How would you balance the budget?

Callinectes Ocasio-Cortez said:
Being the anti-(excessive)taxation fanatic that I am, I would prefer we operate under a small, MANAGEABLE deficit, because if politicians of either party see a surplus, it's like a wounded bleeding seal to a great white shark.
Click to expand...

FLIP FLOPPER

Conservatives are such phonies.

You were so worked up about deficits and debt that you stapled teabags to your face to prove to everyone how genuine you were.

Now, you're saying deficits don't matter.

What a fucking fraud.

Total bad faith.

Poseur.

Liar.

Phoney baloney.

Troll.
 
Callinectes Ocasio-Cortez said:
Makes no difference if you have "surpluses" OR deficits. If you have either, you don't have a balanced budget. Being the anti-(excessive)taxation fanatic that I am, I would prefer we operate under a small, MANAGEABLE deficit, because if politicians of either party see a surplus, it's like a wounded bleeding seal to a great white shark. Pretty soon all you have left is government backed stock car racing programs for paraplegic transvestites. And yeah, on the other side, you're gonna get a tank with restrooms for all 3 genders, but at least it's a tank. The only way to address this is through history. Those swamp idiots have to google the history of taxation in this country and get back to it. The original reason for taxation was war. That's it. We have to start slowly weaning the populace off these entitlements until we are self-sufficient again. You want a social safety net? Fine. Keep it and make it much less. Maybe someday when my bones are dust and we travel across the galaxy at the speed of light for a vacation, that whole mess will be paid off
Click to expand...

This fucking Conservative poseur is a total flip-flopping piece of shit.

Everything you say is bullshit self-preservation as you try to retcon all the bullshit you used to believe, until it became inconvenient for you and your positions.

You're a faker and a phony.

#BURNTHELIFEBOATS

No Conservative is going to be allowed a brand change now.

Completely disingenuous. A total faker.
 
Callinectes Ocasio-Cortez said:
Makes no difference if you have "surpluses" OR deficits. If you have either, you don't have a balanced budget. Being the anti-(excessive)taxation fanatic that I am, I would prefer we operate under a small, MANAGEABLE deficit, because if politicians of either party see a surplus, it's like a wounded bleeding seal to a great white shark. Pretty soon all you have left is government backed stock car racing programs for paraplegic transvestites. And yeah, on the other side, you're gonna get a tank with restrooms for all 3 genders, but at least it's a tank. The only way to address this is through history. Those swamp idiots have to google the history of taxation in this country and get back to it. The original reason for taxation was war. That's it. We have to start slowly weaning the populace off these entitlements until we are self-sufficient again. You want a social safety net? Fine. Keep it and make it much less. Maybe someday when my bones are dust and we travel across the galaxy at the speed of light for a vacation, that whole mess will be paid off
Click to expand...

The "original reason" for many things have changed. Get over it.

If your thinking prevailed, we would still have slavery...but with provisos to keep it "much less." Woman would not be allowed to vote...nor would non-whites.
 
Oneuli said:
There's a reason the rich didn't like Clinton, and sponsored an endless investigation and eventual impeachment to try to get rid of him. He raised taxes on them. Yes, that was partly offset by decreasing the maximum long terms capital gains rate. But only partly.
Click to expand...

Pure nonsense. The raise in long term cap gains helped the wealthy far more than increasing brackets hurt them. The top 1% do not get the bulk of their money from earned income or taxable dividends. Also, with all the loopholes and deductions available to the wealthy in the 75K page tax code, the bracket increases were meaningless. Which is why Buffett stated his effective rate was lower than his secretary's.
 
Oneuli said:
I already did: Great Britain, Japan, Germany, and France -- you know, the other large, wealthy countries.
Click to expand...

And again, Great Britain is not that far off of ours. That said, with our GDP it shouldn't be as high.

In the link I provided in the post to which you're replying. It's in the first table, the last column, under "average total federal tax rate."
Click to expand...

Which is NOT the EFFECTIVE tax rate.

In theory, you could bump it enough for the higher incomes to make it work in a rough way, but then what you're basically talking about is a two-bracket system, which is a pretty blunt instrument. Why not fine tune it with more brackets? Or, better yet, come up with a smooth-curve formula.
Click to expand...

No it is not blunt. The system would work just as it does now. Employers don't start taxing you once you clear the standard deduction. They multiply your earnings for the period by the number of pay periods you have in total for the year. Then they calculate the tax and take it out over the course the year.


