News The money's got to come from somewhere

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vanadium 50
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the significant gap between federal spending and income tax revenues, suggesting that merely raising taxes will not address the fiscal issues, as taxes would need to double to make a real impact. A proposed wealth tax of 2% on households with over $7.2 million in assets is criticized for being insufficient, generating only $70 billion annually, which would likely be absorbed by increased government spending. The conversation highlights the inefficiency and waste in government spending, particularly regarding corporate subsidies and military expenditures, and emphasizes the lack of political will to address these issues. Suggestions include investing in infrastructure projects to stimulate the economy and reduce wealth disparity, rather than relying on top-down economic measures that have proven ineffective. Overall, the need for substantial reform and a shift in approach to taxation and spending is underscored.
  • #31
Ivan Seeking said:
Bill Clinton did - those years were under his admin.

Yes, but that was because of a combination of a fiscally conservative Republican Congress, defense spending cuts as the Cold War was over, the Dot Com bubble, and so forth. The 2000 stock market crash sent the budget back into deficit. IMO, what we need, once the economy gets going again, is some tax increases with guaranteed controls on spending so as to fix the budget deficit.

Also make debt management something discussed regularly in government (that's how it used to be decades ago, but no more).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
mheslep said:
Well hopefully we all know from reading those regular posting of taxes and spending statistics that the shortfall between spending and revenues is some $1600B per year. Thus this wealth tax fixes nothing either,

OK, raise it from 2% to 100%. Make it illegal for someone to own more than $7.2M in assets. Now that's $3.5T. That would pay off one year's deficit and allow us to reduce the debt by 10%.
 
  • #33
Vanadium 50 said:
OK, raise it from 2% to 100%. Make it illegal for someone to own more than $7.2M in assets. Now that's $3.5T. That would pay off one year's deficit and allow us to reduce the debt by 10%.
Well then confiscate Iraq's oil, ala the great statesmen Donald Trump, 100% of it. Whoops, that's only ~$100B/year, about two weeks of current federal spending. Maybe confiscate Iraqi corporate jets?
 
  • #34
Vanadium 50 said:
OK, raise it from 2% to 100%. Make it illegal for someone to own more than $7.2M in assets. Now that's $3.5T. That would pay off one year's deficit and allow us to reduce the debt by 10%.

Might work for a year and that first 10%. Afterwards, all the rich folks would have fled the country to protect what they have left, at which point you wouldn't get another drop out of them and would be in a worse position than leaving them well enough alone.

The problem is spending. We have all these wonderful-sounding do-little programs that any business with half a brain would never throw money at because it doesn't do a thing for the bottom line.

We're not finding our way out of this paper bag until we start measuring performance against the amount of money thrown at a problem. Dept of Education gets billions yet are school children are further behind than every. Is the solution more money? No. The solution is found among those kids who rise to the top regardless of how much money their school district gets. Government money can't fix families who don't read to their kids, who don't encourage their kids to go the extra mile, and who don't even stay together as families. Divorce has a huge effect on kids. Government money can't fix changes in culture where dumbing down is considered "cool." It can't fix the negative effects of Hollywood who's characters all seem to be able to magically rise from the dregs of life into dreamland in 90 minutes. "If they can do it, I can do it" think our youth. No, they can't.

The path to riches is not just years of hard work, it's knowing where to invest your time, and where to cut it. The government is one of the poorest examples, as they throw money at everything, often with much hope, not to mention a clue, as to what effect it'll have in the long run. They're more concerned about greasing the squeaky wheel so it won't effect next year's elections.
 
  • #35
Vanadium 50 said:
OK, raise it from 2% to 100%. Make it illegal for someone to own more than $7.2M in assets. Now that's $3.5T. That would pay off one year's deficit and allow us to reduce the debt by 10%.

Are you mad?! That would DESTROY the economy. No one would have any incentive to bring in more than $7.2M. Businesses would stop expanding. The people who were still motivated enough to obtain more than $7.2M would flee the country faster than a typical American gives up on a math problem(!). We would drain the country of the people who could succeed spectacularly in business. Additionally, as stated above, the amount of money obtained would indeed be a one time thing, and not last very long in government budgets.

A basic economics book might be able to help you with things like this if you wish to learn more about it.
 
  • #36
Many countries have big debts. Debts with whom? Who is the very rich one?
 
  • #37
There is already a wealth tax. It is called inflation (A.K.A quantitative easing). However, the revenue from this tax is disguised as profits by corporations which can borrow cheaper than the expected risk free rate of return on an investment.
 
  • #38
Just for once, I'd like to hear a president say: "I'm afraid we don't have enough money to get involved in that war."
 
  • #39
John Creighto said:
There is already a wealth tax. It is called inflation (A.K.A quantitative easing). However, the revenue from this tax is disguised as profits by corporations which can borrow cheaper than the expected risk free rate of return on an investment.

Care to support these comments?
 
  • #40
WhoWee said:
Earlier today, Neil Cavuto and Orrin Hatch were discussing Solyndra. Hatch said Solyndra received more tax money (over $500 Million) than 35 of the States received for highway construction.

Btw - why would Solyndra Executives need to "take the 5th"?
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/mon...ifth-amendment-wont-testify-before-house.html

"Solyndra execs to take 5th, refuse to testify before House panel"

IMO - if they refuse to testify - the IRS and FBI need to make this investigation their number one priority!

The FBI is already investigating; don't know about the IRS.

Skippy