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.
The government brags about the "budget" now having an annual deficit of under $500 Billion, except due to off the budget expenses that block transparency - the national debt actually rose over $1 Trillion in 2014.
With 18 Trillion in national debt, the annual deficit could rise by as much as $500 Billion a year in interest payments off of the debt - simply from returning to interest rates that we saw under Clinton and GWB.
Both parties helped create this. Isn't it time both parties take it serious?
Tax rates are strikingly low relative to the rates of the past century, especially for high and low income earners. One would need to go back almost 100 years to find lower statutory rates for high income earners. Conversely, nearly half the population has no skin in the game. Both are extremes.
Rates used to be increased to make a serious dent in war debt and new benefits. Now we lower taxes and blame when the deficit grows.
The biggest pieces of the spending pie are Medicare and Defense. Baby boomers began turning 65 to the tune of 10,000 a day in 2011 and this will persist for another 16 +/- years. They will come at anyone who dares to whisper cutting benefit with pitchforks. the can kept kicking to the future and here we are. It is what it is.
As for Defense, we'll be can't seem to stop putting our nose in other people's business and this spend directly and indirectly employs a heck of a lot of people. Taxes should have been increased a decade ago to offset war spending. Instead, they were reduced. Makes no sense.
Politicians want us to believe all we have to do is kick the welfare queens and their good for nothing kids to the curb and all will be well.
There is no way out without increasing taxes and no one has the wood to do it. So that can keeps on kicking no matter who sits the oval or has the majority.
Tax rates are strikingly low relative to the rates of the past century, especially for high and low income earners. One would need to go back almost 100 years to find lower statutory rates for high income earners. Conversely, nearly half the population has no skin in the game. Both are extremes.
Rates used to be increased to make a serious dent in war debt and new benefits. Now we lower taxes and blame when the deficit grows.
The biggest pieces of the spending pie are Medicare and Defense. Baby boomers began turning 65 to the tune of 10,000 a day in 2011 and this will persist for another 16 +/- years. They will come at anyone who dares to whisper cutting benefit with pitchforks. the can kept kicking to the future and here we are. It is what it is.
As for Defense, we'll be can't seem to stop putting our nose in other people's business and this spend directly and indirectly employs a heck of a lot of people. Taxes should have been increased a decade ago to offset war spending. Instead, they were reduced. Makes no sense.
Politicians want us to believe all we have to do is kick the welfare queens and their good for nothing kids to the curb and all will be well.
There is no way out without increasing taxes and no one has the wood to do it. So that can keeps on kicking no matter who sits the oval or has the majority.
none of this is true. The tax collected as a percentage of GDP is relatively about the same now as when they were far higher.
none of this is true. The tax collected as a percentage of GDP is relatively about the same now as when they were far higher.
LOLz is that the best response you can come up with, "None of this is true"? Tax rates were lower but distributed differently, so you can still have a relatively same overall rate compared to GDP.
The way our system is setup baby boomers will take a huge chunk of spending, half the population gets a free ride, and we spend money on senseless wars by being the world police so.... yea that's pretty much all true.
LOLz is that the best response you can come up with, "None of this is true"? Tax rates were lower but distributed differently, so you can still have a relatively same overall rate compared to GDP.
The way our system is setup baby boomers will take a huge chunk of spending, half the population gets a free ride, and we spend money on senseless wars by being the world police so.... yea that's pretty much all true.
Um no.. she said that tax rates are low relatively but thats not true at all. Effective and tax rates arent the same thing
Then they said taxes were increassed to pay for wars, again wrong, thats why they SOLD war bonds, which increased debt.
And while 1/2 the nation has no skin in the game, raising taxes on the rich, isnt going to fix that.
Raising tax rates wont increase tax revenues since tax revenues again remains about the same as a percentage of GDP.
We can broaden the tax base, but democrats would never go for that.. waaaa, waaa, we want to tax poor people..
Clearly that would be more than 9 trillion, whats your point?
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.
