2 hours ago, vikas83 said:

The part you are missing, the Ponzi part of it, is the funding to subsidize comes from payroll taxes, just like social security. Payroll taxes from today's workers are used to subsidize plans for existing retirees -- therefore, new "investors" money is being used to fund payments to older investors. That is, definitionally, a Ponzi scheme. 

You are "collecting" the subsidy being funded by current payroll taxes.

Right but that same logic then could apply to every single thing that is subsidized by taxes and you could say that everything paid for by taxes is a ponzi scheme.  

It could also be used to describe health insurance in general for anyone on a large company plan.  For example my company has like 200 employees.  The only variance in rates is whether you are paying for yourself or yourself + family.  Age is not a factor.   So then by this definition, our health insurance plan is also a ponzi scheme, since the premiums collected from our younger employees are subsidizing the plans for our employees who are in their late 50s and early 60s.  Even in insurance plans where premiums are allowed to be adjusted based on age, the younger members are still subsidizing the older members as the age ratio is capped.  So is health insurance a ponzi scheme too?

Also,  then if Medicare was opened up to all ages where anyone could voluntarily acquire medicare insurance and pay premiums just like any other health insurance, it would drastically reduce the stress that's currently on the system, and it would cease being a "ponzi scheme".  Which wouldn't be the case if it was actually a ponzi scheme.  A ponzi scheme doesn't stop being a ponzi scheme just because more people are invited into it.  

2 hours ago, TEW said:

Riiiiight.

And payroll taxes are what subsidizes it. And we need a certain proportion of people paying those taxes to subsidize those who use the programs. And there aren’t enough people to keep the scheme going.

I mean, I’ve explained it a couple times now… 🤷‍♂️ 

And gas taxes are what subsidizes the transportation engineering industry.  And we need a certain proportion of people paying those taxes in order to keep the programs going.  And over the years, gas tax revenues have been falling which is why across the country, infrastructure quality has been falling and there aren't enough revenues coming in to keep the scheme going.  

So by this same logic, the infrastructure industry is also a ponzi scheme...................

 

5 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Right but that same logic then could apply to every single thing that is subsidized by taxes and you could say that everything paid for by taxes is a ponzi scheme.  

It could also be used to describe health insurance in general for anyone on a company plan.  For example my company has like 200 employees.   Like any company plan, the only variance in rates is whether your are paying for yourself or yourself + family.  Age is not a factor.   So then by this definition, our health insurance plan is also a ponzi scheme, since the premiums collected from our younger employees are subsidizing the plans for our employees who are in their late 50s and early 60s.  

No, because that’s not how insurance companies work.

Insurance companies assess risk and take in MORE in premiums than they expect to pay out. This is unlike Medicare where the subsidized portion of premiums are collected through fixed payroll taxes. On top of that, your insurance provider is not liable for people who are not covered through paying premiums. You pay premiums for coverage, and if you stop paying premiums, they stop providing coverage.

That is totally different than Medicare where the people who are covered are NOT the ones paying the majority of the premium. That’s where the Ponzi Scheme comes in, because if too high of a proportion of people are on Medicare (baby boomers) and too few are working to cover the subsidization, the financial structure falls apart.

Also, a mature insurance company is throwing off cash from its investments and only a portion of your premiums go towards servicing claims. Hence how it is a for-profit business (and also how Warren Buffett made his money).

That’s the investment part you referred to when talking about SS being a Ponzi Scheme. An insurance company is going to have a bunch of different assets on its balance sheet. Liquid assets (cash and equivalent required by law to cover claims risk) all the way to illiquid assets like real estate which serve as cash flow. Absolutely a totally different financial structure in every way from Medicare.

26 minutes ago, TEW said:

No, because that’s not how insurance companies work.

Insurance companies assess risk and take in MORE in premiums than they expect to pay out. This is unlike Medicare where the subsidized portion of premiums are collected through fixed payroll taxes. On top of that, your insurance provider is not liable for people who are not covered through paying premiums. You pay premiums for coverage, and if you stop paying premiums, they stop providing coverage.

That is totally different than Medicare where the people who are covered are NOT the ones paying the majority of the premium. That’s where the Ponzi Scheme comes in, because if too high of a proportion of people are on Medicare (baby boomers) and too few are working to cover the subsidization, the financial structure falls apart.

Also, a mature insurance company is throwing off cash from its investments and only a portion of your premiums go towards servicing claims. Hence how it is a for-profit business (and also how Warren Buffett made his money).

That’s the investment part you referred to when talking about SS being a Ponzi Scheme. An insurance company is going to have a bunch of different assets on its balance sheet. Liquid assets (cash and equivalent required by law to cover claims risk) all the way to illiquid assets like real estate which serve as cash flow. Absolutely a totally different financial structure in every way from Medicare.

I never claimed that private health insurance companies have the same exact financial structure as medicare.  I understand that health insurance companies invest premiums.    Specifically though, in the example I was using of our company, I'm not sure that this is the case as we are self insured.  

That still doesn't change the fact that even in private health insurance, younger members (who typically don't have nearly as many claims as older members) are subsidizing older members.  So by this logic, private health insurance is also a ponzi scheme since it requires one group of members to help subsidize another group of members. 

And I guess we can add the National Flood Insurance program to the list of "ponzi schemes" as well.  

Just because something is subsidized by taxes, that doesn't automatically mean it's a ponzi scheme.  

22 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

I never claimed that private health insurance companies have the same exact financial structure as medicare.  I understand that health insurance companies invest premiums.    Specifically though, in the example I was using of our company, I'm not sure that this is the case as we are self insured.  

That still doesn't change the fact that even in private health insurance, younger members (who typically don't have nearly as many claims as older members) are subsidizing older members.  So by this logic, private health insurance is also a ponzi scheme since it requires one group of members to help subsidize another group of members. 

And I guess we can add the National Flood Insurance program to the list of "ponzi schemes" as well.  

Just because something is subsidized by taxes, that doesn't automatically mean it's a ponzi scheme.  

No.

In private insurance, all members are paying premiums. The premiums are calculated to cover the risk assessment of the pool of the insured. More risk = higher premiums.

That’s different than Medicare where the old are NOT paying the premiums and the premiums are fixed through payroll taxes rather than adjusted based on risk assessment. In Medicare, the payroll taxes don’t go up as more join the system. Nor do they go up as the proportion of people paying payroll taxes goes down in comparison to the beneficiaries.

And this is the problem, because in order to make our liability "whole” you’d have to come up with $50-$100+ (depending on assumptions) trillion dollars. But we can’t do that because it would consume the entire economy. Even raising payroll taxes is a non-starter because you’d be taking significant money out of the economy which would cause a deflationary spiral. So the answer will be to print about a hundred trillion, because we all know we aren’t getting rid of the entitlement system.

Basically we are completely and totally F’d, and this is a slow motion train wreck that people have known was coming for decades now. But no one had the political will or courage to end the Ponzi Scheme, so like all Ponzi Schemes, it’s going to collapse as the number of people paying in gets outstripped by the people taking out money.

37 minutes ago, TEW said:

No.

In private insurance, all members are paying premiums. The premiums are calculated to cover the risk assessment of the pool of the insured. More risk = higher premiums.

That’s different than Medicare where the old are NOT paying the premiums and the premiums are fixed through payroll taxes rather than adjusted based on risk assessment. In Medicare, the payroll taxes don’t go up as more join the system. Nor do they go up as the proportion of people paying payroll taxes goes down in comparison to the beneficiaries.

And this is the problem, because in order to make our liability "whole” you’d have to come up with $50-$100+ (depending on assumptions) trillion dollars. But we can’t do that because it would consume the entire economy. Even raising payroll taxes is a non-starter because you’d be taking significant money out of the economy which would cause a deflationary spiral. So the answer will be to print about a hundred trillion, because we all know we aren’t getting rid of the entitlement system.

Basically we are completely and totally F’d, and this is a slow motion train wreck that people have known was coming for decades now. But no one had the political will or courage to end the Ponzi Scheme, so like all Ponzi Schemes, it’s going to collapse as the number of people paying in gets outstripped by the people taking out money.

Yes.  First of all, depending on your income, your insurance is subsidized.  Secondly, there are caps on the ratio that insurance companies can charge members based on their age.  So younger members are paying a higher premium relative to their risk to cover for the fact that the insurance company isn’t allowed to charge the older members what their risk assessment arithmetic says they should be charging the older members.  Thirdly, in large company plans, the premiums are the same throughout the company in which case the younger healthier members are subsidizing the premiums of the older less healthier members at an even higher rate compared to individual market and small group plans.

So again, just because something is subsidized through taxes, that doesn’t make it a Ponzi scheme. 
Your income tax money isn’t invested either.  They use that tax money and give it to someone else.  That doesn’t mean that everything that is paid for by income tax is a ponzi scheme.

