Re: “The US Likely Has 8 Years—At Most—Before Crisis”

On 6/21/2025 4:59 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:

On 6/21/2025 9:03 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:

On 19/06/2025 18:59, Lynn McGuire wrote:

“The US Likely Has 8 Years—At Most—Before Crisis”
      https://www.schiffsovereign.com/trends/153000-153000/
>
“Yesterday afternoon the US government published its annual report
stating plainly that America has eight years left before a major
financial crisis.”
>
“This is not hyperbole. This is not conjecture. This is not some wild
conspiracy theory.”
>
“In fact, eight years until a crisis is probably the BEST CASE
SCENARIO unless Congress takes serious action soon.”
>
“That’s because the most critical trust fund in the Social Security
system (called OAS, or “Old Age Survivors) will be fully depleted.”
>
“That’s precisely what it says in the 2025 Annual Report of the Board
of Trustees of Social Security, signed by the US Secretary of Treasury
just yesterday.”
>
“But on top of that— by 2033, the total US national debt will be $52
TRILLION according to Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates. And
the CBO notoriously underestimates deficits… so in all likelihood the
national debt will be event greater.”
>
This is well documented in the future documentary “The Mandibles: A
Family, 2029-2047” by Lionel Shriver.  In fact, the financial
apocalypse will probably happen around 2029.
>
https://www.amazon.com/Mandibles-Family-2029-2047-Lionel-Shriver/
dp/006232828X

>
Is the crisis because the OAS fund cannot
pay elderly SS subscribers due to the government
pilfering it, or is it because the government
pilfering has to stop when the money is all gone?

>
Just about every other country on the planet now means tests their
version of Social Security.

 Surely you can back this up with a real citation?  Your history
with facts is pretty poor. (too much dumshitpundit and liarwars).
 

I suspect that the USA will do the same.  I
will be unhappy but not very damaged as I have saved.  My wife is on
Social Security but I am delaying it for the increased payout.
>
Means testing Medicare will throw a bunch of people like me, middle
income, into the valley of no health insurance.  Throwing us onto
Obamacare is just another cost to the feddies.

 Perhaps you might consider eliminating the vast overhead of
the insurance companies, physician holding companies and
pharmacy benefits managers that consume better than 50%
of every healthcare dollar spent.   Pure overhead with
absolutely no benifit.
 Setup a single payer (perhaps like the post office) and
simplify the billing infrastructure.   Save tons of money.
 

>
And Medicaid is not funded by any dedicated taxes whatsoever.  It just
steals from the General Fund.

 Like all government spending.  It's hardly stealing, since the medicare
laws were all passed by the appropriate senate and house votes.
 You really are despicable.
 

>
Obamacare funds itself by interest on school loans and taxes on employer
health insurance.

 Sure, pull the other one.  BTW, it's called the "affordable care act"
and is universally popular and saves a bunch of dollars that would
otherwise have been wasted on unnecessary emergency room visits
for simple colds.
    "The Affordable Care Act (ACA), often called Obamacare,
    is funded through a combination of spending cuts, new
     taxes, and fees, as well as savings from the Medicare program."
    - Google AI
 

In fact, I had employer health insurance two years
ago, I could not afford the $8,500/month anymore and had to drop it for
me and my employees.

 And how is anything other than the greed of the insurance
companies ensuring they get their 30+% cut of the premium?
 

These four programs cost the USA federal government around $4 trillion
per year and their costs are rising rapidly.  By 2030, these four
programs are expected to cost $6 trillion per year.

 This year, 14%  of the budget went to Medicare and
another 13% to "health".  That's 27% of 6.4 T$, which works
out to 1.73 T$.  A far cry from 4 trillion - you really need
to work on your research skills and find more reliable sources
for your information.
 https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/

