• 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!

We Have a Spending Problem

jonny5

jonny5

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Messages
27,581
Reaction score
4,664
Location
Republic of Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Yeah, I know. Duh. But let me break it down for you.

-In FY2017, the federal govt collected 3.32 trillion dollars. It spent 3.99 trillion.

The two largest outlays are
-Social Security - 934bn
-Medicare - 678bn

Luckily these have direct taxes which pay for part of them, 1200bn. This covers Social Security, and Medicare Part A (hospitals).

Unfortunately there is also
-part B (insurance) which is funded almost entirely from federal income tax, 235bn
-part D (drugs) which is 80% funded by FIT, 82bn

But, we havent even gotten through all the mandatory spending yet, which consumes almost every other dollar of general revenue, (1500bn FIT, 300bn corporate, 300bn excises and other.)

Medicaid - 375bn
Income security - 300bn
Federal pensions - 163bn
Veterans programs - 106bn
Other mandatory - 120bn
Interest - 300bn

So, just mandatory alone consumes all of payroll tax, and about 1700bn of general revenue. Thats about 2800bn, leaving about 400bn for all other functions of govt. And we spend too much on that as well.

Defense-600bn
Justice-64bn
Science-30bn
Energy-8bn
Foreign Affairs-46bn
Environment - 42bn
Agriculture-25bn
Commerce-16bn
Transportation-92bn
Community Development - 28bn
Education - 113bn
General Govt - 24bn
Veterans - 70bn


So, another way to look at it is, we have more than enough general revenue (2100bn) to pay for all the main functions of govt (1200bn), and enough payroll taxes (1200bn) to pay for Social Security and Hospitals (1200bn), and even a little left over (900bn) to pay for Veterans, Federal Pensions, and interest, but we have to borrow to pay for welfare.
 
It seems pretty obvious we have a spending problem.

I think we have plenty of revenue to fund a government. It just has to be more efficient...

I come to this conclusion by looking at average tax revenue per capita. I think this statistic is important because it shows how much actual revenue the US government gets per person in comparison to other countries.

In 2015 the U.S. had 14.79k of revenue per person on average. This is actually slightly above the average among the 35 ish countries in this study https://data.oecd.org/tax/tax-revenue.htm. And in 2015 we were almost right in the same ballpark as Germany, they got around 15.3k per person.

Countries like the U.K., Canada, Spain, Russia, Italy.... the U.S.A get's quite a bit more revenue per person than any of them.... and some of these have much higher taxes than we do.

Countries that get higher revenue per person are countries like the Netherlands, Sweden, and Denmark.... and these countries debt to GPD ratio is very high
 
jonny5 said:
So, another way to look at it is, we have more than enough general revenue (2100bn) to pay for all the main functions of govt (1200bn), and enough payroll taxes (1200bn) to pay for Social Security and Hospitals (1200bn), and even a little left over (900bn) to pay for Veterans, Federal Pensions, and interest, but we have to borrow to pay for welfare.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you're arbitrarily pretending that welfare isn't a function of government when in fact it is. From where I stand we have more than enough money to cover everything, we just have to borrow a bunch of money to pay for excessive military spending we don't need, and stupid tax cuts and loopholes that are not creating jobs in anyway shape or form. Not to mention all the money we're wasting deporting undocumented immigrants 98% of which are good people who work hard, pay taxes and improve our overall economy.

So no, we do not have a spending problem. We have a dip**** Republicans who don't know how economics work problem.
 
Well, on the bright side.. for some anyway... WW2 and Korea veterans are dying off, and Vietnam vets are in their 70's. Both use a lot of medical at this point in their lives, and collect social security. So that will bend the graph down a bit.

And increasing job participation market will also cut social spending. So that helps.

Then we get to "Scope Creep" - the EPA started out regulating pesticides, now they are trying to take control of my birdbath. They need to be severely cut back by 41 Billion.
Education department is way too big. Cut it back by 112 billion and use block grants to the states and fire their SWAT team, except for those kids who refuse to do their homework.
Community development needs a new approach. They need to bulldoze square miles of rotten real estate, and pay to move the residents to where the jobs are.
Agriculture - we need to cut back on subsidies. There are too many cozy farms where the only crop is the subsidy. But they got a SWAT team to go after those illegal walnuts!
Justice - we have way too many agencies doing the same thing. Even the capitol dog catcher has a SWAT team. Everyone of those slackers gets a huge gold plated retirement, which BTW is significantly buffed by being an armed agent.

