Thread

10-year Treasury yield climbs above 5.3% to a level not seen in 24 years

122 points · 193 comments · kaycebasques

missedthecue · 1790820728 · focus · HN ↗
In 2026, entitlement spending + interest expense will be over 100% of federal tax revenue.
That's before the military, foreign aid, and everything that starts with "Department of"
1. toomuchtodo · 1790820989 · focus · HN ↗
  Yeah, cut the $1T/year in defense spending and raise taxes to pay down the debt (to cut $1T/year in interest expenses) and balance the budget. Entitlements remain because workers are entitled to those benefits they worked for. The same workers the wealthiest need to suck $5T+ a year of profit out of the economy.
  We used to have 94% top tax bracket rate at one point, and higher tax rates in general. We’ll find the will to raise taxes as soon as the bond market compels the spineless in Congress to find the will (as the cost of debt continues to rise into the future), because you cannot deceive the bond market.
  <a href="https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/historical-income-tax-rates-brackets/" rel="nofollow">https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/historical-income...
  <a href="https://www.axios.com/2026/09/27/rates-borrowing-yields-fiscal" rel="nofollow">https://www.axios.com/2026/09/27/rates-borrowing-yields-fisc...
  - In projections that the Congressional Budget Office produced last February, net interest costs are already at $1 trillion this year and on track to reach $2 trillion by 2035, meaning that much of federal spending is needed just to service old bills.
  - But those projections assumed 10-year Treasury yields were in the ballpark of 4.3%. They're now nearly a full percentage point higher than that.
  - In startling numbers that CBO released this week, in a scenario in which interest rates were 1 percentage point higher than its baseline, debt held by the public would grow to 222% of GDP in 2056, 47 percentage points higher than the baseline.
  <a href="https://www.cbo.gov/publication/62758" rel="nofollow">https://www.cbo.gov/publication/62758
  1. joegibbs · 1790823687 · focus · HN ↗
    There's this perception that the majority of US government spending is on the military which is completely untrue.
    Defence is only 12% of the US federal budget - what are you going to cut it to? It's not going to solve the issue even if it's abolished. Over the last 10 years health, Medicare and Social Security have grown 103%, 83% and 78% respectively for an increase of $1.64 trillion to $3.55t vs a $916b on defence. With an aging population it's only going to cost more and more over time, you can't continue to put higher taxes on a shrinking share of productive population to care for more and more unproductive retirees under any economic system.
    toomuchtodo · 1790824064 · focus · HN ↗
    Of course those programs grow when people get old, that’s when they grow! I suppose the federal government should’ve invested in investments to increase productivity to support a rapidly aging population instead of using cheap debt for inefficient, unnecessary non mandatory spending (tax cuts and military spending).
    > you can't continue to put higher taxes on a shrinking share of productive population to care for more and more unproductive retirees under any economic system.
    Start at the top with very high marginal tax rates for the wealthiest, work your way down. The wealth exists, tax it.
    <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_Americans_by_net_worth" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_Americans_b...
    <a href="https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distribute/chart/" rel="nofollow">https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distr...
    (The top 10% of U.S. households own roughly 67% to 68% of the total household wealth in the United States, the vast majority of which are securities)
    what · 1790824866 · focus · HN ↗
    Raising the income tax rates aren’t going to help though. The ultra wealthy you want to tax have (basically) no income to tax. Are you proposing to institute a wealth tax?
    toomuchtodo · 1790825145 · focus · HN ↗
    If necessary, yes. Whatever form is necessary to effectuate the target outcome. We tax real estate, real estate is just another form of asset and wealth (with a similar liquidity profile to private equity). We can do the same with securities, equity (public or private), etc.
    what · 1790826107 · focus · HN ↗
    We don’t really tax real estate. That’s why all the old farts pay $1000/year in property taxes on a home that’s worth millions. Do you propose taxing them on the actual value of their homes?
    toomuchtodo · 1790826169 · focus · HN ↗
    > We don’t really tax real estate.
    This is not a serious argument based on total property tax collected across all 50 states on an annual basis (~$2T) [1]. Federal government spends ~$7T/year against $2.4T in personal income tax, $1.7T in payroll tax, and $530B in corporate income tax (~$4.9T in revenue) [2].
    Could we tax real estate more? I’m sure, not opposed based on fair valuations and implementation details. We should start with securities first imho, as we already tax real estate today. Conveniently, the top 10% of households own 93% of US equities. US GDP is ~$32T annually.
    [1] <a href="https://www.nahb.org/blog/2025/03/state-local-property-tax-collection-2024" rel="nofollow">https://www.nahb.org/blog/2025/03/state-local-property-tax-c...
    [2] <a href="https://usafacts.org/government-spending/" rel="nofollow">https://usafacts.org/government-spending/
    what · 1790904361 · focus · HN ↗
    What? Your numbers are way off. You didn’t read your source, the $2T is total local/state tax revenue, not property taxes.