2 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Yes.  First of all, depending on your income, your insurance is subsidized.  Secondly, there are caps on the ratio that insurance companies can charge members based on their age.  So younger members are paying a higher premium relative to their risk to cover for the fact that the insurance company isn’t allowed to charge the older members what their risk assessment arithmetic says they should be charging the older members.  Thirdly, in large company plans, the premiums are the same throughout the company in which case the younger healthier members are subsidizing the premiums of the older less healthier members at an even higher rate compared to individual market and small group plans.

So again, just because something is subsidized through taxes, that doesn’t make it a Ponzi scheme. 
Your income tax money isn’t invested either.  They use that tax money and give it to someone else.  That doesn’t mean that everything that is paid for by income tax is a ponzi scheme.

The Ponzi Scheme part isn’t that tax dollars are used. It’s how the financial structure is built. It’s that a group of people (call the group A) are collecting money from another group of people (group B). Group A is a large group. There aren’t enough people on group B to pay them. Hence, a Ponzi scheme where one group pays the other and it can continue as long as you keep having larger successive groups to make the previous group whole.

I don’t know how else to explain this to you other than to say it is radically different than private health insurance and the issue is that there are too many people who are old (and thus not paying into the system) compared to the younger people (who will pay in). This is a problem that will become progressively worse over time, and will absolutely cause a financial crisis.

11 minutes ago, TEW said:

The Ponzi Scheme part isn’t that tax dollars are used. It’s how the financial structure is built. It’s that a group of people (call the group A) are collecting money from another group of people (group B). Group A is a large group. There aren’t enough people on group B to pay them. Hence, a Ponzi scheme where one group pays the other and it can continue as long as you keep having larger successive groups to make the previous group whole.

I don’t know how else to explain this to you other than to say it is radically different than private health insurance and the issue is that there are too many people who are old (and thus not paying into the system) compared to the younger people (who will pay in). This is a problem that will become progressively worse over time, and will absolutely cause a financial crisis.

Again, by this definition anything funded by tax revenues is a Ponzi scheme.  
Food stamps are a Ponzi scheme.  The defense industry is a Ponzi scheme.  The infrastructure industry is a Ponzi scheme.  Public school is a Ponzi scheme.  And so on and so forth. In all these examples, it’s one group of people collecting money from another group.  That doesn’t make it a Ponzi scheme.

1 minute ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Again, by this definition anything funded by tax revenues is a Ponzi scheme.  
Food stamps are a Ponzi scheme.  The defense industry is a Ponzi scheme.  The infrastructure industry is a Ponzi scheme.  Public school is a Ponzi scheme.  And so on and so forth. In all these examples, it’s one group of people collecting money from another group.  That doesn’t make it a Ponzi scheme.

And again, no, it doesn’t.

Repeating it doesn’t make it so. The financial structures are different. The liabilities are different.

45 minutes ago, TEW said:

And again, no, it doesn’t.

Repeating it doesn’t make it so. The financial structures are different. The liabilities are different.

You just said it’s a Ponzi scheme because it’s a group of people collecting money from another group of people.  You’ve literally just described how every single program funded by taxes works.

Ok so let’s talk liabilities. Infrastructure in this country is underfunded by trillions of dollars, and that problem is only getting worse as less and less gas tax revenues are collected on a per vehicle basis as cars have been becoming more fuel efficient or electric all together.  In a scenario where 100% of cars on the road are electric, there would basically be $0 towards infrastructure under the current financial structure.

So the infrastructure industry has one group of people collecting money from another group of people.  And it has a financial structure that is not sustainable and will eventually collapse if nothing changes. 
So it meets the your Ponzi scheme criteria….

6 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

You just said it’s a Ponzi scheme because it’s a group of people collecting money from another group of people.  You’ve literally just described how every single program funded by taxes works.

Ok so let’s talk liabilities. Infrastructure in this country is underfunded by trillions of dollars, and that problem is only getting worse as less and less gas tax revenues are collected on a per vehicle basis as cars have been becoming more fuel efficient or electric all together.  In a scenario where 100% of cars on the road are electric, there would literally be $0 towards infrastructure under the current financial structure.

So the infrastructure industry has one group of people collecting money from another group of people.  And it has a financial structure that is not sustainable and will eventually collapse if nothing changes. 
So it meets the your Ponzi scheme criteria….

No, I haven’t.

There are actual financial liabilities on the books for every single American because of these entitlement programs. And the liabilities are based mostly on age. That is not true of roads, etc. There literally is no liability for any road that you want to build, or feel you need to build, or any maintenance that has been neglected.

