CBO: Debt could double GDP by 2037

[DiamondDave]

The soluation is easy but the stupit libruls won't let us do it - eliminate all taxes on anyone making more than 100k a year and jack them up to 50% for everyone making less.

Ensure nobody is exempt from income tax.. have everyone paying the exact same rate on every dollar earned with zero exceptions...

Uhh, how is that fair? If person A makes twice as much money as person B, you would have person A pay twice as much tax? Why do you want to penalize their success? That will kill jobs! We need it to be the opposite, so as to incentivize people to earn more! Here is my proposal

$1000 annual income or less - you pay $1,000,000 in income tax
$1001-$10,000 in income - you pay $100,000 in income tax
$10,001-$100,000 in income - you pay $10,000 in income tax
$100,001-$1,000,000 in income - you pay $1,000 in income tax
$1,000,001-$10,000,000 in income - you pay $100 in income tax
$10,000,001-$100,000,000 in income - you pay $10 in income tax
$100,000,001-$1,000,000,000 in income - you pay $1 in income tax
over One billion in income you pay zero tax.

This way people will be incetivized to make more money! We punish people for NOT being productive! And the job creators won't have their productivity stifled by a burdensome big government tax.

And of course.. OBJECTIVE FAIRNESS rears it's ugly head, even in your feeble attempt at facetious humor.... the very thing that got us in a lot of trouble to begin with...

You want unequal treatment by government under law, then I guess you would not argue if it were done in differing circumstances when it is not advantageous to you??

 

[Polk]

But.. but.. but.. We don't have a spending problem

That's easy to fix. Eliminate social security, medicare, pell grants, medicaid, etc. All of it. Just stop paying social security those stupid beneficiaries were dumb to think it would ever pay out anyway.

I really hope you can convince Romney to make that the centerpiece of his campaign.

 

[onecut39]

But.. but.. but.. We don't have a spending problem

That's easy to fix. Eliminate social security, medicare, pell grants, medicaid, etc. All of it. Just stop paying social security those stupid beneficiaries were dumb to think it would ever pay out anyway.

Social security has never added one penny to the debt!

 

[SniperFire]

The soluation is easy but the stupit libruls won't let us do it - eliminate all taxes on anyone making more than 100k a year and jack them up to 50% for everyone making less.

You mean..... actually require the people who consume most of the free gubmint services to actually PAY for them?


Dang. You should run for office!

YES! The people who need government assistance should be the one to pay for it! Why don't the stupeet libruls get this? You need food stamps to feed your children, fine, but we're going to pay for it by taxing you.

Take someone who makes $20,000 a year and has 4 children. Currently they pay ZERO in taxes, yet they are eligible for food stamps. What we should do is take $30,000 a year in taxes from them. That will cover their food stamps and incentivize them to earn more.


Why can't the libruls understand that the needy should just pay for their needs?

Indeed!

You suck at math, but are on the right track!!

 

[Polk]

But.. but.. but.. We don't have a spending problem

We don't. We have a revenue problem. Even with the draconic spending cuts Romney is proposing, the deficit would still be around a trillion dollars a year.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Ensure nobody is exempt from income tax.. have everyone paying the exact same rate on every dollar earned with zero exceptions...

Uhh, how is that fair? If person A makes twice as much money as person B, you would have person A pay twice as much tax? Why do you want to penalize their success? That will kill jobs! We need it to be the opposite, so as to incentivize people to earn more! Here is my proposal

$1000 annual income or less - you pay $1,000,000 in income tax
$1001-$10,000 in income - you pay $100,000 in income tax
$10,001-$100,000 in income - you pay $10,000 in income tax
$100,001-$1,000,000 in income - you pay $1,000 in income tax
$1,000,001-$10,000,000 in income - you pay $100 in income tax
$10,000,001-$100,000,000 in income - you pay $10 in income tax
$100,000,001-$1,000,000,000 in income - you pay $1 in income tax
over One billion in income you pay zero tax.

This way people will be incetivized to make more money! We punish people for NOT being productive! And the job creators won't have their productivity stifled by a burdensome big government tax.

