[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by Paper1

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 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]

Originally Posted by RoadToad

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

[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]

Originally Posted by Paper1

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Paper1]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

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]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

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

What system of government will not do it?.