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

[eohrnberger]

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.

Indeed.

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

No.

There's so much stupid, wasteful spending by the federal government, all of that needs to go first before tax hikes.

 

[Idiometer]

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.

For individuals, that type of credit scoring works, but for governments, not so much. The variables differ greatly, meaning it isn't as simple or straightforward.

 

[Lutherf]

Great. What would you cut?

Ideally, both Social Security and Medicare would be phased out in favor of private plans. The taxes currently allocable to those plans would remain in place until the debt was paid off.

 

[Idiometer]

One would be me. :shrug:

No shame in that. It's complex by design, and government likes us confused. I don't fully understand it all, either. Just enough to get myself thrown down the nearest rabbit hole.


eace

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

yes i can which is why the credit agencies lowered the US credit rating because of budget and debt concerns.

No, they actually lowered our credit rating based on congressional dysfunction, and the possibility that Congress would, at some point, fail to raise the debt limit and/or voluntarily choose to default, NOT because of any concerns over the size of the debt or our operational ability to meet our obligations.

And did the lower rating have any effect on the interest rate? Nope.

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.

Like I said above, it hasn't affected interest rates. The Fed controls those, not the market. Look at the data once in a while.

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

And yet, here I am, correcting you on a regular basis.

 

[Idiometer]

Ideally, both Social Security and Medicare would be phased out in favor of private plans. The taxes currently allocable to those plans would remain in place until the debt was paid off.

Wow. I'm sure glad you're not in charge!

 

[OrphanSlug]

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

Absolutely not. Even a mild understanding of modern economics and fiat money systems suggests “paying off the debt” via taxation would be like bombing our economy... on repeat... literally eating the very means to finish the plan and never seeing the goal realized.

 

[CriticalThought]

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.

You mean like how "these tax cuts will pay for themselves" has worked out?

 

[Moderate Right]

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

Might as well throw your money into a black hole. Until Congress gets a grip on spending there is no need to talk about this. Whenever the government receives one dollar, they spend two. Whenever the Democrats talk about raising taxes (mostly on the wealthy (but not always)) they always talk about how they are going to spend the extra revenue. They never talk about paying down the debt. And, if I remember correctly, you know as well as anyone that many on the left claim that we never have to pay back the debt and that all we ever have to do is increase the debt forever more and the economy will always grow.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Might as well throw your money into a black hole. Until Congress gets a grip on spending there is no need to talk about this. Whenever the government receives one dollar, they spend two. Whenever the Democrats talk about raising taxes (mostly on the wealthy (but not always)) they always talk about how they are going to spend the extra revenue. They never talk about paying down the debt. And, if I remember correctly, you know as well as anyone that many on the left claim that we never have to pay back the debt and that all we ever have to do is increase the debt forever more and the economy will always grow.

...a point that you have never come close to effectively countering.

 

[Media_Truth]

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

Yes, a substantial top tier tax increase. It should be over 50%. Clinton got rid of the deficit, by cutting spending, and raising the top tier to over 40%. Interest payments are higher now, and it will need to be raised higher.

 

[Media_Truth]

Ideally, both Social Security and Medicare would be phased out in favor of private plans. The taxes currently allocable to those plans would remain in place until the debt was paid off.

The typical Republican response after promoting policies which widened income gaps for years and years. Now you want to steal the money that all Americans paid into these plans.

 

[OrphanSlug]

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

Very little of what you said has any economic merit or market reality.

Government spending is part of the math that makes up GDP, said another way government spending is a functional part of the economy.

In principle government spending levels should be about dealing with the amplitude of the economic cycle as a means to stabilize aggregate demand. Government spending should go up as a percentage of GDP to handle aggregate demand faults during economic difficulties, and it should diminish as a percentage of GDP when the economy is in a better condition. Reversing this under your plan is a recipe for making recessions hurt worse taking longer to recover from and economic good times experience an unnecessary spending caused bubble.

What should guide sustainable growth trend lines with an eye on why the economic cycle exists in the first place is government spending being a means to help why we are where we are.

Taxation on the other hand will have a link to GDP, which has the potential of causing a vicious cycle when removing portions of Private Consumption and Gross Investment for taxation irregardless of where we are in the economic cycle, as both elements are part of the math that makes up GDP as well and also speaks to aggregate demand.

Which brings me to a point about taxation and spending together, by relationship that tells us the condition of the budget in terms of surplus to deficit.

To "incentivize growth" means to protect aggregate demand, what government taxes and what government spends has impact to aggregate demand. If those levels are handled poorly they could make the reasons for an unhealthy economy amplify. If an unhealthy economy slows down GDP growth, or worse shows recession, then trying to tie spending to a depressed GDP number intentionally handcuffs the one part of the GDP math that could stabilize aggregate demand harming future tax revenues.

Using higher taxation on consumers and businesses to handle "paying down the national debt" or alternatively linking spending to GDP ultimately harms GDP itself, across all 4 elements that mathematically make up GDP, all because these suggestions discard the condition of aggregate demand.

The only place you and I agree is continuing resolutions, but even then it is for different reasons. I am not after passing budgets as a means to restrict spending to GDP, that is economic suicide.

I am after passing budgets that have government taxation and spending reason for where we are in the economic cycle.

