Regarding the 50's, I hear that regurgitated statistic often but no one mentions that effective tax rates were much lower because it was much easier to hide income (especially offshore). In other words, it's kind of like when airlines make big plane purchases from Boeing...the list price may be $1.5 billion but after discounts, deductions, pre-arranged agreements, etc etc, the total amount of the deal may be $950 million.
Rates are not going up until economic growth picks up.
At that point the Federal Reserve will be buying bonds hand over fist to keep rates from rising to natural levels as it would bankrupt the government. The interest on the debt has to remain artificially low so we can devalue the debt burden over time. This is what we did in the 1940s and it worked. Will work again but the cost will be very high inflation.
But don't forget what we did in the 50s to pay down the debt. We raised tax rates to 90% of every dollar over $100,000. That won't work now for many reasons. Just pointing out how we got out of our great depression/WW2 debt.
As long as we have the Chinese to continue to buy our debt, its all gravy baby. The lions share of federal taxes go to the military, teaching English as a 2nd language to half of the kids there and to provide services to the old and lazy. None of which really benefit me cept for freedom.
The only material threat that the debt poses is if bond investors think there's a possibility that we default. The Tea Party's "let the government default" kabuki theater of several years ago gave real credence to the idea that we may in fact have political leaders who are stupid enough to let our government default on it's debt. Thankfully Boehner, Cantor, and the rest of the GOP leadership were aware of just how disastrous that would have been, and did everything they could to squash that movement. Unfortunately the Tea Party fad has not died out, and there is still reason for legitimate concern about our creditworthiness as long as they hold any political influence.
But while a certain faction of the GOP has almost single-handedly destroyed the credit of our country, the Republicans are the only one who are even willing to address the large entitlement elephant in the room. Most of the Presidential candidates have bit the bullet and proposed unsavory reforms that will reign in SS and Medicare spending in the long-term. You will see no such proposals from the dems, who have no desire to take on the AARP behemoth and are turning a blind eye to our ever growing national debt.
The social security fix is easy. Right now the tax ends at $118k of income. Reinstate the tax at $400k or something and social security will be fine. Put a 30 year time bomb on it so when the boomers are dead it'll revert back.
Make lobbying illegal, or at least using money to lobby. Then put it on all departments to report where they can trim their budget and provide incentives to the departments that trim the most. Fire those who can't find anything to trim.
That puts the responsibility on the departments for two reasons. 1) politicians who cut from their constituents will get voted out, this eliminates that issue. 2) it's impossible to determine the best ways to save money at a macro level. So what ends up happening is a blanket 5% cut or whatever, rather than specific cuts that can be accomplished effectively. Not to mention, getting 500 plus politicians to agree on cuts is impossible.
Your argument died after illegal. You're telling me, politicians can voluntarily agree to make illegal something that has made them filthy rich for over 100 years? You know damn well department heads are only going to cut the systems that actually work, because cutting inefficient systems means a cut in their handout. Here's a little secret: Politicians get their kickbacks from the inefficiencies in government systems. The only way to solve this is to have less government involvement and have most of these systems in the free market, where market factors force efficiency. But that won't happen, because politicians won't make as much money.
Here's some more logic. The less things the government gets involved with, the less money they need to operate. That's how you cut the deficit. The government will never create efficient programs, because the people behind the scenes will always want to get theirs. The best way to handle it, is to provide fewer avenues for greedy politicians to access taxpayer money.
Lol so all my ideas suck, politicians will never make money if they cut from their department. But the solution is to eliminate all the departments and replace with the free market? (Which eliminates money from their pocket)
Did you think about what you typed before you hit send?
Reality is, my plan would never get passed cause there's too much money. The government will never turn departments into the free market cause there's to much money.
Under the current system, no politician from either party is serious about cutting government spending.
Exactly.
The only way to cut the deficit is to cut programs entirely from the government and move them to the free market. Shrinking program budgets doesn't work.
You are right that the government as it is now, won't do this. I never said they would. But it's the only way to actual cut the budget.
But also trying to take more money from working class Americans so a portion of it can go to the efficient parts of programs also isn't a solution either. It just condones the continued misappropriations of tax payers funds.
My tax increase was specific for social security, not discretionary spending. However it's laughable that the government would actually do that.
So are you for more discretionary spending within the government? or less?
