The median household income has been hovering around $50,000 for the last few years so the tax credit would be $10,000. A tax credit reduces the actual tax on the income and all income is "taxed" before the tax credit is applied. With a 25% tax on a household income of $50,000 the tax would be $12,500 before the tax credit is applied leaving a $2,500 tax obligation if a couple filed a joint tax return. We assume this would have to be different depending upon the number of income earners though. Why the deduction for "investments" and not for other income derived from actual labor? Workers suffer far more from inflation than investors. If there is to be a "deduction" could I recommend that there "tax credit" not be applicable to income derived from investments? Either that or simply dump this because all income should be treated the same regardless of source. This deduction re-introduces favoritism where those actually producing the wealth of America (the workers) don't have a tax deduction but those that aren't producing any wealth (investors) are receiving favorable treatment. Yes, using the median family income of $50,000 with a 20% tax credit a family with $40,000 in gross income would owe no tax with a 25% tax rate. The "subsidy" based upon the tax credit is something different. Does this mean that a family with a $30,000 that would have a $7,500 tax before the tax credit would receive a $2,500 tax refund based upon the $10,000 tax credit? Of note this is interesting because a retiree living on Social Security alone at maximum benefits at full retirement age only receives about $30,000/yr and would also receive the $2,500 refund if I understand this correctly. Would someone with no actual income (e.g. a person living on "cash" as opposed to income) would receive a $10,000 tax refund? Obviously only the really wealthy could probably do this but it does present a question worthy of consideration. As for Social Security/Medicare funding we need only remember that high income individuals deriving their income from investments, which where the really wealthy obtain their income, have never funded Social Security/Medicare before. In truth the 25% tax rate on gross income would substantially increase the effective tax rates for wealthy investors. While we currently have a 20% Capital Gains tax few investors with multi-million investment income even come close to paying this rate. Additionally eliminating the "capital gains" tax loolhole would also eliminate the off shore tax havens (where an investor currently pays no tax on income) that exist because of provisions in the capital gains tax codes. I'm all for eliminating the "off shore tax havens that have allowed hundreds of billions of dollars in income to go untaxed. But this proposal leaves us with the current Social Security/Medicare welfare programs that never addressed the original problem of people not investing and having enough personal assests (wealth) to provide income when they reached retirement age. In addressing other forms of welfare I would ask if the changes would result in greater benefit to those that really do need this assistance? The problem we have today is that those in need often don't receive assistance at all. I've read of too many stories, for example, where a person that needed medical services simply earned a few dollars too much for Medicaid assistance so they had a choice to either quit their job or die. I don't know that "Obamacare" fixes that and perhaps it does but it has been a serious problem. We also know that programs like SNAP don't provide enough assistance to those in need. So how do we increase the "net benefit" to Americans while reducing the overall costs? I once suggested, for example, that food assistance should be predominately provided for by private food banks where the government provides subsidies. That would increase the benefit to the people about fourfold for the dollar because to food is actually provided for below wholesale cost. Of course the private grocery markets would suffer because they wouldn't be collecting retail prices on food for those receiving food assistance. So private enterprise would "suffer" because the government wouldn't be subsidizing the grocery markets but twice as many people could be helped for 1/2 the cost to the taxpayers. I used an exemption that doesn't provide a subsidy that would exist with a tax credit. Only those with income would benefit from the exemption whereas those without "income" benefit from the tax credit. Regardless of whether they would be "better off" the historical fact is that those that need assistance the most when unemployed are those with average or below average incomes and they either: 1) don't have the excess funds to save and invest, or 2) don't save and invest so that they would have the funds. We should also remember that there is a stark difference between the US "median income" and the US "average income" because the median income is distorted by a very small percentage that have very, very high incomes. The actual "average" household income is somewhere between $30,000-$40,000 and not $50,000. Even with unemployment insurance today financial experts say that a person should have 6-months of liquid assets, such as a savings account, to use if they become unemployed. I would estimate that virtually no one with less than $50,000 in income has $25,000 in a savings account. This cannot be in a 401K account, for example, because a withdrawal instantly has 20% withheld as taxes and the truth is that most low income people aren't even invested in 401K or Roth IRA accounts. So without the "unemployment insurance" we could expect a lot of people to lose their homes through foreclosure as well as far more bankruptcies because probably 1/2 or more of the People wouldn't have a dime to live on when they are laid off from work. The cost to the employers for unemployment insurance, including the adminstrative costs, is insignificant but the negative impact to families and the US economy would be huge if it didn't exist. The "unemployment insurance" premiums are not paid for by the worker and it is not their money.
