• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

National Debt Nears 20 Trillion Just in Time for Election

sookster said:
The backbone to all of this are loans. Loans expand the money supply, which allows The Fed to make the money that it does, allows the private sector to buy treasuries (the vast majority of national debt is owned by the private sector), which ultimately allows The Treasury to continue printing treasuries which are bought, which ultimately is deficit spent, putting money into the economy. This raises reserves, which allows for more lending, and the cycle continues.

The concern shouldn't be on whether or not your tax money is paying off debt. That isn't a big deal. You should be concerned where all of this spending is occurring. For example, we have spent 4 - 6 trillion dollars on the Middle East. We have spent 2 trillion dollars on a fleet, a single fleet of planes. Nearly 1 trillion dollars on a destroyer, not an aircraft carrier. Yet when Obama suggests a stimulus to fix our infrastructure, people are like he's an idiot. When he announces he could make University free for all, for 80 billion dollars over 10 years or 8 billion dollars a year! It makes no sense.

It isn't the interest you should be concerned about. It is how the powers at be are spending all of the deficit spending. It seems we like to kill people more than rather help people in this country.
Click to expand...

This post keeps it 100!
 
Henrin said:
You know why interest rates are low, right?
Click to expand...

Because supply is more than keeping up with demand? Inflation is only a problem when demand is high and supply limited. Interest rates reflect inflation and can be raised to reduce demand if inflation is a problem.
 
Last edited:
jonny5 said:
How is the FICA taxes I pay not reality? Its more reality than some chart.
Click to expand...

FICA has to do with Social Security and Medicare. The issue is why is $20 Trillion with no other context for the number a problem?
 
OrphanSlug said:
FICA has to do with Social Security and Medicare. The issue is why is $20 Trillion with no other context for the number a problem?
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly. That is the question. These Conservatives scream until they're blue in the face about debt. Then when you ask them why it's a big deal, they just repeat the number over and over and over. Fact is, they know the debt is a red herring.
 
Incisor said:
They are not paying more taxes. Their tax rate has been cut in half.

Before the tax cuts, the tax burden was more equitable. So how are you not complaining about a problem caused by the very thing you believe?
Click to expand...

They are paying more taxes. The share of income tax by the top quintile (20%) has increased from 65% to 94%. They also pay a higher burden, 38.5% of top dollar, which just increased in 2009 (in addition to all the new taxes on high income in the ACA).

All evidence points to us living in a progressive tax system. So if youre seeing problems, their in the system you support.
 
OrphanSlug said:
FICA has to do with Social Security and Medicare. The issue is why is $20 Trillion with no other context for the number a problem?
Click to expand...

Its not the issue, no more than X% of X is. The effect on my paycheck is the issue. Both FICA and Income Tax.
 
Incisor said:
OK, but the national debt has no bearing on that. Furthermore, saving harms an economy and leads to recessions. When Bush cut taxes, household debt skyrocketed even though consumers took "home more of their earnings". So this theory that if you cut taxes, it will somehow translate to growth is DOA based on the last 35 years of empirical evidence. If you're trying to equate household debt with government debt, you're going to set yourself up for a rhetorical failure. Government debt and household debt are not the same thing at all. I can see why some Conservatives want to make them the same; they don't understand the role or function of government debt. They only understand it as it relates to how they approach their own finances. You can't run a government budget like a household budget. For one, a government can print money and a person cannot. Also, a government can -at will- increase its collected revenues by raising the tax rate. You cannot raise your salary at will with your employer. The differences are so vast that it is incredulous someone would try to compare the two.




OK, but we have to borrow in order to fund the government. So how do you propose not paying interest when we do borrow? Who would lend to us that way?




Ummm...a loan does increase your standard of living. You seem to want to be able to borrow and not pay any interest. I'd love to see how you managed to get a mortgage with a 0% interest rate.
Click to expand...

Youre just making blanket statements. Provide some evidence to back it up.
 
jonny5 said:
They are paying more taxes..
Click to expand...

They are paying a larger share, but the amount they are paying is less. The top tax rate was 70% in 1980, it's 39.6% today. So is 70% > or < 39.6%?


The share of income tax by the top quintile (20%) has increased from 65% to 94%.
Click to expand...

Duh, because you cut taxes. Curious, prior to trickle-down, what was the tax burden? I don't think you really understand how much taxes have actually been cut the last 35 years.


They also pay a higher burden, 38.5% of top dollar, which just increased in 2009 (in addition to all the new taxes on high income in the ACA).
Click to expand...

On a rate that is nearly half of what they paid 35 years ago. So all you're doing is making my argument for me; tax cuts don't result in trickle-down. People don't pay taxes because they make so little they don't have to. That's thanks to you not wanting wage increases. So again, how are you not the cause of the thing you are complaining about?


