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.
Federal spending should be restricted to taxes accumulated through tariffs on foreign goods and royalties from the lease of federal lands ONLY. Everything else should be a state issue.
24% sounds good. BTW the post WW2 average is 25.5% and our post WW2 average for taxes is 24.5% but right now, due to all the rounds of tax cuts in recent decades, we're down to just 18% of GDP going to taxes. THAT is the reason we have a deficit folks.
Government spending needs to rise substantially to invest heavily in more social programs according to the president. Obama's re-election shows you that America wants more government.
I think this chart shows you why he'd like to extract cash from the super rich to the tune of $1.2 trillion in new taxes:
24% sounds good. BTW the post WW2 average is 25.5% and our post WW2 average for taxes is 24.5% but right now, due to all the rounds of tax cuts in recent decades, we're down to just 18% of GDP going to taxes. THAT is the reason we have a deficit folks.
The deficit was eliminated in the 1990s with a slight tax increase, welfare reform and a very hot economy.
To pin one reason as to why a deficit did not exist is negligent.
24% sounds good. BTW the post WW2 average is 25.5% and our post WW2 average for taxes is 24.5% but right now, due to all the rounds of tax cuts in recent decades, we're down to just 18% of GDP going to taxes. THAT is the reason we have a deficit folks.
I thought I read somewhere that the post-WWII average was 35% of total revenue spent.
25% sounds WAY too low. A 10% increase in wealth taxes looks to be on the table now.
Federal spending should be restricted to taxes accumulated through tariffs on foreign goods and royalties from the lease of federal lands ONLY. Everything else should be a state issue.
I thought I read somewhere that the post-WWII average was 35% of total revenue spent.
25% sounds WAY too low. A 10% increase in wealth taxes looks to be on the table now.
Average Revenue and Spending as a percentage of GDP by decade...
1951-1960
Revenue: 17.5%
Spending: 17.8%
1961-1970
Revenue: 18.0%
Spending: 18.8%
1971-1980
Revenue: 17.9%
Spending: 20.3%
1981-1990
Revenue: 18.2%
Spending: 22.2%
1991-2000
Revenue: 18.8%
Spending: 20.3%
2001-2010
Revenue: 17.1%
Spending: 20.6%
The 1981-1990 and 2001-2010 have the worst differential (4% and 3.5% respectively).
Would heavier taxation of the Super Rich really hurt their lifestyles all that much?
It is a common belief that we need to tax the rich to pay for what is represented in the above chart.
The federal employees who work in the divisions represented on the chart do NOT want to see their jobs go away.
Higher taxes mean we save good paying government jobs.
2% no more no less, and no borrowing at all. if the goverment cannot do it on 2% of GDP unless in a congress declared war (with a maximum of 2 years on any declared war), then anyone in goverment does not need to be in goverment at all.
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.