It does no such thing, its a credit a calculation. Its far more effiecnt because we no longer need people going to see Mr Govt employee for a handout, no more checking on whos exploiting the current welfare and so on. Skewing the production of goods? It allows the free market to set wages instead of skewing the production with high income! Whatever jerk
Of course it does. As I said, its only superficially different from the MIG Note that you talk about efficiency but ignore the important issue: effectiveness. NIT is neither efficient at targeting the poor or effective at eliminating it. Its advantage is only in integrating tax and benefit systems. This is so naive. There is no free market. There is monopsony and the associated negative effects. There is also long term damage as resources are shifted away from high productive endeavour. Anyone demanding the end of the minimum wage is demanding an irrational outcome that will only increase working poverty and harm the market. Rather than reacting with blubbering, improve your argument. Ideological deficiency should always be avoided, else you make poor mistakes.
We have a serious problem in the United States because we don't allow the "free market" to operate related to the Law of Supply and Demand for Labor because we have protectionist immigration policies where low cost immigrant labor is being denied legal immigration status. For a free market to exist protectionism cannot exist. As we know based upon the Law of Supply and Demand the market will attempt to meet the demand for goods, services, or labor. It will do so legally if possible but if it's not "legal" then the "black market" will attempt to fill the demand. The roughly 11 million "illegal" immigrants in the United States are a reflection of the "black market in labor" attempting to fill the demand for low wage workers that are willing to do hard work that Americans won't do.
You're misapplying the laws of supply and demand. There is no market wage. There is no market clearing (and there is no natural tendency to deliver it in capitalism).
There is no "official" market wage but a shortage of qualified labor does increase the compensation just as an excess of qualified labor reduces the compensation. That's why hand digging ditches doesn't pay much because virtually anyone can dig a ditch but being able to build and airplane pays a lot more because there aren't all that many people capable of building an airplane. The Law of Supply and Demand relates to goods, services, and labor equally. Perhaps the greatest example of all is the illegal drug trade where the government prohibits the legal production and distribution of these drugs creating the black market. The "demand" exists and the shortage of "supply" because the drugs are illegal results in the cost of those drugs being about 100-times greater than what they would cost if they were distributed legally. There is fundamentally no difference when we address labor. Due to protectionist immigration policies we (the US) have a shortage of individuals that will work in fundamentally "unskilled" labor positions so the cost of that labor increases. I have a lawns service that costs me $60/hr that basically uses "unskilled" labor (it doesn't take much skill to run a lawnmower or trimmer) while "immigrant" labor would probably do the same work for about half that cost. The "labor" shortage fundamentally doubled the costs of the service being provided. Of course the high cost of the labor results in reduced demand as well. Far more people would use a lawn service if it cost 1/2 as much so there will always be a balance between "demand" and "labor" based upon the Law of Supply and Demand. The "market" determines where the balance ends up.
The latter suggests the former. The idea of a market wage has been rejected since empirical work in the 1940s. You cannot use the laws of supply & demand. The biggest problem with your libertarian background is that you have been blinded over how the labour market operates. The involuntary unemployment, the underemployment and the underpayment; all aspects of coercion alien to the laws of supply & demand.
Some have rejected a belief in the Law of Supply and Demand but I don't believe that mainstream economists have. There is simply too much evidence that it is in action throughout any economy. As noted it will exist in the legal markets or the black markets but it always exists. An individual with skills and knowledge that are in demand does not remain unemployed. As I've noted, because I'm at the top of my professional field, I've never faced extended unemployment because my knowledge and skills are always in demand. Unemployment only results when there is an excess of labor related to the demand for that labor. This is a perfect example of the Law of Supply and Demand in action. Underemployment occurs when there is less demand than the number of qaulified individuals. For example the United States has roughly 45 million college graduates but we only have a demand for about 25 million college graduates. That leaves about 20 million individuals that are either under-employed or that are under-paid beccause their college degree is not in demand. Their situation is a perfect example of the Law of Supply and Demand in action. And this has absolutely nothing to do with taxation whatsoever so why are we discussing it?
The variation I have is different. It would work like this: If you make 10k you are taxed 25% $2500 in taxes? You get a credit of $10k, the government sends you $7500 If you make 0 the government gives you $10k If you make $20 k the government gives you $5k If you make $30k the government gives you $2500 If you make $40k you pay no taxes you get no check/subsidy If you make $50k in our example the median income used for simplification purposes, you pay $2500 in total federal taxes. If you make $100k you pay $15k in taxes The system is also self balancing because it uses the median income. Let me know if I should go into that more. To phase out soc sec, those people would who are already legible will get the new subsidy and an exemption on income under 50k. This exemption would phase out at 5% a year but adjusted for inflation withe last person getting any exemption being 22 today. Let me know if you need any detail, specific questions are easier to answer on phones then philosophical ones.
And the person with a $25 million mansion, a Ferrari, Rolls Royce and Bentley, and a private jet that has $25 million in their safe at home has no income and receives a $10,000 check from the government but that's always a problem related to Tax Credits and income. With a "tax exemption" they don't receive a dime because they don't have reportable income. Speaking of which what about the person with tax-free government bonds that aren't reported as income? I remember back in the 1960's that one of the heirs to Henry Ford's estate had a $5 million annual income because she had $100 million in tax free government bonds that paid 5%. She wasn't even required to file a tax return because she had no "reportable" income.Under the Tax Credit she would still have received a check for $10,000.
It would be based on personal median income. Labor is paid faster then a year. The deduction for inflation would just be on long term investments. The point is, that if you buy a bond at 3%, and the government causes 5% inflation, when you sell that bond, they should not be taxing that 3% as all profit, because inflation made it a 2% yearly loss. Yes, but they get taxed every year. It would just be a deduction from income realized on a bond, for the inflation valued in that bond. That would harm the elderly who have the majority of long term investments, Per year. Gains that are the same as inflation aren't really gains at all. It is small potatoes. If you can agree with the rest you can have it. Fair enough? Yes, using the median family income of $50,000 with a 20% tax credit a family with $40,000 in gross income would owe no tax with a 25% tax rate. The "subsidy" based upon the tax credit is something different. Does this mean that a family with a $30,000 that would have a $7,500 tax before the tax credit would receive a $2,500 tax refund based upon the $10,000 tax credit? Of note this is interesting because a retiree living on Social Security alone at maximum benefits at full retirement age only receives about $30,000/yr and would also receive the $2,500 refund if I understand this correctly. Would someone with no actual income (e.g. a person living on "cash" as opposed to income) would receive a $10,000 tax refund? Obviously only the really wealthy could probably do this but it does present a question worthy of consideration. As for Social Security/Medicare funding we need only remember that high income individuals deriving their income from investments, which where the really wealthy obtain their income, have never funded Social Security/Medicare before. In truth the 25% tax rate on gross income would substantially increase the effective tax rates for wealthy investors. While we currently have a 20% Capital Gains tax few investors with multi-million investment income even come close to paying this rate. Additionally eliminating the "capital gains" tax loolhole would also eliminate the off shore tax havens (where an investor currently pays no tax on income) that exist because of provisions in the capital gains tax codes. I'm all for eliminating the "off shore tax havens that have allowed hundreds of billions of dollars in income to go untaxed. But this proposal leaves us with the current Social Security/Medicare welfare programs that never addressed the original problem of people not investing and having enough personal assests (wealth) to provide income when they reached retirement age. In addressing other forms of welfare I would ask if the changes would result in greater benefit to those that really do need this assistance? The problem we have today is that those in need often don't receive assistance at all. I've read of too many stories, for example, where a person that needed medical services simply earned a few dollars too much for Medicaid assistance so they had a choice to either quit their job or die. I don't know that "Obamacare" fixes that and perhaps it does but it has been a serious problem. We also know that programs like SNAP don't provide enough assistance to those in need. So how do we increase the "net benefit" to Americans while reducing the overall costs? I once suggested, for example, that food assistance should be predominately provided for by private food banks where the government provides subsidies. That would increase the benefit to the people about fourfold for the dollar because to food is actually provided for below wholesale cost. Of course the private grocery markets would suffer because they wouldn't be collecting retail prices on food for those receiving food assistance. So private enterprise would "suffer" because the government wouldn't be subsidizing the grocery markets but twice as many people could be helped for 1/2 the cost to the taxpayers. I used an exemption that doesn't provide a subsidy that would exist with a tax credit. Only those with income would benefit from the exemption whereas those without "income" benefit from the tax credit. Regardless of whether they would be "better off" the historical fact is that those that need assistance the most when unemployed are those with average or below average incomes and they either: 1) don't have the excess funds to save and invest, or 2) don't save and invest so that they would have the funds. We should also remember that there is a stark difference between the US "median income" and the US "average income" because the median income is distorted by a very small percentage that have very, very high incomes. The actual "average" household income is somewhere between $30,000-$40,000 and not $50,000. Even with unemployment insurance today financial experts say that a person should have 6-months of liquid assets, such as a savings account, to use if they become unemployed. I would estimate that virtually no one with less than $50,000 in income has $25,000 in a savings account. This cannot be in a 401K account, for example, because a withdrawal instantly has 20% withheld as taxes and the truth is that most low income people aren't even invested in 401K or Roth IRA accounts. So without the "unemployment insurance" we could expect a lot of people to lose their homes through foreclosure as well as far more bankruptcies because probably 1/2 or more of the People wouldn't have a dime to live on when they are laid off from work. The cost to the employers for unemployment insurance, including the adminstrative costs, is insignificant but the negative impact to families and the US economy would be huge if it didn't exist. The "unemployment insurance" premiums are not paid for by the worker and it is not their money.[/QUOTE]
What you believe doesn't matter. There is no market wage. You won't be able to refer to one study that shows otherwise. The only debate is over why. The neoclassical economist will refer to monopsony; an institutionalist would factor in aspects such as human resource management methods etc etc etc All you have is 'supply & demand matter'. To go from that to the much more restrictive 'laws of supply and demand' is a tremendous jump! The existence of involuntary unemployment tells me that you're wrong. Note also that high skilled labour is often within internal labour markets. Its quite common therefore that useful human capital is ignored. Actually you can't use supply & demand to understand unemployment trends. We've seen that, for example, with the use of the efficiency wage hypothesis. Some fellow inappropriately referred to the minimum wage
As noted though over 1/2 of the households would either not be paying any federal taxes and most would be receiving refunds because the "average" household income is substantially less than the "median" household income. I just wanted everyone to be aware of that fact. A 5% reduction rate equates to a 20 year transitional program but investing for retirement requires up to 45 years of investing for low income individuals. Privatization must be spread out over an average 45 year time-span as that is necessary for low and middle income individuals to accumulate enough in personal assets. BTW I also addressed another important issue related to Social Security in my "long-form" proposal as I advocated raising Social Security benefits to $25,000 because those receiving less than that are also collecting welfare. It's stupid to underpay the "retirement" benefits and then have the same people collecting welfare from other sources. Why not just give them enough money up front from Social Security so that they don't require other welfare assistance? Under my proposal I would also continue to provide a safety net under privatization where, perhaps at age 70, a person's private income of less than $25,000 (adjusted for inflation) would be supplemented to ensure that they recieve a total of $25,000 in income. So a person could accumulate enough inpersonal assets to generate $20,000 in annual income and the government, as a safety net, would provide supplemental income of $5,000 to that person. There would also be a safety net for health insurance. While under privatization the typical income would be well in excess of $50,000/yr (adjusted for inflation) which would allow a person to pay the high private heath insurance that today average about $15,000/yr there could be some with lower incomes that would require a little assistance in purchasing private insurance when they reach retirement. There would be no minimum age for retirement but there would be minimum requirements for retirement to ensure that person had enough income to provide income for life. I would suggest going back to the drawing board on addressing Social Security/Medicare. Remember some key points. Remember that currently Social Security is a poverty level welfare program that requires most retirees to also obtain additional welfare assistance because of the low retirement benefits. Remember that the transitional timeframe in going to be about 45 years because it has to cover an entire working career. Remember that to gain liberal support a safety net must exist. Remember that current recipients and future recipients are going to require benefits during almost all of the transitional period and we don't have enough tax revenues even today to fund that. If we pull FICA/Payroll/Self-Employment taxes to fund private investments then we need new tax revenues to cover the costs of transition.
No she wouldn't. Unless inflation was equal or more to the rate of the bond. In which case she really didn't make any money if you value money not in nominal terms but what it can buy. I would abolish the gift tax tax but that is another topic.
