Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I think most people agree that the federal government cannot continue spending substantially more than it takes in year after year without serious economic repercussions.
If nothing else, the inevitable return to normal interest rates will become a deficit monster even if the rest of the budget was balanced. (5% of $20 trillion is $1 trillion per year.)
The only ways to reverse this course are to limit spending and increase revenues.
If nothing else, the inevitable return to normal interest rates will become a deficit monster even if the rest of the budget was balanced. (5% of $20 trillion is $1 trillion per year.)
The only ways to reverse this course are to limit spending and increase revenues.
I think most people agree that the federal government cannot continue spending substantially more than it takes in year after year without serious economic repercussions. If nothing else, the inevitable return to normal interest rates will become a deficit monster even if the rest of the budget was balanced. (5% of $20 trillion is $1 trillion per year.)
The only ways to reverse this course are to limit spending and increase revenues. The former poses questions of fairness and priorities, but the latter should only be a question of how to maximize long term net revenues (adding other considerations only serves to defeat this purpose).
Spending is determined by two factors: Per capita increases in spending levels (e.g., COLAs) and the numbers of people/programs receiving the outlays. The fairest way to limit spending is to limit (or temporarily eliminate) per capita increases in outlays, because it spreads the burden over the largest number of people and programs. Once this is accomplished, additional priority adjustments could be made on a zero sum basis.
Maximizing long term net revenues is also determined by two factors: Tax structure and regulatory policies. On the income side of the equation, the federal tax structure should only be concerned with determining optimum sustained revenue streams using legitimate economic principles (e.g., Laffer Curve). On the expense side, regulatory policies should place their highest priority on expanding and maintaining private sector employment, since this is the most efficient way of turning tax eaters into tax payers.
It seems to me that these approaches would lessen the current political Balkinization that has prevented any serious budgetary reform. If voters' attention was refocused on a common goal of avoiding impending economic disaster (rather than their immediate special interests), we might be able to restore prosperity to our country.
Thoughts/comments?
Quit trying to cut taxes when we already have deficits. Over 40% of our total debt was accumulated over seven years under Bush and Obama when tax revenues were below 17% of GDP. In a number of those years, tax revenues were below 16% of GDP.
Quit trying to cut taxes when we already have deficits. Over 40% of our total debt was accumulated over seven years under Bush and Obama when tax revenues were below 17% of GDP. In a number of those years, tax revenues were below 16% of GDP.
This sounds like the Herbert Hoover school of economics. OF COURSE tax revenues go down during a serious recession; the point is to encourage economic growth, not stifle it. Static analyses of changes in tax policy are always wrong because they ignore the fact that companies and individuals adjust their behavior in response to these changes. In most cases, tax revenues go up when tax rates go down.
The principal goal of our tax policy should be to maximize private sector job creation, which would increase the number of tax payers and reduce the number of tax eaters. This is the only way we can reverse the trajectory of our exploding national debt.
Quit trying to cut taxes when we already have deficits. Over 40% of our total debt was accumulated over seven years under Bush and Obama when tax revenues were below 17% of GDP. In a number of those years, tax revenues were below 16% of GDP.
This sounds like the Herbert Hoover school of economics. OF COURSE tax revenues go down during a serious recession; the point is to encourage economic growth, not stifle it. Static analyses of changes in tax policy are always wrong because they ignore the fact that companies and individuals adjust their behavior in response to these changes. In most cases, tax revenues go up when tax rates go down.
The principal goal of our tax policy should be to maximize private sector job creation, which would increase the number of tax payers and reduce the number of tax eaters. This is the only way we can reverse the trajectory of our exploding national debt.
??? The principal goal of tax policy should be to fund government operations, not to create jobs, not to motivate behavior. The end of maximizing job creation is the task of innovation in the creation and distribution of goods and services. The profit motive is the reason for innovating and that should be more than adequate for spurring job growth. If the area in which one wants to innovate won't yield enough profit, one should consider other areas.
An endeavor needs to be profitable first, and if it is, it will result in job creation. The income generated from the profitable activity can then be taxed to produce revenue to fund the government. The fact is that there is no such thing in my mind as taxes being an impediment to profitable activity because if an activity is profitable, the taxes paid on those profits are never the majority of the profits. If the profits remaining after taxes are insufficient to sustain one, one has chosen to pursue an enterprise that one either is (1) too inefficient at it, or (2) a poor judge of profit potential. Either way, one should exist the industry and choose to do something else.
In our Entitlement Society, most of the cost of "funding government operations" is determined by the number of individuals receiving these entitlements. Therefore, reducing this number is just as important a factor in tax policy as are tax rates themselves. (The fact that income tax rates and revenues have been inversely proportional further underscores this point.)
You assertion that tax policy and economic activity are (or should be) unrelated is completely unrealistic, as well as inaccurate. Why do you think jobs and factories migrate to States and countries with more favorable tax policies?
I guess strictly speaking, SSI and Medicare are entitlements, but they are ones for which a great many recipients worked to receive. The personally focused, pure and simple, handouts amount to ~$140 billion.
In our Entitlement Society, most of the cost of "funding government operations" is determined by the number of individuals receiving these entitlements. Therefore, reducing this number is just as important a factor in tax policy as are tax rates themselves. (The fact that income tax rates and revenues have been inversely proportional further underscores this point.)
You assertion that tax policy and economic activity are (or should be) unrelated is completely unrealistic, as well as inaccurate. Why do you think jobs and factories migrate to States and countries with more favorable tax policies?
I guess strictly speaking, SSI and Medicare are entitlements, but they are ones for which a great many recipients worked to receive. The personally focused, pure and simple, handouts amount to ~$140 billion.
Could the mix of spending be shuffled to put more "here" and less "there?" Of course. That said, I don't see $140 billion, in the scheme of things, as militating for calling our country an "entitlement society."
Red:
I will accept (because I haven't looked into it) that the rates are inversely proportioned as you say. I won't accept without evidence that their being so reflects anything beyond a circumstantial observation. Just so I can be sure to examine the right things, whose revenues do you mean? Government's, individuals, private sector businesses/non-profits, all of them or some combination thereof?
Blue:
The ones who are my clients and who've actually moved their production operations abroad did so because the cost of labor plus transportation plus was lower in the "moved to" countries than it was in U.S. The tax rates on domestically earned profits were not a controlling factor in the ROI "do or don't do" decision. There's no denying that after making the central business decision based on a legitimate business case, they took advantage of available tax minimization strategies. Indeed, the revised tax position (be it positive or negative) was without exception included in the business case, but the tax opportunities were in none of those cases the driver.
I do have a few clients for whom the sole purpose of our engagements have been to take advantage of technology to implement one or several tax minimization tactics. On the most effectual of those projects, the client has been realizing a net tax savings of about $70 million per year, but the taxes involved aren't federal taxes. Most critically to this discussion, however, the "movements" the clients undertake are all within the U.S.
Check your chart. The pertinent number is $2.45 trillion.
