Why Elon Musk dislikes the idea.
I do wonder how many people would be against ensuring these folks are paying a higher rate than the normal work folks?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Raising social involvement, self awareness and self improvement topics, because our communities are the sum of our personal beliefs, behaviors, action or inaction. Only "we" can improve our family, work place, school, city, country, etc.
Search This Blog
Useful Links
YOU CAN HELP NOW !!!
Tell friends, relatives, co-workers, neighbors, politicians, etc to google give2attain or send them this address now !!!http://give2attain.blogspot.com/ Then I promise to keep posting unique and/or helpful thoughts, and hosting open polite dialogue. Thank You !!!
Trying for Balance
G2A Email and Rules
email: give2get@live.com
G2A will only discuss things that are general public knowledge. (ie no privileged info)
G2A will only link to public / posted documents. (ie school and other websites)
G2A will not post based on singular specific personal conversations or information without permission from the information provider.
G2a will only post after observing common themes, issues, discussions, etc. (ie it is out there and people are talking about it)
G2A will moderate any comments that apply derogatory labels. Be it to G2A, another commenter, group of people, etc.
G2A will moderate any comment that includes offensive language. (ie swearing)
G2A will only discuss things that are general public knowledge. (ie no privileged info)
G2A will only link to public / posted documents. (ie school and other websites)
G2A will not post based on singular specific personal conversations or information without permission from the information provider.
G2a will only post after observing common themes, issues, discussions, etc. (ie it is out there and people are talking about it)
G2A will moderate any comments that apply derogatory labels. Be it to G2A, another commenter, group of people, etc.
G2A will moderate any comment that includes offensive language. (ie swearing)
Blog Archive
About Me
- John
- I am married and we have 3 adult daughters and a dog. We live in Plymouth MN. My interests are learning, communicating, home improvement projects, motorcycling, boating, and other outside activities. Thank you for reading my blog and have a great day !!!
106 comments:
How about a FAIR tax, which is perfectly progressive AND fair?
Does it tax unrealized wealth gains?
Another interesting article
The FAIR tax taxes consumption. Money plowed into a business or saved for retirement doesn't get taxed at all. And it only taxes spending above the poverty line, at a fixed rate, so it is perfectly progressive.
The FAIR tax taxes consumption.
Lots of rich people live very modestly. What a FAIR tax does is cut their tax bill, shifting tax liability to poor and middle class who consume a comparable amount but already have trouble paying for it.
Do you want to pay more in taxes in order for Mitt Rommney to have ski chalets in Gstaad?
--Hiram
And there is that BIG question...
Is money invested in the stock market actually "plowed into a business"?
Or Bitcoin for that matter?
As Hiram noted... The FAIR tax does not seem so FAIR...
Hiram,
In Jerry's usual explanation, the poor pay no taxes... But they get fewer benefits...
I assumed the middle class bears the brunt of his proposal.
The problem with both the fair and the flat taxes is that it gets eaten away by it's exceptions. This is a common problem with tax policy generally.
One idea that can serve as a basis for tax policy, is the sense that since everyone benefits from government services in the same amount, everyone at least in some degree should pay the same in taxes. The roads are the same whether it's the rich or poor who are driving them, our military defends all of us equally no matter how much money we have in the bank.
The problem, and this is always the problem with any tax reform, is that it doesn't work very well in practice. The reason is that while we all benefit equally from government, we don't all have the same ability to pay for it. So exceptions are made, loopholes are created, a system for which simplicity is supposed to be simple, very quickly becomes complicated. Unfairness sets in, because while we all benefit from government services we don't all have an equal ability to affect governmental policies. The lobbyists appear and what inevitably happens is that the reforms just sort of melt away.
In practical terms, a FAIR tax, which in Europe is a version of a VAT tax, is good because it is easy to collect. They don't collect income taxes very well in Europe and sales taxes if enforced can be much harder to evade.
--Hiram
There is a video out there in which a very condescending Mitt Romney explains some hard truths about taxing the rich. a subject to which, he has devoted most of his live and his entire business career. Taxing the wealth, he explains to us, is in practical terms impossible. The wealthy will simply change their wealth into forms that the new tax code cannot reach. Mitt speaks as if this is a new practice, one that he had just come up with moments befre just coming on air, but in fact the rich have played these tax games, probably since the dawn of a civilization that had things that needed to be paid for. Notice the assumption in which he couched his argument. Nowhere in his comment did he address the issue that is the basis of any tax policy, which is something like how do we pay for everything we need without screwing everything up. He wasn't arguing why the rich shouldn't pay taxes, he was simply telling us, no matter what we do, the rich won't pay taxes. And even though he is a U.S. Senator who draws a paycheck from the folks who actually do pay taxes, he isn't going to provide any help in the matter.