A liability is an accounting/financial term and simply does not apply to roads you wish you could build or fix but don’t. When you do pay for those roads, generally you will use debt to do so, which is a liability, but the key here is that the debt has defined terms (10 years at 5% interest, etc). This is different than the entitlement system in which the liabilities are ongoing and rolling; as people age they enter Medicare/SS and their kids and grandkids pay for the system. It is a wholly different financial structure.

The government can decide not to pay for new roads, forego maintenance, etc. This is not true of Medicare, both literally and practically. Literally, they are not allowed to just stop making the payments to any one person without repealing the entire system like they might defer the maintenance of one road. These are transfer payments that are structured by age, in the case of Medicare and SS, and already on the books. Practically, they can’t repeal the entire system because voters won’t allow it.

Second, roads are not one group of people receiving benefits from another in rolling perpetuity. Roads are fiscal projects with a start/end date.  Even maintenance projects have start/end dates despite the fact that maintenance is an ongoing task, defined terms for any liabilities incurred to finance them, etc. 

Sorry bud, but you’re out of your depth on this one. 

4 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Again, by this definition anything funded by tax revenues is a Ponzi scheme.  
Food stamps are a Ponzi scheme.  The defense industry is a Ponzi scheme.  The infrastructure industry is a Ponzi scheme.  Public school is a Ponzi scheme.  And so on and so forth. In all these examples, it’s one group of people collecting money from another group.  That doesn’t make it a Ponzi scheme.

What you are missing is that the payroll tax alone is supposed to fund the Medicare subsidization. There is a payroll tax specifically for it, just like Social Security. Since current payroll tax revenues (new investors) are used to subsidize those who are receiving benefits (withdrawing investors), it fits the literal definition of a Ponzi scheme. It is because there is a tax specifically designed to fund it that will prove woefully inadequate. 
 

The other spending you mentioned is paid from general receipts and deficit spending. People who pay taxes would get benefits from those programs immediately (assuming they qualify). Infrastructure spending funded by gas taxes benefit current payers, for example. Defense spending protects those who currently pay income taxes. We receive no current benefit from social security and Medicare payroll taxes - the money goes to non-paying collectors. That’s the difference.  

4 hours ago, vikas83 said:

What you are missing is that the payroll tax alone is supposed to fund the Medicare subsidization. There is a payroll tax specifically for it, just like Social Security. Since current payroll tax revenues (new investors) are used to subsidize those who are receiving benefits (withdrawing investors), it fits the literal definition of a Ponzi scheme. It is because there is a tax specifically designed to fund it that will prove woefully inadequate. 
 

The other spending you mentioned is paid from general receipts and deficit spending. People who pay taxes would get benefits from those programs immediately (assuming they qualify). Infrastructure spending funded by gas taxes benefit current payers, for example. Defense spending protects those who currently pay income taxes. We receive no current benefit from social security and Medicare payroll taxes - the money goes to non-paying collectors. That’s the difference.  

@Phillyterp85
 

I would just add to this, that the real problem (aside from current payroll tax structure being inadequate) is that the math just doesn’t work period. The size of the liabilities are so great that it will consume basically our entire budget. You’d have to raise taxes to such a degree that it would consume all of our tax revenue and then some, and this is without dynamic projections which would reflect that there is a point where raising taxes actually causes tax receipts to shrink. 

The only real "out” here is some kind of revolutionary healthcare technology that reduces costs by an order of magnitude or more.

You can’t actually pay for it. You can’t get rid of the program politically. You can monetize it, but that creates its own set of unfathomably large problems. So the only "out” where everything ends happily ever after is a horse to car situation but for healthcare. Could that happen? I guess it’s possible, but most likely we are going to print it away. If you think inflation is bad now, buckle up.

6 hours ago, vikas83 said:

What you are missing is that the payroll tax alone is supposed to fund the Medicare subsidization. There is a payroll tax specifically for it, just like Social Security. Since current payroll tax revenues (new investors) are used to subsidize those who are receiving benefits (withdrawing investors), it fits the literal definition of a Ponzi scheme. It is because there is a tax specifically designed to fund it that will prove woefully inadequate. 
 

The other spending you mentioned is paid from general receipts and deficit spending. People who pay taxes would get benefits from those programs immediately (assuming they qualify). Infrastructure spending funded by gas taxes benefit current payers, for example. Defense spending protects those who currently pay income taxes. We receive no current benefit from social security and Medicare payroll taxes - the money goes to non-paying collectors. That’s the difference.  

