gregintenn
Senior Member
Resident hillbilly
Joined: Dec 28, 2015 17:07:59 GMT -5
Posts: 2,840
|
Post by gregintenn on Feb 8, 2016 8:06:16 GMT -5
It's how I got out of debt. I didn't get to raise taxes to do it. I spent less than I made, and payed the rest on debt. ignoring for a moment that government and individual are not a very good analogy: did your income go up? Of course. Don't tax revenues also go up pretty much yearly?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 8, 2016 8:56:53 GMT -5
Taxes go up. Spending goes up more. There's not a western nation in existence where this isn't the iron-clad reality. there you go again. moving the goalposts: you never said a thing about "future spending" in your OP. well, how about THIS: i would also institute a spending freeze until the budget reached a 1% GDP surplus, which would be committed to debt repayment. that makes me about 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000X MORE of a FISCAL CONSERVATIVE than YOU. Fair enough. So in summary, you'd gut the military, reverse the Bush tax cuts, and freeze spending at that level until the US was running a negligible surplus. Paul Krugman would be spinning in his grave. ...if he was dead. As it stands, he's just shaking his fist at you. I guess that makes you one of us.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 8, 2016 9:02:59 GMT -5
He came reasonably close two years, with the GOP controlling the house. The actual "surplus" was achieved by diverting funds from SS, essentially borrowing from it. It's never been done before or since, and it simply moves debt from one column to another. Credit the man for presiding over a period of relatively low deficits by the standard of the past five presidencies, but don't push it.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Feb 8, 2016 11:28:30 GMT -5
The actual "surplus" was achieved by diverting funds from SS, essentially borrowing from it. It's never been done before or since, and it simply moves debt from one column to another.
The conservative icon Reagan started it all as a way to hide the extent of his deficit creating supply side voodoo.
Ronald Reagan and The Great Social Security Heist
www.fedsmith.com/2013/10/11/ronald-reagan-and-the-great-social-security-heist/
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Feb 8, 2016 12:05:45 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 8, 2016 13:37:28 GMT -5
ignoring for a moment that government and individual are not a very good analogy: did your income go up? Of course. Don't tax revenues also go up pretty much yearly? other than when we cut taxes, and during recessions: yes.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 8, 2016 13:38:05 GMT -5
there you go again. moving the goalposts: you never said a thing about "future spending" in your OP. well, how about THIS: i would also institute a spending freeze until the budget reached a 1% GDP surplus, which would be committed to debt repayment. that makes me about 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000X MORE of a FISCAL CONSERVATIVE than YOU. Fair enough. So in summary, you'd gut the military, reverse the Bush tax cuts, and freeze spending at that level until the US was running a negligible surplus. Paul Krugman would be spinning in his grave. ...if he was dead. As it stands, he's just shaking his fist at you. I guess that makes you one of us. not much of a Krugman fan, so, good, i guess.
|
|
Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger
Senior Associate
Viva La Revolucion!
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 12,758
|
Post by Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger on Feb 9, 2016 8:55:21 GMT -5
VtL, UST are fixed rates, not variable. This statement is completely inaccurate. Have a good one. He's theoretically right in the sense that about 90% of US debt has less than 5 years to maturity. But you're correct, government paper is always issued at a fixed rate. First, my bad, I thought this was a case study. This is why my first post back on the first page was about how it's impossible to cut 750 billion from the deficit in one year. If we are talking purely hypothetical here; forget remittance, the FRB would forgive all debts and right there we have cut about four trillion off the total debt. From there we cut all govt programs(health care, social security, military, etc) at that point we are talking, what? close to a three trillion dollar a year surplus? Basically by the middle of my second term the USA is completely debt free, and we have close to three trillion dollars a year for investment in the general economy. Now, the quote. Sorry, I was in a hurry and misunderstood what you were talking about. I was thinking if it's 4-5% interest again the government is basically running a surplus. In this slowest recovery since the great depression, or say slipping back into recession as your case study proposed; the 4% interest on the rollover of roughly five trillion(not 90% though ) in short term debt would be enough to pop the Baby Boomer Bubble - without a doubt. Since a big part of the Baby Boomer Bubble(or the killer Bs) was getting into debt and not saving, yeah; it would be a very rough time for a lot of people over the age of 60 in this hypothetical scenario.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Feb 9, 2016 11:20:52 GMT -5
Significant cuts probably aren't going to happen because too many politicians are dependent on them for votes....so the most practical way would be to start with a spending freeze first and work from there on what programs are expiring; probably simplifying the tax code with only standard deductions, maybe charitable deductions as well since getting rid of those would likely cause a whole other set of issues because those organizations do serve a valuable purpose (even if I don't agree with all of them), and probably have a retirement savings and college savings deductions unless you wanted to follow the ROTH format and have people pay taxes on them now and have them grow tax free. I'm not sure what that would all look like in 10 years with savings from just not growing spending, while also having fewer deductions and tax credits by phasing them out over the next 5-7 years.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 9, 2016 11:24:52 GMT -5