And of course.. OBJECTIVE FAIRNESS rears it's ugly head, even in your feeble attempt at facetious humor.... the very thing that got us in a lot of trouble to begin with...

You want unequal treatment by government under law, then I guess you would not argue if it were done in differing circumstances when it is not advantageous to you??

Sorry, but how would a flat tax not punish success? If I make twice as much money as you I should have to send twice as many dollars to Big Government? I should have to send HALF the amount because I WORKED harder and should be REWARED, not PUNISHED.

I will concede there may be some practical problems with taxing someone who make $1,000 a year $1,000,000. We could probably let them pay it installments.

Its amazing to me this nation has gotten along so far with commies like you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The soluation is easy but the stupit libruls won't let us do it - eliminate all taxes on anyone making more than 100k a year and jack them up to 50% for everyone making less.

Ensure nobody is exempt from income tax.. have everyone paying the exact same rate on every dollar earned with zero exceptions...

Uhh, how is that fair? If person A makes twice as much money as person B, you would have person A pay twice as much tax? Why do you want to penalize their success? That will kill jobs! We need it to be the opposite, so as to incentivize people to earn more! Here is my proposal

$1000 annual income or less - you pay $1,000,000 in income tax
$1001-$10,000 in income - you pay $100,000 in income tax
$10,001-$100,000 in income - you pay $10,000 in income tax
$100,001-$1,000,000 in income - you pay $1,000 in income tax
$1,000,001-$10,000,000 in income - you pay $100 in income tax
$10,000,001-$100,000,000 in income - you pay $10 in income tax
$100,000,001-$1,000,000,000 in income - you pay $1 in income tax
over One billion in income you pay zero tax.

This way people will be incetivized to make more money! We punish people for NOT being productive! And the job creators won't have their productivity stifled by a burdensome big government tax.

Judging by what you seem to feel passes for humor, you know even less about history than you do about science....

The provenance of our problem lies at the feet of the Progressives, those who have provided the unsustainable entitlements....

1. The essence and impetus of FDR can be found in his Second Bill of Rights speech, in which he propounded the following rights:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.

a. As citizens were awarded these ‘rights’ by FDR, he fully conceived of an obligation of citizens to pay all of the taxes necessary to provide these ‘rights.’

b. The Founders saw rights as God-given, and without imposition on others, i.e., speech. Clearly, the above are not rights, but are entitlements.

2. The huge tax burden necessary to provide the ‘rights’ and fund federal welfare programs can be laid at the feet of the New Deal.
Before 1940, only 5% of Americans paid any income tax, and the maximum was 25%. By the end of WWII, 2/3 of American families paid income tax- and it started at 24%, with a $500 exemption.

a. It went up to 94% over $200k. So, if one earned $300k, one kept only $6000 of the last $100k.

b. Withholding was re-introduced so the government got the money immediately. (Had been repealed in 1916.)

3. The attitude of the FDR government can be seen in these words of A.B. “Happy” Chandler, a former Kentucky governor: “[A]ll of us owe the government; we owe it for everything we have—and that is the basis of obligation—and the government can take everything we have if the government needs it. . . . The government can assert its right to have all the taxes it needs for any purpose, either now or at any time in the future.”
This from "FDR Goes To War," Folsom and Folsom


A dolt such as yourself probably doesn't realize that what he is endorsing is the end of private property.

You agree to that, don't you, tovarich?

 

[DiamondDave]

The soluation is easy but the stupit libruls won't let us do it - eliminate all taxes on anyone making more than 100k a year and jack them up to 50% for everyone making less.

Ensure nobody is exempt from income tax.. have everyone paying the exact same rate on every dollar earned with zero exceptions... tax all income the same regardless of source.. eliminate all loopholes, etc... start cutting spending immediately on redundant agencies and programs, audit government contracts and stop paying on those that do not live up to the contract, start the elimination of federal welfare programs across the board (corp and personal) and continue the efforts in the upcoming years to cut spending even more in the areas that the federal government is operating in but has no constitutional authority to do so... hell, start reducing the IRS and the associated spending because with a simple tax code, you have no need for a huge agency... pass a balanced budget amendment where the government is not allowed to budget or spend more than the previous year's receipts

There is a reasonable start that we can improve from

What % would you set that flat rate at?