Have you thought about seeing somebody for your anger and abusiveness ?
All my numbers come from the US Debt Clock:
    https://www.usdebtclock.org/#
Here is what grok says about means testing Social Security around the planet.  I had forgotten that my Medicare is means tested already (IRMAA) plus paying income tax on my wife's Social Security is a form of means testing:
Means-testing social security involves assessing an individual's or household's income and/or assets to determine eligibility for benefits, with the aim of directing aid to those with greater financial need. While many countries have social security systems, the application of means-testing varies widely, and few apply strict means tests to universal pension or retirement programs like Social Security in the United States. Instead, means-testing is more commonly used for supplemental or targeted welfare programs. Below is an overview of countries that employ means-testing for certain social security or pension benefits, based on available information and general trends in social security systems:
     United States:
         The U.S. does not apply a strict means test to its primary Social Security retirement program, which is a contributory, earnings-based system. However, elements of means-testing exist indirectly:
             Taxation of Benefits: Since the 1983 Social Security reforms, a portion of Social Security benefits is subject to income tax for higher-income retirees (e.g., individuals with combined income above $25,000 or couples above $32,000 annually). This effectively reduces net benefits for wealthier beneficiaries.
Supplemental Security Income (SSI): A separate federal program, SSI is explicitly means-tested, providing benefits to low-income individuals who are aged, blind, or disabled, with strict income and asset limits (e.g., $2,000 for individuals, $3,000 for couples in 2025).Proposals for broader means-testing of Social Security benefits (e.g., reducing or eliminating benefits for high-income or high-wealth retirees) have been discussed but not implemented due to administrative complexity, potential disincentives for saving, and political unpopularity.Australia:
     Australia’s Age Pension is a prominent example of a means-tested social security program. Eligibility and benefit amounts are determined by both an income test and an assets test:
         Income Test: Reduces benefits if income exceeds a certain threshold (e.g., approximately AUD 208 per fortnight for a single person in 2025, with benefits tapering off as income rises).
         Assets Test: Limits benefits based on the value of assets, such as property or savings, excluding the primary residence (e.g., assets over AUD 301,750 for a single homeowner reduce benefits).
         The pension is designed to support lower-income retirees, with wealthier individuals receiving reduced or no benefits. This system contrasts with contributory pensions in other countries, as the Age Pension is funded through general taxation.
United Kingdom:
     The UK’s social security system includes both universal and means-tested components:
         The State Pension is not means-tested and is based on National Insurance contributions.
         However, supplemental benefits like Pension Credit are means-tested, providing additional support for low-income pensioners (e.g., those with weekly income below £218.15 for a single person in 2025). Pension Credit includes an income and savings test, with savings above £10,000 reducing eligibility.
         Other means-tested benefits, such as Housing Benefit and Council Tax Support, assist low-income retirees but are not part of the core pension system.
Studies, such as Sefton et al. (2008), have explored means-testing in the UK pension system, noting its role in targeting resources but also its potential to create disincentives for saving.Canada:
     Canada’s pension system includes both universal and means-tested elements:
         Old Age Security (OAS): A universal pension funded by taxes, but subject to a clawback for high-income earners. If annual income exceeds CAD 90,997 (2025 threshold), OAS benefits are reduced, and they phase out entirely at around CAD 148,065 for individuals.
         Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS): A means-tested program for low-income seniors, with strict income thresholds (e.g., maximum annual income of CAD 21,624 for a single person in 2025, excluding OAS).
         Canada’s approach avoids means-testing for core pensions but uses income tests for supplemental benefits to ensure targeted support.
New Zealand:
     New Zealand’s Superannuation is a universal, tax-funded pension available to all residents over 65, regardless of income or assets. However, it is not strictly means-tested.
     Means-testing is applied to supplementary programs, such as Accommodation Supplement or Disability Allowance, which provide additional support based on income and asset tests. For example, the Accommodation Supplement tapers off as income or assets exceed certain limits (e.g., NZD 44,000 in assets for a single person).
Other Countries:
     Ireland: Means-testing is used for non-contributory pensions, like the State Pension (Non-Contributory), which assesses income and assets (e.g., savings over €20,000 reduce benefits). The contributory State Pension, however, is not means-tested.
Singapore: The Medifund program, which provides healthcare subsidies, is means-tested based on household income and assets. Singapore’s Central Provident Fund (CPF), a mandatory savings scheme, is not means-tested for withdrawals, but supplementary welfare programs often are.European Countries (General): The European Social Security Protection Statistics (ESSPROS) notes that means-tested benefits are common for supplementary social assistance but less so for primary pensions. Countries like Sweden and Norway rely on universal pensions with minimal means-testing, though targeted benefits (e.g., housing allowances) may involve income or asset tests.Developing Nations: In countries like India or South Africa, social pensions (e.g., South Africa’s Older Persons Grant) are often means-tested to prioritize low-income individuals due to limited fiscal resources. South Africa’s grant, for instance, has an income threshold (e.g., ZAR 86,280 annually for a single person in 2025) and an asset limit (e.g., ZAR 1,227,600).
Key Observations:
     Universal vs. Means-Tested Systems: Many developed countries (e.g., Sweden, Norway, Netherlands) favor universal pensions to avoid stigma and administrative costs, using means-testing only for supplementary benefits. In contrast, countries like Australia and South Africa rely heavily on means-testing to manage costs in non-contributory systems.
Administrative Challenges: Means-testing, as seen in the U.S. and UK, increases administrative costs and complexity due to the need to verify income and assets, potentially deterring eligible applicants.Disincentives: Critics argue means-testing can discourage saving or work, as seen in debates about Australia’s assets test or proposed U.S. reforms.Global Variation: The extent of means-testing depends on the country’s fiscal capacity and social security philosophy. Wealthier nations often combine universal pensions with means-tested supplements, while resource-constrained nations prioritize means-testing to limit beneficiaries.
Limitations:
     Data on means-testing is inconsistent across countries, as definitions and thresholds vary. The International Social Security Association (ISSA) provides country profiles but discontinued detailed global reports after 2019.
     Some countries’ social security systems are hybrid, blending contributory, universal, and means-tested elements, making direct comparisons challenging.
If you need details on a specific country or program, I can dig deeper or clarify further! For real-time updates or additional countries, I can also search current sources if requested.
Lynn