Significant cuts probably aren't going to happen because too many politicians are dependent on them for votes....so the most practical way would be to start with a spending freeze first and work from there on what programs are expiring; probably simplifying the tax code with only standard deductions, maybe charitable deductions as well since getting rid of those would likely cause a whole other set of issues because those organizations do serve a valuable purpose (even if I don't agree with all of them), and probably have a retirement savings and college savings deductions unless you wanted to follow the ROTH format and have people pay taxes on them now and have them grow tax free. I'm not sure what that would all look like in 10 years with savings from just not growing spending, while also having fewer deductions and tax credits by phasing them out over the next 5-7 years. i just read last night that there are something like $1T in loopholes. that would cover the deficit, and produce a 3% surplus, without any changes in spending. i am not suggesting that, but that is a mighty big carrot.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Feb 9, 2016 11:32:40 GMT -5
Significant cuts probably aren't going to happen because too many politicians are dependent on them for votes....so the most practical way would be to start with a spending freeze first and work from there on what programs are expiring; probably simplifying the tax code with only standard deductions, maybe charitable deductions as well since getting rid of those would likely cause a whole other set of issues because those organizations do serve a valuable purpose (even if I don't agree with all of them), and probably have a retirement savings and college savings deductions unless you wanted to follow the ROTH format and have people pay taxes on them now and have them grow tax free. I'm not sure what that would all look like in 10 years with savings from just not growing spending, while also having fewer deductions and tax credits by phasing them out over the next 5-7 years. i just read last night that there are something like $1T in loopholes. that would cover the deficit, and produce a 3% surplus, without any changes in spending. i am not suggesting that, but that is a mighty big carrot. Loopholes or deductions? I read somewhere when you get it, it's a deduction; when somebody else gets it, it's a loophole. I do think simplifying the tax code would go a long way in helping have a more honest discussion about it....but I do think certain things like saving for college, charitable giving, retirement savings, and healthcare savings are something we probably would want to leave in there because all of those things promote less dependence on the government in each of those areas; which would hopefully translate to lower need for government spending in those areas.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 9, 2016 11:41:58 GMT -5
Significant cuts probably aren't going to happen because too many politicians are dependent on them for votes....so the most practical way would be to start with a spending freeze first and work from there on what programs are expiring; probably simplifying the tax code with only standard deductions, maybe charitable deductions as well since getting rid of those would likely cause a whole other set of issues because those organizations do serve a valuable purpose (even if I don't agree with all of them), and probably have a retirement savings and college savings deductions unless you wanted to follow the ROTH format and have people pay taxes on them now and have them grow tax free. I'm not sure what that would all look like in 10 years with savings from just not growing spending, while also having fewer deductions and tax credits by phasing them out over the next 5-7 years. i just read last night that there are something like $1T in loopholes. that would cover the deficit, and produce a 3% surplus, without any changes in spending. i am not suggesting that, but that is a mighty big carrot. I definitely think US tax structure could use simplification, but even if it were a realistic dream, you wouldn't get anywhere near $1T out of it. Like it or not, the US has slowly become less tax-friendly in relation to other nations, and US corporations have no loyalty to Uncle Sam when their bottom line is at stake. Close the loopholes that save them money, they will move elsewhere. Restrict their ability to do business, they'll make sure you pay for it. I don't exactly "recommend" the talk, but they've got Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis up on TED now explaining how corporations run the government and not the other way around, and he's right.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 9, 2016 11:48:52 GMT -5
i just read last night that there are something like $1T in loopholes. that would cover the deficit, and produce a 3% surplus, without any changes in spending. i am not suggesting that, but that is a mighty big carrot. I definitely think US tax structure could use simplification, but even if it were a realistic dream, you wouldn't get anywhere near $1T out of it. Like it or not, the US has slowly become less tax-friendly in relation to other nations, and US corporations have no loyalty to Uncle Sam when their bottom line is at stake. Close the loopholes that save them money, they will move elsewhere. Restrict their ability to do business, they'll make sure you pay for it. I don't exactly "recommend" the talk, but they've got Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis up on TED now explaining how corporations run the government and not the other way around, and he's right. i didn't mention corporations, and of course he is right. did Yanis think that is a problem?
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Feb 9, 2016 11:49:00 GMT -5
i just read last night that there are something like $1T in loopholes. that would cover the deficit, and produce a 3% surplus, without any changes in spending. i am not suggesting that, but that is a mighty big carrot. I definitely think US tax structure could use simplification, but even if it were a realistic dream, you wouldn't get anywhere near $1T out of it. Like it or not, the US has slowly become less tax-friendly in relation to other nations, and US corporations have no loyalty to Uncle Sam when their bottom line is at stake. Close the loopholes that save them money, they will move elsewhere. Restrict their ability to do business, they'll make sure you pay for it. I don't exactly "recommend" the talk, but they've got Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis up on TED now explaining how corporations run the government and not the other way around, and he's right. I was just talking individual taxes, corporate taxes are another animal all together...and I've mentioned in another thread that honestly I think we should have a 0% corporate tax because the money will get spent in some form or another and be taxed at that point anyway (I already know many disagree with that concept).
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 9, 2016 11:50:18 GMT -5
i just read last night that there are something like $1T in loopholes. that would cover the deficit, and produce a 3% surplus, without any changes in spending. i am not suggesting that, but that is a mighty big carrot. Loopholes or deductions? I read somewhere when you get it, it's a deduction; when somebody else gets it, it's a loophole. I do think simplifying the tax code would go a long way in helping have a more honest discussion about it....but I do think certain things like saving for college, charitable giving, retirement savings, and healthcare savings are something we probably would want to leave in there because all of those things promote less dependence on the government in each of those areas; which would hopefully translate to lower need for government spending in those areas. dunno. do you think it should be explored or not?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 9, 2016 11:51:17 GMT -5
I definitely think US tax structure could use simplification, but even if it were a realistic dream, you wouldn't get anywhere near $1T out of it. Like it or not, the US has slowly become less tax-friendly in relation to other nations, and US corporations have no loyalty to Uncle Sam when their bottom line is at stake. Close the loopholes that save them money, they will move elsewhere. Restrict their ability to do business, they'll make sure you pay for it. I don't exactly "recommend" the talk, but they've got Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis up on TED now explaining how corporations run the government and not the other way around, and he's right. I was just talking individual taxes, corporate taxes are another animal all together...and I've mentioned in another thread that honestly I think we should have a 0% corporate tax because the money will get spent in some form or another and be taxed at that point anyway (I already know many disagree with that concept). i would agree with you on one condition: that corporations can no longer contribute to political campaigns. otherwise, as Virgil says, they are running the government. they should pay for it. edit: you just added $400B to the deficit, btw. so individuals will have to make it up. prepare to have another 10% PIT.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 9, 2016 11:53:51 GMT -5
I definitely think US tax structure could use simplification, but even if it were a realistic dream, you wouldn't get anywhere near $1T out of it. Like it or not, the US has slowly become less tax-friendly in relation to other nations, and US corporations have no loyalty to Uncle Sam when their bottom line is at stake. Close the loopholes that save them money, they will move elsewhere. Restrict their ability to do business, they'll make sure you pay for it. I don't exactly "recommend" the talk, but they've got Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis up on TED now explaining how corporations run the government and not the other way around, and he's right. i didn't mention corporations, and of course he is right. did Yanis think that is a problem? Yes. Bear in mind this is a leftist finance minister of the most financially mismanaged, debt-riddled country in the EU, but if you want a rant about how corporations, not government, are the problem, has he got a talk for you. Considering Canada ratified the abomination that is the TPP this past Friday, which grants multinationals absurd powers (you've seen my threads about this), I was in the mood for a bit of "big corporations suck" recently.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Feb 9, 2016 12:00:57 GMT -5
I was just talking individual taxes, corporate taxes are another animal all together...and I've mentioned in another thread that honestly I think we should have a 0% corporate tax because the money will get spent in some form or another and be taxed at that point anyway (I already know many disagree with that concept). i would agree with you on one condition: that corporations can no longer contribute to political campaigns. otherwise, as Virgil says, they are running the government. they should pay for it. edit: you just added $400B to the deficit, btw. so individuals will have to make it up. prepare to have another 10% PIT. The real question is would it really add that much to the deficit or would it get spent and the taxes just paid somewhere else or at some other point in time? Corporations may sit on the money for a while, but it would get spent at some point. At a minimum, if I didn't think it would cause another bubble, I would consider getting rid of the mortgage deduction and replace it with a tax credit that could be claimed the year of purchase, and maybe allow it be claimed up to a certain amount one time every 10 years or so. It would cost more initially, but then it would be made up for with people not being able to deduct interest for the rest of the time they are in that house. I'm also ok with no allowing corporations to donate to political campaigns if the tax rate was 0%.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Feb 9, 2016 12:02:24 GMT -5
