The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [Federal Government]
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
Full-Text Search & Archives
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.


Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2021-05-06 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Federal Government , 402 references
[Comments enabled]  

It's about darn time.

The court ruled that the CDC's "Eviction Moratorium" was unlawful and vacated it nationally.

There have been other challenged to this, which led to only single relief -- that is, the one tenant in question wound up getting the "pay up or get out" notice, but those judges did not extend it nationally.  This one did.

On the clear language the CDC never had this authority in the first place.  Further, even if Congress was to do so explicitly (which they did not) it still fails because you are taking both possession and money from the landlord without compensation, which is private property and thus under the 5th Amendment impermissible.

This judge never got to the second point because he didn't have to.

The bottom line is that the free ride is over.  This is a good decision and needed to happen a long time ago for the good of those who rent their residence.

It has become nearly impossible to find reasonable rental property -- that is, not wildly deficient in some way -- during Covid as a result of this moratorium.  Literally anyone can move into such a place and then claim inability to pay due to the pandemic, and screw the landlord.  There's no defense against this except for requiring a ridiculously large up-front deposit, which most renters do not have.  Further, the premise this is a "suspension" is worthless; yes, in theory when it ends the renter has to pay the back rent but virtually none of them have it and most people who rent don't have much in the way of assets either, so suing them is a pointless exercise.

The landlord, in the meantime, must keep up maintenance, repairs, any utilities that were built into the rent and pay property taxes, without which he's breaking the law or may have the place seized by the county.  Essentially the landlord is paying the tenant to stay there; there is no free lunch, and those funds were taken from the landlord at literal gunpoint.

I'm sure Biden's people will appeal but any appeal just makes the problem worse, as what was originally a few months has now extended over a year, and that year's time is a full year worth of rent which is still due to the landlord but nearly zero tenant have it, having consumed the funds for other things -- including, I'm sure in many cases, lots of booze and weed.

It's time to draw the curtain down on this scam; it was months ago, really, in that some judge, somewhere, should have taken a sledge to the CDC's pee-pee on their order all the way back to last summer.  The economic damage to the rental housing market has been immense, but the worst victims are in fact those who rent residences as landlords no longer have even the de-minimus expectation at present that if you don't pay they can go to court and evict you.

Those who are not slimeballs have been severely harmed by the CDC's action -- an action that was neither legal or constitutional.

The employees and families of those working for the CDC should be the ones forced to go live under a freeway overpass in the interests of justice.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2021-04-29 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Federal Government , 1171 references
[Comments enabled]  

Folks, how many times do I have to explain this?

Medicare is blowing up.  Right here, right now.

For the first six months of the 2020 Fiscal Year, which ran from October 2019 -> March of 2020, CMS (Medicare and Medicaid) spend was up 6%.  This is on the lower end of the "you're screwed" boundary I've pointed out for a long time, and one that inevitably will destroy the federal budget because it exceeds the real growth of GDP.  It cannot be fixed because the unfunded portion is close to 80% on a cash basis, unlike Social Security which has a smaller but real unfunded portion.

Speaking of which Social Security's outlays last fiscal year (ending Sept 30 2020) were up 4.73% which was below expectations.  What were they up the previous fiscal year?  5.96% so last fiscal's was 1.23% less.  You do realize that the fiscal year prior to that it only expanded 3.96% right?  Gee, that wasn't people claiming earlier and that's a problem for the government eh?

What do you think the the run-rate is now over the first six months of this fiscal year?

Up 3.74%.

Still think I'm full of crap about kill Granny eh?

You don't think reducing the expansion of that spending by 37% was intentional when a $7 inhaler and $3 worth of pills dispensed as soon as Granny started to cough and run a fever could have been done but would have left the previous expansion rate intact into the maw of a pandemic where employment went to crap and thus more people decided to claim because they were laid off but eligible?

How about Medicare and Medicaid?

Sit down and do not drink your coffee, lest you need a new keyboard and/or monitor.

Fiscal 2018 (ending September 2018) CMS (Medicare/Medicaid) federal spending was 1.466 trillion, one of the smallest increases in the last decade, up less than 2%.

You want to know where one of the biggest places that cost control was actually happening?  Hospitals, with an 0.83% (!!!!) increase in spend over the entire fiscal year.  That's..... extraordinary.  How did Trump get there?  With a huge increase in administrative spending to curtail the blowing of taxpayer money by doing things like what the cocksucking hospital did with my sister to intentionally generate a six-digit bill before she passed.  Said administrative spend was up from 2.64 billion to 4.05 billion and, quite-obviously, the anti-scam push returned huge rewards.

That pissed off the hospitals and their lobbyists.  A lot.

Guess what else?  Prescription drug payouts went down.  A lot.  15.61%, to be precise.

That's not a small amount; yeah, the total spend is only $100 billion or so out of the whole of CMS but who wants to explain the $13 billion that disappeared out of the drug company pockets in one year when you're a lobbyist?

What happened in the first six months of this fiscal year?  Prescription drug spend went up 14%. which is a monstrous nearly 30% swing in the delta.

Medicaid?  Up 20%.  You read that right -- 20%.

How about hospitals?  Up 5.2% and administrative spend went down as Biden and pals stopped caring if the taxpayer got ripped off.

On a delta basis hospital Medicare spend increased at 627% of the previous rate and remember that most of that was under Trump, so the full-year number is likely to be nasty.

But folks -- the large increases were not in Medicare hospitalization.  In the middle of a pandemic, I remind you, where the claim is that we're all dying, old folks who are on Medicare especially are dying, everyone is in the ****ing hospital, it's horrible and by God we have to give away money like water for every single ****ing toe-tag that the hospital sadly applies to people.

Oh, and wear a masssssssssssskkkkk which MIT now says is worthlessexactly as I explained on the physics last spring and summer and which was conclusively proved when the meatpacking outbreak in Germany was scientifically traced through RNA sequencing in which every employee was in fact wearing a mask.  Oh yes, MIT tries to dance around that and claims they can be "very useful" but they're lying and they know it since a "mask" (not a respirator) has pore sizes dozens or even hundreds of times that of aerosol particles; they go right through and around them.  Again for those of you who are stupid aerosols are not blocked by masks which means for those attempting to obtain personal protection nothing less than an N95 (a respirator) works at all and source control is worthless since when you breathe out even with an N95 the positive pressure will cause the mask to unseal and form jets, releasing the aerosols.  We've known all this for 40 years; source control does not work for aerosols at all and for personal protection, if you desire to use it and which thus must be a personal choice since it protects only you the only working options are an N95 (or P100) with an exhaust valve so the seal is maintained when you exhale instead of being repeatedly violated with each breath which airlines and some governments have actually banned you from using!

That's right -- airlines, government and some businesses have actually banned the only effective protection you can choose for your own personal safety.

You're all smoking crack folks when it comes to this pandemic and the real bottom line -- the largest expansions were in Medicaid and drugs, neither of which had a single scintilla of change in the law (e.g. Medicaid eligibility) or anything related to it and remember, we've all been told there are no effective drugs and you can't have any of the cheap and likely-effective ones if you get infected.

The total spend over that six month period of time?  Up 13.4% over comparable period and on a percentage basis of increase most of it was Medicaid and drugs.

You think any of this crap had anything to do with health?

You're a special breed of stupid.

Why did the Federal Government essentially ban the discussion and distribution of inexpensive inhalers and drugs for early treatment and prophylaxis of Covid-19?

Because the ghouls in the medical system were once again being squeezed and they demanded more money; if you died as a consequence that's perfectly ok with them as it will inculcate fear and you will scream to make sure they get paid.  Oh by the way that also helps the government's funding model over the intermediate and longer term because it cuts Social Security and Medicare payouts down the road by killing off the oldest and sickest 1% of the population that likely spends said federal benefits at five times or more their per-capita rate on average.

Just watch what happens over the next six months -- the back half of the fiscal year.

