News The 1% Solution to the National Debt

[WhoWee]

Everyone above the poverty level should pay some income tax. Dump welfare completely and replace it with workfare. Replace the no-work check with a work check. Then perhaps they'll figure out if they have to work to get money, they may as well do something that will pay more. i.e. better paying work than workfare jobs (road trash pickup, scraping gum off sidewakes, anything no one else wants to do, etc.) and push them to a work ethic. Seriously, I'm we're going to send someone money, we should demand and require something in return. Stop nearly unlimited unemployment benefit extentions for all but the ones that can demonstrate SIGNIFICANT effort toward finding a job or getting retraining for a new career.

That's a different conversation - do you think a plan to eliminate the national debt with the assistance of the 1% is possible?

 

[Pattonias]

I think anything is possible, but wealth redistribution doesn't solve the problem. The problem is a government which has gotten too used to spending the money of their constituents. They got so used to it that they started borrowing money to make it look like their constituents were getting even more for their money than they originally thought they would.

Today if the debt was wiped clean our current politicians would borrow the current amount of debt again and use it to send us into a golden age with them at the helm. 200 years from now when the debt collectors come calling they will look for someone to pay off the debt for them all over again.

The only way to fix the debt problem is to balance the budget and spend the next few centuries paying down the budget. Once we pay down the debt, then the government can look at incurring a little debt as an investment instead of a policy.

 

[WhoWee]

I think anything is possible, but wealth redistribution doesn't solve the problem. The problem is a government which has gotten too used to spending the money of their constituents. They got so used to it that they started borrowing money to make it look like their constituents were getting even more for their money than they originally thought they would.

Today if the debt was wiped clean our current politicians would borrow the current amount of debt again and use it to send us into a golden age with them at the helm. 200 years from now when the debt collectors come calling they will look for someone to pay off the debt for them all over again.

The only way to fix the debt problem is to balance the budget and spend the next few centuries paying down the budget. Once we pay down the debt, then the government can look at incurring a little debt as an investment instead of a policy.

That's why the OP stated "The Government in turn would commit to a balanced budget moving forward. Does this sound fair?"

 

[Alfi]

Everyone above the poverty level should pay some income tax. Dump welfare completely and replace it with workfare. Replace the no-work check with a work check. Then perhaps they'll figure out if they have to work to get money, they may as well do something that will pay more. i.e. better paying work than workfare jobs (road trash pickup, scraping gum off sidewakes, anything no one else wants to do, etc.) and push them to a work ethic. Seriously, I'm we're going to send someone money, we should demand and require something in return. Stop nearly unlimited unemployment benefit extentions for all but the ones that can demonstrate SIGNIFICANT effort toward finding a job or getting retraining for a new career.

I agree. BUT
The bold part I indicated, introduces the others.
Below the poverty level ... you know ... just a few people ... What are your thoughts to them?

Screw em? If they just died off ... we, the rest of us, would be better off?

 

[WhoWee]

Let's stay focused - please?

 

[MarcoD]

I think, these days, introducing workfare probably means heavy industrial complaints about 'unfair practices.' Maybe minimum wage is just that: workfare?

 

[JDoolin]

It should also be noted that if the government paid off its debts in full right now, then every person that was owed social security and certificates of deposit, government bonds, etc would now have to be paid back in full. I think it would be interesting to explore exactly who would be paid back, and exactly how much, if the top 1% did "pay off the debt."

I'm not sure how the OP got 1% of the population was 35,000. (EDIT: HE EXPLAINS IN POST #6) I come out closer to 3,000,000. 16.4x10¹²/3x10⁶=5.5 million each, but if the top 35,000 want to pay 500 million each, then more power to them.

If you cut it up the other way, with each of the 300,000,000 paying off $55,000 each, you should know that is about how much I make in three years, (living quite comfortably, I might add.) I don't think it is quite feasible to ask me and each of my friends to come up with $55,000 at this time. :)

 

[JDoolin]

I think it would be interesting to explore exactly who would be paid back, and exactly how much, if the top 1% did "pay off the debt."

This question just became even more interesting, as I read "Griftopia" by Matt Taibi... "Except for the right of an elected president to nominate the Fed chief, voters have no real say over what the Fed does. Citizens do not even get to see transcripts of FOMC meetings in real time; we're only now finding out what Greenspan was saying during the nineties. And despite repeated attempts to pry open the Fed's books, Congress as of this writing has been unsuccessful in doing so and still has no idea how much money the Fed has lent out at the discount window and to whom.

Is that part of the 14.6 trillion national debt, or is that something else? In the book, he says "As of this writing, America's international debt is somewhere in the region of $115 trillion, with our debt now well over 50 percent of GDP. This is debt on a level never before seen in a modern industrialized country."

In a sense, I don't care what they do, as long as I'm comfortable, my friends are comfortable, and the money-grubbers leave me alone. I don't need their stinking money. But I do need roads, internet, health-care, food, housing, etc. This stuff matters. I don't care if one guy has a piece of paper with "a billion dollars" written on it, or "a trillion dollars" so long as they leave me alone, and let me enjoy the things that I value.

 

[chiro]

In a sense, I don't care what they do, as long as I'm comfortable, my friends are comfortable, and the money-grubbers leave me alone. I don't need their stinking money. But I do need roads, internet, health-care, food, housing, etc. This stuff matters. I don't care if one guy has a piece of paper with "a billion dollars" written on it, or "a trillion dollars" so long as they leave me alone, and let me enjoy the things that I value.

But this is part of the problem.

The thing is that everyone is looking out for numero uno, and this kind of mentality has caused the very problems that we are trying to avoid.

The idea of 'as long as I'm fine' is obviously good to the individual or even small group of individuals until things 'are not fine'.

Twofish-quant wrote a very good post outlining the fact of how we 'take the system for granted' and that post amongst others gave me some real insight into how much we take for granted and what kind of responsibilities something like standard run of the mill banking is.

We have two-extremes and any set of solutions inbetween: either we all become actively responsible in some way of taking responsibility and making decisions for society as a whole or we just ask someone else to do it all for us.

The first situation requires that people take on more responsibility and deal with more than they 'need to'. It also requires that people take some kind of accountability for the collective and that they take on more than they would otherwise have to.

This kind of situation is good in small communities but its very hard for large complex societies.

The other option is basically to ask someone or some other group to manage the problems that we don't want to deal with and in terms of modern civilization, has been the choice either wanted or unwanted of the people.

This choice means that the people place some kind of 'trust' in the party and hope that they wish to do the job they were asked to do with the interests of the whole in mind. The key word here is the word 'trust'.