--Hiram
The usual misunderstanding of the FAIR tax abides. The poor pay NO taxes, ever. The poverty level of spending is completely exempt from taxes. The tax is a flat rate ABOVE that point, so the tax is perfectly progressive. Those who make, say, twice the poverty rate, pay an effective rate of HALF the flat rate. Those making 10 times the poverty rate pay an effective tax of 90% the flat rate, and so on. But what are we trying to punish, here? People who invest and save should NOT be taxed on that. All this Marxist-like class envy is aimed at people living "high an the hog" and they will pay taxes accordingly under the FAIR tax. Those trying to build and create wealth while living modestly pay only their fair share. And the IRS goes away, our balance of trade improves, and the economy expands. You're right, it is too good of an idea to appeal to politicians.
I am pretty sure there is no way to be "flat" and "progressive".
The reality is that voters have promised themselves ever more entitlements from the government.
Now how do we pay for them?
For better or worse, the people with excessive wealth are the likely targets.
I wonder how the poor go about not paying the FAIR tax. Do they carry cards identifying themselves as poor at the grocery store? Do they FAX them to Amazon?
Our tax system is incredibly regressive. Rich people pay hardly any income taxes. What is proposed here is not just a system that would raise their taxes, but make them progressive. In other words, they would pay far more taxes under the FAIR system than they do today. How do you think this is going to go over with the rich and their lobbyists? Could this have something to do with the fact that FAIR taxation has always been a total political non-starter?
--Hiram
People who invest and save should NOT be taxed on that.
Why should people who make a couple of calls to their broker pay lower taxes than the a guy who mines coal for a living? Who works harder? Who takes the greater? Who, at the end of the work day, has produced something of value?
--Hiram
I am pretty sure there is no way to be "flat" and "progressive".-- John
I wonder how the poor go about not paying the FAIR tax.-- Hiram
John: Again, a complete misunderstanding of the legislation. If I exclude, say, the first $30k of income from taxes, then the person making less pays ZERO. If I make a dollar more than that, my total tax bill is 22% of $1, or 22 cents, meaning my effective tax rate is .00007%. If I make and spend twice that, $60K, my tax rate is 22% of 30K, for an effective rate of 11%. If I spend 10 times that-- $300K--, I pay 22% of $270K, or $59,400, for an effective rate of 19.8%. I shouldn't have to do this simple math for you, but now do you understand?
Hiram: The poor actually pay the same tax at the retail store as everybody else (by the way, the tax is price neutral and revenue neutral. Prices don't change at the store and the government gets the same total revenue as before) but everybody receives a "prebate," a monthly check for the amount of the tax on poverty-level income, assuming it is all spent on "essentials" of living. The rich, you see, ALSO escape taxes on the first $30K, but the poor truly benefit, especially if they can live on less so that the prebate is "profit."
And Hiram, why should the retired coal miner who lives on stock dividends accumulated throughout life pay more than the coal miner? Why should the guy that invented Tesla pay a higher percentage (more dollars, probably) than the guy who builds one? FAIR is fair.
Presumably, the poor would simply have to submit receipts on taxes they paid so that they could get compensated if they paid more than the prebate. I suppose that poor people could make their status as poor available to their more prosperous friends. Obviously, the essentials non essentials distinction is untenable. The government can't be involved in telling people what is essential.
why should the retired coal miner who lives on stock dividends accumulated throughout life pay more than the coal miner?
People who own dividend paying stocks, should get paid their dividends. The questions is how they should be taxed. Rich people have ways they can avoid the tax consequences of dividends which are in ordinary circumstances taxed as income.
--Hiram
Progressive and regressive are imprecise terms that can mean different things. They are usually used in reference to income tax rates, and so I don't know what they mean in a FAIR tax context.
Broadly speaking progressive means the more money you have, the more you pay in taxes. A FAIR tax is applied to the money you spend not the money you have so the result is unclear to me. I think just in statistical terms most wealthy people live very modest lifestyles. It's how they got wealthy. My favorite personal example of that is a tax client of a friend of mind. He had been a mailman and lived very modestly. When my friend started looking at his finances, it became clear that the guy was incredibly wealthy. When he asked the guy how he had gotten rich, the guy laughed and said, that back in the day he did some work for a guy who had a garage business start up. In lieu of payment, he received a few shares of the company. The company eventually became Medtronic, and his founders shares were worth millions. When he sold them, he didn't even both with the basis.
--Hiram
"progressive means the more money you have, the more you pay in taxes" That is correct. It does NOT mean that the more you have the vastly higher RATE you pay, which is the current situation. Regressive means that the percentage of taxation falls more heavily on the poor, which again is the current situation. The FAIR tax ends both, and those who choose to live extravagantly should bear the burden of higher taxes.
And you have missed the point of the prebate. EVERYBODY gets it, the only requirement is a declaration of family size, ala "dependents." No forms to file other than that. And there is no distinction between essential and unessential. It is assumed that the poor spend their entire poverty level income on essentials, so everybody receives a prebate in that amount. It saves hundreds of billions of dollars just in compliance costs, compared to the IRS code.