The government conspired with the medical and pharmaceutical industry to boost their spend by roughly 14% on drugs after having that spend cut by 15%, a roughly 30% swing in trend in just one year's time, and they knew damned well doing that would kill a half-million Americans.

It did.

You think that's all?  What if they knew the spike protein, which all the current vaccines produce, was singularly pathogenic?  Because the evidence is that.... it is.  Nothing like creating a hundred million or more potentially injured Americans eh?  They wouldn't need medical care and drugs going forward, would they?

Don't give Trump a single second of credit; he was in office for 2/3rds of that time and did exactly nothing to stop it.  In fact it was his policies in response to Covid-19 that caused it including the development of these shots.  Yes, Biden and CumDumpster love it too, of course but never forget that it was OrangeMan who was originally and remains responsible.

Still want their tard shot given this documented fiscal record and the lies you've been told?

These people do not give a **** if the jab works or not or in fact whether it kills or disables you.  All they care about is getting paid and the more fear and injury they can foist off on you the more money they make.

Have at it idiots. If and when you are severely injured or die as a consequence you deserve it.

Do stupid things, win stupid prizes.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2021-04-27 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Federal Government , 305 references
[Comments enabled]  

People are going bananas over Biden's proposal on taxes (to pay for his "infrastructure" program) that would raise long-term capital gains to as much as 42% and change for people who make over a million.

Let's get down to brass tacks on what this proposal really is: It is the elimination of the "capital gains" rate for high-earning people entirely; Obamacare already added the Medicare tax back on capital gains (unearned income) at a relatively-higher income level, so that's not a new tax.

Reality is that nobody who will get hit "as proposed" (on incomes over $1m) is "middle class" and certainly not "poor", no matter where you live.  $1m, even in the highest cost areas, is a very nice income indeed and only a couple percent of people get there.

This would essentially treat all such income as ordinary income, thus be subject to the same tax rate as ordinary income.  Note that for ordinary income there is no cap for Medicare either; you pay both halves, whether you do so directly if self-employed or via the split if on a W2, so it's not a higher rate than ordinary income -- it is the same rate.

Why do I call this "accidentally smart"?

Because I'm sure that Biden did not do this intentionally.  But by doing it he is removing one of the perversities that has been abused for the last 20 years; specifically, "executive compensation" (which is pay for a job, folks) that has been avoided from W2 income.

This should have never been possible but of course when lobbyists write the tax code...

So let's say you're a director or officer of some company.  You've been progressively ripping off the shareholders for years, with the company buying back stock and giving it to you either via restricted stock or options.  This used to be illegal before the SEC changed the rules around 1990 and it never should have been made legal, as I've pointed out, because it is inevitably robbery from the shareholders of their ownership for the benefit of the officers and directors.

What's worse is that these people then turn around and exploit the tax code since they had the stock for more than a year and only pay 20% tax on the gains instead of their full marginal tax rate (which is usually the highest, as most or all of them are in the top bracket.)  But the grant was in fact payment in exchange for services rendered.

Yeah, I get the argument about "well, it appreciated after the grant date."  So what?  It was still payment for services rendered and if I got an escalating pay-out for wages that were delivered to me at some future date since as a person I am on cash basis accounting with the IRS I would get that on a W2 on the date it was delivered in cash to me and have to pay my full marginal tax rate on it.

This proposal in fact levels the playing field with the guy who gets a big fat bonus but isn't an officer or director, and the bonus is in cash.  He gets the nasty bracket hit from that (if it's enough to move his bracket) and he gets the FICA hit (if under the cap) and he gets hit with the Medicare tax too.

All this proposal does is put those who are in that group in the same situation as the common dude who gets a big fat bonus.  Presumably the bonus is performance-based, whether individually or collectively for the company as a whole.  Why should the executive, the officer or director, not have to pay income tax on the same basis?

If Biden had a damned clue what he'd also do is change the tax code for corporations so dividends are above the line deductible on an 1120 for "C" Corporations.  This would eliminate the penalty on dividends through double-taxation; they would be taxed once, as ordinary income to the recipient.  That's appropriate and would further remove the incentive to******the common shareholder that has existed for the last 30 years.