    Also, no we shouldn’t tax securities in a wealth tax scheme. We already tax them when you actually realize a profit or loss. Should we tax the value of your 401k?
    atmavatar · 1790827475 · focus · HN ↗
    One thing that would capture tax revenue from the wealthy and eliminate a rather large tax loophole would be to automatically realize gains on stocks used as collateral for loans.
    khriss · 1790837025 · focus · HN ↗
    edit: formatting
    > Are you proposing to institute a wealth tax?
    Ideally, but failing that raise the estate tax to 90% for estates over the current exemption limit of $15 million and eliminate all trust loopholes.
    The billionaires would be able to enjoy their money in their lifetimes and still ensure that their children are taken care of in their lifetimes all while paying their fair share to society upon death.
    digitaltrees · 1790825960 · focus · HN ↗
    Single payer Healthcare would flatten that curve by removing the incentive that insurance companies and health providers have to raise prices in coordination. Insurance is only allowed a certain percentage of admin costs (salaries etc) and profit from premiums so their incentive is to raise premiums but they can only do that by showing increased costs. Health providers have an incentive to show their costs aren't fully paid by insurance so they can also justify inflation of expenses.
    burnt-resistor · 1790828360 · focus · HN ↗
    Universal SPH would save a net $300B to $1T, reduce paperwork, reduce deaths/improve outcomes, and provide better care. The FUD canards of "rationing", "waiting lists", and "communism" as well as classism and corrupt profiteering are the barriers to less suffering. Just give everyone the same coverage that doesn't have a 20% hole or lifetime limits... and that eliminates Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare, CHIP, ACA, and most private insurance, and most billing coding and prior-auth nonsense. Not doing so wastes money and kills people, just like parts of the BBB coming into effect after the midterms is going to bankrupt and kill thousands of people.
    digitaltrees · 1790833011 · focus · HN ↗
    I agree. I own home health care agencies in 14 states. The admin we have to fund is absolutely ridiculous and wasteful. But republicans use clerical errors to scream about waste fraud and abuse because that justifies cutting spending and so the system operates inefficiently and costs keep rising on the public and private side.
    burnt-resistor · 1791016798 · focus · HN ↗
    Nothing will change in a lasting manner without first leadership addressing political and campaign corruption. Then and only then can SPH and nationalization/re-regulation/nonprofitization happen. For-profit healthcare should be allowed on the periphery but only under a carefully proscribed and uniformly-regulated manner rather than the predatory manner (i.e., private equity) allowed now. Nearly all healthcare should be nonprofit, government, and/or small businesses vaguely similar to the UK NHS or how it worked 50 years ago.
    jmye · 1790872756 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    robocat · 1790882866 · focus · HN ↗
    > Single payer Healthcare
    Have you studied them in other countries? I suggest you inspect your assumptions by looking at what already happens.
    Voters want infinite "free" healthcare from their politicians, so healthcare costs continuously increase. You have little recourse to say no to taxes.
    In New Zealand ~17% of government expenditure was on health in 2000 and in 2026 it was ~22%.
    In NZD it went from ~$10B to ~$40B (inflation and demographics are also an influence).
    Privately paid also exists, but only ~1/3 the spending of public health. NZ government ACC spending is also huge.
    Government ownership does not fix the problems you wishfully hope it might.
    digitaltrees · 1790900495 · focus · HN ↗
    I did. I wrote several papers on it. The OECD spends far less for better outcomes than the US with lower slope of growth. And the growth is in large part due to demographic changes as populations age. Changes in demographics shouldn't be used to say health care doesn't answer cant work. Its ratios of spending across a population as some pay in when they are healthy and some consume as they age. Change the ratio and cost as a ratio also changes.
    khriss · 1790836748 · focus · HN ↗
    Defense might not be a cure all for the deficit, but reducing expenses to the tune of 12% sure is a heck of a start. Clearly defense spending isn't buying us that much if the our armed forces can't deal with a middle income country (Hormuz blockage) and a group of rebels (Bab al Mandeb blockage).
    Cutting defense doesn't even need to be complicated. Just stop forever wars in the middle east. It won't hurt our actual defense capabilities and will raise America's stature in the world. Heck, we have the best defense imaginable given to us for free (the Pacific and the Atlantic oceans), to the extent that two world wars combined didn't see a major attack on the US mainland.
    Cutting (or better still privatizing) social security, medicare and medicaid, while being the Republican wet dream, actually translates to direct harm to millions of citizens.
    JKCalhoun · 1790861778 · focus · HN ↗
    "Defence is only 12%…"
    Only? My understanding is that this is double, triple many European countries.
    Medicare, Social Security: not discretionary spending. Also self-funded programs (well, Part A of Medicare).
    stickfigure · 1790977438 · focus · HN ↗
    > Only? My understanding is that this is double, triple many European countries.
    Considering what is going on in Europe right now, maybe this is not a good point to try to make.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.