How do you propose we pay off the 18 trillion dollar debt cloud hanging over the US?

The reason why the botton 50% don't pay personal income taxes (while paying 7.65% of gross income in federal FICA taxes) has already been addressed. They simply don't have enough income to pay the typically regressive state and local taxes, FICA taxes, and federal personal income taxes because of income inequality in the US. It's not that they're not taxed by the federal and state governments but instead that they can't afford to pay personal income taxes in addition to all of the other local, state and federal taxes they pay.

A question that remains unanswered is why the top 1% of income households that receive roughly 20% of all income in the US, overwhelmingly from investments, only provide about 5% of the revenue to the federal government? If they're receiving 20% of all income doesn't it make sense that they should be providing 20% of all revenue to the federal government? We're talking about wealthy households that can certainly afford to pay the taxes (that don't pay any Social Security taxes on gross income like the minimum wage worker) but they only seem to be providing a small fraction of what they should be paying in federal taxes.

 

Absolutely false statement. You chart shows income taxes. It does not support your false statement about all taxes. The middle class, not the richest, pay most the SS taxes, for example, which are almost as much as income taxes.

What your chart also does not show is that under Reagan, income taxes where slashed, but SS taxes were increased. As a result, income taxes contributed a smaller portion of overall taxes. the 1% paid more income taxes (and as pointed out, got more of the income) but they were paying more of a smaller slice of the pie.

If your chart said personal SS and Medicare taxes instead of income taxes, the percentages for the top 1% would be less than 5%.

 

The cost of massive scale monetarization of the debt is ultimately high inflation. It will also ultimately induce lenders to demand higher interest rates. A govt cannot simply endless expand the money supply without consequence.

 

So what's your point? Are you saying the Govt must borrow $1.3 trillion annually or not?

But the point remains, that the GNP is too low in spite it has gotten better recently. [/quote]

What does that have to do with how much the Govt must borrow?

And?

And?

 

The richest have always had most the stocks. They have a disproportionate portion of the wealth. They have always gained and loss in stock markets. But they weren't getting 20% of the nation's income. Until the Reagan "trickle down" revolution.

 

Then somebody should probably point out a few cold hard economic truths, like if you can't pay for something, then just make do without it. Want that fancy new school, but can't pay for it? Guess you'll have to do without. Want to pay your teachers more than you can afford? try getting cheaper teachers.

or you end up like detroit, puerto rico, chicago, or greece. Not that I care, but they might want to learn the concept of living within their means before they spend their futures, and the futures of their children and grandchildren.

Just an idea, if they're interested in that sorta thing.

I'm just going by your numbers here, but I'd say that they turn around and reinvest their profits, and investments are tax deductable. Of course nobody wants a flat tax, so you'll just have to make do with less income from the wealthy types.

 

I don't think you've said anything that contradicts what I said.

I've pointed out the flawx in your legal interpretation before, which is why no one is "enforcing" what you erroneously believe what the law is.

 

Previously addressed.

Why not just coin up 18000 0.1 oz platinum coins and say they are worth a billion dollars each?

You're essentially (*)(*)(*)(*)ing the lenders and would destroy the US credit market.

 

I get that you cannot have infinite money unconnected from an actual economy. You don't get that.

 

Never said otherwise. Just said we could pay off interest no matter how much it is. Thanks for the comment though. And "lenders" will pay whatever the Fed wants them to pay.

 

You don't get much. Interest on the national debt is the least of our concerns. It's all interconnected and until you drop your conservative education you'll never understand it.

 

Nonsense. The Fed is not legally allowed to lend money to the Government. Back to the drawing board.

Nonsense. You have literally no clue what you are talking about.

What a shocking theory!!! Never would imagine that.

 

Gold's use in industry gives it some meaning. Nothing that important and definitely not something that makes it "special" in anyway when it comes to our ability to pay off our interest payments.

Good!

The boat isn't leaking... it's stalling because it's running out of gas.

