This Is No Way To Balance A Budget
by Big Dog on Apr 21, 2011 at 04:29 Political
Looks like the federal government is having trouble with simple math and accounting procedures. Politicians of all stripes talk about balancing the budget and living within our means but none of them have grasped the concept that if cash out is greater than cash in there will be a deficit.
Last year the government paid more out to people than it took in from taxpayers. People on some kind of government support amounted to $2.3 TRILLION. These social welfare programs cost us more money than the $2.2 TRILLION that people paid in taxes. That means there is 0.1 TRILLION dollars on the negative side and we had to spread that 0.1 TRILLION among all our other obligations. Yes, there was other income but not enough to account for the more than a trillion dollar deficit we ran last year.
We are at the tipping point where what we pay in taxes is about equal to what we pay out for social programs and this is not good. We cannot meet our other obligations with this kind of imbalance and as long as social programs are the sacred cows of the Democrats we will continue to run deficits until our entire system collapses.
We need to have serious reform of our temporary social programs so that there is no incentive to stay on them and we need to reform Social Security and Medicare so that benefits stabilize and the programs are eventually privatized so people can have a real return on their investments. We need to stop implementing programs that end up making people slaves to the government at the expense of the people actually paying taxes and end this cycle of ever increasing deficits as a result of poorly run social programs.
While Barack Obama is running around the country (ignoring the victims of the terrible storms in the South) to raise money for Democrats (and his reelection campaign) he is also giving speeches about the budget. His only answer is to raise taxes on the wealthy when this could never, ever solve the problem even if 100% of their wealth was confiscated.
Repeal the current tax system, implement a flat tax system (for everyone) with no loopholes, reduce corporate tax rates and close the loopholes in that system and completely revamp social programs while cutting out unnecessary programs and we can get back to sound fiscal footing.
Unfortunately, Obama seems to have been surfing instead of attending class as he suffers from the same knowledge deficit as those who think we can manage by spending more than we take in.
A hand up, not a handout…
In a related story, the government is on pace to hit the debt ceiling by next week. No Easter recess for them…
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: budget, economy, social programs, taxes, tipping point
Revenue is down mainly because of the recession but this will be a bigger problem in later years. How your side can defend keeping taxes so low for wealthy Americans is still beyond me. Nobody thinks that will solve all our problems and we certainly don’t want 100% of the riches money. We just want about 3% more.
Your solution is to raise taxes on the poorest Americans and reduce taxes on the wealthiest Americans so we’ll all meet in the middle. Closing loopholes and tax breaks alone would solve the problem there but we wouldn’t have to destroy the purchasing power of working class Americans in the process.
Revenue is down because the real unemployment rate is about 17% which means a lot of people are not working and are not paying taxes.
You admit that increasing taxes for the rich will not solve the problem but you want them to pay more anyway as a matter of fairness. They pay more than 45% of the working people and their tax rate is even higher when those folks have a negative tax rate. Many of the lower workers are getting money back giving them a negative tax rate.
My side wants fair taxes. You side always talks about fairness but your idea of fair is that those with more have to pay nearly all the bills and those with less have to pay none of the bills, take some of the money that others pay in and benefit most from programs.
Imagine if MLB decided that teams in wealthy markets had an unfair advantage and had to start each game down by 2 runs. The LA Dodgers would start a lot of games down by 2 runs just to make things fair.
There are no tax cuts involved. Rates will lower but deductions go away which keeps revenue up. The lower earners (particularly the middle class) pays little for this country or as Biden might say, they are not patriotic and have no skin in the game.
Everyone has an obligation to chip in. You call it destroying purchasing power but are you really that naive? If the tax rates are raised on the wealthy they will find ways to have less taxable income and any increases they get will be passed on to the consumer. Who will be hurt by that, the wealthy guy or the working class you claim to support?
And working class is a misnomer. Bill Gates works as hard as anyone else (or he did) and he took all the risks. I can’t see how taxing him more would help people when he would just raise the price of his software and pass that on to the “working” class.