Taxes are paid individually, not collectively. No one pays taxes collectively. Under a progressive tax system, the more an individual makes, the more an individual should pay in taxes, and that's the way the income tax tables work. But while that's the theory, that doesn't have much to do with anyone's financial reality, particularly with respect to the rich.
With the prebate thing, I guess, if a poor person spends more than the prebate assumes, then he will start paying the FAIR tax which is an extremely high sales tax.
As always, it is a question of what the FAIR tax applies to. Does it apply to stock purchases?
--Hiram
Maybe you all need to do a little studying, because you are raising questions that display a complete misunderstanding of the proposal. FAIRtax.org
If a poor person spends more than poverty level, then they aren't poor and ought to pay a wee bit in taxes. The tax applies ONLY to retail purchases, and the "high" sales tax brings prices back up to where they were before-- that is, it is price neutral.
Oh, and "the way the tax tables work" those with high incomes pay a FAR higher rate than the middle class, supposedly, but the complexity of the code helps the rich escape some of that unfairness. There is no escaping the FAIR tax, even drug lords and ordinary tax cheats pay it.
I watched the video and it still seems non-sensical.
It reminds me of when they tried to tax luxury goods...
And the GOPers were whining regarding how it would harm businesses and the economy.
In this case you want tax / discourage all purchases.
And let's be clear, progressive means the wealthier you are the higher your tax rate is.
Unfortunately the FAIR tax apparently only taxes the spenders, not the wealthy.
It may work as advertised for normal Low Income to $400,000 income households. Since they spend a fair amount of their wealth and income each year. But for the 1%ers it would be the same or worse than today.
There is no escaping the FAIR tax, even drug lords and ordinary tax cheats pay it.
It only applies to things bought retail. Of course a huge secondary market would appear. Flea markets everywhere. Stocks purchased from retail brokers would immediately cost 25% more.
Would the FAIR tax replace the real property tax? Or would that be a place we could hide wealth?
--Hiram
Unfortunately the FAIR tax apparently only taxes the spenders, not the wealthy.
To some extent, it depends on how it is applied. Applying it to stock transfers would help.
--Hiram
Not much, since the wealthy are much more likely to buy and hold.
It applies to retail sales. Yes, and you both admit saving and investment should not be taxed.
This would discourage purchases. HOW, when it is price neutral?
It doesn't tax the wealthy? You're saying the wealthy do not spend more than the poor? Then how do you know they're wealthy, and why do you care? Is the purpose of the tax code to destroy wealth, or to raise necessary revenue?
Yes, used goods are exempt. So why would you want to double-tax things like homes? Greedy, greedy.
Keep looking for excuses not to be fair with the tax code, nor reap the benefits of this great simplification.
In strict terms, stock purchases are not investments. The companies do not receive money from the sales. IPO"s possibly, might count as investments.
--Hiram
Prices are set by supply and demand. The FAIR tax would be set at 25% Since it applies to the retail, not the second hand market, flea markets would emerge that would automatically have a price advantage. It's sort of like how cars immediately lose a significant portion of their value the moment they are driven out of the dealership.
So who bears the burden of the 25% price differential. Depends on supply and demand in each market.
--Hiram
Stocks pay dividends. Therefore they ARE investments and should be free from tax. Not only that, but free from "capital gains taxes," especially the "unrealized" kind nutty Democrats are talking about. The only tax that should be paid is when the investment is sold AND spent on wine, women and song, or something else.
The whole point of a RETAIL sales tax is that each item is taxed once and only once. So once the tax is paid at the first sale to the consumer, it doesn't need to be paid by the second-hand purchaser. And since the tax-inclusive price is the same as the current tax-inclusive price, supply and demand should have already set the price for a used item. The Kelly Blue Book you currently have will tell you the value of your used car, and the price of existing homes will stay the same. The FAIR tax is set at 23% because that is the point at which it is revenue neutral to the government. And you can expect great resistance to any increase, since it is so visible. Not to mention, everybody sees the full value of their paycheck. That seems a big plus to me.
Stocks pay dividends. Therefore they ARE investments and should be free from tax.
Some pay dividends, others don't. In any event, my ordinary understanding of investment is one somebody comes to me and says he needs money, or maybe something else like services for the benefit of his investment.
The problem with taxing something only once is its arbitrariness. The burden falls entirely on the first user. Why should he be the one who gets stuck?
What you see in a blue book is just a number. The price of something is the amount at which a transaction actually occurs, and believe me, imposing a 25% sales tax on everything will result in a world of turmoil. I see mass movements of black market goods moving across undefended borders. I see thousands of Eddie Murphys dealing in illicit cigarettes. The opening of one of my favorite movies, "Beverly Hill Cop" would be just a taste of what would come.