All evidence points to us living in a progressive tax system.
Click to expand...

???? We've had a Progressive Tax System for 100 years. The evidence points to tax cuts not being what you have made them out to be.
 
jonny5 said:
Its not the issue, no more than X% of X is. The effect on my paycheck is the issue. Both FICA and Income Tax.
Click to expand...

Now you are moving the goal posts around. Was just FICA, now it is FICA and Income Tax.

What makes you think your Income Tax is directly proportional to our National Debt?
 
jonny5 said:
Youre just making blanket statements. Provide some evidence to back it up.
Click to expand...

What would you like me to provide specifically? Because I gotta be honest, this post of yours reads like a pretty blatant attempt to dodge. Do you not believe that government can print money? Do you think you can just increase your income at will? When you pay your bills, do you only do so when you have the cash on hand to?

I don't think Conservatives have any clue about Finance.
 
American said:
More like 2-2.5%.
Click to expand...

Nah, it's 0.5%. The "effective" FFR (a volume-weighted median of overnight federal funds transactions) is 0.4%, and it's been less than that for the past eight years.

jonny5 said:
They are paying more taxes.
Click to expand...

I'd say it's quite difficult to find data sets that match up because the measures are complex, but you can be fairly confident of trends. The effective federal tax rate for the top quintile is lower than it was under Clinton42 and higher than it was under Bush43.

tax_distribution.jpg (source)

>>The share of income tax by the top quintile (20%) has increased from 65% to 94%.

Singling out FIT is misleading. The top quintile pays about 69% of all federal taxes, and they collect about 61% of national income.

Share-of-taxes-paid-by-income.jpg

Not much progressivity.

The problem lies at the very high end, where the top one percent collects about 21% of income and the top 0.01% takes about five percent, with effective federal tax rates that haven't gone up to match the income gains for those households.

Figure-9-e1455724425470.jpg

0 kkWeMivzPglflQOj.jpg

effective_tax_rate_top_.001_1910_2010.jpg

>>All evidence points to us living in a progressive tax system. So if youre seeing problems, their in the system you support.

The problem I see is a much larger share of income going to the top end with the tax system not adjusting for it.

Incisor said:
I don't think Conservatives have any clue about Finance.
Click to expand...

I'd say true conservatives do, but the millions of ignorant reactionaries who view themselves as conservative do not. They don't know up from down.
 
jonny5 said:
Just not so much mine, since I have voted for any of them in a long time.
Click to expand...

I am afraid that absenting oneself does not bring absolution.
 
mmi said:
>>All evidence points to us living in a progressive tax system. So if youre seeing problems, their in the system you support.

The problem I see is a much larger share of income going to the top end with the tax system not adjusting for it.

I'd say true conservatives do, but the millions of ignorant reactionaries who view themselves as conservative do not. They don't know up from down.
Click to expand...
So what you're saying is that corporations should more than the 35% tax rate that is the highest corporate tax rate in the world?
 
Brewdog said:
So what you're saying is that corporations should more than the 35% tax rate that is the highest corporate tax rate in the world?
Click to expand...

Only if you ignore deductions.

Add in deductions, and some are getting welfare checks from the govt...

It's a mess, and getting worse. As always, Stiglitz covers this territory far better than we could.
 
late said:
Only if you ignore deductions.

Add in deductions, and some are getting welfare checks from the govt...
Click to expand...
So then, the problem is not the highest tax rate in the world, it's lobbyists in Washington that give certain benefits to the highest bidder. While the rest of corporate America is faced with going overseas and taking our jobs with them. I can understand that.
 
Incisor said:
They are paying a larger share, but the amount they are paying is less. The top tax rate was 70% in 1980, it's 39.6% today. So is 70% > or < 39.6%?




Duh, because you cut taxes. Curious, prior to trickle-down, what was the tax burden? I don't think you really understand how much taxes have actually been cut the last 35 years.




On a rate that is nearly half of what they paid 35 years ago. So all you're doing is making my argument for me; tax cuts don't result in trickle-down. People don't pay taxes because they make so little they don't have to. That's thanks to you not wanting wage increases. So again, how are you not the cause of the thing you are complaining about?




???? We've had a Progressive Tax System for 100 years. The evidence points to tax cuts not being what you have made them out to be.
Click to expand...

So taxes have been cut, but people are paying more than ever, and the rich are paying more than ever. And this equals tax cuts for the rich. GUess we need to agree to disagree.
 
jonny5 said:
So taxes have been cut, but people are paying more than eve
Click to expand...

NO! They are not paying more than ever.

Is 39.6% greater than or less than 70%?
 
Incisor said:
NO! They are not paying more than ever.