I can think Biden is a slug and jackass (and I do) but irrespective of what I think of him as a politician or person when you're right you're right, and on this proposal he's right.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

Back when Obama passed Obummercare as many call it, or the "PPACA" formally, I warned that this was nothing more than a bailout of an about-to-collapse medical monopoly system, and that the impact of this on a forward basis was to simply kick a can that was increasingly being filled with cement and eventually someone would stuff some nitroglycerine in there.

The other funny thing about Obummercare was the repeated claims that it worked.  Well, define "worked" please.  The simplest objective evidence of "worked" would be that the death rate per 100,000 people went down.  Did it?

Why no, it did not.

In fact the crude death rate per 100,000, according to the CDC, was declining from 1999 to 2009; it fell from 857.0 to 794.5.  In other words objectively measured Americans were doing better in the 10 years before Obama passed his "big bill."

But from 2010 forward, which, I remind you, was right after Obamacare was passed, it has risen since ever year and now stands as of 2019 at 867.8, or worse than it was in 1999.

So much for Obummercare "helping" people -- provided you define "help" as don't die.  I suspect most people would put "don't die" in the very elementary category of "works" in that if you can't accomplish that then you've accomplished nothing at all and the rest of the conversation is a waste of time.  Of course if "works" means make people more dependent or feed them more opioids or give 'em diabetes but then fill 'em full of drugs or make some people billions of dollars..... perhaps then it did "work."

I remind you that Trump promised to stop all this bull**** during the 2016 campaign (which I threw shade on and said he'd never do it, and in fact it's why I voted for Cthulhu in 2016) and that he had the power to do it too since he controls the Executive.  The Executive enforces laws. There is 100+ old law, specifically, 15 USC Chapter 1, that bears on this and it has twice been litigated to the US Supreme Court and found to apply.  Said decisions are, at this point, close to 40 years old and the law in question is not just a civil liability statute -- it carries felony criminal penalties for violations.

Exactly zero prosecutions have come from that long-standing pair of decisions.

Trump did zero to resolve this issue over the last four years.

This last fiscal year (ending September) this is what Medicare and Medicaid spent:

 

And this is what it took in via taxes:

 

You can see there's a "small" problem; only about 15% of what is spent is being collected in health-care specific taxes.

Medicaid is a "gimme" program and thus on the Federal Budget (and ability to deficit spend) already.  Medicare is not.  It is barred by law from spending money it does not have the ability to convert from bonds purchased with previous tax receipts or that which comes in via current tax receipts.

Approximately seven dollars in ten that it spends are not funded with current tax receipts.

When that "held back" conversion capacity is exhausted which will happen in about 2-3 years this means that under current law it would look like Medicare can only pay three dollars of ten currently being spent.

In reality it's not that bad since there are premiums collected that are an offset but it definitely isn't good!  There are all manner of confounding factors that nobody can value with complete accuracy, with one of the really big ones being adverse selection due to all the Advantage plans.  Specifically, those plans allow you on option to pay one premium and they then "subsume" all of Medicare you would otherwise pay a premium for in part with the rest being paid by your earned credits -- Parts A, B and D.  Normally, if you've worked enough "A" is "paid" but "B" and "D" have premiums, and "B" is an 80/20 plan while "D" has deductibles.  Advantage plans roll that ball of yarn (which the cat has strewn all over the living room) up into one thing -- that is, one bill -- for you.  The problem is that they are wildly subject to adverse selection (in my mother's case, for example Advantage was materially cheaper than paying the "B" and "D" premiums directly, yet had lower out of pocket cost making it appear she got something for nothing) and this means that for many people they are a good deal now but if their prices spike people will abandon them and go back to traditional, which they can do on any annual boundary.  In short "Advantage" has been a big stabilizer for Medicare; if it gets hammered by adverse selection then all that boomerangs right back on Treasury.

