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 federal deficit and debt are a spending issue, not revenue. All debt is a function of spending, always and everywhere. The faster people accept this simple mathematical and financial fact, the easier they can see through partisan lies.
The second thing people need to come to grips with is that there is no mandatory level of spending. Nowhere in the US Constitution or the US Code or any state constitution will you find a mandatory dollar amount for anything. No Congress is beholden to the promises made by prior Congresses, so every two years, the spending slate is wiped clean, and every single year, Congress chooses to outspend the revenue. Presidents do not tax, nor spend...Congress does. Read the manual FFS.
Obama didn't run the two biggest deficits of all time, Congress did. Trump isn't wildly overspending, Congress is. Federal spending is 100% controlled by Congress. President can ask, suggest, demand or jump up and down until he turns blue, but in the end, ALL SPENDING BELONGS TO CONGRESS. And every year, they start fresh and decide to overspend.
Why you people keep blaming American citizens for following the law as written, simply because you think some amount of revenue will stop the overspending by Congress...well, it makes no sense to me. If you give your kid $5 for lunch, and they spend that $5 on video games instead of food, is it your fault that you didn't give them $10? And if you give them $10, and they spend all $10 on video games, is it your faults you didn't give them $20? Congress knows how much revenue will be. Hauser's Law, historical tables, GDP growth analysis and an entire council of economic and financial advisors can estimate federal revenue within 1% of total, and that's if they are sloppy. So Congress has a number to work with. THEY CHOOSE TO OUTSPEND REVENUE. And that is not the taxpayers' fault. It isn't rich people's fault, nor poor people, nor citizen or illegal, etc. The citizen follows the law as written and revenue in the form of stolen money is generated. Congress then chooses, every year, without fail nor regard for which party is in the White House or holding majorities in either chamber of Congress, to outspend that revenue.
Stop blaming each other for the fault of Congress and their inability to do simple accounting arithmetic. Tax cuts are less money being taken from citizens, and that equals more liberty. On the face and by definition, that's a good thing. That Congress remains retarded about not outspending revenue, regardless if they get more or less than some other point in time IS NOT OUR FAULT, IT'S THEIRS.
Population increases every year. Employment has increased each year for a decade. Inflation increases each year. GDP increases, if even by a small amount, each year.
Tax revenue naturally grows along with all of these items.
The ONLY relevant metric is whether we have covered more of the CURRENTLY DUE BILLS then before.
I don't know why it is so hard for you to grasp this concept.
You can stop right there.
That's basically what I said in bold. Are we covering our bills? No. Is it because of tax cuts? No. Because the revenue has grown as you said.
It is a SPENDING issue because we are not covering our expenditures (not "bills").
That's basically what I said in bold. Are we covering our bills? No. Is it because of tax cuts? No. Because the revenue has grown as you said.
It is a SPENDING issue because we are not covering our expenditures (not "bills").
We are not covering our bills because spending exceeds tax revenue. Part of that reason is because revenue was reduced by the tax cuts. Another part is because spending has increased. The reason the US has a deficit isn't a binary choice between "insufficient tax revenue" and "excess spending," it is a combination of the two.
Not sure about context on question 1.
My comment goes toward the shifting of tax burden from high to low. As for my context: I am generally very sympathetic to low wage workers who are at least making a go of it and not sympathetic to professional couch potatoes.
I work with some of them. What they want. Many just want to go home. Many really do have an IQ around 90 or so. You will not make a tech worker out of most of the people in our shop. A few end up self promoting to one of two degrees.
Dumb ones that at least show up every day without fail,do their 40 tend to get raises to around 15 bucks an hour and are last in line for layoffs and first in line for the few available PW jobs and overtime.
Once in a while a gem shows up and makes supervisor inside of 2 years.
Some are ninja level clock watchers who tend to stay around 12 bucks.
Both groups beat professional couch potatoes.