We have done the second option and not surprisingly have run into many problems.

If you want to have a system that makes all the important decisions with all the responsibility, then you have to accept that this is not only probable that bad things happen, but also plausible that they will happen.

 

[JDoolin]

But this is part of the problem.

The thing is that everyone is looking out for numero uno, and this kind of mentality has caused the very problems that we are trying to avoid.

The idea of 'as long as I'm fine' is obviously good to the individual or even small group of individuals until things 'are not fine'.

Twofish-quant wrote a very good post outlining the fact of how we 'take the system for granted' and that post amongst others gave me some real insight into how much we take for granted and what kind of responsibilities something like standard run of the mill banking is.

We have two-extremes and any set of solutions inbetween: either we all become actively responsible in some way of taking responsibility and making decisions for society as a whole or we just ask someone else to do it all for us.

The first situation requires that people take on more responsibility and deal with more than they 'need to'. It also requires that people take some kind of accountability for the collective and that they take on more than they would otherwise have to.

This kind of situation is good in small communities but its very hard for large complex societies.

The other option is basically to ask someone or some other group to manage the problems that we don't want to deal with and in terms of modern civilization, has been the choice either wanted or unwanted of the people.

This choice means that the people place some kind of 'trust' in the party and hope that they wish to do the job they were asked to do with the interests of the whole in mind. The key word here is the word 'trust'.

We have done the second option and not surprisingly have run into many problems.

If you want to have a system that makes all the important decisions with all the responsibility, then you have to accept that this is not only probable that bad things happen, but also plausible that they will happen.

I don't think the problem is that everyone is "looking out for numero uno." The problem is that except for a few very goal-oriented individuals, who are looking out for themselves--or more specifically, their own "bottom dollar" very few people have a vision for what goverenment should be.

They only have a good concept of what the governement shouldn't be, hence the electoral races are submarine races, with everyone picking whatever seems "least bad" instead of "best."

We need transparency and accountability, and local control, and shared national vision, and flexible government, and a lot of other stuff.

For most people, if I tell them, "we need transparency and accountability in our government," their response is "That will NEVER happen." They have already resolved themselves to eventual extinction due to other people's dishonesty and greed.

What people really lack is the vision of "government for the people, by the people" because so much of the evidence in our lifetimes says there's no such thing.

 

[Gokul43201]

Dump welfare completely and replace it with workfare.

I like this idea (especially in the context of unemployment benefits). But since it isn't the norm, there must be some strong arguments against it. What are they?

 

[ThinkToday]

To Alfi,
Has nothing to do with screwing the poverty level folks. They’re the only group I’d give a pass on taxes. It has often been said we don't have a taxing problem, we have a spending problem. Look at the Constitution and the role of the "limited"(lol) government that was envisioned in Article I Section 8. IMO, everyone wants more "free stuff", benefits, services, etc., but is that really the role of government envisioned by the founders? By forcing everyone but the poverty level folks off of the "free ride", perhaps (fingers crossed hoping) they'll think about asking/demanding more, knowing the "more" will come from their paycheck as well as others. I'm a 1%er person, and I really don't think I should have to carry the water for someone else that chooses not to because the "system" works fine for them. When we all chip in, we pay for our decisions, good and bad.

Anyone ever gone to watch bear? Where’s a great place to always find bear, usually at night? The dump, 100% guaranteed success (assuming you live in bear country). Anyone think the “modern” bear lost the ability to forage for food or the food in the dump is better for them? Of course not. According to my game warden friends in ME, they go to the dump because it’s easy food and takes no effort. If you live in bear country, you should have been conditioned to controlled your trash (bear bait, otherwise), and controlling access to your home, although according to my friends that live there, that seems a bigger issue with Alaska’s grizzly population. Now, think about welfare and unemployment. Do you think the people on welfare and unemployment for a generation or more are not capable of working? Of course not. IMO, just like the bear, WIC, food stamps, welfare, unemployment, it’s easier, requires no real effort, etc. There isn’t a push to nudge them off the dole. Workfare would do that, IMO.

The 1% will never be able to pay the bills of the 99%, nor should they. Those of you that think they should have clearly never read the works of our founding fathers. I think John Smith had it exactly right at the outset when as head of the Jamestown Council he decreed “ You must obey this for a Law, that he that will not worke shall not eate (except by sickness he be disabled) for the labors of thirtie or fortie honest and industrious men shall not be consumed to maintaine an hundred and fiftie idle loyterers”. FWIW, yes, that’s the way they spelled things then. Today the top 1% pay about 27% of all federal income taxes and something like 50% pay no federal income taxes. I suspect John Smith would say we are headed on the path of the first settlement at Roanoke.

 

[JDoolin]

Everyone above the poverty level should pay some income tax. Dump welfare completely and replace it with workfare. Replace the no-work check with a work check. Then perhaps they'll figure out if they have to work to get money, they may as well do something that will pay more. i.e. better paying work than workfare jobs (road trash pickup, scraping gum off sidewakes, anything no one else wants to do, etc.) and push them to a work ethic. Seriously, I'm we're going to send someone money, we should demand and require something in return. Stop nearly unlimited unemployment benefit extentions for all but the ones that can demonstrate SIGNIFICANT effort toward finding a job or getting retraining for a new career.

Yeah, unemployment is pretty badly implemented. You're basically punished for finding work. You have a full-time job, for instance, and get laid off, so you're collecting unemployment of $90 a week. Then one week you find a temp-job that let's you work for two days and make $100 that week. Now you are no longer eligible for unemployment benefits because the last job you had was a temp-job.

 

[JDoolin]

To Alfi,
Has nothing to do with screwing the poverty level folks. They’re the only group I’d give a pass on taxes. It has often been said we don't have a taxing problem, we have a spending problem. Look at the Constitution and the role of the "limited"(lol) government that was envisioned in Article I Section 8. IMO, everyone wants more "free stuff", benefits, services, etc., but is that really the role of government envisioned by the founders? By forcing everyone but the poverty level folks off of the "free ride", perhaps (fingers crossed hoping) they'll think about asking/demanding more, knowing the "more" will come from their paycheck as well as others. I'm a 1%er person, and I really don't think I should have to carry the water for someone else that chooses not to because the "system" works fine for them. When we all chip in, we pay for our decisions, good and bad.

