How to pay for all this new debt

[blueash]

A modest proposal. As the Covid crisis continues there will be more rescue bills coming to help individuals and businesses. At the same time, income into the treasury is dropping as income and sales taxes and import taxes all decrease. The trillions of new debt have not been offset by any decreases in spending, domestic or military. So other than leaving the bills for our grandchildren, is there any way to perhaps repay our government, which is ourselves?

According the World Bank (https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/stocks-traded-total-value-us-dollar-wb-data.html), the value of stocks traded in the US in 2018 was

33,027,245,670,000

Round that off to 33 trillion. I propose a stock trade tax of two tenths of one percent. That means you will pay 2 pennies in tax for every 10 dollars in value you trade. Considering that recently the market goes up and down several percent daily, a 0.2% difference is tiny.
If you sell one million in stock value, you pay a tax of two thousand dollars. Not much of a hit. You pay 7% to sell your house to the agent.

Here's the great part. 33 trillion in sales times 0.2 percent generates 66 billion in tax revenue. Keep in mind of course that this is doubled as the buyer also has a stock trade tax of the same amount. So 132 billion in tax revenue per year.

It won't pay off the debt entirely, but it is a nice dent. It covers nearly 1/3 of the Federal interest payments (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/07/24/facts-about-the-national-debt/) on the debt. Make the tax 1% and you totally cover the interest on the debt and begin to reduce the principle. Can we ask our stock traders to pay 1% for this national emergency? Or do we leave it for our grandchildren?

[tophcfa]

A modest proposal. As the Covid crisis continues there will be more rescue bills coming to help individuals and businesses. At the same time, income into the treasury is dropping as income and sales taxes and import taxes all decrease. The trillions of new debt have not been offset by any decreases in spending, domestic or military. So other than leaving the bills for our grandchildren, is there any way to perhaps repay our government, which is ourselves?

According the World Bank (https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/stocks-traded-total-value-us-dollar-wb-data.html), the value of stocks traded in the US in 2018 was

33,027,245,670,000

Round that off to 33 trillion. I propose a stock trade tax of two tenths of one percent. That means you will pay 2 pennies in tax for every 10 dollars in value you trade. Considering that recently the market goes up and down several percent daily, a 0.2% difference is tiny.
If you sell one million in stock value, you pay a tax of two thousand dollars. Not much of a hit. You pay 7% to sell your house to the agent.

Here's the great part. 33 trillion in sales times 0.2 percent generates 66 billion in tax revenue. Keep in mind of course that this is doubled as the buyer also has a stock trade tax of the same amount. So 132 billion in tax revenue per year.

It won't pay off the debt entirely, but it is a nice dent. It covers nearly 1/3 of the Federal interest payments (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/07/24/facts-about-the-national-debt/) on the debt. Make the tax 1% and you totally cover the interest on the debt and begin to reduce the principle. Can we ask our stock traders to pay 1% for this national emergency? Or do we leave it for our grandchildren?

It wound not be the stock traders that pay this tax, it would be the investors as the trading tax will be passed through. Everyones 401k plan that holds mutual funds owing stocks will be taking the hit. In non 401k/IRA accounts, money that people have invested in stocks was already taxed as income before it was invested.

[tophcfa]

I have a novel idea. Once the covid 19 thing is behind us and the economy normalizes, how about getting back to the good old days where the government runs a budget surplus during good times and uses the surplus to pay down debt.

It's called fiscal responsibility, and it involves cutting spending, not looking for ways to tax people. Defecit spending is acceptable during crisis times like we are now in, but is unsustainable when done year after year as has become the new norm.

[skyking]

But it would hit the day traders the hardest. That's not bad.

[rustyp]

But it would hit the day traders the hardest. That's not bad.

FYI - Day Trading rules have changed substantially. They are taxed pretty much as you and I at a real job. Any profit from a trade held less than 30 days is taxed as income not capital gains. Then there is another thing called the wash rule which in essence limits loopholes that show loses on paper for the purpose of ducking taxes.

I'm not discounting the idea of taxing the market but in reality it would be hard to target a group that ultimately doesn't get back to the little guy - example pension funds and 401Ks.

One thing for sure we will pay one way or another but how and when. Pray that it won't be in the form of inflation which would hit the retired class the hardest.

[retiredguy123]

FYI - Day Trading rules have changed substantially. They are taxed pretty much as you and I at a real job. Any profit from a trade held less than 30 days is taxed as income not capital gains. Then there is another thing called the wash rule which in essence limits loopholes that show loses on paper for the purpose of ducking taxes.

I'm not discounting the idea of taxing the market but in reality it would be hard to target a group that ultimately doesn't get back to the little guy - example pension funds and 401Ks.

One thing for sure we will pay one way or another but how and when. Pray that it won't be in the form of inflation which would hit the retired class the hardest.
Just to clarify, if you sell a stock within a year of purchase (not 30 days) the gain is taxed at your ordinary income tax rate. Also, the wash sale rule is not new. It has been in effect for almost 30 years.

[gatorbill1]

How about reversing last year's tax cut??

[retiredguy123]

How about reversing last year's tax cut??
Are you referring to the tax cut bill in 2017? I don't think there was another tax cut last year.

[Chi-Town]

How did we pay for it 10 years ago?

[jebartle]

I have a novel idea. Once the covid 19 thing is behind us and the economy normalizes, how about getting back to the good old days where the government runs a budget surplus during good times and uses the surplus to pay down debt.

It's called fiscal responsibility, and it involves cutting spending, not looking for ways to tax people. Defecit spending is acceptable during crisis times like we are now in, but is unsustainable when done year after year as has become the new norm.

Let me see, how many years ago were we deficit free, I know, do you, hmmmmmm!

[retiredguy123]

I have a novel idea. Once the covid 19 thing is behind us and the economy normalizes, how about getting back to the good old days where the government runs a budget surplus during good times and uses the surplus to pay down debt.

It's called fiscal responsibility, and it involves cutting spending, not looking for ways to tax people. Defecit spending is acceptable during crisis times like we are now in, but is unsustainable when done year after year as has become the new norm.
I totally agree. But, I think we are part of a very lonely group. It looks like the national debt will soon exceed $30 trillion dollars, which is about $94,000 for every person in the country.

[graciegirl]

I think in the areas of science and finance...……..

People should stick with the area they're good at.

[blueash]

I am not suggesting taxing based on whether your trade generated a gain or a loss, or how long it was held or whether it is in a 401K or a Roth. I am suggesting a tax on the transaction itself. Hold your stock that you have. No tax until you sell it. When I used the term stock trader I meant the tax is applied to the person who is buying the stock or selling. I didn't mean E-trade where they would then "pass it on" to the user. I mean that investors is the same as stock trader in my suggestion.

I do believe that the company used to place the transaction should be responsible for collecting the tax, then they would send it on to the gov't. It would be no different than what now happens with your sales tax being collected at the point of sale then sent on to the gov't.

Example: I buy $ 10,000 of XYZ at 100/share. If Etrade charges a 4.95 trade fee. My Etrade account then will show that there was deducted $10,024.95 from my cash available. Etrade keeps the 4.95 and sends the 20 to the gov't. This is at the 0.2% rate.

[retiredguy123]

A modest proposal. As the Covid crisis continues there will be more rescue bills coming to help individuals and businesses. At the same time, income into the treasury is dropping as income and sales taxes and import taxes all decrease. The trillions of new debt have not been offset by any decreases in spending, domestic or military. So other than leaving the bills for our grandchildren, is there any way to perhaps repay our government, which is ourselves?

According the World Bank (https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/stocks-traded-total-value-us-dollar-wb-data.html), the value of stocks traded in the US in 2018 was

33,027,245,670,000

Round that off to 33 trillion. I propose a stock trade tax of two tenths of one percent. That means you will pay 2 pennies in tax for every 10 dollars in value you trade. Considering that recently the market goes up and down several percent daily, a 0.2% difference is tiny.
If you sell one million in stock value, you pay a tax of two thousand dollars. Not much of a hit. You pay 7% to sell your house to the agent.

Here's the great part. 33 trillion in sales times 0.2 percent generates 66 billion in tax revenue. Keep in mind of course that this is doubled as the buyer also has a stock trade tax of the same amount. So 132 billion in tax revenue per year.

It won't pay off the debt entirely, but it is a nice dent. It covers nearly 1/3 of the Federal interest payments (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/07/24/facts-about-the-national-debt/) on the debt. Make the tax 1% and you totally cover the interest on the debt and begin to reduce the principle. Can we ask our stock traders to pay 1% for this national emergency? Or do we leave it for our grandchildren?
So, you raise $132 billion for the year, and Congress spends it in a minute. What have you accomplished?

[blueash]

I have a novel idea. Once the covid 19 thing is behind us and the economy normalizes, how about getting back to the good old days where the government runs a budget surplus during good times and uses the surplus to pay down debt.


The last time the US gov't had a surplus was a stretch from 1998, 99, 2000, and 2001. Every other year from 1970 to 1997, and every year from 2002 - now have run at deficits. Those 4 good years should be credited to both parties. Clinton was President and the GOP controlled Congress. They actually worked well together on economic issues. Both sides gave in on things they would have liked.

