top of page
Writer's pictureJames Heinz

Addressing the US National Debt Dilemma: Potential Solutions

As of 2024, the U.S. National Debt has surged to $34.6 trillion, driven by years of budget deficits, pandemic-related spending, and rising costs in key federal programs like Social Security and Medicare. 


The U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio, which measures the debt relative to the size of the economy, stands at 124%, indicating that the nation’s debt exceeds its entire annual economic output.

This poses significant challenges for fiscal sustainability.


Interest payments alone are a growing burden, with the U.S. government paying over $522 billion in interest on its debt in early 2024. The debt is projected to increase further, with estimates suggesting that the debt-to-GDP ratio could reach 200% by 2025 if no major fiscal reforms are implemented. 


In this article, we shall explore the potential solutions for the US National Debt Dilemma by stabilizing debt at 100% of GDP by 2034, reforming the tax code, and addressing Medicare and Medicaid spending.


Historical Comparisons of National Debt Levels


The U.S. national debt has grown significantly over time. In the 1980s, the debt was around $1 trillion, while by the early 2000s, it reached nearly $6 trillion. By 2024, the national debt is over $34.6 trillion


This represents a more than 10-fold increase in just a few decades. Historically, debt spikes have occurred during major crises, such as World War II, the 2008 financial crisis, and the COVID-19 pandemic, which all led to large increases in government spending to stabilize the economy.


Impact of Federal Budget Deficits


According to the USA Facts,  Federal budget deficits occur when the government's annual spending exceeds its revenue. The U.S. has consistently run budget deficits since 2001, meaning that each year, more debt is added. 


In 2023, the budget deficit was around $2 trillion, and for 2024, it remains similarly elevated. Deficits have been exacerbated by increased spending on social programs, defense, and stimulus measures, as well as revenue shortfalls due to tax cuts and slower economic growth​.


Role of Major Debt Drivers: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid


Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are among the largest federal programs and key drivers of the national debt. As the population ages, the costs of these entitlement programs have surged. The government’s obligation to fund Social Security and healthcare programs for retirees has grown as the baby boomer generation reaches retirement age. 

These programs accounted for nearly half of all federal spending in 2023. Without reforms, their costs will continue to balloon, significantly adding to the debt.


Projections by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)


The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that if current policies remain unchanged, the debt-to-GDP ratio could exceed 200% by 2050. By 2034, projections suggest the debt will still be well over 100% of GDP unless significant fiscal reforms are implemented. These projections underscore the urgency of addressing long-term budgetary issues, especially in the face of rising costs for entitlement programs and interest payments.


This situation requires a combination of reducing deficits, reforming entitlement programs, and adjusting tax policies to stabilize the national debt and ensure economic sustainability.

Addressing fiscal stability involves immediate actions and strategic planning. While short-term measures are crucial, focusing on medium-term and long-term goals is essential for sustainable debt reduction and economic health, ensuring the government can manage fiscal pressures effectively over time.


What are Medium-Term and Long-Term Goals?  


Medium-term and long-term goals for U.S. National debt refer to fiscal targets that the government sets to manage and reduce the burden of its accumulated debt over specific time horizons. 


These goals are important for ensuring the country’s financial stability and avoiding the negative consequences of excessive debt, such as higher interest rates, reduced investment, and potential economic crises.


Medium-Term Goals

Medium-term goals typically cover a period of 10 to 15 years. For example, the goal of stabilizing the U.S. national debt at 100% of GDP by 2034 is a medium-term target. This goal implies that policymakers aim to prevent the debt from growing significantly relative to the size of the economy. 


Stabilizing the debt at this level would involve reducing annual deficits, ensuring that economic growth keeps pace with debt accumulation, and implementing fiscal measures that balance spending with revenue over the next decade or so.


Long-Term Goals

Long-term goals extend beyond the medium-term horizon and cover periods of 25 to 30 years or more. The goal of reducing the debt to 60% of GDP by 2050 is an example of a long-term objective. This would require sustained fiscal discipline over decades, including cutting deficits, reforming major expenditure programs like Social Security and Medicare, and perhaps increasing taxes or finding new sources of revenue. 

The long-term target of 60% of GDP is seen as a sustainable debt level that reduces the risk of economic instability while allowing the government to borrow affordably for future needs.


Medium-Term and Long-Term Goals for U.S. National Debt

  1. Stabilizing Debt at 100% of GDP by 2034: This medium-term goal requires slowing debt growth through deficit reduction, entitlement reforms, tax policy adjustments, and discretionary spending controls to prevent economic instability caused by excessive borrowing​​.

  2. Reducing Debt to 60% of GDP by 2050: Achieving this long-term goal involves aggressive fiscal reforms, significant cuts to entitlement spending, tax reforms, and sustained bipartisan commitment to lower deficits over time​​.

