Mike Shedlock

At long last, a stupid, as well as illegal idea dies on the vine. Bloomberg reports
Treasury, Fed Oppose Using Platinum Coin to Avoid Debt Limit

The U.S. Treasury Department and Federal Reserve oppose the idea of minting platinum coins as a way to avoid the U.S. debt ceiling, according to a statement from Treasury spokesman Anthony Coley.

“Neither the Treasury Department nor the Federal Reserve believes that the law can or should be used to facilitate the production of platinum coins for the purpose of avoiding an increase in the debt limit,” Coley said in an e-mailed statement.

“There are only two options to deal with the debt limit: Congress can pay its bills or it can fail to act and put the nation into default,” according to a statement today from the White House.

“When Congressional Republicans played politics with this issue last time, putting us at the edge of default, it was a blow to our economic recovery, causing our nation’s credit rating to be downgraded,” the e-mailed White House statement says. “The President and the American people won’t tolerate Congressional Republicans holding the American economy hostage again simply so they can force disastrous cuts to Medicare and other programs the middle class depend on while protecting the wealthy. Congress needs to do its job.”

Hopefully that will stop the downright silly, if not idiotic commentary regarding the coin, but don't count on it.

I suggest this seven-step charade is what we will see.

Politics of the Debate


  1. Obama will chastise Congress with talk of financial Armageddon if Congress does not raise the debt ceiling.
  2. Congress will pretend to hold the president hostage
  3. The secretary of the Treasury will get into the act with its own version of the default debate
  4. Perhaps a few payments on non-critical budget items will be temporarily skipped
  5. Wall Street will feign panic
  6. Constituents will pressure Congress to approve a new debt ceiling
  7. Congress will raise the ceiling with another useless warning about next time

To understand why a default is completely out of the question, please see Silly Worry of the Day: US Will Default; Politics of the Debate

Republican Strategy

As far as Republican strategy goes, I am in favor of shutting down the government unless there are significant budget cuts. Unfortunately, that will not happen. Republicans will cave in once heat from Wall Street begins.

Making Social Security Actuarially Sound in a Business-Friendly Manner

In Social Security Payouts Per Worker; Accrued Interest on Accrued Promises; Imagination I posted numerous charts showing the unsustainable nature of the system.

First let's review the background, then I will address what can be done to make the system Actuarially Sound.

Here is one key chart from reader Tim Wallace followed by commentary.

Social Security Burden on Non-Farm Workers



Accrued Interest on Accrued Promises

Social Security assets are nothing but IOUs, and interest income is actually interest on money long since spent.

The entire "Trust Fund" is nothing but a promise to pay. There are no real assets (other than the ability to raise taxes to meet current expenses). Everything else is just a promise, and even more absurdly, accrued interest on accrued promises.

The chart provided by Wallace should give everyone second thoughts about the ability to raise taxes to meet expenses.

Imagination

The key point is Social Security is now cash flow negative although imaginary assets have increased in value, based on imaginary interest, and imaginary ability of taxpayers to forever keep meeting escalating payouts.

Here is another chart from my earlier post Social Security Trends: Beneficiaries, Total Costs, Number of Workers, Ratio of Workers to Beneficiaries

Total Annual Cost of Social Security 1967-Present



Social Security Beneficiaries vs. Total Non-Farm Employment



Here is the chart from the Social Security Administration that shows the system is cash-flow negative even though alleged assets have increased in value.

Trust Fund Data



Payroll Tax Cut

The system turned cash flow negative in Fiscal Year 2012, far earlier than anyone expected, primarily because of the payroll tax cut. However, that cut was rescinded in the Fiscal Cliff agreement so the system will temporarily be back in the green this year.

Looking ahead, and ignoring accrued interest on imaginary assets what can be done to make the system solvent?

Actually, Social Security is not that difficult a problem (at least in comparison to Medicare), except for the politics of it all. Numerous things could be done to put the system in the green.

Possible Ways to Make Social Security Actuarially Sound

  1. Raise retirement age
  2. Raise or eliminate the cap on payroll taxes
  3. Cut benefits
  4. Collect Social Security on personal income
  5. Implement a Tiered Cap structure
  6. Means Testing


Democrats would oppose 1 and 3. Republicans might oppose all but 3. Pragmatists might want to do all of them.

Business Point of View

Let's leave politics aside and discuss this from a business point of view. Is it possible to decrease the burden on businesses while not hurting those making less than $250,000 a year?

There is no free lunch of course, but think about the possibility of a tiered cap structure.

  • Leave the existing tax cap as it is, but after a gap (at say $250,000 or $500,000) start collecting taxes again. 
  • No business contribution on amounts collected on the highest tier.
  • Reduce business contributions across the board by 33% of the additional revenues collected on the highest tier


This would get revenue Democrats desperately want, while also reducing burden on businesses that Republicans desperately want. Businesses would benefit, and the only cost would be to those making above the gap.

Who Benefits?

  • Large and medium-sized businesses would easily benefit from lower payroll taxes.
  • Small business owners making less than the top cap would benefit from reduced payroll taxes.
  • Small businesses owners making more than the top tier might still benefit more from reduced corporate taxes than they lose in personal taxes (provided they have enough employees).

The only losers in this proposal are those making more than the top gap, while not hiring enough employees to make up the difference.

In Return

In return for agreeing to this hike in revenues, Republicans could and should demand benefit cuts, a raise in retirement age, cuts in Medicare, or some other incentive.

Means Testing

Social Security was meant to be an insurance program for those unable to take cared of themselves after retirement. As such, should anyone with hundreds of thousands of dollars in annual interest income or millions of dollars in liquid assets collect social security payments after retirement?

If not, those disbursements not paid out can also be used to reduce taxes on businesses or to increase survivor benefits.

One of the blatant flaws in the system happens to married couples where one person dies leaving a spouse with only one check instead of two. When this happens, especially if both checks are small, the survivor is often placed in a situation where he or she can no longer afford their house and other expenses.

It should be possible to rectify the above situation as part of Social Security restructuring.

Pragmatism vs. Beliefs

In general, I am against tax hikes.

As a pragmatist, I believe tax hikes are coming regardless of whether or not they should. My proposal has the advantage of offering something to Republicans, something to Democrats, and a lot to businesses, only impacting those making more than the top cap (which of course should be inflation-adjusted).

By the way, this line of thinking can be applied to things other than just social security. A portion of all tax hikes can go to reduced payroll tax burdens on businesses.


Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com


Mike Shedlock

Mike Shedlock is a registered investment advisor representative for Sitka Pacific Capital Management.