In 2001 the laws were changed because of a belief then that the gov't should not have a surplus and the money should be returned to the people.
As President to be Bush wrote in 1999 :

"There are only two things that can be done with a surplus. It can be used by government, as the president [Clinton] proposes. Or it can be used by Americans, to save and build and invest. As you can see from this tax plan, I have made my choice. I choose the creation of wealth, over the care and feeding of government."

Since the tax changes of 2001 were enacted, no surplus has occurred, no paying down the debt. Additional significant unanticipated costs have also created debt, 9-11, the Iraq and Afghan wars, Medicare expansion to cover drug costs, and more. And more tax cuts.

So I am offering for your consideration a tax increase. I know in some circles there is never a reason to increase taxes. I actually believe in taxation and in trying to get it equitable. Gracie thinks I should only offer opinions on medicine. Fair enough. But I'd even like to hear hers about a stock transaction tax. I'd have no problem with wording in the legislation limiting the income from this tax to use in lowering the debt for those who worry it would just be diverted into general funds.

[Bowtorc]

So, you raise $132 billion for the year, and Congress spends it in a minute. What have you accomplished?

How about no spending: on illegals - No aid without drug test Congress lives like we do stop use of military transportation for useless trips by officials. Everyone on public assistance works for local community or federal . no more pork allowed in bills!!!!
Lots of things could be done if we vote in the right people. I don't pretend to know who all of the right ones are but voting for the man and not the party would be a great start.

[rustyp]

Just to clarify, if you sell a stock within a year of purchase (not 30 days) the gain is taxed at your ordinary income tax rate. Also, the wash sale rule is not new. It has been in effect for almost 30 years.

Thanks - For the record please no one take my post as advice on how to day trade and that I'm up on the rules. Been a long time since I dabbled in that arena. My point was day traders were typically looked at as the bad guys even unpatriotic. There was some loopholes they got to duck under but that is pretty much cleaned up. They were an easy mark for someone to blame if the market went into a sudden downturn.

[gatorbill1]

Are you referring to the tax cut bill in 2017? I don't think there was another tax cut last year.

yes

[petsetc]

Personally-I like the concept.

Another idea, in addition to...when I was in business, the counties I operated in charged a BPOL tax (Business & Professional Occupancy). It was a fairly small amount, currently 0.2% on GROSS revenues.

I suggest the Feds do this to ALL individuals and corporations at the Adjusted Gross Income line and apply it directly to the national debt (and yes I understand Congress will quickly find a way to p**s it away).

If you make $100K, you pay $200 towards debt, if a corporation generates $100M in US activities, and turns "no profit", they still pay $200K. It becomes a "charge" for doing business in the USA.

JMHO

[retiredguy123]

The last time the US gov't had a surplus was a stretch from 1998, 99, 2000, and 2001. Every other year from 1970 to 1997, and every year from 2002 - now have run at deficits. Those 4 good years should be credited to both parties. Clinton was President and the GOP controlled Congress. They actually worked well together on economic issues. Both sides gave in on things they would have liked.

In 2001 the laws were changed because of a belief then that the gov't should not have a surplus and the money should be returned to the people.
As President to be Bush wrote in 1999 :

"There are only two things that can be done with a surplus. It can be used by government, as the president [Clinton] proposes. Or it can be used by Americans, to save and build and invest. As you can see from this tax plan, I have made my choice. I choose the creation of wealth, over the care and feeding of government."

Since the tax changes of 2001 were enacted, no surplus has occurred, no paying down the debt. Additional significant unanticipated costs have also created debt, 9-11, the Iraq and Afghan wars, Medicare expansion to cover drug costs, and more. And more tax cuts.

So I am offering for your consideration a tax increase. I know in some circles there is never a reason to increase taxes. I actually believe in taxation and in trying to get it equitable. Gracie thinks I should only offer opinions on medicine. Fair enough. But I'd even like to hear hers about a stock transaction tax. I'd have no problem with wording in the legislation limiting the income from this tax to use in lowering the debt for those who worry it would just be diverted into general funds.
Ever hear about the debt ceiling? It is legislation that limits the amount of Federal debt to a specific amount. The problem is that Congress passes new legislation almost every year to raise the limit.

[blueash]

Ever hear about the debt ceiling? It is legislation that limits the amount of Federal debt to a specific amount. The problem is that Congress passes new legislation almost every year to raise the limit.

Yes, I am aware of the debt ceiling. It gets increased to prevent default. But you raise an interesting question. As these stimulus bills are spending trillions without any adjustment to income, how are they fitting under the debt ceiling limitations? So I looked it up.

I had forgotten that Congress and Trump suspended the debt ceiling in 2019 (https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2020/where-does-the-government-get-2-trillion-for-a-coronavirus-bailout/) for two years. So right now there is no debt ceiling. We can borrow and spend whatever is needed that can pass Congress and get signed.

My modest suggestion would decrease the debt, so the ceiling, when it returns, would be benefitted.

[retiredguy123]

In my opinion, the only way to get everyone focused on the debt is to require everyone to pay taxes. This could be done with a national sales tax. There are too many people who pay no tax, so why would they care how much money the Government spends?

[petsetc]

In my opinion, the only way to get everyone focused on the debt is to require everyone to pay taxes. This could be done with a national sales tax. There are too many people who pay no tax, so why would they care how much money the Government spends?

Problem with a National Sales Tax is it is regressive. I believe taxing needs to be done at the top-line. It'll hurt me, but it's the only way.

[retiredguy123]

Problem with a National Sales Tax is it is regressive. I believe taxing needs to be done at the top-line. It'll hurt me, but it's the only way.
I agree. But, my point is that, when people pay no tax, they have no stake in the game, and their vote can be bought because they don't care how much money the Government spends. You can raise taxes all you want, and Congress can spend it faster than you bring it in.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

I have a novel idea. Once the covid 19 thing is behind us and the economy normalizes, how about getting back to the good old days where the government runs a budget surplus during good times and uses the surplus to pay down debt.

It's called fiscal responsibility, and it involves cutting spending, not looking for ways to tax people. Defecit spending is acceptable during crisis times like we are now in, but is unsustainable when done year after year as has become the new norm.

Great idea! Where do you feel the surplus should come from? I mean before you can run a surplus, you have to pay off the debt. You have to have a 0 balance, before you can have a +1 balance.

Who should pay for this? Seriously, I'm totally game to consider and assume and play the numbers game.

My idea for your proposal:

Impose a luxury tax on all "new" motor vehicles with an MSRP over $35,000. Make that a 1% luxury tax. And if the MSRP is over $50k, make it a 1.5 luxury tax. For vehicles with an MSRP of over $100k (Bentley, anyone?) make it a 2% luxury tax.

Impose a 1% income tax on all income, PRE-deduction, on any salary over $200,000. Take that 1% right off the top, and THEN you can do all your deductions as usual. No one earning more than $200k per year in salary should be getting so many deductions that they don't pay anything in income tax. This guarantees that they'll pay *something* and that whatever amount it is, won't put them in the poor house.

Impose an additional 1% tax on all income derived from interest, capital gains, stock dividends, PRE-deduction. If you cashed it in, you pay a tax on it. Period. Deduct to your heart's delight AFTER the coffers get their first 1%.

Reduce the deductions available to corporations to a 1% minimum. That way, if a corporation does a bang-up job at generating revenue and is able to find every possible tax loophole to avoid paying any tax - they'll still be on the hook for 1% of their gross receipts.

Add a millionaire tax - not on millionaires who HAVE over 1M - but rather, anyone who EARNS more than 1M per year. These days, it's not uncommon for somewhat wealthy people to have more than a million in assets, and still only be earning a modest (by today's standards) salaries, and put their kids through law school and cover the cost of a yearly vacation without a headache. But I'm talking about the people who earn that much in a single year, on a yearly basis.

If you earned over 1m (gross) in 2018 AND you earned 1m in 2019 (gross) then you hit the jackpot. And you should pay for it. You can pay however little you can get away with paying on the first $500k - but anything over that will cost you a 5% pre-deduction tax. So if you can manage to not pay any income tax at all on the first $500k, you did a good job (or your accountant did, anyway) and congrats. You'll still be on the hook for 5% of the rest, and that 5% can't be offset by deductions.

Then - the whole medical insurance thing. If you have MORE than a certain amount of money, and choose not to buy into health insurance, you can just go ahead and kick in $1000/month to the pool. That way - god forbid you end up with a disease that keeps you alive for a LONG time - but only at so much expense that you end up losing your mansion and housekeeper and Bentley - you'll be covered. And if you don't get sick, that money can cover the housekeeper, who you're probably paying off the books anyway.

[Number 10 GI]

How many times does it have to happen before you realize that when taxes are raised the congress spends it not to reduce the deficit but for pork projects and vote buying? Where have you "more tax" people been living, under a rock? For years now the congress keeps raising the debt ceiling and the "more tax" people clamor for more taxes to lower the national debt that never happens. When it gets to the point where taxes eat up all your income leaving you with an existence wage will you finally realize you have been fooled?

[blueash]

I agree. But, my point is that, when people pay no tax, they have no stake in the game, and their vote can be bought because they don't care how much money the Government spends. You can raise taxes all you want, and Congress can spend it faster than you bring it in.

I don't understand the mental gymnastics that says a low income person will vote for a politician who supports policies that will benefit them economically, and that is terrible; but a rich person who votes for a politician that helps rich people is a virtuous example to be emulated.
It seems to me that a poor person has much more justification voting in their economic self interest than a rich one. For the poor it means survival. For the rich is means a nicer car or a larger estate.

[vilger]

I think it is obvious how the deficit will be resolved. After the next election, there will be significant changes (cuts) to Medicare and Social Security because that is where the money is. The 2017 tax cut exploded the deficit even before Covid 19. I remember Trump saying that it would generate 3%, 4%, even 5% growth which it never did. Corporations used most of the benefits to do stock buybacks as they stated they would, instead of capex.

[retiredguy123]

I don't understand the mental gymnastics that says a low income person will vote for a politician who supports policies that will benefit them economically, and that is terrible; but a rich person who votes for a politician that helps rich people is a virtuous example to be emulated.
It seems to me that a poor person has much more justification voting in their economic self interest than a rich one. For the poor it means survival. For the rich is means a nicer car or a larger estate.
I agree with everything you said. But, I don't see how it is inconsistent with my point.

[DianeM]

I think it’s time we considered a flat tax rate for EVERYONE of perhaps 10%

If you earn $100 - you owe $10
If you earn $1000 - you owe $100
If you earn $10,000 - you owe $1000
Etcetera

No deductions for anything.

[blueash]

How many times does it have to happen before you realize that when taxes are raised the congress spends it not to reduce the deficit but for pork projects and vote buying? Where have you "more tax" people been living, under a rock? For years now the congress keeps raising the debt ceiling and the "more tax" people clamor for more taxes to lower the national debt that never happens. When it gets to the point where taxes eat up all your income leaving you with an existence wage will you finally realize you have been fooled?

As was shown above, there were 4 years of surpluses at the end of the Clinton years. The deficit returned not because of increased spending but rather because of decreased tax revenue in 2001-2002.

[Lark7]

I believe that our national debt represents a security issue as well as a financial issue. I am not a learned individual but let us solicit the best of minds behind the solutions - maybe a citizen driven issue in that the legislators will just kick the can down the road.

[blueash]

retiredguy123
my point is that, when people pay no tax, they have no stake in the game, and their vote can be bought because they don't care how much money the Government spends.

I agree with everything you said. But, I don't see how it is inconsistent with my point.

Your point was, if I understood it correctly, that poor people paying no tax were having their votes bought by politicians who supported policies that helped the poor. I am suggesting that it is even less virtuous to have wealthy people having their votes bought by politicians who will support policies that help rich people.

If poor people paid a small tax do you think that would in any way change the economic calculation of whom they would support? Of course not. So your suggestion that non-tax payers are specially susceptible to having their votes bought lacks support. But I am pleased to see we are in basic agreement that all politicians make economic promises in the hope that voters will see how those promises will benefit their own family. As I watch a large percentage of my neighbors cheating within the letter of the law to have their old roofs replaced while railing against welfare mothers and people who don't pay taxes, I see hypocrisy.

[Number 10 GI]

As was shown above, there were 4 years of surpluses at the end of the Clinton years. The deficit returned not because of increased spending but rather because of decreased tax revenue in 2001-2002.

The budget and deficit has gone up every year or haven't you noticed.

[tophcfa]

Great idea! Where do you feel the surplus should come from? I mean before you can run a surplus, you have to pay off the debt. You have to have a 0 balance, before you can have a +1 balance.

Who should pay for this? Seriously, I'm totally game to consider and assume and play the numbers game.

My idea for your proposal:

Impose a luxury tax on all "new" motor vehicles with an MSRP over $35,000. Make that a 1% luxury tax. And if the MSRP is over $50k, make it a 1.5 luxury tax. For vehicles with an MSRP of over $100k (Bentley, anyone?) make it a 2% luxury tax.

Impose a 1% income tax on all income, PRE-deduction, on any salary over $200,000. Take that 1% right off the top, and THEN you can do all your deductions as usual. No one earning more than $200k per year in salary should be getting so many deductions that they don't pay anything in income tax. This guarantees that they'll pay *something* and that whatever amount it is, won't put them in the poor house.

Impose an additional 1% tax on all income derived from interest, capital gains, stock dividends, PRE-deduction. If you cashed it in, you pay a tax on it. Period. Deduct to your heart's delight AFTER the coffers get their first 1%.

Reduce the deductions available to corporations to a 1% minimum. That way, if a corporation does a bang-up job at generating revenue and is able to find every possible tax loophole to avoid paying any tax - they'll still be on the hook for 1% of their gross receipts.

Add a millionaire tax - not on millionaires who HAVE over 1M - but rather, anyone who EARNS more than 1M per year. These days, it's not uncommon for somewhat wealthy people to have more than a million in assets, and still only be earning a modest (by today's standards) salaries, and put their kids through law school and cover the cost of a yearly vacation without a headache. But I'm talking about the people who earn that much in a single year, on a yearly basis.

If you earned over 1m (gross) in 2018 AND you earned 1m in 2019 (gross) then you hit the jackpot. And you should pay for it. You can pay however little you can get away with paying on the first $500k - but anything over that will cost you a 5% pre-deduction tax. So if you can manage to not pay any income tax at all on the first $500k, you did a good job (or your accountant did, anyway) and congrats. You'll still be on the hook for 5% of the rest, and that 5% can't be offset by deductions.

Then - the whole medical insurance thing. If you have MORE than a certain amount of money, and choose not to buy into health insurance, you can just go ahead and kick in $1000/month to the pool. That way - god forbid you end up with a disease that keeps you alive for a LONG time - but only at so much expense that you end up losing your mansion and housekeeper and Bentley - you'll be covered. And if you don't get sick, that money can cover the housekeeper, who you're probably paying off the books anyway.

Apparently you didn't read my post. What exactly do you not understand about the difference between cutting spending versus increasing taxes? There is more than one way to skin a cat.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

I think it’s time we considered a flat tax rate for EVERYONE of perhaps 10%

If you earn $100 - you owe $10
If you earn $1000 - you owe $100
If you earn $10,000 - you owe $1000
Etcetera

No deductions for anything.

That sounds great, if you can afford to pay 10% tax with no deductions. Some of us are paying 20% on our after-deduction "adjusted gross income" and don't have the opportunity to save.

Some are in even worse situations, and not being able to take a "standard deduction" could mean they lose their homes.

That might be okay by you, but are you willing to have those newly homeless people sleeping on YOUR front yard?

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Apparently you didn't read my post. What exactly do you not understand about the difference between cutting spending versus increasing taxes? There is more than one way to skin a cat.

Again - I'm asking for verbs in sentences here. What do you propose the government cut, to make up for the multi-trillion-dollar deficit AND produce a surplus?

Should they cut health care subsidies? Careful with your answer: millions of people are healthy because they can afford health care, currently. If you say cut them - be prepared to have sick people in your community who can't afford to get well, shopping at the same stores you shop at, sleeping on the benches you sit at when the squares are open, washing themselves in the public restrooms you visit when you're out and have to go, begging on street corners you have to stop at while waiting for traffic to allow you to cross...

Or how about we just cut out all public education funding? Let the rich send their kids to school and people who are "anything other than rich" - including middle class, can just home-school, quit their jobs, become poor, and hope to die young so they don't have to endure suffering for the rest of their lives as uneducated plebians/servants/indentured slaves.

I know - let's just get rid of military spending. We don't need no stankin Navy, amirite? Except - we do.

We could tell Congress and Senate no more salaries - but all their salaries combined, including that of their secretaries, the mail room clerk, and the cafeteria workers - don't even put a dent into the first trillion dollars of the debt.

We can call in all the debts owed to us by other countries...
but then they will no longer be beholden to us, and the current administration hasn't exactly made friends with the ones who owe us the most so maybe that's a bad idea.

So - what exactly do you propose our country cut, that will equal not just the deficit, but create a positive balance?

[petsetc]

I think it’s time we considered a flat tax rate for EVERYONE of perhaps 10%

If you earn $100 - you owe $10
If you earn $1000 - you owe $100
If you earn $10,000 - you owe $1000
Etcetera

No deductions for anything.

This is regressive taxation. Hits the poor disproportionately.

[DianeM]

That sounds great, if you can afford to pay 10% tax with no deductions. Some of us are paying 20% on our after-deduction "adjusted gross income" and don't have the opportunity to save.

Some are in even worse situations, and not being able to take a "standard deduction" could mean they lose their homes.

That might be okay by you, but are you willing to have those newly homeless people sleeping on YOUR front yard?


Do you not get that you would no longer have to worry about 20% rate on after deductions because there would be no need for deductions. A flat tax makes perfect sense to me and would basically be the new payroll tax. If no one has deductions - and I mean no one - it’s a level playing field. The lesser paid is in the same boat as the mogul. Works well. If you earn less, you pay less. If you earn more, you pay more.

[DianeM]

This is regressive taxation. Hits the poor disproportionately.

Ummm could you explain that one. 10% is 10%. We’d all be level in responsibility. No deductions for ANY ONE. If you make less, you owe less. If you make more, you pay more.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Do you not get that you would no longer have to worry about 20% rate on after deductions because there would be no need for deductions. A flat tax makes perfect sense to me and would basically be the new payroll tax. If no one has deductions - and I mean no one - it’s a level playing field. The lesser paid is in the same boat as the mogul. Works well. If you earn less, you pay less. If you earn more, you pay more.

Perhaps you've enjoyed the privilege of never being tax exempt due to poverty. What you're suggesting is people who earn poverty rate, having to actually be even MORE poverty-stricken by not being allowed the standard deduction - which gives them a refund of the taxes they did pay, if any.

Being poverty-stricken is not something I'd recommend to anyone. Having to pay taxes for the privilege of being poor is just - nasty.

[Two Bills]

Ummm could you explain that one. 10% is 10%. We’d all be level in responsibility. No deductions for ANY ONE. If you make less, you owe less. If you make more, you pay more.


...................and the wealthy do as they have always done to avoid paying their fair share.
They ship their money offshore.
The average working person always picks up the tab!

[Byte1]

How did we pay for it 10 years ago?

The national debt has not been paid down since Eisenhower.

[noslices1]

How about deducting the U. S. cost of the Virus from the debt we owe to China, since they started this and didn’t warn anyone until it was too late?

[Byte1]

How about deducting the U. S. cost of the Virus from the debt we owe to China, since they started this and didn’t warn anyone until it was too late?

That's one way of paying down the national debt. :thumbup:

[Shish]

That's a great idea. I'd definitely go for that. Higher than .2% would be my choice.
You may also be helping to stop these hedge funds from manipulating stocks with these rapid trading practices to raise prices and then shorting the stocks back down. Charging them for each transaction would be great, but only if there are no exceptions for brokerages and market makers, etc...

[Maxsan]

If the virus has taught us nothing it should teach us that we (our government, elected officials) never solve or even address a problem until it is a catastrophe. Deficit, social security, health care, homeless, drug addiction, broken immigration policy....name it, it will not be addressed until it is totally out of control. Politicians don’t solve problems, they work to get re-elected, they work for their own power and gain. Check out the financial standing of politicians before, during and after they leave office, it will astound you.

[RoadToad]

"...Pray that it won't be in the form of inflation which would hit the retired class the hardest...."
Too late for that...Prayer not answered...Just look at last 10yrs of REAL data... Phony "inflation rate index" total BS.

[kenoc7]

I have a novel idea. Once the covid 19 thing is behind us and the economy normalizes, how about getting back to the good old days where the government runs a budget surplus during good times and uses the surplus to pay down debt.

It's called fiscal responsibility, and it involves cutting spending, not looking for ways to tax people. Deficit spending is acceptable during crisis times like we are now in, but is unsustainable when done year after year as has become the new norm.

Here is a novel idea. Once COVID-19 is behind us and the economy normalizes how about getting back to the good old days when the government had enough money to provide the services necessary for the common good. The low tax mania since Reagan is responsible for the decline of public health services that we needed in this crisis, the condition of infrastructure and the list goes on. For the common good, for a solid economy, and a decent society individuals and corporations in America have to pay more taxes. The problem is revenue, not spending.

[RoadToad]

Your point was, if I understood it correctly, that poor people paying no tax were having their votes bought by politicians who supported policies that helped the poor. I am suggesting that it is even less virtuous to have wealthy people having their votes bought by politicians who will support policies that help rich people.

If poor people paid a small tax do you think that would in any way change the economic calculation of whom they would support? Of course not. So your suggestion that non-tax payers are specially susceptible to having their votes bought lacks support. But I am pleased to see we are in basic agreement that all politicians make economic promises in the hope that voters will see how those promises will benefit their own family. As I watch a large percentage of my neighbors cheating within the letter of the law to have their old roofs replaced while railing against welfare mothers and people who don't pay taxes, I see hypocrisy.
GOOD ON YOU!!
More Christians.. Fewer "Christian" hypocrites.
:a040:

[RoadToad]

How about deducting the U. S. cost of the Virus from the debt we owe to China, since they started this and didn’t warn anyone until it was too late?

Actually, it appears the Virus originated from Europe, NOT Asia (China).
Nasty White folks, as it were. OOPS
GOOGLE IT!! FactFind!! Research!! Do Not Just Retweet it

[Bikeracer2009]

China should pay for the cost of this pandemic. They own a lot of our debt and are actually making a very large profit off of the pandemic is so many ways.

[bmit16]

If you have been paying attention, you would have heard the President state about a month ago that a substantial amount of the money was coming from the existing budget. Instead of funneling billions to foreign countries in aid, he redirected that money to the American people. We are not giving our usual aid to all the foreign countries that do not support us. So, the budget will be fine and the future even better for balancing since under this administration we will not be wasting money propping up our enemies. The MSM has not reported this since he initially said it. Imagine that!

[Lindsyburnsy]

The same corporations that received a gigantic tax cut now want our tax dollars to bail them out now.

[davem4616]

this whole thread reminds me of an old saying.... "It's too bad that all the people that are truly qualified to run for political office are already employed as barbers and cab drivers"

[sloanst]

When Congress gets serious about spending, then MAYBE, something MIGHT be done about the debt. As it is, we are headed for national bankruptcy. We should be weaning our population off of entitlements. That includes all welfare and social security. I know that isn't a popular statement but other countries have made better decisions. We should have also. The math is simple.

[NJRICHARD]

Instead of increasing or implementing a new tax idea.....how about something as radical as reducing spending??? Across the board 10% cut, no exceptions. In reality we could cut it bt 20% without any reduction of services.

[biker1]

We don't funnel "trillions to foreign countries in aid". The entire Federal budget is about $4.4 trillion. The foreign aid budget is about $50 billion per year or about 1% of the Federal budget.

I don't see how the coronavirus relief bill can come from the existing budget. The bill has a price tag of $2 trillion (not sure if all of it will be spent). Again, the current annual Federal budget is about $4.4 trillion and has a deficit.

If you have been paying attention, you would have heard the President state about a month ago that the money was coming from the existing budget. Instead of funneling trillions to foreign countries in aid, he redirected that money to the American people. We are not giving our usual aid to all the foreign countries that do not support us. He actually is spending less on us during this time then we spend on foreign aid in a month. So, the budget will be fine and the future even better for balancing since under this administration we will not be wasting money propping up our enemies. The MSM has not reported this since he initially said it. Imagine that!

[bd20166]

Does this idea address corporate debt (which is staggering), individual debt, student debt, etc.?

The Dollar is slowly losing its reserve currency status. I believe the plan is to devalue the dollar in order to pay off or pay down debt with near worthless dollars and a new digital currency will arise. It will be a painful process for us all. I don't agree with this path but we will obediently follow along (like our response to Corona).

Ideally having an enforceable balanced budget, term limits on the sociopaths we elect to represent us, returning to a gold standard and repealing the 16th amendment would go a long way to restoring our financial health. Financial education in school and at home would also solve financial illiteracy and a thorough grounding for every student in the Constitution will create a much more prepared citizen and voter.

[biker1]

If I recall correctly, only about one-third of the budget is discretionary. The other two- thirds is pretty much untouchable (medicare, medicaid, social security, retirement for federal workers and veterans, and interest on the debt). Nobody in Congress is going to talk about cutting the non-discretionary part of the budget.

There is an almost endless list of "things" that could be cut out of the discretionary part of the budget but, unfortunately, it adds up to relatively small percentages of the entire budget. A lot of those "things" are pork and, unfortunately, have become part of the legislative process. You need to look no further than the recent coronavirus relief bill for examples of that. Regardless, I believe progress on reducing spending can only be made if term limits on Congress are put in place, and I am not optimistic that will ever happen.

Instead of increasing or implementing a new tax idea.....how about something as radical as reducing spending??? Across the board 10% cut, no exceptions. In reality we could cut it bt 20% without any reduction of services.

[petsetc]

Ummm could you explain that one. 10% is 10%. We’d all be level in responsibility. No deductions for ANY ONE. If you make less, you owe less. If you make more, you pay more.

Sure.
Progressive Taxation vs. Regressive Taxation | Northeastern University (https://onlinebusiness.northeastern.edu/blog/whats-in-a-name-progressive-vs-regressive-taxation/)

[Andyb]

Another penalty for those few supporting our country. Would be too complicated. We have spending problem, best way is to cut spending. Wasteful spending and fraud is off the charts.
No offense, it is a good thought, but to me, not the answer.

[gatorbill1]

How about all politicians needing to show their tax returns to show they paid taxes

[biker1]

Their tax return is none of your business. Compliance is not your job.

How about all politicians needing to show their tax returns to show they paid taxes

[justjim]

How about reversing last year's tax cut??

Most economists (unless they are diehard political liars) will tell you “trickle down” only works for the rich. Tax increase for the 3% highest incomes and also cut Unnecessary spending. OP, your proposal also have merit. Those that are able must also work and no increases in public aid for over two children. Term limits for Congress. Happy Easter!

[graciegirl]

Sigh. I have read them all. It will be far worse than any imagined and we will have to do what was done in the generation before mine...in the thirties. So start saving anything extra...reusing what you have and doing without. It is going to be tough. I hope it brings out some good traits in everyone they didn't know they had and makes people rethink things about large families and wasting money on things not necessary...and taking care of their own and expecting their own to work hard and do without too.