You want 3% more. What entitles you to it? Look at history, the taxes compared to GDP have remained mostly the same over the years regardless of tax rate for the rich because they know how to hide their money or take advantage. hell, Obama took advantage of all as much of the tax code as he could to lower histax burden. He could have not taken the deductions and he could have paid more but he did not want to.
No, that is for the other saps…
Flat rate for all and close all the loopholes.
Then again, if the US had shelters for people for the event of a nuclear attack but there were only enough for half the population and we were attacked could the rich say they get the shelters and leave the bottom 50% out because they did not pay for them? Could we decide the wealthy get preferential treatment when it comes to government services because they pay for it? If Obamacare is fully implemented and the inevitable waiting times occur can the wealthy bypass all that because they are paying the bills?
What benefit do these rich people get when take all that extra money from them?
Taxes so low. You really have no clue. Low is the NOTHING that 45% pay. Once again, for the mentally challenged, we are discussing FEDERAL taxes. State taxes do not count in the equation because the federal government has nothing to do with them or how states use them.
“Revenue is down because the real unemployment rate is about 17% which means a lot of people are not working and are not paying taxes.”
I don’t agree with the methods that give you 17% but it is indeed the problem. The “real unemployment” is 15.7%.
“You admit that increasing taxes for the rich will not solve the problem but you want them to pay more anyway as a matter of fairness. ”
It will not solve the problem alone, no. It should however be the most obvious piece of a package to actually balance the budget over the next 10 years.
“If the tax rates are raised on the wealthy they will find ways to have less taxable income and any increases they get will be passed on to the consumer.”
Your side loves to pretend taxing the wealthy is a job killer. It’s one of the biggest and most often repeated lies by the modern GOP. The truth is that 99.7% of US jobs come from small businesses. About 99% of these owners earn less than 250,000 a year. The rich don’t create substantial amounts of jobs. They just don’t. Taxing the rich is not going to do anything to consumers other than to help lower the deficit and prevent crowding out so upper middle class small business owners can expand and grow like they want.
You know Adam- the “wealthy” are NOT prohibited from giving more to the government- anytime they want- but they got to be wealthy by being smart, and giving money to the government is never smart.
As for taxes, you could confiscate, rob, steal 100% of everything the “rich” make, and you would still not make a dent in our deficit- no, you would have to,(as Bari KNOWS) hit the sweet spot of all of those making $100,000 and more, in order to do this, and he doesn’t want to talk specifics. As a matter of fact, he never talks about specifics- he just tells the “Big Lie”.
The wealthy actually do create jobs abd the truth is they create more jobs than any person who does not pay any taxes. You claim the income levels but how is it reported, as business income or as personal income or do they take only capital gains income like Warren Buffet. Perhaps he is under that level because of how he likes to be paid, to AVOID taxes, no less.
The wealthy create the jobs in this country and if we accept as true that those under 250k create the bulk of the jobs, a claim that is not true, then how many make over 200k which is the cut off for a single earner to have an increase.
The wealthy create and support lots and lots of jobs. Look what happened when you guys increased the luxury tax on yachts. The rich stopped buying them and lots of boat builders and their employees lost their jobs.
The tax increases of the 1930s did not end the Great Depression and did nothing to make things better. The wealthy will find ways to reduce their taxable income and will spend less on employees or hiring employees. When the tax rates decrease the revenue to the Treasury goes up (demonstrated again and again) and the rich end up paying more in taxes.
“The wealthy actually do create jobs and the truth is they create more jobs than any person who does not pay any taxes.”
What does that have to do with anything? Steve Jobs and Bill Gates have created plenty of jobs. But we know that 99.7% of jobs come from small businesses, not large corporations.
“…then how many make over 200k which is the cut off for a single earner to have an increase.”
Less than 2% of small businesses would see tax increases at the 200k and above mark. Of those 2% the vast majority would see only small increases because it’s not like you get to the 200,000 mark and get slammed with a huge tax. You still only get taxed on the income over the line.
“The rich stopped buying them and lots of boat builders and their employees lost their jobs.”
You’ll have to find that story for me. I’ve never heard it.
“When the tax rates decrease the revenue to the Treasury goes up (demonstrated again and again) and the rich end up paying more in taxes.”
Demonstrated when? What about all the times that didn’t happen? Like in 2001, 2002, or 2003? This is a myth you’re citing. Either outcome can happen but when studies have looked at decades of changes then they show one consistent result: When you cut taxes revenues decrease but when you increase taxes then revenues increase.
It’s hard to be elated when our own government activity created a loss of 30,000 American jobs and destroyed dozens of companies in the process,”
You can read it at your liberal bible.
The private industry creates jobs. One thing is certain, regardless of what numbers you throw out (and there are no sources listed) the government DOES NOT create jobs but you insist on using taxpayer money to try and do that.
Even if we accept any number you throw out the history shows us that when the tax rates on the wealthy are raised the amount of taxes the government collects from them decreases or stays the same. The wealthy have lawyers and they have politicians in their pockets who make things favorable to them.
You do realize that it takes several years for any tax cut to start showing up in the treasury and that it takes several years for tax increases to show up, right?
You do know that the amount of money taken in changes little as compared to GDP when taxes are raised, right? If you had some way of making the math absolute like not having any way to avoid taxes then your assertion might be correct (assuming that no one worked less or took a salary cut to avoid higher taxes) but in practice the rise in rates decreases revenue because people find ways to avoid paying them JUST LIKE OABAMA DID.
Even if adding 3% to their rate would pay off the bills in 5 years (which would never happen because when there is more money Congress spends more) I would still require you and government to show what right they have to that money.
You guys always talk about fairness but you have no problem with a tax system that is unfair to the rich. If a rich guy gets away with a crime you scream bloody murder about fairness, or if a black is discriminated against you scream about a fair society, if two homos are not allowed to get married you demand fairness but when it comes to those who are successful you do not believe in being fair.
You are a hypocrite as are all the people in your party who play these games.
“…the government DOES NOT create jobs but you insist on using taxpayer money to try and do that.”
Who’s talking about governments creating jobs? I’m suggesting we tax the super rich Americans at 3% more because it will help shrink the deficit. All of my numbers are easy to find with Google searches. If you doubt one just ask and I’ll provide you some links.
“You guys always talk about fairness but you have no problem with a tax system that is unfair to the rich.”
Fairness for the rich? Ha. It’s like worrying about equality for white christian American men. I guess if your side doesn’t stand up for the downtrodden super rich Americans then who will?
Does not matter if you are super rich or a white Christian, unfair is unfair. You have disdain for those groups so you would not understand it. To you it is OK to treat them unfairly (and unconstitutionally) because they are not some disadvantaged group.
The rich pay more than their share but you want more. You are a typical liberal whose tax and spend policies helped get us into this mess.
Amendment XIV guarantees equal treatment under the law. Tax laws do not treat people equally. But your ideology views the Constitution as a barrier and obstacle to imposing your will on others.
And you supported the stimulus as a way to create jobs when government does not create them.
The numbers bear out, the poor do not create jobs, higher taxes stifle growth, the wealthy know how to avoid taxes and government spends too much. It has a debt problem not a revenue problem.
And white Christian males founded this country against all kinds of oppression.
My side stands up for everyone because we want them to succeed. You want them to be slaves to the government.
The budget could be balance in 5 minutes — if anyone had the will to do it. Sadly, the establishment in Washington, both political parties, have absolutely ZERO interest in ever reducing the size or scope of any aspect of government.
With one or possibly two exceptions, there’s not an elected person in DC that actually wants to reduce the budget even one dime. That’s why they and their supporters, can only imagine balancing the budget by bringing in more money — with higher taxes.
Government only consumes, and this government will always consume MORE, never less. Anyone in DC who claims they want otherwise is lying.