Good plan, since I just eyeballed it. Let's do the actual math. Here's the distribution:

https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/tables/hinc-06/2018/hinc06.xls



OK. So, if the first $60k is tax free, then about 49% of households will pay no federal taxes (not just no federal income taxes). All the households earning less than $250k (95.6% of all the households) would, combined, pay $721.5 billion. That works out to a tax rate of about 10.5%, average. So, the problem isn't what I thought it was: that it would be a tax hike for some people in that group. Rather, the problem is that it would devastate revenues.
Click to expand...

First, NO... the first $60k isn't tax free. It is federal income tax free. It is no different than the current standard deduction other than in the amount.

Second, correct, it isn't a tax hike on them. If you check revenue I would bet you the numbers are indeed slightly lower for the group under $250k, which is my purpose, to make it PROGRESSIVE.

Third, funny how you stopped and didn't look at what happens to those over $250k. Especially those over $500k. Their effective tax rates are going to go north of 25% and in most cases push towards the 30%. But you ignore that.

Why not? It's a simple and elegant fix, which is akin to what we already did with Medicare.
Click to expand...

Because we do not have to. If we use the doughnut hole, we install a SS tax of say 2-3% on income over $500k, that will take care of the problem. Why are you so eager to tax the upper end of middle income families?

Because there aren't all that many people over $500k, so if you're looking to collect enough to keep in solvent, you really want people paying in between the current tax cap and $500k, which is a whole lot more people.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is more people. Funny how you don't look at changes to taxes that way when income brackets are lowered. You always proclaim its a tax cut to the rich, because they get so much more per capita.

But we don't need to tax MORE people. It is a short term problem with SS. Medicare was a massive problem and everyone had to see that increase, we still need to increase it to cover it. SS is not that big a problem.



Why not?



It could be based on unearned income, too.
Click to expand...

It could. It would resolve the problem for sure that way, but then I would decrease the current cap to save more money for the middle income families and again use the doughnut hole.



Technically, it's a three-tier bracket, in that it's 0% up to a level, then 20%, then an extra 10%. But the devil's in the details. By taking out most of the brackets, you've made it a clumsier instrument, which will make it hard to achieve decent revenue numbers without either soaking the poor, or creating a brutal cliff where suddenly you cross a particular threshold and tax rates are vastly higher. Why not go with a smoother change, rather than a fairly arbitrary sharp change at one particular dollar figure (or rather two). For example, if it makes sense for a couple that earns $70,000 to pay a bit more than one that earns $60,000, then why doesn't it make sense for a couple that earns $60,000 to pay a bit more than one that earns $50,000? And if it makes sense for the effective rate to be higher on someone who earns $550,000 than someone who earns $500,000, then why doesn't it make sense for the effective rate on someone who earns $500,000 to be that much higher than on someone who earns $450,000 (rather than both paying the same 20% on all income over the standard deduction). I'd rather have a consistent approach where the effective rate rises fairly smoothly from zero to a theoretical maximum of 100% at infinity, as you go up in income.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Again, there is no 'brutal cliff'. It is calculated the same way as employers currently do. Current pay times the number of pay periods. Then they see what total tax would be and assess that in proportion to the current paycheck.

If you actually do the math, the effective rate using my proposal IS VERY SMOOTH.

Do the math on it. Obviously the first $60k for a couple is easy. It is zero.

If they make 70k... they owe a total of $2k over the course of the year. Effective rate is 2.8%

80k is 5%

90k is 6.67%

100k is 8%

110k is 9.09%

120k is 10%

Etc....
 
Oneuli said:
Fortunately, Madison was just one of many founders, and his personal feelings on the matter don't trump what's actually in the document.... and, when it came to this particular matter, his feelings on the matter didn't end up mattering at all, since, as a simple historical matter of fact, we've had a government that has been using un-enumerated powers to promote the general welfare pretty much from the dawn of the Republic.
Click to expand...

Madison's writing in the Federalist explains what is in the document. You do realize that was published before the Constitution was adopted, right?
 
You could start by taking tax rates for the wealthy back to what they were during the Clinton era.
 
Hello Oneuli,

Oneuli said:
Yep. I think it really is that cynical. But I'm hoping we can convince at least a few conservatives here to put pen to paper (metaphorically speaking) and figure out what it would take, in terms of real budget numbers, to reach balance. I think if they were make an honest effort at doing so, it would change their perspective, because they'd realize the kinds of spending programs they generally fixate on just aren't were the big changes can be found. They're trying to squeeze blood from stones.
Click to expand...

