Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 150

Thread: Let's Run Government On Credit; And Not Collect Enough Taxes - It'll Be Great!

  1. #31 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Location
    'Murica
    Posts
    3,641
    Thanks
    1,394
    Thanked 1,132 Times in 908 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 24 Times in 23 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Hello cawacko,


    No, that's wrong. Most people's personal budgets have one very large spending item which they certainly must not eliminate: housing. Somethings are necessary. A country is nothing without her people. People are what make up a country. If you want to take care of the country you have to make sure the people are OK. Most nations get this. The ones that don't fail.
    If you want to make housing more affordable, encourage your local government to reduce zoning regulations. That is the biggest driver in the rise in cost of housing. San Francisco is a good example of how this happens. Houston is a good example of how low zoning regulations allow for very affordable housing compared to the national average.


    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    This presumes that the only way to balance the federal budget is to cut spending.

    Wrong again!

    Increase revenue. That will do it in a heartbeat.

    And the super-rich can afford it without batting an eye or giving up any caviar:

    The "super-rich" can also hide income better than most. Unless you plan on ending all deductions and turning the nominal income tax rates into the equivalent of the AMT, then this idea of raising taxes on the elite isn't going to work.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Saudade For This Post:

    Truth Detector (02-20-2020)

  3. #32 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,432
    Thanks
    23,944
    Thanked 19,095 Times in 13,072 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello Woko Haram,

    Quote Originally Posted by Woko Haram View Post
    If debt is your concern, then cutting spending should be your priority -- not raising regulations or taxes.
    All government spending supports the economy.

    Cutting spending can be roughly translated as cutting the GDP.

    Cut spending, you cut the economy.

    Nope. Let's don't do that.

    It has to be raising taxes on the rich.

    They can afford it.

    We have a great nation. Time for those who have benefited the most to pony up and pay for what has been so good for them.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  4. #33 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,432
    Thanks
    23,944
    Thanked 19,095 Times in 13,072 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello Woko Haram,

    Quote Originally Posted by Woko Haram View Post
    If you want to make housing more affordable, encourage your local government to reduce zoning regulations. That is the biggest driver in the rise in cost of housing. San Francisco is a good example of how this happens. Houston is a good example of how low zoning regulations allow for very affordable housing compared to the national average.
    Houston is a good example of why zoning regulations are effective, and what happens when that is ignored. Proper zoning would require that a region maintains enough drainage to prevent flooding in major storms. Since Houston didn't do this, Houston, we have a problem every time a major rain event occurs. Flooding in Houston was made far worse by lack of proper zoning regulations. Bad idea in a region prone to hurricanes in the age of Climate Change.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woko Haram View Post
    The "super-rich" can also hide income better than most. Unless you plan on ending all deductions and turning the nominal income tax rates into the equivalent of the AMT, then this idea of raising taxes on the elite isn't going to work.
    I am going to leave the nuts and bolts up to the legal wonks. Bottom line: We are not collecting enough revenue to run the government. That has to change or we are doomed.

    The super-rich have money to burn. More than they can every spend during their lifetime. They can afford to chip in more to run the country. They could afford to completely eliminate the deficit, and even build a surplus which would begin to eliminate the federal debt all together. That is a worth while goal. If the federal debt is eliminated then the country could do more with less because we would not have to pay the interest on the debt. We are a rich country. We do not have to carry a big debt or be saddled with the crushing burden of servicing that debt.

    Interest on US Federal Debt: (The amount we pay each year in interest because we carry so much dept) $379 Billion
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  5. #34 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    62,858
    Thanks
    3,734
    Thanked 20,363 Times in 14,089 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 649 Times in 616 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Hello cawacko,



    Not really, because that is solely a Republican assessment of it. The Republican tax cut nearly double the deficit, resulting in far quicker rise of the debt. So really, one of the biggest drivers of the recent debt has been the Republican tax cut for the rich.



    I agree growing the economy produces more revenue. Republicans claimed the tax cut would grow the economy so much that it would more than pay for itself and actually result in reducing the deficit. Remember, the deficit must be reduced to zero before the debt stops growing. Currently, the economy is not paying for the government we already have. There are no easy cuts which can be made to spending which would not directly and adversely impact the economy. You take away entitlements and you take away the income those people use to spend in the economy. And most of that is spent very quickly. That removes a lot of business from the economy by cutting that. It's not like you can kill that economic activity and expect no downturn in overall economy activity, ie the GDP.

    Most entitlements go directly into the GDP.

    Any entitlements cuts can be seen as GDP cuts.

    And that results in cuts to revenue as well.

    Those darn unintended consequences.

    But if taxes are raised on the rich, that doesn't cut the GDP.

    They just sell some stock maybe. Somebody else buys it. No loss of business start-ups or expansions. Businesses have plenty of money for that. That's why they are doing stock buy-backs.

    Nope. Entitlement cuts are a bad idea gone worse.

    The best way to get control of this runaway debt problem is to tax the rich more. And since they have exponentially more money than they ever need, they can afford it without batting an eye. Won't affect their lifestyle at all. Except maybe not so many of them would be buying so many additional investment properties in San Francisco and running the property values out of reach to the common man there.
    When discussing the debt it's solely a Republican assessment to look at the (largest) items we spend on? I don't think that to be accurate.

    And to cut to the chase, you can't make taxes high enough to cover all the debt and unfunded liabilities we have. So ignoring spending is not an option.

  6. #35 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,432
    Thanks
    23,944
    Thanked 19,095 Times in 13,072 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello cawacko,

    Quote Originally Posted by cawacko View Post
    When discussing the debt it's solely a Republican assessment to look at the (largest) items we spend on? I don't think that to be accurate.

    And to cut to the chase, you can't make taxes high enough to cover all the debt and unfunded liabilities we have. So ignoring spending is not an option.
    Yes, you actually can make taxes high enough to balance the budget. That's what scares the greediest super-rich. They want a 'bargain government' that gives them all the power without having to pay for it.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  7. #36 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    360
    Thanks
    15
    Thanked 85 Times in 61 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 19 Times in 17 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by countryboy View Post
    More lies from the left, if your lips are moving you are lying. The tax cuts have not added one cent to the debt, revenue is still up. It's the spending stupid. You know, the spending that originates in the House of Representatives? Who controls the House of Representatives?
    Who controlled the House for 6 of 8 years under Obama and 2 under Trump? Who did all that spending on 2 wars we were told were going to be easy wins and turns out to never end?

  8. #37 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    360
    Thanks
    15
    Thanked 85 Times in 61 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 19 Times in 17 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Hello cawacko,



    Yes, you actually can make taxes high enough to balance the budget. That's what scares the greediest super-rich. They want a 'bargain government' that gives them all the power without having to pay for it.
    Now they've gone from buying the politicians to becoming the politician. They have to resort to getting dirty to save capitalism from mean ol Bernie.

  9. #38 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    14,055
    Thanks
    2,436
    Thanked 8,812 Times in 6,202 Posts
    Groans
    568
    Groaned 493 Times in 469 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Leftist View Post
    Who controlled the House for 6 of 8 years under Obama and 2 under Trump? Who did all that spending on 2 wars we were told were going to be easy wins and turns out to never end?
    Point stipulated. The GOP gets no pass for reckless spending either. My only point is, it's spurious to blame the President's tax cuts on the rising debt.
    Every life matters

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to countryboy For This Post:

    Truth Detector (02-20-2020)

  11. #39 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    360
    Thanks
    15
    Thanked 85 Times in 61 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 19 Times in 17 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by countryboy View Post
    My only point is, it's spurious to blame the President's tax cuts on the rising debt.
    Had there been no tax cut the budget/revenue would be higher, no? Money that could go towards paying of debt?

  12. #40 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    14,055
    Thanks
    2,436
    Thanked 8,812 Times in 6,202 Posts
    Groans
    568
    Groaned 493 Times in 469 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Leftist View Post
    Had there been no tax cut the budget/revenue would be higher, no? Money that could go towards paying of debt?
    How do you know revenue would be higher? There's no evidence to suggest this. In fact, history suggests this is not the case.
    Every life matters

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to countryboy For This Post:

    Truth Detector (02-20-2020)

  14. #41 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,432
    Thanks
    23,944
    Thanked 19,095 Times in 13,072 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello Casual Leftist,

    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Leftist View Post
    Now they've gone from buying the politicians to becoming the politician. They have to resort to getting dirty to save capitalism from mean ol Bernie.
    I wish Bernie could not only get elected, but have a majority Congress ready to enact his ideas. It would be the best thing that has happened to the USA in a very long time, maybe ever. I just don't see the nation being there yet. Although it is awesome to see it so close.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  15. #42 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    7,863
    Thanks
    98
    Thanked 4,219 Times in 3,171 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 239 Times in 227 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarod View Post
    Borrow and spend is the ReTrumplican motto.
    Obama... $10Trillion added to debt

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Superfreak For This Post:

    Truth Detector (02-20-2020)

  17. #43 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Location
    'Murica
    Posts
    3,641
    Thanks
    1,394
    Thanked 1,132 Times in 908 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 24 Times in 23 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Hello Woko Haram,



    All government spending supports the economy..
    No, it really doesn't. Some spending can boost the economy. Some doesn't. And not everything boosts it equally effectively.


    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Cutting spending can be roughly translated as cutting the GDP.
    No, not really. If that was true, then nations that privatized programs would see a decrease in GDP. Sweden has privatized a lot more now than it did in the 80s, and its GDP growth has greatly improved.

    There are multiple factors as to whether government spending reduces or increases GDP. Cutting waste in government programs can increase GDP by freeing up resources, for example.

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Saudade For This Post:

    Truth Detector (02-20-2020)

  19. #44 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    93,682
    Thanks
    9,768
    Thanked 33,632 Times in 21,491 Posts
    Groans
    290
    Groaned 5,633 Times in 5,141 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Superfreak View Post
    Obama... $10Trillion added to debt
    At least he did not cut taxes then borrow... Like someone.
    4,487

    18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
    44 U.S.C. 2202 - The United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records; and such records shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.


    LOCK HIM UP!

  20. #45 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Location
    'Murica
    Posts
    3,641
    Thanks
    1,394
    Thanked 1,132 Times in 908 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 24 Times in 23 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Hello Woko Haram,


    Houston is a good example of why zoning regulations are effective, and what happens when that is ignored. Proper zoning would require that a region maintains enough drainage to prevent flooding in major storms. Since Houston didn't do this, Houston, we have a problem every time a major rain event occurs. Flooding in Houston was made far worse by lack of proper zoning regulations. Bad idea in a region prone to hurricanes in the age of Climate Change.
    That's not true. The reason why Houston has issues with flooding is not related to zoning. The entire region that Houston is part of has had issues with flooding for quite some time, and it doesn't matter whether the city is highly regulated or not. Galveston is substantially more regulated in zoning, and it has just as much of an issue with flooding as Houston, if not more so.

    New Orleans is also much more regulated in zoning, and it has more issues with flooding than Houston.

    One could actually argue that most areas, including Houston, continue to have issues with flooding since federal funds help to subsidize the cost of living in disaster prone areas. If states didn't have access to federal funds when dealing with disasters, then far less construction would be done in said areas. It would only take a few major floods, tornadoes, and hurricanes to show where people should live and where they shouldn't.

    And for areas that were important enough to keep residences there despite disasters, the affected states could maintain proper funds for disaster relief. Florida has already taken steps to do this sort of thing. More states should follow their example, rather than forcing all other states to subsidize their crises.


    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    I am going to leave the nuts and bolts up to the legal wonks. Bottom line: We are not collecting enough revenue to run the government. That has to change or we are doomed.

    The super-rich have money to burn. More than they can every spend during their lifetime. They can afford to chip in more to run the country. They could afford to completely eliminate the deficit, and even build a surplus which would begin to eliminate the federal debt all together. That is a worth while goal. If the federal debt is eliminated then the country could do more with less because we would not have to pay the interest on the debt. We are a rich country. We do not have to carry a big debt or be saddled with the crushing burden of servicing that debt.

    Interest on US Federal Debt: (The amount we pay each year in interest because we carry so much dept) $379 Billion
    Once again, it's not about not taxing enough. It's about government being very wasteful and bloated.

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to Saudade For This Post:

    Truth Detector (02-20-2020)

Similar Threads

  1. Feds Collect Record Individual Income Taxes in 2018
    By countryboy in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 02-14-2019, 09:37 PM
  2. the founders told us we can collect taxes so shut up
    By evince in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 92
    Last Post: 12-26-2017, 04:03 PM
  3. Time to cut taxes and government spending
    By Русский агент in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-07-2017, 07:10 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-01-2012, 09:00 PM
  5. Resignation: Riots, Credit Crunch bring first Government Failure.
    By Damocles in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 01-27-2009, 04:51 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •