Posted on 02/04/2012 9:37:56 AM PST by Qbert
“Then why has the National Debt increased every single year since 1957?”
It’s hard for me to see how the debt increases if balance the budget. I would agree that our future obligations could certainly increase.
In that case, since the Federal government spends about twice as much as it takes in, they need to increase tax rates not by 10% but by 100%.
Is that what you advocate?
That's because debt doesn't increase if the budget is balanced.
But the debt has increased; therefore the budget hasn't been balanced.
Here's the record for the second half of the 20th century; see for yourself:
Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999
No decreases in the debt since the fiscal year ending June 30, 1957.
Well, one can disagree about it. They SAID they were going after the wealthy few who were dodging taxes. Unfortunately, what they DID was very different.
In point of fact, there are ways for really wealthy guys to dodge the AMT. So it’s the middle class that it actually hits the hardest.
I don’t really think that was unexpected or unintended, except maybe by a naive few congressmen who believed what they were told by the leaders.
“I haven’t totally given up yet. I’d simply like my country to collect what it spends...and if we’re unable to control spending, then we might as well start taxing the middle class to pay for it.”
Yikes! The middle class is taxed already. I think the underlying problem here, is that no one has any faith in the Federal Government to fix the budget with any amount of tax increase. As you said in that statement, “if we are unable to control spending.” My response to that statement is, there really shouldn’t be a discussion of taxes until there is solid proof they can control spending. They can raise the taxes, then raise the spending again. You may not have given up. However, I would never want to just blindly support tax increase when the current Federal government has increased the amount of deficit spending in the past 3 years on a level never seen before.
“However, I would never want to just blindly support tax increase when the current Federal government has increased the amount of deficit spending in the past 3 years on a level never seen before.”
One of the big problems for Obama’s so-called ‘stimulus’ plan was that there simply wasn’t enough ways to spend the money. In fact, much of it wasn’t spent at all.
I actually think that Congress is running out of ways to spend our money and if the Republicans keep from starting new big programs, that’s pretty much it on the spending side. That’s why I’d like to see our taxes actually rise to the level needed for this amount of spending...rather than hand my kids a THIRD WORLD country after the dollar crashes (which WILL be the case with these deficits).
“In that case, since the Federal government spends about twice as much as it takes in, they need to increase tax rates not by 10% but by 100%.
Is that what you advocate?”
Actually it’s not quite that bad, but it is still terrible. The federal government spends about $3 for every $2 they take in. But your point is valid.
However...taxpayers average about a 10% tax today. Increase that tax to 20%, and the budget would be balanced (assuming static scoring...which may not be the case). We are not (yet) at the point where our entire GNP has to be turned over to Uncle Sam to balance the budget...although that will be case if there’s a run and then crash on the dollar.
Peaceful resistance is what I advocate.
“Here’s the record for the second half of the 20th century; see for yourself: Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999”
Thanks, I didn’t want to be rude and ask for a link, but I did figure that you had backup. As it is, the increase in the debt came out to be about 14% over 4 years (1995 to 1999). Still more than zero, but a number that is manageable over the long term (i.e., it is possible to grow our economy faster).
But those days are long gone...especially considering that our debt is now $9T higher than those numbers and growing like mad.
Like I say, I’ve concluded that there really isn’t a lot of big-spending opportunities left for the government, that could get past a Republican House. So now we simply have to ask whether more debt is preferable to trying to pay our bills real-time.
*
What will happen when federal employees learn that their pension fund has been raided by the Feds or the Unions? Not only will they have no social security, but they also won't have a pension. Are people then going to say, "well, their children and grandchildren are going to have to provide for them. There is no money in the pension fund."
We have to fix the political system so this never again happens. And, people are going to have to be educated as to what our politicians have done and will keep on doing if it's not changed soon.
So, reform the government. It has stop throwing money away to buy votes.
This is what I was talking about in my paragraph #3 ...
If that figure is close to zero, why give any more interest-free loan than you have to. If your withholding equals your 2011 tax burden [not refund or balance due, you fool], forget it for 2012 at least because you are ‘safe harbor’ed.
BUT and a potentially big BUT here is that this saves you from "Penalty and Interest" not from a big and unexpected tax boost from AMT. The first method of using AGI and computing from there will potentially avoid the "sticker shock" if the taxpayer suddenly finds AMT on their tax form.
Sigh, yes, the "Make Work Pay" stimulus credit from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Not part of the Bush package but instead part of the Obama stimulus and limited to tax years 2009 & 2010.
I was warning my clients last year that this was going away but I am getting new people who are complaining about the "tax increase" for 2011. Just once, I would like to have a year when the government did not FIDDLE so that we wouldn't have these surprises but that is a hopeless dream.
Careful what you wish for - a flat tax could put you out of business! I’m pretty much dividends and cap gains and for $500 to my CPA I don’t pay a lot ... thanks for the info though. ;-)
Actually I was talking about how the general public just sat by in 1968 when the so called trust fund was put in tot he general fund and no longer just paid for social security anymore.It then was called overage and was spent on other things.That money is gone forever and there is no trust fund.In the 1970’s the supreme court ruled that social security was a tax and that no was was really entitled to it since it was a tax. I can’t believe anyone would’ve though social security was there to pay for their life.It was meant as only a supplement in the first place and should’ve never been counted on to pay for all of that.
When my husband retired after 40 years working in aerospace technology, I remember our meeting with the human resources representative. They had a breakdown of all the $$$ we would get from social security and his pension. It was a good deal.
I'm sure this technique was used throughout the country by human resources departments.
Going to be hard to take away what all these people were told would be there for them.
Oh, and I forgot the stock market collapse. The 401k we had transferred to a IRA almost all disappeared. The money that should have lasted 20 years with prudent withdrawals and prudent investment lasted 10 years and was reduced considerably each month. Not exactly a rosy picture.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.