The Coming Generational Storm
The fiscal arithmetic of unfunded old-age promises.
Summary
Laurence Kotlikoff and Scott Burns argue that American fiscal policy has committed the government to obligations far larger than its projected revenue, and that conventional deficit and debt measures conceal the problem because they record only what has already been borrowed.
The analytical apparatus is generational accounting, which Kotlikoff developed. It calculates the present value of all future government receipts and all future government expenditure, including entitlement commitments, and reports the difference as the fiscal gap. This measure treats a promise to pay future Social Security and Medicare benefits as an obligation regardless of whether it appears in the debt statistics. Their calculation produced a gap in the tens of trillions of dollars, driven principally by Medicare rather than by Social Security.
They argue that the arithmetic offers only unpleasant options: substantially higher taxes, substantially lower benefits, or inflation, and that delay increases the required adjustment because fewer workers remain to bear it. Their proposals include replacing the income tax with a consumption tax, converting Social Security to personal accounts with a government contribution, and restructuring Medicare as a voucher. The book also gives individual financial advice for readers expecting these outcomes. The fiscal gap methodology is contested on the treatment of infinite horizons and on discount rate choice, and the projections have been affected by subsequent health cost moderation. The core observation, that entitlement commitments are obligations invisible in debt statistics, is correct and remains unaddressed.
Key takeaways 7
- Conventional debt statistics exclude entitlement commitments, which are obligations the government has made and will be politically unable to break.
- Generational accounting measures the present value gap between all future receipts and all future expenditure.
- Medicare rather than Social Security accounts for most of the American fiscal gap, because health costs grow faster than incomes.
- Delay increases the required adjustment because fewer working-age people remain to bear it.
- The arithmetic offers only higher taxes, lower benefits or inflation, and the political system has chosen none of them.
- Kotlikoff and Burns propose replacing income taxation with consumption taxation to reduce the burden on labour income.
- The fiscal gap methodology is contested on horizon and discount rate choices, though the qualitative conclusion survives most specifications.
Who should read it
Investors thinking about long-horizon fiscal and demographic risk who want an explicit measure of commitments that public debt figures omit.
Where it sits in the reference 2
Similar books 6
Chosen by shared topics, the entries that hold them, and the people who recommended both.