I don't see it that way at all. I see it as an expensive retirement package with a lousy return on health savings and poor disability insurance. Free from soc sec taxes under my plan people will get better products for themselves. Those who do not will get 10k a year, and whatever state welfare available.
Is 25% enough? While the initial proposal, as I recall, suggested that the tax should cover state and federal taxation, I seriously doubt that a 25% tax rate would provide enough revenue for authorized expendatures of the federal government. We cannot assume that every federal expendature law is going to be re-written to accomodate the 25% tax rate. It would be tough enough to sell just the proposal for a 25% tax rate with a 20% tax credit on 1/5th of the median income alone not even addressing the Social Security/Medicare issue and FICA/Payroll/Self-employment taxes. Republicans are going to come unglued just related to the elimination of the Caplital Gains tax loophole because that is their favorite "crony capitalism" loophole and they have never supported fair taxation that requires treating all income the same. Privatizing Social Security/Medicare over a 45 year transitional time frame is potentially doable because I believe we could convince "liberals" of the advantages so long as a safety net remains but that is another legislatve change based upon it's own merits and is not an "income tax" issue per say as it has dedicated funding. As noted though there has to be a means to fund the additional expendature which is why I proposed lifting the partial caps on the 15.3% rate and applying it to all income regardless of source. I proposed using the 15.3% on the first $50,000 of income to fund private investments and then using all FICA/Payroll/Self-employment taxes above this to fund the transition but even that might not be enough. We might have to increase the 15.3% to actually fund the transition. As for all of the other general expendatures of Congress we must initially believe these laws won't be changed. The only way I actually see them changing is if the tax rate" is enough to fund them (i.e. a balanced budget) and if the rate is too high then the People will demand reductions. Without the public support for reducing expendatures the expendatures will not be reduced and the only way to get public support is by actually requiring the public to pay for the expendatures.
It would cover it if the other programs were abolished. I will run the num era for you in a minute, they work because it is a tax increase in the effective rate the wealthiest pay. Median income has a top heavy side, not a bottom heavy side. There are substantial savings lost in our current welfare bureaucracy. Yes you heard it right, this is a tax increase for most in the top end. Especially since all deductions will be scrapped, even charitable ones. The quickest way to see revenue would be 25% of all income, minus 10k per capita.
Let's do the numbers, in a sort of off the cuff casual manner with a lot of simplification and rounding off to keep it simple, like exempting the first $50,000 of everyone's income from taxes, estimating income distribution within ten percent and rounding to up to whole $Trillions. Personal Income is currently about $13Trillion. Median income is about $50,000 so half the income goes to those making $50,000 or less, or does it? Actually it means no such thing. It means only that half the people make more and half make less. In fact all those people making less than $50,000 a year receive only around 20% of that $13Trillion, or $3Trillion to make it easy. If we exempt the first $50,000 of income from tax for everyone that would way more than double but to keep it simple we will go with a simple doubling to $6Trillion. That leaves about $7Trillion of personal income to get all the taxes revenues from. 25% of 7 is too complicated so let's call it 8. 25% of eight is two. A 25% tax, as proposed would bring in roughly $2Trillion. If someone is willing to crunch the numbers more exactly we could probably get some more accurate figures but it is not looking too good for this proposal in a quick and dirty analysis.
I've never actually found a "gross personal income" statistic but it could be out there. The "IF" of expendature cuts is a HUGE IF. How about a new challenge? Over the last 12 years we accumulated about $12 trillion in additional national debt. Take the real challenge of not only balancing the budget but of also paying off $12 trillion in borrowing over the next 12 years. That adds an average of $1 trillion/yr to equation for necessary tax revenues. If it took 12 years to accumulate the debt then we should be able to pay it off in 12 years so that we don't pass it on to future generations.
The $13 trillion relates to net income if memory serves me correctly and the tax is based upon gross personal income which would be higher. I just found a "hitch in the giddy-up" on the numbers. According to Wikipedia the "median income" in the United States is only $30,230/yr as of 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income This could dramatically increase the cost of the tax credit.