It's time to put a hiring freeze on the government except in areas were they are needed.
 
But Trump didn't cut spending. He cut taxes, which makes the problem worse. And now he's about to increase spending even more.

Did it ever occur to you that if you "have a spending problem" you might want to work on that side of the ledger before handing out goodies to all of your friends, thus making things worse?

How the right doesn't get whiplash when they do this, I'll never understand.
 
celticwar17 said:
It seems pretty obvious we have a spending problem.

I think we have plenty of revenue to fund a government. It just has to be more efficient...

I come to this conclusion by looking at average tax revenue per capita. I think this statistic is important because it shows how much actual revenue the US government gets per person in comparison to other countries.

In 2015 the U.S. had 14.79k of revenue per person on average. This is actually slightly above the average among the 35 ish countries in this study https://data.oecd.org/tax/tax-revenue.htm. And in 2015 we were almost right in the same ballpark as Germany, they got around 15.3k per person.

Countries like the U.K., Canada, Spain, Russia, Italy.... the U.S.A get's quite a bit more revenue per person than any of them.... and some of these have much higher taxes than we do.

Countries that get higher revenue per person are countries like the Netherlands, Sweden, and Denmark.... and these countries debt to GPD ratio is very high
Click to expand...

Re the bold section

What do you consider a very high debt to GDP ratio?

Some facts

Sweden's debt to GDP ratio is 42.2%
Denmark's is 37.7%
The Netherlands is 61.8%

The US total federal government debt is 105%
 
A few weeks ago, Orin Hatch was bemoaning that we don't have the money to extend CHIP, for poor children, as he voted to give mostly rich people a $1.5 trillion tax-cut. The U.S. has among the lowest taxes on upper income people. So yes, we can afford to pay our bills if we increase taxes on the wealthiest Americans.

The top 0.1% had around $1.4 trillion in taxable income. Now, even confiscating that whole sum wouldn’t eliminate our current deficit, especially since the top 0.1% already paid something like a third of that total in taxes. But then, no single action would close our current budget gap -- not even the complete elimination of Social Security or Medicare.

What you want to ask is how much higher taxes on the super-elite might contribute to deficit reduction, as compared with the kinds of things politicians are actually proposing.

So let’s suppose that it was possible to collect an additional 10% of that super-elite’s income in taxes, to the tune of $140 billion a year. How would this stack up against the kinds of things on the table right now?

Well, consider the idea of raising the Medicare eligibility age -- a move that would create vast hardship. According to the Congressional Budget Office (big pdf), when fully phased in this would save $55.2 billion through 2026. I could multiply comparisons, but the point is that higher taxes on the very rich could make a significant contribution to deficit reduction. They couldn’t eliminate the deficit on their own, but what could? There’s real money up there, and those making it should be bearing a share of the burden. In this case, $140 billion in additional revenue covers lots of costs for working Americans.

Moreover, we live in a global economy in which just about all of the other developed countries have more extensive social programs than we do. If the thesis is that we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem, how is it that everyone else is able to afford what conservatives here say we cannot afford?
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Re the bold section

What do you consider a very high debt to GDP ratio?

Some facts

Sweden's debt to GDP ratio is 42.2%
Denmark's is 37.7%
The Netherlands is 61.8%

The US total federal government debt is 105%
Click to expand...

I think I was thinking of Household Debt. But thanks for the correction!

Doesn't depart from my overall point though, that was just as side comment I thought was from memory... The U.S. gets plenty of Tax Revenue, almost the same amount as Germany per person.
 
jonny5 said:
Yeah, I know. Duh. But let me break it down for you.

-In FY2017, the federal govt collected 3.32 trillion dollars. It spent 3.99 trillion.

The two largest outlays are
-Social Security - 934bn
-Medicare - 678bn

Luckily these have direct taxes which pay for part of them, 1200bn. This covers Social Security, and Medicare Part A (hospitals).