Is 39.6% greater than or less than 70%?
Click to expand...

Its irrelevant. They pay more total tax and a greater share of the tax. Their share of the tax burden keeps going up, while the others go down. Its textbook progressive taxation. The more you make the more you pay.

2014_tax_explainer_chart2-crop.gif


Its the same if you look at their income tax paid as a share of income. The top 1% pays about 30% of their AGI in tax. The middle ranges about 10-15%.

https://www.irs.gov/uac/soi-tax-stats-individual-statistical-tables-by-size-of-adjusted-gross-income
 
jonny5 said:
Sadly we're talking about sex scandals and email mismanagement, when we should be talking about how our elected representatives (who we keep relecting) have managed to run up 20 trillion in monetary obligations, about 25% to intragovt agencies like Social Security, and the rest to citzens, local govts, mutual funds, of which 35% is owned by foreign countries, with China being the largest holder. This means we pay about 300 billion in interest every year, with about 100 billion being paid to foreign countries.

From your paycheck straight to China, to the tune of about 100 million a day, just in interest on debt. Who is going to stop this? Certainly not Clinton, who wants to spend more, or Trump, who wants to spend more and tax less. Maybe Paul Ryan who is the only one proposing to at least stop borrowing by balancing the budget, but more likely no one.

https://www.fms.treas.gov/fmsweb/viewDTSFiles?dir=w&fname=16102800.pdf
Click to expand...

why can we still afford a fantastical, war on drugs.
 
jonny5 said:
Its irrelevant.
Click to expand...


Why? Because you say so?

>>They pay more total tax and a greater share of the tax. Their share of the tax burden keeps going up, while the others go down.

Their incomes have increased at a faster rate.

>>Its textbook progressive taxation. The more you make the more you pay.

No one's saying it's not progressive. The question is the degree of progressivity, and that has declined.

Incisor said:
Are you paying more if the tax on $1 is 39.6% or 70%?
Click to expand...

I'd say the thing to look at is effective rates. No one (or just about no one) was paying seventy percent before 1981.

In 1980, the effective federal tax rate for the top one percent was 35%, and last year it was 33%. In 1980, that group collected nine percent of national income, and last year it got 21%.

For the middle three quintiles, the rate has dropped more, from 20% to 13%, but their income share has dropped from 52% to 46%.

I figure you should be able to see the problem — the progressivity of the system has increased if you look solely at the relative rates, but it has in fact diminished if you account for the marked shift in income toward the top.

The after-tax income of the top one percent has increased by 240%, while the middle three quintiles have lost about four percent.
 
Last edited:
jonny5 said:
Sadly we're talking about sex scandals and email mismanagement, when we should be talking about how our elected representatives (who we keep relecting) have managed to run up 20 trillion in monetary obligations, about 25% to intragovt agencies like Social Security, and the rest to citzens, local govts, mutual funds, of which 35% is owned by foreign countries, with China being the largest holder. This means we pay about 300 billion in interest every year, with about 100 billion being paid to foreign countries.
From your paycheck straight to China, to the tune of about 100 million a day, just in interest on debt. Who is going to stop this? Certainly not Clinton, who wants to spend more, or Trump, who wants to spend more and tax less. Maybe Paul Ryan who is the only one proposing to at least stop borrowing by balancing the budget, but more likely no one.
https://www.fms.treas.gov/fmsweb/viewDTSFiles?dir=w&fname=16102800.pdf
Click to expand...
We could go with the Trump Tax Plan/Lollipop (there is obviously no real Budget plan)
Trump wants an across the board 20-30% Cut in taxes...
Big Increase in Military spending: 350 New Navy Ships for openers; a Wall.
And NO significant Budget cuts I can see:

So if you're Debt/Deficit Conscious you should vote HILLARY:

Two very different paths on taxes: Clinton vs. Trump
Two very different paths on taxes: Clinton vs. Trump | Tax Policy Center
Tax Policy Center - July 28th

"Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have proposed dramatically different tax plans. Clinton wants to raise taxes on high-income households and businesses to boost revenue and pay for new social initiatives. Trump wants to slash tax rates on both individuals and businesses.

Add it up and over the next decade the two plans are more than $12 trillion dollars apart:
The Tax Policy Center (TPC) estimates Clinton’s tax proposals would Shave $1.2 trillion off the nation’s debt over the next 10 years while Trump’s would Add $11.2 trillion."​

Oucher!
 
Last edited:
jonny5 said:
Sure it does. I have no power but voting in a republic. Blame the majority.
Click to expand...

I realize that argument seem comforting. But it does not work. You are right that the closeness to whatever the criminal behavior is increases the level of complicity and that the greater the distance is the less involved one feels. But, if you know your society is doing things that are atrocious, you must take action or be part of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom