• 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!

Trump's 2019 Budget

No, with slashed social spending, if it was really needed someone else would pick up the slack. I suspect its a crutch rather than a helping hand. We need to cut healthcare by 100%. Not sure about military though. We could probably cut some and move to a more home based defense than proactive, but it costs a lot to balance against russia and china and remain technologically advanced. Plus its actually an authorized and required duty of the federal govt, unlike healthcare.

I'd prefer the Government take care of people. The welfare of the people is the duty of the King not the Church, the Church's duty is to worship God.

Do you know how much it takes to take care of just one person? Do you want this burden to fall on the Church? Is the Church that rich?

As I comment below, I do not take the Church's contribution into my calculation it is only a drop on parched pavement.

To cut your military budget you have to offer the same savings to your neighbors Russia and China.

It's really hard, because all this equipment and enlisted persons are salaries and contracts that make the economy run.

magaGDP.png

Exactly! GW Bush was soooo bad that he prevented Obama from restoring GDP growth until after Trump got elected.

It wasn't Bush that did this it was Boehner and the GOP and they stuck together like glue all right in their wrong, very discouraging.

2.1 GDP isn't bad, but I like to make my calculations at 0% GDP, then if we have growth there is surplus and we can get the debt paid off sooner.
 
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/53884

Its a good start but still not good enough. It reduces the baseline deficit 3 trillion over 10 years, mainly by reducing growth in spending on healthcare, student loans, and welfare. Unfortunately mandatory spending would still double in the next decade, resulting in another 10 trillion in debt, and nearly a trillion a year in interest. Even with revenue nearly doubling.

This just isnt good enough. We need a balanced budget now, and to start paying off debt. Thats means real cuts to all spending.



Of course, this is DOA as with all Presidential budgets. Dems will fight it tooth and nail, and congress are the real ones who make budget policy.

Doesn't matter, people are still going to throw it at Trump's feet and we are going to be stuck with some pretty horrible spending issues for a long time.

A flat tax, along with taxing the churches would help, and why not legalizing marijuana while we are at it?
 
I'd prefer the Government take care of people. The welfare of the people is the duty of the King not the Church, the Church's duty is to worship God.

Do you know how much it takes to take care of just one person? Do you want this burden to fall on the Church? Is the Church that rich?

As I comment below, I do not take the Church's contribution into my calculation it is only a drop on parched pavement.

To cut your military budget you have to offer the same savings to your neighbors Russia and China.

It's really hard, because all this equipment and enlisted persons are salaries and contracts that make the economy run.

I would prefer govt protect people from life, and secure their rights, which coincidentally was the purpose for founding this union, and the limited powers we agreed to give it. You should of course feel free to do whatever you want at your local level.

Furthermore, I never mentioned the church.
 
Doesn't matter, people are still going to throw it at Trump's feet and we are going to be stuck with some pretty horrible spending issues for a long time.

A flat tax, along with taxing the churches would help, and why not legalizing marijuana while we are at it?

You cant tax churches (FREE exercise of religion), nor should we. We DO tax people employed by churches though. Certainly a flat tax would be a step in the right direction towards fairness and growth, though it shouldnt increase revenue. As well as decriminalizing growing and selling and ingestion, of plants. So long as its not treated any differently than other products.
 
You cant tax churches (FREE exercise of religion), nor should we. We DO tax people employed by churches though. Certainly a flat tax would be a step in the right direction towards fairness and growth, though it shouldnt increase revenue. As well as decriminalizing growing and selling and ingestion, of plants. So long as its not treated any differently than other products.

Why not change it to tax the churches? Can you not imagine just how much revenue that is going to open up. These are organizations that make a literal mint on donations alone and their own gains towards making income. Even a marginal tax rate on the collective religions in the US would serve the country well.
 
Why not change it to tax the churches? Can you not imagine just how much revenue that is going to open up. These are organizations that make a literal mint on donations alone and their own gains towards making income. Even a marginal tax rate on the collective religions in the US would serve the country well.

Donations come from money that was already taxed when it was earned. And the govt gets enough taxes already. They dont need more.
 
Donations come from money that was already taxed when it was earned. And the govt gets enough taxes already. They dont need more.

If the tax was flat across the board, and the loop holes were closed off. It might just be enough to help.
 
If the tax was flat across the board, and the loop holes were closed off. It might just be enough to help.

Sure, flat tax on income of individuals. No point in taxing organizations though. Its the same money, so its just double tax. Why should I be taxed when I earn it, and then tax the group I give it to?
 