 

[chuckiechan]

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

No. Its too big. They only way out is increased productivity and long term inflation. The more employment the less we spend on social services, and as the years march on, the baby boomers now in retirement will die off.

 

[btthegreat]

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

YES. I definitely would pay more taxesas part of a three prong approach, including some cuts in both domestic and military spending. We are responsible for the debt, not our kids or grandkids.

 

[Eriech]

Very little of what you said has any economic merit or market reality.

Government spending is part of the math that makes up GDP, said another way government spending is a functional part of the economy.

In principle government spending levels should be about dealing with the amplitude of the economic cycle as a means to stabilize aggregate demand. Government spending should go up as a percentage of GDP to handle aggregate demand faults during economic difficulties, and it should diminish as a percentage of GDP when the economy is in a better condition. Reversing this under your plan is a recipe for making recessions hurt worse taking longer to recover from and economic good times experience an unnecessary spending caused bubble.

What should guide sustainable growth trend lines with an eye on why the economic cycle exists in the first place is government spending being a means to help why we are where we are.

Taxation on the other hand will have a link to GDP, which has the potential of causing a vicious cycle when removing portions of Private Consumption and Gross Investment for taxation irregardless of where we are in the economic cycle, as both elements are part of the math that makes up GDP as well and also speaks to aggregate demand.

Which brings me to a point about taxation and spending together, by relationship that tells us the condition of the budget in terms of surplus to deficit.

To "incentivize growth" means to protect aggregate demand, what government taxes and what government spends has impact to aggregate demand. If those levels are handled poorly they could make the reasons for an unhealthy economy amplify. If an unhealthy economy slows down GDP growth, or worse shows recession, then trying to tie spending to a depressed GDP number intentionally handcuffs the one part of the GDP math that could stabilize aggregate demand harming future tax revenues.

Using higher taxation on consumers and businesses to handle "paying down the national debt" or alternatively linking spending to GDP ultimately harms GDP itself, across all 4 elements that mathematically make up GDP, all because these suggestions discard the condition of aggregate demand.

The only place you and I agree is continuing resolutions, but even then it is for different reasons. I am not after passing budgets as a means to restrict spending to GDP, that is economic suicide.

I am after passing budgets that have government taxation and spending reason for where we are in the economic cycle.

Government spending is a net zero. It can redistribute but can not add.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[Sabre]

The typical Republican response after promoting policies which widened income gaps for years and years. Now you want to steal the money that all Americans paid into these plans.

Which party moved Social Security funds form a private trust to public funds?
Which party stopped tax deductions for Social Security payments?
Which party started giving Social Security money to immigrants who had not paid into it?

A. Democrats
or
B.Democrats

 

[washunut]

Yes, a substantial top tier tax increase. It should be over 50%. Clinton got rid of the deficit, by cutting spending, and raising the top tier to over 40%. Interest payments are higher now, and it will need to be raised higher.

So unless you are a top tier taxpayer your answer is no you would not pay more taxes.

 

[Media_Truth]

So unless you are a top tier taxpayer your answer is no you would not pay more taxes.

I pay top tier taxes on some of my income. The top tier has historically been a much higher percentage than it is today. The Reagan years changed that, and the gap between the rich and poor/middle class has been expanding ever since then.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Government spending is a net zero. It can redistribute but can not add.

Tax receipts redistribute. But deficit spending adds.

Treasury sells bonds; private sector buys bonds; government spends the proceeds right back into the private sector. The net result is an addition of bonds (which are held as assets), plus an increase in aggregate demand, plus any knock-on effects of secondary and tertiary spending. No private sector assets are used or tied up in those transactions.

 

[Media_Truth]

Which party moved Social Security funds form a private trust to public funds?
Which party stopped tax deductions for Social Security payments?
Which party started giving Social Security money to immigrants who had not paid into it?

A. Democrats
or
B.Democrats

I see no links, just assertions. Social Security is still under modification from the Social Security Act of 1983. Those born 1955 and after won't be eligible for benefits until they're 66. Those folks would have been eligible in 2020. Now they have to wait until 2021. A 2nd adjustment occurs a few years after that. Republicans want to remodify a system that's already under modification, and then give huge tax cuts to billionaires.

 

[Bullseye]

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

Been tried before, usually increasing taxes decrease revenues. Lowering rates increases revenues. Counterintuitive but true.

 

[Bullseye]

I prefer cutting wasteful spending to bring down the debt.

I "liked" this post because I'm an advocate for low spending. However - there's always a "however" - 65% of our spending is mandatory - entitlements, debt service. So we only have 35% to find cuts in. That's about $1.4 trillion. So where do we cut?

 

[Media_Truth]

Been tried before, usually increasing taxes decrease revenues. Lowering rates increases revenues. Counterintuitive but true.

That's nothing but a contributing author's comments. Bill Clinton raised the top-tier tax rates, presided over a vibrant economy, and created a negative deficit. He is the only president in modern times to achieve this. Contrast this with his successor who lowered tax rates, brought us into the worst recession since the Great Depression, and created a huge budget deficit.

 

[Lakryte]

Been tried before, usually increasing taxes decrease revenues. Lowering rates increases revenues. Counterintuitive but true.

That must be why corporate tax cuts resulted in a 30% decline in corporate tax revenue...