Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

A good way to improve everything is to grow the economy. Tax receipts go up and welfare demands go down, leading to a reduction in budget deficit, and the proportion of national debt to GDP is reduced.

Universal healthcare and education can help to grow the economy by making it easier to take the kinds of risks required for innovation.

 Breotan wrote:

 Consul Scipio wrote:
Cut all the little stuff you want...You're still spinning your wheels and not getting anywhere reducing the debt or more importantly decrease spending.

Until you accept major reductions in:
Social Security

Social Security is paid for with FICA and SECA taxes, not general revenue taxes. It is not part of the budget. Even were we to eliminate SS, it would have no effect on the debt or deficits.

SS is a direct transfer of wealth. The money that is deducted from our paychecks for SS goes directly to the people currently collecting SS. As the number of people qualifying for and collecting SS increases and the number of people paying into SS decreases the govt still has to meet its obligations to pay SS to the people who qualify for it. The govt makes up the shortfall by borrowing money. It's also why there's a constant political battle over retirement age, means testing for SS, etc.

Entitlement spending eats up the lions share of the federal budget. SS isn't a big factor in the rapidly growing national debt but it does contribute.

Prestor Jon wrote:
The govt makes up the shortfall by borrowing money.

No, it does not. The shortfall was planned for back in 1983 when SS money was used to purchase Treasury notes. Those notes and the interest on them are what is currently keeping SS afloat out to 2040-something. Social Security is not a budget item. There is no borrowing.

 Breotan wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
The govt makes up the shortfall by borrowing money.

No, it does not. The shortfall was planned for back in 1983 when SS money was used to purchase Treasury notes. Those notes and the interest on them are what is currently keeping SS afloat out to 2040-something. Social Security is not a budget item. There is no borrowing.

We're paying the interest on the Treaury notes with borrowed money. We don't collect enough taxes to cover all of our spending which includes paying out interest. The fact that we have to buy T notes because the amount of SS collected is less than what is paid out is just proof of its insolvency. The federal govt is spending extra money paying interest into SS because there isn't enough money generated by SS collections to meet obligations.

The government is spending that extra money anyways.

Of course, applying SS tax to investment income and wages above $115k would help.

 whembly wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Also, Consul, why SS, it's a tiny percentage of our budget?

Edit: that is to say, discretionary spending.

Also... isn't SS pretty much "self funding"?? By that I mean, it's one of the few categories of spending in which we know exactly which taxes go into it: the employment/social security taxes.

No. We don't.

The reason why is that all tax revenues go into the General Fund. That is, our SS tax doesn't go into a "special SS account" that is earmarked directly back to SS payments.

It all goes into one giant Piggy Bank™.

Hence why I'm convinced that it won't be there when I retired.

And honestly, I would start with "close the tax loopholes" before adding in new taxes on the wealthy. Once the major corporations like Nike, Walmart, GM, Ford, Whirlpool, etc. start paying actual taxes, I would think a lot more stuff could be funded.

That's all good and dandy... just acknowledge that those corporations don't actually pay those taxes in a vacuum. Tax costs are filtered down to the consumers... and when you look at it from beginning-to-end, it's the consumer that's pays for that tax.

Hrm, yes and no. Depends on the elasticity of the product or service in question and the profit margins on which the organization operates. If the market will not bear price increases, that tax increase is going to come out of the profit margins of the company, not the consumer's pockets. Likewise, if the product or service is extremely high volume, price increases are likely to be negligible.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
In reality, a lot of this would effectively be the same thing.

The ultra wealthy typically do not derive their income from a paycheck or a salary, but essentially from investments of various sorts that most people could never afford to play in and that normally is the realm of large organizations (and that is not taxed at the same levels that income from something like a Salary is).

If you want the ultra wealthy to pay *something*...

Tax their wealth/assets.

And/or re-classify what exactly is "income" to capture those scenarios...

Indeed, things like capital gains need some re-assessment. Estate taxes above a certain level as well as a few other things could also do with some looking at.

Just did my taxes...

*grumble*, *grumpy*, *bah humbug!*



Anyhoo... here's a fun little widget to estimate your tax liabilities under the various Presidential plans:
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/3/25/11293258/tax-plan-calculator-2016
or
http://www.ibtimes.com/paycheck-calculator-how-will-presidential-candidates-change-your-tax-bill-2332826

Surprisingly, the whembly household would fare best under Ted Cruz's plan and be okay on Trump's plan as well. Hillary's plan would largely be unchanged, and I'd get boned under Sander's plan.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/analysis-senator-bernie-sanderss-tax-proposals
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/analysis-hillary-clintons-tax-proposals
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/analysis-ted-cruzs-tax-plan
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/analysis-donald-trumps-tax-plan

I don't, personally, think we should raise the corporate tax rate, in fact we may want to look at lowering it, as that may actually boost the economy. What we need to look at it closing a metric feth-ton of loopholes, and really punishing tax dodgers, so they won't do it again.