They're referring to Debt Held By The Public as a Percentage of GDP...
Either you must have seen all this "referring" someplace else or you saw it in the analysis and failed to quote it...
There are dozens of different things related to what you want to know about; you'll need to be more specific...
You said the gdp was in the article, I asked where, and you say I'm not being specific.

this convo has outlived it's usefulness.
 
Sure, flat tax on income of individuals. No point in taxing organizations though. Its the same money, so its just double tax. Why should I be taxed when I earn it, and then tax the group I give it to?

That would be a correct assessment, if donations were the only way they made their money now a days. Unfortunately with the amount of religions that run their faith like a business, they make more then enough income without donations being considered.
 
That would be a correct assessment, if donations were the only way they made their money now a days. Unfortunately with the amount of religions that run their faith like a business, they make more then enough income without donations being considered.

And if they profit and those profits go to citizens as income, they should be taxed, as they are now. There is no point in taxing the organizations income that is used to run the organization as itll just be another expense which has to be collected in revenue. In the end it wouldnt make any difference. If you started taxing church profits, they would just spend more on their activities, leaving nothing to be taxed. That might be a good behavioral change, but thats not the purpose of taxation. The purpose of taxation is to pay for services, and church employees pay those taxes already.
 
And if they profit and those profits go to citizens as income, they should be taxed, as they are now. There is no point in taxing the organizations income that is used to run the organization as itll just be another expense which has to be collected in revenue. In the end it wouldnt make any difference. If you started taxing church profits, they would just spend more on their activities, leaving nothing to be taxed. That might be a good behavioral change, but thats not the purpose of taxation. The purpose of taxation is to pay for services, and church employees pay those taxes already.

Businesses have to deal with the same form of taxation. There is no reason that all of the churches in the united states can't just do the same. Its revenue that is being lost and if I'm to be honest, its a better way to work towards a good cause. Then what you see them doing now with the money they bring in.
 
Businesses have to deal with the same form of taxation. There is no reason that all of the churches in the united states can't just do the same. Its revenue that is being lost and if I'm to be honest, its a better way to work towards a good cause. Then what you see them doing now with the money they bring in.

Businesses shouldnt be taxed on income either as it just raises prices. And the govt has enough money, they dont need more.
 
Businesses shouldnt be taxed on income either as it just raises prices. And the govt has enough money, they dont need more.

Apparently not, if we are still trying to shore up our budgets.
 
Donations come from money that was already taxed when it was earned. And the govt gets enough taxes already. They dont need more.
So? The money that I spend at the supermarket comes from already taxed money. Yet, the supermarket still has to pay taxes on their profits. Moreover, as others have pointed out, donations are only a portion of church funds. Churches also earn rental income from properties and investment income.

The fact that the government runs a substantial deficit undercuts your claim that the government already gets enough taxes already.
 
Sure, flat tax on income of individuals. No point in taxing organizations though. Its the same money, so its just double tax. Why should I be taxed when I earn it, and then tax the group I give it to?

We double-tax all the time, as Al Franken points out in, "Lies-And-the-Lying-Liars-Who-Tell-Them."
Sales taxes, for example, are taxes on already-taxed income. Fees on things like your driver's license, a fishing license, a hunting license, and other licenses—that’s all double taxation. Also fees on things that aren't licenses. Like permits.

Let's say you want to open a business selling licenses. You need a license permit! That's triple taxation. I think. Import taxes, excise taxes, bridge tolls, car registration, taxes on alcohol, gasoline, and tobacco are all double taxes. So are property taxes, which tax assets bought with already taxed income.
 
So? The money that I spend at the supermarket comes from already taxed money. Yet, the supermarket still has to pay taxes on their profits. Moreover, as others have pointed out, donations are only a portion of church funds. Churches also earn rental income from properties and investment income.

The fact that the government runs a substantial deficit undercuts your claim that the government already gets enough taxes already.

The supermarket shouldnt be taxed. The fact that the government runs a substantial deficit proves we have spending problem.
 
The supermarket shouldnt be taxed. The fact that the government runs a substantial deficit proves we have spending problem.
Don't tell me what should be. The reality is that they ARE taxed. That fact undercuts your argument that churches shouldn't be taxed because donations are already taxed.
 
Don't tell me what should be. The reality is that they ARE taxed. That fact undercuts your argument that churches shouldn't be taxed because donations are already taxed.

Dont jump into conversations without reading the context.
 
Back
Top Bottom