Unfortunately there is also
-part B (insurance) which is funded almost entirely from federal income tax, 235bn
-part D (drugs) which is 80% funded by FIT, 82bn

But, we havent even gotten through all the mandatory spending yet, which consumes almost every other dollar of general revenue, (1500bn FIT, 300bn corporate, 300bn excises and other.)

Medicaid - 375bn
Income security - 300bn
Federal pensions - 163bn
Veterans programs - 106bn
Other mandatory - 120bn
Interest - 300bn

So, just mandatory alone consumes all of payroll tax, and about 1700bn of general revenue. Thats about 2800bn, leaving about 400bn for all other functions of govt. And we spend too much on that as well.

Defense-600bn
Justice-64bn
Science-30bn
Energy-8bn
Foreign Affairs-46bn
Environment - 42bn
Agriculture-25bn
Commerce-16bn
Transportation-92bn
Community Development - 28bn
Education - 113bn
General Govt - 24bn
Veterans - 70bn


So, another way to look at it is, we have more than enough general revenue (2100bn) to pay for all the main functions of govt (1200bn), and enough payroll taxes (1200bn) to pay for Social Security and Hospitals (1200bn), and even a little left over (900bn) to pay for Veterans, Federal Pensions, and interest, but we have to borrow to pay for welfare.
Click to expand...

I don't think most people understand how dire this situation truly is. In 20 - 30 years you're going to see the explosion of the biggest debt bomb in world history and it's going to be very, very bad. It won't be Obama's fault, it won't be Trump's fault, it will be an amalgamation of government and state idiocy that has accumulated over many years. 110 trillion dollars (and growing) worth of unfunded liabilities. 20 trillion dollars (and growing) is what our debt is just generally speaking.

I'm sorry but if anyone has the slightest fantasy that this will ever be paid off in full, you are wrong. This is going to be bad and the past generations which have made a bed is what the unborn will have to sleep in.
 
MrWonka said:
Sounds like you're arbitrarily pretending that welfare isn't a function of government when in fact it is. From where I stand we have more than enough money to cover everything, we just have to borrow a bunch of money to pay for excessive military spending we don't need, and stupid tax cuts and loopholes that are not creating jobs in anyway shape or form. Not to mention all the money we're wasting deporting undocumented immigrants 98% of which are good people who work hard, pay taxes and improve our overall economy.

So no, we do not have a spending problem. We have a dip**** Republicans who don't know how economics work problem.
Click to expand...

Namecalling isnt helping.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
But Trump didn't cut spending. He cut taxes, which makes the problem worse. And now he's about to increase spending even more.

Did it ever occur to you that if you "have a spending problem" you might want to work on that side of the ledger before handing out goodies to all of your friends, thus making things worse?

How the right doesn't get whiplash when they do this, I'll never understand.
Click to expand...

No, its two seperate issues. We dont have a tax problem, we collect more than enough taxes, whether we cut or dont cut taxes.
 
jonny5 said:
So, another way to look at it is, we have more than enough general revenue (2100bn) to pay for all the main functions of govt (1200bn), and enough payroll taxes (1200bn) to pay for Social Security and Hospitals (1200bn), and even a little left over (900bn) to pay for Veterans, Federal Pensions, and interest, but we have to borrow to pay for welfare.
Click to expand...

So, another way to look at it is, we have more than enough general revenue (2100bn) to pay for all the main functions of govt (1200bn), and enough payroll taxes (1200bn) to pay for Social Security and Hospitals (1200bn), and even a little left over (900bn) to pay for welfare, but we have to borrow to pay for Veterans, Federal Pensions, and interest.

What you really meant to say was that "We have enough to pay for the things I want, but we have to borrow to cover your stupid ****".
 
MTAtech said:
A few weeks ago, Orin Hatch was bemoaning that we don't have the money to extend CHIP, for poor children, as he voted to give mostly rich people a $1.5 trillion tax-cut. The U.S. has among the lowest taxes on upper income people. So yes, we can afford to pay our bills if we increase taxes on the wealthiest Americans.

The top 0.1% had around $1.4 trillion in taxable income. Now, even confiscating that whole sum wouldn’t eliminate our current deficit, especially since the top 0.1% already paid something like a third of that total in taxes. But then, no single action would close our current budget gap -- not even the complete elimination of Social Security or Medicare.

