Is this a wise amendment?

[Setzer]

I'd like to see an amendment saying that taxes cannot be cut if the national debt exceeds 20% of the nation's GDP.

[Ted C]

I'd like to see an amendment saying that taxes cannot be cut if the national debt exceeds 20% of the nation's GDP.

It would almost seem like common sense that you don't cut taxes when you're budget is already running a record deficit. What IS Dubya thinking?

[Joe]

Stimulate the economy. You certainly don't raise taxes while in a recession.

[Joe]

And by the way, our national debt is currently well beyond our average yearly GDP, and that's not counting the 1.9 trillion dollars of unrecorded liability to the Socialism Security Trust fund.

[Joe]

Excuse me, currently well beyond 20% of our average yearly GDP.

[Alex Moon]

Bad Idea. Restriction of the Government's ability to adjust fiscal policy is a bad thing. See the Great Depression.

[Queeb Salaron]

Seems like good economics to not cut taxes when the government is starved for money. But then again, I'm a letters guy, not a numbers guy.

[Joe]

Seems like good economics to not cut taxes when the government is starved for money. But then again, I'm a letters guy, not a numbers guy.

The correct solution is "cut spending," like everyone else has to do when strapped for cash.

[Queeb Salaron]

The correct solution is "cut spending," like everyone else has to do when strapped for cash.

Hmm. Yes, I suppose that makes sense, too. ::Shrugs:: Like I said, I'm a letters guy, not a numbers guy.

[Alex Moon]

Seems like good economics to not cut taxes when the government is starved for money. But then again, I'm a letters guy, not a numbers guy.

Running a deficit or having debt is not in itself bad. Governments run deficits all the time to pay for things like aircraft carriers and whatnot. However, government spending and taxes both are part of fiscal policy, which effects employment and interest rates and etc. When you start setting restrictions you limit the government's ability to deal with shocks to the economy. That means that you have to rely more of the Fed using monetary policy which can create more problems than it solves.

[Joe]

It should also be noted that despite our huge national debt, we're still pretty solvent, due to the sheer amount of assets held by the federal government.

[Ted C]

The correct solution is "cut spending," like everyone else has to do when strapped for cash.

Not that Dubya has noticeably cut spending, to my knowledge. He has moved priorities around, but I don't think that the overall budget shrank (even before including the cost of waging a small war).

[Alex Moon]

Seems like good economics to not cut taxes when the government is starved for money. But then again, I'm a letters guy, not a numbers guy.

The correct solution is "cut spending," like everyone else has to do when strapped for cash.

The government cut spending? :snerk: :snort:

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

[Joe]

The correct solution is "cut spending," like everyone else has to do when strapped for cash.

Not that Dubya has noticeably cut spending, to my knowledge. He has moved priorities around, but I don't think that the overall budget shrank (even before including the cost of waging a small war).

Are you kidding? There hasn't been a real spending cut (real meaning not offset by increases in spending elsewhere) in years.

[StimNeuro]

The solution has always been to cut taxes and lower spending. Lowering taxes stimulates the economy(supply-side economics). Lowering spending... pretty obvious what its effects are.

[Wicked Pilot]

The deficite is large not because Americans are taxed too low, it is because the government spends too much. Give me the national budget and a very large red pen and there'll be a federal surplus and tax cuts for all.

[Ralnia]

supply-side economics

My interpretation of that: Give money to the producers, which are usually wealthiest, and hope that the people who would spend money get it on their own.

Give me the national budget and a very large red pen and there'll be a federal surplus and tax cuts for all.

What would you do? Eliminate Social Security? If you mean killing the miltary's budget, then I'll vote for you.

[Joe]

My interpretation of that: Give money to the producers, which are usually wealthiest, and hope that the people who would spend money get it on their own.

The producers are the ones with the means to create jobs and wealth.

What would you do? Eliminate Social Security? If you mean killing the miltary's budget, then I'll vote for you.

Hell yes. Social Security is the biggest fraud ever forced on the American people.

[Hamel]

The producers are the ones with the means to create jobs and wealth.

But do they actually create jobs and wealth with corporate welfare tax breaks, or do they give their CEOs more payraises, more pussy on company money, or stash it in off-shore accounts?

