• 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!

Budget deficit smashes $1 trillion mark, the highest in seven years

Conservative said:
Total revenue is irrelevant because that isn't what causes the deficit, abuse of that revenue and mis-use does. You have a nice day

The Bush budget was 3 trillion dollars, it was Rejected which doesn't matter either because budgets aren't spending appropriation bills. Please take a civics class
Click to expand...
It is relevant because it is the TOTAL amount of money we have to spend BEFORE we start running a deficit
it is relevant because that amount is what we have to pay Mandatory spending out of and what is left over after that is used for discretionary spending and again if they spend more then what is left over it goes on the deficit then on the debt
So IF spending was held to what it is today and revenues go up then the deficit will go down
and IF revenue went up say just the amount of spending the deficit will stay the same
and I have to ask why do you think I need to take a civics class I know all spending has to start in the House as appropriation bills
and it doesn't really matter now what the budget was, fact is they still over spent what they took in and ran up the debt
have a nice evening
 
Tbird19482 said:
It is relevant because it is the TOTAL amount of money we have to spend BEFORE we start running a deficit
it is relevant because that amount is what we have to pay Mandatory spending out of and what is left over after that is used for discretionary spending and again if they spend more then what is left over it goes on the deficit then on the debt
So IF spending was held to what it is today and revenues go up then the deficit will go down
and IF revenue went up say just the amount of spending the deficit will stay the same
and I have to ask why do you think I need to take a civics class I know all spending has to start in the House as appropriation bills
and it doesn't really matter now what the budget was, fact is they still over spent what they took in and ran up the debt
have a nice evening
Click to expand...

again you have no understanding of the unified budget and that is why your comments have no relevance. Have a good day
 
jonny5 said:
No, we pay enough taxes. Either find a solution or excessive spending, or at least get 3/4 of the states to actually approve all this unconstitutional social spending. Then you can tax the hell out of people to pay for it. I will not support taking my earning to pay for unconstitutional social spending.
Click to expand...

I agree, we DO pay enough taxes, and could probably reduce spending in many areas.
A solution is what I've been trying to initiate discussing.
Would my proposed change cost you more in Federal taxes?
A single minimum wage worker in 2019:
total income $15,116.25
$1,156.39 employee FICA
$1,156.39 employer FICA
Take home income after FICA $13,959.86
$13,959 - $12,000 deduction = 1,959.86 taxable = $196 tax from tax table (about 9.9%)
Total tax cost $1156.39 + $196 = $1,352.39
$1,352.39 / $15,116.25 = 0.089465972 or 8.9% of total pre tax income.



If nothing more, I would like to simplify our Federal tax system, but at the same time reduce the impact upon the lowest income earners.
Obviously my proposal has many flaws to be contended with, but it's intent is to begin a discussion on achieving a more permanent solution acceptable to ALL, or at least the vast majority of, taxpayers regardless of political leaning.
 
Conservative said:
We have taxes created to fund discretionary expenses, FICA, CIT, Excise to name a few. We also have a tax to fund SS and Medicare, FICA(Payroll tax). Not sure where this poster continues to get his/her information but he/she is very misinformed when it comes to the official data. There is more than enough funds to pay for discretionary funding which includes defense but poster has no interest in even looking at the line items in the budget and has been indoctrinated well by the radical left
Click to expand...

I'd like to see a balanced budget brought about by a tax system that adjusts to needs by imposing the costs upon those who can most afford it with minimum impact on those who can least afford it.
How do we achieve that is my primary question I would like to see more effort in answering.
 
Individual said:
I'd like to see a balanced budget brought about by a tax system that adjusts to needs by imposing the costs upon those who can most afford it with minimum impact on those who can least afford it.
How do we achieve that is my primary question I would like to see more effort in answering.
Click to expand...

Here is the problem, the left wants to define what someone else can afford by judging everyone else by their own standards. I support a flat tax where every income earning American pays something even a little as $100 a year. I support giving people a hand up NOT a hand out. We live in a Great country and I find it unrealistic to believe that every income earning American shouldn't be paying something in FIT to pay for the services received.
 
Conservative said:
Here is the problem, the left wants to define what someone else can afford by judging everyone else by their own standards. I support a flat tax where every income earning American pays something even a little as $100 a year. I support giving people a hand up NOT a hand out. We live in a Great country and I find it unrealistic to believe that every income earning American shouldn't be paying something in FIT to pay for the services received.
Click to expand...

I begin with a 15.3% tax applied equally to ALL income from ALL sources, applied to individuals and business profits, which best I can tell would produce more than adequate revenue for ALL social program spending, including Social Security.
Perhaps we'd make some progress if we were to leave politics out of it, and just look for a workable solution?
 
Conservative said:
Here is the problem, the left wants to define what someone else can afford by judging everyone else by their own standards. I support a flat tax where every income earning American pays something even a little as $100 a year. I support giving people a hand up NOT a hand out. We live in a Great country and I find it unrealistic to believe that every income earning American shouldn't be paying something in FIT to pay for the services received.
Click to expand...

The super rich love the idea of a flat tax
 
Individual said:
I begin with a 15.3% tax applied equally to ALL income from ALL sources, applied to individuals and business profits, which best I can tell would produce more than adequate revenue for ALL social program spending, including Social Security.
Perhaps we'd make some progress if we were to leave politics out of it, and just look for a workable solution?
Click to expand...