--Hiram
I suppose you can imagine anything you want, rather than consider that something is a great idea, thoroughly and thoughtfully considered, and written into actual implementing legislation. If I own stock in a company, that is ownership of a part of the company, whether it pays actual dividends or not.
Taxing something more than once is ridiculous, but that is what the VAT taxes do, and the FAIR tax doesn't. The burden falls on the first user because who else should it fall on? Certainly not the manufacturer, or the retailer. All those "hidden taxes" are eliminated, so the price the CONSUMER (retail buyer) pays is actually price neutral. It's just that the tax is right out in the open.
The tax is NOT 25%, and it doesn't change the price at the counter. Only registered sellers could sell new merchandise, and they would be subject to intense scrutiny of their purchases and sales, by existing state authorities. Where would black marketers get their goods, where they weren't taxed on it? How could they sell without a license? You are drumming up imaginary scenarios rather than admit to a good idea. What's your alternative?
Hiram, Did you agree to this? "you both admit saving and investment should not be taxed."
Personally I don't care where we get the money as long as the deficits are eliminated and we start reducing the national debt.
And since the wealthy are the ones with the money... They seem like a natural target.
Jerry,
You have got to be kidding... Where would the black market get goods?
There is always some out there willing to provide illicit goods for a price.
Some examples from history: alcohol, guns, cigarettes, cigars, stolen items, etc
"you both admit saving and investment should not be taxed.
I don't think saving should be taxed. I am against taxing stock purchases being taxed, but the fact that stock purchases aren't taxed is a strong reason for taxing wealth.
--Hiram
But how do you want to tax "wealth"?
Which is a person's "savings"...
"a strong reason for DESTROYING wealth." There, fixed it for ya. Both of you are still looking at money as the sole property of government, and the only question is how much of it the people who earn it are allowed to keep. Or maybe, just a way to punish the successful. As for raising taxes to close the deficit, you should know better. Every dime that comes into the Treasury is quickly spent, two and three times over, by the wastrels in Congress.
Look at what we have before us! A $1.2 trillion "infrastructure bill" of which about 20% is actual infrastructure, and a $1.8-$5 trillion "reconciliation bill," neither of which can be paid for, even IF their crazy tax schemes actually worked. Just calling it "reconciliation" says they intend to ram it down our throats for no good reason except their fevered dreams of a socialist utopia.
Now let's remember that one can not "destroy wealth"...
It is just money... And I am not sure that removing some of it from the stock market and getting it moving again is necessarily a bad thing.
I am not sure how having trillions tied up in stock is helping anyone or the country?
Tesla has a PE ratio of 350 and Bit coin type investments have an infinite PE...
We have definitely moved from investing into gambling.
It IS possible to destroy wealth. All you have to do is take cash out of an investment (or tax it) and then spend the money. Worse yet, spend it foolishly as government tends to do. You can complain about the price of stocks, but they are an investment that eventually will pay dividends or be sold for the benefit of the investor, NOT frittered away by a foolish government. Basic accounting considers capital and expenses as two separate categories.
Let's imagine the extreme of the scenario you are proposing. Let's put a 100% tax on all income over, say $400,000, per Biden's promise, right? Assuming that is not made ex post facto, what are the chances you would see ANY incomes that high the following year? How about a crashed stock market and economy? Anything less is half-measures, with only half the undesirable side-effects, and for what? For totally unproductive federal spending that should not occur at all? Joe Manchin has said something simple, and I hope he sticks to it. "I'm OK with zero."
One knows that a person's argument is terribly flawed when they need to take it to the extreme to make it work...
I am pretty sure the billionaires would not even notice a billion off the top every year... :-)
Where as our kids would certainly be happy with a lower deficit.
Remember: we are already spending the money... :-(
And neither party wants to stop doing so... :-(
One knows an argument is flawed when the logical extension of their proposal is absurdly undesirable on its face.
\
How cavalierly we assume we have any claim whatsoever on the fruits of another's labor. If YOUR taxes were increased by 75% or so, would you think that "fair"?
"The share of reported income earned by the top 1 percent of taxpayers rose to 21 percent, from 19.7 percent in 2016. Their share of federal individual income taxes rose to 38.5 percent, from to 37.3 percent in 2016."
And how foolishly some assume that raising taxes would reduce the deficit. Current taxation is already a drag on the economy, while deficit spending grows unchecked, further damaging the economy through debt and inflation.
What's the first step in every problem with personal debt? CUT UP THE CREDIT CARD. If the federal government would take that one step-- not increasing the debt limit-- it would finally force some decisions that would quickly solve this problem. Painful, yes, but absolutely essential and quickly closing off such specious solutions as raising taxes.
As noted previously many times. People do not want to touch their entitlements...
Even you do not want your welfare payments cut.
