Would you support increasing taxes to pay down the national debt?

[Joecool44]

Simple question. Everyone loves to complain about the national debt, but who here would actually support a tax increase to pay it off?

How about congress decrease spending to pay down that debt? You know, like real people who have to pay off their own debts? They don't get to just take it from others. They need to decrease spending and use that money to pay it down.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Does anybody in this thread understand what "paying off the debt" actually means?

 

[ludin]

Simple question. Everyone loves to complain about the national debt, but who here would actually support a tax increase to pay it off?

more taxes just equals more spending.
unless government cuts it's spending it doesn't matter what the tax rate is.

and when i mean cut spending i mean < the year it was before.

 

[Sampson Simpson]

On the rich. And there needs to be a % cut in most government programs. Can't be too drastic as it will have a bad effect on the economy. Most people are barely getting by, let alone need to pay more in taxes.

And a serious decline in military. Cut some foreign bases

 

[ludin]

On the rich. And there needs to be a % cut in most government programs. Can't be too drastic as it will have a bad effect on the economy. Most people are barely getting by, let alone need to pay more in taxes.

And a serious decline in military. Cut some foreign bases

soak the rich taxes have proven themselves not to work and actually cause more harm than good.
yet this will forever be the mantra of the left no matter how many times it fails.

 

[ludin]

Does anybody in this thread understand what "paying off the debt" actually means?

Yes it means a healthier economy a healthier and a more responsible government.
it also means more buying power and people have more faith that the government is acting responsibly.

 

[Kushinator]

Yes it means a healthier economy a healthier and a more responsible government.
it also means more buying power and people have more faith that the government is acting responsibly.

Maybe to you.

But do tell, what happens when we begin to curtail government spending? That's right, such policy is considered fiscal tightening, and it will have a meaningful impact on aggregate demand. It's why Republicans in Congress chose to punt (fumble) when it actually came to reducing spending. If anyone really wants to address the deficit and reduce debt as a percentage of GDP, then we need policies in place that keep spending growth below output growth. However... we're in a bit of a pickle now. The odds of a recession continue to mount for 2020, and there will be $1 trillion + deficits as far as the eye can see. We are not going to be able to both address debt and deal with the immediate impact of an economic downturn.

The smart play would have been to address deficits the past two years... not grow them.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Yes it means a healthier economy a healthier and a more responsible government.
it also means more buying power and people have more faith that the government is acting responsibly.

I was referring to the question I asked a little earlier. When you say "pay down the debt," do you mean reducing total government liabilities (bonds + reserves + cash), or simply replacing bonds with cash (which would reduce what we call "the debt")?

And if you are referring to reducing total government liabilities via a federal budget surplus, how do you plan to do that without destroying aggregate demand?

 

[ludin]

Maybe to you.

But do tell, what happens when we begin to curtail government spending? That's right, such policy is considered fiscal tightening, and it will have a meaningful impact on aggregate demand. It's why Republicans in Congress chose to punt (fumble) when it actually came to reducing spending. If anyone really wants to address the deficit and reduce debt as a percentage of GDP, then we need policies in place that keep spending growth below output growth. However... we're in a bit of a pickle now. The odds of a recession continue to mount for 2020, and there will be $1 trillion + deficits as far as the eye can see. We are not going to be able to both address debt and deal with the immediate impact of an economic downturn.

The smart play would have been to address deficits the past two years... not grow them.

No pretty much to everyone.

a government propped up economy is not a stable economy. in fact it is a sick economy. if your economy continues to rely on massive amounts of government cash then you are in major
trouble regardless. No republicans and democrats punt because they want to complain but don't have the balls to do what it takes to cut back on actual government spending.

then they need to cut back on spending now to reduce the deficit but we know pelosi won't do that.

 

[ludin]

I was referring to the question I asked a little earlier. When you say "pay down the debt," do you mean reducing total government liabilities (bonds + reserves + cash), or simply replacing bonds with cash (which would reduce what we call "the debt")?

And if you are referring to reducing total government liabilities via a federal budget surplus, how do you plan to do that without destroying aggregate demand?

if your economy depends on massive amounts of government borrowed cash you are screwed.
the economy can and should function independent from massive amounts of borrow cash.

that is how a healthy economy works.
the issue is that government is not spending within it's means.