What if I told you that as long as the US economy maintains certain benchmarks, and the political class doesn't ruin our credit by artificially defaulting, that the deficit is entirely immaterial and exists largely to prevent the middle class from raising taxes on the wealthy.
Regarding the 50's, I hear that regurgitated statistic often but no one mentions that effective tax rates were much lower because it was much easier to hide income (especially offshore). In other words, it's kind of like when airlines make big plane purchases from Boeing...the list price may be $1.5 billion but after discounts, deductions, pre-arranged agreements, etc etc, the total amount of the deal may be $950 million.
Rates are not going up until economic growth picks up.
At that point the Federal Reserve will be buying bonds hand over fist to keep rates from rising to natural levels as it would bankrupt the government. The interest on the debt has to remain artificially low so we can devalue the debt burden over time. This is what we did in the 1940s and it worked. Will work again but the cost will be very high inflation.
But don't forget what we did in the 50s to pay down the debt. We raised tax rates to 90% of every dollar over $100,000. That won't work now for many reasons. Just pointing out how we got out of our great depression/WW2 debt.
Regardless, look at the deficit those years with the high taxes, the country ran a surplus for several years. And yes politicians from both parties lowered rates through the 80s.
That's the whole point. Yes when lowering rates from 70% to 35% you can help the economy. But lowering from 39.6% to 35% accomplishes nothing. And we raised rates in 2011 and with obamacare and the economy has only gotten better those years. (Not to mention the economy exploded after the Clinton tax increases)
So yes, to balance the budget, there's two sides to the equation, revenue and expenditures. The country will never balance a budget by cutting taxes. And we definitely need to cut our spending.
I never said the country could balance the budget by cutting taxes. Not sure how you deduced that from my previous posts.
Regardless, reducing spending is the best way to lower the annual deficits. Most people understand that the Federales don't spend money very efficiently, at least compared to individuals and businesses in the private sector.
Regarding the 50's, I hear that regurgitated statistic often but no one mentions that effective tax rates were much lower because it was much easier to hide income (especially offshore). In other words, it's kind of like when airlines make big plane purchases from Boeing...the list price may be $1.5 billion but after discounts, deductions, pre-arranged agreements, etc etc, the total amount of the deal may be $950 million.
Rates are not going up until economic growth picks up.
At that point the Federal Reserve will be buying bonds hand over fist to keep rates from rising to natural levels as it would bankrupt the government. The interest on the debt has to remain artificially low so we can devalue the debt burden over time. This is what we did in the 1940s and it worked. Will work again but the cost will be very high inflation.
But don't forget what we did in the 50s to pay down the debt. We raised tax rates to 90% of every dollar over $100,000. That won't work now for many reasons. Just pointing out how we got out of our great depression/WW2 debt.
Regardless, look at the deficit those years with the high taxes, the country ran a surplus for several years. And yes politicians from both parties lowered rates through the 80s.
That's the whole point. Yes when lowering rates from 70% to 35% you can help the economy. But lowering from 39.6% to 35% accomplishes nothing. And we raised rates in 2011 and with obamacare and the economy has only gotten better those years. (Not to mention the economy exploded after the Clinton tax increases)
So yes, to balance the budget, there's two sides to the equation, revenue and expenditures. The country will never balance a budget by cutting taxes. And we definitely need to cut our spending.
I never said the country could balance the budget by cutting taxes. Not sure how you deduced that from my previous posts.
Regardless, reducing spending is the best way to lower the annual deficits. Most people understand that the Federales don't spend money very efficiently, at least compared to individuals and businesses in the private sector.
Regarding the 50's, I hear that regurgitated statistic often but no one mentions that effective tax rates were much lower because it was much easier to hide income (especially offshore). In other words, it's kind of like when airlines make big plane purchases from Boeing...the list price may be $1.5 billion but after discounts, deductions, pre-arranged agreements, etc etc, the total amount of the deal may be $950 million.
Rates are not going up until economic growth picks up.
At that point the Federal Reserve will be buying bonds hand over fist to keep rates from rising to natural levels as it would bankrupt the government. The interest on the debt has to remain artificially low so we can devalue the debt burden over time. This is what we did in the 1940s and it worked. Will work again but the cost will be very high inflation.
But don't forget what we did in the 50s to pay down the debt. We raised tax rates to 90% of every dollar over $100,000. That won't work now for many reasons. Just pointing out how we got out of our great depression/WW2 debt.
Regardless, look at the deficit those years with the high taxes, the country ran a surplus for several years. And yes politicians from both parties lowered rates through the 80s.
