Government is broke? Really? (health care, dollars, politicians, compared)
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.
I was watching the Sunday morning news shows today and I kept hearing all these politicians saying that we have to cut spending because "there is no money" to pay for things like education and health care. So I did a little research...
Last year the GDP per capita was over $46,000. In 1990 it was about $23,000. In fact, GDP per capita has increased at a pace of greater than 5% annually almost every year since the 1940's. And in many instances, it exceeded 10%. It has almost always outpaced inflation by at least 2%. So there is "more money" now than ever in our history and every year there is even more. So what exactly are the politicians talking about? I my opinion, they should be saying that the US is richer than it's ever been and Americans are more economically productive than at anytime in our history, but the current policy is to shift all the wealth generated by our ever-increasing economic output into the hands of the top 1%, so "there is no money for average Americans," but the extraordinarily wealthy will be fine...
And I love the counter argument that they "earned" their money and should be entitled to keep it. Yeah, right... Wall Street has performed magnificently. Thanks for the giant bending over that is my 401k guys! Enjoy my tax money funding your quarterly bonuses!
So what exactly are the politicians talking about? I my opinion, they should be saying that the US is richer than it's ever been and Americans are more economically productive than at anytime in our history, but the current policy is to shift all the wealth generated by our ever-increasing economic output into the hands of the top 1%, so "there is no money for average Americans," but the extraordinarily wealthy will be fine...
They are referring to the government's growing debt, which is getting exponentially bigger by the second.
I was watching the Sunday morning news shows today and I kept hearing all these politicians saying that we have to cut spending because "there is no money" to pay for things like education and health care. So I did a little research...
Last year the GDP per capita was over $46,000. In 1990 it was about $23,000. In fact, GDP per capita has increased at a pace of greater than 5% annually almost every year since the 1940's. And in many instances, it exceeded 10%. It has almost always outpaced inflation by at least 2%. So there is "more money" now than ever in our history and every year there is even more. So what exactly are the politicians talking about? I my opinion, they should be saying that the US is richer than it's ever been and Americans are more economically productive than at anytime in our history, but the current policy is to shift all the wealth generated by our ever-increasing economic output into the hands of the top 1%, so "there is no money for average Americans," but the extraordinarily wealthy will be fine...
And I love the counter argument that they "earned" their money and should be entitled to keep it. Yeah, right... Wall Street has performed magnificently. Thanks for the giant bending over that is my 401k guys! Enjoy my tax money funding your quarterly bonuses!
The intake is fine. The outflow is outrageous.
Spending must be controlled. If the feds collect more money through taxation, they will just blow it.
Responsibility on the part of the politicians has been sacrificed to irrational spending. No hard decisions ever have to be made as long as one can spend infinitely. We need to "reload" our entire government (dems and repubs) and replace the crooks with actual leaders who will make the hard decisions that MUST be made, rather than just blowing more dough.
The debt is growing because taxes on the top 5% have been cut exponentially over the last 50 years. They pay less now than at any point in history. And the money they keep they put in overseas investments. Letting the super-rich keep the vast majority of their incomes serves no purpose other than wiping out the middle class. If the tax rates were the same today as they were in 1960, we would have a budget surplus and be able to afford to adequately fund our education systems and national infrastructure.
The debt is growing because taxes on the top 5% have been cut exponentially over the last 50 years. They pay less now than at any point in history. And the money they keep they put in overseas investments. Letting the super-rich keep the vast majority of their incomes serves no purpose other than wiping out the middle class. If the tax rates were the same today as they were in 1960, we would have a budget surplus and be able to afford to adequately fund our education systems and national infrastructure.
There are a couple problems with this statement.
First, you're assuming that government cut taxes for the rich when it could have cut taxes for the middle and lower class. This is impossible, because 40-50% of Americans in the lower brackets don't pay income tax. In fact, they usually get money, a negative income tax of sorts. So you can't cut taxes on people who don't pay taxes.
Second, you're stating that the rich pay less of the tax burden than they did before. Again, this is not true. In fact, the top 1% of the taxpayers have been continually paying more and more over the years, even when you factor in the Bush tax cuts.