The payroll tax alone doesn't fund medicare claims. The payroll tax accounts for 36% of medicare funding.  General revenues accounts for 43%.  And medicare recipient premiums accounts for 15%.   And unlike social security, in which case money that goes into the fund is then literally turned around and given to someone else; money paid into medicare goes to fund insurance claims for someone who has a covered procedure.  

1 hour ago, TEW said:

@Phillyterp85
 

I would just add to this, that the real problem (aside from current payroll tax structure being inadequate) is that the math just doesn’t work period. The size of the liabilities are so great that it will consume basically our entire budget. You’d have to raise taxes to such a degree that it would consume all of our tax revenue and then some, and this is without dynamic projections which would reflect that there is a point where raising taxes actually causes tax receipts to shrink. 

The only real "out” here is some kind of revolutionary healthcare technology that reduces costs by an order of magnitude or more.

You can’t actually pay for it. You can’t get rid of the program politically. You can monetize it, but that creates its own set of unfathomably large problems. So the only "out” where everything ends happily ever after is a horse to car situation but for healthcare. Could that happen? I guess it’s possible, but most likely we are going to print it away. If you think inflation is bad now, buckle up.

Well, I disagree with that.  There's things that can be done to slow the growth of expenditures, some of which are already being done, such as bundled payments, which has led to more efficient care.  And then on the funding side, premiums could be increased.   You could change enrollment to allow for people under 65 to join, and their premium inputs combined with their lower outputs (since younger people have less healthcare claims) would be a net boost to funding.  

5 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Well, I disagree with that.  There's things that can be done to slow the growth of expenditures, some of which are already being done, such as bundled payments, which has led to more efficient care.  And then on the funding side, premiums could be increased.   You could change enrollment to allow for people under 65 to join, and their premium inputs combined with their lower outputs (since younger people have less healthcare claims) would be a net boost to funding.  

This is just math, dude. We have ~$100 trillion in unfunded liabilities. The shortfall is too great without radical reductions in benefits. You can’t raise taxes to get yourself out of this.

1 hour ago, TEW said:

This is just math, dude. We have ~$100 trillion in unfunded liabilities. The shortfall is too great without radical reductions in benefits. You can’t raise taxes to get yourself out of this.

After reading through relevant parts of the 2021 Medicare Trustees Report, you and @vikas83 are right, it's structurally a ponzi scheme.  

However, I do think the framing of saying Medicare has nearly $50 tril in unfunded liabilities is somewhat out of context.  Every article I've read discussing the unfunded liabilities of medicare points to the chart in the appendix of the Medicare Trutsees report (for the 2021 report it was Table V.F2) which shows the summary of the NPV of revenues vs expenditures and shows the HI Trust fund with a deficit of $5 trillion and the SMI trust fund with a deficit of $43 trillion.    SMI covers Medicare Part B and is covered by a combination of premiums paid by members + general income tax revenues.    The deficit shown of $43 trillion only accounts for premiums collected and does not account for general income tax revenues.  So of course that's going to show a giant deficit since that calculation is leaving out 75% of the current revenue source. 

Maybe it's just me, but when I hear "$50 trillion in unfunded liabilities" , my initial reaction is, "ok, on top of the taxes we already pay, we'd need to come up with an additional $50 trillion in tax revenues in order to keep the program going", which isn't really the case.   For instance, last year $357 billion of income tax revenues went towards Medicare Part B.  

What I'd be curious to see (and haven't been able to find yet) is the yearly breakdown of their NPV calcs, to see the Part B expenditures vs. what income tax revenues would be necessary to match it. 

4 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

After reading through relevant parts of the 2021 Medicare Trustees Report, you and @vikas83 are right, it's structurally a ponzi scheme.  

However, I do think the framing of saying Medicare has nearly $50 tril in unfunded liabilities is somewhat out of context.  Every article I've read discussing the unfunded liabilities of medicare points to the chart in the appendix of the Medicare Trutsees report (for the 2021 report it was Table V.F2) which shows the summary of the NPV of revenues vs expenditures and shows the HI Trust fund with a deficit of $5 trillion and the SMI trust fund with a deficit of $43 trillion.    SMI covers Medicare Part B and is covered by a combination of premiums paid by members + general income tax revenues.    The deficit shown of $43 trillion only accounts for premiums collected and does not account for general income tax revenues.  So of course that's going to show a giant deficit since that calculation is leaving out 75% of the current revenue source. 

