You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Pages: 1
Re: Taxpayers on the hook for $59 trillion
The federal government recorded a $1.3 trillion loss last year '” far more than the official $248 billion deficit '” when corporate-style accounting standards are used, a USA TODAY analysis shows.
The loss reflects a continued deterioration in the finances of Social Security and government retirement programs for civil servants and military personnel. The loss '” equal to $11,434 per household '” is more than Americans paid in income taxes in 2006.
"We're on an unsustainable path and doing a great disservice to future generations," says Chris Chocola, a former Republican member of Congress from Indiana and corporate chief executive who is pushing for more accurate federal accounting.
Modern accounting requires that corporations, state governments and local governments count expenses immediately when a transaction occurs, even if the payment will be made later.
The federal government does not follow the rule, so promises for Social Security and Medicare don't show up when the government reports its financial condition.
FIND MORE STORIES IN: White House | Indiana | Social Security | Medicare | Medicaid | Center | Congressional Budget Office | Policy Priorities | Chris Chocola
Bottom line: Taxpayers are now on the hook for a record $59.1 trillion in liabilities, a 2.3% increase from 2006. That amount is equal to $516,348 for every U.S. household. By comparison, U.S. households owe an average of $112,043 for mortgages, car loans, credit cards and all other debt combined.
Unfunded promises made for Medicare, Social Security and federal retirement programs account for 85% of taxpayer liabilities. State and local government retirement plans account for much of the rest.
This hidden debt is the amount taxpayers would have to pay immediately to cover government's financial obligations. Like a mortgage, it will cost more to repay the debt over time. Every U.S. household would have to pay about $31,000 a year to do so in 75 years.
The Financial Accounting Standards Advisory Board, which sets federal accounting standards, is considering requiring the government to adopt accounting rules similar to those for corporations. The change would move Social Security and Medicare onto the government's income statement and balance sheet, instead of keeping them separate.
The White House and the Congressional Budget Office oppose the change, arguing that the programs are not true liabilities because government can cancel or cut them.
Chad Stone, chief economist at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, says it can be misleading to focus on the government's unfunded liabilities because Medicare's financial problems overwhelm the analysis.
"There is a shortfall in Medicare and Medicaid that is potentially explosive, but that is related to overall trends in health care spending," he says.
Re: Taxpayers on the hook for $59 trillion
Speaking of health care, what is up with McCain and his $5,000 tax credit for health insurance?
He does realize what health insurance actually costs? That's not NEAR enough to help ANYTHING.
Thats definitely an odd plan at this point. I don't like the thought of Universal health care, but the current system is broke. Something has to be done.
I think the health care issue is going on the back burner because there just isn't any money to invest in that. The US has to end these wars if we're gonna tackle health care.
Re: Taxpayers on the hook for $59 trillion
Axlin08 wrote:Speaking of health care, what is up with McCain and his $5,000 tax credit for health insurance?
He does realize what health insurance actually costs? That's not NEAR enough to help ANYTHING.
Thats definitely an odd plan at this point. I don't like the thought of Universal health care, but the current system is broke. Something has to be done.
I think the health care issue is going on the back burner because there just isn't any money to invest in that. The US has to end these wars if we're gonna tackle health care.
By against Universal health care I assume you mean a health care service which is controlled by the government. Sorry to say it but it's proven that works and the current system in America doesnt. Look at Canada, France and the UK as prime examples. Health care included in tax so tax is a bit higher but it means all this bullshit about having to pay for everything anytime something is wrong would be over. I mean it's like
"Oh you have cancer but you don't have any money so we're going to leave you to die"
in these countries I mentioned earlier
"Oh you have cancer lets do our best to help you out right away"
However as you said there isn't enough money in almost any countries economy for any massive overhaul of anything to be done.
Re: Taxpayers on the hook for $59 trillion
Both candidates don't get the health care issue as far as i'm concerned, at least not to our knowledge.
I wish the candidates would just speak openly without trying to win votes. Just tell us what we're up against and what they would honestly do to begin fixing these massive problems. Explain why they think that would work, and what the benefits and losses are for everything. Obama HAS to know that universal health care is not a realistic goal, so tell us what you are going to do in the mean time. We may never get to the point where this country can afford it, so what are you actually going to do?
This is why i really hate politics like this.
Re: Taxpayers on the hook for $59 trillion
The problem with the Universal Health Care thing, is i've gotten mixed reactions from Canadians, on Canada's particular system.
I've known people that LOVE the health care in Canada. Free (not really), keep your own doctors, convienent...
I've known others that thought it sucked so bad, they'd cross the border to go to the doctor.
I really don't know how it could go. I used to be prone to illness in my youth, but nowadays I only go to the doctor maybe 2-3 times a year (recently I went a couple times a month due to back issues), but for the main haul, I rarely go in a year's time. I don't know how much of a difference it's gonna make for me, as an American, one way or the other.
Re: Taxpayers on the hook for $59 trillion
I've heard personally from people who have experienced government sponsored health care (not necessarily universal) and they said the quality takes a large drop. Quite a few of them opted to pay to get their own insurance, or where that wasn't available, tried to seek some other alternative.
IF this thing ever gets off the ground, it needs to be highly regulated so quality of the care being provided doesn't take a large drop. Extra regulations and keeping up quality would then cost even more money making it very unlikely.
There are mixed reactions everywhere on whether this works or not. Some love it, some hate it. It's a very controversial topic.
Pages: 1