IE it is spending about 1 trillion more than it takes end.
the 2nd issue is what exactly is it being spent on and how much waste is there.

https://www.businesswire.com/news/h...ent-Waste-Releases-3.1-Trillion-Waste-Cutting

we can start there and work forward. in 5 years we can lower the debt by 2.1T dollars, but corrupt government officials don't have the balls to do it.
in 10 years lower the debt by 4.2T dollars or so.

the current debt is 22 trillion. that would put it down to 18 trillion. it is a start.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

if your economy depends on massive amounts of government borrowed cash you are screwed.
the economy can and should function independent from massive amounts of borrow cash.

ALL cash is credit. Any money you have in your bank account exists because of either an existing private sector loan or a government liability. So if your economy depends on money (and it does), then it also depends on debt.

that is how a healthy economy works.
the issue is that government is not spending within it's means.

IE it is spending about 1 trillion more than it takes end.
the 2nd issue is what exactly is it being spent on and how much waste is there.

https://www.businesswire.com/news/h...ent-Waste-Releases-3.1-Trillion-Waste-Cutting

we can start there and work forward. in 5 years we can lower the debt by 2.1T dollars, but corrupt government officials don't have the balls to do it.
in 10 years lower the debt by 4.2T dollars or so.

the current debt is 22 trillion. that would put it down to 18 trillion. it is a start.

1. Can you demonstrate that the debt is even harmful to the economy?

2. GDP = C + G + I + (X - M). Since the government (when not in surplus) spends every cent that it takes in, but consumers don't spend every cent that they earn (and wouldn't spend 100% of their tax savings, either), the only logical conclusion that one can come to regarding taxes and the GDP equation is that lowering or eliminating G would, all else being equal, lower GDP itself. How does that make the economy stronger?

3. The debt is in the hands of banks, China, pension funds, various rich guys, etc., while taxation would come primarily from income taxes - money coming out of the active economy. How do you plan on eliminating the debt when you can't reach these bondholders through taxation?

 

[Kushinator]

the current debt is 22 trillion. that would put it down to 18 trillion. it is a start.

Rethink that statement after you review the differences between deficits and debt.

A $460 billion 1 year deficit reduction policy would push us into recession... Further exacerbating out current fiscal issues.

 

[ludin]

ALL cash is credit. Any money you have in your bank account exists because of either an existing private sector loan or a government liability. So if your economy depends on money (and it does), then it also depends on debt.



1. Can you demonstrate that the debt is even harmful to the economy?

2. GDP = C + G + I + (X - M). Since the government (when not in surplus) spends every cent that it takes in, but consumers don't spend every cent that they earn (and wouldn't spend 100% of their tax savings, either), the only logical conclusion that one can come to regarding taxes and the GDP equation is that lowering or eliminating G would, all else being equal, lower GDP itself. How does that make the economy stronger?

3. The debt is in the hands of banks, China, pension funds, various rich guys, etc., while taxation would come primarily from income taxes - money coming out of the active economy. How do you plan on eliminating the debt when you can't reach these bondholders through taxation?

yes i can which is why the credit agencies lowered the US credit rating because of budget and debt concerns.
high amounts of debt means that people begin to question your ability to pay. that results in a lower buying power and higher interest
rates.

for someone that is supposed to be all knowing about this stuff you sure don't know that much.

 

[ludin]

Rethink that statement after you review the differences between deficits and debt.

A $460 billion 1 year deficit reduction policy would push us into recession... Further exacerbating out current fiscal issues.

yes you need to go back and read. i do know the differences between deficits and debt.
no it wouldn't because that 460b is wasted money. that is what the government wastes in a year.

if you wouldn't be so dishonest and quote my post then you would have realized this already.

from the article that you ignored.

Total savings from Prime Cuts 2018 are $429.8 billion in the first year and $3.1 trillion over five years.

 

[Eriech]

No, tie spending to a percent of GDP. 17 % would be a good start IMO. Even 20 would be an improvement. Incentivize growth. Get back to a budget; no more continuing resolutions.
Raising taxes would do nothing for the deficit.


Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[Idiometer]

I think we should cut taxes so that the deficit will explode.

There's not enough popcorn in the universe.

opcorn2:

 

[Idiometer]

I opposed Trump's tax cuts, the deficit and national debt being the main reason. To get a handle on the national debt, I doubt we ever will. To get that handles a combination of tax increases and spending cuts is needed. Just one or the other won't work.