I have actually run all the numbers. I love math. I've posted in previous forums all the math. Here is how much we take in, here is how much we spend, here is how much the difference is, here is how we can make that up, here is how we can actually begin paying down the debt. When the bottom line comes down to taxing the rich more, they shut down. That is off the table for them. They won't consider it, and anything that leads up to that will be rejected. They simply refuse to even think those thoughts.

And if you run the math the other way and show that it is simply not possible to cut enough to balance the budget without causing a recession (deep one) and likely even a depression, they similarly shut down consideration of that concept as well. They just refuse to talk about it. It doesn't matter if you point out that government assistance to the poor is almost 100% spent in the consumer economy, and is multiplied many times over due to the local businesses it supports, that it represents a significant portion of the GDP, that it would all go away if those government assistance programs are cut, that the ecnoomy would take a huge hit, it doesn't matter. They don't want to look at facts like that. They are too busy believing propaganda. They want to believe the propaganda. They try to make everything else fit around that basic assumption that the propaganda must be true. That's why they deny fact, and believe unsupported baloney.

For conservatives, arguing politics depends on denying basic facts, and then building up lies built upon lies in such an extensive web of untruths that to honestly go back to only what is known? - wipes out much of what they believe in. It's too much. They can't do that. They cannot abandon nearly their entire belief system. They have to cling to the falsehoods, almost for security. They simply can't bring themselves to realize that we liberals are actually right.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Oneuli,



I have actually run all the numbers. I love math. I've posted in previous forums all the math. Here is how much we take in, here is how much we spend, here is how much the difference is, here is how we can make that up, here is how we can actually begin paying down the debt. When the bottom line comes down to taxing the rich more, they shut down. That is off the table for them. They won't consider it, and anything that leads up to that will be rejected. They simply refuse to even think those thoughts.

And if you run the math the other way and show that it is simply not possible to cut enough to balance the budget without causing a recession (deep one) and likely even a depression, they similarly shut down consideration of that concept as well. They just refuse to talk about it. It doesn't matter if you point out that government assistance to the poor is almost 100% spent in the consumer economy, and is multiplied many times over due to the local businesses it supports, that it represents a significant portion of the GDP, that it would all go away if those government assistance programs are cut, that the ecnoomy would take a huge hit, it doesn't matter. They don't want to look at facts like that. They are too busy believing propaganda. They want to believe the propaganda. They try to make everything else fit around that basic assumption that the propaganda must be true. That's why they deny fact, and believe unsupported baloney.

For conservatives, arguing politics depends on denying basic facts, and then building up lies built upon lies in such an extensive web of untruths that to honestly go back to only what is known? - wipes out much of what they believe in. It's too much. They can't do that. They cannot abandon nearly their entire belief system. They have to cling to the falsehoods, almost for security. They simply can't bring themselves to realize that we liberals are actually right.
Click to expand...

YAHOO:

"IRS data has some interesting revelations.

Here Is Who Really Pays the Most Taxes in America

Politicians exploit public ignorance. Few areas of public ignorance provide as many opportunities for political demagoguery as taxation.

Today some politicians argue that the rich must pay their fair share and label the proposed changes in tax law as tax cuts for the rich.

Let’s look at who pays what, with an eye toward attempting to answer this question: Are the rich paying their fair share?

According to the latest IRS data, the payment of income taxes is as follows.

The top 1 percent of income earners, those having an adjusted annual gross income of $480,930 or higher, pay about 39 percent of federal income taxes. That means about 892,000 Americans are stuck with paying 39 percent of all federal taxes.

The top 10 percent of income earners, those having an adjusted gross income over $138,031, pay about 70.6 percent of federal income taxes.

About 1.7 million Americans, less than 1 percent of our population, pay 70.6 percent of federal income taxes. Is that fair, or do you think they should pay more?"


The left won't be happy until the wealthy pay all the federal income taxes and the rest pay none.
 
tff said:
You could start by taking tax rates for the wealthy back to what they were during the Clinton era.
Click to expand...

Could start by having the 50% that don't pay any income taxes start paying their fair share for living in society.
 
Oneuli said:
Trump's budget proposal is out and he is proposing trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. Since conservatives used to pretend they cared about deficits, I'm wondering what conservatives here would do to remedy that.

From a liberal perspective, achieving a balanced budget isn't that hard, since we don't treat our radically low taxes as a given, nor do we put our largest area of discretionary spending off-limits.

For example, using 2018 data from the International Institute for Strategic Studies, consider the proposal of reducing our military budget to "only" 50% more than the combined spending of our two top potential opponents, Russia and China. That would be a huge budget in its own right, but it would save us about $300 billion per year.