And lord knows the GOP / Trump had NO desire to cut up credit cards. They spent their time applying for new ones. (ie cutting taxes, raising spending, waiving debt limit, etc)
It is amusing that you used 2016 data... Data from before the tax cut.
The 2016 data was the first thing that came to hand. Other search results show that the percent of total taxes paid by "the rich" actually INCREASED after the tax cuts. It makes sense, since the "poor" got a tax cut of about 10% and "the rich" got a tax cut of about 0.04%. In short, you and Democrats agree that "fair" is the very last thing being sought in the tax code. Utterly astounding that Congress hides all this "social engineering" in the 70,000 page IRS code, encouraging people to do this or that, and then rails against "loopholes" when people actually do those things. The FAIR tax eliminates all that power and economic distortion, and one suspects THAT is the biggest, but unspoken, objection.
And at base, We shouldn't CARE what "people want" from government, since it is WE providing it. If you keep loading straw onto the camel... Just like cutting up the credit cards causes a lot of tough decisions-- riding the bus to work instead of the limo, giving up the country club, or the summer in Nice. When you eventually have no other choice, you make a choice. If you were smart, you would make such choices sooner, and quit fooling yourself with ideas like taking out another loan.
I agree. The GOP and Trump were not very smart or responsible.
Some analysis of the 2017 Tax Bill
And another regarding revenues
"I agree. The GOP and Trump were not very smart or responsible."
So? How does fixing the blame, even by your badly jaundiced measure, fix the problem? That is, when every dime of new or existing revenue, regardless of from whom it is taken, gets spent two and three times over, is revenue the problem? The question of "how much is enough" needs answering, and the "progressive" answer is that there is no end to the amount of "good" that can be done with somebody else's money. Something-- reality, for example-- has to stifle spending that would make a drunken sailor cringe.
How about we just raise enough revenues to fund what we citizens have promised the citizens and to start paying down our historic national debt?
Instead of spending more than we pay and charging it to the kids?
I only note that the GOP / Trump contributed to our disaster, because usually you deny the GOPers are a large causal factor in why our country is so deeply in debt
There is no constituency for raising taxes. And there is no constituency for lowering specific expenditures. In a republic, things for which there are no constituencies don't tend to happen.
--Hiram
"How about we just raise enough revenues..." Good idea. All that is required is a 100% federal tax rate on everybody, no exceptions, no deductions, for 10 years. That also means no state or local taxes, no food, clothing, shelter or medical care, just paying what we already owe. Some would say this "solution" is not practical.
Of course, you could, OTOH, pass the FAIR tax to grow the economy (you save $400B/year in IRS compliance costs right off the bat), and reform entitlements such that they do not continue to grow, while actually paying down the debt, but no politician wants to do that. That would be TOO practical.
Hiram, was Weimar Germany a Republic? How about Venezuela? Zimbabwe? We are heading that direction in a handbasket. There is an exhibit in the British Museum. A newspaper is printed on $1M Zimbabwe bank notes, and the headline reads "It is cheaper to print on this than on regular newsprint."
Jerry,
Because we do not need 100%. duh...
And where do you get your crazy numbers?
And why do GOPers point to those countries rather than the Northern European countries like Germany, etc?
OK, do the math yourself. Total unfunded liabilities of the federal government, divided by GDP. I came up with $210T/$20T= 10 years, assuming 100% of GDP goes to funding the unfunded.
And why should we want to be like any other country. Even if so, would it be Venezuela? Zimbabwe? "A decade ago, during a financial crisis, Zimbabwe recorded the second highest incidence of hyperinflation in history – the country’s inflation rate for November 2008 was a staggering 79,600,000,000% (essentially a daily inflation rate of 98%)"
Oh God... It is like your brain resets to a historical point every time we have this discussion.
The pre-pandemic deficit was ~1 trillion per year. Hopefully it will go back to $1.3 Trillion post pandemic.
And that includes an ever growing debt service bill.
The GDP is ~$21 Trillion of which our all our governments take / spend ~$9.3 trillion.
Then the ultra rich are sitting on $4.2 Trillion.
We can pay our bills if we choose to... Unfortunately folks like yourself are happy taking your welfare payments and asking for lower taxes. :-O
Who in the world do you know that wants the USA to become a failed Dictatorship?
I mean other than the Trump lovers. :-)
Here is the data for the Ultra rich number
Why do you hate rich people?
And why are you refusing to consider total unfunded liabilities as a problem? Do you want an economic crash or hyperinflation? Those are your choices. Taxing billionaires is NOT a sensible solution.
"We can pay our bills if we choose to..." LOL! How do you think that 100% federal tax is really going to work out?
If your income, AFTER your last raise, won't cover the house payment, the car payment, and groceries, what's your problem?
Jerry,
Again, why would we need 100% tax to come up with $1.3 trillion?
"Total unfunded liabilities" do not account for the time value of money or GDP growth over time. Let's start with just paying this years bills instead of increasing the debt.
I am just fine cutting entitlements...
If you are 75 years old and have a Net Worth of $500,000, why are you getting Social Security and Medicare welfare handouts?
You don't need to come up with $1.3T, but rather $210T. Not even Elon Musk and Bill Gates together have that kind of money. You are correct that the time value of money isn't considered here, nor growth in the GDP, but taxing billionaires (or anybody) reduces GDP growth, and deficit spending increases inflation, meaning we need MORE money in future years to give the same government benefits to people.
More bluntly, there is absolutely no way we can ever tax enough to cover the promises that have been made by government. Those promises-- the entitlements-- must be reformed so that the promises already made can be kept, but with a great reduction in their (present, to some degree and) future cost. It can be done, I know it, and you will deny it. But your alternative leads to choosing between rent money and groceries, somewhere down the line.
Why should a millionaire get SS? Because it was promised to him, and he paid into it. You want to change that? Pass the FAIR tax.
Now you are just being silly...
Where did you even get the $210 Trillion number and when does it need to be paid?
You say you understand finance and compounding. I expect more from you.
Your bias is showing. You simply deny the well-known $210T number. It is the Opposite of the Iron Law of Knowledge, and perhaps we should posit an Iron Law of Willful Ignorance.
Yes, the $210T could be repaid over the usual 75-year horizon of these estimates, and GDP growth and cheaper dollars would help, but that rosy scenario assumes we STOP, immediately, adding to the debt, and that we do nothing foolish like raising taxes that will both slow GDP growth and increase the pain of inflation for all of us. Even with those factors in place, reducing the bill, You still have trillions upon trillions of dollars that we have no realistic means of directing to that mountain of unpayable promises. And if we keep deluding ourselves believing that a few bucks stolen from a few billionaires is going to make much of a dent, we will never get to the real solution, which is backing away from those promises in a way that causes the least misery for recipients, while making sure that they aren't got off completely by the realities of "we don't have the money."
Well unfortunately the voters and yourself seem unwilling to give up what you feel you are owed, so I do not see that happening.
So the next best thing is to raise revenues and stop deficit spending.
Unfortunately voters and you are unwilling to pay the bills that your elected representatives agreed to.
It is much easier to borrow money and hope you are dead before the bill comes due. I often wonder how they Baby Boomers turned out so irresponsible?
OK, so you have no solution. You intend to blame the public for what our Congress has created. You won't do the obvious math. You refuse to entertain even the most sensible, actual solutions. What good is this conversation?
Probably nothing if you don't want to make any personal sacrifices to solve the problem...
Why must I make personal sacrifices? There is a way (30 years ago would have been better) to avoid this problem without any "sacrifices." Instead, you seem to relish the hopelessness and blame-casting, even denying that acceptable solutions exist so you can continue your dark outlook. You can have your misery, but don't expect me to share it.
I know, expecting politicians to do the right thing, even without admitting they were wrong, is rather Pollyanna-ish, and what we need is a problem-solver in the White House to get it rolling. Too bad the election was stolen from him.
So everyone else should pay for the problems that the politicians you supported helped to create?
No wonder we have problems.
So let me get this straight. Politicians promise us things, and actually write into law that we are entitled to them. So when it turns out the promises cannot be kept, it is somehow OUR fault, for accepting that to which we are entitled, and were promised?
No, politicians made the mess, and they have to be held responsible for cleaning it up. All you are doing by supporting their phony-baloney "solutions" is to let them escape that responsibility. And it's not like it's difficult.
Now if a dictator or oligopoly ruled the USA I may agree with you.
Unfortunately for your argument, we live in a democracy where the citizens choose their representatives. And they throw them out of office if they disapprove of their actions.
Your generation wanted social security, medicare, low taxes, etc and that is what you got.
Of course you really did not care if it was feasible or not. As long as the promises made you feel good and your taxes were low.
Wow. It must be nice to own 160 acres of the moral high ground, from where you can look down on everybody and blame them for simply responding to the incentives put before them by the political class.
You have an outlandish belief in our political class: "And they throw them out of office if they disapprove of their actions." Really? So when do we get the chance to throw out Joe Biden? He's already had a disaster at the border, with COVID, with energy policy, with Afghanistan, with a spend-a-palooza economic plan raising debt and inflation, and so on. When do we get to vote him out because we "disapprove"? We are a representative republic, not a direct democracy, and that is good because most of us don't have the time to study all the issues in depth. Opinion polls sample the largely uninformed, misinformed, and casual thinkers, telling us what direct democracy would look like, not good. But when these polls oppose what the politicians are currently doing by large margins, what is our recourse? Not even MY representative represents me, nor listens to me, pursuing her own agenda. I want politicians that will stand up and solve the problems. Too bad the last one we had had the election stolen from him.
Your hero Trump added $7+ TRILLION to the debt in 4 years.
Your hero Trump encouraged the Federal Reserve to take extreme measures.