Now obviously if the program gets fiscally destabilized and cannot pay if you're on Medicare you will get an effective zero and thus if you need it you will die.

This leaves Congress only a few potential choices:

  • Ignore it and let it blow up.  Rather unlikely, right?

  • Break the medical monopolies and drop cost by 80%, making it all work.  Good luck with that; Trump did not do it and neither did anyone else despite having 40 years to do so.  Biden and Harris will NOT choose that path and neither will Pelo****yousideways, Schuithead or Mc****ell.  I've had a very effective plan to do this out on the table for roughly a decade; notice it's gotten zero debate among the "mainstream" media or politicians.  Gee, I wonder why when it means the end of financially raping Americans....

  • Attempt to increase tax rates enough to cover it.  That would be a rough tripling of the Medicare tax immediately and permanently.  This would ass-pound the lower and middle class American, as it would roughly double the lower-class American's effective tax rate.  I think you can figure out how popular that would be and thus what the odds are of that path.

  • Try to force all or effectively all of it onto private payers.  This is illegal under present law for Medicare.  Medical providers claim that Medicare pays "under cost" but that's a lie; if they really believe it there are formal means to contest it and not only win but get a penalty for CMS doing that.  Medicaid does not have that constraint and is part of why we have the monopolist system on the private side with no prosecutions.  Congress could remove the Medicare prohibition with a one-sentence bill (or hide that one sentence somewhere else) but doing so could easily collapse private health care entirely.

  • Amend the law to allow Medicare to spend "whatever", backed and received or not.   This is almost-certainly what they will choose to do since everyone will think it's a "save."

Note that that last choice puts roughly $700 billion or more (perhaps as much as a trillion) a year on the deficit on a permanent basis, escalating at about 10% annually, compounded.  Down that road lies massive inflation within a decade, the end of the lower and middle classes in America and both riots and political upheaval, maybe including assassinations or even civil war.

But in the interim I can make a number of predictions for a Biden/Harris administration (and yes, folks, unless something material changes in the next few days, stolen election or not, Biden will be President) that I have a decent degree of confidence in relating to tax and spending policy, all of which I expect can and will be passed.  Indeed even if somehow there are a series of injunctions that issue and hard proof of a stolen election emerges, and Trump has a second term, that changes nothing with the above nor the budgetary reality.

All of these items are going to be bad news for many people -- in fact, basically everyone other than the Jeff Beelzebezos' of the world.  Remember, the problem here is thou shalt not let the ratings agencies downgrade us, therefore we must convince them we'll get the money somewhere.  Let's go through some of the very few that would raise enough to get their attention and perhaps make them back off.

I expect all of this to happen within the next few years.

1. Medicaid.  Right now there is a limited "lookback" on Medicaid if you use it and then come into having assets later on.  This is going to go to a 100% lookback all the way to birth and it will not be just the Federal Government who demands and gets this, it will also be the states since Medicaid is a program only partially funded by the Feds.  In short if you use Medicaid the government will track every dollar spent from the moment you first scream and have a priority lien on anything you acquire as a windfall or when you die.  That recovery will be indexed to actual (not CPI) inflation too -- count on it.  In short if you are on it and use it forget about leaving anything at all to anyone when you die.  Most lower and middle-class people won't need a will anymore because none of your heirs will get anything more valuable than your mutt dog or cat.  This change is dirt simple to sell to the "woke" masses since it will impact nobody who is actually poor as they have no assets when they die.  But anyone who winds up on Medicaid (e.g. as a young person) and then "makes it" will get it up the ass later on in life.