Maybe it's just me, but when I hear "$50 trillion in unfunded liabilities" , my initial reaction is, "ok, on top of the taxes we already pay, we'd need to come up with an additional $50 trillion in tax revenues in order to keep the program going", which isn't really the case.   For instance, last year $357 billion of income tax revenues went towards Medicare Part B.  

What I'd be curious to see (and haven't been able to find yet) is the yearly breakdown of their NPV calcs, to see the Part B expenditures vs. what income tax revenues would be necessary to match it. 

Who is actually accounting for the inflation that has arrived and will likely get worse?  Nobody in government has been saying we are going to have inflation, and yet it is now here.

So when government accountants talk about unfunded liabilities, how are they predicting the future here?

7 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

After reading through relevant parts of the 2021 Medicare Trustees Report, you and @vikas83 are right, it's structurally a ponzi scheme.  

However, I do think the framing of saying Medicare has nearly $50 tril in unfunded liabilities is somewhat out of context.  Every article I've read discussing the unfunded liabilities of medicare points to the chart in the appendix of the Medicare Trutsees report (for the 2021 report it was Table V.F2) which shows the summary of the NPV of revenues vs expenditures and shows the HI Trust fund with a deficit of $5 trillion and the SMI trust fund with a deficit of $43 trillion.    SMI covers Medicare Part B and is covered by a combination of premiums paid by members + general income tax revenues.    The deficit shown of $43 trillion only accounts for premiums collected and does not account for general income tax revenues.  So of course that's going to show a giant deficit since that calculation is leaving out 75% of the current revenue source. 

Maybe it's just me, but when I hear "$50 trillion in unfunded liabilities" , my initial reaction is, "ok, on top of the taxes we already pay, we'd need to come up with an additional $50 trillion in tax revenues in order to keep the program going", which isn't really the case.   For instance, last year $357 billion of income tax revenues went towards Medicare Part B.  

What I'd be curious to see (and haven't been able to find yet) is the yearly breakdown of their NPV calcs, to see the Part B expenditures vs. what income tax revenues would be necessary to match it. 

This is the subject of massive debate and disagreement. It's very simply done as follows: assume expenditures increase at X% and payroll taxes at Y%, and then take those losses out to perpetuity, pick a discount rate and...viola, that's your NPV. The issue is that, historically, the government has overestimated the growth of payroll taxes and massively underestimated the growth in healthcare spending (combo of costs and people living longer). It's similar to why all the calculations done on pension plans are total crap -- they assume 8% annualized returns on assets and people dying sooner. 

When guys like Kyle Bass throw out the $100 trillion number, they claim to be using historical data as opposed to the governments optimistic assumptions. 

1 minute ago, vikas83 said:

This is the subject of massive debate and disagreement. It's very simply done as follows: assume expenditures increase at X% and payroll taxes at Y%, and then take those losses out to perpetuity, pick a discount rate and...viola, that's your NPV. The issue is that, historically, the government has overestimated the growth of payroll taxes and massively underestimated the growth in healthcare spending (combo of costs and people living longer). It's similar to why all the calculations done on pension plans are total crap -- they assume 8% annualized returns on assets and people dying sooner. 

When guys like Kyle Bass throw out the $100 trillion number, they claim to be using historical data as opposed to the governments optimistic assumptions. 

Exactly.

And to be frank, if you’re giving me an over/under of $100T, I’m taking the over all day. It’s likely closer to $200T than it is $50T. Nothing to me suggests that people will live substantially shorter lives, that healthcare costs will get substantially lower, or that the work force will get substantially larger than projected.

13 minutes ago, TEW said:

Exactly.

And to be frank, if you’re giving me an over/under of $100T, I’m taking the over all day. It’s likely closer to $200T than it is $50T. Nothing to me suggests that people will live substantially shorter lives, that healthcare costs will get substantially lower, or that the work force will get substantially larger than projected.

Or that people are about to adopt healthy lifestyles

43 minutes ago, TEW said:

Exactly.

And to be frank, if you’re giving me an over/under of $100T, I’m taking the over all day. It’s likely closer to $200T than it is $50T. Nothing to me suggests that people will live substantially shorter lives, that healthcare costs will get substantially lower, or that the work force will get substantially larger than projected.

We know that wont happen as the Birth rate in the US has been upside down since the 70's to sustain current population. 

1 minute ago, Ipiggles said:

We know that wont happen as the Birth rate in the US has been upside down since the 70's to sustain current population. 

Need more immigrants

7 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

Need more immigrants

The right kind of immigrants

9 minutes ago, TEW said:

The right kind of immigrants