01 Feb 15
Originally posted by normbenignIF every cent reduced from the military budget was spent on building infrastructure and on human capital, it would reduce the budget deficit in the long run. We'd have a more efficient economy and a better educated populace both of which would tend to reduce expenditures and increase revenue.
I replied based on a just finished reading of Stiglitz' book "The Cost of Inequality". There it is his habit of prescribing the fixes you listed, and spending the money in several different ways. It doesn't work. Cut the military! I like the idea, but first it isn't all savings, as Deep Thought points out. Second, if you spend the money on programs, it doesn't get to be budget savings, just shuffling money in the plans.
01 Feb 15
Originally posted by no1marauderThe US taxation system is the least progressive of all rich industrialized nations. It is also only progressive up to a point as the nominal tax rates tend to be lower for the very highest incomes as loopholes and accounting tricks become more readily available.
You know this isn't true, so why keep saying it? In fact taking all taxes into account the best that can be said is that the overall tax system in the US is very mildly progressive. This is economically wasteful.
03 Feb 15
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraAccording to my friends in Germany, it would be quite an impact.. There are roughly 116,000 troops stationed in Europe, of which 2/3 are in Germany.. now depending on what model you look at, how many jobs are going to melt away from the Germans when/if we remove all of the troops/bases?
Don't be ridiculous. How much influence do you think military presence of American soldiers has on economies in Europe?
Not that I really give two hoots for your opinion, I'm just bored today, and love to come here and watch the minds at work....
03 Feb 15
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't disagree with cutting the military, to a level consistent with national self defense, and non interference.
IF every cent reduced from the military budget was spent on building infrastructure and on human capital, it would reduce the budget deficit in the long run. We'd have a more efficient economy and a better educated populace both of which would tend to reduce expenditures and increase revenue.
If is one of those little words with big meaning. First that money is money we don't have, and arguing it could be spent better, is beside the point. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and we ought not be borrowing to pursue good intentions either military or social. We can talk about the best way to spend money when we aren't borrowing it.
Interest rates will not always be so low, and should not be now.
03 Feb 15
Originally posted by KazetNagorraPick whatever percentile you wish. The higher you go, the greater the percentage of total taxes are paid by that group.
The US taxation system is the least progressive of all rich industrialized nations. It is also only progressive up to a point as the nominal tax rates tend to be lower for the very highest incomes as loopholes and accounting tricks become more readily available.
Go to the 48% at the bottom, and they don't pay income taxes.
03 Feb 15
Originally posted by normbenignBorrowing at reasonable levels now to increase future revenues and lower future costs is what smart people do. Your shortsighted approach is penny wise and pound foolish. By its logic, businesses would never invest in capital equipment nor individuals in a good education unless they had cash on hand. Surely this would be poor financial advice.
I don't disagree with cutting the military, to a level consistent with national self defense, and non interference.
If is one of those little words with big meaning. First that money is money we don't have, and arguing it could be spent better, is beside the point. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and we ought not be borrowing to pursue ...[text shortened]... when we aren't borrowing it.
Interest rates will not always be so low, and should not be now.
03 Feb 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadOther types of federal taxes and virtually all state and local taxes in the US do not fit the narrative right wingers like norm spout so they must be ignored. In fact, Federal income taxes account for less than 30% of all taxes collected in the US.
They do pay taxes, as I am sure you know, or you wouldn't have said 'income taxes'. They also pay a much higher proportion of their income in taxes than those higher up.
03 Feb 15
Originally posted by no1marauderThe problem is what is "reasonable levels". Only the existence of the Fed allows the Federal government to accumulate $18 T in debt.
Borrowing at reasonable levels now to increase future revenues and lower future costs is what smart people do. Your shortsighted approach is penny wise and pound foolish. By its logic, businesses would never invest in capital equipment nor individuals in a good education unless they had cash on hand. Surely this would be poor financial advice.
It is an entirely different thing for a private individual, or even a corporation to borrow for the purpose of investment, putting at risk the borrowed money, and of course the future of their business and reputation if it should fail, and the government borrowing to speculate, risking the taxpayer's money, and usually denying any responsibility for a mistake. Just give us more, particularly if you've been successful.
03 Feb 15
Originally posted by no1marauderYour hero, Joe Stiglitz disagrees with borrowing for education. Not so long ago, many people could work their way through college, on pay of menial jobs.
Borrowing at reasonable levels now to increase future revenues and lower future costs is what smart people do. Your shortsighted approach is penny wise and pound foolish. By its logic, businesses would never invest in capital equipment nor individuals in a good education unless they had cash on hand. Surely this would be poor financial advice.
03 Feb 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe federal income tax is the most known, and one of the most egregiously progressive taxes.
They do pay taxes, as I am sure you know, or you wouldn't have said 'income taxes'. They also pay a much higher proportion of their income in taxes than those higher up.
I would suspect that if all taxes, at all levels were calculated, there would be a similar result.
It is maybe not quite as cut and dry as it would seem, that lower income people pay a higher proportion of their income in taxes than those at higher levels of income. The only tax where that is absolutely true is FICA. Sales taxes, excises, estate taxes, real estate taxes all come down harder on higher income people, and I don't know if there is any way of making any accurate comparison across the spectrum.
When you figure in EITC, direct welfare payments, food stamps and other benefits paid directly to low income people, and some benefits that go to the middle class, the argument gets very muddy and the claim not sustainable.
All that is not relevant to whether $18 T is sustainable or not. The claims and counterclaims about who pays the taxes, and how much is a distraction from the issue of whether government should have unlimited spending powers.
03 Feb 15
Originally posted by normbenignAs on so many subjects, you are grossly misinformed. In fact, state and local taxes (which account for 40% of all tax revenue in the US) are sharply regressive with the lowest quintile paying about twice the percentage of its meager income as highest quintile does. http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?subject=State_and_Local_Taxes_Regressive&threadid=162531
The federal income tax is the most known, and one of the most egregiously progressive taxes.
I would suspect that if all taxes, at all levels were calculated, there would be a similar result.
It is maybe not quite as cut and dry as it would seem, that lower income people pay a higher proportion of their income in taxes than those at higher levels ...[text shortened]... uch is a distraction from the issue of whether government should have unlimited spending powers.
03 Feb 15
Originally posted by normbenignIt is hardly "speculation" to believe that increased investment in infrastructure and education will reduce future expenditures and increase revenues.
The problem is what is "reasonable levels". Only the existence of the Fed allows the Federal government to accumulate $18 T in debt.
It is an entirely different thing for a private individual, or even a corporation to borrow for the purpose of investment, putting at risk the borrowed money, and of course the future of their business and reputation if ...[text shortened]... ng any responsibility for a mistake. Just give us more, particularly if you've been successful.