2. Medicare.  "Advantage" premiums are going to skyrocket, rising by 100% or more within the next few years and they will keep going up at 15-20% a year forevermore into the future too.  At the same time rationing is coming.  If you ate, drank or otherwise destroyed some part of your body through lifestyle choices there will be no soup for you.  No more "free" joint replacements for anyone who is overweight or obese, for example.  No more heart caths if you have an abnormal A1c and similar.  In addition I fully expect the above Medicaid lien structure to be implemented in Medicare as well beyond whatever you personally paid in (with your pay-in not indexed, of course) which is where it will really be able to get something back since most people who are on Medicaid never wind up with much to seize.  This is not true for Medicare; all the nice "somewhat well-off" people who retire to Florida's Villages are going to find out that they don't need a will either because everything they have when they die will be immediately seized to cover the stent and two new hips they had installed thinking they had "won."  Sorry, once you're dead you can't bitch or vote anyone out of office anymore -- well, unless you live in Michigan.  Be aware that there is a limited Medicare benefit for nursing homes; 100 days per benefit period, which includes any time spent in a "regular" hospital.  Since the median life expectancy in a nursing home is six months many people wind up with Medicare paying for most or all of it.  The adoption of a "lookback" period for Medicare will wildly whack most middle-class people's estate planning to the point of making it entirely unnecessary.

3. If you have a ROTH anything, you're ****ed.  I have warned people about this repeatedly since the ROTH first showed up; you are taking on blind faith that Congress will not tax the withdrawals.  Oh, I know, you say they "promised."  Well, they did and they will have lied.  You can count on it.  There's not a thing you can do about it either; the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that such political promises are unenforceable and not contracts.  This is why the traditional IRA and SEP/401k are preferable; you will still get taxed on the withdrawals but you can't get taxed twice because you didn't get taxed on the front end, and on the Roth you did and thus will.  Go ahead and try to claim it's unconstitutional; you'll lose as corporate dividends have been taxed twice for generations and this specific sort of issue of political promises on taxation has been litigated before to the USSC.  You will lose and Kamala will use your tears for a sexual lubricant while laughing at you for providing them to her.

4. Exactly nothing will be done about the medical monopolists until and unless there are credit downgrades on the US.  If that happens we might well see some action in that regard, and it's entirely possible -- but likely not for a few years.  The various agencies will do their level best to avoid that, but eventually, if #1 and #2 don't stop the arterial bleeding they will have no choice when we keep putting 20% or more on the national debt every year on a sequential basis.  You can make an excuse for it this year due to Covid19 but not on a forward, every year basis.  No way, no how.

Note: All this except possibly the downgrades comes out of the next Administration from Biden and Harris.  Congratulations folks; you ****ed yourselves and that's just tough ****.  Oh by the way if Trump manages to remain in office somehow add riots to all of that; no, he's not going to fix a damn thing either.

He had four years and didn't, why would you believe he will now?  Take your "swamp" nonsense and shove it up your ass sideways; as head of the Executive he needed exactly zero cooperation from anyone else to solve this problem.  As someone who has run businesses for decades he knows damn well what the problem is as I'm absolutely certain he modeled it exactly as I did back in the 1990s and knew then, as he knows now, there is exactly one way to fix it.  He had the power to do so and refused with malice aforethought, so his place in Hell awaits for he's just as responsible for what's coming as Obama, Bush and Clinton, among others.

If you're a younger American and expect something from your dear old parents when they die you better have a nice talk with them and see if they intend to go take a walk in the woods and blow their own brains out when, not if, they start to consume large amounts of medical services.  I'm not kidding -- if they don't intend to do that or you don't believe they will do it no matter what they tell you you had better expect to get a big fat goose egg in terms of inheritance unless your parents have tens of millions of dollars or more.

We're talking about the 99.9% of Americans here who typically would get something -- you will get zero when your parents die as the government will attach and seize all of it before their body has reached room temperature.

There are plenty of people -- a VERY material percentage -- who rack up six-figure Medicare and Medicaid spends, and a not-inconsequential percentage who rack up 7-digit and better numbers in the last years of their life.  This exceeds the value of nearly all estates so the number of people who actually will get something as the "next generation" as the current one dies off is going to shrink to an effective zero.

Hope you folks all like the ride because this is what you bought the ticket for -- and yeah, the first parts of it are very likely to show up during the next administration, with a possibility you get all of it right in the face.