Now consider taxes. The average tax revenues for a developed nation are 34.19% of GDP. So, say we wanted to be taxed less than a normal amount, but not radically less -- let's say 10% less than if we were at the developed-nation average. Based on a GDP of $20.9 trillion, that would bring in about $760 billion extra per year. So, right there, with $760 billion in extra revenues and $300 billion in lower spending, we've gone from a deficit to a surplus -- from about a $984 billion FY 2019 deficit, to a $76 billion surplus.

Note, were not talking about any hard sacrifices there. We'd remain a significantly "under-taxed" country, by the standards of developed nations, making us more attractive to business than our peers. And we'd continue to have a military budget about twice as large as the next-closest country's. So, as I said, this isn't a terribly difficult math problem for liberals. But how do you get there as a conservative? When you insist on radically low taxes and absurdly high military-industrial pork, where can you find enough savings to reach balance?

That's the problem Trump was tackling with his budget. Yet, despite his willingness to betray his campaign promises (and the nation's promise to its elderly) by slashing Medicare and Social Security, he couldn't even move the numbers in the right direction. So, if you could dictate the budget, could you reach balance? How, would you do it, in terms of specific numbers and programs?
Click to expand...



I am rarely willing to discuss this topic because conservatives like to have a simple view and it is actually complicated but what the hay. The first thing to note is growing debt just cant go on forever that is true. The next point is inflation is part of the scenario in that the longer it debt held the easier it is to pay with inflated dollars. The next thing to understand is that 8 trillion of 21 trillion is held by the US government and the federal reserve so it can just sit there unpaid for a long time. The US debt is largely a bookkeeping function in that the debt is booked when assets are transferred from one agency to another. The take away from the debt situation is simple minded conservatives are making it a far bigger issue that it really is. Comparing the spending to running a household couldnt be more wrong. The debt obviously needs to be dealt with but isnt the panic the right wing pretends.
 
National Debt Passes $21 Trillion: A Crisis In The Making by Mac Slavo for SHTFPlan

"The national debt should be a huge concern for every single American, as the government is essentially stealing from people not yet born to pay for things now. As debt increases, so does volatility and interest rates; and at some point, the government will have to admit they cannot pay that money back.

“Reaching this unfortunate milestone so rapidly is the latest sign that our fiscal situation is not only unsustainable but accelerating,” said Michael A. Peterson, chief executive officer of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, a nonpartisan organization working to address the country’s long-term fiscal challenges. According to Yahoo, the problem is that our taxes are too low, not the government’s frivolous spending.

According to Yahoo, a big national debt can also make it harder for the government to increase spending to combat the next recession or devote more money to retraining workers and helping the poor, among other programs. It seems that the media is more concerned about making sure money is funneled through incompetent bureaucrats than anything else. If government programs designed to help the poor with stolen funds (taxes) were effective, there wouldn’t be a skyrocketing homeless epidemic infecting socialist cities in California.

The problem is that government programs are never effective and aren’t voluntary. They simply take money from some, and after paying incompetent “public servants” a pittance is returned to “help the poor.”



The simple-minded left will never understand this.
 
Earl said:
National Debt Passes $21 Trillion: A Crisis In The Making by Mac Slavo for SHTFPlan

"The national debt should be a huge concern for every single American, as the government is essentially stealing from people not yet born to pay for things now. As debt increases, so does volatility and interest rates; and at some point, the government will have to admit they cannot pay that money back.

“Reaching this unfortunate milestone so rapidly is the latest sign that our fiscal situation is not only unsustainable but accelerating,” said Michael A. Peterson, chief executive officer of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, a nonpartisan organization working to address the country’s long-term fiscal challenges. According to Yahoo, the problem is that our taxes are too low, not the government’s frivolous spending.

According to Yahoo, a big national debt can also make it harder for the government to increase spending to combat the next recession or devote more money to retraining workers and helping the poor, among other programs. It seems that the media is more concerned about making sure money is funneled through incompetent bureaucrats than anything else. If government programs designed to help the poor with stolen funds (taxes) were effective, there wouldn’t be a skyrocketing homeless epidemic infecting socialist cities in California.

The problem is that government programs are never effective and aren’t voluntary. They simply take money from some, and after paying incompetent “public servants” a pittance is returned to “help the poor.”



The simple-minded left will never understand this.
Click to expand...


not including trump and Bush and Bush and Reagan in all this just makes you a sleazy scumbag
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top