"It must be nice to own 160 acres of the moral high ground..."
160 acres gifted by the government, no less.
Moose
It was an interesting gift to my Great Grand Parents...
Here is some land that has never been tilled, drained, lived on, improved, etc. If you move your family out to the middle of no where in MN and live there for 5 years, you can have it cheap.
And by the way, it went to both sides so it is 320 acres... :-)
Thank God they were willing to leave Norway and work that land. My Great Grandfather Tom was left to raise 3 kids after Great Grand Mother Laura died. Besides farming, his other job was digging in drainage tile by hand... Can you even imagine trenching and installing miles of clay tile. :-O
Now what do we expect from current immigrants?
"Your hero Trump added $7+ TRILLION to the debt in 4 years." Pure TDS, but you prove my point. If he was that terrible, why did it take 4 years to put a stop to his depredations?
Or from my vantage point, how much longer until we can get rid of Biden? Considering he has done more damage in 10 months than Trump managed in 4 years....
The point of a representative republic is that our representatives are supposed to at least act smarter than the rest of us, owing to having more time and information, and finally, listening to constituents' opinions on these issues. But they do not. Look at what is happening right now. The House is trying to pass a "reconciliation bill" to spend Trillions we do not have and cannot get, on things we do not need and maybe do not want. But the fact that it is called a "reconciliation bill" means that they do not care what is in it, they simply intend to ram it down our throats on a strict party-line vote, using their very slim majority. Anybody think that is "representing" or "listening to" constituents, or "voting with your best, most well-informed assessment of the merits"?
Jerry,
Your beloved Trump and the GOP used reconciliation to shove the 2017 tax cut through.
Therefore the deficits started increasing again.
And then Trump and the GOP signed off on Trillions of bailout money last year.
The $7.5 Trillion is simple fact.
The Trump FED buying bonds and printing money is simple fact.
In reality, Biden has not done / accomplished much of anything.
Everything that happen until say July is on the previous administration and policies. Well and COVID.
"Therefore the deficits started increasing again." Your logic is fundamentally wrong, tainted by your irrational TDS. You simply assume that increasing taxes is the solution to the deficit and it is simply not realistic or reasonable, in light of history, to believe such.
Sure, there is enough blame to go around for the deficit spending, but with both "sides" consisting of politicians (EXCEPT Trump) not the public. But I would also argue that there is a vast and important difference between using reconciliation to pass a tax CUT and using it to pass a massive TAX AND SPEND increase. I mean, do you really believe Biden when he says government can spend $3.5 Trillion and the cost will be ZERO?
"Everything that happen until say July is on the previous administration and policies." BS. Biden spent his first week writing executive orders to cancel as many of Trump's accomplishments as possible. He opened the borders, cancelled the Keystone pipeline, rejoined the Paris blah-blah, reversed the regulation requirements, instituted mask mandates, stopped drilling permits cold while giving Russia the go-ahead. I suppose on net you could say he hasn't accomplished anything. His negative accomplishments cancelled Trump's positive accomplishments, so net zero?
Jerry,
I am not defending Biden, I disagree with some of his choices.
You are however defending Trump, the incompetent President who increased our National Debt by ~$7.5 TRILLION over 4 years. I will never understand your love for that lying charlatan.
" I will never understand ..." Bingo.
"I am not defending Biden..." And yet you blame everything on Trump?
I have not blamed everything on Trump.
I have blamed what happened between ~July 2017 and ~June 2021 on Trump.
- $7.5 Trillion in additional debt
- 700,000 dead Americans
Now Trump did a few good things, but his failures far out weighed the good. Especially since he paid for results with debt.
Just as I blamed Obama for what happened between ~July 2009 and ~June 2017
And I will blame Biden for what happens between ~July 2021 and ~June 2025..
OK, start blaming. 6 million illegal immigrants to get amnesty? WITH reparations?
Supply chain issues since JULY, with no improvement? Rampant inflation? Where will you start?
~July 2021 as I said.
I am not sure what you want Biden to do about inflation?
I mean Trump and the FED are responsible for the HUGE amount of cash sloshing around in our economy. Just imagine if that $7.5 TRILLION had been used to pay bills by government.
Maybe if Trump had been able to pass an infrastructure deal back in 2017, our ports would not be so congested?
A Timely Critique
What do I want Biden to do about inflation? Explain (that is, figure out) why it rapidly increased during his administration and then FIX it! Not sure how he can fix port congestion, since that is caused by climate zealotry in CA.
You expect a President to resolve a supply and demand issue?
So much for keeping government out of private business.
Some actual Causal Factors
About 25% more cargo was shipped from Asia to the US in the first eight months of 2021 compared with the same period in 2019 pre-pandemic, according to Container Trades Statistics. The volumes have largely remained the same between Asia and Europe.
