Great Analogy of the US National Debt

The "wealthy" could *easily* "bail out" America and still be very wealthy.

More conservative mythology.

 

That was an example but in reality President Obama has often mentioned only eliminating the Bush era tax cuts on those earning over $250K/yr and that was projected to only increase revenues by about $70 billion per year whereas eleminating all of the Bush era tax cuts would increase revenues by $370 billion. Across the board tax increases to Clinton era levels is the minimum that must be done and even that would require hundreds of billions of dollars in actual spending cuts and not just limitations on future spending increases to reach a balanced budget.

The problem is that a balanced budget isn't enough. We need a surplus budget to pay the national debt off. Even a $500 billion/yr surplus would take 30 years to pay off the national debt. Let's not even look at the entire national debt but just what has been incurred since 2001 to present. In 2001 the debt was $5.8 trillion and today it's over $15 trillion over this 11 year period. To pay off that debt in the next 11 years, the same amount of time it took to accumulate it, we would require an $836 billion average annual surplus. That is $836 billion in excess of all government expendatures. The tax increases and spending cuts required to accomplish this is staggering. That's about a $1.7 trillion per year turn around in revenues/expendatures that would have to be implemented immediately.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

We must be careful because the Laffer Curve really does exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

There is a point where taxation drives the economy down to the point that government receives less in revenues that what would be obtained by lower tax rates. Here's a problem that I have with it though. The American People should NOT be working solely to pay for government expendatures but the politicans seem to think that is the goal of the US economy. The US economy should be about increasing the wealth of Americans and not about funding government expendatures. Government expendatures always reduce the wealth of the People and should be the minimum required to fulfill the enumerated roles and responsibilities of our government.

 

I agree the Bush tax cuts should expire completely, and IMO a 5% tax surcharge on incomes over $1 million should be added to enhance revenues.

If we just balance the budget, the relative size of the debt should decrease by 1/2 in 12-15 years.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

But where that curve peaks no one knows.

No one is talking about a 100% tax. I certainly agree Govt should trim spending.

 

It really would result in very little actual additional income.

Relative to what? Government revenues? That is the only valid measurement of debt to income as the US government doesn't own the GDP anymore than I own the corporate profits of the company I work for. It would still be a $15 trillion debt that is going to require between $750 billion (at 5% interest which is the average cost of "money") and $1.5 trillion (if the cost of money exceeds 10% as it did in the early 1980's). I believe we can agree that the US government should be paying "fair market value" for the money it borrows.

Can the American taxpayer really afford to have an additional $750 billion to $1.5 trillion in taxation that provides for no services by our government? Even liberals that support government welfare spending would rather see this revenue spent in providing benefits as opposed to paying it out as interest for past expendatures.

I do believe that most people would agree that the purpose of the US economy should not be to maximize government revenues but instead to maximize the wealth of Americans instead. We should never come even close to going over the top on the Leffer Curve.

 

Please share the analysis you have done to come to that conclusion.

Relative to GPD. If Govt revenues were to remain at the same 6 decades low proportionate rate, it would be relatively half that as well.

Sure. If revenues were simply proportionately the same as they were in 2000 that would make up about $750 billion.

Germany collections 40% of its GDP in taxes. If the Govt did that, it would pull in about another $2.2 trillion in revenues, wipe out the deficit, and pay off a big chunk of the debt each year.

I believe most people would agree that the Govt should cut taxes and borrow trillions of dollars and (*)(*)(*)(*) the future.

 

1990 1,031,958
1991 1,054,988
1992 1,091,208
1993 1,154,335
1994 1,258,566
1995 1,351,790
1996 1,453,053
1997 1,579,232
1998 1,721,728
1999 1,827,452

Above are the federal government tax receipts for YOUR exciting 1990's.

Read about the Laffer Curve and rationalize why you cannot just raise taxation without negative effects...