It will be difficult to say the least and there are no easy or simple answers. The government may need to do things like the New Deal to employ people.

My generation will suffer a lot if they don't have savings that are safe. Everyone will suffer. Now is not the time to spend money on foolishness.

[blueash]

Another penalty for those few supporting our country. Would be too complicated. We have spending problem, best way is to cut spending. Wasteful spending and fraud is off the charts.
No offense, it is a good thought, but to me, not the answer.

I am not offended and appreciate your contribution.

Well the rescue money is going to be spent to try to not have the economy collapse. People can't pay their rent, buy food, basic essentials. Most Americans do not have savings. So even the GOP has overwhelmingly supported this bail out.

My quibble is your comment that it would be too complicated. It is no more complicated than the collection of sales tax when you buy something. When you would buy or sell publicly traded shares the agent collects the trade tax and remits it to the gov't just like the merchant who sells you a product does now with the sales tax collected. And as very few agents can do that sort of transaction all of which are large businesses like banks and Etrade, it could be reasonably straight forward, I think.

[blueash]

Just saw this..

It is a slow day in the small town of Pumphandle, and streets are deserted. Times are tough, everybody is in debt, and everybody is living on credit.

A tourist visiting the area drives through town, stops at the motel, and lays a $100 bill on the desk saying he wants to inspect the rooms upstairs to pick one for the night.

As soon as he walks upstairs, the motel owner grabs the bill and runs next door to pay his debt to the butcher.
The butcher takes the $100 and runs down the street to retire his debt to the pig farmer.
The pig farmer takes the $100 and heads off to pay his bill to his supplier, the Co-op.
The guy at the Co-op takes the $100 and runs to pay his debt to the local prostitute, who has also been facing hard times and has had to offer her "services" on credit.
The hooker rushes to the hotel and pays off her room bill with the hotel owner.
The hotel proprietor then places the $100 back on the counter so the traveler will not suspect anything.
At that moment the traveler comes down the stairs, states that the rooms are not satisfactory, picks up the $100 bill and leaves.
No one produced anything. No one earned anything .
However, the whole town is now out of debt and now looks to the future with a lot more optimism.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how a Stimulus package works

[Stu from NYC]

I have a novel idea. Once the covid 19 thing is behind us and the economy normalizes, how about getting back to the good old days where the government runs a budget surplus during good times and uses the surplus to pay down debt.

It's called fiscal responsibility, and it involves cutting spending, not looking for ways to tax people. Defecit spending is acceptable during crisis times like we are now in, but is unsustainable when done year after year as has become the new norm.

Great idea Warren Buffet proposed an amendment to the constitution along the line of when the economy is doing well and the govt runs a deficit all sitting members of congress would be ineligible to be reelected.
The deficit would eliminate in just over a heartbeat.

[tophcfa]

How about deducting the U. S. cost of the Virus from the debt we owe to China, since they started this and didn’t warn anyone until it was too late?

That might sound like a great idea, but in reality it is called defaulting on debt. If the USA defaults on its debt obligations then how would it fund it’s massive budget defects?

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

That might sound like a great idea, but in reality it is called defaulting on debt. If the USA defaults on its debt obligations then how would it fund it’s massive budget defects?

The idea though - not the implementation, seems like it could be negotiated. The US puts some of the burden on China for the expenses incurred regarding the spread of the virus. We get China to accept at least some responsibility for it. We agree on a value of that responsibility. We then deduct that value from what we owe them.

That will at least slow down the increase of our own country's deficit. It won't bring us to a zero balance. But it might give us some breathing room to come up with other ways of catching up.

[DianeM]

How about all politicians needing to show their tax returns to show they paid taxes

None of my business.

[DianeM]

Sure.
Progressive Taxation vs. Regressive Taxation | Northeastern University (https://onlinebusiness.northeastern.edu/blog/whats-in-a-name-progressive-vs-regressive-taxation/)

Actually what I suggested was proportional.

[MorTech]

Good little tax cattle...Doubleplusgood!

[DianeM]

Just saw this..

It is a slow day in the small town of Pumphandle, and streets are deserted. Times are tough, everybody is in debt, and everybody is living on credit.

A tourist visiting the area drives through town, stops at the motel, and lays a $100 bill on the desk saying he wants to inspect the rooms upstairs to pick one for the night.

As soon as he walks upstairs, the motel owner grabs the bill and runs next door to pay his debt to the butcher.
The butcher takes the $100 and runs down the street to retire his debt to the pig farmer.
The pig farmer takes the $100 and heads off to pay his bill to his supplier, the Co-op.
The guy at the Co-op takes the $100 and runs to pay his debt to the local prostitute, who has also been facing hard times and has had to offer her "services" on credit.
The hooker rushes to the hotel and pays off her room bill with the hotel owner.
The hotel proprietor then places the $100 back on the counter so the traveler will not suspect anything.
At that moment the traveler comes down the stairs, states that the rooms are not satisfactory, picks up the $100 bill and leaves.
No one produced anything. No one earned anything .
However, the whole town is now out of debt and now looks to the future with a lot more optimism.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how a Stimulus package works

Surprisingly enough, I agree with you. I’m truly not sure this stimulus package was a good idea. We have added a huge amount of debt to our bottom line.

[MorTech]

The political terrorists steal trillions from us and you want to give them more? Doubleplusgood indeed!

[DianeM]

Sigh. I have read them all. It will be far worse than any imagined and we will have to do what was done in the generation before mine...in the thirties. So start saving anything extra...reusing what you have and doing without. It is going to be tough. I hope it brings out some good traits in everyone they didn't know they had and makes people rethink things about large families and wasting money on things not necessary...and taking care of their own and expecting their own to work hard and do without too.

It will be difficult to say the least and there are no easy or simple answers. The government may need to do things like the New Deal to employ people.

My generation will suffer a lot if they don't have savings that are safe. Everyone will suffer. Now is not the time to spend money on foolishness.

Actually a program like the New Deal would be great. It would employ and repair.

[cheweycat]

2 pennies for every $10. This is so moderate! Unfortunately, people who hold these funds and stocks will say it’s my money. Gov’t keep your hands off!
How about, I want to contribute to my fellow Americans and stabilize our gov’t.

[DianeM]

2 pennies for every $10. This is so moderate! Unfortunately, people who hold these funds and stocks will say it’s my money. Gov’t keep your hands off!
How about, I want to contribute to my fellow Americans and stabilize our gov’t.

2 cents is so low it makes great sense.

[blueash]

2 cents is so low it makes great sense.

I might have gone with 2 pennies is so low it makes great cents

As regards the stimulus story above, it does illustrate the reason why a stimulus, or a tax cut, or any other financial benefit given to the non-wealthy has more benefit to the economy. Give that same $100 to Thurston Howell and it doesn't circulate.

As wealth increases the likelihood that a stimulus is pocketed rather than spent is documented HERE (https://microeconomicinsights.org/wealthy-hand-to-mouth-households-key-to-understanding-the-impacts-of-fiscal-stimulus/) This is why there is an income cut off when stimulating the economy is the goal.

[petsetc]

Actually what I suggested was proportional.

Only proportional if you make enough to pay.

SO you live in The Villages and have a retired income of ??? say 61,022 (The Villages, FL | Data USA (https://datausa.io/profile/geo/the-villages-fl/)), you pay 10% and are left with 54,920 to live on.

Now let's say you work for a landscaper in the villages and he pays the average hourly rate for the Villages of 15.07/hr (The Villages, Florida Hourly Rate | PayScale (https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Location=The-Villages-FL/Salary)) and you work every day (2080 work hrs in a year-no vacation-no time off) and earn 31,346, pay 10% and are left with 28,211 to support your family of four including housing, food and health care.

Now lets say your RICHer, make 200K in your retirement. You end up with 180K to live on. Ad nauseam.

This is why proportional is regressive and not fair.

JMHO

[DianeM]

Only proportional if you make enough to pay.

SO you live in The Villages and have a retired income of ??? say 61,022 (The Villages, FL | Data USA (https://datausa.io/profile/geo/the-villages-fl/)), you pay 10% and are left with 54,920 to live on.

Now let's say you work for a landscaper in the villages and he pays the average hourly rate for the Villages of 15.07/hr (The Villages, Florida Hourly Rate | PayScale (https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Location=The-Villages-FL/Salary)) and you work every day (2080 work hrs in a year-no vacation-no time off) and earn 31,346, pay 10% and are left with 28,211 to support your family of four including housing, food and health care.

Now lets say your RICHer, make 200K in your retirement. You end up with 180K to live on. Ad nauseam.

This is why proportional is regressive and not fair.

JMHO

Nonsense. Are you paying no taxes now in retirement?
The lawn person pays taxes on his paycheck now.
Sounds as if your problem is with someone who planned better and is RICHer (your typing). BTW - bigger income is bigger bills so proportional.

No one gets away with paying nothing now.

[graciegirl]

2 pennies for every $10. This is so moderate! Unfortunately, people who hold these funds and stocks will say it’s my money. Gov’t keep your hands off!
How about, I want to contribute to my fellow Americans and stabilize our gov’t.

That's nice Chewey cat. yup.

[ffresh]

FYI - … One thing for sure we will pay one way or another but how and when. Pray that it won't be in the form of inflation which would hit the retired class the hardest.

You can pray all that you want but it won't help a bit. Pumping all of that fiat currency, aka "funny money" into the US economy is going to result in only one thing and that is horrendous inflation, possibly hyper-inflation; it's Econ 101. There's no getting around it. Welcome to 2008 Zimbabwe, 1921 Weimar republic of Germany, 2018 Venezuela. That is the aspect of this Covid debacle that many people are either ignoring or, more likely, don't understand. Many of these folks think there are no ramifications and all we have to do is "stay indoors". Others realize that the US economy cannot possibly survive, in a form we have come to know, after so many businesses will have closed, permanently, due to this travesty. Wait until much of this "printed out of thin air" currency, eventually, enters the marketplace and shoppers witness the price of a gallon of milk, a loaf of bread, a gallon of gas, etc., then there will be some enlightenment and a day of reckoning for shutting down most of the economy, while the Federal Reserve floods it with trillions of dollars of "funny money". Those on fixed incomes and the younger families with "mouths to feed" will suffer heavily as the purchasing power of the dollar is destroyed irreconcilably! Good luck to us all :ohdear:

Fred

[Fred2016]

Let’s start by taking away the huge tax breaks trump gave to the rich people last year

[DianeM]

Let’s start by taking away the huge tax breaks trump gave to the rich people last year

We should also take it from every middle class family who had their paychecks increase because of lower taxes. They surely don’t need it. And especially we should take the tax cuts away from lower paid jobs as well. After all, they don’t need to eat 3 times a day.

[biker1]

What specifically? If you are referring to income tax rates, most of the income brackets saw a rate reduction.

Let’s start by taking away the huge tax breaks trump gave to the rich people last year

[rustyp]

You can pray all that you want but it won't help a bit. Pumping all of that fiat currency, aka "funny money" into the US economy is going to result in only one thing and that is horrendous inflation, possibly hyper-inflation; it's Econ 101. There's no getting around it. Welcome to 2008 Zimbabwe, 1921 Weimar republic of Germany, 2018 Venezuela. That is the aspect of this Covid debacle that many people are either ignoring or, more likely, don't understand. Many of these folks think there are no ramifications and all we have to do is "stay indoors". Others realize that the US economy cannot possibly survive, in a form we have come to know, after so many businesses will have closed, permanently, due to this travesty. Wait until much of this "printed out of thin air" currency, eventually, enters the marketplace and shoppers witness the price of a gallon of milk, a loaf of bread, a gallon of gas, etc., then there will be some enlightenment and a day of reckoning for shutting down most of the economy, while the Federal Reserve floods it with trillions of dollars of "funny money". Those on fixed incomes and the younger families with "mouths to feed" will suffer heavily as the purchasing power of the dollar is destroyed irreconcilably! Good luck to us all :ohdear:

Fred

Right on. You can not believe how many people believe simply print more money. We are this far in debt what's another couple trillion is their attitude. Do these people realize if and when we get to the other side of this pandemic there will be economic casualties. It will be measured in unemployment. There are going to be many companies that can't survive this. Hopefully someone else picks up the slack and creates new businesses or add to theirs (another evil I see coming but that's a different subject of "driving out the middle class"). However this will take time. Don't believe for a New York minute it is going to be like turning a light switch back on. This increase in unemployment equals less tax revenue for the government which is already running a yearly deficit game which projections were based upon tax revenue of the best economy in the world. To make matters worse when people realize flipping the switch isn't going to turn the lights back on to full brilliance the stock market will have a double bottom which will add to loss of revenue for the government. Thus a very good question how are we going to pay for this ? How long will it take ?

[Mumbles]

Actually, it appears the Virus originated from Europe, NOT Asia (China).
Nasty White folks, as it were. OOPS
GOOGLE IT!! FactFind!! Research!! Do Not Just Retweet it

...pulling manufacturers BACK to the US and help stop this insanity of using the country (China) that lends us billions every year as a Fool's Paradise of getting really inexpensive things. Imagine if we had had 100 manufactures of our own making masks and other safety equipment. Protection would have come MUCH sooner, yeah more expensively, but A LOT SOONER.

[Mumbles]

It will be difficult to say the least and there are no easy or simple answers. The government may need to do things like the New Deal to employ people.

I agree with much of what you've written. But. I heard a Pulitzer prize-winning historian say, yesterday, that many citizens in the US think the New Deal was the answer to most financial problems. But, he said, it was the on-coming WWII which really saved us from the Depression.

[petsetc]

Nonsense. Are you paying no taxes now in retirement?
The lawn person pays taxes on his paycheck now.
Sounds as if your problem is with someone who planned better and is RICHer (your typing). BTW - bigger income is bigger bills so proportional.

No one gets away with paying nothing now.

Never mind!

[Rwaccess]

Thank you I don't feel so alone in my thinking now .

[MorTech]

The political terrorists did not even bother to vote when they stole the last 2 trillion dollars from us.

[Paper1]

Last I looked 46% did not pay federal income tax and I expect that number will hit 50% this year. National debt is what it is because no one except our grandchildren will feel the pain. Force a balanced budget where every dollar of spending had to be matched with dollars of taxes. I guarantee if Uncle Sam was reaching into your pocket to finance war in Middle East it would have been over 18 years ago. Americans are very proud of our military as long as our grandchildren are paying for it. Balanced budget would also take care of term limits I’m always hearing everyone wants.

[retiredguy123]

Last I looked 46% did not pay federal income tax and I expect that number will hit 50% this year. National debt is what it is because no one except our grandchildren will feel the pain. Force a balanced budget where every dollar of spending had to be matched with dollars of taxes. I guarantee if Uncle Sam was reaching into your pocket to finance war in Middle East it would have been over 18 years ago. Americans are very proud of our military as long as our grandchildren are paying for it. Balanced budget would also take care of term limits I’m always hearing everyone wants.
I agree. But, it can't happen under our current system of Government.

[NJRICHARD]

NOVEL IDEA; We automatically focus on raising taxes, how abut REDUCING SPENDING. We can reduce ALL areas in government by 10% with sacrificing anything. The same 'quality' of service will remain and in most cases will become more productive. Actually the repetition of services in government alone will immediately start reducing the debt if we put a stop it. We are like trained seals that never look at what we have and how do we make it more efficient, but let's increase taxes!

[Villageswimmer]

Just read Stossel’s column in today’s DS. Made me sad.

[ficoguy]

It wound not be the stock traders that pay this tax, it would be the investors as the trading tax will be passed through. Everyones 401k plan that holds mutual funds owing stocks will be taking the hit. In non 401k/IRA accounts, money that people have invested in stocks was already taxed as income before it was invested.
It would be great if we had control over the volume of trading in our 401k plans. But I don’t see Vanguard or Fidelity eating that cost. They will pass it along to us who already paid management fees and transactional costs

[Topspinmo]

A modest proposal. As the Covid crisis continues there will be more rescue bills coming to help individuals and businesses. At the same time, income into the treasury is dropping as income and sales taxes and import taxes all decrease. The trillions of new debt have not been offset by any decreases in spending, domestic or military. So other than leaving the bills for our grandchildren, is there any way to perhaps repay our government, which is ourselves?

According the World Bank (https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/stocks-traded-total-value-us-dollar-wb-data.html), the value of stocks traded in the US in 2018 was

33,027,245,670,000

Round that off to 33 trillion. I propose a stock trade tax of two tenths of one percent. That means you will pay 2 pennies in tax for every 10 dollars in value you trade. Considering that recently the market goes up and down several percent daily, a 0.2% difference is tiny.
If you sell one million in stock value, you pay a tax of two thousand dollars. Not much of a hit. You pay 7% to sell your house to the agent.

Here's the great part. 33 trillion in sales times 0.2 percent generates 66 billion in tax revenue. Keep in mind of course that this is doubled as the buyer also has a stock trade tax of the same amount. So 132 billion in tax revenue per year.

It won't pay off the debt entirely, but it is a nice dent. It covers nearly 1/3 of the Federal interest payments (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/07/24/facts-about-the-national-debt/) on the debt. Make the tax 1% and you totally cover the interest on the debt and begin to reduce the principle. Can we ask our stock traders to pay 1% for this national emergency? Or do we leave it for our grandchildren?

Not enough:faint:

I propose 10% tax on all stock trades, after all its Ponzi scheme anyway for inside traders that sell millions that causes the market to dive, then they buy back when it goes low enough. Only peons lose there A55. And really who cares about poor peons :ho:

[Topspinmo]

NOVEL IDEA; We automatically focus on raising taxes, how abut REDUCING SPENDING. We can reduce ALL areas in government by 10% with sacrificing anything. The same 'quality' of service will remain and in most cases will become more productive. Actually the repetition of services in government alone will immediately start reducing the debt if we put a stop it. We are like trained seals that never look at what we have and how do we make it more efficient, but let's increase taxes!

10% really, at least 30% and still enough pork to go around

[Topspinmo]

I agree. But, it can't happen under our current system of Government.


Hey, it’s me, me ,me world. After gone it’s somebody else’s problem. Any career politician more concerned about how much pork can They get for there district.

