cutting payouts just to pad their own bottom line. You can put pressure on the government, and politicians might listen to some proposals, but dealing with Wall Street is a different beast entirely. It’s going to be an uphill battle there.

Besides everything I mentioned above, maybe pension benefits should be pegged to the average salary. Like, somewhere between 20% and 80% of the median income. Pensions are supposed to provide a peaceful retirement, right? If we expect young people to handle things like buying a house and starting a family on an average salary, then a pension capped at 80% of that average should be plenty for people who have already put in their time. Plus, seniors often get perks like free public transit and other discounts.

Basically, the system could be restructured to actually work.
My bigger headache is that $24 billion being used this year just to service debt while the total deficit keeps climbing.

Just think about it: if we weren't pouring that much cash into interest payments, payroll taxes could be significantly lower. We'd actually have money left over.

Around $22 billion goes toward federal employees. But about a third of that flows back to the government through taxes and payroll contributions. So, that's roughly $7 billion right there.
There are about 110,000 people working in government-owned corporations. By eliminating certain payroll taxes, we could use that same amount to cut subsidies to companies, or we could tax the increased profits of the ones that are actually doing well.
That’s another $4 billion.
Then you've got about 80,000 people employed in local government. There could be savings of about $3 billion that the federal government wouldn't have to hand over to municipalities. And since labor costs would drop, the goods and services they buy would get cheaper too...

$24 billion + $7 billion + $4 billion + $3 billion. That adds up to $38 billion already, not counting other savings, the fact that people wouldn't be working under the table or reporting lower wages, and the boost in corporate tax revenue.
That brings us to a total of $44 billion—which is pretty much what we pay in payroll taxes.
With a few more cuts elsewhere, we might not even need to tax payroll at all.

http://ericperez9.blog.com/

I mean, if you’re already convinced that banks and bankers are total scumbags, why aren't you pushing for the government to just stop paying back foreign debt altogether, instead of arguing that they should basically rob private citizens here in the States just to bail out those loans for the banks?

Honestly, if you’re going to hold that kind of attitude, you probably shouldn't be doing business with banks in the first place. It isn't like anyone is forcing you to take out a loan. ☕
It’s just funny how people suddenly remember that bankers are the villains—only after they’ve already blown through all their cash. 😬