You do realize that all jokes aside, your writing style, general grammar and spelling indicate collegiate level writing. I'm guessing the DR part of your name is actually biographical. You likely have 30+ points of IQ on anyone in our shop. A comparison is like wondering why a Jeep loses a race with a Porsche. I guess I have more sympathy for the Jeeps.
We agree about the Yugos on the cinder blocks.
I'm not sure how you shift the tax burden. People pay a certain percentage (based on certain criteria) regardless of what anyone else does. It's not as though the tax burden is a set amount and when the poor begins paying taxes, the tax rates for the rich goes down. They just pay their percentage. It does not change the tax rates for the rich.
As far as sympathy for the poor - for me, it's a case by case basis. Should I feel sympathy for people who do nothing when they are fully capable to do great things?
True story - I was in class in Catholic school in Maryland (escaping the DC public schools which I attended in middle school), 9th grade. Teacher asked me if I felt sympathy for the poor... I said no - because in my mind back then, most have the same opportunity to go to school and learn. I don't know if he picked me out because I am black, expecting a sympathetic answer... but know that he blasted me in class like I have never heard before. Part of my view is because of my experiences in middle with these "poor" inner city kids and the tough time they gave me being from a military family. So I guess I have never been one to dive in 100% and have sympathy for the poor just because they are poor.
With the poor and taxes, I assume that in general, people feel better when they are working and making a little extra than being a couch potato and receiving handouts - and the fact that they are paying taxes doesn't bother them because they are making a little more. That was the context for question 1. Not sure if that answers your question.
Yes - college educated with Mechanical Engineering Technology degree, and wear many hats including technical writing.
We are not covering our bills because spending exceeds tax revenue. Part of that reason is because revenue was reduced by the tax cuts. Another part is because spending has increased. The reason the US has a deficit isn't a binary choice between "insufficient tax revenue" and "excess spending," it is a combination of the two.
Our revenue was reduced relative to what revenue would have been but for the tax cuts. According to this article it was reduced by 7.4%.
Bull-o-ney. That whole argument is meaningless and based on the fact that you can make numbers say anything you want if you try hard enough. It's the same stupid argument that government has (otherwise known as baseline budgeting) - that says a program has been cut if the spending increase goes from 10% to 5%. It's still a 5% increase in spending - it's not a cut in spending.
At the end of the day - there's revenue, and there's spending. That's it. Spending increased more than the revenue - and we have a larger deficit. That's all that matters. Everything else is a mental exercise.
Bull-o-ney. That whole argument is meaningless and based on the fact that you can make numbers say anything you want if you try hard enough. It's the same stupid argument that government has (otherwise known as baseline budgeting) - that says a program has been cut if the spending increase goes from 10% to 5%. It's still a 5% increase in spending - it's not a cut in spending.
At the end of the day - there's revenue, and there's spending. That's it. Spending increased more than the revenue - and we have a larger deficit. That's all that matters. Everything else is a mental exercise.
They need to really CUT spending.
I don't see what is inaccurate about the article. Whether or not you agree with that article's conclusion that tax revenue should have gone up 7% in 2018, with inflation, increased population, increased GDP, and decreased unemployment, there is no question revenue should have gone up. But in 2018, revenue went down 0.4%. That is a fact.
Every economist seems to think this was a result of the tax cuts. If not caused by the Trump tax cuts, explain why.
Tax cuts when there is a deficit is spending, and they cost a lot. If the deficit is -$400 bil and tax cuts increase the deficit to -$800 bil, those tax cuts have to be financed by government bonds. The tax cuts are paid for with borrowed money. You, me and our kids get stuck with the debt. We will all pay the interest on that debt for 30 years or more.
When there's a deficit and a tax cut is enacted, it is essentially a tax subsidy paid for by public borrowing. The only time tax cuts allow you to "keep more of your own money" is when there is a government surplus.
Indeed.
A tax cut without an equivalent spending cut is actually a tax deferment. You end up paying more, because of interest.
Maybe we should just reduce taxes to zero and put all of our national expenses on a credit card. Only 17% interest, why not? The economic growth will get us out of it.
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.