Personal income on the other hand should have it's rates increase at higher income levels (and possibly lowered on the lower levels) to become more parabolic. We should also look into classifications, to make sure that income, beyond what us niw legally defined as income, gets caught. And possibly even look at taxing holdings once they get to a certain level, although I'm still iffy there.

Removing the upper limit in income taxable by SS would also help shore up any costs there, also separating it from the other bureaucracies might be good, to cut down on costs.

We would have to freeze federal spending at its current level and increase federal income tax to bring in another $500 billion just to avoid adding to the federal debt that is currently over $18 trillion. To make a significant reduction in the debt, that is rapidly eclipsing out GDP we have to make real spending cuts and maintain that reduced budget for years. It's not a problem that can be solved through taxation alone.

Spending cuts would tank the economy though...

 whembly wrote:
Just did my taxes...

*grumble*, *grumpy*, *bah humbug!*



Anyhoo... here's a fun little widget to estimate your tax liabilities under the various Presidential plans:
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/3/25/11293258/tax-plan-calculator-2016

If you wanted to maximize personal revenue, while limiting personal risk, you wouldn't have married or had kids.

 skyth wrote:
Spending cuts would tank the economy though...

Depends on what gets cut and by how much. We've piled up 18 trillion in debt and we're spending 3.7trillion annually (with annual increases) and the economy is growing at a very sluggish rate, we're aren't generating a lot of jobs, labor participation is still less than 2/3rds, wages aren't rising and interest rates are still extremely low. Simply raising taxes isn't going to kickstart prosperity either.

If we want to grow the economy we have to take actions that will benefit the majority of people, likely at the expense of the minority. Something the nation needs to recognize and accept is that if money can be funneled to the top, it will be. For evidence, look at every government in human history. This is why the idea of trickle down falls flat. Ultimately, we need to take action to protect corporations from themselves via tragedy of the commons. Each corporation wants to maximize profits, so they do that be stripping it from the little guy (the details are debatable, but its undeniable this happens across the board when we look at wealth/income distribution). However, when every corporation does this, the population does not have as much money to spend. Since we have a consumer-based economy, this slows it overall. The end result, ironically, is less profits for the same corporations and more difficulty for everyone else. Obviously this is one of multiple major issues that needs to be addressed but I think it would have the single biggest impact on the economy as a whole.

To put it in simple terms; the US has a consumer-based economy yet has been consistently taking actions which do not benefit the consumer. This leads directly to the economic situation we have now.

 whembly wrote:
Just did my taxes...

*grumble*, *grumpy*, *bah humbug!*

Yeah, I'm still holding out one more week because, I dunno man. Once I started owing on both ends, I felt no need to rush.

Well, tax season goes until the 18th this year.

Crap....and I have to Itemize to

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Just did my taxes...

*grumble*, *grumpy*, *bah humbug!*



Anyhoo... here's a fun little widget to estimate your tax liabilities under the various Presidential plans:
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/3/25/11293258/tax-plan-calculator-2016

If you wanted to maximize personal revenue, while limiting personal risk, you wouldn't have married or had kids.

Ain't that the truth.

Addendum: Don't be stupid with credit. Easier said then done though...

I got out of chapter 13 bankruptcy last year.

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Just did my taxes...

*grumble*, *grumpy*, *bah humbug!*



Anyhoo... here's a fun little widget to estimate your tax liabilities under the various Presidential plans:
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/3/25/11293258/tax-plan-calculator-2016

If you wanted to maximize personal revenue, while limiting personal risk, you wouldn't have married or had kids.

Ain't that the truth.

Addendum: Don't be stupid with credit. Easier said then done though...

I got out of chapter 13 bankruptcy last year.

Dave Ramsey has a great program "Financial Peace".

It takes work, discipline and dedication...but totally doable and once you find that you can live without credit cards and credit (in general)....it is very liberating!

 whembly wrote:
Just did my taxes...

*grumble*, *grumpy*, *bah humbug!*



Anyhoo... here's a fun little widget to estimate your tax liabilities under the various Presidential plans:
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/3/25/11293258/tax-plan-calculator-2016
or
http://www.ibtimes.com/paycheck-calculator-how-will-presidential-candidates-change-your-tax-bill-2332826

Surprisingly, the whembly household would fare best under Ted Cruz's plan and be okay on Trump's plan as well. Hillary's plan would largely be unchanged, and I'd get boned under Sander's plan.

I did mine a a couple months ago, but haven't actually filed yet. I'm in the same boat on the various tax plans. Of course, I would be interested to know how much I would end up saving under Sanders, given that I am diabetic so I do have a decent amount of healthcare costs.

 TheMeanDM wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Just did my taxes...

*grumble*, *grumpy*, *bah humbug!*



Anyhoo... here's a fun little widget to estimate your tax liabilities under the various Presidential plans:
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/3/25/11293258/tax-plan-calculator-2016

If you wanted to maximize personal revenue, while limiting personal risk, you wouldn't have married or had kids.

Ain't that the truth.

Addendum: Don't be stupid with credit. Easier said then done though...

I got out of chapter 13 bankruptcy last year.

Dave Ramsey has a great program "Financial Peace".

It takes work, discipline and dedication...but totally doable and once you find that you can live without credit cards and credit (in general)....it is very liberating!

Paid off all my CC debt on my first deployment. Everything Debit now with me. I even don't have a PIN# to withdraw. I agree 110%

I like the theory behind Dave Ramsey's plan, but I can't listen to his show anymore. I don't want politics from my money guy.

I pay everything with my credit cards, get the rewards, and pay them off in full every month so I don't have any interest charges.

Better than paying in cash.

 skyth wrote:
I pay everything with my credit cards, get the rewards, and pay them off in full every month so I don't have any interest charges.

Better than paying in cash.

Same plan here. Credit cards for convenience, not credit.

Did my taxes yesterday. Irritating, but out of the way for another year. Wish we had a simpler system.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/716222480738869248

Wisconsin has suffered a great loss of jobs and trade, but if I win, all of the bad things happening in the U.S. will be rapidly reversed!

all of the bad things.

Well, when you've got ironclad promises and policies like this how can you not vote for him ?!

Trump 2016 : A new season of Firefly in every home.

Finally, a cure for my rash!

Trump to personally paint every single one of Americans mountains of unpainted miniatures. Making miniature wargaming great again!

So if I vote Trump in, Trump will be "solved"?

A fascinating paradox.

(I can't actually vote but you guys have the best and funnest elections ever. It's like the Olympics, the World Cup and some other sportsball event all rolled into one but not boring and actually meaningful!)

 reds8n wrote:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/716222480738869248

Wisconsin has suffered a great loss of jobs and trade, but if I win, all of the bad things happening in the U.S. will be rapidly reversed!

all of the bad things.

Well, when you've got ironclad promises and policies like this how can you not vote for him ?!

Trump 2016 : A new season of Firefly in every home.

So has my vote.......ENTERTAINMENT!!!

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
If we want to grow the economy we have to take actions that will benefit the majority of people, likely at the expense of the minority. Something the nation needs to recognize and accept is that if money can be funneled to the top, it will be. For evidence, look at every government in human history. This is why the idea of trickle down falls flat. Ultimately, we need to take action to protect corporations from themselves via tragedy of the commons. Each corporation wants to maximize profits, so they do that be stripping it from the little guy (the details are debatable, but its undeniable this happens across the board when we look at wealth/income distribution). However, when every corporation does this, the population does not have as much money to spend. Since we have a consumer-based economy, this slows it overall. The end result, ironically, is less profits for the same corporations and more difficulty for everyone else. Obviously this is one of multiple major issues that needs to be addressed but I think it would have the single biggest impact on the economy as a whole.

To put it in simple terms; the US has a consumer-based economy yet has been consistently taking actions which do not benefit the consumer. This leads directly to the economic situation we have now.

This is a problem with capitalism as such. Jacques Maritain is particularly good on this point. See, e.g., Integral Humanism.

I forget the exact locus, but basically what he says is that capitalism subverts the natural ordering of money and entrepreneurship .

Whereas, in point of fact, money is supposed to be the fuel for a corporation, the goal of which should be to produce goods and services which are needed by the people that it serves...

...

...in a capitalist society, goods and services become the fuel for a corporation, the goal of which becomes the production of money.

There is something intrinsically perverse about capitalism. Consider, e.g., obsolescence. Because the goal of capitalist entrepreneurs is the production of money, and not the fulfillment of human need, the way to maximize profits is to produce a product which will last for a little while, and then need to be replaced.

Consider how this plays out in everything from cars to i-phones.

If, on the other hand, corporations had a spirit of stewardship, as opposed to greedy avarice, what they would be doing is producing goods and services which best suit human need, maintain the environment, etc. This would involve the opposite of obsolescence, which, of course, would decrease profits.

In a capitalist society, this is unthinkable.

Again, consider how a common objection to the minimum wage is that McDonalds would replace workers with robots...

...

..so lets get this straight. People don't actually need to be working at McDonalds. This work could be replaced by robots with absolutely no impact on the production of goods and services...

...

...but this is a thing which people want to avoid simply because of the contingencies of the capitalist system of economics?

Consider how perverse that is.

In an ideal economic system, there would be a fair and just distribution of goods and services. Servile human labor, obsolescence, etc. would be absolutely minimized whenever possible, so as to leave more people time for "higher" human activities like the arts, the sciences, philosophy, theology, the worship of God, etc.

Not so in a capitalist society. We have to make as much stuff as possible and distribute it to as many people as possible. But eventually, everyone's going to have one. So we have to make sure that it breaks so that we can make sure more people get them. For as high a price as they're willing to pay.

I don't think I need to explain why this is just self-destructive and bizarre.

Of course, communism is no better, given its inherent atheistic materialism and its utter abnegation of the intrinsic dignity of individual human persons.