Anyone ever gone to watch bear? Where’s a great place to always find bear, usually at night? The dump, 100% guaranteed success (assuming you live in bear country). Anyone think the “modern” bear lost the ability to forage for food or the food in the dump is better for them? Of course not. According to my game warden friends in ME, they go to the dump because it’s easy food and takes no effort. If you live in bear country, you should have been conditioned to controlled your trash (bear bait, otherwise), and controlling access to your home, although according to my friends that live there, that seems a bigger issue with Alaska’s grizzly population. Now, think about welfare and unemployment. Do you think the people on welfare and unemployment for a generation or more are not capable of working? Of course not. IMO, just like the bear, WIC, food stamps, welfare, unemployment, it’s easier, requires no real effort, etc. There isn’t a push to nudge them off the dole. Workfare would do that, IMO.

The 1% will never be able to pay the bills of the 99%, nor should they. Those of you that think they should have clearly never read the works of our founding fathers. I think John Smith had it exactly right at the outset when as head of the Jamestown Council he decreed “ You must obey this for a Law, that he that will not worke shall not eate (except by sickness he be disabled) for the labors of thirtie or fortie honest and industrious men shall not be consumed to maintaine an hundred and fiftie idle loyterers”. FWIW, yes, that’s the way they spelled things then. Today the top 1% pay about 27% of all federal income taxes and something like 50% pay no federal income taxes. I suspect John Smith would say we are headed on the path of the first settlement at Roanoke.

On the one hand you're talking about the people who don't work. On the other hand you're talking about the bottom 50% of income earners. It seems like you're trying to equate those two which is not fair. Some of those bottom 50% income earners are juggling two or three jobs and trying to raise a family. Just because they aren't secure, full-time jobs with benefits doesn't mean they aren't working.

If you make $7.25 an hour, the federal minimum wage, working full time, year round, for 52 weeks a year, that's around $15,000.

Now, what is the median household income in the U.S? It appears to be somewhere around $50,000 from a look here.

In any case, I think your attitude toward the bottom 50%, and food-stamps, WIC etc, is misguided. People who need food-stamps and WIC are not usually bums. They may be working two jobs and still not be able to afford to feed their family.

 

[chiro]

I don't think the problem is that everyone is "looking out for numero uno." The problem is that except for a few very goal-oriented individuals, who are looking out for themselves--or more specifically, their own "bottom dollar" very
few people have a vision for what goverenment should be.

The fact is that its just too much of a hassle for people to worry about more than they have to which includes things like putting a roof over their head, feeding their family, getting their kids to school and then using whatever remaining time they have to wind down and not worry about anything else.

People say they want this and they want that, but if you asked them to get personally involved and have more responsibility, chances are they won't step up to the plate.

It's the same kind of reason that people buy cheap crap and wonder why everyone is losing jobs: you tell them that you can get back your local economy again, but you'll have to pay 50% more (maybe even slightly more) initially.

People won't do it because it is initially painful for them.

They only have a good concept of what the governement shouldn't be, hence the electoral races are submarine races, with everyone picking whatever seems "least bad" instead of "best."

We need transparency and accountability, and local control, and shared national vision, and flexible government, and a lot of other stuff.

Anyone can say whatever the hell they want to, but in the end its only the people that take action that have an effect.

The model we have chosen is that we elect someone and 'trust' them to do a good job. That's it, nothing more to it. Also we indirectly elect people that have been chosen by some other administration to do all the supporting procedures because intuitively one person can't execute a plan by themselves.

In large organized societies this can actually be a good thing, but again the risk is that if the people do things that they "shouldn't" for whatever reason, then it might be so bad as to affect everybody in some manner.

For most people, if I tell them, "we need transparency and accountability in our government," their response is "That will NEVER happen." They have already resolved themselves to eventual extinction due to other people's dishonesty and greed.

What people really lack is the vision of "government for the people, by the people" because so much of the evidence in our lifetimes says there's no such thing.

Again I absolutely stress that you ask how many people are actually going to get up and really do something about any problem that exists.

Most people will say "someone else will do it", or "I can't do it", or "I don't want to do it: it's good enough at the moment". There is always an excuse and its not surprising since doing something about the problem takes a lot of effort and courage to do and comes with the risk of being ostracized, your life made into a living hell and in some cases killed.

Maybe you should ask people next time instead of 'what should be done', something more along the lines of 'would you be willing to take the hard option of taking on more responsibility and short-term pain if X was the case': just make it straight-forward and listen to the kind of 'standards' people have about 'fixing the problem'.

 

[daveb]

Yeah, unemployment is pretty badly implemented. You're basically punished for finding work. You have a full-time job, for instance, and get laid off, so you're collecting unemployment of $90 a week. Then one week you find a temp-job that let's you work for two days and make $100 that week. Now you are no longer eligible for unemployment benefits because the last job you had was a temp-job.

Worse. I was on unemployment and cgot an adjunct poistion at the local community college for 2 semesters. While I was on unemployment, my net amount plus residual from unemployment was less than my previous unemployment. After the contract expired and unemployment resumed, the amount was based on the contract amount, not the amount from my previous job.

All that and I still didn't find another permanent job until almost 2 years.

 

[JDoolin]

The fact is that its just too much of a hassle for people to worry about more than they have to which includes things like putting a roof over their head, feeding their family, getting their kids to school and then using whatever remaining time they have to wind down and not worry about anything else.

People say they want this and they want that, but if you asked them to get personally involved and have more responsibility, chances are they won't step up to the plate.

It's the same kind of reason that people buy cheap crap and wonder why everyone is losing jobs: you tell them that you can get back your local economy again, but you'll have to pay 50% more (maybe even slightly more) initially.

People won't do it because it is initially painful for them.
Anyone can say whatever the hell they want to, but in the end its only the people that take action that have an effect.

The model we have chosen is that we elect someone and 'trust' them to do a good job. That's it, nothing more to it. Also we indirectly elect people that have been chosen by some other administration to do all the supporting procedures because intuitively one person can't execute a plan by themselves.

In large organized societies this can actually be a good thing, but again the risk is that if the people do things that they "shouldn't" for whatever reason, then it might be so bad as to affect everybody in some manner.

Again I absolutely stress that you ask how many people are actually going to get up and really do something about any problem that exists.

Most people will say "someone else will do it", or "I can't do it", or "I don't want to do it: it's good enough at the moment". There is always an excuse and its not surprising since doing something about the problem takes a lot of effort and courage to do and comes with the risk of being ostracized, your life made into a living hell and in some cases killed.

Maybe you should ask people next time instead of 'what should be done', something more along the lines of 'would you be willing to take the hard option of taking on more responsibility and short-term pain if X was the case': just make it straight-forward and listen to the kind of 'standards' people have about 'fixing the problem'.

I'm not making any huge sacrifices, or changing my life for it, but, here's an example. If I happen across a one-sided argument, on Physics-Forums, I can jump in and put in my two cents. True, it's not going to change the world by itself, but I can lead by example. If two people see me doing it, maybe they'll jump in as well.

