By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Details of Budget Agreement

richardhutnik on 03 August 2011
mrstickball said:
richardhutnik said:
mrstickball said:

...Or recognize that the biggest earners are already paying their fair share (the top 1% pay 60% of income taxes), and that we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

Is it possible that maybe, just maybe, wealth and income has shifted so that the top have gotten an increasing percentage of the share, while the middle class and lower has gotten the same or less?  What do you think the tax structure and who pays what in taxes is like this, when income has remained flat or declined for the middle and lower classes, AND you want to maintain basic government services?  You do realize that past decade incomes have DECLINED for the average American, what the top few percent have seen very large increases in income, right?

As far as not a revenue problem, taxes as percentage of GDP is under 15% on the federal level.  This at a decades all-time low.  Saying revenue is a problem isn't only saying that taxes need to go up, but the economy stinks and there isn't enough money coming in.   Apparently tax cuts haven't been the answer either for stimulating job creation and getting things going where they matter either.

...You do realize that as the median income of the rich increase, so do their tax burden, right? The top 1% used to pay 40% of all income taxes in the 1980's. Today, its 55% and rising.

Taxes as a percentage of GDP didn't drop to 15%. It was 16% in 2010. Comparatively, the average in the last 50 years was 18.1%. Comparatively, government spending as a percentage of GDP is 26%. The average is 20.3%. Therefore, revenues are 2% below average, while spending is up nearly 6% from the average. Certainly, the tax revenue is a problem, but according to all data we have, it is only 25% of the problem. Therefore, fixing the problem means cutting spending needs to be 75% of the solution, and tax increases must be 25% of the solution.

And there is a connection.  Due to the economic slowdown, more people are falling behind and ending up things like foodstamps and medicare.  The economy is something where there is a degree of momentum involved, and when things go well, they build on themselves.  When they don't, then there is a problem.  It is a bit like, when times are good, the complaints are petty and people go quiet.  But go tough, and out come all the interest groups.

A problem we have today is that, ok spending needs to be cut 75% but go ahead and say you want to increase taxes by 25%?  That won't happen either.  You have a faction that wants to shrink the government to the size of a bathtub, so it can then drown it.  

Also, as percentage of GDP, FEDERAL taxes, as a percentage of GDP was below 15%.  Check Heritage Foundation chart on that:

http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/current-tax-receipts

The 30 year average was around 18% according to that chart.  You can find it elsewhere also.



Around the Network
Lostplanet22 on 04 August 2011

WASHINGTON — US gross debt shot up $238 billion to reach 100 percent of gross domestic product after the government's debt ceiling was lifted, Treasury figures showed.

On Tuesday, the Treasury had to add more than $200 billion of commitments immediately after President Barack Obama signed into law an increase in the debt ceiling.

The liabilities had been temporarily taken off the federal government's balance sheet since May 16, when the Treasury reached the $14.29 trillion official cap.

It then used extraordinary measures to remain under the legal limit while deeply polarized Republicans and Democrats battled over raising the debt ceiling and reining in the country's massive deficit.

The new borrowing took total public debt to $14.58 trillion.

With the latest borrowing, the United States joined a small group of countries whose public debt exceeds GDP, including Japan (229 percent), Greece (152 percent), Jamaica (137 percent), Lebanon (134 percent), Italy (120 percent), Ireland (114 percent) and Iceland (103 percent), according to figures provided by the International Monetary Fund.



 

ImJustBayuum on 04 August 2011
Marks said:
Thats so friggin weak. If I was in charge Id have a balanced budget within a week, and the debt would start dropping immediately.


Jeez, good thing you are not in charge.



Marks on 04 August 2011
ImJustBayuum said:
Marks said:
Thats so friggin weak. If I was in charge Id have a balanced budget within a week, and the debt would start dropping immediately.


Jeez, good thing you are not in charge.


Why, because I'd end frivilous spending, and cut social programs that only benefit very small percentages of the population?

If I ran the country I'd get rid of niche social programs in favour of more spending on education, and universal health care...stuff that benefits the entire population. 



ImJustBayuum on 04 August 2011
Marks said:
ImJustBayuum said:
Marks said:
Thats so friggin weak. If I was in charge Id have a balanced budget within a week, and the debt would start dropping immediately.


Jeez, good thing you are not in charge.


Why, because I'd end frivilous spending, and cut social programs that only benefit very small percentages of the population?

If I ran the country I'd get rid of niche social programs in favour of more spending on education, and universal health care...stuff that benefits the entire population. 

Im only going to say this much, you proposed to cut hundreds of billions of dollars worth of spendings over a week..just think about the consequences of that. And your second post seem to contradict your first post..more spending on education and universal healthcare.