- - - Updated - - -

And by the way, we don't "monetize" our debt any more. The money already exists before the Fed makes their purchases. You still have failed to understand banking. Probably still think they don't create money out of thin air, lmao.

 

The expenditures are affordable both at the state and federal levels of government. The problem with funding the expenditures is that we don't have a fair tax system and the lowest income households have the highest tax burder relative to income. For example I recently moved from WA, the state with the most regressive tax structure in America, where low income households have 14-times the tax burder relative to income when compared to the top income households. At the federal level the workers, the vast majority of Americans, pay taxes on "earned income" while the wealthy 1% pay taxes on "unearned income" at half the tax rates and are exempted from taxes the workers pay like Social Security taxes.

We're trying to fund government expenditures by those with the lowest incomes that can't afford the tax burden as opposed to those with the highest incomes that can afford the tax burden and that makes no sense whatsoever.

That is both true and false.

Pre-tax income can be invested in qualified ROTH IRA accounts but there are limits of $6,500 (for those over 50) and $5,500 (or those under 50) but only so long as household income does not exceed $183,000 for a couple or $116,000 for a single person filing taxes. High income households cannot make pre-tax investments.

The investment is deductable at the time of disbursement from the investment to determine "net income" from the sale. Re-investment of the "net income" is taxed and only the net after-tax income is available for re-investment. The problem is that investment income is generally taxed at 1/2 the rate of "earned" income and sometimes not at all. For example the tax rate on $70,000 in long term capital gains is 0% and $70,000 is 140% of the median income in the United States. The worker is going to pay income taxes on $70,000 while the investor isn't going to pay any income taxes on that income.

That isn't exactly true. What many object to are flat tax proposals by Republicans that continue to favor the wealthy over the low income households and that have never been designed to fully fund the authorized expenditures of Congress. I've made a flat tax proposal on several forums and it has received support from both liberals and conservatives. Check it out, see if you like it, and if you have any questions or concerns then comment on it and I'll respond on that thread.

http://www.politicalforum.com/budget-taxes/399015-creating-fair-taxation.html

This is similar to the "privatization" Social Security that I also address on that thread where I've also gained the support of liberals. It isn't that liberals oppose privatization but the fact that Republican proposals don't address the low income households and are based upon benefiting the upper middle income households while leaving low income households out of the equation. Liberals like my proposal because it retains a safety net that actually provides about 4-times the minimum income when compared to our current Social Security program and conservatives like it because it virtually eliminates the need for the safety net over the 45 years necessary for privatization.

It isn't that people won't accept a flat tax or privatization of Social Security but instead that they reject the Republican proposals that favor the wealthy and disparage the workers of America.

Once again, read the proposals and then comment on them. They both work and they have been generally accepted by both conservatives and liberals.

 

The Federal Reserve cannot simply "create currency" as it is required to have collateral for all Federal Reserve notes it creates. IMHO the criteria for what can be considered as collateral is bogus (e.g. a bank promissory note can be used as collateral but it's not really collateral because it's only a promise) but it still requires collateral.

I would also remind you that a Federal Reserve note is not "money" but instead it's a "promissory" note issued by the Federal Reserve that is fundamentally no different than a typical bank check with only two exceptions. It is designated at "legal tender currency" by statutory law and unlike a bank check it can't actually be redeemed on demand even though the law requires that.

Canadian gold Maple Leafs (not legal tender in the US) and American gold Eagles (legal tender in the US) are money. Of note a person can use a Canadian gold Maple Leaf to purchase goods and services in the United States but the seller is not required by law to accept them. Nothing prevents acceptance but it simply isn't required by law. A "seller" is required by law to accept American Eagle coins as payment for any debt in the United States because American Eagle coins are legal tender.

 

Heh, education.