What you want to ask is how much higher taxes on the super-elite might contribute to deficit reduction, as compared with the kinds of things politicians are actually proposing.

So let’s suppose that it was possible to collect an additional 10% of that super-elite’s income in taxes, to the tune of $140 billion a year. How would this stack up against the kinds of things on the table right now?

Well, consider the idea of raising the Medicare eligibility age -- a move that would create vast hardship. According to the Congressional Budget Office (big pdf), when fully phased in this would save $55.2 billion through 2026. I could multiply comparisons, but the point is that higher taxes on the very rich could make a significant contribution to deficit reduction. They couldn’t eliminate the deficit on their own, but what could? There’s real money up there, and those making it should be bearing a share of the burden. In this case, $140 billion in additional revenue covers lots of costs for working Americans.

Moreover, we live in a global economy in which just about all of the other developed countries have more extensive social programs than we do. If the thesis is that we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem, how is it that everyone else is able to afford what conservatives here say we cannot afford?
Click to expand...

It doesnt matter. They arent us.
 
Koke said:
I don't think most people understand how dire this situation truly is. In 20 - 30 years you're going to see the explosion of the biggest debt bomb in world history and it's going to be very, very bad.
Click to expand...
It might, but... it probably won't.

Don't get me wrong, debt can become a problem, and we do need to tame spending. However, this is not like credit card debt, where the creditor expects to get paid in full one day.

No one expects the US to pay off its debt, in fact no one wants the US to pay off its debt. US federal debt is as secure and solid an investment as exists in the world, and the issuance of that debt is relied upon by individuals, businesses, governments, and other organizations around the world.

I might add, I've heard people screaming about the debt for my entire life, and that day of doom Keeps Not Happening. Worse yet, the same people who have spent decades screaming about the debt are the ones who are increasing it, by cutting taxes while increasing spending!

It is really difficult for me to see how the Republicans think they can get away with this, even given the polarized atmosphere and friendly nature of right-wing media.
 
jonny5 said:
Yeah, I know. Duh. But let me break it down for you.

-In FY2017, the federal govt collected 3.32 trillion dollars. It spent 3.99 trillion.

The two largest outlays are
-Social Security - 934bn
-Medicare - 678bn
Click to expand...

Let me clue you in. Governments always spend more than they have. A government is not a business, it may print money but it doesn't make money.

Both SS and Medicare are forms of insurance paid for by premiums and prepaid premiums in the form of taxes. To claim that the government is spending money on both is misleading at the least, and plain stupid for thinking your fellow Americans are too stupid to understand how they are paid for. You just lost all credulity with this inclusive in your so-called breakdown.
 
jonny5 said:
No, its two seperate issues. We dont have a tax problem, we collect more than enough taxes, whether we cut or dont cut taxes.
Click to expand...

Well, the CBO says those tax cuts will add 1.5 trillion to the debt. I'm going with their numbers. If you have some data that proves them wrong, post it. Otherwise it seems you are just posing a bumper sticker slogan.

"We don't have a tax problem, we have a spending problem" is false, because we were running a deficit when the taxes were cut. Or can you demonstrate that I'm wrong about that?
 
OldFatGuy said:
Let me clue you in. Governments always spend more than they have. A government is not a business, it may print money but it doesn't make money.

Both SS and Medicare are forms of insurance paid for by premiums and prepaid premiums in the form of taxes. To claim that the government is spending money on both is misleading at the least, and plain stupid for thinking your fellow Americans are too stupid to understand how they are paid for. You just lost all credulity with this inclusive in your so-called breakdown.
Click to expand...

Those things are itemized on paychecks for a reason. Taxes to be used to fund the military, for example, is not itemized like that.
 
Austerity doesn't work. Have we not learned a thing from Europe?

We don't spend enough as it is because our citizens don't have much savings.

There is no government debt/deficit as everyone has their treasuries which are a form of money.

Bill Hicks knew this 25 years ago.
 
OldFatGuy said:
Let me clue you in. Governments always spend more than they have. A government is not a business, it may print money but it doesn't make money.

Both SS and Medicare are forms of insurance paid for by premiums and prepaid premiums in the form of taxes. To claim that the government is spending money on both is misleading at the least, and plain stupid for thinking your fellow Americans are too stupid to understand how they are paid for. You just lost all credulity with this inclusive in your so-called breakdown.
Click to expand...