[Topspinmo]

Another penalty for those few supporting our country. Would be too complicated. We have spending problem, best way is to cut spending. Wasteful spending and fraud is off the charts.
No offense, it is a good thought, but to me, not the answer.

One politician fraud is another good fortune.

[Topspinmo]

Their tax return is none of your business. Compliance is not your job.

No, if they hold public office expect to held to higher standard when they increase taxes on citizens, especially when majority are ex lawyers. they need to be held accountable also. Several examples over the years where career politicians have went several years without paying their share or no taxes at all, but, poor old joe smock get rakes over coals IRS and bankrupt. career politicians go on like steal candy out of candy store.

[biker1]

You can hold elected officials to whatever standard you like via your vote on Election Day. You can cherry pick some examples of bad apples all you want but until a law is put in place you have no right to their returns. The fact that the IRS doesn't do their job does not change anything. Feel free to vote for only those candidates that voluntarily release their tax returns.

No, if they hold public office expect to held to higher standard when they increase taxes on citizens, especially when majority are ex lawyers. they need to be held accountable also. Several examples over the years where career politicians have went several years without paying their share or no taxes at all, but, poor old joe smock get rakes over coals IRS and bankrupt. career politicians go on like steal candy out of candy store.

[Paper1]

NOVEL IDEA; We automatically focus on raising taxes, how abut REDUCING SPENDING. We can reduce ALL areas in government by 10% with sacrificing anything. The same 'quality' of service will remain and in most cases will become more productive. Actually the repetition of services in government alone will immediately start reducing the debt if we put a stop it. We are like trained seals that never look at what we have and how do we make it more efficient, but let's increase taxes!
Your thinking is exactly why we have the mess we have. You say we spend to much the other side says we don’t tax enough so nothing changes. All I’m saying is get our grandchildren out of the equation and let the dust settle where it might.

[retiredguy123]

Your thinking is exactly why we have the mess we have. You say we spend to much the other side says we don’t tax enough so nothing changes. All I’m saying is get our grandchildren out of the equation and let the dust settle where it might.
I think the problem is that both sides spend too much.

[DON10E]

BC, (Before Corona) tax revenue to the US Government was at an all time high. We collected more in taxes than ever in history. You'd think that would allow us to take care of business AND pay down some of the debt. But instead, we spent so much money that we ate up all the record income, but borrowed another Trillion.

The issue is not how to raise the money. The issue is how to compel these short sighted politicians to use the money to pay back what we've borrowed. The interest alone on the debt is about $500 BILLION per year. Imagine the good we could do with that money, or the stimulus we could provide to the private economy to generate even more tax revenue and a better quality of life.

Solve the real problem.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

BC, (Before Corona) tax revenue to the US Government was at an all time high. We collected more in taxes than ever in history. You'd think that would allow us to take care of business AND pay down some of the debt. But instead, we spent so much money that we ate up all the record income, but borrowed another Trillion.

The issue is not how to raise the money. The issue is how to compel these short sighted politicians to use the money to pay back what we've borrowed. The interest alone on the debt is about $500 BILLION per year. Imagine the good we could do with that money, or the stimulus we could provide to the private economy to generate even more tax revenue and a better quality of life.

Solve the real problem.

Space Force. The Wall (we needed reinforcements - just not to that extent or expense). Tariffs that raised OUR cost of imports and profited other countries who were happy to provide goods and services to other countries instead of us. Enormous tax breaks for the uber wealthy and major corporations.

Those are some of the things that money was taken from the taxpayer and sunk into, during the past few years. We WERE on a slow road to a reasonable debt (as debts go, for nations in general), until then. But remember as well, we had been devastated over a decade ago. We hit an actual recession due to more incompetency in government that opened up avenues for banks to mislead and defraud their customers, to the point where homeowners had to declare bankruptcy, and the banks had to receive bailouts in order to stay afloat and not turn the recession into a full-blown jumping-from-Wall-Street-Building depression again.

[blueash]

BC, (Before Corona) tax revenue to the US Government was at an all time high. We collected more in taxes than ever in history. You'd think that would allow us to take care of business AND pay down some of the debt. But instead, we spent so much money that we ate up all the record income, but borrowed another Trillion.

The issue is not how to raise the money. The issue is how to compel these short sighted politicians to use the money to pay back what we've borrowed. The interest alone on the debt is about $500 BILLION per year. Imagine the good we could do with that money, or the stimulus we could provide to the private economy to generate even more tax revenue and a better quality of life.

Solve the real problem.

I hear you. But you can't undo what was done in the past. The gov't is not a business nor a household. Neither of those fights wars, protects the weak, etc. So the US has borrowed money since George Washington (https://www.moaf.org/exhibits/checks_balances/george-washington)to do things for the common good.

"provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States" I read that somewhere....

The hope is spending now will help everyone; an improved economy thus providing the ability to pay back the lenders and make the quality of life better.

The difficulty has been that Americans [generalization and opinion] are strongly in favor of taxing somebody else, just not me. And when the economy is good, and tax revenues are good, well meaning people rally to lower taxes immediately. Then when there is a need for new spending like a new war or a major disaster, or just to fix our crumbling infrastructure, there is no money on hand and no will to tackle problems that need to be tackled. Why should people in Nebraska be asked to pay for flood control in New Orleans? Why should people in NY be asked to help repair fire losses in Wyoming or a tornado in Texas or fix a bridge in Ohio?

Most states won't increase taxes. The Club for Growth and the Tea party make sure of that. Instead they hope the Federal Gov't will step in. But all of us are the Federal gov't. So we do help because help is needed. Some money is set aside in each budget for disaster relief. It won't be enough many years.

The US issues IOU's [bonds] which it promises to honor to get the cash to pay now for things our present taxes don't cover. My modest proposal is to help pay the bills, the only other choice is to issue more IOU's which then results in more of our cash being spent to pay off those debts plus interest due.
The National Debt was 70 million in 1790. We almost paid if off, then came the War of 1812, back into deep debt. We almost paid it off then came the Civil War. Huge debt. We made some progress but not much and the need for an income tax led to an amendment. The WW1, then the Great Depression, then WW2. We have never gotten close to making a dent in the debt. That's ok as long as we can keep covering the cost of the borrowing.

Bemoaning that Lincoln got us into debt for the Civil War, or Wilson for WW1, or FDR for WW2, or Bush for Iraq is not solving the problem. I'm fine with debt, I'm fine with more debt. I'm not fine with saying we never need to figure out a way to work on the debt. Like a small tax on stock transactions.

tl:dr

[Heyitsrick]

Actually, it appears the Virus originated from Europe, NOT Asia (China).
Nasty White folks, as it were. OOPS
GOOGLE IT!! FactFind!! Research!! Do Not Just Retweet it

Your assertion is categorically wrong. From ABC News:

A new study has found evidence that the first COVID-19 cases in New York City originated in Europe and occurred as early as February.

The study, published online by medRxiv and led by researchers at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, by analyzing complete genomes of the virus across four boroughs and two neighboring towns prior to March 18.

Researchers found that COVID-19 in New York City "predominately arose through untracked transmission between the United States and Europe, with limited evidence supporting direct introductions from China, where the virus originated, or other locations in Asia."

It is important to note that the study has not been peer reviewed.

New York coronavirus outbreak originated in Europe, new study finds - ABC News (https://abcnews.go.com/Health/york-coronavirus-outbreak-originated-europe-study-finds/story?id=70062642)

[Heyitsrick]

The problem with a "modest" tax - on anything - is that taxes always grow. They're very hard to control once enacted. It's another $$ pie for the politicos. So, a two cents tax today is soon going to be a two dollar tax, then a twenty dollar tax, etc. That's how it works. We've all seen this time and time again.

I find this tax proposal interesting, given where people reside. You're living in Florida. Yeah, yeah...warm weather. Gotcha. But there are plenty of southern states with warm weather. What there aren't plenty of is states with no state income tax. Those are in the minority. Wasn't the no-state-income-tax a consideration when moving here? It certainly is for me. So would you (a tax advocate) prefer just a federal tax for debt relief, or would you also rally for a state income tax, as well? This isn't meant to be a facetious question. I'm just wondering where the line is drawn on this from a personal perspective.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Your thinking is exactly why we have the mess we have. You say we spend to much the other side says we don’t tax enough so nothing changes. All I’m saying is get our grandchildren out of the equation and let the dust settle where it might.

I'm not seeing one only, or the other only.

I'm seeing that the wrong people are paying the highest percentage of their income in taxes, and the wrong people are paying the lowest percentage of their income in taxes.

I am ALSO seeing a lot of spending in government that should not be spent on the things they're being spent on. I am ALSO seeing fund cuts in programs that should not have cuts.

I'm seeing things from a pragmatic point of view, not an emotional point of view. Increase only certain taxes of certain incomes above a base maximum, shift the focus of military spending (I don't think we necessarily pay too much, we're just paying for the wrong things), provide more efficient paths to citizenship (immigrants are the reason our food is so affordable, why the Villages landscaping looks so gorgeous, and why we have so many options for medical providers in the area - we probably should keep them around, unless one of YOU wants to pick oranges for a living at sub-minimum wage, or try to explain to Mrs. Smith for the 20th time this year that it's her dietary choices causing her constant hemorrhoids, hmm?)

Lots of things we need to do, to balance the budget. It's not just one or the other extreme. It's a bit of both sides, meeting in the middle. A bit fiscally conservative, and a bit socially liberal. It can be done, we need people willing to make it happen instead of people saying it must absolutely only be one or the other, but not both.

[DianeM]

The problem with a "modest" tax - on anything - is that taxes always grow. They're very hard to control once enacted. It's another $$ pie for the politicos. So, a two cents tax today is soon going to be a two dollar tax, then a twenty dollar tax, etc. That's how it works. We've all seen this time and time again.

I find this tax proposal interesting, given where people reside. You're living in Florida. Yeah, yeah...warm weather. Gotcha. But there are plenty of southern states with warm weather. What there aren't plenty of is states with no state income tax. Those are in the minority. Wasn't the no-state-income-tax a consideration when moving here? It certainly is for me. So would you (a tax advocate) prefer just a federal tax for debt relief, or would you also rally for a state income tax, as well? This isn't meant to be a facetious question. I'm just wondering where the line is drawn on this from a personal perspective.


My only reason for moving to Florida was to escape where I was. I was used to paying all sorts of taxes and never gave it a thought. All I cared about was paying less property taxes. I honestly did not know that Florida had no state income tax until I filed the next year. I fear with all the revenue lost by Disney, Universal, Sea World, etc. we will soon join the ranks of most of the country.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

The problem with a "modest" tax - on anything - is that taxes always grow. They're very hard to control once enacted. It's another $$ pie for the politicos. So, a two cents tax today is soon going to be a two dollar tax, then a twenty dollar tax, etc. That's how it works. We've all seen this time and time again.

I find this tax proposal interesting, given where people reside. You're living in Florida. Yeah, yeah...warm weather. Gotcha. But there are plenty of southern states with warm weather. What there aren't plenty of is states with no state income tax. Those are in the minority. Wasn't the no-state-income-tax a consideration when moving here? It certainly is for me. So would you (a tax advocate) prefer just a federal tax for debt relief, or would you also rally for a state income tax, as well? This isn't meant to be a facetious question. I'm just wondering where the line is drawn on this from a personal perspective.

As long as state minimum wage is $8.56/hour and the most anyone can get from unemployment compensation is under $350/week no matter how much they were actually earning - no. Not in favor of a state income tax.

However, if a state income tax was implemented along with stronger pro-labor protections (I'm not talking about unions - not a fan - a well-run state shouldn't NEED unions), participated in medicaid expansion in the ACA or added similar protections and health care for ALL its citizens, no matter how much or how little they earned, no matter whether they had a bank account or not...

In other words - if the least able to afford to pay state income taxes, were given the benefits that their pay is paying for, thus making it unnecessary for those benefits to come out of their paychecks, then I can see an income tax.

You have to get something for the money you pay. You say great weather. Well - the government of Florida has nothing to do with that. That weather will be great or not, whether the government exists or not. It's not an expense that an income tax has to pay for.

State income taxes pay for things that its citizens get to enjoy. Most of those things are social services. Florida very strongly resists adding a single dime into social services. So unless you're willing to change the attitude about social services to the majority of the voting citizens, you're not going to see support for a state income tax.

[JoMar]

The current debt is 24.2 TRILLION dollars. That's a number incomprehensible by most people, me included, so when someone says 5 BILLION that I can almost relate to. However, 5 BILLION in the context of the 24.2 TRILLION has minimal impact. Almost like when we pay a bill and tell the provider, keep the change. I know, Sen Dirkson's quote, "a billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you're talking real money" comes to mind but that was back in the 60's when a billion was the top number.

[Bay Kid]

Government gifts. Example, $100,000,000 combined grant to PBS and the Kennedy Center. How does this help America recover? This is just a small example of "gifts" given by congress. Shame on them.

[karostay]

Money is only a number floating in space it doesn't exist only promises that will never be paid In this global economy
We hire accountants and economist to track the numbers
When we need more governments just simply increase the number
On paper it may look like it's shrinking at times but it never does..

[vilger]

Government gifts. Example, $100,000,000 combined grant to PBS and the Kennedy Center. How does this help America recover? This is just a small example of "gifts" given by congress. Shame on them.

This is peanuts compared to the billions of dollars in gifts to Boeing, the airlines, banks, hedge funds, the shale industry, etc.

[Paper1]

I'm not seeing one only, or the other only.

I'm seeing that the wrong people are paying the highest percentage of their income in taxes, and the wrong people are paying the lowest percentage of their income in taxes.

I am ALSO seeing a lot of spending in government that should not be spent on the things they're being spent on. I am ALSO seeing fund cuts in programs that should not have cuts.

I'm seeing things from a pragmatic point of view, not an emotional point of view. Increase only certain taxes of certain incomes above a base maximum, shift the focus of military spending (I don't think we necessarily pay too much, we're just paying for the wrong things), provide more efficient paths to citizenship (immigrants are the reason our food is so affordable, why the Villages landscaping looks so gorgeous, and why we have so many options for medical providers in the area - we probably should keep them around, unless one of YOU wants to pick oranges for a living at sub-minimum wage, or try to explain to Mrs. Smith for the 20th time this year that it's her dietary choices causing her constant hemorrhoids, hmm?)

Lots of things we need to do, to balance the budget. It's not just one or the other extreme. It's a bit of both sides, meeting in the middle. A bit fiscally conservative, and a bit socially liberal. It can be done, we need people willing to make it happen instead of people saying it must absolutely only be one or the other, but not both.

I wholeheartedly agree with your last paragraph except for the "bit" part as I believe we are well beyond point of a little change is needed. But I will admit maybe I'm overstating problem.
Regards

[Number 10 GI]

I agree. But, it can't happen under our current system of Government.

What system of government will not do it?.

[Number 10 GI]

Yes, I am aware of the debt ceiling. It gets increased to prevent default. But you raise an interesting question. As these stimulus bills are spending trillions without any adjustment to income, how are they fitting under the debt ceiling limitations? So I looked it up.

I had forgotten that Congress and Trump suspended the debt ceiling in 2019 (https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2020/where-does-the-government-get-2-trillion-for-a-coronavirus-bailout/) for two years. So right now there is no debt ceiling. We can borrow and spend whatever is needed that can pass Congress and get signed.

My modest suggestion would decrease the debt, so the ceiling, when it returns, would be benefitted.

The debt ceiling was raised under Clinton and Obama also.

[Number 10 GI]

As was shown above, there were 4 years of surpluses at the end of the Clinton years. The deficit returned not because of increased spending but rather because of decreased tax revenue in 2001-2002.

What does that have to do with what I posted? The spending increases all the time and every year the more tax people clamor for more tax to support the spending. If you don't believe politicians buy votes with their spending you are deluding yourself. Why do pork projects get added to finance special interest projects in their districts? I'll make it real easy, to get votes.

[retiredguy123]

What system of government will not do it?.
I don't know. I guess the only way to balance the budget is for the voters to demand it. Not likely. But, if the constitution had included a balanced budget mandate, I think Congress would have still found a way to circumvent it.

[Bay Kid]

It would help if we stopped giving money away like candy. PBS, Kennedy Center for example? $100,000,000 grant. How does this help Americans? Still sending money to other countries, most still hate us but will take our money (bribes?).

[Drdoug49]

The national debt has not been paid down since Eisenhower.

He balanced the budget, but did not eliminate the debt

[Paper1]

I'll be the 1st to admit I am not an economist but today I read an long article about the relationship between government spending, the Treasury, and the Federal Reserve. They were trying to explain in terms even I could understand how the Fed monetizes debt. I really was shocked to believe this was legal. I think I now understand why stock market is recovering regardless of record unemployment and record federal debt. I guess I question if stock market is a good long term investment. CD's and savings bonds will never pay more than 1% until some kind of crash occurs. Like I said I'm not an economist.

[vilger]

I'll be the 1st to admit I am not an economist but today I read an long article about the relationship between government spending, the Treasury, and the Federal Reserve. They were trying to explain in terms even I could understand how the Fed monetizes debt. I really was shocked to believe this was legal. I think I now understand why stock market is recovering regardless of record unemployment and record federal debt. I guess I question if stock market is a good long term investment. CD's and savings bonds will never pay more than 1% until some kind of crash occurs. Like I said I'm not an economist.

Trump likes to say that the Democrats embrace Socialism. What we have now is Sociaiism where the benefits flow mostly to the wealthy. In the past, the Fed was only permitted to purchase riskless assets like Treasury bonds. Now in cahoots with the Treasury, they have a workaround called special purpose vehicles (SPVs) where the Fed can purchase investment grade corporate bonds and even junk bonds. If these default, the taxpayer through the Treasury will suffer the losses. When you have a price insensitive buyer like the Fed in the capital markets, you get price distortions and misallocation of capital. If the stock market tanks again, I have confidence that the Fed will create another SPV to buy stock. While the government has thrown a few bones to the general public in the form of stimulus checks, more money by far has been devoted to bail out corporate America, which will never be held accountable for bad business decisions like the borrowing binge of the last few years to do stock buybacks.