How would you balance the US budget?

[Patroklos]

What with Congress being the ones to actually vote on budgets, I don't know how well this one would go over.

I am sure we can find some nonsalaried volunteers

Step one is to get from where we are now (huge deficits) to running a surplus, and that means both cuts in spending and tax increases

Not nessessarily. There really is no need to drastically pay back the debt in the short term. As long as we are in surplus and not gaining more debt, that alone should stimulate the economy and this increase tax revenues at current taxation levels and thus allow for more debt to be paid off.

When balancing your home budget how many of us demand a salary hike instead of cut our expenditures?

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by DanS
And they should be lower still. As gov't spending and taxation increase as a percentage of the economy, economic growth slows.

Seriously, some of you act like Uncle Sam is a cash cow ready to use for your stupid pet projects.

I'd be in favor of raising income tax - not capital gains tax - a bit in the higher brackets, but estate tax is certainly the best way to go. Basically, i'm in the boat of "Threaten to raise taxes because nobody's cutting programs; so maybe they'll cut some programs rather than actually raise taxes". Too much is simply not being done right now - infrastructure etc. - and that simply is unacceptable.

Tie that to the increasing number of people being put out of work due to technology, and you get a nice delta: put them to work using government funds to build our railroads and roads, and other important infrastructure projects that are currently underfunded.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Oerdin
VATs are extremely regressive.

Not important when food, housing, and education are exempt. (As well as saving/investment being "exempt" naturally.)

Even a grocery bagger can be a millionaire by retirement with a good investment strategy. Encouraging more people to take that route, rather than rely on social welfare programs to take care of them after they've blown their life's income on shiny crap, is the surest way to strengthen our economy long term. Look at those pies... most of it goes to people who now are in financial situations where they are reliant on government to support them.

A tax system which encourages investment will strengthen consumer's position down the road, thus relieve pressure on government (and thus taxation) to provide for them, and will bring in more money from outside as well.

Personal debt (net) is the ultimate form of regressive "tax".

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Arrian


As opposed to the apparently harmless fools who say things like "deficits don't matter?"

Pet projects are fine when they're military interventions, right?

Step one is to get from where we are now (huge deficits) to running a surplus, and that means both cuts in spending and tax increases (modest ones, IMO - back to where we were before Chimpy showed up). edit: and we all know that those levels of taxation were so awful that the economy was terrible pre-2000 and has been great since. Oh, wait...

-Arrian

QFT. The reality is deficit spending also cuts into growth by driving up interest rates and eventually leading to slide in the value of the dollar. Some people just ignore that in their anti-tax mantra.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Patroklos

3.) Raise SS age to reflect actually retirement trends and life spans.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DanS
And they should be lower still. As gov't spending and taxation increase as a percentage of the economy, economic growth slows.

So why have your "everything is going great" threads ended? Shouldn't we be doing swimmingly?

[Arrian]

There really is no need to drastically pay back the debt in the short term.

If I had a shred of belief in the fiscal responsibility of our government, I might agree with you. Then again, if I had any reason to have such belief, we wouldn't be in this situation in the first place. In other words: I see what you're saying, and, while it makes sense, I still don't think that's good enough.

No, I'm a total hawk on this issue. We need to start running surpluses - the sooner the better.

When balancing your home budget how many of us demand a salary hike instead of cut our expenditures?

What's with the either/or? I've always advocated both, with an emphasis on cuts, rather than tax increases.

I don't think we get a balanced budget (let alone surplusses) in a reasonable time frame w/o also increasing revenue.

-Arrian

[DirtyMartini]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Remove a lot of the deductions/etc that exist now. In fact, maybe remove them all?

Hello Mortage Crisis part deux, the Revenge!

[GePap]

Originally posted by Aeson

Even a grocery bagger can be a millionaire by retirement with a good investment strategy.

Not everyone can be a millionaire when they die. Hell, if everyone was, then a million wouldn't mean ****, would it?.

Encouraging more people to take that route, rather than rely on social welfare programs to take care of them after they've blown their life's income on shiny crap, is the surest way to strengthen our economy long term.

So why is it that every single modern industrialized state has implemented a social welfare system? You would think that at least one system would have had the forethought and courage to know this, since you say it as if it were so self-evident.

Except that people's income comes in the way of pieces of paper whose entire value is based on the trust given to the government that has given its word to honor that piece of paper. Which means that even if you worked your entire life, if everyone loses faith in the government who issued you those pieces of paper, you now have nothing.

Look at those pies... most of it goes to people who now are in financial situations where they are reliant on government to support them.

Would our economy be as big if everyone had saved frugally to plan for their future? It seems to me that investements (as opposed to savings) are such a good return because we can count on people not being frugal and instead spending as much as possible to increase their standard of living now, as opposed to holding off.

A tax system which encourages investment will strengthen consumer's position down the road, thus relieve pressure on government (and thus taxation) to provide for them, and will bring in more money from outside as well.

Investement in what? For my investments to make money, they need to be in corporations making profits, and corporate profits come from consumer spending.

Personal debt (net) is the ultimate form of regressive "tax".

I agree. The problem is the system you tout as the solution is built on the problem.

[DirtyMartini]

Anyone who thinks social security should be scrapped, so that people can invest for themselves should look at the 401k data. IIRC, even in programs where the employer matches the contributions, a minority maximizes that benefit. You think people are going to do better investing on their own just because the govt. eliminates social security?

We'd end up with a bunch of completely broke 65 year olds for society to support, via (you guessed it) tax dollars.

[Elok]

Originally posted by GePap
Not everyone can be a millionaire when they die. Hell, if everyone was, then a million wouldn't mean ****, would it?

Strictly speaking, he didn't say that everyone can be a millionaire simultaneously, just that each individual person has the capacity to become rich through careful planning and prudent financial such-and-such. In much the same way that anyone has the ability to win the lottery, even though it's patently absurd for everyone to win it at once.

With that said, I do doubt his sunny rhetoric.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Elok


Strictly speaking, he didn't say that everyone can be a millionaire simultaneously, just that each individual person has the capacity to become rich through careful planning and prudent financial such-and-such. In much the same way that anyone has the ability to win the lottery, even though it's patently absurd for everyone to win it at once.

The problem I am trying to point out is that being rich is a subjective measure.

As for the question at hand, I do not think there is any way to balance the US budget without some severe tax increases along with budget cuts. The problem being that as Snoopy said, there are substantial programs in which this country has severely underfunded now for decades, so cutting spending is going to be very hard.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by DirtyMartini


Hello Mortage Crisis part deux, the Revenge!

Not with my huge tax cut for over 50% of americans.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by GePap


The problem I am trying to point out is that being rich is a subjective measure.

As for the question at hand, I do not think there is any way to balance the US budget without some severe tax increases along with budget cuts. The problem being that as Snoopy said, there are substantial programs in which this country has severely underfunded now for decades, so cutting spending is going to be very hard.

That's the reason we need to increase the taxes on the rich back to 'normal' levels. No more giving them a free ride.

JM

[Wiglaf]

Jon Millar

Stick to physics Jon Miller.


JM


Jon Miller.


Jon Miller - ( The Canadian )