Unfunded Liabilities
 

There are no such things, it's a non-sequitur.

Those who claim otherwise are just making stuff up.

I've read the USA has 200 plus Trillion of them.

The missing key word here is 'future' (Unfunded Liabilities) and my question is so what?

If we fund them now they are current.

You can't fund them now if you are already spending more than you are taking in now. Which means that you are going deeper in debt now, and will go even deeper in debt to meet the unfunded liabilities when they come due.

I totally agree Clocker and am just sick of hearing about so-called unfunded liabilities from libertarians among others.

The government will be able to make that up with more volume.

"So-called"? Okay, it's a fancy name for running up big debts and passing them on to future generations without having to worry about paying them. It's real, and it's great if you can get away with it. Screw the next generation!

So you refuse to agree with me even when we do? That's rich.

There are no 'unfunded liabilities' that's all I'm saying.

I'll disagree on THIS topic...and this will explain it better than I

https://www.thebalance.com/unfunded-...amples-4159564

I don't agree with you, and you don't understand the concept.


A typical pension fund has a contribution, i.e., deduction, from the wage earner and a similar contribution from the employer. If the employer, such as a state government, does not make the contribution into the fund, essentially putting an I.O.U. into the fund, then the pension is unfunded, or at least under-funded.


If the state did not have the money to fund the pension when it should have, it sure as hail ain't gonna have the money to pay the pension when it comes due. So it will go further into debt.

So basically we're talking about the future.

what about when the state uses the employee contribution to help pay current retirees? a typical Ponzi?

Certainly. But they need to encourage more people to have kids to increase the number of tax payers down the road. :jump:

Or outlaw abortion.:jump:

It's not a Ponzi scheme if the government does it. The perpetrators are not making direct personal gain from the scam, they are only gaining political power which may lead to other personal gain.

In Flemming v. Nestor(1960) SCOTUS ruled that the Social Security withholding from workers' paychecks is a tax which the government my do with as it sees fit, and that the government is not obligated to pay Social Security benefits. This decision severs the nexus between the SS tax and SS payments, ergo, SS is not a Ponzi scheme. Persons receiving SS checks are on welfare.

I wouldn't walk into an AARP convention and say that.They'll beat you within an inch of your life with their walkers and colostomy bags. :eek: :D