US Budget

[riser]

Anyone look it over yet? Apparently the President is going to have one hell of a year for vacations and parties...

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Like they said years ago, a few billion here, a few billion there, and soon, youre talkin real money

 

[wanamingo]

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2013-BUD/pdf/BUDGET-2013-BUD.pdf

 

[riser]

The PDF is scary. "Cutting subsidies of inefficient fossil fuels."

Any correlations to gas prices going up at the same time? Marathon Petroleum already loses a significant amount of money on gasoline. That's why they're subsidized. Gasoline is a byproduct that is sold to minimize losses on it. They make their money on discoveries, new tech, and selling other byproducts.

 

[riser]

Well the budget just came out that they're going to get cut off. The last time prices broke $3.50 was March 9th. They're up 3 weeks early this year so that's the concern. Knowing you're going to get cut off will cause a spike.

Then again, the summer blends are also more expensive than the winter blends. Considering the warmer weather across the country that might be a reason why the prices are going up as well.

 

[johnsonma]

I doubt that doubling the capital gains tax would cause the economy to sink into a depression. The fact that millionaire investors pay less in taxes than me is disturbing.

Gas prices going up will be rough but people will find a way to reduce their gas consumption to offset some of the burden (I carpool to work and ride a bike whenever I can). Also it will encourage people to buy more fuel efficient cars like hybrids and electric vehicles, not to mention paying tax payers money to keep gasoline a viable option seems to defy logic.

Overall I don't see all that much wrong with it but I didn't read all of it. With the ending of the two wars and a balanced budget we could be back on our feet much sooner than expected.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Lets see, 15% of say 30 million is less than most pay?
WOW
Dont I feel lucky

 

[wanamingo]

Kind of like how Romney makes 200,000$+ each year from Capital Gains then stores it in banks overseas. He needs every dollar to keep those Swiss banks making money.

 

[riser]

Kind of like how Romney makes 200,000$+ each year from Capital Gains then stores it in banks overseas. He needs every dollar to keep those Swiss banks making money.

What's the big deal? Do you fully understand investing and that those accounts may not be entitled to taxation within the US? How well do you understand investing and the tax code to say this is illegal, as he reports this information openly?

 

[Reynod]

Hiding wealth in dodgy tax free havens is what has gotten us all into this mess.

If countries were able to effectively tax the rich they wouldn't be going into deficits with their budgets.

 

[wanamingo]

Im just saying if the wealthy say they need every single dollar (Esp from Capital Gains) because they are "Creating Jobs" then they should be creating jobs...... Its not illegal just a dick thing to do.

I don't fully understand every nuance of the tax code (I don't own shite, and im 23 ). But I haven't heard a compelling case as to why the top earners in our country need every dollar from investments, especially when its not being reinvested.

 

[riser]

Hiding wealth in dodgy tax free havens is what has gotten us all into this mess.

If countries were able to effectively tax the rich they wouldn't be going into deficits with their budgets.

That is a flat out lie. You could tax the rich at 100% and the US would still be deficit spending. The rich are effectively taxed. What you're saying is you want to tax them more to take a bigger chunk of their money.

Effectively taxing would be a flat tax, say 20% across the board. But what you're saying is that they have additional millions of dollars they don't need and want to tax that. That's apples to oranges. They pay a percentage as does everyone else. When you view the dollars, you want more.

On one hand we tax by percentage. What you're suggesting is taking a dollar amount away from them.. which is not correlated to a percentage. I think your future arguments would be better served by saying the maximum income would be $10 million dollars, readjusted every 5 years based on inflation, and that for each $100,000 in addition to the $10 million you make, you pay a flat rate of $20,000 per $100k generated.

If they made $11 million, they would pay their tax rate on $10 million and then an addtional $20k per $100k ($200k) on the million dollar excess.

But all of that is crap. Because milionaires live in the Capital Gains Tax world, not the Income Tax World which so many people confuse. The reason the CGT is 15% is to encourage people to save their money and invest it to make more money. That 15% applies to me the same as it applies to Buffet. He is now at the point where his money easily works for him, whereas the money doesn't easily work for me but I have to built that nest egg up.

I would think the appropriate argument would be to raise capital gains tax to 20-25% on any individual making more than... $1 million in capital gains (arbitrary number)? I think that would be a fair tax to those making "excessive" amounts of income through capital gains. If their stocks underperformed for the year and they generated less than the set number, they wouldn't be 'punished' by an increased tax.

Therein is the lie of your very statement about taxing the rich to eliminate the deficit. If the rich do not continue to keep making all this money, the treasury would take a hit because the tax base went down. Therefore the argument (which currently stands today) is to tax the rich MORE because they're not making enough that their current tax rate pays the deficit.

Utlimately, if the argument to tax the rich more is to be used, it should be stated as this: "The rich do not make enough money to meet the spending demands of the US Gov't; Their taxes should increase to meet the spending demand of the Gov't." (Punish the rich.)

Let me make this clear: I am not financially rich. I am against raising the tax on the top income earners. Increasing their taxes is seen as punishment to me because the US Gov't (and other gov'ts) cannot control their spending. The issue is the US Gov't, not the rich. The rich are the scapegoats to distract the voting public.

Because isn't that what everyone is arguing? The US Gov't is deficit spending. Instead of forcing the government to cut spending, we want to tax the rich more? The rich aren't the ones voting on budgets and allocating pork spending to their pet projects. I'm sure through backdoor politics they may be, but isn't it the elected official the one causing the ultimate issue? Not all rich people hire lobbyists either.

The rich are pawns. Sacrifice them to keep the masses happily distracted from the reality. When the rich are taxed at 50% and deificit spending continues. What do we do then? We bought ourselves time through distractions.. but what happens when we run out of distractions? What then? That is why I am against raising taxes on the rich. It is nothing more than a distraction.

 

[riser]

Im just saying if the wealthy say they need every single dollar (Esp from Capital Gains) because they are "Creating Jobs" then they should be creating jobs...... Its not illegal just a dick thing to do.

I don't fully understand every nuance of the tax code (I don't own shite, and im 23 ). But I haven't heard a compelling case as to why the top earners in our country need every dollar from investments, especially when its not being reinvested.

If they're making money, the money has to be invested. Not investing that money doesn't serve any purpose. Do you think they have $10 billion sitting in a bank account collecting .02% interest? Not by a long shot, they're investing that money into companies, businesses, ideas, and other things.

Now, yourself and myself, if we came into $10 billion we'd probably let most of it sit in our bank accounts and know we would never need another penny in our lifetime, or our kids' lifetime. But eventually that money will disappear because we didn't invest it. Our spending habits would slowly shrink that $10 billion until it was gone. So after some thought we would invest in and try to make more than what we are spending.

 

[johnsonma]

First off the idea is not that taxing the rich will be the cure all for the deficit. The idea is that they are not paying what they are legally obligated to by using tax dodges and loopholes. It is a single piece of a plan to get us out of this recession. Its not even really raising taxes when they are suppose to be paying that amount already, its closing loopholes to the current tax code. It was the rich companies and individuals who crushed our housing and financial markets that put us here in the first place (even if people should of known better than to live beyond their means, they were still duped). They need to pay their fair share and not a penny more.

Some millionaires and billionaires make all their money by ONLY investing. By doing this they make more money than the other 99% of the population and pay a lower percentage. There is nothing about this that is fair. Even if you put your money in the bank, the bank will then turn around and use that money to INVEST!! Its how banks make their money, by using your money as their own. Raising the capital gains tax to be somewhat close to the income tax level seems like a good solution.

The whole idea that government spending is whats wrong with our country is completely ludicrous. Taking on debt and then paying it off is a natural cycle of business. Our government is in a way a business. Is our borrowing currently too high? In a way yes it is, but it is not the sole reason to this dilemma we find ourselves in. Taking money away from projects and systems that can create value within our country is a faulty idea. Anyone who has taken any macroeconomics class will know this. However eliminating wasteful or redundant programs is a VERY good idea. One that is incorporated in this plan. There are a lot of spending cuts in this proposal.

As far as the energy policy goes, sticking with oil is ignorant of the future. Natural gas could replace gasoline while hydrogen and electric cars are being developed into viable options. As for domestic energy, nuclear, solar, thermal, hydro, wind and other forms of energy have not even matured as far as the development of their capabilities. If America puts serious effort into the development of these options, I guarantee you that we would be successful. If we develop these technologies it will create jobs and wealth, not to mention that we will be on the way to becoming self sufficient for our energy needs. We can export this technology to other nations and free ourselves of the burden that oil as become. The only reason we are not already there is the constant pressures from big oil companies and their lobbyists to delay the transition. They are making record profits and it would cost them some capital to transition to new forms of energy(which they slowly are already because they know it is inevitable).

You can end a war without victory, korea and vietnam come to mind. Although we wont really be ending it, we will transition more to covert operations which are more cost effective, efficient and safer for our troops

 

[riser]

A country that makes 2.5 trillion dollars a year is OK in your mind to have 15 trillion in deficit and spending 1.4 trillion additional each year?