  3. Importance of Fiscal Goals and Metrics: Setting clear fiscal goals like reducing the debt-to-GDP ratio helps maintain economic stability by managing borrowing costs and fostering confidence in government debt, ensuring long-term prosperity.


Policy Proposals for Debt Reduction

  1. Raising Revenue: Increasing government revenue can be achieved through various means, such as raising taxes on high-income earners, closing tax loopholes, or implementing new taxes (e.g., carbon taxes). This approach helps reduce the deficit without necessarily cutting vital services​.

  2. Reducing Federal Spending: This involves cutting or reforming major expenditure programs, such as entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, as well as reducing discretionary spending in areas like defense and federal administration​.

  3. Simplifying the Tax Code: Simplifying the tax system by eliminating deductions and credits can make it more efficient and fair, potentially increasing revenue by closing loopholes that allow individuals and corporations to reduce their tax liabilities.

  4. Shared Sacrifice Across Tax and Spending: Achieving debt reduction requires a balance between increasing revenues and reducing spending, ensuring that the burden is shared across various sectors of the economy. This approach encourages equitable contributions from both tax hikes and spending cuts​.


Reforming Social Security and Entitlements

Reforming Social Security and entitlement programs is vital to addressing their financial strain due to an aging population and rising costs. Key reforms include adjusting the retirement age, increasing payroll taxes, and controlling healthcare spending to ensure the long-term sustainability of these critical social safety nets​. 


Challenges of the Current Social Security System

  1. Aging Population: An increasing number of retirees are placing a heavy strain on Social Security as fewer workers contribute to the system​.

  2. Declining Worker-to-Retiree Ratio: The ratio of workers paying into the system compared to beneficiaries is shrinking, reducing the funds available for payouts​.

  3. Trust Fund Depletion: The Social Security trust fund is projected to be depleted by the 2030s, which could lead to benefit reductions if no reforms are enacted​.

  4. Longevity Increase: As people live longer, they collect benefits for more years, further straining the system​.

  5. Revenue Shortfalls: Payroll tax caps limit the amount of income subject to Social Security taxes, resulting in insufficient revenue to meet future obligations​.

These challenges highlight the need for reforms to ensure Social Security's long-term sustainability.


Platforms like Shepherd Outsourcing act as intermediaries, reducing stress for debtors and facilitating more favorable settlement terms​. Talk to us now!


Proposals for Retirement Age Adjustments

  1. Gradual Increase in Full Retirement Age: Proposals suggest raising the full retirement age from 67 to 69, gradually over time, to reflect longer life expectancies​.

  2. Indexing Retirement Age to Life Expectancy: Some propose linking the retirement age to increases in life expectancy, automatically adjusting the age as people live longer​.

  3. Delaying Early Retirement Eligibility: This proposal delays the earliest age for receiving Social Security benefits, currently 62, to encourage longer work lives.

  4. Adjustments for Physically Demanding Jobs: Introduce exceptions for those in physically demanding jobs to avoid disproportionately impacting their retirement options​. 


Adjusting Benefit Formulas for Progressivity

Adjusting Social Security benefit formulas for progressivity involves restructuring the way benefits are calculated to ensure that lower-income earners receive relatively larger benefits while higher-income earners receive proportionately smaller ones. The goal is to make Social Security more equitable by enhancing its role as a safety net for those who rely on it the most while preserving the system's financial sustainability.


Key Proposals for Progressivity Adjustments:


  1. Reducing Benefits for Higher Earners:

A common proposal is to modify the formula so that higher-income retirees receive a smaller percentage of their pre-retirement earnings in benefits. 

Under the current system, benefits replace a higher proportion of wages for lower-income workers than for higher earners, but this difference could be increased to make the system more progressive. This would reduce the long-term costs of Social Security without drastically affecting lower- and middle-income retirees​.


  1. Increasing Benefits for Lower Earners: 

Another approach is to boost the benefit formulas for low-income workers who rely more heavily on Social Security in retirement. This could be done by increasing the replacement rate for the lowest earnings bracket or implementing a minimum benefit that guarantees a baseline income for all beneficiaries, regardless of their work history. This ensures that the program continues to protect those who are most vulnerable.


  1. Adjusting the Bend Points: 

Social Security benefits are calculated based on a worker's average earnings, using a formula with bend points where the percentage of earnings replaced changes at different income levels.Adjusting these bend points—specifically, lowering the replacement rate for high-income earners and raising it for low-income earners—can make the formula more progressive while still maintaining the structure of the system.


  1. Introducing a Means-Tested Component:

Some proposals suggest implementing means testing for Social Security benefits, where retirees with significant income from other sources, such as pensions or investments, would receive reduced Social Security benefits. This would concentrate benefits on those who need them the most, reducing the cost of the program.


By adjusting the benefit formulas for progressivity, these proposals aim to make Social Security more equitable, ensuring that it continues to support those who depend on it while helping to secure the system's financial future.


