The money's got to come from somewhere

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Vanadium 50
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the challenges of federal spending and taxation in the United States, particularly focusing on the proposal of a wealth tax and its implications for addressing fiscal issues. Participants explore various perspectives on taxation, government spending, and potential reforms, including the effectiveness of proposed solutions and the role of corruption in government financial practices.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that the proposed wealth tax of 2% on households with over $7.2M in assets is insufficient to address the significant mismatch between federal spending and income tax revenues.
  • Others criticize the wealth tax proposal as unrealistic, suggesting that a more substantial tax increase of 10-20% would be necessary to generate meaningful revenue.
  • A participant questions the effectiveness of the wealth tax, suggesting that any generated revenue would likely lead to increased government spending rather than addressing fiscal deficits.
  • Concerns are raised about government waste and corruption, with some participants noting that political motivations hinder efforts to cut unnecessary spending.
  • There are suggestions for alternative approaches, such as investing in infrastructure projects to stimulate the economy from the bottom up, rather than relying on top-down financial strategies like quantitative easing.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the political will to address issues of corporate welfare and government spending, citing the influence of lobbyists and campaign financing.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the effectiveness of the wealth tax and the broader issues of government spending and taxation. There is no consensus on the best approach to address these fiscal challenges, with multiple competing perspectives remaining unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight various assumptions about the effectiveness of proposed tax policies, the motivations of politicians, and the impact of government spending on the economy. The discussion reflects a complex interplay of economic theories and political realities without definitive resolutions.

  • #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