Baloney and confirmation bias. Reports are that Biden ordered all ports to open 24/7. There were enough workers to do so on only one, but not a single truck was allowed in because of the severe CA emissions standards. I think I've found the problem.
Source please...
There are a lot of trucks and trains in California...
Have you been taking your medication?
Maybe you are thinking of this
Then explain why containers are piling up at the port, rather than being hauled away by trucks. Sorry, but your academic source simply makes an assertion not being reflected in the reality.
Here, on the other hand, is an explanation that makes sense:
no trucks
I agree with this...
“All parts of the supply chain, most of which are built on ‘lean’ principles (no slack, little redundancy, from truck drivers to inventory in warehouses), were not prepared for this increase,” said Tony Pelli, Practice Director of Security & Resilience at BSI.
“While consumer demand can increase in a matter of months, it takes more time to increase port capacity, build warehouses, hire employees, etc., to meet that demand.”
And that is what my source also said. The system is not built for 25% increase in traffic. No capitalist is going to own that many extra trucks, ships, containers. It is like a rush hour traffic jam... It will take time to clear.
It will take time to clear IF simple solutions to the bottlenecks can be implemented. Time, yes, but right now it's an essential standstill. And government regulation is part of the problem, along with those mandatory shutdowns and vaccines. Now I see the ports fining ships for waiting in the harbor. Yeh, that will help.
It is funny that when capitalism fails, some people are too stubborn to admit it.
Businesses optimized and a wave came... It will simply take time and money to adjust.
No miracle solutions here.
OK, what is /your/ miracle solution? Fine the ships backed up in the harbor? The time and money to relieve this problem would have come naturally, but instead we had government come in, shut down businesses, pay workers to not work, demand they be vaccinated or fired, regulate the shipping industry with rules that did not help. The only "miracle" needed would be a little wisely-regulated capitalism. We really ought to try it sometime.
Please remember that it was Trump etal who paid out all that money in 2020...
I am pretty sure closing restaurants, concerts, etc did not create a problem at the ports.
Few companies have implemented the get vaccinated or be fired rule, so that is not the problem yet. My company pushed it out to January.
Regulate the shipping industry? They operate in international water.
Why do you have such a hard time understanding that "LEAN", "JUST IN TIME", "PROFITS" are the cause of the "TRAFFIC JAM"? COVID disrupted the flow and there is not enough extra capacity to clear the wave immediately. Of course companies that had invested in extra capacity are loving this business opportunity.
By the way, there is no miracle solution...
Supply, Demand and Capitalism will fix the situation in time.
Why do you insist that Lean suddenly caused a problem, when there was none before? These things build gradually, and free markets solve them as they go. Latest retail sales figures are actually DOWN. I offered a good explanation, entirely within the "shipping industry." Explain why you dismissed it so readily, please.
Did you miss the point that shipping is at a level 25% ABOVE pre-pandemic levels?
We simply do not have the much EXTRA pipeline.
OK, but should not shipping be at pre-pandemic levels, at least? There would still be a backlog piling up for lack of that extra 25% capacity (assuming we were at 100% before, which is doubtful)? But it seems we are far BELOW normal capacity on the land end. How can that be, and if so, isn't government regulation and "interference" at least partly at fault?
I have no idea... It does not seem like it based on the sources I provided...
Source 1
Source 2
Source 3
The first article, especially, lays out the problem and notes the specific government regulation causing part of the problem, and suggests a couple of innovative solutions on top of reversing it (I think it's the same cite I made earlier). The third article confirms the problem. I will agree that government action COULD be part of the solution, if they first stop being part of the problem. Source 1 makes all kinds of sense. Start there.
We've gotten off topic, so let me throw this in. San Francisco is hurting for revenue. With all the smash-and-grab robberies and other violence, nobody is shopping, businesses are losing money, and the city is seeing something like $16 million less tax revenue. If that creates a budget shortfall, is the solution to raise taxes on SF's many millionaires?
Speaking of getting off topic.
Don't know or care about SF...
Nor do I, except as casual schadenfreude amusement, or as a cautionary tale for the rest of us. But you were the one thinking taxing millionaires was a solution to government overspending. Why not here?
apples and oranges
At least as good an analogy as often appears here, I think. You have a tough time making the general case, for certain, and no defense against the assertions that taxing only billionaires (or millionaires) is grossly unfair, counterproductive, economically unwise and likely insufficient or even irrelevant to solving the problem.
Most of just want them to sacrifice equal to our own.
No more, no less.
Naw. I think what you have here are people in charge who believe they are better than everybody else, that they can shape the world to their own good intentions, and don't give a rodent's derriere about the very real and obvious travails of the rest of us.
It is the one percenters whose net worth grows year after year, decade after decade, with little tax paid on it.
While the 50% struggle to pay their bills.
Then worse yet they use trusts, off shore accounts, step up basis, etc to avoid paying capital gains when the die.
It is a strange system we have.
Post a Comment