tax cuts

[speakeasy]

What I often wonder is that when people want tax cuts, do they have any clue that cutting taxes raises the national debt? And that the national debt is over 10 trillion dollars, i.e. $10,000,000,000,000.00 and that when you count in obligations our government has in things like medicare, social security, the wars that are not officially in the budget, that number rises to over $50,000,000,000,000.00? That will mean that every household in American will be on the hook for more than $500,000. Do people ever think about the implications this will have on future as we run a budged deficit every year and we can barely even pay the interest on the debt. Yet everytime you hear a politician calling for tax cuts, it's like the the guy who has $50,000 in credit card debt, yet only wants to make the minimum monthly payment and hope his kids pay it off some day. Well guys, WE are the generation that's going to get stuck with the bill. I don't even want to hear anyone talk about tax cuts.

It angers me that the baby boomers lived it up and then will pass the bill onto our generation. For example, I take someone like my dad, he worked 30 years at GM as an auto worker. He's 57, He gets a pension from GM and in a few years down the road, he'll also get a social security check. He'll be getting over $4000 a month total just to chill and watch TV all day, even though he's just as able bodied as me and could work if he wanted to. If GM goes bankrupt, his pension is insured by the government and the taxpayers will pick up the tab. None of this stuff will be there for us when we get that age. Social security will be bankrupt and pensions, I don't think there is such a thing anymore. You just get a 401k and you better be socking away some serious money because nobody will be looking out for us when it's our turn, the nation will long since have been bankrupted by debt obligations.

 

[Teflon_Mcgee]

Well, the answer is smaller goverment. They can't handle anything properly yet people keep wanting them to handle more.

I hate the thought of paying taxes just so the goverment can become bigger and offer more programs that they will just screw up (like social security.)

Like you said, giving tax cuts and maintaining the status quo is a recipe for failure. You have to also cut spending.

In some cases tax cuts do increase revenue (look at the capital gains tax cut for example.) But I think that's irrelevant. Cut spending and you don't need increased revinue.

I think the problem is the goverment is just a large inefficient, beauracratic mess that thinks more money is the answer. It constantly increases its entropy and will soon become a burden that ultimatley leads to the collapse of the American way of life.

 

[speakeasy]

Yeah, I hear you. I would like to see smaller government in certain areas, but the problem is, all politicians promise leaner government and cutting the fat, but they never name exactly what they plan to cut. They know the second they name something they are going to cut, millions of voters will be infuriated and vote against them. That's why John McCain is being forced to say he will buy people's mortgages. That's completely against what his party stands for, but to say otherwise and tell voters what they don't want to hear is essentially forfeiting the election to Obama. Voters all want to hear that the government is going to step in and stop their homes from falling in value, nevermind the fact that homes should never have gotten that expensive in the first place nor should people have been dumb enough to buy more house than they could really afford. But voters are always going to vote for the guy that promises them the most. "I will cut your taxes AND prop up the value of your home at taxpayer expense! Just borrow and print more money, we can just pass the cost along to the next generation and let them worry about the aftermath." That kind of policy will get you elected.

Seriously, we need to raise taxes, cut back benefits and spending, and probably raise retirement age to 75. Social Security was made at a time when most people didn't even live to 60 so it wasn't the massive expense that it is now. With more and more people living longer, I think the age 65 retirement is outdated. What's going to happen when the average person starts living to 90 because of advances in medicine and nutrition? Now we're going to have people collecting social security checks for 30 years at taxpayer expense. It will collapse our treasury.

 

[bigjohnson]

Tax rates are just one part of a much more complex picture. The number that matters more is the amount of tax monies actually COLLECTED which is not as directly connected to rates as it might seem. Couple that will the influence spending has and I think the tax rate issue is actually far from simple.

 

[A-Unit]

Re:

Raise tax rates?

There's enough direct and indirect taxes to choke a horse. Between consumption based taxes, income taxes, and federal taxes, PLUS, the double dipping tax on Social Security, we need LESS taxes, not more!

Obama will prolong American independence on Government. It was never designed to be a central figure in providing life-necessary functions, although they do enjoy the growing role they are playing with us all.

Forget the debt. Seriously. Who cares? It's fake, made up of dollars and book entries not of the American people's wanting. The dollars themselves are worthless beyond their expected exchange value for other goods and services. Dollars are actually debt instruments, too. So who cares about the debt?

The American economy and US government lost its principles long ago. It has changed, and not for the better. As Social Security stands, there's no "fund" of accumulated value. SS that is taken from your current income pays retirees. Any surplus is used on current expenditures, with a notation that our's will be due us in the future. But there's no fund that specifically owns securities. It really can't, because it can't have interests in American enterprises. How could it?