There are a lot of people that are doing a lot more than I am, of course. Look at the Occupy Wall Street movement. There are more and more people taking that chance of being ostracized, imprisoned; maybe they're not getting killed, but they're getting pepper-sprayed, and arrested.

They may not know exactly what needs to be changed, but they are willing to take the hard option and short-term pain. But I think that there's another point to be made here. The people in the Occupy Wall Street movement want to be a part of their government. They want to be part of the decision-making process.

But most of the people I talk to aren't in the Occupy Wall Street movement. They are people who listen to Christian radio stations, and try not to watch the news, because "it's usually bad news anyway," or "it's so boring" and they "don't know which side to believe." That's the scariest thing... We really don't know what to believe. It's this sense that "If I were compelled to act... what if I were on the wrong side?"

No, I think if people knew what to do, they would stand up and do it. The problem is that without transparency and accountability, nobody has any idea what to do. We know we're being lied to, but we don't know who is lying.

 

[ThinkToday]

To JDoolin,

No, not every one of 50% is a bum, and that's too much of an overreach to get to that. The point is 50% pay nothing for federal income taxes, but still demand more perks. They "don't have a dog in the fight", so why would they care if taxes went up on those of us that do pay them? They don't, IMO. When 1% pays 27% of the bills and 50% pay bills for the 50% that don't, there is an incentive for the politicians to keep those dependent voters where they are. "Vote for me and I'll raise your food stamp allowance, vote for me and I'll extend your unemployment, vote for me and I'll increase your welfare payment, vote for me and I'll get you free health care, vote for me and I’ll make sure you can move into a house you can’t afford, etc." When the politicians say “I’ll get you free…”, who do you think they’re getting this free stuff from? Us, of course. So, getting back around to the point of my post, how do you make people care about work and taxes? John Smith had it right, unless there is a compelling reason why you can’t work, you must work if you want to eat. The more you want, the more you have to work…… just like you and me. Dump the freebee notion of “giving” people services. I want to see full blown workfare for every benefit someone collects that is beyond what the pay for as a tax payer. At that point, perhaps they’ll care about the cost of things people ask for.

And to your point, yes, there are working poor. My wife chose to teach in a school that is 85% disadvantaged children. It’s easy to tell those families (incl. single parents) that stay out of crime, drugs, drink, and live in solid families that long for their children to have a better life, and they can do ok. They’re not rich in material things, but they are so unshakably solid, which reminds me of my family history. It’s also easy to see those parents that don’t give a rats butt about their kids and threaten the teachers that call home about their child’s homework, grades, or attendance. I’d have the parent’s benefits, tax refunds, etc, linked to their child’s health, academics, etc., and perhaps they’ll give a damn then. You can’t make people better themselves, but you can punish them for their failures by controlling what they are “given” by us.

And, as a side note, fix the borders, and require and enforce e-Verify so lower level entry jobs are there to get people, incl. teenagers, along a productive lifelong path of work. I remember back in the 70s when my employer first started bringing in Mexican workers. They worked hard, yes, but they displaced about 50 teenagers, teachers, and others that needed the summer jobs too.

 

[Oltz]

Lets remember that based on Adjusted Gross income in 2009 the "top 50%" had an income floor at $32,396 Top 25% was $66,193.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

And remember AGI is after your deductions and children and spouse and whatever else.

With that in mind what is the poverty level? $20,000 AGI? 15? or do we define it by saying the bottom 20% of incomes and have it float?

I think at some point we need to define these things instead of using vague terms like "the poor" I do not feel the entire bottom 50% of incomes is the poor but some people seem to.

On the one hand you're talking about the people who don't work. On the other hand you're talking about the bottom 50% of income earners. It seems like you're trying to equate those two which is not fair. Some of those bottom 50% income earners are juggling two or three jobs and trying to raise a family. Just because they aren't secure, full-time jobs with benefits doesn't mean they aren't working.

If you make $7.25 an hour, the federal minimum wage, working full time, year round, for 52 weeks a year, that's around $15,000.

Now, what is the median household income in the U.S? It appears to be somewhere around $50,000 from a look here.

In any case, I think your attitude toward the bottom 50%, and food-stamps, WIC etc, is misguided. People who need food-stamps and WIC are not usually bums. They may be working two jobs and still not be able to afford to feed their family.

I guess my point is if we define a term either with a percentile or an AGI we can get passed these arguments. Blanket statements about needing to expand the tax base or about the bottom 50% all being poor and needing to not pay taxes are just opposing sides talking past each other.

 

[JDoolin]

You can’t make people better themselves,

Sorry to clip your response, but I just wanted to question this one assertion.

I think actually, you can make people better themselves, but there would need to be a political will behind it. As a case in point, have you ever had any military training?

Right now, the "forced betterment" of our lower classes is called a "corrections facility," or more commonly "prison."

 

[CaptFirePanda]

And, as a side note, fix the borders, and require and enforce e-Verify so lower level entry jobs are there to get people, incl. teenagers, along a productive lifelong path of work. I remember back in the 70s when my employer first started bringing in Mexican workers. They worked hard, yes, but they displaced about 50 teenagers, teachers, and others that needed the summer jobs too.

So, where is the source of the problem here? The Mexican workers? They only want to earn money to support themselves and their loved ones just like everyone else working those jobs. So they're not the source of the problem.

The source of the problem is that employers are willing to hire illegally to pay less in wages to increase their bottom line. Capitalism does not explicitly care who gets the wages, it cares about how much those wages effect the profit margin.

I find it interesting how you take the stance you do, but bemoan the basic precepts of the market system that keeps you gainfully employed.

 

[JDoolin]

I think maybe part of the problem is that the so-called "job creators" are not actually creative enough to create jobs. If the "job creators" were doing THEIR job, of job-creating, there wouldn't be a problem finding jobs for the Mexican workers AND the people they "displaced."

You can have it one way or the other. You can claim to be a "job creator" or you can complain about "those filthy Mexicans" that are stealing our jobs. You can't take credit for being a "job-creators" and complain when someone comes along and takes a job.

There was a time, when the government was a job creator. It hired teachers, policemen, firemen. It hired road-workers, bridge-builders, postal-workers, it hired the Civilian Conservation Corps. It did a lot of things that were helpful for a lot of people, giving them training, giving them hope, giving them a chance to succeed in life.

As to the Original Post, it seems like there's a building argument saying there should be a flat-tax. So, let's discuss that, too. Last year on about 16,000, I paid about 3% in federal taxes. You want me to pay 25% so I can feel your pain.

