Nostr Web Client

“Today, structural deficits are driven by systemic factors: an aging population requiring higher entitlement spending, rising healthcare costs, and compounding interest payments on decades of accumulated debt. Said differently, these deficits are no longer a matter of choice but a byproduct of systemic obligations. This is what we mean when we call them “structural.””

hh 1y ago

To what extent are "entitlements" really legally binding entitlements, in the US?

In Spain, to give you my direct experience, there is no such thing. Public retirement pensions do NOT constitute a binding entitlement that is immutable and known.

The government (Parliament) can (an constantly does) change them, and can at any time even pass a law cutting them by any arbitrary amount, or even completely eliminating them, regardless of how many years and how much you paid.

So there isn't really an "entitlement" to anything. The government "gives" and the government "takes" as it pleases (and is politically convenient).

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

halalmoney 1y ago

If a political party wants to win the next election, it can’t be seen to threaten such entitlements.

When the political system is broken, it’s always easier to kick the can further down the road.

hh 1y ago

That's not what I'm asking though.

As I explained, the government in Spain is not legally bound by any type of concept of "entitlement" as far as public pensions are concerned (and that's the main single spending chapter and our Social Security system has a gigantic budgetary deficit already, and it only increases every year). So, if there was a Milei in Spain, with enough seats in Parliament, they could cut the pensions in half and call it a day. Nobody would be able to challenge it in court because there is no "entitlement".

Is the situation in the US the same, or are people *actually* entitled to a specific amount, and the government is unable to legally do anything about it?