[Tennisnut]

I think some will find this interesting which shows income and corporate taxes as a percentage of GDP. One thing I would like to point out is that during the year 2000, total receipts were 19.9 and now they are 16.7 or the same as 2005. Please make your own informed conclusions.

Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP

[gomoho]

Originally Posted by Paper1

I'm trying to say, probably poorly, that we need to raise taxes to match our spending. I do believe the US will not be able to meet it's financial promises but it will not be called default. Very basic mathmatics should make this pretty clear. As a society we don't even want to raise gas taxes to fix our roads with at 2.00 and will instead issue more US bonds.

We don't want to raise the gas taxes to fix our roads cause most of us believe that money will either be poorly spent or sent to another country. We don't trust our government anymore so we are no longer interested in funding their lies.

[Polar Bear]

Originally Posted by gomoho

We don't want to raise the gas taxes to fix our roads cause most of us believe that money will either be poorly spent or sent to another country. We don't trust our government anymore so we are no longer interested in funding their lies.

Actually, I don't feel quite so negatively about our government. Governments are by their very nature hard to keep in check and must be monitored by the people at all times.

But I still think limited government is necessary. I just feel they already have plenty of our money...actually much more than is absolutely necessary...to do the minimum required work of government, including maintaining the infrastructure.

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by Paper1

I'm trying to say, probably poorly, that we need to raise taxes to match our spending. I do believe the US will not be able to meet it's financial promises but it will not be called default. Very basic mathmatics should make this pretty clear. As a society we don't even want to raise gas taxes to fix our roads with at 2.00 and will instead issue more US bonds.

IF you feel the country needs more tax money then you can contribute some more. Nothing stopping you. they will take donations! and tax you on them! As for gas taxes the government probably makes more on gas than the companies drilling and process it.

[Paper1]

Originally Posted by gomoho

We don't want to raise the gas taxes to fix our roads cause most of us believe that money will either be poorly spent or sent to another country. We don't trust our government anymore so we are no longer interested in funding their lies.

To this reader that is a very poor reason to saddle our grandchildren with this disaster. Everyone wants taxes raised and spending cut as long as it does not effect them.

[gomoho]

Originally Posted by Paper1

To this reader that is a very poor reason to saddle our grandchildren with this disaster. Everyone wants taxes raised and spending cut as long as it does not effect them.

It's our government's incredible ability to waste the billions of tax dollars they collect that is saddling our grandchildren. We have paid taxes year after year after year only to watch the money squandered. I remember when we were first married my husband would say he was good with paying his fair share of taxes to live in this country - not any more.

[beachx4me]

I am glad I paid into it. If people had a choice back then, how many young folks would have actually been disciplined enough to pay into another form of retirement savings? I would think not many. Plus, in this day and time I don't think there would be many that would be all that disciplined either. It is a good thing we have it. I am to young to start collecting, but I consider it a benefit of my retirement. I was certainly blessed to have a job that offered a pension also. I do not feel one iota guilty about it either. It will "benefit" me in later years and I am grateful it is there. For many it is trying to make ends meet.

[tuccillo]

Unfortunately there is no such thing as "fair share". There is only the concept of paying the least amount of tax that the tax laws permit and they are anything but fair since they are the result of extensive lobbying by special interest groups. The middle-class doesn't have a lobbying group and is guilty of repeatedly voting the same people into office and therefore guaranteeing that they will get screwed.

Originally Posted by gomoho

It's our government's incredible ability to waste the billions of tax dollars they collect that is saddling our grandchildren. We have paid taxes year after year after year only to watch the money squandered. I remember when we were first married my husband would say he was good with paying his fair share of taxes to live in this country - not any more.

[Tennisnut]

Originally Posted by tuccillo

Unfortunately there is no such thing as "fair share". There is only the concept of paying the least amount of tax that the tax laws permit and they are anything but fair since they are the result of extensive lobbying by special interest groups. The middle-class doesn't have a lobbying group and is guilty of repeatedly voting the same people into office and therefore guaranteeing that they will get screwed.

Don't worry. There is some intensive lobbying going on right now with the Kock brothers.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by Tennisnut

Don't worry. There is some intensive lobbying going on right now with the Kock brothers.

Mrs. Sharpton is reading this. Coke is spelled with an H at the end.

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by Polar Bear

How can a hypothetical be based on a false premise? Hypothetical by definition means conjectural, "what-if", not real. If there are no false premises, then the question is not hypothetical.

Concerning the opening post: The OP's premise is faulty because it's not within the realm of possibility. The American people would never stand by and let millions of people starve and go homeless.

Here's a valid hypothetical: Would you opt out of Social Security if the only other existing safety net would be welfare?

Here's a faulty hypothetical: Would you opt out of Social Security if you knew that you would be charged with treason and executed? It's hypothetical but faulty in the sense that it will not lead to a rational discussion.

[Polar Bear]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

Concerning the opening post: The OP's premise is faulty because it's not within the realm of possibility. The American people would never stand by and let millions of people starve and go homeless.

Here's a valid hypothetical: Would you opt out of Social Security if the only other existing safety net would be welfare?

Here's a faulty hypothetical: Would you opt out of Social Security if you knew that you would be charged with treason and executed? It's hypothetical but faulty in the sense that it will not lead to a rational discussion.

A hypothetical is what it is. If you choose to say it's faulty or not rational, that's your prerogative. Doesn't disqualify it as a hypothetical. A hypothetical doesn't have to meet your "faulty" or "valid" test.

That being said, the OP is not even close to being unreasonable as a hypothetical. Your assumptions about its validity are just that...your assumptions. Seems most find it to be a perfectly valid starting point for discussion.

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by Polar Bear

That being said, the OP is not even close to being unreasonable as a hypothetical.

Sandtrap328... At retirement age, if you had NOT opted-in, there would be absolutely no government assistance even if you had not made good savings/investment choices.

What is the point of choosing between Social Security that exists and something that could never exist?

[Sandtrap328]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

What is the point of choosing between Social Security that exists and something that could never exist?

Here's a valid hypothetical: Would you opt out of Social Security if the only other existing safety net would be welfare? I am NOT saying Social Security retirement is welfare. However, what welfare program is being discussed for a safety net?

Before the Social Security retirement existed and there was no forced saving through payroll deduction, weren't individuals responsible for their own savings for retirement?

What kind of government welfare was in place at that time (pre-Social Security retirement)? Were people able to get this welfare for retirement living?

I remember seeing photographs in history books of people during the Great Depression selling apples on street corners in order to make a little money. Wasn't there any kind of government welfare available for the millions of people out of work at that time?

[Tennisnut]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

Mrs. Sharpton is reading this. Coke is spelled with an H at the end.

Thank you you for your help. Personally, I do not drink Coke.