[Joe]

The producers are the ones with the means to create jobs and wealth.

But do they actually create jobs and wealth with corporate welfare tax breaks, or do they give their CEOs more payraises, more pussy on company money, or stash it in off-shore accounts?

They create jobs and wealth. You have to invest to stay in business.

BTW, corporations don't pay taxes anyway, they just pass them along to employees and consumers.

[Wicked Pilot]

What would you do? Eliminate Social Security? If you mean killing the miltary's budget, then I'll vote for you.

No, the military budget would remain intact considering that I'm only here to trim the budget, not change military op tempo. Social Security would get a major overhaul. The big cuts would come from the elimination of pork barrel spending, wasteful and stupid substadies, and useless and ineffectual federal departments.

[Coyote]

The US gov't gets very little from the income tax. I've heard (but cannot verify) that they get just enough taxes to pay for the running of the tax-collection itself. The idea to having people pay taxes originally was to pay for World War One; but now with wages not kept with the national income it is accomplishing nothing.

So why does it continue? It makes people feel like thay're part of the national whole, essentially. That's one theory, anyway. Dunno how much water it holds...

Most revenue comes from corporate and trade taxes. Personally, I'd say eliminate the income tax entirely for anyone making less than $100,000.00 dollars a year. After that, it becomes a 10% tax without loopholes so the uber-rich can share a bit of the largess with the society that they have benefited so much from.

All the blahblahblah about military spending is silly. It is very little of the budget. Welfare of various forms consumes the lions share, 70-80% easily. Things that are wasteful are the pork barrel items-- like forcing the Navy to build and buy six ships they did not need so a Representative can create jobs in his ship-building hometown. There's where your waste is.

[Joe]

The US gov't gets very little from the income tax. I've heard (but cannot verify) that they get just enough taxes to pay for the running of the tax-collection itself. The idea to having people pay taxes originally was to pay for World War One; but now with wages not kept with the national income it is accomplishing nothing.

The United States gets usually about half of its revenue from individual income taxes. The other half is allocated among corporate income taxes, social security taxes, excise taxes (very small), and other very small taxes. The Income tax, BTW, came into existence before WWI, though it didn't really start to get large until the war began. Federal withholding started with WWII.

Most revenue comes from corporate and trade taxes. Personally, I'd say eliminate the income tax entirely for anyone making less than $100,000.00 dollars a year. After that, it becomes a 10% tax without loopholes so the uber-rich can share a bit of the largess with the society that they have benefited so much from.

Less than 250 billion dollars of federal revenue came from corporate income taxes and trade taxes in 2002. Usually, only about 1% of government revenue (usually less than that) comes from trade taxes, though that may have gone up thanks to Shrubby.

As for your idea about abolishing the income tax for those making less than $100,000; very bad idea. That would essentially have the top 5% or so paying ALL federal individual income taxes. The best thing would be a retail sales tax that does not tax necessities, like food.

All the blahblahblah about military spending is silly. It is very little of the budget. Welfare of various forms consumes the lions share, 70-80% easily. Things that are wasteful are the pork barrel items-- like forcing the Navy to build and buy six ships they did not need so a Representative can create jobs in his ship-building hometown. There's where your waste is.

Depends on how inclusive your definition of welfare is - if you include pretty much everything that can be loosely considered welfare (social security and medicare, which aren't exactly welfare), the number is indeed around 70%. Otherwise, it's much less. Military spending right now takes up about about 16 percent of expenditures.

[Ted]

You seem to forget that Clinton was running a surplus.

Also, the only reason why the US national debt is insignificant is because of the foreign trading of US dollars.
If that was to stop, and the trading done in Euro's, say, then the debt would hit home.

Think of it this way. The US has $500 in the bank. The US then writes a check for $750. Now, if that check got to the bank, then there is a problem. But if that check was traded around, and never GOT to the bank, then there is no problem.

[Joe]

You seem to forget that Clinton was running a surplus.

An imaginary surplus. Achieved by raiding the social security trust fund and not recording the the liability owed to it as a normal liability.

Accounting tricks. Enron and Worldcom to the nth degree.