Civility is a must.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
Well, the CBO says those tax cuts will add 1.5 trillion to the debt. I'm going with their numbers. If you have some data that proves them wrong, post it. Otherwise it seems you are just posing a bumper sticker slogan.

"We don't have a tax problem, we have a spending problem" is false, because we were running a deficit when the taxes were cut. Or can you demonstrate that I'm wrong about that?
Click to expand...

Sure. Revenue is basically unchanged. 18% of GDP which is the average for the last 50 years. Tax rates go up and down, and that number remains basically unchanged.

52801-home-cover-2.png
 
jonny5 said:
Sure. Revenue is basically unchanged. 18% of GDP which is the average for the last 50 years. Tax rates go up and down, and that number remains basically unchanged.

52801-home-cover-2.png
Click to expand...

And, as your graph shows, sending is basically unchanged. Like taxes, it goes up and down a few percentage points, but in the long run, it is fairly stable
 
jonny5 said:
Yeah, I know. Duh. But let me break it down for you.

-In FY2017, the federal govt collected 3.32 trillion dollars. It spent 3.99 trillion.

The two largest outlays are
-Social Security - 934bn
-Medicare - 678bn

Luckily these have direct taxes which pay for part of them, 1200bn. This covers Social Security, and Medicare Part A (hospitals).

Unfortunately there is also
-part B (insurance) which is funded almost entirely from federal income tax, 235bn
-part D (drugs) which is 80% funded by FIT, 82bn

But, we havent even gotten through all the mandatory spending yet, which consumes almost every other dollar of general revenue, (1500bn FIT, 300bn corporate, 300bn excises and other.)

Medicaid - 375bn
Income security - 300bn
Federal pensions - 163bn
Veterans programs - 106bn
Other mandatory - 120bn
Interest - 300bn

So, just mandatory alone consumes all of payroll tax, and about 1700bn of general revenue. Thats about 2800bn, leaving about 400bn for all other functions of govt. And we spend too much on that as well.

Defense-600bn
Justice-64bn
Science-30bn
Energy-8bn
Foreign Affairs-46bn
Environment - 42bn
Agriculture-25bn
Commerce-16bn
Transportation-92bn
Community Development - 28bn
Education - 113bn
General Govt - 24bn
Veterans - 70bn


So, another way to look at it is, we have more than enough general revenue (2100bn) to pay for all the main functions of govt (1200bn), and enough payroll taxes (1200bn) to pay for Social Security and Hospitals (1200bn), and even a little left over (900bn) to pay for Veterans, Federal Pensions, and interest, but we have to borrow to pay for welfare.
Click to expand...

best approach is to simply make debt illegal but Democrats won't hear of anything that sounds like fiscal responsibility.
 
James972 said:
best approach is to simply make debt illegal but Democrats won't hear of anything that sounds like fiscal responsibility.
Click to expand...

You started a different thread about a balanced budget amendment, where there were many posts about why no debt is irresponsible but you seem to ignore those views.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
Well, the CBO says those tax cuts will add 1.5 trillion to the debt. I'm going with their numbers. If you have some data that proves them wrong, post it. Otherwise it seems you are just posing a bumper sticker slogan.

"We don't have a tax problem, we have a spending problem" is false, because we were running a deficit when the taxes were cut. Or can you demonstrate that I'm wrong about that?
Click to expand...

Look not saying that the CBO is a partisan group and their projections are biased. I am saying that ANY 10 ten projection of the American economy and tax receipts thereof is a guess at best. In addition it is one piece to the growth puzzle for American based companies. For example if we had elected Sanders and went to a single payer system corporations would benefit more than from a tax cut. Firms would be more likely put their workforce here as just one small example.

Not sure if you ever tried to do a five year projection at a large company. Many companies stopped spending a lot of time on it. Too many things changed so all that work turned into a waste of time. Hard enough to do a one year plan.

We have problems both with spending and it taxing. Politicians are not up to the job of fixing either.
 
We Have a Spending Problem
Click to expand...

that's odd. we just cut taxes significantly, and the argument was that resulting growth will fill the gap. has that changed in the past month?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom