A simple economic lesson... raise capital gains to 43% will do what?

[struth]

We didn’t have this debt until Reagan slashed taxes without adjusting spending

Are you kidding me? We started gaining debt over a century ago. U.S. National Debt by Year

Reagan keep the Debt/GDP ratio around 40% range, which was consistent since the New Deal. The largest part of the problem is that we have more and more people, and more and more of the "Great Society" programs expanding.

But overrall...you can see we didn't really have a debt issue prior to taxing income.

 

[struth]

We taxed income in 1913. The debt didn't really start until Reagan.

That's totally untrue...the debt under Reagan as a percentage of GDP under Regan was consistent since the New Deal.....around 40 percent- 50 percent range.

It's blown up since then, really this century, where it's now over 100 percent.

 

[pknopp]

Are you kidding me? We started gaining debt over a century ago. U.S. National Debt by Year

Reagan keep the Debt/GDP ratio around 40% range, which was consistent since the New Deal. The largest part of the problem is that we have more and more people, and more and more of the "Great Society" programs expanding.

But overrall...you can see we didn't really have a debt issue prior to taxing income.

Lincoln paid for the Civil War by enacting an income tax. Too bad we quit paying for them.

 

[pknopp]

That's totally untrue...the debt under Reagan as a percentage of GDP under Regan was consistent since the New Deal.....around 40 percent- 50 percent range.

It's blown up since then, really this century, where it's now over 100 percent.

GDP includes what we create out of nothing. We weren't doing anything like that during the New Deal.

 

[struth]

Lincoln paid for the Civil War by enacting an income tax. Too bad we quit paying for them.

yeah of a flat tax of 3 percent. Maybe that’s what we should do. It was also repealed a few years later. To bad Govt stopped doing that sort of thing.

The problem now though is we have Govt doing so much more, entitlements are the largest driver of debt and will continue to be until reformed. Clearly as you noted “progressive” rates on income aren’t paying for it

 

[struth]

GDP includes what we create out of nothing. We weren't doing anything like that during the New Deal.

huh? GDP equates to gross domestic product

our debt during the new deal as a percentage of gdp was in the same range during the new deal as it was during reagan’s years

 

[bripat9643]

Lincoln paid for the Civil War by enacting an income tax. Too bad we quit paying for them.

Hmmm, no. It's too bad we passed that monstrosity again.

 

[pknopp]

huh? GDP equates to gross domestic product

our debt during the new deal as a percentage of gdp was in the same range during the new deal as it was during reagan’s years

GDP includes the wealth the Fed creates out of nothing also.

 

[struth]

GDP includes the wealth the Fed creates out of nothing also.

I am not sure I follow....give me an example of what you mean

 

[pknopp]

I am not sure I follow....give me an example of what you mean

Nominal GDP–GDP calculated at current market prices–tends to rise with the money supply, but this is not always the case.

Money the Fed simply creates out of nothing is not actually a "product" but it is counted in GDP.

What Is the Relationship Between Money Supply and GDP?

There is a two-way correlation between the total amount of money circulating in the economy and gross domestic product (GDP).

www.investopedia.com

 

[dblack]

Instead of increasing taxes, we should cut government.

Agreed. But that won't happen unless people are paying for it, in real time - not pushing the bills off on the grandchildren.

Seriously, they run all these polls asking whether people favor "single-payer", or some other kind of "universal", government-provided health care, and then tell us that more than half the country wants it. How do you think that poll would change if they question were "Would you favor state health care if your taxes went up to 40% base rate?

People will play any game as long as they think they're getting something for nothing. It's another story when they gotta pay. Balance the budget, make people pay for the government they vote for, and they will vote differently. They'll suddenly have more enthusiasm for limited government.

 

[struth]

Nominal GDP–GDP calculated at current market prices–tends to rise with the money supply, but this is not always the case.

Money the Fed simply creates out of nothing is not actually a "product" but it is counted in GDP.

What Is the Relationship Between Money Supply and GDP?

There is a two-way correlation between the total amount of money circulating in the economy and gross domestic product (GDP).

www.investopedia.com

oh Fed...as in Federal Reserve...sorry...

 

[pknopp]

Agreed. But that won't happen unless people are paying for it, in real time - not pushing the bills off on the grandchildren.

Seriously, they run all these polls asking whether people favor "single-payer", or some other kind of "universal", government-provided health care, and then tell us that more than half the country wants it. How do you think that poll would change if they question were "Would you favor state health care if your taxes went up to 40% base rate?

I've often stated that I would pay for it. Of course the rate would not be that high for me because I'm not going to pay for the 3 billion to Ukraine.

People will play any game as long as they think they're getting something for nothing. It's another story when they gotta pay. Balance the budget, make people pay for the government they vote for, and they will vote differently. They'll suddenly have more enthusiasm for limited government.

I'll pay and vote for UHC.

 

[bripat9643]

Agreed. But that won't happen unless people are paying for it, in real time - not pushing the bills off on the grandchildren.

Seriously, they run all these polls asking whether people favor "single-payer", or some other kind of "universal", government-provided health care, and then tell us that more than half the country wants it. How do you think that poll would change if they question were "Would you favor state health care if your taxes went up to 40% base rate?

People will play any game as long as they think they're getting something for nothing. It's another story when they gotta pay. Balance the budget, make people pay for the government they vote for, and they will vote differently. They'll suddenly have more enthusiasm for limited government.

Tax increases just give politicians more money to play with. They have never cut spending as an alternative to raising taxes. It should be illegal for the government to borrow money.

 

[dblack]

I've often stated that I would pay for it. Of course the rate would not be that high for me because I'm not going to pay for the 3 billion to Ukraine.


I'll pay and vote for UHC.

The point is, a lot less people would. When it's not "free".

 

[bripat9643]

I've often stated that I would pay for it. Of course the rate would not be that high for me because I'm not going to pay for the 3 billion to Ukraine.


I'll pay and vote for UHC.

I won't be paying for welfare, Social Security or Medicare, so my taxes should be out 20% of what I now pay.

 

[bripat9643]

The point is, a lot less people would. When it's not "free".

I doubt it.

 

[dblack]

It should be illegal for the government to borrow money.

That's what I'm saying. When they can't borrow money to grow government, they'll have to raise taxes. Which will make their ambitions much harder to sell to voters.

 

[dblack]

I doubt it.

Think about it. If ACA had been accompanied by the massive tax increases required to actually pay for it, it would have been DOA.

 

[pknopp]

Think about it. If ACA had been accompanied by the massive tax increases required to actually pay for it, it would have been DOA.

I would vote for UHC....I wouldn't the ACA.