Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

What woudl the tax rate be if....

HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2010 10:12:57 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
What do your suppose the federal tax rate would be for a family making $80K per year if we had to start paying down the debt, fund the military to its minimum requirements, pay for our current entitlements and pay for the new healthcare bill WITHOUT BORROWING (ie selfishly passing the cost on to the next generations)? I bet the percentage would be absolutely unbearable. But that's what we ought to be paying. And don't forget to at another 20% for state, local and other taxes and fees.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2010 3:09:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/25/2010 10:12:57 AM, HandsOff wrote:
What do your suppose the federal tax rate would be for a family making $80K per year if we had to start paying down the debt, fund the military to its minimum requirements, pay for our current entitlements and pay for the new healthcare bill WITHOUT BORROWING (ie selfishly passing the cost on to the next generations)? I bet the percentage would be absolutely unbearable. But that's what we ought to be paying. And don't forget to at another 20% for state, local and other taxes and fees.

100+%
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2010 8:07:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'm imagining an average of around 80% per citizen to pay for current service and service the national debt. Since both the debt and the government are growing each year, we can all agree the eventual end is bankruptcy, the sale of land, or war with our creditors.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2010 8:16:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/27/2010 8:07:17 PM, HandsOff wrote:
I'm imagining an average of around 80% per citizen to pay for current service and service the national debt. Since both the debt and the government are growing each year, we can all agree the eventual end is bankruptcy, the sale of land, or war with our creditors.

Or you can continue with the current situation, whereby nobody really cares or holds it to account due to the ever increasing interdependence of the world and the idea that "war with creditors" becomes impossible unless they want to collapse the entire system they're making money off of.

Besides, America would do some good with a nice tax hike. You people are such whiners. Suck it up.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2010 8:19:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/27/2010 8:16:29 PM, Volkov wrote:
Besides, America would do some good with a nice tax hike. You people are such whiners. Suck it up.

There would be half as much spending money and our economy would decay exponentially.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2010 8:21:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/27/2010 8:19:18 PM, wjmelements wrote:
There would be half as much spending money and our economy would decay exponentially.

Mhm. That would hold water if other countries with much higher tax rates weren't holding quite nicely against this "logic."
HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2010 8:24:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/27/2010 8:16:29 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 3/27/2010 8:07:17 PM, HandsOff wrote:
I'm imagining an average of around 80% per citizen to pay for current service and service the national debt. Since both the debt and the government are growing each year, we can all agree the eventual end is bankruptcy, the sale of land, or war with our creditors.

Or you can continue with the current situation, whereby nobody really cares or holds it to account due to the ever increasing interdependence of the world and the idea that "war with creditors" becomes impossible unless they want to collapse the entire system they're making money off of.

Besides, America would do some good with a nice tax hike. You people are such whiners. Suck it up.

You think we can do this indefinitely with no negative consequence whatsoever? Maybe you're just being funny.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2010 8:24:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/27/2010 8:21:36 PM, Volkov wrote:
Mhm. That would hold water if other countries with much higher tax rates weren't holding quite nicely against this "logic."

The Scandinavian-Welfare Myth
http://mises.org...
HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2010 8:25:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/27/2010 8:21:36 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 3/27/2010 8:19:18 PM, wjmelements wrote:
There would be half as much spending money and our economy would decay exponentially.

Mhm. That would hold water if other countries with much higher tax rates weren't holding quite nicely against this "logic."

BTW, high tax rates are far better than borrowing. I'm the one that wants the country to stop borrowing and "suck it up." I'd like people to see what government is really consting them.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2010 8:33:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/27/2010 8:24:03 PM, HandsOff wrote:
You think we can do this indefinitely with no negative consequence whatsoever? Maybe you're just being funny.

Did I say that? No.

What I said is that the concept of the "debt" isn't the same sort of debt you get on an individual basis between yourself and a bank, a creditor, or whatever you want.

A nation that's accumulates debt will only be held account if other countries holding its debt care to do anything about it - which is usually never, because that would require harming your own income at the same time.