- Repudiate that debt! The Chinese are buying it below value, we would be silly not too. Did that stop? In that case, I would still go with slow payback, letting the payments come as they mature, they are included in the budget used, so I would just get to balance, and let time dwindle that number before paying off anything. We are working with adjusted income in the numbers above. You can see some data here, the numbers should work out better in my favor, who knows we may have that surplus yet: http://www.irs.gov/uac/Tax-Stats-2 fun page^
Lets start with 2011 numbers, in a recession. I think gross national income more closely represents what we want for the starting number. It is $15.2 trillion http://www.google.co.in/search?btnG=Google+Search&q=gross+national+income+united+states 25% of that is $3.8 trillion The population, including an amount estimated for illegal immigrants that wouldn't qualify (deal with that another day), was 316,090,000 The cost of the credit at $5300 would be $1.67 trillion Leftover revenue after credit, or government revenue would be $2.13 trillion. Pretty close to what revenue was anyway in 2011, which stood at Total Revenue -2,303.5 So I need to find $173.5 billion in cuts to get to even with that year's deficit, and $1.473 trillion in cuts to balance the budget in 2011. Now to the spending cuts. Rather then just chop whole agencies, I found a more detailed breakdown of government spending here, it may not be perfect, but it is the best I found so far: United States Federal, State and Local Government Spending Fiscal Year 2011 GDP: $15,075.7 billion(1) Amounts in $ billion Space Fed Pensions --------------------------------- 782.3 -Sickness and disability --------------------------------- 138.2 -Old age --------------------------------- 644 Health Care --------------------------------- 858.2 -Medical service (Seniors) --------------------------------- 485.7 -Medical service --------------------------------- 0 -Public health services --------------------------------- 4.1 -R and D Health --------------------------------- 36.2 -Health n.e.c. --------------------------------- 0 -Vendor Payments (Welfare) --------------------------------- 332.2 Education --------------------------------- 113.7 -Pre primary thru secondary education --------------------------------- 66.5 -Tertiary education --------------------------------- 1.1 -Education not definable by level --------------------------------- 46.1 -Subsidiary services to education --------------------------------- 0 -R and D Education --------------------------------- 0 -Education n.e.c. --------------------------------- 0 Defense --------------------------------- 878.4 -Military defense --------------------------------- 705.6 -Civil defense --------------------------------- 0 -Veterans --------------------------------- 127.2 -Foreign military aid --------------------------------- 12 -Foreign economic aid --------------------------------- 33.6 -R and D Defence --------------------------------- 0 -Defence n.e.c. --------------------------------- 0 Welfare --------------------------------- 466.2 -Family and children --------------------------------- 103.2 -Unemployment --------------------------------- 120.6 -Unemployment trust --------------------------------- 0 -Housing --------------------------------- 55.4 -Social exclusion n.e.c. --------------------------------- 187 -R and D Social protection --------------------------------- 0 -Social protection n.e.c. --------------------------------- 0 Protection --------------------------------- 37.9 -Police services --------------------------------- 29.8 -Fire protection services --------------------------------- 0 -Prisons --------------------------------- 8.1 -R and D Public order and safety --------------------------------- 0 -Public order and safety n.e.c. --------------------------------- 0 Transportation --------------------------------- 93 -Transport --------------------------------- 93 -Transit --------------------------------- 0 General Government --------------------------------- 47.2 -Executive and legislative organs, financ --------------------------------- 18.5 -Law courts --------------------------------- 18.2 -General services --------------------------------- 10.5 Other Spending --------------------------------- 96.4 -Basic research --------------------------------- 17 -General economic, commercial and labour --------------------------------- -8.7 -Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunti --------------------------------- 27.5 -Fuel and energy --------------------------------- 5.8 -Mining, manufacturing and construction --------------------------------- 0 -Communication --------------------------------- 0.9 -Other industries --------------------------------- 0 -R and D Economic affairs --------------------------------- 0 -Economic affairs n.e.c. --------------------------------- -21.3 -Waste management --------------------------------- 0 -Waste water management --------------------------------- 0 -Pollution abatement --------------------------------- 10.9 -Protection of biodiversity and landscape --------------------------------- 12 -R and D Environmental protection --------------------------------- 0 -Environmental protection n.e.c. --------------------------------- 0 -Housing development --------------------------------- 14.2 -Community development --------------------------------- 23.9 -Water supply --------------------------------- 11.6 -Street lighting --------------------------------- 0 -R and D Housing and community amenities --------------------------------- 0 -Housing and community amenities n.e.c. --------------------------------- 0 -Recreational and sporting services --------------------------------- 4.2 -Cultural services --------------------------------- 0 -Broadcasting and publishing services --------------------------------- 0 -Religious and other community services --------------------------------- 0 -R and D Recreation, culture and religion --------------------------------- 0 -Recreation, culture and religion n.e.c. --------------------------------- 0 -R and D General public services --------------------------------- 0 -General public services n.e.c. --------------------------------- -1.5 -Transfers of a general character between --------------------------------- 0 Interest --------------------------------- 230 -Public debt transactions --------------------------------- 230 Balance --------------------------------- 0 Total Spending --------------------------------- 3603.1 -Total --------------------------------- 3603.1 Federal Deficit --------------------------------- 1299.6 -Total Spending --------------------------------- 3603.1 -Total Revenue --------------------------------- -2303.5 Gross Public Debt --------------------------------- 14764.2 Legend: a - actual reported e - estimated by usgovernmentspending.com Data Sources for 2011: GDP: <a title=Louis Johnston and Samuel H. Williamson -- What Was the U.S. GDP Then? MeasuringWorth 2013." href="http://www.measuringworth.com/usgdp/">Measuring Worth - US GDP</a> Federal: <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collection.action?collectionCode=BUDGET&browsePath=Fiscal+Year+2014&searchPath=Fiscal+Year+2014&leafLevelBrowse=false&isCollapsed=false&isOpen=true&packageid=BUDGET-2014-TAB&ycord=822">Fed. Budget: Hist. Tables 3.2 5.1 source: usgovernmentspending.com The cuts would get us to surplus: Bureacracy -Executive and legislative organs, financ --------------------------------- 6 -Basic research --------------------------------- 17 -Fuel and energy --------------------------------- 5.8 -Protection of biodiversity and landscape --------------------------------- 12 -Housing development --------------------------------- 14.2 -Community development --------------------------------- 23.9 -Recreational and sporting services --------------------------------- 2.2 Education -Pre primary thru secondary education --------------------------------- 66.5 -Tertiary education --------------------------------- 1.1 -Education not definable by level --------------------------------- 46.1 -Subsidiary services to education --------------------------------- 0 -R and D Education --------------------------------- 0 -Education n.e.c. --------------------------------- 0 Welfare -Family and children --------------------------------- 103.2 -Unemployment --------------------------------- 120.6 -Sickness and disability --------------------------------- 138.2 -Vendor Payments for Health (Welfare) --------------------------------- 332.2 -Unemployment trust --------------------------------- 0 -Housing --------------------------------- 55.4 -Social exclusion n.e.c. --------------------------------- 187 -Agriculture subsidies --------------------------------- 20 Disallowing Credit to People Receiving SS 495.75 Number of people Retired(*)workers 37(*)million (*)(*)dependents 2.9 million Disabled(*)workers 8.8 million (*)(*)dependents 2.1 million Survivors 6.3 million Total Number 57.1 million Amount of Credit Savings 571 Billion Soc Sec Payments 661 Billion Amount of Tax loss for SS Exemption 165.25 Foreign economic aid --------------------------------- 33.6 Total Cuts 1680.75 Total Spending After Cuts (credits not counted) 1922.25 Total Revenue 2135 (Soc. Security Revenue Dealt with in Cuts section) Deficit -212.75 (Negative Deficit is a Surplus) It doesn't pay off as fast as you would like, but it pays off the long term debt in time, these include balance and interest payments in the spending figure that I didn't cut. With a stable budget, the long term debt wont matter as much. This was all in a bad year for the economy, and the government was running a 1 trillion + deficit. The states would have to pick up some sporting an environmental activities, but they get a lot of school savings. I would take the surplus and add $70 to the credit next year. Products will be cheaper, we can can abolish tarrifs.
People seem to not understand the how the Chinese came to "own" so much of the national debt (China holds 8.1% of US debt). http://finance.townhall.com/columni...who-really-owns-the-us-national-debt-n1493555 The US has a trade deficit with China so we, the American People, have purchased Chinese goods with IOU's and China holds those IOU's in the form of US government promissory notes that pay interest (e.g. US Treasury Bills). If we take this to the base level the proposition that we "repudiate the Chinese held US debt" simply implies is that the American workers should screw the Chinese workers by breaking a contractual obligation to redeem IOU's that were given to the Chinese workers by Americans in exchange for the goods the Chinese workers produced.