By Smaller or Bigger government you really, barely, and almost completely unnoticed, change the size. Neither president will do what has to be done to REALLY improve America. It's an illusion, that's why the public "fighting" or debating is a sham. BOTH parties sell us and can't claim real effects, only a degradation in the constitution, the indebting of America, and wars. They also claim ownership of laws written, but I've not seen a beneficial law in years, if ever.

How a President claims the fruits of positive economies, I'll never know. Most destroy them, what with the Government's excessive over-activity (i.e. raising or lowering interest rates too fast). Something enacted now, still won't have effects until later, unless it's DRASTIC. This INFUSION of capital will not spawn more borrowing, especially if the consumer thinks he could lose his job or the money in his bank accounts. If consumer's tighten their budget, then investment in products or business expansion declines, as do IPOs on wall st, etc.

So to say one president or the other drastically impacts anything is foolish. Bush inherited some good things and bad things from Clinton, and Clinton inherited some good and bad things from Father Bush. Clinton and his administration actually wrote some laws which gave power to this housing and lending collapse.

What we need is a return to the original premise of America, the constitution, and to replace this sham, shadow government. Lincoln always believed that if the government representing us did not serve our best interests anymore, it was within our rights to change that. However, by labeling anyone who is AGAINST the gov a terrorist, that has all been but outlawed.

 

[speakeasy]

Raise tax rates?

Forget the debt. Seriously. Who cares? It's fake, made up of dollars and book entries not of the American people's wanting. The dollars themselves are worthless beyond their expected exchange value for other goods and services. Dollars are actually debt instruments, too. So who cares about the debt?

Really, so racking up trillions in debt ad infinitum will have no impact on the American standard of living and way of life? Would you tell someone the same thing who is living off credit cards? Who cares about debt, just keep charging up more things than you can ever pay off? The house of cards isn't going to come crashing down one day?

 

[bigjohnson]

It's sort of like the shareholders of GM suing GM. Who are they really suing again? Remember who the US Government is indebted to? I'm one of the guys holding notes. Maybe you are too.

So called 'simple' math isn't so simple in complex cases like this. I'm not an expert but the huge diversity in opinion tends to make me believe that the question is not simple and answers are complex. One part of the complexity is that as the debt grows those who hold notes actually become more wealthy due to their investments. Also the 'income' of the government depends heavily on total production and consumption; it's better to have a small slice of a huge pie than half a tiny one.

In balance the best thing seems like growing the overall productivity of the nation and keeping people working. But then that's not simple either I suppose.

 

[speakeasy]

So called 'simple' math isn't so simple in complex cases like this. I'm not an expert but the huge diversity in opinion tends to make me believe that the question is not simple and answers are complex. One part of the complexity is that as the debt grows those who hold notes actually become more wealthy due to their investments.

Or more poor rather since those notes become worth increasingly less as inflation eats into the value of your money. Those of us that have put away savings for retirement are effectively having their savings wiped out by inflation.

I don't own any precious metals, but I need to seriously think about how much of my net worth I want to allocate to metals and other hard assets. I don't like putting too many eggs in one basket, but it's hard to believe we won't see inflation skyrocketing like crazy this coming year with the government printing what will probably be in the trillions of dollars right out of thin air.

 

[ketostix]

It angers me that the baby boomers lived it up and then will pass the bill onto our generation. For example, I take someone like my dad, he worked 30 years at GM as an auto worker. He's 57, He gets a pension from GM and in a few years down the road, he'll also get a social security check. He'll be getting over $4000 a month total just to chill and watch TV all day, even though he's just as able bodied as me and could work if he wanted to. If GM goes bankrupt, his pension is insured by the government and the taxpayers will pick up the tab. None of this stuff will be there for us when we get that age.

OK I agree with you about baby boomers to a large extent but your Dad isn't technically a baby boomer. He's the generation before. Your dad and others working for GM isn't passing any debt down. He paid in to SS for over 30 years. Also, he won't get his full retirement plus SS. GM takes part of the pension away when you get SS. His pension is insured by the government because the government required GM to pay certain obligations in money that support the pension financially. Should workers be cheated and defrauded out of their pension? GM was good for the economy and the deficit.

The reason why none of that stuff is going to be around for us is because back then people bought GM cars, they bought American made products. But now people pay MORE for Hondas, Toyotas and Nissans and the workers get **** for it and if anything our government subsides these foreign companies who pay little and aren't taxed as much.

Being envious of their fellow Americans' salary and benefits sure hasn't gotten anyone anywhere has it, except for the mega-rich? Our deficit to a huge degree is a deficit to Asia.