I would also say that this argument about the poor paying "their fair share" is ludicrous, but you know what? I'll entertain it anyway. I'll pay 25% of my income, just like you do. Let's say, hypothetically, the Federal government takes another $3500 out of my pay-check,

I don't know if I could live on $3500 less per year. But maybe I could get my employers to pay me more, and then I could afford the taxes on that income. But I would warn you, that if you get the flat-tax then it would rob you of this argument, that you're doing more than your fair share.

And you go from 29% down to 25%. So, if you had $300,000 salary, you gain $12,000 to your paycheck. Whoopee! That would pay off half my student loan if I had it! I wonder what you will do with it?

If I can just get over my initial reaction to the idea of a flat-tax; (which is, you can't squeese blood out of a turnip!) I think, it's possible that a lot of poor people would actually gain a lot of self-esteem if they paid the same tax-rate as the very rich. I'm not sure it is a rational thing to do, but it might be a nice irrational thing to do, so long as the minimum wage went up by 33% so it doesn't kill the people that are living on that. There's probably some other adjustments that would have to be made, like I'd have to get a raise or look for a new job. I don't know if it sounds "more" fair, but it doesn't really sound any "less" fair than the current system.

I shouldn't be falling into the trap of arguing with somebody who's earnestly doing his best he can, and happens to fall into that top 1%, and is paying 29% in taxes. I have a beef with the guy who is earning 100 or 1000 times the salary as the people who work for him, and is paying only 13% in taxes.

But even then, I think there is a more important, more relevant question. I don't care whether my taxes are 15% or 80% as long as those taxes are going toward a goal that's worth paying for. The real question to me is whether we want to be a country that treats its poor like roaches that we want to get rid of, or a country that treats its poor like people, who have a chance to succeed.

 

[Pattonias]

Why are we deciding that the flat tax rate would be a quarter of your income. What if it was 8 or 10 percent?

You say that you wouldn't care if someone took 80 percent of your income as long as you liked what they spent if on, but the only way you can guarantee that you'll like what that money is spent on is if you spend it yourself. Why not give the government all your earnings and let them decide what you need and want. They can tell you where to live and what to eat. They may even give you an allowance if you are good.

 

[ThinkToday]

So, where is the source of the problem here? The Mexican workers? They only want to earn money to support themselves and their loved ones just like everyone else working those jobs. So they're not the source of the problem.

The source of the problem is that employers are willing to hire illegally to pay less in wages to increase their bottom line. Capitalism does not explicitly care who gets the wages, it cares about how much those wages effect the profit margin.

I find it interesting how you take the stance you do, but bemoan the basic precepts of the market system that keeps you gainfully employed.

I've seen firsthand the loss of jobs to illegals, so I'm not guessing. Having lived in Texas for almost 20 years, it still goes on. By and large the illegals do great work and work hard. That’s not as much an issue as the person that doesn’t get hired to lay the stone, pour the concrete, cut the grass, etc. that is here legally to work. So yes, they are a source of the problem. Not only did those (incl. many non-Mexican, e.g. students that don’t go home, btw) come here and work illegally, they are using someone else’s SSN to do it. As far as companies hiring the cheapest labor, I agree. But remember we have enough unemployment in this country that I think we can fill those needs, IMO. The only fix for employers, IMO, is e-Verify being required. It wouldn’t be 100%, but I’d bet it would have an impact.

Lastly, the H-2A visa system needs to get fixed so that it works faster, smoother, etc., so those that do want come here to work legally and temporary can. http://farmworkersforum.wordpress.c...lture-crisis-without-farm-worker-visa-reform/ . IMO, the legal status of an H2-A worker and the legal rights that worker would have would mitigate some of the cheap illegal claims (real and false). Generally, these visas require an employer to show need (e.g. US workers unavailable at a reasonable wage). An additional benefit is border security. IMO, if people can come here to work legally, then the majority of those crossing illegally would more likely be the real bad people you want out.

 

[WhoWee]

I'm fairly certain illegal workers are not going to be the solution to the national debt. Although, it might be a good idea to hand all new citizens a note for their fair share of the National Debt - to be paid over the course of their lifetime as additional taxes - along with an agreement not to apply for any Government benefit programs for at least 20 years?

 

[CaptFirePanda]

I've seen firsthand the loss of jobs to illegals, so I'm not guessing. Having lived in Texas for almost 20 years, it still goes on. By and large the illegals do great work and work hard. That’s not as much an issue as the person that doesn’t get hired to lay the stone, pour the concrete, cut the grass, etc. that is here legally to work. So yes, they are a source of the problem. Not only did those (incl. many non-Mexican, e.g. students that don’t go home, btw) come here and work illegally, they are using someone else’s SSN to do it. As far as companies hiring the cheapest labor, I agree. But remember we have enough unemployment in this country that I think we can fill those needs, IMO. The only fix for employers, IMO, is e-Verify being required. It wouldn’t be 100%, but I’d bet it would have an impact.

There are recorded cases of employers (some of them globally successful employers) knowingly hiring or condoning the hiring of illegal workers. There are always going to be people that scam the system somehow or another, but when one compnent of that system is allowing for the rules to be broken then there is less motivation to scam when the employer doesn't care.

Why hire unemployed Americans when you can hire illegal workers for far less pay and they work hard and do a great job?

 

[turbo]

This thread needs to get back on-topic, regardless how how poorly it was presented in the first place.

Nobody in the government says that we can erase the national debt by taking money from the top 1%. That would be impossible.

We do need credible tax-reform, including taxing all income as income, including capital gains, and we need to eliminate loopholes and deductions that allow wealthy people and corporations to shield so much of their income.

On the spending side, we ought to rapidly reduce and eliminate subsidies to already-profitable corporations like agribusinesses and energy companies. We also ought to remove costly mandates like the requirement that all our gasoline contains ethanol, and stop subsidizing the production of ethanol. There are many more things that need to be done, but I doubt that today's polarized Congress has the willingness to work for the greater good instead of the special interests that shovel money at them.

 

[JDoolin]

Why are we deciding that the flat tax rate would be a quarter of your income. What if it was 8 or 10 percent?

This is just a rough estimate, if you reduce the rates of the top-earners by about 4%, you would need to raise the rates of the bottom-earners by about 22% to make up for it.

You say that you wouldn't care if someone took 80 percent of your income as long as you liked what they spent if on, but the only way you can guarantee that you'll like what that money is spent on is if you spend it yourself. Why not give the government all your earnings and let them decide what you need and want. They can tell you where to live and what to eat. They may even give you an allowance if you are good.