 

Thanks for that. That explosion in tax revenues, thanks in large part to the Bush1 and Clinton tax increases, explain how the Govt went from a record deficit in 1992 to a rare surplus budget in 2000.

Because remember how badly the 1990s economy sucked because we took more "productive money" from the private sector and transferred it to government?

Conservative mythology lives large.

Read about the Laffer Curve and learn why you do not have a clue as to what you are talking about.

 

Except for the market correction for irrational exuberance and the tax cuts that went beyond a correction for another bubble...

If we raise taxes for more programs than existed under Newt/Clinton, negative effects are sure to follow. If we raise taxes to pay off the debt, and do not end any entitlements that existed under Newt/Clinton, it only cannot work if the private sector is defeated and defeatist and not the answer to our problems.

If the private sector cannot compete with the same taxes and programs we used to have for a surplus under Clinton, it is saying America is in decline.

If America is in decline then lets just go with Jefferson's plan:

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 28 Oct. 1785) http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s32.html

Because as Jefferson said "If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation."

By extention of argument, since we do not have a "very considerable proportion of uncultivated lands" situation as with Jefferson's France, or the level of Impost taxes like before Lincoln's income tax, but do have Apple..."They employ also a great number of manufacturers, and tradesmen...But after all these comes the most numerous of all the classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work," therefore, taxing rich property and the government putting poor people to work is the only way.

 

I wasn't clear as I was referring only to the 5% additional tax on those earning over $1 million/yr. We know from the "Buffett Rule" that Obama touted which increased the tax on capital gains by 15% for incomes above $1 million that it would only result in about $4.7 billion in additional revenues. A 5% across the board increase (i.e. not limited to just capital gains over $1 million) would also increase revenues but most income over $1 million per year is related to capital gains and not wages. Based upon this I would anticipate less than the $4.7 billion that would have been obtained by the 15% increase in the capital gains tax by only increasing total taxation by only 5%.

I so agree that allowing the entire Bush era tax cuts to expire that it would increase overall revenue by about $370 billion and have advocated raising taxes to above the Clinton era tax rates to generate even more revenue because I don't believe Congress will actually reduce any spending. Congress seems inclined to only reduce future increases and to not actually "cut" any expendatures.

The current tax burden in America today isn't much different than what it is in Germany:

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_history

People often fail to recognize the difference between the United States and other foreign countries. The US has duel government sovereignty with both federal and state sovereignty whereas countries like Germany, France, and Italy have a singular national government sovereignty. To my knowledge the US is unique in this regard because the States still have supremacy over the federal government based upon Article V of the US Constitution which ultimately allows the States to dictate whatever they want related to the federal government by calling a Constitutional Convention. They haven't done this since 1787 but they still retain that power that they can exercise at anytime. The States could, if they so decided, abolish the entire federal government tomorrow by 3/4ths of the States voting to desolve the United States. Will they? Probably not but that doesn't deny them the power to do so.

Of course if Congress drives the United States into complete insolvency then this possibility becomes very real. People seem to forget this but if the US government goes bankrupt the States can simply disband the United States. It would mean an end to the United States but it would also end the obligation of the People to pay for the debt created by Congress. the United States is very close to bankruptcy and many still seem to not understand that simple fact. The actions of Congress in being fiscally irresponsible creates a very real threat to the very existance of the United States.

They do so because the average person is basically stupid. Always remember that 1/2 of the people have an IQ of 100 or less.