Now, cases like, say, Greece, where that country's debt load's consequences start outweighing the country's benefit on a whole - yes, creditors will get angry and step in. In Greece's case, their debt load was starting to drag the rest of the EU down.

But who exactly is going to stop trade with the US? China? Lol.

No, the major reason why the debt needs to be tackled is for realpolitik. It gives a leverage to China and other debt holders and creditors. That's bad, and as the debt grows, it gets worse. But the relationship is so symbiotic that it's leverage that essentially amounts to a bad bluff most of the time.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2010 8:33:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/27/2010 8:21:36 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 3/27/2010 8:19:18 PM, wjmelements wrote:
There would be half as much spending money and our economy would decay exponentially.

Mhm. That would hold water if other countries with much higher tax rates weren't holding quite nicely against this "logic."

Those taxes fund socialized firms (spending for the consumer). The tax hikes are to go to paying off the debt (not spending for the consumer).
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2010 8:36:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/27/2010 8:33:32 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Those taxes fund socialized firms (spending for the consumer). The tax hikes are to go to paying off the debt (not spending for the consumer).

Good point. I thought of that before but I waved it away.
HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2010 8:56:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/27/2010 8:33:09 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 3/27/2010 8:24:03 PM, HandsOff wrote:
You think we can do this indefinitely with no negative consequence whatsoever? Maybe you're just being funny.

Did I say that? No.

What I said is that the concept of the "debt" isn't the same sort of debt you get on an individual basis between yourself and a bank, a creditor, or whatever you want.

A nation that's accumulates debt will only be held account if other countries holding its debt care to do anything about it - which is usually never, because that would require harming your own income at the same time.

Now, cases like, say, Greece, where that country's debt load's consequences start outweighing the country's benefit on a whole - yes, creditors will get angry and step in. In Greece's case, their debt load was starting to drag the rest of the EU down.

But who exactly is going to stop trade with the US? China? Lol.

No, the major reason why the debt needs to be tackled is for realpolitik. It gives a leverage to China and other debt holders and creditors. That's bad, and as the debt grows, it gets worse. But the relationship is so symbiotic that it's leverage that essentially amounts to a bad bluff most of the time.

This all sounds wonderful. I can relax now. We can simply borrow more rest assured we will never be forced to pay up. There's nothing unethical about that. Why not borrow to pay for universal housing, food, shelter and transportation? Let's get going.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2010 8:58:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/27/2010 8:56:10 PM, HandsOff wrote:
This all sounds wonderful. I can relax now. We can simply borrow more rest assured we will never be forced to pay up. There's nothing unethical about that. Why not borrow to pay for universal housing, food, shelter and transportation? Let's get going.

Now you're being silly. I said that there are no consequences that, as far as I can tell, outweigh the benefits of not calling the US's debt. That could change one day, which is why the US needs to start cutting down its debt now, to ease some of the pressure later.

And I didn't say it was ethical - but what in politik is?
HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2010 9:50:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/27/2010 8:58:15 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 3/27/2010 8:56:10 PM, HandsOff wrote:
This all sounds wonderful. I can relax now. We can simply borrow more rest assured we will never be forced to pay up. There's nothing unethical about that. Why not borrow to pay for universal housing, food, shelter and transportation? Let's get going.

Now you're being silly. I said that there are no consequences that, as far as I can tell, outweigh the benefits of not calling the US's debt. That could change one day, which is why the US needs to start cutting down its debt now, to ease some of the pressure later.

And I didn't say it was ethical - but what in politik is?

getting paid would certainly be a good reason to call a debt. at some point the debt will be such a burden that interest payments will have to be negatively amortized. When the return is not sufficient, and it is evident there will never be repayment, anything is possible. But at least I've gotten a liberal to admit what winfall he thinks will save us from our debt. I've been trying to get that out of this group forever. The winfall of forgiveness in the interest of not rocking the boat. Now I understand the outcome you hope for. Obama did run on hope.