By the way if you're one of those younger people, say, under 35 or 40?  If you think us older folks are going to rise up and go wage war, politically or otherwise, while all you've done and continue to do is burn down the local black-owned bar while screaming "black lives matter" you got another think coming.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2019-02-13 14:50 by Karl Denninger
in Federal Government , 442 references
[Comments enabled]  

There's simply no other way to express this....

 

These numbers are for only three months, so for the full year multiply by four.

Again, the total "social insurance and retirement" tax grab is $274 billion.  Social Security is a 12.3% tax (up to the cap) and Medicare is 2.9% (no cap.)  The split is thus roughly-speaking ~19% Medicare, the rest (81%) Social Security.

If you want to get down into the detailed numbers they don't "quite" add there because there is both spending and tax revenue that gets bucketed in each from the various line items.  But it's not off by much; the "line item" (without the bucketing) comes up as 74/26 -- not materially different.

81% of $274 billion is $222 billion.  Social Security spent $251 billion.  That's a ~29 billion shortfall.  Not good but there are a lot of Treasuries held against that requirement, and by 2026 the budget impact as a percentage starts to fall because the boomers start to die, statistically speaking.  In other words Social Security had a ~12% shortfall over the first three months, indistinguishable from my last look (12% .vs. 13%.)  This is easily fixable on a forward basis without much economic pain.

Medicare, on the other hand, spent $153 billion but took in just $52 billion.  That's a shortfall of 66%; that is, two thirds of it is unfunded.  You would have to more than triple the Medicare Tax Rate in order to bring it to parity.

That's an "improvement" over the nearly 75% deficit in the first month but we are in fact talking about bleeding out in two minutes rather than three; the outcome does not change.

Add to that "Health" (Medicaid, mostly) and it's much worse; now you take in $52 billion but pay out nearly $300 billion.

Note that the deficit thus far is $319 billion.  If you were to get rid of the deficit between Medicare and Medicaid .vs. tax receipts you would almost close the deficit to zero.  If you also increased the FICA tax rate by 13% (to just under 7% for "each half"), increased the income cap where it stops being collected or some combination that wounds up in the same place as well the deficit would be effectively zero.

$319 billion over three months equals roughly $1,300 billion, or close to $1.3 trillion in deficit for the entire fiscal year.  The only good news is that April is usually a strongly positive month (as a result of taxes being due) but either way the deficit is almost-certain to be in the neighborhood of $1.1 trillion this year.

You cannot fix this with either taxation or cost-shifting. It is mathematically impossible to do so.

For example you'd have to nearly double the individual income tax rate on everyone, including the middle class; to close the gap by increasing the corporate tax rate you would have to raise it by more than an insane and utterly impossible 600%.  Any claim that we can solve this by making people pay "their fair share" is a flat-out lie.

You cannot get there by "cutting spending" on other than these programs either; if you cut all "other spending" to zero along with transportation and education you'd only cover 30% of the deficit.  Cutting military spending to zero (which is obviously impossible) wouldn't get there either.

There is only one way to solve this problem and that is to collapse Medicare and Health spending by 80%.  You can only resolve the problem by collapsing the medical and health insurance monopoliesforcing everyone to publish a price for everything and charge everyone the same price, where said price must be handed out before service is provided, along with telling everyone involved that for any and all conditions in which a lifestyle change will remove the need for treatment government will pay zero unless the person in question makes that change.

The trend is not improving and it is not "The Next Generation" that will have to deal with this.

This has to stop right damn now or it will blow up before we get through the next Presidential term -- and no, you cannot tax your way out of it either.  The people in Washington DC -- Congress and the President -- must be held personally and politically responsible for their refusal to deal with the only way to put a stop to it, which is to destroy the medical monopolists using existing, 100+ year old law, and to do it right damn now.

And if they refuse we the people must enforce our demand for them to do so.  They will refuse, I remind you, unless forced by the people -- and there are peaceful and lawful means to do exactly that (e.g. a general strike.)

Nothing less than the literal existence of this nation as a Constitutional Republic is at stake.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)