 

1988 909,238 1,064,416 -155,178
1989 991,105 1,143,744 -152,639
1990 1,031,958 1,252,994 -221,036
1991 1,054,988 1,324,226 -269,238
1992 1,091,208 1,381,529 -290,321
1993 1,154,335 1,409,386 -255,051
1994 1,258,566 1,461,753 -203,186
1995 1,351,790 1,515,742 -163,952
1996 1,453,053 1,560,484 -107,431
1997 1,579,232 1,601,116 -21,884
1998 1,721,728 1,652,458 69,270
1999 1,827,452 1,701,842 125,610
2000 2,025,191 1,788,950 236,241
2001 1,991,082 1,862,846 128,236
2002 1,853,136 2,010,894 -157,758
2003 1,782,314 2,159,899 -377,585
2004 1,880,114 2,292,841 -412,727
2005 2,153,611 2,471,957 -318,346
2006 2,406,869 2,655,050 -248,181
2007 2,567,985 2,728,686 -160,701
2008 2,523,991 2,982,544 -458,553
2009 2,104,989 3,517,677 -1,412,688
2010 2,162,724 3,456,213 -1,293,489
2011 2,303,466 3,603,061 -1,299,595

Following the year above is 'tax revenue' then 'expenditures' then 'surplus or deficit (-)'

In all years above, it really makes no difference what the tax revenue might be; the ONLY critical number is the spending and whether spending is in line with the tax revenues. In the period shown above it is obvious which presidents and Congress' gave a crap about keeping spending in line with income. And I don't even have a problem with emergency spending and creating deficits and debt...as long as...we have a plan for the pay-back! I am unaware of any plan whatsoever to pay down debt or eliminate deficit spending...

 

Your statement is an oxymoron. As deficit/surplus is a function of revenues and expenditures, spending is obviously not the ONLY critical number.

It doesn't matter how much is spent if there are revenues that exceed it you will have a surplus.

 

I would point out an error in using total revenues and expendatures because we have two forms of taxation and expendatures under the laws of the United States.

We have general tax revenues that are used for general expendatures.

We have FICA/Payroll taxes that are dedicated taxation and are only used for Social Security/Medicare and that is their only legal funding.

By way of example let's assume $100 in FICA/Payroll tax revenues but only $80 in expendatures. That leaves a $20 surplus.

Then we have $100 in general tax revenues but $120 in expendatures. That leaves a $20 deficit.

The general fund can borrow from the SSI Trust fund but that is still borrowing and it creates an obligation to repay that debt on demand. It is not a "balanced" budget but instead a deficit budget that increased the national debt. The national debt only relates to general revenues and expendatures.

When Clinton "balanced the budget" he really didn't because it required borrowing from the SSI Trust Fund which had excess revenues at the time. Today we're having to repay that borrowing because FICA/Payroll taxes are not enough to cover expendatures.

 

That is conservative propaganda to diminish the Clinton tax cuts and the dramatic effects of his tax increase. There was a "on budget" surplus of $86 billion in 2000, excluding the SS surplus.

Of course, we frequently see conservatives here using the "total" deficit including SS when it suits their purposes (like trying to diminish the deficits W ran).

 

Capital gains typically brings in somewhere between 50 and $100 billion in revenues.

I so agree that allowing the entire Bush era tax cuts to expire that it would increase overall revenue by about $370 billion and have advocated raising taxes to above the Clinton era tax rates to generate even more revenue because I don't believe Congress will actually reduce any spending. Congress seems inclined to only reduce future increases and to not actually "cut" any expendatures.

Revenues % of GDP

Country - Heritage, OECD, Eurostat
US 26.9% 24.0%, NA
Germany 40.6% 37.0% 39.3%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP

The sources listed by Wiki (Heritage, OCED) put US revenues relative to GDP far lower than your source. Since your source doesn't list the figures for Germany, we don't know if we are comparing apples to oranges.

Bot the Heritage and OCED numbers are far above the Federal revenue % (currently about 16%) so they are not just counting federal reveues.

Even a 10 pct point increase yields anotyher $1.5 trillion, more than enough to balance the budget without cutting spending a dime.

Can't argue with that, but a number of more intellegent folks do too. It's all about "me" with folks these days.

 

Please take a look at Obama's budget projections through 2020. Obama clearly shows estimated income and estimated expenditures through 2020. In all years, Obama projects significant deficits. TODAY, by Obama's own projections, he has estimated the federal incomes through 2020...so this IS NOT vague! If HE knows the income and chooses to spend more, then I will say one more time that SPENDING is the critical problem...

 

I understand this but for purposes of general discussion and metrics, using gross numbers merely aides in articulating a position. It's just like GDP per citizen?? Or 'fair share' of federal tax per citizen?

 

So does the Romney Plan and the Ryan Plan. Now what?

 

Romney and Ryan are not responsible for coming up with plans to deal with deficits and debt?

Why don't you focus on the fact that Obama has provided the income estimates yet still refuses to reduce spending or increase taxes? SPENDING is and always will be the root problem! Once it is determined how much must be spent, then it can be determined how much taxation is required. But Obama and this nation NEVER have a spending plan! They just want more and more taxes yet not be held accountable whatsoever for the spending side. Obama, the Dems and the Reps are all 100% responsible for out of control spending...

 

Obama offered trillions in spending cuts as part of a budget compromise. The Tea Party Republicans refused to compromise on one dime of tax increases.

Where did Obama refuse to increase taxes?

 

There isn't any.

Putting the unemployment rate back down where it was will not pay off the debt, and the Republicans can stop the stupid mantra that taxing must mean "spending" instead of paying off the debt. They are going to have to tax more, or increase revenue beyond simply going back to a lower preexisting unemployment rate, and pay down. Without a Dot com bubble or Housing bubble or some irrational exuberance bubble of inflated incomes paying more taxes, that can pop so we have to pay for it, there should be no expectation that higher paying jobs will exist with lower unemployment figures to have enough increase sustainable revenue.

We could lower corporate taxes and some regulations and raise higher income taxes rates, and the mantra that the Republicans are using that entrepreneurs are afraid of taxes goes out the door in reality. No entrepreneur is expecting to make six-million in personal income in any foreseeable future and it be nothing but a bubble based upon a new fad or invention. Raygun had the personal computer taking off in the eighties, Clinton the Dot com bubble, and Bush the Housing bubble; we need no more bubbles.

There does not intuitively appear to be enough revenue without more taxes, and reasonable spending decreases that people can live with, to pay down the debt in as much time as it took to make it.

Want to do away with entitlement spending code words for Social Security insurance (which is what the Tea Party/Libertarian/Republicans on the Foxy Blond Legs Channel have made clear they want), right off their current debts on the principle residence, and make the elderly and disabled exempt from property taxes up to whatever amount of land is needed for subsistence, and make them exempt from sales taxes too, so at least they keep their homes and charity can sustain them; otherwise I predict right now Obama wins four more years, or gets a big return later, simply because Fox is campaigning for his side. Basically give them subsistence land, so many acres, seed, and mule (modern of course), or else elect Obama.

 

There not? Isn't their plan for dealing this something that should be considered as to whether Romney should be elected?

 

The only major politican proposing a balanced budget is Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party candidate for President. Of course a president can only propose a budget and does not create the federal budget. A president can veto a budget passed by Congress but Congress can over-ride the veto. I believe that to even propose a balanced budget that Gary Johnson will have to include both spending cuts as well as tax increases although he hasn't actually put the numbers together to achieve it.

My vote for President is made up because only one presidential candidate shows any desire to achieve a balanced budget. Obama and Romney merely propose making a bad situation worse through more deficit spending. Even Paul Ryan proposes continuing the deficits which continues the problems as opposed to doing anything to resolve it. This crap that "we'll have a balanced budget in 5, 10 or 20 years" is politcal BS because it simply won't happen.

 

Romney yes, "Romney and Ryan" no.

 

Romney adopted the Ryan plan.

 

And do you think all those people who voted for Obama, and sit in Congress now or when Romney is in, are going to vote for the Ryan plan?

Isn't there a "but" in there?
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpoli...ort-for-ryan-budget-has-democrats-crying-foul

"Adopted" and "rhetoric" do not always mean the same thing. It is still going to be his plan, just like the Bush tax cuts are always his taxes even when Obama does them.