Hey.. a reasonable question for debate.... Thank you

That would have to be determined, wouldn't it?? Depending on budget levels, tax paying (earning) population, etc.... but let's just say for shits and giggles, it starts at 20% in our current situation.. and as spending is cut, debt starts getting paid etc, calculations show it could then be reduced to 18%... or maybe calculations show that two years down the road, the need is 22% because of a war effort or whatever... but with everyone actually having a stake in the game, I honestly believe you would have much more critical attention paid to what government spends on and how much, and how government tries to expand

 

[Polk]

We're already pushing 102% national debt to GDP. So federal debt is now pushing 70% of that 102%?

There are two ways to measure that and I am not sure I understand the difference, because clearly our National debt equals annual GDP right now. But they measure it thusly:

Perhaps somebody who knows the diff can weigh in.

Probably depends on whether or not they include intra-governmental obligations, like social security.

I think its more appropriate to include those debts. If social security is truly a debt owed to its beneficiaries, then its a real debt.

One might also choose to include or not to include assets of the federal reserve.

And (I think) the USPS is budgeted separately. Its supposed to break even every year.

If you do include "debts" to Social Security, then you've also got to realize talking about Social Security cuts being necessary because it's going to "run out of money" is a nonsense claim.

 

[DiamondDave]

But.. but.. but.. We don't have a spending problem

We don't. We have a revenue problem. Even with the draconic spending cuts Romney is proposing, the deficit would still be around a trillion dollars a year.

Completely FALSE.... our spending in government is at OUTRAGEOUS levels...

How much is enough to pay in taxes rather than keeping your earnings?? 50%? 60%? 70%? How many more taxes are needed on all sorts of things?? National sales tax on top of everything we have now?? Taxes on eyedrops?? Taxes on eating meat??

Sorry Charlie.. government size and amount of spending is out of control.. and it is what needs to be cut to reign in our debt problem

 

[SniperFire]

There are two ways to measure that and I am not sure I understand the difference, because clearly our National debt equals annual GDP right now. But they measure it thusly:

Perhaps somebody who knows the diff can weigh in.

Probably depends on whether or not they include intra-governmental obligations, like social security.

I think its more appropriate to include those debts. If social security is truly a debt owed to its beneficiaries, then its a real debt.

One might also choose to include or not to include assets of the federal reserve.

And (I think) the USPS is budgeted separately. Its supposed to break even every year.

If you do include "debts" to Social Security, then you've also got to realize talking about Social Security cuts being necessary because it's going to "run out of money" is a nonsense claim.

'As recently as October, CBO was projecting that it would be 2016 before outlays regularly exceed revenues. But Social Security’s fiscal troubles are more severe than was thought, and the latest projections show the permanent deficits started several years ahead of earlier predictions.

Don’t be confused by the fact that the trust funds are projected to continue growing for several more years. That’s because Treasury must still credit interest payments to the funds on the borrowings from earlier years. But unless taxes are increased or other spending is cut severely, the government will have to borrow from the public to pay the interest that it owes to the trust funds.

And don’t be misled by those who say the system can pay full benefits until about 2037 without making any changes to the law. That’s true, but does not change the fact that Social Security taxes no longer cover those benefits. The government is now borrowing money to pay them, and will do so every year for the foreseeable future. And keep in mind, if nothing is done, when those trust funds are exhausted, benefits would have to be cut by 22 percent in 2037, and more each year after that, according to the most recent report of the system’s trustees. By 2084, the system will generate only enough revenue to pay for 75 percent of promised benefit levels.'

