$$ Taxes $$ What's right?

sear

sear

Administrator
Staff member
"Our Constitution is in actual operation; everything appears to promise that it will last; but in this world nothing is certain but death and taxes." Benjamin Franklin
Click to expand...
According to https://www.usdebtclock.org/
We're over $31 $Trillion in U.S. federal debt.
According to https://www.census.gov/
the U.S. population is 333+ million.

By my math that means the U.S. federal debt per capita is over $93K per U.S. citizen. Subtract all the adorable infants whose net worth is three figures or less, subtract the homeless, the prisoners, and all others that can't afford to pay $93K, and the cost of the U.S. federal debt per citizen that could afford to pay their share of it may be a $quarter $mil or more.

Not good.

Deficit means how much more we spend, in excess of revenues, for any one year.
Debt is the accumulated deficits, plus interest, & other financial liabilities.

What President GWB called "tax cuts" wasn't.
Since the U.S. federal budget was already in deficit, Bush's "tax cuts" were actually tax deferrals, passing along $money we spent then, for the grandkids to pay back later. Unfortunately for them, they'll not only have to pay their own way. They'll have to pay part of our way too.
"Tax cuts accounted for only about 25% of the deficit." U.S. Vice President Richard Cheney, Sept. 14, '03

It all adds up.

"There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword. The other is by debt." John Adams

How important is balancing the budget? Not that big of a deal?

Is there a reason when congress (& the president's signature) turns a bill into law, that congress should also include in that legislation, or at least along with it, legislation that provides full funding for its implementation?

Is a "balance budget" amendment to the U.S. Constitution a bad idea?
 
Balancing the budget is a red herring. A balanced budget is a bad idea. Debt is an instrument -- the question is how we use it.

There are lots of things worth going into debt for, a classic example being mortgage. When it comes to national debt, it becomes a question of interest rates, total servicing costs, and bang for the buck.

Our interest rates for borrowing are some of the best in the world. Because we are US of fucking A, our credit is golden, which means that borrowing money is cheap. So we can afford to do more with credit than others.

Our cost of servicing debt right now is 12.66% of federal budget. Not trivial, but also not overwhelming. However, this is still quite a bit higher than it was a decade ago.

Finally, bang for the buck. This is hard to assess, because the debt came in three large leaps
  • Reagan "revolution" (from 32% to 51%
  • 2008 credit crisis (68% to 103%)
  • Covid (107% to 125%)
Discounting the asinine spending spree that was Reagan "Revolution", the other two big leaps came through addressing real-world catastrophic problems. In each case, the debt was used to protect our nation from far worse pain.

Was this worth the extra debt? I think so. But I also think that we were supposed to pay the debt down in fat times, so as to be better positioned for the next crisis.
 
there was a time (2000) when paying off the US national debt was a very real possibility** and the prospect caused wide scale alarm not least because you have to remember who the national debt is actually owed to..........................in large part it is owed to American citizens by way of their long term savings (government bonds) if Philbert Q Public cannot save his money by investing in america them where will he lodge his money?


**Jackson was also in a position to pay off the debt and he went through with it and paid it off for a time (just one year).
Faced with the problem of what exactly to do with all of the surplus cash, banks printed money like there was no tomorrow Jackson tried to control things by demanding that government land sales were conducted in gold the bubble burst there was a huge crash and a long term depression
 
any how back to taxes UK like the rest of Europe is high tax but in return for our taxes we get stuff health care, education, sick pay. maternity leave.
In order to help out during the current craziness of fuel costs (gas has probably tripled in price, electric more than doubled petrol up 50%) we are all getting £400 the old the disabled and some other groups are getting additional sums there is also a statutory price cap being put on the price of electricity and gas.
Most people dont mind paying lots of tax if they see that they are (and the poor in society) are getting something back in the form of help when its needed.

Most of my working life I was a high rate tax payer and it never really bothered me although these days I pay almost no tax and get the occasional pang of guilt over it but I lay down with a glass of something highly taxed and the guilt soon passes
 
"There are lots of things worth going into debt for, a classic example being mortgage." D #2

That's different.

"When it comes to national debt, it becomes a question of interest rates, total servicing costs, and bang for the buck." D #2

That's not.

