How Much Taxation Would Fund Current Spending?

[flyboy56]

We have too much spending and too little revenue. Its not one or the other. Both issues are serious problems...

The root of the problem is the people not wanting to give up the beef. Good times are coming to and end folks. The party is over and the money pool is drying up. So go suck on a bunch of lemons!

[SemiAuto]

Depends on the context. If that guy had historically made $200,000 and now is only making $100,000 or $110,000 then one could realistically argue that he has both a revenue problem and a spending problem

Sure, if one wants to pursue an analogy where GDP got cut in half. I don't think that dog will hunt.

[RIKMAN]

Spending is the problem.

However, a balanced approach would be to increase some taxes while decreasing MUCH spending. It looks like the repubs are willing to raise taxes on those folks making big bucks but hit resistance from dems on ANY spending cuts other than the military.

Cliff is looming!

[Jeebus]

That's great. Now, please point out to me where you've EVER heard me say that raising taxes on "the rich" is going to solve the crisis. Here, I'll help you... I"VE NEVER SAID THAT!

Obama said it, and often. As did every Dem in Congress. "Pay their "fair share" was their rallying cry (as if 80% of all taxes paid weren't enough).

The truth is that eventually tax rates need to go back to the Clinton levels for everyone as they never should have been lowered in the first place. However, as it stands right now the so-called "rich" are the only ones who can realistically absorb being moved back to the Clinton rates right now. The rest of us will likely go back to those rates at some point, but only when the economy is growing as it should be again.

Why did Obama extend "the Bush" tax cuts if they were so bad for the economy?

[SemiAuto]

In actual dollars, both Revenue and Spending are at record levels.

However, as a percentage of GDP, the correct way to measure Revenue, its at a 60 year low...

Why would that be the correct way to measure? A person who kept making more and more but kept his spending the same would be set. A person who kept making more and more but kept spending more and more would not. The latter is the government.

[SalisburySage]

Of course spending as a percentage of GDP is at near record highs. So if you combine raw dollars against spending it is pretty clear you have a spending problem.

If the government adopted spending levels from 2005 they'd have a nearly balanced budget. There is no doubt, the massive majority of the problem is spending.

iF EVERYONE IS REALIZING THIS WHY DID THEY VOTE FOR oBAMA?

[SemiAuto]

iF EVERYONE IS REALIZING THIS WHY DID THEY VOTE FOR oBAMA?

Because they can't find the caps lock key? Oh wait...

[flyboy56]

In actual dollars, both Revenue and Spending are at record levels.

However, as a percentage of GDP, the correct way to measure Revenue, its at a 60 year low...

And there folks is the kind of thinking that has got us in trouble. The crap is about to hit the fan for everyone except the rich because they will just move their cheese to another country and leave the rest to fight for the scraps. Let the games begin. Now you will see why so many militias have sprung up all over the country stock piling guns and ammo and food and marking their territory. They knew the day would come when government stopped making the tough decisions that would cost them their jobs and only listened to a bunch of selfish, greedy people in the US who didn't care that America would crash from indebtedness. You made your beds, now lie in them.

[soulflower]

Why would that be the correct way to measure?

Because the size of the economy and inflation grows over time. The only way to make proper historical comparisons is to look at GDP.

It's the same concept as a million dollars today not being the same as a million dollars 40 years ago.

[flyboy56]

Of course spending as a percentage of GDP is at near record highs. So if you combine raw dollars against spending it is pretty clear you have a spending problem.

If the government adopted spending levels from 2005 they'd have a nearly balanced budget. There is no doubt, the massive majority of the problem is spending.

But just balancing a budget does not get us out of a $16T debt. If we were to save $1T annually and used the savings to pay down the debt it would still take over 16 years when you consider having to pay the annual interest. The government refuses to get serious with this very serious issue because they know Americans do not have the discipline or desire to give up their entitlements.

[flyboy56]

HOW MUCH OF THIS DEBT DO YOU HAVE TO PAY?

$184,000 PER PERSON

$483,000 PER HOUSEHOLD

You, along with every other U.S. citizen, owe a portion of the total debt. To your personal balance sheet, add $184,000 in debt. Since children and pensioners don’t produce, what about a family’s burden? Your liability, and that of every “average” family, is $483,000. That is real debt that you will have to address. Every time you hear the deficit go up by $1 trillion, you will have to pay an additional $3,300!

And this is when it was $11T. We are now over $16T. Think about it people. This is far worse than the 9/11 attack. so why are we fighting each other?

http://talk.baltimoresun.com/showthr...=325301&page=2

[MithrilKnight]

If you put 2005's spending against 2012's revenue then what would you have?

Have you forgotten inflation?


If you put 1912's spending against 2012 revenue then what would you have?

An equally meaningless comparison.

[MithrilKnight]

The sequestration needs to merely be phased in over a longer period of time, like 20-years.

Combined with the return to pre-Bush tax cuts (which were supposed to be stimulative), we'd be on our way.

Add in some actual stimulative spending, along with fixes to entitlement programs, and we're set.

What fixes?
Means testing.
Removal of "payroll tax" cap, so that that flat tax actually is flat.
Medicare Part-D negotiation capability. (negotiate drug prices)
Profit.

[flyboy56]

We should have been having this discussion 30 years ago. In this case better late than never does not apply. Don't concern yourselves with what the government is going to do about the debt. Just start preparing yourselves for the worst case scenario. It's called individualism and it is what early Americans relied on to get through tough times.

[Rael]

Spending and lack of revenue ARE BOTH THE PROBLEM.

Why people have a hard time grasping this is beyond me. I do think, however, that we have more of a problem on the spending side. The bottom line is our standard of living is based on borrowed funds and the only thing that can fix it long term is a lower standard of living. We as a nation are like someone who gets a bunch of credit cards and lives like they are rich for a couple of years. They aren't rich and eventually there will be hell to pay. Well, hell is knocking on this country's door and he has Guido and Luigi flanking him with baseball bats. It is time to tear up those credit cards and live within our means. It will be painful and some people will be hurt along the way but there ain't no way out but the hard way.

[flyboy56]

Why people have a hard time grasping this is beyond me. I do think, however, that we have more of a problem on the spending side. The bottom line is our standard of living is based on borrowed funds and the only thing that can fix it long term is a lower standard of living. We as a nation are like someone who gets a bunch of credit cards and lives like they are rich for a couple of years. They aren't rich and eventually there will be hell to pay. Well, hell is knocking on this country's door and he has Guido and Luigi flanking him with baseball bats. It is time to tear up those credit cards and live within our means. It will be painful and some people will be hurt along the way but there ain't no way out but the hard way.

Why is such a simple concept as the one you presented so difficult for so many to comprehend. We have been spending money we either borrow, print or receive from foreign investors, or expect to receive. Now we are at our borrowing limit, we've flooded the economy with monopoly money and foreign investors are starting to look elsewhere because America is not looking like a great investment opportunity anymore.

[Grindelwald]

It's a combination of too much spending and too little revenue.

[flyboy56]

It's a combination of too much spending and too little revenue.

Correction: it WAS a combination of too much spending and too little revenue. Which is why we went over the cliff back in the 80's. Now we are going into a deep black hole.

[SemiAuto]

Have you forgotten inflation?


If you put 1912's spending against 2012 revenue then what would you have?

An equally meaningless comparison.

$2.4 trillion in 2005 would be $2.7 trillion in 2011 (last year available in the inflation calculator I used). You'd still be fairly closed to balanced.

Just for fun $2.4 trillion 1912 would be $55 trillion. Not exactly a meaningless comparison.