That's the whole point. Yes when lowering rates from 70% to 35% you can help the economy. But lowering from 39.6% to 35% accomplishes nothing. And we raised rates in 2011 and with obamacare and the economy has only gotten better those years. (Not to mention the economy exploded after the Clinton tax increases)
So yes, to balance the budget, there's two sides to the equation, revenue and expenditures. The country will never balance a budget by cutting taxes. And we definitely need to cut our spending.
How is that so difficult to understand?
Please do not attempt to re-route Hondo from his pattern of circle-jerkedness. Hondo is of the belief that the government should tax and spend it's way to prosperity in the here and now and use different eras with different stressors to it's economies ath the time, as it's point of relevance.
I never said the country could balance the budget by cutting taxes. Not sure how you deduced that from my previous posts.
Regardless, reducing spending is the best way to lower the annual deficits. Most people understand that the Federales don't spend money very efficiently, at least compared to individuals and businesses in the private sector.
Regarding the 50's, I hear that regurgitated statistic often but no one mentions that effective tax rates were much lower because it was much easier to hide income (especially offshore). In other words, it's kind of like when airlines make big plane purchases from Boeing...the list price may be $1.5 billion but after discounts, deductions, pre-arranged agreements, etc etc, the total amount of the deal may be $950 million.
Rates are not going up until economic growth picks up.
At that point the Federal Reserve will be buying bonds hand over fist to keep rates from rising to natural levels as it would bankrupt the government. The interest on the debt has to remain artificially low so we can devalue the debt burden over time. This is what we did in the 1940s and it worked. Will work again but the cost will be very high inflation.
But don't forget what we did in the 50s to pay down the debt. We raised tax rates to 90% of every dollar over $100,000. That won't work now for many reasons. Just pointing out how we got out of our great depression/WW2 debt.
Regardless, look at the deficit those years with the high taxes, the country ran a surplus for several years. And yes politicians from both parties lowered rates through the 80s.
That's the whole point. Yes when lowering rates from 70% to 35% you can help the economy. But lowering from 39.6% to 35% accomplishes nothing. And we raised rates in 2011 and with obamacare and the economy has only gotten better those years. (Not to mention the economy exploded after the Clinton tax increases)
So yes, to balance the budget, there's two sides to the equation, revenue and expenditures. The country will never balance a budget by cutting taxes. And we definitely need to cut our spending.
How is that so difficult to understand?
Please do not attempt to re-route Hondo from his pattern of circle-jerkedness. Hondo is of the belief that the government should tax and spend it's way to prosperity in the here and now and use different eras with different stressors to it's economies ath the time, as it's point of relevance.
And the 2015 Federal Deficit increased for the first time since 2009...not good.
If the next President is a moderate, he could combine business tax reform with a foreign profits repatriation agreement. There are hundreds of billions of profits abroad that companies would bring back to the USA with comprehensive reform. A 15% one-time tax on those profits could yield over $300 billion in tax revenues.
Terrible idea on repatriation, especially for a one-time tax windfall of $300b on a national debt that's 60x that amount.
Moreover it would set a precedent that encourages more international tax sheltering behavior in the future, making the deficit worse.
What if I told you that as long as the US economy maintains certain benchmarks, and the political class doesn't ruin our credit by artificially defaulting, that the deficit is entirely immaterial and exists largely to prevent the middle class from raising taxes on the wealthy.
The only material threat that the debt poses is if bond investors think there's a possibility that we default. The Tea Party's "let the government default" kabuki theater of several years ago gave real credence to the idea that we may in fact have political leaders who are stupid enough to let our government default on it's debt. Thankfully Boehner, Cantor, and the rest of the GOP leadership were aware of just how disastrous that would have been, and did everything they could to squash that movement. Unfortunately the Tea Party fad has not died out, and there is still reason for legitimate concern about our creditworthiness as long as they hold any political influence.
But while a certain faction of the GOP has almost single-handedly destroyed the credit of our country, the Republicans are the only one who are even willing to address the large entitlement elephant in the room. Most of the Presidential candidates have bit the bullet and proposed unsavory reforms that will reign in SS and Medicare spending in the long-term. You will see no such proposals from the dems, who have no desire to take on the AARP behemoth and are turning a blind eye to our ever growing national debt.