 

This is why we conservatives believe that this government is OLD and out dated and to expensive to run. it may have worked for
the industrial age but it's a relic now. FOR the new data age we need a new slimmed down government, one that is cheaper then
the old industrial government age, This government we now have was made by old white liberal progressives and it does not fit the new age
we are now in, The data age, The age of information.

Sound familiar?

....

 

Here is a well done six minute film explaining what is happening up here in Canada:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkN58gjcsp8&feature=youtu.be

Canada to control its own money ?

 

The 500 Billion a year in interest payments is accounted for in the 483 Billion dollar deficit. This is much better than the 1.4 Trillion in 2009 but it is still massive.

Total Military Spending now exceeds 1 Trillion per year. DOD is the largest part but does not count other military spending

In 2000, Total Military Spending was roughly 350 Billion. After 8 years of Bush this spending was increased to over 900 Billion.

Maintaining our military of 2000, which was way ahead of the rest of the world combined at that spending level, would have freed up 500 Billion dollars/year for 14 years = 7 Trillion that could have been spent on infrastructure, technology, and building a competitive economy.

You brought up military so I started with that but this is not the only head of our oligopoly infused bureaucracy that is responsible for our debt.

The Healthcare oligopoly/bureaucracy also accounts for 1 Trillion/year in spending.

Pure Socialism and Capitalism end up at the same place in their extreme forms. You have a small number of people controlling all the resources and means of production.

We have managed to combine the worst of both extremes into a horrific monster that is eating up everything in its path.

This oligopoly-bureaucracy fusion is why we have a massive debt.

How this monster functions is a lengthy discussion.

 

Wrecking the economy with runaway inflation isn't a solution.

When you said: "Once again, it doesn't matter" it seemed like you were saying that the size of the debt didn't matter. Am I misunderstanding you position?

What are you talking about lenders paying? Paying what?

 

That's exactly what you are talking about

You still can't make an argument without fabricating you're opponent's position. lmao

- - - Updated - - -

So what is your conservative "new age" proposition for tens of millions of people retiring? Cut off their SS? Cut of their Medicare?

 

Storm the Federal reserve. Abolish it.

make usury illegal. Make all interest based debts void. It's immoral to practice in such a filthy trade and it makes trhe cost of housing 100 times higher than it has to be.

 

Not a Democrat in sight has the foggiest idea or plans to manage our National debt.
OR Social Security.But Rick Santorum does.Rand Paul does.John Kasich does.
Mike Huckabee does.Bobby Jindal does.Even Sean Hannity has his " penny plan ".
Cut one penny our of every dollar in every agency and government dept.
Ii may be the Old Forbes plan.
Yet ... Not a Democrat on Planet Earth has a plan to manage our national debt OR
Social Security.President Bush was roundly attacked by Dimocrats for daring to
even suggest a possible debate over solving SS.
It was the New Newt Republican Congress { '94 House } who were entirely
responsible for balancing FOUR straight budgets.

 

One sure way NOT to is increase those out of work like Obama's been doing.
94 Million americans not working.Fewer females employed under Obama than in recent
memory.Poverty has spiked and average paychecks are down on average around
$ 4,5oo per middle class family the last 5 years.

 

What complete mischaracterization. WOW

Ignorance is truly bliss among most republicans these days.

The run up of the debt falls primarily on the shoulders of Republican Presidents.

It is "deficits" that create debt and increase or reduction of said deficits is one of the primary measures of fiscal responsibility.

Reagan ran up deficits like a princess with a credit card. Bush Sr. maintained those massive deficits.

Finally - Clinton (and yes with help from Republicans in Congress) managed to reign in the beast and reduced deficits down nearly to zero in comparison to the previous fiscal clowns.

Bush Jr. was handed a nearly balanced budget and in 8 years managed to hand off a 1.4 Trillion dollar deficit to Obama.

Under Obama that deficit has gone from 1.4 Trillion down to under 500 Billion.

Republican Presidents have a horrific fiscal record and all we hear from the folks you mentioned are the same platitudes.