The poor would pay a lot more and the rich would pay a lot less
 
Individual said:
I begin with a 15.3% tax applied equally to ALL income from ALL sources, applied to individuals and business profits, which best I can tell would produce more than adequate revenue for ALL social program spending, including Social Security.
Perhaps we'd make some progress if we were to leave politics out of it, and just look for a workable solution?
Click to expand...

The problem continues to be the Unified budget and failure to address the rising costs of entitlement programs and debt service. There is more than enough tax revenue to fund the discretionary part of the budget but the fact remains, the "borrowing" from the SS and Medicare Trust fund and the Obama Payroll tax holiday(funding for SS and Medicare) has left a big hole in the Mandatory budget line items.

You will notice how the left ignores that fact that approximately 45% of income earning Americans pay ZERO FIT with most of the FIT being paid by the rich but according to the left that isn't enough taxes on the rich as if the rich have enough money to fund the liberal spending appetite. Congress has to recognize where the problem is, explain it to the American people, then set up an additional tax to fund the SS and Medicare shortfall. A National Sales Tax would do that.
 
What if we could enact a simple transaction tax. Make transaction get charged the tax? It would be more conducive to maintaining infrastructure.
 
Conservative said:
The problem continues to be the Unified budget and failure to address the rising costs of entitlement programs and debt service. There is more than enough tax revenue to fund the discretionary part of the budget but the fact remains, the "borrowing" from the SS and Medicare Trust fund and the Obama Payroll tax holiday(funding for SS and Medicare) has left a big hole in the Mandatory budget line items.

You will notice how the left ignores that fact that approximately 45% of income earning Americans pay ZERO FIT with most of the FIT being paid by the rich but according to the left that isn't enough taxes on the rich as if the rich have enough money to fund the liberal spending appetite. Congress has to recognize where the problem is, explain it to the American people, then set up an additional tax to fund the SS and Medicare shortfall. A National Sales Tax would do that.
Click to expand...

A national sales tax is regressive
 
danielpalos said:
What about a two cent transaction tax? Anyone could pay it and it is not very intrusive.

It could help fund unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States.
Click to expand...

How about voluntary donations?
 
danielpalos said:
What about a two cent transaction tax? Anyone could pay it and it is not very intrusive.

It could help fund unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States.
Click to expand...

I dont think that will end the deficit
 
danielpalos said:
We subscribe to Capitalism not right wing, mandatory social policies on a national basis.
Click to expand...

The MMT'ers say that the government can fund itself entirely by creating money. No taxes necessary.
 
Samwise said:
The MMT'ers say that the government can fund itself entirely by creating money. No taxes necessary.
Click to expand...

I agree to disagree. Our welfare clause is General and we have a Commerce Clause in particular that implies Capitalism. Public policy should generate revenue to help fund Government whenever possible.
 
danielpalos said:
I agree to disagree. Our welfare clause is General and we have a Commerce Clause in particular that implies Capitalism. Public policy should generate revenue to help fund Government whenever possible.
Click to expand...

According to the MMT'ers, the government can fund itself by issuing money. No revenue necessary.
 
Samwise said:
Not a concern, apparently.
Click to expand...

What isn't of concern to me is people keeping more of what they earn which has helped generate the following results

Trillion dollar GDP Growth in 2018 and 2019

2016 GDP growth 490 billion 1.6% annual vs 804 billion annual growth to over a trillion in 2018-2019
Unemployment Rate 4.7% January 2017 vs. 3.5% today

Employed 152.2 million January 2017 to 158.8 million today so 6 million job growth from 2008 to 2017(146 million to 152 million) is celebrated but 6.6 million growth I the last two years isn't!! LOL

U-6 in January 2017 9.3% vs 6.7% today? Wow!! 2.6% better U-6 obviously meaningless to you

Part time for economic reasons, 5.7 million January 2017 vs. 4.3 million today? Looks to me that incredible job growth you claim was boosted by part time jobs

African American unemployment 8.0% vs. 5.9% today? That explains the surge in support from African Americans for Trump
 
Conservative said:
What isn't of concern to me is people keeping more of what they earn which has helped generate the following results

Trillion dollar GDP Growth in 2018 and 2019

2016 GDP growth 490 billion 1.6% annual vs 804 billion annual growth to over a trillion in 2018-2019
Unemployment Rate 4.7% January 2017 vs. 3.5% today

Employed 152.2 million January 2017 to 158.8 million today so 6 million job growth from 2008 to 2017(146 million to 152 million) is celebrated but 6.6 million growth I the last two years isn't!! LOL

U-6 in January 2017 9.3% vs 6.7% today? Wow!! 2.6% better U-6 obviously meaningless to you

Part time for economic reasons, 5.7 million January 2017 vs. 4.3 million today? Looks to me that incredible job growth you claim was boosted by part time jobs

African American unemployment 8.0% vs. 5.9% today? That explains the surge in support from African Americans for Trump
Click to expand...

I think that people should be able to keep 100% of what they earn.
 
Samwise said:
I think that people should be able to keep 100% of what they earn.
Click to expand...

I can see it is a waste of time dealing with you, carry on seeking attention and making sarcastic statements like you just did
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom