Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's Phase-1. Phase-2 asks what does the government do with the money. If it puts it all in a coffee can, then that's the end of the story. If it either spends the money or uses it to pay down debt, then the money simply flows right back into private sector again, increasing GDP and tax revenue.
The debt is perfectly well serviceable as is. Keep in mind that we will never pay it off and neither will any other signficant economy pay off its debt. The US has not paid off its public debt since the 1830's and there really wasn't any good reason to have done it then. All that is necessary is that we service the debt, making all of the required payments of principal and interest as of the dates they are due. We are not having any problem doing that and are not at all likely to in the future.
Another option is to go fishing. There is simply nothing here to worry about, regardless of what on-dealine whackjobs try to suggest.
This is a lie, and is simply ignoring basic mathematics.
Returning to Clinton tax rates would not even slow the rate of increase of the debt. The debt has doubled in the last 8 years and the rate of increase is accelerating.
Also increasing tax rates takes money directly from the economy which lowers both GDP and tax revenue.
Even the confiscation of all the wealth of the top 1% of the country would not bring the debt back to a serviceable level.
The only answer like it or not is wealth confiscation on a mass scale.
You must have been asleep this year. The deficit has been falling dramatically which undercuts your assertion that the rate is accelerating. Those trillion plus deficits are a thing of the past.
Your further assertion that "increasing tax rates takes money directly from the economy which lowers both GDP and tax revenue," was exactly what the 1990s GOP argued. They told Clinton that raising taxes would tank te economy. The opposite occurred.
Whenever anyone writes about raising taxes, the right-wing counters with the 'even taking all the money of the rich,' narrative. However, just having the top 40 hedge fund managers pay ordinary income would raise enough to obviate the recent cut to SNAP.
Do you think we should eliminate taxes on business so they can thrive and offset the tax revenue losses by cutting government spending? If not, why?
There is no evidence that lowering business taxes would do anything but increase profits. Now, businesses are sitting on cash. Lowering their taxes just means they'd be sitting on more cash.
Do you think we should eliminate taxes on business so they can thrive and offset the tax revenue losses by cutting government spending? If not, why?
I believe that we should eliminate taxes on business. I also believe that doing so will spur investment and increased activity which would stimulate the economy causing additional revenue that would make up for most of the lost revenue for those taxes being cut.
I believe that we should eliminate taxes on business. I also believe that doing so will spur investment and increased activity which would stimulate the economy causing additional revenue that would make up for most of the lost revenue for those taxes being cut.
Why do you think that? If businesses want to invest, they already have plenty of reserves sitting on the side-lines. They don't need lower taxes to fund their ventures.
Actually, that was a very passable piece. A national governmnet is nothing at all like a household. They are very different actors playing in a very different world under very different rules.
The reason it's different is because the government can essentially force additional revenue while a household cannot. If you spend more than you have coming in from your job, you aren't able to tell your employer that it must pay you more. The government can tell the taxpayer it must pay more.
However, in a global market, the tax payers (specifically the business owners and large investors) are able to flee the government once they feel that they are better served living under a government that confiscates less.
Going back to the household incomes, what would happen in a company's employees could force their employer to pay them more? What would happen if all of their employees forced greater and greater pay increases each year regardless of the company's bottom line? Eventually, the company would go broke and then the employees would have no way to pay their bills.
What happened in Detroit? Employers left due to high wages and market changes. Unemployment increased. Tax revenue decreased. People fled to other markets. The government was forced to reduce spending and cut services.
That's right, eventually the government (of Detroit) ran into the same problem a household runs into when revenue no longer matches receipts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