There is so much stupid in this I have no clue where to start. The Fed govt would never have defaulted...they still take money in. Huge amounts. It would have just gone first to paying on the bonds before it went to all the other govt spending programs. Nobody with an IQ over 50 thought the govt was close to default.
To not understand that is just sad...leaving the rest of that post nothing but typing diarrhea...
No, you missed the part of the repatriation being part of a comprehensive business tax code overhaul.
The problem right now is that Democrats want to use the reform to raise tax revenues and Republicans maintain that sensible reform would keep revenues flat for the first year or two but that a more efficient / reasonable code would lead to growth and thus naturally higher tax revenues (due to growth) in the subsequent years.
The latter approach is more sensible and with a lower rate (15% or 20%), companies would have little to no incentive to store profits abroad because a 15-20% rate is lower than most other countries. So, no, it wouldn't be a one-time deal if done properly. But someone like Charlie RangelFS might try to screw it up for political purposes.
And the 2015 Federal Deficit increased for the first time since 2009...not good.
If the next President is a moderate, he could combine business tax reform with a foreign profits repatriation agreement. There are hundreds of billions of profits abroad that companies would bring back to the USA with comprehensive reform. A 15% one-time tax on those profits could yield over $300 billion in tax revenues.
Terrible idea on repatriation, especially for a one-time tax windfall of $300b on a national debt that's 60x that amount.
Moreover it would set a precedent that encourages more international tax sheltering behavior in the future, making the deficit worse.
The only material threat that the debt poses is if bond investors think there's a possibility that we default. The Tea Party's "let the government default" kabuki theater of several years ago gave real credence to the idea that we may in fact have political leaders who are stupid enough to let our government default on it's debt. Thankfully Boehner, Cantor, and the rest of the GOP leadership were aware of just how disastrous that would have been, and did everything they could to squash that movement. Unfortunately the Tea Party fad has not died out, and there is still reason for legitimate concern about our creditworthiness as long as they hold any political influence.
But while a certain faction of the GOP has almost single-handedly destroyed the credit of our country, the Republicans are the only one who are even willing to address the large entitlement elephant in the room. Most of the Presidential candidates have bit the bullet and proposed unsavory reforms that will reign in SS and Medicare spending in the long-term. You will see no such proposals from the dems, who have no desire to take on the AARP behemoth and are turning a blind eye to our ever growing national debt.
There is so much stupid in this I have no clue where to start. The Fed govt would never have defaulted...they still take money in. Huge amounts. It would have just gone first to paying on the bonds before it went to all the other govt spending programs. Nobody with an IQ over 50 thought the govt was close to default.
To not understand that is just sad...leaving the rest of that post nothing but typing diarrhea...
Yes, that explains why Standard and Poor's downgraded our credit rating to AA+ immediately following the debt hostage crisis. Do you have the slightest understanding of how credit risk works?
Your good point was marred by the term "debt hostage crisis".
2/3 of all Federal Spending is on entitlements so those in Congress worried about runaway entitlement spending were correct to emphasize the runaway problems with the programs.
Of course, the Republicans then later wrong-footed the Democrats by agreeing to the sequester to trim Federal spending. Dems thought Republicans wouldn't agree to reduced defense spending but they did because the Federal Government has become such a monster.
Per the graph below, the sequester slightly helped return Federal Spending closer to the roughly 20% of GDP after Big Government politicos like Obama, Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Lizzie Fauxchahontas Warren blew it open:
The only material threat that the debt poses is if bond investors think there's a possibility that we default. The Tea Party's "let the government default" kabuki theater of several years ago gave real credence to the idea that we may in fact have political leaders who are stupid enough to let our government default on it's debt. Thankfully Boehner, Cantor, and the rest of the GOP leadership were aware of just how disastrous that would have been, and did everything they could to squash that movement. Unfortunately the Tea Party fad has not died out, and there is still reason for legitimate concern about our creditworthiness as long as they hold any political influence.
But while a certain faction of the GOP has almost single-handedly destroyed the credit of our country, the Republicans are the only one who are even willing to address the large entitlement elephant in the room. Most of the Presidential candidates have bit the bullet and proposed unsavory reforms that will reign in SS and Medicare spending in the long-term. You will see no such proposals from the dems, who have no desire to take on the AARP behemoth and are turning a blind eye to our ever growing national debt.
There is so much stupid in this I have no clue where to start. The Fed govt would never have defaulted...they still take money in. Huge amounts. It would have just gone first to paying on the bonds before it went to all the other govt spending programs. Nobody with an IQ over 50 thought the govt was close to default.
To not understand that is just sad...leaving the rest of that post nothing but typing diarrhea...
Yes, that explains why Standard and Poor's downgraded our credit rating to AA+ immediately following the debt hostage crisis. Do you have the slightest understanding of how credit risk works?
Your good point was marred by the term "debt hostage crisis".
2/3 of all Federal Spending is on entitlements so those in Congress worried about runaway entitlement spending were correct to emphasize the runaway problems with the programs.
Of course, the Republicans then later wrong-footed the Democrats by agreeing to the sequester to trim Federal spending. Dems thought Republicans wouldn't agree to reduced defense spending but they did because the Federal Government has become such a monster.
Per the graph below, the sequester slightly helped return Federal Spending closer to the roughly 20% of GDP after Big Government politicos like Obama, Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Lizzie Fauxchahontas Warren blew it open:
The only material threat that the debt poses is if bond investors think there's a possibility that we default. The Tea Party's "let the government default" kabuki theater of several years ago gave real credence to the idea that we may in fact have political leaders who are stupid enough to let our government default on it's debt. Thankfully Boehner, Cantor, and the rest of the GOP leadership were aware of just how disastrous that would have been, and did everything they could to squash that movement. Unfortunately the Tea Party fad has not died out, and there is still reason for legitimate concern about our creditworthiness as long as they hold any political influence.
But while a certain faction of the GOP has almost single-handedly destroyed the credit of our country, the Republicans are the only one who are even willing to address the large entitlement elephant in the room. Most of the Presidential candidates have bit the bullet and proposed unsavory reforms that will reign in SS and Medicare spending in the long-term. You will see no such proposals from the dems, who have no desire to take on the AARP behemoth and are turning a blind eye to our ever growing national debt.
There is so much stupid in this I have no clue where to start. The Fed govt would never have defaulted...they still take money in. Huge amounts. It would have just gone first to paying on the bonds before it went to all the other govt spending programs. Nobody with an IQ over 50 thought the govt was close to default.
To not understand that is just sad...leaving the rest of that post nothing but typing diarrhea...
Yes, that explains why Standard and Poor's downgraded our credit rating to AA+ immediately following the debt hostage crisis. Do you have the slightest understanding of how credit risk works?
Comments
JFK also cut the nominal rates in the early 60's.
That's the whole point. Yes when lowering rates from 70% to 35% you can help the economy. But lowering from 39.6% to 35% accomplishes nothing. And we raised rates in 2011 and with obamacare and the economy has only gotten better those years. (Not to mention the economy exploded after the Clinton tax increases)
So yes, to balance the budget, there's two sides to the equation, revenue and expenditures. The country will never balance a budget by cutting taxes. And we definitely need to cut our spending.
How is that so difficult to understand?
Regardless, reducing spending is the best way to lower the annual deficits. Most people understand that the Federales don't spend money very efficiently, at least compared to individuals and businesses in the private sector.
Moreover it would set a precedent that encourages more international tax sheltering behavior in the future, making the deficit worse.
TRUE?!?!?!
Non heh wah tun dokie doka Obama shee un wanna fok den Putin. Bernie socie wana boom boom free shit yeh oonga boonga TRUMP boom boom Ivanka.
To not understand that is just sad...leaving the rest of that post nothing but typing diarrhea...
The problem right now is that Democrats want to use the reform to raise tax revenues and Republicans maintain that sensible reform would keep revenues flat for the first year or two but that a more efficient / reasonable code would lead to growth and thus naturally higher tax revenues (due to growth) in the subsequent years.
The latter approach is more sensible and with a lower rate (15% or 20%), companies would have little to no incentive to store profits abroad because a 15-20% rate is lower than most other countries. So, no, it wouldn't be a one-time deal if done properly. But someone like Charlie RangelFS might try to screw it up for political purposes.
2/3 of all Federal Spending is on entitlements so those in Congress worried about runaway entitlement spending were correct to emphasize the runaway problems with the programs.
Of course, the Republicans then later wrong-footed the Democrats by agreeing to the sequester to trim Federal spending. Dems thought Republicans wouldn't agree to reduced defense spending but they did because the Federal Government has become such a monster.
Per the graph below, the sequester slightly helped return Federal Spending closer to the roughly 20% of GDP after Big Government politicos like Obama, Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Lizzie Fauxchahontas Warren blew it open:
Odd