The only reason to tax the rich more is that they're not making enough money for the government.

Get a credit card. They charge 15% APR while giving you 0.02% interest on your money they're loaning out.

Given that, we all have the same opportunities. It is completely asinine that you truly believe being in debt is part of the process. If the government wasn't in debt we'd have so much more. Over 50% of our yearly spending goes to paying the existing debt! That's $1.9 trillion dollars. The economy generates $2.5 trillion. Realistically we will hit the point of no return when we hit around 20-21 trillion in debt. At that point the economy will be paying for borrowed money only and all spending will be 100% borrowed money. Do the math. Figure we're spending 1.4 trillion extra per year, we have around 4-5 years before we're tapped out.

If you made $100,000 a year, is it feasible in your mind to carry $600,000 in debt?! The most expensive thing people can afford is a house at 2.5 times their salary: $300k. We are far beyond that mathimatical calculation in government debt.

Do the math. Count the money. The bad part is.. Greek only needed $300 billion for a bailout. That's pocket change the way the US gov't works. We're going to need trillions. What economy out there can bail the US out when we reach that point? We will be bankrupt without a bailout kicker.

 

[johnsonma]

Well the united states GDP is 15 trillion a year, so its not as bad as you think it is. Considering that is the actual influx of revenue per year and that has nothing to do with the net worth of the entire country as a whole. No need to tax the rich more just make them pay the current tax rate they have been avoiding for awhile. Really there is no other real option to increase revenue and it is the right thing to do. If not lets just tax the middle class into oblivion that way we can return to the lords and peasants, with no middle class.

We do not have the same opportunities as the rich. Money is needed to make money, its that simple. They have better connections and more pull in the government than the common man. Do you think they donate to those super PAC's just out of the good in their heart? Hell no! They do it to further their own causes.

Asinine? Really? Do you have any actual knowledge of our economy other then the information you have been spoon fed from the media? If you have a community college near you and if you can afford it take a couple econ classes, it will be a great experience for you. All high schools should have a mandatory economics class to eliminate the falsehoods associated with the national economy.

You point about the paying of our existing debt is the EXACT reason that a balanced budget with increased revenue and a decrease in spending is the RIGHT solution. Any company that was facing a mountain of debt would not just decrease spending to solve the issue. In business models I have participated in, the best approach was to increase your revenue through new projects and a decrease in expenses through cuts and refinement. In one model my company finished first in the nation with a total debt of $0. This is because a balanced approach is the best solution.

 

[johnsonma]

What Paul Ryan has to say about the Obama 2013 budget, and our debt.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/paul-ryan-ask-the-greeks-how-not-dealing-with-your-debt-works-out/

Give me a link to a reputable economist saying the same thing. Cant' trust what a competing politician says about another one. At the very least tell me exactly what accounting gimmicks he is using. Vague reasons are worthless.

 

[riser]

Well the united states GDP is 15 trillion a year, so its not as bad as you think it is. Considering that is the actual influx of revenue per year and that has nothing to do with the net worth of the entire country as a whole. No need to tax the rich more just make them pay the current tax rate they have been avoiding for awhile. Really there is no other real option to increase revenue and it is the right thing to do. If not lets just tax the middle class into oblivion that way we can return to the lords and peasants, with no middle class.

You're going to cite the GDP!? Do you even really understand how absolutely pointless that number is when dealing with real numbers? The GDP is artifically inflated because of all the printed money and incurred debt from the current administration. If you remove all the recently printed money, you would see that the US economy actually shrunk by just under 2% from the previous year! The whole reason the GDP is even registering as positive is because of the influx of printed money! The money is slowly being released into the economy to artificially prop up that number as an indicator of the country's health.

Your business models are just that. Models for a specific business. The government does not function that way. Seriously, take an econ class and you'll understand that spending more money than you bring in makes you poor. I don't understand how someone cannot understand that when we're spending nearly 50% more year each than you bring in and you have to make payments on that debt, you will nickel and dime yourself broke. We as a country are so far in debt that asking for a TRILLION EXTRA DOLLARS doesn't seem so bad anymore. C'mon, wake up and realize things are bad. Eventually, we will need to raise taxes 50% higher just to maintain debt payments.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

What I find strange is, while in the recent past, no one cared about how much the rich paid in taxes.
Deficits were manageable, people had jobs, invested their monies, thought it was great.
Now, we have a current government thats spending at 300% the pace of its former admin, and that admin spent heavily as well.
Now, since, and until anyone, and I mean anyone desires to trash the rich all the sudden, and not first and foremost address spending, if only looking at the tail of the snake, and complain about its scales, and not pay attention upon its head, and fangs, ones likely to be bitten

 

[riser]

Exactly. The rich are nothing more than a distraction.