FactCheck.org : Democrats Deny Social Security’s Red Ink

 

[Polk]

Also, key word in the article title: could. If you look at the projections under current law, you'd see the ratio actually declines over that time span. The problem, according to CBO, is that we're going to:

- Keep renewing the "doc fix" every year.
- the budget cuts the Republicans forced through as part of the debt ceiling deal are rolling back
- the Bush tax cuts are renewed for another 10 years
- ditto for the estate tax

 

[DiamondDave]

Uhh, how is that fair? If person A makes twice as much money as person B, you would have person A pay twice as much tax? Why do you want to penalize their success? That will kill jobs! We need it to be the opposite, so as to incentivize people to earn more! Here is my proposal

$1000 annual income or less - you pay $1,000,000 in income tax
$1001-$10,000 in income - you pay $100,000 in income tax
$10,001-$100,000 in income - you pay $10,000 in income tax
$100,001-$1,000,000 in income - you pay $1,000 in income tax
$1,000,001-$10,000,000 in income - you pay $100 in income tax
$10,000,001-$100,000,000 in income - you pay $10 in income tax
$100,000,001-$1,000,000,000 in income - you pay $1 in income tax
over One billion in income you pay zero tax.

This way people will be incetivized to make more money! We punish people for NOT being productive! And the job creators won't have their productivity stifled by a burdensome big government tax.

And of course.. OBJECTIVE FAIRNESS rears it's ugly head, even in your feeble attempt at facetious humor.... the very thing that got us in a lot of trouble to begin with...

You want unequal treatment by government under law, then I guess you would not argue if it were done in differing circumstances when it is not advantageous to you??

Sorry, but how would a flat tax not punish success? If I make twice as much money as you I should have to send twice as many dollars to Big Government? I should have to send HALF the amount because I WORKED harder and should be REWARED, not PUNISHED.

I will concede there may be some practical problems with taxing someone who make $1,000 a year $1,000,000. We could probably let them pay it installments.

Its amazing to me this nation has gotten along so far with commies like you.

Yawn...

Your feeble attempt at humor is boring me... especially in your even more feeble attempt to promote the subjective fairness agenda...

Equality in treatment, with all the positives and negatives that come with it.... that is my stance... not changing goal lines pushed by subjective whim

 

[Polk]

But.. but.. but.. We don't have a spending problem

We don't. We have a revenue problem. Even with the draconic spending cuts Romney is proposing, the deficit would still be around a trillion dollars a year.

Completely FALSE.... our spending in government is at OUTRAGEOUS levels...

How much is enough to pay in taxes rather than keeping your earnings?? 50%? 60%? 70%? How many more taxes are needed on all sorts of things?? National sales tax on top of everything we have now?? Taxes on eyedrops?? Taxes on eating meat??

Sorry Charlie.. government size and amount of spending is out of control.. and it is what needs to be cut to reign in our debt problem

The only way to reduce the debt while keeping spending constant is to have the smallest government since the end of the Second World War. That would require massive service cuts, because not only because we would need to be spending less than the post-war average, but it's at the same time as the Boomers are retiring, placing an added burden on Medicare and Social Security.

 

[RDD_1210]

Ensure nobody is exempt from income tax.. have everyone paying the exact same rate on every dollar earned with zero exceptions... tax all income the same regardless of source.. eliminate all loopholes, etc... start cutting spending immediately on redundant agencies and programs, audit government contracts and stop paying on those that do not live up to the contract, start the elimination of federal welfare programs across the board (corp and personal) and continue the efforts in the upcoming years to cut spending even more in the areas that the federal government is operating in but has no constitutional authority to do so... hell, start reducing the IRS and the associated spending because with a simple tax code, you have no need for a huge agency... pass a balanced budget amendment where the government is not allowed to budget or spend more than the previous year's receipts

There is a reasonable start that we can improve from

What % would you set that flat rate at?

Hey.. a reasonable question for debate.... Thank you

That would have to be determined, wouldn't it?? Depending on budget levels, tax paying (earning) population, etc.... but let's just say for shits and giggles, it starts at 20% in our current situation.. and as spending is cut, debt starts getting paid etc, calculations show it could then be reduced to 18%... or maybe calculations show that two years down the road, the need is 22% because of a war effort or whatever... but with everyone actually having a stake in the game, I honestly believe you would have much more critical attention paid to what government spends on and how much, and how government tries to expand

Ok so 20%. What do the millions of people do who are barely getting by now and living paycheck to paycheck and not able to save a dime do with their paychecks now 20% lower?

Do you just say tough luck to them?