To further secure Social Security's financial future, adjustments to benefit formulas alone may not be enough. Raising payroll tax rates is another key proposal that aims to bolster the program's sustainability while ensuring continued support for future beneficiaries. 


Raising Payroll Tax Rates

Raising Payroll Tax Rates

Raising payroll tax rates is a proposed solution to strengthen Social Security's finances. This could involve:

  1. Increasing the Payroll Tax Rate: Raising the current tax rate from 6.2% to a higher rate (e.g., 7.2%) for both workers and employers could generate significant additional revenue.

  2. Raising or Eliminating the Taxable Cap: Currently, only wages up to $160,200 are taxed. Increasing or eliminating this cap would subject higher-income earners to payroll taxes, boosting funding without impacting lower-income workers.

  3. Impact and Considerations: While this would increase costs for both workers and employers, it could help extend Social Security's solvency by decades, securing benefits for future generations. However, this approach may face political resistance due to concerns over higher taxes and labor costs.

This policy is seen as a practical way to maintain the program’s financial health while ensuring future payouts.


Addressing Medicare and Medicaid Spending

Medicare and Medicaid are also under pressure due to rising healthcare costs and an aging population. Reform proposals include adjusting eligibility criteria, increasing premiums for higher-income beneficiaries, and improving the efficiency of healthcare delivery to reduce costs. Addressing the sustainability of these programs is crucial to controlling overall federal spending.


Domestic and Defense Spending Adjustments

Domestic and defense spending adjustments are key strategies for reducing the federal deficit. These include limiting defense spending growth, freezing discretionary spending, and identifying specific cuts in both military and domestic programs to create a more sustainable fiscal path.


Options to Limit Growth of Defense Expenditures:

  • Reevaluating Global Military Commitments: Reducing the U.S. military presence in certain regions, particularly in countries with stable governments, could decrease the defense budget. This includes cutting back on overseas bases and reducing the size of deployed forces.

  • Modernizing Defense Procurement: Shifting focus from traditional weapons systems (e.g., tanks, aircraft carriers) to advanced technology (e.g., cyber defense, unmanned systems) could help limit expenditures. Modernizing the procurement process would also reduce costs related to delays and overruns.

  • Ending Certain Legacy Programs: Phasing out or significantly scaling back older, less relevant military programs could help curb defense spending growth. Programs that are no longer strategically necessary or are technologically outdated could be downsized or eliminated.

  • Promoting Alliances: Encouraging allies in NATO and other international partnerships to contribute more to collective defense could lessen the financial burden on the U.S., thereby limiting defense expenditure growth.

Platforms like Shepherd Outsourcing act as intermediaries, reducing stress for debtors and facilitating more favorable settlement terms​. Talk to us now!


Impact of Freezing Discretionary Spending:

  • Stabilizing the Budget: Freezing discretionary spending at current levels for a set period would halt the annual growth of government expenses in areas like education, health, and defense. This approach can stabilize the budget and limit the national deficit.

  • Inflationary Pressure: Freezing spending may effectively reduce government purchasing power in real terms, as inflation erodes the value of fixed expenditures. Over time, this could mean fewer resources for key programs and initiatives without nominal cuts.

  • Risk to Public Services: A freeze could strain government services that depend on discretionary spending, such as public education, infrastructure maintenance, and health programs. This could lead to deteriorating services unless efficiency improvements offset the freeze.

  • Impact on Defense Readiness: A spending freeze could also impact defense readiness, as maintenance, technology upgrades, and personnel costs could rise, requiring more careful prioritization of defense funds.

In addition to affecting overall defense readiness, a spending freeze may necessitate targeted reductions. Potential specific cuts within both defense and domestic spending could focus on reallocating resources efficiently to balance priorities while maintaining essential operations. Let's explore some of these defense-specific cuts. 


Potential Specific Cuts within Defense and Domestic Spending:

  1. Defense Specific Cuts:

    • Reduction in Nuclear Arsenal: Downsizing nuclear weapons programs could save billions, particularly by reducing or canceling the development of new weapons systems such as nuclear-armed submarines or bombers.

    • Cutting Unneeded Weapons Programs: Certain large-scale weapons programs, like the F-35 fighter jet or advanced missile defense systems, could be scaled back or canceled if deemed redundant or ineffective.

    • Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC): Consolidating military bases and closing underutilized facilities within the U.S. could save significant amounts in operational and maintenance costs.

  2. Domestic Specific Cuts:

    • Reducing Subsidies: Cutting or reducing agricultural subsidies, especially those that benefit large agribusinesses, could free up billions in the federal budget. Similar cuts could apply to fossil fuel subsidies.

    • Scaling Back Public Sector Wages and Benefits: Adjusting wages and benefits for federal employees to more closely align with private-sector norms could reduce the cost of government operations.

    • Restructuring Welfare Programs: Reforming welfare programs, such as tightening eligibility criteria or implementing work requirements for able-bodied recipients, could reduce spending without eliminating support for the neediest individuals.

    • Medicare and Medicaid Reforms: Introducing cost-saving measures within Medicare and Medicaid, such as negotiating drug prices or implementing payment reforms to incentivize efficiency in healthcare delivery, could help control domestic spending without cutting benefits directly.

Each of these adjustments requires careful consideration of the trade-offs between cost savings and the potential impact on national security, public welfare, and economic stability.


Tax Reforms and New Revenue Streams (2024)


These tax reform proposals are aimed at increasing revenue, addressing income inequality, and ensuring long-term fiscal sustainability while balancing concerns over economic growth and fairness in taxation.


  1. Increase in Top Income Tax Rates:

Raising the top income tax rate is a prominent proposal to generate more revenue from high-income earners. In 2024, discussions center around raising the highest marginal tax rate from 37% to 39.6% or higher. This adjustment would primarily impact the wealthiest households, helping to reduce income inequality while increasing federal revenue.


  1. Taxing Capital Gains and Dividends at Ordinary Rates:

In 2024, there is significant debate over taxing capital gains and dividends at the same rates as ordinary income. Currently, these investment incomes are taxed at preferential rates (up to 20%), but taxing them as ordinary income could generate substantial revenue, particularly from wealthy individuals who derive much of their income from investments.


  1. Value-Added Tax (VAT) Introduction:

The introduction of a Value-Added Tax (VAT) has gained traction in 2024 as a potential new revenue stream. VAT, a consumption tax levied on goods and services at each stage of production, is common in many developed countries. In the U.S., a VAT could raise significant revenue, but it may be regressive, disproportionately affecting lower-income consumers. Proposals often include exemptions or rebates to mitigate this effect.


  1. Revisions to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017:

Revisions to the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) are under consideration in 2024. These revisions focus on repealing or modifying provisions like the reduced corporate tax rate (currently at 21%) and tax benefits for high-income earners. Lawmakers aim to restore higher corporate tax rates or introduce new brackets for ultra-high earners to ensure that the benefits of the tax system are more evenly distributed across income levels.


In addition to restoring higher tax rates, lawmakers are also considering non-tax revenue adjustments as an alternative strategy. These adjustments aim to improve enforcement, close loopholes, and implement targeted taxes, providing new ways to balance the tax system while supporting broader societal objectives.


Addressing Non-Tax Revenue Adjustments

Addressing Non-Tax Revenue Adjustments

These non-tax revenue adjustments offer alternatives to increasing tax rates, instead focusing on better enforcement, closing loopholes, and introducing targeted taxes that address broader societal goals.


Closing the Tax Gap:

The tax gap refers to the difference between taxes owed and taxes actually collected by the government. In 2024, the tax gap is estimated to be around $500 billion annually. Closing this gap involves improving tax enforcement, auditing high-income individuals and corporations, and leveraging technology to detect underreporting of income. Efforts to narrow this gap could generate significant non-tax revenue without raising tax rates, effectively capturing lost revenue due to evasion or avoidance.


Revamping Estate Tax and Corporate Income Tax:

Estate taxes currently apply to large inheritances, but loopholes and exemptions allow many estates to avoid paying them. In 2024, proposals include lowering the exemption threshold and increasing the rate to capture more revenue from the wealthiest estates. Similarly, revamping the corporate income tax focuses on closing loopholes, eliminating offshoring incentives, and raising the corporate tax rate (currently at 21%) to ensure corporations contribute fairly to federal revenue​.


Introduction of New Taxes (e.g., Carbon Tax, Financial Transactions Tax):

New forms of taxation, such as a carbon tax or a financial transactions tax, are gaining traction as ways to generate revenue and address specific economic behaviors. A carbon tax would impose a fee on carbon emissions, incentivizing businesses and consumers to reduce their environmental footprint while generating revenue for climate initiatives. A financial transactions tax would apply a small levy on trades of stocks, bonds, and other financial assets, potentially raising billions in revenue from high-frequency trading and large-scale financial activities​.


Conclusion


In conclusion, addressing the U.S. national debt in 2024 requires a combination of tax reforms, spending cuts, and new revenue streams. Key proposals include raising taxes on the wealthy, controlling defense and discretionary spending, and implementing non-tax revenue strategies like closing the tax gap and introducing a carbon tax, ensuring long-term fiscal stability.


Platforms like Shepherd Outsourcing help with debt settlement by negotiating with creditors to reduce the total amount owed, offering tailored debt management plans, ensuring legal compliance, and providing financial counseling. They act as intermediaries, reducing stress for debtors and facilitating more favorable settlement terms​. Talk to us here!

8 views0 comments

Comments


bottom of page