Third, you're saying that tax revenues have decreased due to the tax cuts. Again, the data goes against what you're saying. Revenues have been continually increasing until the recession hit.
The simple matter is that you have to take in more than what you would spend. We're spending too much, so we have to cut back. I don't see how raising taxes would bring in any extra revenue without seriously impacting economic growth.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,462,476 times
Reputation: 6670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spot
The debt is growing because taxes on the top 5% have been cut exponentially over the last 50 years. They pay less now than at any point in history. And the money they keep they put in overseas investments. Letting the super-rich keep the vast majority of their incomes serves no purpose other than wiping out the middle class. If the tax rates were the same today as they were in 1960, we would have a budget surplus and be able to afford to adequately fund our education systems and national infrastructure.
Increase taxes on the wealthy?!! What are you, some kind of Communist!?
Now just return to the table like a good lad, and be happy with your "trickle-downs"....
The debt is growing because taxes on the top 5% have been cut exponentially over the last 50 years. They pay less now than at any point in history. And the money they keep they put in overseas investments. Letting the super-rich keep the vast majority of their incomes serves no purpose other than wiping out the middle class. If the tax rates were the same today as they were in 1960, we would have a budget surplus and be able to afford to adequately fund our education systems and national infrastructure.
You can tax 100% of wealth earned over $250k and it won't make much of a dent in the overall deficit. What happens than? Where else will you get the money. You can get any blood from a stone.
Remember Medicare sounding accounts for 20% of the government each year. Medicare didn't exist until 1965. So the tax rates can be the same as 1960 but you still have to deal with the 800 pound gorilla in medicare spending that spends 20% ofnour budget More and more people are using up more social security benefits than they have paid into.
You get the drift. You need to raise taxes on everyone. Middle class, lower
class and upper class plus cut down on entitlement programs. Sounds a lot like what's going on in Greece these days, doesn't it? That's the USA for you in 10 years if we don't slow down our entitlement spending. Oh wait that 1 trillium dollar health bill we just pass will end up costing over 3 trillion or even more when it's all said and done. Did the founders if Medicare in 1965 ever envision Medicare taking up 20% of our yearly budget. I wonder if Medicare would have ever passed if the public knew that.
First, you're assuming that government cut taxes for the rich when it could have cut taxes for the middle and lower class. This is impossible, because 40-50% of Americans in the lower brackets don't pay income tax. In fact, they usually get money, a negative income tax of sorts. So you can't cut taxes on people who don't pay taxes.
There is no assuming this. It's a fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swirling_vortex
Second, you're stating that the rich pay less of the tax burden than they did before. Again, this is not true. In fact, the top 1% of the taxpayers have been continually paying more and more over the years, even when you factor in the Bush tax cuts.
Again. This is also a fact. The wealthy pay very little in taxes compared to what they paid in 1960. See site below.
You're taking it out of context. I said that those who were against the tax cuts for the higher brackets supported the idea that those taxes could be cut for lower brackets. But, at least 40% of those people don't pay taxes.
Quote:
Again. This is also a fact. The wealthy pay very little in taxes compared to what they paid in 1960. See site below.
You're only using percentages on an individual's income here, which doesn't paint the whole story. For instance, let's say we have an income tax of 100% on those that make above a million dollars. One might think that having such a high tax would in effect bring in lots of revenues and it would move the tax burden away from the middle class. However, it doesn't work for a couple of reasons.
-First, by having a high tax, you're discouraging individuals from entering into that income bracket. What incentive is there for a person to make a million bucks if it gets taxed away?
-Second, because people are no longer making a million dollars, that pool of rich people simply falls away. People don't like having more of their income taken from them, so they either hide that money or look for ways to not make that much. That means that middle class now has to pick up the slack because the rich incomes have disappeared.
This is why you you have to look at dollar amounts and not simply percentages. Revenues went up in the 1980s despite the tax rate being cut. The rich also grew, so that income burden now shifted upward because the pool got bigger.
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.
What are you, some kind of Communist!? 