 

[johnsonma]

Yes, lets trust a politician with a B.A. in economics to understand the biggest and most complex economy in the history of humankind. I have a B.A. in business admin, which is not economics oriented but I have taken multiple economics classes.

 

[riser]

I have taken multiple econ classes as well, heavily invest in the market, and direct million dollar projects yearly.

I know plenty of idiots with B.A. degrees. The degree doesn't mean anything, it's what you can do with the knowledge that matters. It is asinine to believe that the US's debt and deificit spending isn't an issue.

 

[johnsonma]

You're going to cite the GDP!? Do you even really understand how absolutely pointless that number is when dealing with real numbers? The GDP is artifically inflated because of all the printed money and incurred debt from the current administration. If you remove all the recently printed money, you would see that the US economy actually shrunk by just under 2% from the previous year! The whole reason the GDP is even registering as positive is because of the influx of printed money! The money is slowly being released into the economy to artificially prop up that number as an indicator of the country's health.

Your business models are just that. Models for a specific business. The government does not function that way. Seriously, take an econ class and you'll understand that spending more money than you bring in makes you poor. I don't understand how someone cannot understand that when we're spending nearly 50% more year each than you bring in and you have to make payments on that debt, you will nickel and dime yourself broke. We as a country are so far in debt that asking for a TRILLION EXTRA DOLLARS doesn't seem so bad anymore. C'mon, wake up and realize things are bad. Eventually, we will need to raise taxes 50% higher just to maintain debt payments.

http://www.measuringworth.com/usgdp/

Go to this site and check out the GDP and the deflated GDP is listed there as well.

Talking about printed money is just some jargon the politicians use to confuse people. In reality the treasury has reduced interest rates to 0% so banks can borrow for free. This is so that banks will start lending again and trust me its working. Major banks like wells fargo and citi are starting to increase their borrowing after getting dominated by credit unions the last couple years(in the loan market). Keeping the interest rate at 0% does lead to an increase in inflation though and you are right to say that the actual GDP would be slightly lower. Also the economy shrank because we were in a recession, that's what happens in a recession, otherwise it wouldn't be a recession.

(Economics) the management of the resources, finances, income, and expenditure of a community, business enterprise, etc.

While the government might not be a business per se, it is very similar. They have revenue from investments, taxes and tariffs to name a few. Then we have our expenses, public projects, education, healthcare, 2 wars in the middle east, the military as a whole and many others. Then we also have our liabilities, the mountain of debt that we have is the best explanation of this. Then we have our equity, which wiki puts at about 300 trillion, but its really hard to judge that figure accurately. Also we have assets like the total value of the housing industry, gold and other precious metals, military vehicles and equipment and much more. The government is the CEO of our economy and right now its like the board is split down the middle so nothing effective can be done.

I don't advocate going after the rich with a pitchfork. I just think that closing the loopholes in our tax code will increase revenue and make our tax system much more efficient and effective. We need increased revenue to attack this deficit on all sides. More money to pay it off and a decrease in needless spending to slow its growth. The one thing you need to be careful about with cutting spending is the long term health of the economy. You need to have money invested into the country so that down the road that money provides opportunities for the people to contribute to the economy. In other words, you need to GROW your economy out of a hole instead of just getting a smaller shovel.

 

[johnsonma]

I have taken multiple econ classes as well, heavily invest in the market, and direct million dollar projects yearly.

I know plenty of idiots with B.A. degrees. The degree doesn't mean anything, it's what you can do with the knowledge that matters. It is asinine to believe that the US's debt and deificit spending isn't an issue.

There you go with the asinine comment again. It is an issue, that I am not debating. I am debating about the best possible solution of the issue, which to me is a balanced approach.

 

[riser]

Taking on unsustainable debt that produces nothing in return is not a normal part of business.

You cannot count the housing market, military vehicles, etc, as an asset. That's such a lie. Owning a home is a liability until you sell it. I seriously doubt selling the housing market is an option for the US Gov't to pay off debt. Therefore it is not truly an asset. In fact, bailing out the housing market, Fannie/Freddie absolutely proves my point that it is a liability until sold. At the point of sale and no longer having to maintain or care for such object, then it becomes an assst. Sure, on the books you can call it an asset, but we're talking reality vs. what some academia person writes on paper.