Loopholes or deductions? I read somewhere when you get it, it's a deduction; when somebody else gets it, it's a loophole. I do think simplifying the tax code would go a long way in helping have a more honest discussion about it....but I do think certain things like saving for college, charitable giving, retirement savings, and healthcare savings are something we probably would want to leave in there because all of those things promote less dependence on the government in each of those areas; which would hopefully translate to lower need for government spending in those areas. dunno. do you think it should be explored or not? Do I think tax simplification should be explored so that we could actually have a more honest discussion about tax rates? Yes.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 9, 2016 12:07:58 GMT -5
dunno. do you think it should be explored or not? Do I think tax simplification should be explored so that we could actually have a more honest discussion about tax rates? Yes. if that is your way of saying that we should have a tax code that doesn't have $1T in loopholes/deductions, i accept your reply.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Feb 9, 2016 12:08:22 GMT -5
And some "Liberals" will lie about ANY Democratic accomplishment too.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Feb 9, 2016 12:09:39 GMT -5
Do I think tax simplification should be explored so that we could actually have a more honest discussion about tax rates? Yes. if that is your way of saying that we should have a tax code that doesn't have $1T in loopholes/deductions, i accept your reply. I'm fine with some deductions, like the ones I mentioned because I think people saving in those areas will cut down on government spending in those areas....buy simplification gets us started in the right direction.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 9, 2016 12:10:21 GMT -5
i would agree with you on one condition: that corporations can no longer contribute to political campaigns. otherwise, as Virgil says, they are running the government. they should pay for it. edit: you just added $400B to the deficit, btw. so individuals will have to make it up. prepare to have another 10% PIT. The real question is would it really add that much to the deficit or would it get spent and the taxes just paid somewhere else or at some other point in time? according to the OTA, it would really add that much to the deficit.Corporations may sit on the money for a while, but it would get spent at some point. yes. these days it is spent building factories in Korea, merging with other corporations to form even more unruly and huge corporations, and giving huge bonuses to officers. that is not providing any real economic benefit in the US, however.At a minimum, if I didn't think it would cause another bubble, I would consider getting rid of the mortgage deduction and replace it with a tax credit that could be claimed the year of purchase, and maybe allow it be claimed up to a certain amount one time every 10 years or so. It would cost more initially, but then it would be made up for with people not being able to deduct interest for the rest of the time they are in that house. I'm also ok with no allowing corporations to donate to political campaigns if the tax rate was 0%. well, at least we agree on that.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Feb 9, 2016 12:13:30 GMT -5
Corporations may sit on the money for a while, but it would get spent at some point.
Currently $2 trillion from what I just read somewhere. I'm sure all the stockholders must be raising a stink about this. I'm sure I read that somewhere too.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Feb 9, 2016 12:16:02 GMT -5
Do I think tax simplification should be explored so that we could actually have a more honest discussion about tax rates? Yes. if that is your way of saying that we should have a tax code that doesn't have $1T in loopholes/deductions, i accept your reply. I do wonder about the feasibility and cost/savings that would be associated with replacing some of the current deductions like the home mortgage interest deduction with a one time initial tax credit given the year of purchase...
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 9, 2016 12:17:16 GMT -5
if that is your way of saying that we should have a tax code that doesn't have $1T in loopholes/deductions, i accept your reply. I do wonder about the feasibility and cost/savings that would be associated with replacing some of the current deductions like the home mortgage interest deduction with a one time initial tax credit given the year of purchase... the mortgage interest deduction is a huge gift to upper middle class and wealthy folks like me. i would hate to lose it, but if it would close the deficit, i would be willing to do so.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Feb 9, 2016 12:24:21 GMT -5
I do wonder about the feasibility and cost/savings that would be associated with replacing some of the current deductions like the home mortgage interest deduction with a one time initial tax credit given the year of purchase... the mortgage interest deduction is a huge gift to upper middle class and wealthy folks like me. i would hate to lose it, but if it would close the deficit, i would be willing to do so. I also wonder about replacing deductions in general with something like a 10% of the amount given being a tax credit instead of a deduction based on the highest tax bracket your income would be in as well...it's a little outside the box, but could work because the tax credit would like be less than the amount saved in taxes for many people. For example, a person with income in the 15% tax bracket had $1000 in deductions, that person would only get $100 tax credit instead of paying $150 less in taxes, so that person would still end up paying the $50 difference. For a person in the 10% tax bracket, that person would break even, and for anybody under that, those people would actually get back a bigger benefit.
|
|