So yes, I fully would support a tax increase as long as it was joined with real spending cuts. I mean real spending cuts, not this if my department was scheduled for a 10% increase over last year, but my department get a 5% increase. That isn't a spending cut although it sure would be portrayed big time as a 5% cut. A real spending cut would be if my department received 5% less money than it did the year before. That would be a real 5% cut and not the phony 5% cut from 10% scheduled increase down to 5%. That in reality is a 5% increase in spending.

"Hold on there, son ... mah head is spinnin' ... is that one o' them thar "storie problems" teacher gave us back in grade school?"

Seriously, man, don't confuse things with math. I'm not sure this is a good audience for that.

:doh

 

[Idiometer]

No. But I'd be happy to cut federal spending to the point where the debt could be paid back in 20 years.

Great. What would you cut?

 

[Idiometer]

.


Note - this question goes for everybody on this thread, not just Luther.



Are you talking about extinguishing all government liabilities (bonds + reserves + cash), or replacing all outstanding bonds with reserves and/or cash (which would eliminate what we call "the debt")?

Knowing as many different types of people as I do, I'm guessing that most Americans don't really have a clear grasp of what our debt consists of, or who we owe.

 

[Superfly]

Simple question. Everyone loves to complain about the national debt, but who here would actually support a tax increase to pay it off?

Would depend on what is causing the debt. I wouldn't support a tax increase, for instance, to allow Trump to play golf three or four times a month (and in some instances, three or four times a week). I would not support a tax increase to pay for a vanity wall.

I would support a tax increase to help social programs, improve infrastructure, boost school lunches, etc.

Not 100% certain of what is tied in to the national debt, so my answers are based on my limited knowledge.

 

[Superfly]

Knowing as many different types of people as I do, I'm guessing that most Americans don't really have a clear grasp of what our debt consists of, or who we owe.

One would be me. :shrug:

 

[Idiometer]

End corporate welfare programs for one. For example? Get rid of farm subsidies for "million dollar" farm businesses. The major producers (top 10%) received 77% of all covered commodity subsidies between 1995 and 2016. They certainly don't need the boost, subsidies should be reserved for small family farms and local farm combines. Then there are Oil subsidies, and other business subsidies that could be pared down if not eliminated.

Then there is all that government printing, maintenance of empty government buildings, and why do we need so many damn pennies?

Here is a list of 24 things government wastes money on:

24 Stupidest Things the U.S. Government Spends Money On

Then there are always pork-barrel riders on most government bills.

Okay, first of all, 19. Flying Monkey Poop. -- priceless!

:lamo

Next, 12. Cow Methane Gas Emissions Burps -- Methane is a major green house gas. Studying the properties of animal-produced methane is important for tracking the levels in our atmosphere and their percentage of overall methane emmissions. It's legitimate climate science.

Also, 16. Vacant Green Energy Upgrades -- also legitimate. Large, unused structures are great laboratories for studying and increasing the efficiency of solar and bio energy.

But really, what the eff is the monkey poop study going to tell them? Are they maybe doing some kind of velocity and flight pattern test? Who needs monkeys for that?

:hitsfan:

 

[haymarket]

Simple question. Everyone loves to complain about the national debt, but who here would actually support a tax increase to pay it off?

I have long advocated for two things regarding taxes:
1- every American who earns dollar one should have their rate increased five points across the board.
2- pop the cap on FICA taxes and have everyone paying the same percentage on all money going into their pocket or account

 

[noonereal]

Simple question. Everyone loves to complain about the national debt, but who here would actually support a tax increase to pay it off?

Of course, I am a responsible American.

 

[Idiometer]

Maybe to you.

But do tell, what happens when we begin to curtail government spending? That's right, such policy is considered fiscal tightening, and it will have a meaningful impact on aggregate demand. It's why Republicans in Congress chose to punt (fumble) when it actually came to reducing spending. If anyone really wants to address the deficit and reduce debt as a percentage of GDP, then we need policies in place that keep spending growth below output growth. However... we're in a bit of a pickle now. The odds of a recession continue to mount for 2020, and there will be $1 trillion + deficits as far as the eye can see. We are not going to be able to both address debt and deal with the immediate impact of an economic downturn.

The smart play would have been to address deficits the past two years... not grow them.

Nicely put.

Howver, I find your avatar to be deeply disturbing. Get help.

:wink2: