News Tired of skyrocketing public debts?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pengwuino
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    debt
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the U.S. national debt and various opinions on how to address it. Participants debate the effectiveness of personal contributions to reduce the debt versus government spending practices, including wasteful expenditures and military costs. There is a strong emphasis on the need for responsible fiscal behavior and the role of taxes, with some arguing that the wealthy should pay a fairer share. The conversation also touches on the hypocrisy of complaining about the debt while benefiting from government securities. Overall, the thread highlights the complexities of national debt management and the differing views on taxation and spending priorities.

Reduce the public debt?

  • No, I'm not too concerned with it

    Votes: 4 50.0%

  • Yes, but I'm not putting my money where my mouth is

    Votes: 3 37.5%

  • Yes, but I have another lame excuse not to

    Votes: 1 12.5%

  • Yes, I am sending a check soon! Thank you for this information!

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Other (oh come on)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    8
  • #31
Amp1 said:
Penguino, something else I don't think was mentioned that you don't seem to get.

If an elderly couple on a fixed income pays only 10 percent of 36,000. Its more as a proportion of their income than for some super rich persons who earn 36 million are paying even if their rate is 40 percent.

40 percent of 36 million is 14,400,000

10 percent of 36000 is 3600

14.4 million is more than 3,600 numerically but as a proportion of 36 million it is smaller than 3600 is for 36,000.

approx. 2.7 x 10 -1 for the elderly couple as opposed to approx. 2.7 x 10 -6 for the super rich people.

I can't seem to understand this. What sense of the word "proportion" are you using? How can 10% of X be a larger proportion than 40% of Y is of Y? The proportion in one case is 1/10 and in the other 4/10, or 2/5 if you prefer.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
LYN, I meant to make a correction. What I meant though is the amount that is spent by the elderly couple is a larger share of their livlihood than the 14,400,000 paid by the wealty couple. In other words they give out of their need and the wealthy out of their surplus. The proportion indicates this difference.
 
  • #33
Amp1 said:
LYN, I meant to make a correction. What I meant though is the amount that is spent by the elderly couple is a larger share of their livlihood than the 14,400,000 paid by the wealty couple. In other words they give out of their need and the wealthy out of their surplus. The proportion indicates this difference.
This principle of proportional giving is at the root of the tithe (10% flat) and goes back to Jesus who made the comparison:

Luke 20:45-21:4
[21:1] As he looked up, Jesus saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. "I tell you the truth," he said, "this poor widow has put in more than all the others. All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on."
 
  • #34
Thats what I meant SOS, thanks. I didn't dare mention the verse or any religion. The point is a reality, especially in this day and time. The impoverished and middle class who pay taxes are giving more than many wealthy and ultra wealthy people - note: I said many, not all- who are quite able to pay at the least their fair share,which could amount to more than most people earn in a lifetime of work, and hardly feel it.

Bill Gates regularly gives away millions in philantropy. He does get a write off that's true but the money reenters the economy and also more importantly, it benefits a lot of groups or individuals who need such aid. While their are others, who seemingly hoard their gains and obviously use it to make more money. Their excess isn't put to the same work as a Gates and consequently doesn't achieve the same multiplier effect within the economy.

They however do gain, sometimes very large yields which stagnates while they figure out how to hoard it without paying their fair share. I would use Cheney as an example but he is extremely secretive about his (monetary)worth and income.

Philantropy returns a greater gain to the economy as a whole than singular investing because of the multiplier effect it has in the economy which increases many different facets of the GNP.
 
  • #35
Amp1 said:
LYN, I meant to make a correction. What I meant though is the amount that is spent by the elderly couple is a larger share of their livlihood than the 14,400,000 paid by the wealty couple. In other words they give out of their need and the wealthy out of their surplus. The proportion indicates this difference.

You're saying they pay a larger proportion of what would otherwise be disposable income, as in, after taxes, they have no disposable income, whereas the super-rich generally still do. Thanks for clarifying that.
 
  • #36
No worries :cool:
 
  • #37
Pengwuino said:
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.

According to the FEB AARP Bulletin, the debt now amouts to $156,000 for every man woman and child in America (God I hope they are wrong. Is it really that high?)

Assuming that the number is accurate, where exactly will this money come from? We do know that higher government debt translates into higher interest rates. This means that the people in the average income bracket will be paying out a much higher portion of their income for debt service.

All things considered the "make someone else pay for it mentality" will be a necessity for the average income family. They simply do not have the money and they never will.

This narrows the options pretty much to cutting all entitlement programs entirely, increased taxes for the wealthy, or a combination of both.

Somewhere there has to be a balance that is fair to everyone and I don't see that cutting health care for the less fortunate, which is what the administration is doing, as being as fair as taxing an extra million from a guy who makes twenty million per year and owns three houses and five cars.
 
Last edited:
  • #38
edward said:
According to the FEB AARP Bulletin, the debt now amouts to $156,000 for every man woman and child in America (God I hope they are wrong. Is it really that high?)

Assuming that the number is accurate, where exactly will this money come from? We do know that higher government debt translates into higher interest rates. This means that the people in the average income bracket will be paying out a much higher portion of their income for debt service.

All things considered the "make someone else pay for it mentality" will be a necessity for the average income family. They simply do not have the money and they never will.

This narrows the options pretty much to cutting all entitlement programs entirely, increased taxes for the wealthy, or a combination of both.

Somewhere there has to be a balance that is fair to everyone and I don't see that cutting health care for the less fortunate, which is what the administration is doing, as being as fair as taxing an extra million from a guy who makes twenty million per year and owns three houses and five cars.
Why should the average American sacrifice basic needs like health care (preventative care is less expensive), retirement benefits, etc. while political leaders (BushCo) and CEOs alike are collecting benefits often of astronomical proportions? Aside from Bush’s skewed tax reductions, why is the U.S. “nation building” in Iraq, and giving huge amounts of aid to countries like Israel, countries that are not the poorest and most needy? Why aren’t we bringing troops home, and allowing other countries to take more financial responsibility in their regions? Why are we spending so much on old technology per the energy and transportation bills, instead of investing more in future technology, related jobs and exports?

The average American already has a good portion of their paychecks going to taxes and social programs, and struggles with increasing cost of living because wages aren’t keeping pace. It would be great to see leaders like Bush face the music for fiscal mismanagement right along with the executives from Enron.
 
  • #39
edward said:
According to the FEB AARP Bulletin, the debt now amouts to $156,000 for every man woman and child in America (God I hope they are wrong. Is it really that high?)

I just did this by sight, but wouldn't that be around $70 trillion? The debt right now, according to the public debt clock, is a little over $8 trillion.

Not to say that isn't high, but I'm not sure that $70 trillion even exists.
 
  • #40
LYN, assuming a pop of 300 mil it comes out to about 47 tril. There once was a counter up at 14th street and Union Square here in NY, and the cost per individual was moving up faster than the hundredth sec counter in a down hill ski competion.