I went to grade-school and high-school where I was told what to eat. I lived with my parents until college, and I was told where to live. I lived in dormitories for about five years, I paid to be told where to live and what to eat. It was not a bad thing in my experience.

But really, we already live in this dystopian future of yours, where (not the government, but...) the companies keep all the people's earnings, and decide where the people live, and what they eat. But the companies don't make decisions based on what's good for the people. They make decisions based on what's good for the bottom-line; profit motive.

Right now, we have exactly the problem that you are describing, where the Federal Reserve can act completely without any oversight, spend all our earnings on whatever they want, and we don't have any oversight, knowledge, or say in the decision. Then they hand out allowances in the form of welfare, food-stamps.

My point is, we should be aiming at creating the best possible society that mankind can produce for itself, where people can have dignity, have fun, achieve goals, live without unnecessary fear and poverty, pursue their own core values, and live up to their potential. Instead, our society is aimed at one thing, and one thing only: the accumulation of wealth.

 

[WhoWee]

This thread needs to get back on-topic, regardless how how poorly it was presented in the first place.

Nobody in the government says that we can erase the national debt by taking money from the top 1%. That would be impossible.

We do need credible tax-reform, including taxing all income as income, including capital gains, and we need to eliminate loopholes and deductions that allow wealthy people and corporations to shield so much of their income.

On the spending side, we ought to rapidly reduce and eliminate subsidies to already-profitable corporations like agribusinesses and energy companies. We also ought to remove costly mandates like the requirement that all our gasoline contains ethanol, and stop subsidizing the production of ethanol. There are many more things that need to be done, but I doubt that today's polarized Congress has the willingness to work for the greater good instead of the special interests that shovel money at them.

Regardless of your personal opinion "regardless how how poorly it was presented in the first place" we do need to get back on topic. Unfortunately, your post is also off-topic. Accordingly, I'll repost the OP:

"As the national debt in the US approaches $16,400,000,000,000 - we approach the 2012 election season - with the talk of fairness and 1% vs 99% in the air - I realized a solution is at hand when combining all of these ingredients.

The national debt of $16.4 Trillion divided by (approx) 35,000 people (the top 1%) approximates $469 million per person. Accordingly, why not extend a one time offer to these people to "pay their fair share"? Specifically, with a one time payment of $500 million (from personal funds) they would no longer be responsible for any future tax obligations.

The Government in turn would commit to a balanced budget moving forward. Does this sound fair?"

 

[turbo]

I'm sorry, but there is nobody in Congress that would slaughter their cash-cows to eliminate the national debt. We do have to have a level playing field in regard to taxes, and we need to eliminate wasteful spending. Both. We can't possibly tax our way out of this mess, IMO. We need to cut waste, but in Congress every bit of waste is somebody's pork.

 

[Pattonias]

Regardless of your personal opinion "regardless how how poorly it was presented in the first place" we do need to get back on topic. Unfortunately, your post is also off-topic. Accordingly, I'll repost the OP:

"As the national debt in the US approaches $16,400,000,000,000 - we approach the 2012 election season - with the talk of fairness and 1% vs 99% in the air - I realized a solution is at hand when combining all of these ingredients.

The national debt of $16.4 Trillion divided by (approx) 35,000 people (the top 1%) approximates $469 million per person. Accordingly, why not extend a one time offer to these people to "pay their fair share"? Specifically, with a one time payment of $500 million (from personal funds) they would no longer be responsible for any future tax obligations.

The Government in turn would commit to a balanced budget moving forward. Does this sound fair?"

I guess we have concluded that since the OP's question is flawed in that the top 1% doesn't have that much money, then that plan can't work.

 

[WhoWee]

I guess we have concluded that since the OP's question is flawed in that the top 1% doesn't have that much money, then that plan can't work.

I'm not certain we've made any final conclusions - if corporations were included in the formula - it might be doable.

Gokul also put forth an idea worth discussing.

 

[Pattonias]

I'm not certain we've made any final conclusions - if corporations were included in the formula - it might be doable.

Gokul also put forth an idea worth discussing.

lol, since they are legally people now, there might be something to that.

I think we should talk responsibility or at least start another thread. Are the wealthy responsible for paying off the debts of an overspending nation?

 

[WhoWee]

lol, since they are legally people now, there might be something to that.

I think we should talk responsibility or at least start another thread. Are the wealthy responsible for paying off the debts of an overspending nation?

IMO - that is the direction we're heading. Accordingly, if fairness is the mantra - shouldn't the (reasonable) process include both a solution for the total debt accompanied by responsible spending moving forward?

 

[JDoolin]

But even then, I think there is a more important, more relevant question. I don't care whether my taxes are 15% or 80% as long as those taxes are going toward a goal that's worth paying for. The real question to me is whether we want to be a country that treats its poor like roaches that we want to get rid of, or a country that treats its poor like people, who have a chance to succeed.

My own use of hyperbole and polly-anna attitude about what society "could be" if we just appreciated people and gave them a chance to succeed. I am ignoring an important question.

And that's this question: Are there "roaches" in society? Are there people who simply do more harm than good, and would do more harm than good, no matter what we did? Are there people who feel like "it's not success unless somebody else suffers?" Are there truly evil people in the world?

There's an implicit part of my argument that assumes that if people had the opportunity and resources to do the right thing, they would. But if we look at the Housing Market fiasco, there were people at ALL levels realizing that all they had to do to make themselves rich was to screw somebody else over, and whenever anybody realized what was going on, they had two options; screw over the next guy; or be left holding the bag. In general, anybody who knew what was going on chose to screw over the next guy.

Now the bag is empty. We're asking who is going to pay off the debt. The rich people, the poor people? But what about the people who are actually responsible for it? The people that chose to screw over the next guy?

 

[WhoWee]

There's an implicit part of my argument that assumes that if people had the opportunity and resources to do the right thing, they would.

Let's focus on this JDoolin. If we propose a doable opportunity to the individuals and companies with the resources to provide a definitive solution - will the rest of society agree to small cutbacks (if necessary at that point) in order to keep the country solvent and provide the care promised to our seniors and disabled?

 

[DrClapeyron]

How about 'We the People' forgive the debt we owe to ourselves? It's so circular and makes no sense to punish ourselves for our own benefit (unless you are into that sort of thing - to each his own). Then that would leave the U.S. on hook for something like $6 trillion out of the $16 trillion. And it only ever becomes a serious problem if short-term holders (like China) decide to not buy back into the system.

 

[Vanadium 50]

So, if you were a retiree whose retirement savings are all in US Savings Bonds, you should be sent to the poorhouse? Who is punishing whom here?