Your first assertion distinguishes between "spending" and "investing".
The interState highway system reportedly repaid multiple $dollars for every dollar it cost.
NASA's Apollo during the Cold War helped slam closed the "missile gap" by demonstrating U.S. proficiency with "rockets" (like MIRV ICBM).
NASA says we're going back to the moon, to stay. I've not read any debate of it. But at this point it seems far more like spending, squandering than investing. What's the best we can expect of it? An improved flavor of Tang, the refreshing low gravity beverage?

m #3,
I'm eerily wary of being wrong-headed about it. But I just don't like spending someone else's $money, even our own grandkids. Doing so enables us to obtain a dollar's worth of government for 75 cents. - dandy -
So what are they supposed to do? Accept getting a dollar's worth of government, but having to pay $1.25 for it?
We could just have them continue to pay $0.75 for their dollar's worth of government, but eventually that will cat-fail. It's called a "pyramid scheme", a "Ponzi scam". I've already read the "grow our way out of it" explanations. Not buyin' it.

I don't like it.

I'm not knocking self-administered anesthesia as a short term solution (or just for practice). But I vehemently distinguish between "high tax", and deficit spending. Very different.
 
sear said:
"There are lots of things worth going into debt for, a classic example being mortgage." D #2

That's different.
Click to expand...
No, it's not.

When you can put capital to use the value of which exceeds the capital cost, it makes sense to borrow. The economics are fundamentally the same, just the math is a lot more complicated with the national debt case.

NASA says we're going back to the moon, to stay. I've not read any debate of it. But at this point it seems far more like spending, squandering than investing. What's the best we can expect of it? An improved flavor of Tang, the refreshing low gravity beverage?
Click to expand...
So you don't know (hence "seems"), yet you opine.

Propping up a flagging economy is investing.

Giving Covid-homebound people cash to live off (and pump back into economy) is investing.

Giving money to business owners to keep payroll going in mid-pandemic, in order to prevent economic collapse, is investing.

Lots of things are investing. Especially during the two major recent spurts of debt growth that I outlined above -- the 2008 credit crisis and the Covid pandemic.

It's not because of the Artemis program that we have all that debt, sear.
 
Victor Danilchenko said:
No, it's not.
Click to expand...
T'is.

Victor Danilchenko said:
No, it's not.
When you can put capital to use the value of which exceeds the capital cost, it makes sense to borrow. The economics are fundamentally the same, just the math is a lot more complicated with the national debt case.
Click to expand...
True.
That's not how it differs.
It differs because the mortgagor has his own consent.
- He gets the borrowed money DIRECTLY.
- He approves the debt for that purpose in advance.
- He's the one that has to pay it back.

Your assertion however valid is immaterial to my counterpoint. Those that will end up paying down the U.S. federal debt are almost certain to not have been consulted, or having approved the debt.

I UNDERSTAND !!

It's a representative Republic. Even tax payers alive the day the borrowing legislation is processed from bill to law have no DIRECT say in the matter. They merely elect others to make those decisions for them. Right?

BUT !!

Even if the congressional candidate that tax payer votes for loses the election, that tax payer still had a say in the process.

What participatory input do the as yet unborn have in such indebtedness?


Victor Danilchenko said:
The economics are fundamentally the same
Click to expand...
Even if so, the justice is not. It is a fundamental injustice, indistinguishable from slavery, aka "involuntary servitude". For they are FORCED to pay for spending they had no role in authorizing.

See?
 
Zhelana said:
Here's a list of 25 of the things NASA invented that aren't just "an improved flavor of tang" and may not be obviously associated with space travel.

www.yahoo.com

25 Everyday Items That NASA Invented

NASA inventions have improved our lives in surprising ways.
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com

Science tends to lead to improved lives in surprising ways sometimes.
Click to expand...
From you link Z:

Memory Foam Mattresses
Scratch-Resistant Lenses
Enriched Baby Formula
Dustbusters
44a259045d6bc18697b7bc4ddaaf002acfc7ea0.gif


Disclosure Z, as I've only recently had the pleasure of cyber-meeting you. I'm a scientist, albeit bottom of the totem pole. I'm an anachronism, a retired blue collar technician from the highest of tech industries, Silicon computer chip development.
I retired at age 43 in 1997, from an exceedingly fast-changing work environment, cleanroom hands-on development work.

It may be quite easy if not unavoidable to view my position as pig ignorant troglodytism, simple progress aversion.

Surely I must have some of that, don't care too much for hip-hop music, or vaping, or ... .

Problem is the Challenger disaster called attention to the fact that playing with rockets is risky. And based upon just about jack-spit I suspect if NASA attempts to establish a residential presence on Earth's moon, even for a fraction of a year, something will go wrong, and possibly the entire expedition will be lost.

EVEN IF NOT, I accepted NASA's Apollo because of the Cold War.
It's a new millennium.
We're over $30 $Trillion in debt.
There's no adequate rational justification to spend the grandkid's meager fortunes on risky space adventures.
If THEY want to, then THEY can. It's just not right for us to make their spending decisions for them, dustbusters and all.

btw
During the Cold War space race astronauts (U.S. space travelers) needed a writing implement that operated in microgravity. NASA funded development of a ballpoint pen that had a Nitrogen-charged ink cartridge. Only cost a few hundred thousand dollars (I'm guessing wildly).
The Soviet cosmonauts had precisely the same need for writing in LEO. They used pencils.
 
sear said:
btw
During the Cold War space race astronauts (U.S. space travelers) needed a writing implement that operated in microgravity. NASA funded development of a ballpoint pen that had a Nitrogen-charged ink cartridge. Only cost a few hundred thousand dollars (I'm guessing wildly).
The Soviet cosmonauts had precisely the same need for writing in LEO. They used pencils.
Click to expand...

That is the stupidest story, and I wish it would go away. The reason Americans didn't use pencils is that graphite and lead break off in little pieces as you write with them, and in 0G the dust particles were dangerous to the equipment and the people.
 
Zhelana said:
That is the stupidest story, and I wish it would go away. The reason Americans didn't use pencils is that graphite and lead break off in little pieces as you write with them, and in 0G the dust particles were dangerous to the equipment and the people.
Click to expand...
Z #10:
I so envy you your passion. However in this case, it's true but misdirected.
"The reason Americans didn't use pencils is that graphite and lead break off in little pieces as you write with them, and in 0G the dust particles were dangerous to the equipment and the people." Z #10
Click to expand...
Correct.
Now can you explain why the Russians reportedly did?

Similar story, with a twist:
Reagan & Gorbachev had a summit at Reykjavík. As the anecdote goes the summit lasted for days. The U.S. diplomatic team had some important documentation to prepare, but their duplicating machine failed, and they were dead in the water.
The Soviets helped out the U.S. team by loaning them some carbon paper.
 
I don't know why the Russians did. I assume it's because the government didn't care about its people and didn't listen to their scientists. That doesn't make it any less dumb.

I wouldn't carry carbon paper around, either, though my plumber still uses it. I'm not sure what your point is.
 
Zhelana said:
I don't know why the Russians did. I assume it's because the government didn't care about its people and didn't listen to their scientists. That doesn't make it any less dumb.
Click to expand...
In the absence of further evidence your explanation cannot be ruled out.
But I suspect it was a result of Soviet budgetary constraints. The pencil was cheaper, though I grant you a pencil sharpener in LEO without a hepa vacuum attachment would be of negligible safe utility.
If you're a cosmonaut, sharpen your pencil before you get dressed.
Zhelana said:
I wouldn't carry carbon paper around, either, though my plumber still uses it.
Click to expand...
"Suspenders and a belt." Having a plan-A is strongly recommended, particularly for one of the two summit teams at a Cold War nuclear powers meeting. But having a satisfactory plan-B is a good idea too.
I can't speak for the Soviet team, their plan-A may have been Carbon paper.

Bottom line, you and I can speculate & ridicule to our heart's content. But according to this story, it was Carbon paper from the Soviet team that enabled the U.S. team to complete their office task (which I deduce involved document duplication).
Zhelana said:
I'm not sure what your point is.
Click to expand...
Free association, a hobby of mine apparently.
The pen / pencil anecdote is from low Earth orbit (LEO), a contrast of U.S. to Soviet technology, wherein the technologically superior U.S. team had the advantage.
The Carbon paper anecdote is from Iceland, another contrast of U.S. to Soviet technology, wherein the technologically more advanced U.S. team did not.

That's why I introduced it w/ "Similar story, with a twist:"
See?
 
I mean considering it's the USSR we're talking about, I'd suspect not caring about their people before I suspected budgetary constraints. They poured a lot of money into their space program.
 
Zhelana said:
I mean considering it's the USSR we're talking about, I'd suspect not caring about their people before I suspected budgetary constraints. They poured a lot of money into their space program.
Click to expand...
Victor is the expert on the culture.
And I absolutely won't deny there were elements within Soviet culture that presented the Klingon style of -trust no one- culture (the fictional Klingon culture likely modeled on stereotype of Soviet culture).
But if they were entirely loveless wouldn't their society have died off in a generation?
The ratio might have been a bit lower (maybe not). But I suspect there were work relationships in the former Soviet much like work relationships in the U.S.
The Soviets were human don't cha know.
Zhelana said:
They poured a lot of money into their space program.
Click to expand...
It contributed to their bankruptcy, their self-annihilation. They spent themselves into oblivion.


For you see Z, the genius of the Cold War for the U.S. & NATO was instead of direct active military combat, the military competition of the Cold War was with arsenals not on the battlefield, but available.
The U.S. had a thriving middle class which it taxed, and easily funded its win in the Cold War.
The Soviets were totalitarians. They had no thriving middle class cash cow to tax. So the Soviets may have spent multiples of what the U.S. spent, hundreds of % more, and still spent less in nation to nation comparison. They both spent big. But the U.S. had much much more to spend, and so won the spending competition.

That applied to U.S. / U.S.S.R. relations on military spending, space race spending, and most else. It's not so much that the U.S. won, as the Soviets simply lost. Their meager economy simply could not compete against the U.S. economy.

It's a mistake to conflate an imagined Soviet hatred for U.S. with Soviet self-hatred. Might very well have been the opposite, the more they hated U.S. the more they loved one another.

Ockham's Razor: if they'd wanted the pen thing they could have spent it on that, but then might have fallen short on their spending on something else.
The tighter the budget, the more difficult the decision-making process on what to cut. I think they cut orbiting pens. And I've never heard an angry cosmonaut story about all the trouble they had do to pencil lead fragments.
 
sear said:
Victor is the expert on the culture.
And I absolutely won't deny there were elements within Soviet culture that presented the Klingon style of -trust no one- culture (the fictional Klingon culture likely modeled on stereotype of Soviet culture).
But if they were entirely loveless wouldn't their society have died off in a generation?
The ratio might have been a bit lower (maybe not). But I suspect there were work relationships in the former Soviet much like work relationships in the U.S.
The Soviets were human don't cha know.

It contributed to their bankruptcy, their self-annihilation. They spent themselves into oblivion.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know the Soviets were human. That doesn't mean their government cared about individual people - even individual cosmonauts. Whether individual people cared about each other or their children (required to create children) is entirely unrelated to whether their government cared about the people (a definitive no).
sear said:
For you see Z, the genius of the Cold War for the U.S. & NATO was instead of direct active military combat, the military competition of the Cold War was with arsenals not on the battlefield, but available.
The U.S. had a thriving middle class which it taxed, and easily funded its win in the Cold War.
The Soviets were totalitarians. They had no thriving middle class cash cow to tax. So the Soviets may have spent multiples of what the U.S. spent, hundreds of % more, and still spent less in nation to nation comparison. They both spent big. But the U.S. had much much more to spend, and so won the spending competition.

That applied to U.S. / U.S.S.R. relations on military spending, space race spending, and most else. It's not so much that the U.S. won, as the Soviets simply lost. Their meager economy simply could not compete against the U.S. economy.

It's a mistake to conflate an imagined Soviet hatred for U.S. with Soviet self-hatred. Might very well have been the opposite, the more they hated U.S. the more they loved one another.

Ockham's Razor: if they'd wanted the pen thing they could have spent it on that, but then might have fallen short on their spending on something else.
The tighter the budget, the more difficult the decision-making process on what to cut. I think they cut orbiting pens. And I've never heard an angry cosmonaut story about all the trouble they had do to pencil lead fragments.
Click to expand...

Yes, thanks for mansplaining Soviet history to me. I actually have a masters degree in the subject. Do you?
 
Perhaps the most widely recognized NASA spinoff, memory foam was invented by NASA-funded researchers looking for ways to keep test pilots cushioned during flights. Today, memory foam makes for more comfortable beds, couches and chairs, not to mention better shoes, movie theater seats and even football helmets

www.nasa.gov

Memory Foam

Perhaps the most widely recognized NASA spinoff, memory foam was invented by NASA-funded researchers looking for ways to keep test pilots cushioned during flights.
www.nasa.gov www.nasa.gov
 
sear said:
Even if so, the justice is not. It is a fundamental injustice, indistinguishable from slavery, aka "involuntary servitude". For they are FORCED to pay for spending they had no role in authorizing.

See?
Click to expand...
Nope. Still wrong.

If there's a lien on the house and the owner dies, their heirs inherit the house -- and the lien. This is because the lien is associated with the system (the real estate in this case). Even though they had no role in establishing the lien, it's still applicable to the property. If they want the house, they gotta take the lien too.

Same goes for debt. Our children will have to live with our debts in the same way they have to live with our laws -- which they ALSO had no individual role in authorizing. Just as we live with the Constitution which we ALSO had no individual role in authorizing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top