 

[PoliticalChic]

But.. but.. but.. We don't have a spending problem

We don't. We have a revenue problem. Even with the draconic spending cuts Romney is proposing, the deficit would still be around a trillion dollars a year.

Really?


a. National debt $13 trillion
b. State and Local debt $2.5 trillion
c. State and Local pensions (underfunded) $3 trillion
d. Social Security $7.7 trillion*
e. Medicare $ 38 trillion*
f. Total US debt $64.2 trillion
g. Total GDP of entire world $61.0 trillion
*covers commitments for 75 years
b., c. The Other National Debt - Kevin D. Williamson - National Review Online
d., e. The 81% Tax Increase - Forbes.com
f. The Final Hour: 65 Trillion - U.S. Financial Obligations Exceed The Entire World's GDP
g. Silver: Declining supply, increasing demand | Resource Investor

 

[francoHFW]

To review: Yup, anything can happen, especially if you listen to the Pub Propaganda Machine's fear mongering gloom and doom horseshytte. And especially if you elect "nothing is too good for the greedy rich who got us in this mess" spoiled brat W clone Romney.

If you think Pubs will ACTUALLY do anything about the debt, you're nuts. But they WILL detroy Medicare, Health Reform, and anything else regular people need to survive. A never ending disaster for the non rich and the country...Pub dupes!

Romney's ACTUAL plan- Cut taxes on rich, destroy Medicare/aid, Health Reform, raise pentagon spending, cut regs on Wall St, worry about debt in 2035...BRILLIANT

Should Pubs be rewarded for putting us in this mess (WORLD DEPRESSION and dumbazz wars, huge growth of AlQaeda), and now paralyzing the gov't since 2/2010 (and they even lie about THAT)?"No compromise, un-American Tea Party GOP" (TIME).Why in the world do you vote for these disastrous, lying incompetents?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

You're like a broken record of retardation, franco.

 

[DiamondDave]

We don't. We have a revenue problem. Even with the draconic spending cuts Romney is proposing, the deficit would still be around a trillion dollars a year.

Completely FALSE.... our spending in government is at OUTRAGEOUS levels...

How much is enough to pay in taxes rather than keeping your earnings?? 50%? 60%? 70%? How many more taxes are needed on all sorts of things?? National sales tax on top of everything we have now?? Taxes on eyedrops?? Taxes on eating meat??

Sorry Charlie.. government size and amount of spending is out of control.. and it is what needs to be cut to reign in our debt problem

The only way to reduce the debt while keeping spending constant is to have the smallest government since the end of the Second World War. That would require massive service cuts, because not only because we would need to be spending less than the post-war average, but it's at the same time as the Boomers are retiring, placing an added burden on Medicare and Social Security.

And we should have much smaller government.. THAT IS EXACTLY THE FUCKING POINT.. in the past decades it has grown and gown out of the scope of reason....

Services need to be cut and put back on the people themselves... neither the government nor society are responsible for your quality of life, your every need, or being protected from everything from happy meals to whether your feelings are hurt because someone called you a poo poo head

 

[PoliticalChic]

To review: Yup, anything can happen, especially if you listen to the Pub Propaganda Machine's fear mongering gloom and doom horseshytte. And especially if you elect "nothing is too good for the greedy rich who got us in this mess" spoiled brat W clone Romney.

If you think Pubs will ACTUALLY do anything about the debt, you're nuts. But they WILL detroy Medicare, Health Reform, and anything else regular people need to survive. A never ending disaster for the non rich and the country...Pub dupes!

Romney's ACTUAL plan- Cut taxes on rich, destroy Medicare/aid, Health Reform, raise pentagon spending, cut regs on Wall St, worry about debt in 2035...BRILLIANT

Should Pubs be rewarded for putting us in this mess (WORLD DEPRESSION and dumbazz wars, huge growth of AlQaeda), and now paralyzing the gov't since 2/2010 (and they even lie about THAT)?"No compromise, un-American Tea Party GOP" (TIME).Why in the world do you vote for these disastrous, lying incompetents?

You astound me, franco....

...just when I've seen the stupidest post ever...

you reinvest a new and more daunting nadir!


The only thing that could possibly rival your post for psychiatric problems would be a copy of the DSM-IV manual.