 

[JDoolin]

Let's focus on this JDoolin. If we propose a doable opportunity to the individuals and companies with the resources to provide a definitive solution - will the rest of society agree to small cutbacks (if necessary at that point) in order to keep the country solvent and provide the care promised to our seniors and disabled?

I think if people agreed on a good and shared goal, they would be willing to make sacrifices to achieve that goal.

If your "we" refers to all of us working toward a shared goal, I think it would work.

On the other hand, if it is the goal of some distant group of "experts" deciding on that one number, or another number is the correct number for our national debt, or national deficit, that wouldn't be a shared goal, or a shared solution.

However, we could for example, describe our intended goal; for instance, the AIG bailout allowed our economy to continue to run, because if they hadn't been bailed out, it would have triggered a sell-sell-sell-sell-sell phenomenon, lowering everybody's wealth to zero. But right now, there are a lot of houses lying empty, deteriorating, because even though those houses were basically paid off by the government, they still have a cost that is too high for anybody to pay. There were people who were verbally assured they'd be given fixed rate mortgages, and then given variable rate mortgages instead. There are people who bought AAA-rated bonds with the assurance that they would get a long-term-yield, which are now worthless. There are a lot of little problems, and they don't have any clear-cut solutions.

What is our intended goal here? Who is owed money by the government? Is it those guys who were left holding the bag? The ones who have been evicted from their homes? The ones who put their retirement savings in AAA-rated, but now worthless bonds? I don't think so. Before we go paying off the debt, I'd like to find some kind of rubric to separate the crooks from the honest players.

If the shared goal was to reward hard work and honesty, and penalize crooks for just ripping people off, then I think there would be a strong political will behind that, and society would be willing to make some sacrifices to see that happen.

 

[WhoWee]

I think if people agreed on a good and shared goal, they would be willing to make sacrifices to achieve that goal.

If your "we" refers to all of us working toward a shared goal, I think it would work.

On the other hand, if it is the goal of some distant group of "experts" deciding on that one number, or another number is the correct number for our national debt, or national deficit, that wouldn't be a shared goal, or a shared solution.

However, we could for example, describe our intended goal; for instance, the AIG bailout allowed our economy to continue to run, because if they hadn't been bailed out, it would have triggered a sell-sell-sell-sell-sell phenomenon, lowering everybody's wealth to zero. But right now, there are a lot of houses lying empty, deteriorating, because even though those houses were basically paid off by the government, they still have a cost that is too high for anybody to pay. There were people who were verbally assured they'd be given fixed rate mortgages, and then given variable rate mortgages instead. There are people who bought AAA-rated bonds with the assurance that they would get a long-term-yield, which are now worthless. There are a lot of little problems, and they don't have any clear-cut solutions.

What is our intended goal here? Who is owed money by the government? Is it those guys who were left holding the bag? The ones who have been evicted from their homes? The ones who put their retirement savings in AAA-rated, but now worthless bonds? I don't think so. Before we go paying off the debt, I'd like to find some kind of rubric to separate the crooks from the honest players.

If the shared goal was to reward hard work and honesty, and penalize crooks for just ripping people off, then I think there would be a strong political will behind that, and society would be willing to make some sacrifices to see that happen.

Keeping with the OP and adding large corporations - the 1% would be called upon (persons with ability to achieve a soution - voluntarily) and given an opportunity to pay off the National Debt in exchange for a permenant tax holiday. This would eliminate interest payments on the debt. As mentioned/inferred in a prior post, a portion of the debt is owed to SS - accordingly those funds would actually be held in trust moving forward.

I also like the idea of allowing all new immigrants to accept responsibility for their "fair share" (whatever that might be) of the debt and an agreement not to request any benefits for at least 20 years or until their share is paid.

The 99% not contributing cash to this bailout would be called upon to accept any cutbacks in federal spending required to achieve a balanced budget. It might also be possible (with the national Debt paid) to replace the current income tax system with a single flat tax.

The shared goal would be a financially sound (managed) US Government with a funded pension system.

 

[dipole]

You assume it's somehow the people's fault for the U.S. being in debt. We are taxed already, that is paying your fair share. The government can't do whatever it wants, and then try to make other people pay for it's mistakes.

 

[Office_Shredder]

You assume it's somehow the people's fault for the U.S. being in debt. We are taxed already, that is paying your fair share. The government can't do whatever it wants, and then try to make other people pay for it's mistakes.

If other people aren't going to pay for the government's mistakes, who is?

 

[WhoWee]

You assume it's somehow the people's fault for the U.S. being in debt. We are taxed already, that is paying your fair share. The government can't do whatever it wants, and then try to make other people pay for it's mistakes.

What assumptions and which people are you referring to - please clarify?

 

[chiro]

I'm not making any huge sacrifices, or changing my life for it, but, here's an example. If I happen across a one-sided argument, on Physics-Forums, I can jump in and put in my two cents. True, it's not going to change the world by itself, but I can lead by example. If two people see me doing it, maybe they'll jump in as well.

There are a lot of people that are doing a lot more than I am, of course. Look at the Occupy Wall Street movement. There are more and more people taking that chance of being ostracized, imprisoned; maybe they're not getting killed, but they're getting pepper-sprayed, and arrested.

They may not know exactly what needs to be changed, but they are willing to take the hard option and short-term pain. But I think that there's another point to be made here. The people in the Occupy Wall Street movement want to be a part of their government. They want to be part of the decision-making process.

But most of the people I talk to aren't in the Occupy Wall Street movement. They are people who listen to Christian radio stations, and try not to watch the news, because "it's usually bad news anyway," or "it's so boring" and they "don't know which side to believe." That's the scariest thing... We really don't know what to believe. It's this sense that "If I were compelled to act... what if I were on the wrong side?"

No, I think if people knew what to do, they would stand up and do it. The problem is that without transparency and accountability, nobody has any idea what to do. We know we're being lied to, but we don't know who is lying.

That is the best thing you can do: lead by example.

This is the one thing that a lot of people don't realize: you're goal is not to save the rest of the world or fix the whole system.

What tends to happen is that if people do lead by example as you pointed out then other people will take notice if they are so inclined. But by leading by example if you so choose to do something that is not easy, then you will no doubt have to bear that burden when you get to it but if you are true to your word and your actions, then undoubtedly people will notice.

I have heard a few different ideas of how to 'fix' the system from a variety of different people who have quite a variety of different focii and backgrounds.

One suggestion I heard for politics is the idea that a contract be introduced for not only political candidates but even for any kind of representative in government. The idea is that if you provide a promise or anything of the sort then you are entering into a legal contract that has certain obligations that are contractual in nature. This would mean that if this were to be the case then they would have a legal responsibility to the people and in the case that this responsibility were neglected then they would be responsible for such actions.

In connection with your answer, this is a way to offer accountability to the public. It is just a suggestion and like all suggestions or initial ideas it needs to be fleshed out and discussed before it would be made into something more viable but IMO it is a good idea none-the-less.

Also a lot of people don't realize that they don't have to do it all at once.

Things like choosing where to spend money have a huge impact.

We all buy cheap goods and there is plenty of incentives for us who don't have access to a printing press to do so. But the thing is, if you told people that they should buy the more expensive locally made brand that has no subsidies of any sort to support local businesses then I would be very interested to see how many people say "thanks for the information" as opposed to actually doing it.

The other thing is that thinking is hard: not many people want to do it if they can avoid it. It takes a lot of effort, it takes courage especially if its not popular and you are opening yourself up to all that comes with it including ridicule amongst other things. Also like you have mentioned, the effects of thinking can get you killed.

This ties in with my comments on personal responsibility: the underlying matter of it all is basically personal responsibility and it includes not only the effect of what you do, but also in acknowledging that you are personally responsible for the thinking that leads to those decisions.

Chances are that people will convince themselves that other people are right if a lot of them are right, if someone with authority says they are right, or if nobody else says they are right.

Like I said, thinking is hard and what's harder is having the courage to take action that is aligned with the result of thinking for yourself.

But you already have the right idea: you are taking responsibility for yourself and leading by example. This is the highest honor for any individual because not only will you hold your head up high, but you will send a message to everyone around you and you will give them courage in the form of a real tangible example.

This is what causes real change and I applaud you for it.

 

[JDoolin]

You assume it's somehow the people's fault for the U.S. being in debt. We are taxed already, that is paying your fair share. The government can't do whatever it wants, and then try to make other people pay for it's mistakes.

Do you mean, "can't" or "shouldn't?"

What assumptions and which people are you referring to - please clarify?

Is it the "people's fault" for the U.S. being in debt? Is it the "people's duty" to pay for the government's mistakes?

I think the people's main duties in regards to the government's mistakes are (1) to make sure that these mistakes don't happen again, and (2) to make sure that the people who caused the problem don't get rewarded, and (3) trying to put in place a government that tries to prevent mistakes, rather than let them happen.

From Griftopia by Matt Taibbi:

In a sense, this whole mess was a kind of giant welfare program the financial service industry simply willed into being for itself. It invented a mountain of money in the form of a few trillion dollars' worth of bogus mortgages and rolled it forward for a few years, until reality intervened--and suddenly it was announced that We the Taxpaer had to buy it from them, at what they called face value, for the good of the country.

In the meantime, and this is the second thing that's so amazing, almost everyone who touched that mountain turned out to be a crook of some kind. The mortgage brokers systematically falsified information on loan applications in order to secure bigger loans and hawked explosive option-ARM mortgages to people who either didn't understand them or, worse, did understand them and simply never intended to pay. The loan originators cranked out massive volumes of loans with plainly doctored applications, not giving a **** about whether or not the borrowers could pay, in a desperate search for short-term rebates and fees.

The securitizers used harebrained math to turn crap mortgages into AAA-rated investments; the ratings agencies signed off on that harebrained math and handed out those AAA ratings in order to keep the fees coming in and the bonuses for their executives high. But even the ratings agencies were blindsided by scammers who advertised and sold, openly, help in rigging FICO scores to make broke and busted borrowers look like good credit risks. The corrupt ratings agencies were undone by ratings corrupters!

Meanwhile, investment banks tried to stick pensioners and insurance companies with their toxic investments, or else they held on to their toxic investments and tried to rip off idiots by sticking them with the liability of default. But they were undone by the fact that some of those "idiots" never intended to pay off, just like the thousands of homeowners who bought too-big houses with option-ARM mnortgages and never intended to pay. And at the tail end of all this frantic lying, cheating, and scamming on all sides, during which no good jobs were created and nothing except a few now-empty houses (good for nothing but depressing future home prices) got built, the final result is that we all ended up picking up the tab, subsidizing all this crime and dishonesty and pessimism as a matter of national policy.

We paid for THIS instead of a generation of health insurance, or an alternative energy grid, or a brand-new system of roads and highways. With the $13-plus trillion we are estimated to ultimately spend on the bailouts, we could not only have bought and paid off every single subprime mortgage in the country (that would only have cose 1.4 trillion), we could have paid off every remaining mortgage of any kind in this country--and still have had enough money left over to buy a new house for every American who does not already have one.

 

[CaptFirePanda]

The government got duped along the way as well. As much as there might be a common belief that politicians are all shysters, it obviously isn't true. I'm sure a few government pockets were fleeced along the way, but this was a case of a very large and well orchestrated ponzi scheme.

To expect some of these very same people to buy into this rather collective idea of erasing the debt is pretty optimistic, to say the least.

 

[Pattonias]

The reason that any government is corrupt is due to a tendency toward selfishness of its people over what would work for the greater good in the long run. Any time you take a hand-out, whether you know or not where it comes from, you are contributing to the problem as a whole. I don't think everyone feeling guilty or picking a small number of people to "blame" is going to help the problem. What we have to wrap our minds around is the fact that we will all have to pay for this, and we will all be upset about it.

I think it is irresponsible and plain stupid of our smartest and handsomest politicians to try throw blame when they can't even balance the budget right now.

 

[WhoWee]

The reason that any government is corrupt is due to a tendency toward selfishness of its people over what would work for the greater good in the long run. Any time you take a hand-out, whether you know or not where it comes from, you are contributing to the problem as a whole. I don't think everyone feeling guilty or picking a small number of people to "blame" is going to help the problem. What we have to wrap our minds around is the fact that we will all have to pay for this, and we will all be upset about it.

This thread is intended to discuss solutions to a problem - not to place blame for the problem.

 

[Pattonias]

This thread is intended to discuss solutions to a problem - not to place blame for the problem.

Isn't it though, picking the "1%" to pay off the debt is in essence placing blame on them. If we are looking for a true solution then why do we keep trying to find anyone but the entire population to pay off the debt?

 

[WhoWee]

Isn't it though, picking the "1%" to pay off the debt is in essence placing blame on them. If we are looking for a true solution then why do we keep trying to find anyone but the entire population to pay off the debt?

IMO - if the solution is to focus tax increases on the 1% and continue without of control spending - not even pass a budget for nearly 3 years now - I would agree. However, this thread discusses a solution that would reward the people willing to participate in a definitive solution to retire the National Debt with a permanent tax holiday - and would require a balanced budget moving forward. As noted, it might be possible to instll a flat tax in accordance.