Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Tired of skyrocketing public debts?

Tags:
  1. No, I'm not too concerned with it

    4 vote(s)
    50.0%
  2. Yes, but I'm not putting my money where my mouth is

    3 vote(s)
    37.5%
  3. Yes, but I have another lame excuse not to

    1 vote(s)
    12.5%
  4. Yes, I am sending a check soon! Thank you for this information!

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. Other (oh come on)

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. Feb 5, 2006 #1

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I got just the solution! Who needs to wait for higher taxes?

    1. Make check payable to the Bureau of the Public Debt.
    2. In the memo section of the check, notate Gift to reduce Debt Held by the Public.
    3. Mail check to -

    ATTN: Dept G
    Bureau of the Public Debt
    P.O. BOX 2188
    Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188

    Brought to you by the United States Treasury Department.
    http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/

    Think I'm kidding? Grab a Pub 17...
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2006
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 5, 2006 #2
    Yes, but I'm not putting my money where my mouth is, because I shouldn't have to pay a debt that I'm not responsible for.
     
  4. Feb 5, 2006 #3

    SOS2008

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    If you would like members to participate in a poll, it helps if you do some homework first.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._public_debt

    The most common methods to "reduce" the debt is by:

    1) Growing the nation's GDP

    2) Increasing revenue through increased taxes and other fees, such as import tariffs.

    3) Simply printing more money. However, this is destructive to an economy, as it results in inflation, reducing the actual worth of the national currency.

    4) Reducing wasteful spending.

    a) Most notably eliminating spending on extremely costly and unecessary wars of attrition.

    A new study by two leading academic experts suggests that the costs of the Iraq war will be substantially higher than previously reckoned. In a paper presented to this week’s Allied Social Sciences Association annual meeting in Boston MA., Harvard budget expert Linda Bilmes and Columbia University Professor and Nobel Laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz calculate that the war is likely to cost the United States a minimum of nearly one trillion dollars and potentially over $2 trillion – that’s almost half of the public debt right there.​

    b) Eliminate pork-barrel spending, which amounts to nothing more than bribe-taking, where politicians use their constituents' tax dollars to support their reelection (and often allocated through last-minute additions to appropriation bills).

    Examples of pork-barrel spending in fiscal year 2000 include:
    · $375,000,000 for an unrequested and unneeded amphibious assault ship in the state of Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.);
    · $700,000 for the Admiral Theater in Bremerton, Washington, the district of House appropriator Norm Dicks (D-Wash.), despite a $4.2 million privately-funded facelift; and
    · $500,000 for the Olympic Tree Program in the state of Senate appropriator Robert Bennett for the 2002 Winter Olympics.​

    As a W2 citizen, I pay more than my fair share in taxes, and also purchase T-bills/Bonds in my 401k -- I don't want to hear this nonsense. The best way to retain responsible fiscal behavior is to voice your opinion at the polls by not reelecting representatives such as those mentioned above.
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2006
  5. Feb 5, 2006 #4

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I think that could have all been reduced to the 2nd option SOS. I didn't know ones duty to their country requires a vote every 2 years. I also find it utterly hilarious that you tell me to do my research and then, somehow believing it helps your cause, you claim to own part of that same debt. It was the 2nd option SOS, you could have made it nice and compact.
     
  6. Feb 5, 2006 #5

    SOS2008

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Pengwuino, what you are saying is I should write a check to the government to pay for the T-Bills I already purchased – in other words buying back what I already bought.
     
  7. Feb 5, 2006 #6

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    That would be a wonderful and generous idea don't you think? I mean, especially for someone who continually complains about the national debt... :rolleyes:
     
  8. Feb 5, 2006 #7
    I got an even better Idea pengwuino, how about the government stop wasting all my tax dollars?
     
  9. Feb 5, 2006 #8

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Well i've never seen you complain about low taxes or high debt so i'll let that one slide!
     
  10. Feb 5, 2006 #9
    Increasing or decreasing taxes wont make a bit of difference if you are not responsible in how you spend your money in the first place. Its that simple.
     
  11. Feb 5, 2006 #10
    Or how about not spending $845 of my money on a war that I didn't support in the first place?

    (Oh yeah, it's about to go up to $1254.)
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2006
  12. Feb 5, 2006 #11

    SOS2008

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I think those who haven’t already loaned money to our government should go first—are you writing a check? And would it be better if we didn't address the debt and pretended to be happy about it like the hard-core Bush supporters?

    I listed all the ways to reduce the debt so one can see which is preferable. Increasing the GDP is easier said than done, and takes time. The fastest, less painful way is to have a fair tax code, i.e., requiring the wealthy to pay their fair share, including retention of Estate Taxes (which affects far less than 1 percent of estates), and elimination of excessive corporate tax benefits for overseas work – to quote John Edwards:” Not only do we rarely tax overseas income from US companies--we often given them an extra $78 billion in tax breaks." If you added this all up we'd probably have a surplus again.

    But as Cyrus pointed out, all this is useless when there is so much wasteful spending.
     
  13. Feb 5, 2006 #12

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I'm just pointing out that its hypocritical to complain about the national debt yet refuse to do anything yourself. It's easy to tell someone else to do something about it yet still complain; its harder to actually put your money where your mouth is.

    And what is "fair share" for rich people? 80% tax rate? 90? They already pay more then anyone else. But then again, that logic follows the whole "make someone else pay for it" mentality that you have shown to be a die-hard supporter of.
     
  14. Feb 5, 2006 #13

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I don't support paying for abortions, paying illegal aliens to work here, paying for prisoners comfort, etc etc. Your stance doesn't sound very logical all of a sudden now does it?
     
  15. Feb 5, 2006 #14

    SOS2008

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I’ve pointed out that I pay my taxes (no loop holes for W2 withholdings) and have loaned the government money via T-bills/Bonds. How does this make me hypocritical?

    In regard to the tax rate, why don’t you put your claims where your mouth is and provide credible evidence of how the current tax code isn’t more beneficial for the wealthy?
    I see no dichotomy between the two positions. Reduction of wasteful spending can apply to unnecessary war costs as well as the expenditures you mention.
     
  16. Feb 5, 2006 #15

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Why don't you provide credible evidence as to how the tax code doesn't treat rich people unfairly? I know a higher tax bracket is soooo unfair to upper class people!

    And I guess you don't understand why you're being hypocritical. You are personally putting the government into deeper debt yet you still complain about the government having such a high debt. I'm not sure what the exact definition of hyportic might be, but I have a feeling that is just maaaaay apply here!

    I also don't think you understand what I was saying to Manchot. One shouldn't say they shouldn't have to pay taxes beacuse part of its being used for something they dont agree with. I showed a few things I dont agree with but I don't go around saying I want my money back when its spent on those things.
     
  17. Feb 5, 2006 #16
    I'm didn't say that I want my money back (though I do), I said that we wouldn't have this huge debt if it wasn't for them spending $1254 a person on something with no discernible benefit (to me).
     
  18. Feb 5, 2006 #17

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Well that still isn't much of a logical argument. Most government expenditures (1/300,000,000th of it :wink: ) don't benefit you. Ok ok, we can assume if it helps people in your position, it helps you too. It still doesn't make for a logical argument. Propping up the UN doesn't help me much... but i'm ok with paying up to have it there because the majority of people feel I should.
     
  19. Feb 5, 2006 #18
    It's one thing to pay for something that doesn't directly benefit me: it's quite another to pay for something that actually harms me.
     
  20. Feb 5, 2006 #19

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Well that's something completely subjective so theres no reason to get into that for this discussion.
     
  21. Feb 5, 2006 #20

    SOS2008

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I provided this information before in earlier threads on the topic:

    "Year-by-Year Analysis of the Bush Tax Cuts Shows Growing Tilt to the Very Rich" – http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm

    A new report, entitled “Shifty Tax Cuts: How They Move the Tax Burden off the Rich and onto Everyone Else,” from United for a Fair Economy (UFE) indicates that between 2002 and 2004, the Bush tax cuts to the top 1% of US income earners redirected billions of dollars in revenue that could have eliminated virtually all of the budget shortfalls in the states.

    Fair enough about government spending that one doesn’t agree with. I feel we should stop waging unnecessary wars, and stop spending on the things you mentioned as well.

    The point about benefit is also legitimate. If there was a flat tax (no tax shelters), the wealthy would pay more for services then they benefit from. But taxes aren’t being cut by Bush, just shifted, with lower-income Americans being shafted. Pengwuino, study Bush’s tax cuts. Who has investment income, capital gains and dividends? The…wealthy? That’s who benefit from Bush’s tax reductions. While the poor and middle class are hurt by the minimum tax requirement.

    Now what would you prefer, to have our national security jeopardized by allowing Japan and China to own us, or to eliminate budget shortfalls by collecting taxes from the top 1%? Bush doesn’t care about U.S. security; only about tax breaks for himself and his cronies.
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2006
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Tired of skyrocketing public debts?
  1. US Debt now > GDP (Replies: 120)

  2. Public Pensions (Replies: 73)

  3. Debt limit ceiling (Replies: 66)

  4. Obama and National Debt (Replies: 16)

Loading...