2012-2021 Budget

• tk421

  

  Take a look at historical tax revenues as a percentage of GDP. The highest this has EVER been since 1934 is 20.9% of GDP. IF you have the exact same rate, tax revenues would only be 3.087 Trillion dollars at 21% of a GDP of 14.7 Trillion (2010). The federal government is set to spend around 3.6 Trillion dollars in 2011, so you obviously have a spending problem here. The highest percentage of tax revenue as % of GDP WILL NOT cover the spending for this year.
  
  If you look at the projected numbers for the White House budget, by 2015 (deep into Obama's hopefully not second term) the government is projected to spend around 4.2 Trillion dollars. They have receipts as being 19.1% of a GDP of almost 19 Trillion, still a deficit of 600 Billion. So, the White House expects the U.S. economy to be worth 4 Trillion more dollars in only four years. Does anyone on here honestly expect our GDP to grow 4 Trillion in 4 Years?
  
  Even by the White House projected budget numbers, they would need tax receipts of at least 25% of GDP every year to cover the projected budget numbers until 2021. 5% points higher than it has ever been in over 80 years, we still don't have a spending problem? If someone can look at these numbers and say that the government doesn't spend too much, I don't know what to tell them.
  
  http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205
  
  http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/tables.pdf
• gut

  Preaching to the choir....But Obama is going to magically figure out a way to raise taxes to collect 24% of GDP.
  
  I laugh every time the Dems play the class-warfare card talking like closing a few loopholes and raising taxes on hedge funds and jet owners is going to magically erase a $1.7trillion deficit. Personally I think the GOP should let them have their tax increases and then hammer them when it doesn't get the job done.
• tk421

  

  gut;822044 wrote:Preaching to the choir....But Obama is going to magically figure out a way to raise taxes to collect 24% of GDP.
  
  I laugh every time the Dems play the class-warfare card talking like closing a few loopholes and raising taxes on hedge funds and jet owners is going to magically erase a $1.7trillion deficit. Personally I think the GOP should let them have their tax increases and then hammer them when it doesn't get the job done.

  
  not only that, but in less than 5 years our GDP is going to be around 20 Trillion dollars. Hallelujah! Obama has saved us, 1 Trillion dollar growth a year in GDP, wow.
• dwccrew

  

  The proof is evident and has been way before you posted this.
• tk421

  

  Yet liberals seem not to understand the data.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  They understand it -- they just don't accept it.
  
  Which is the REAL problem.
• tk421

  

  So, there is the solution. That 21% of revenue for GDP represents a significant tax increase, yet the spending is 16% more than receipts. The obvious solution seems to be raising tax receipts to that 21% level and at the same time slashing government 20% across the board. Problem solved, use whatever excess there is to pay down the debt.
  
  I'd also suggest a constitutional amendment requiring Congress to set spending to the previous year's receipts. Of course, we all know I have a better chance of dying and becoming a zombie from some virus than Congress ever doing something worthwhile for the American people.
  
  I wonder if I bothered emailing the White House, if they'd read my solution to the budget crisis?
  
  Oh, yeah obviously ending the wars we are currently in and bringing the troops home would give even more money to use for paying down the debt.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Not going to dispute what you are saying but only ask what some of my professors taught me, "Don't tell me what you want, tell me how you will make it happen."
  
  How is it possible that the R's will have enough influence to pass a budget that is 20% less? Where will the votes come from? How would you break the 60 vote fillibuster in the Senate?
  
  How on earth would you get a Constitutional Amendment through the process, considering we haven't seen one in nearly 40 years?
  How would you cut the defense budget, yet not tick off Congress or endanger allies?
• tk421

  

  You don't, which is why this is all a pipe dream and I see the U.S. heading towards a financial ruin. If some podunk nobody from southern Ohio can run the numbers and see that with a one time cut with a modest tax increase to 21% of GDP; 3% growth in GDP, revenue and government spending per year are possible as well as having a sizable surplus each and every year to pay down our debt, you'd think people supposedly as smart as our representatives would be able to figure that out.
  
  One time hurt would lead to a big gain for this country, with a balanced budget and paying down the debt the economy would boom. Jobs would increase, tax revenues would go even higher, but oh well.
• tk421

  

  I renamed this thread because I want you all to look at this and tell me what you think.
  
  
  
  So, what do you all think? Would this be workable in this political landscape? I'm assuming after the 1st year 20% cut of the government, 3% growth in GDP and government spending per year. You keep the tax rate at 21% of GDP through modest tax increases, closing loop holes, etc. As you can see, after a decade you've paid down the debt over 2.3 Trillion dollars.
• majorspark

  

  ptown_trojans_1;822119 wrote:How is it possible that the R's will have enough influence to pass a budget that is 20% less?

  Currently congress will not allow it.
  

  ptown_trojans_1;822119 wrote:Where will the votes come from?

  Currently they don't have them.
  

  ptown_trojans_1;822119 wrote:How would you break the 60 vote fillibuster in the Senate?

  Its not going to happen under current political and economic conditions.
  

  ptown_trojans_1;822119 wrote:How on earth would you get a Constitutional Amendment through the process, considering we haven't seen one in nearly 40 years?

  Interesting you should bring this up. The only amendment drought greater that this was from June 15, 1804 to December 6, 1865. A 61 1/2yr drought ended by the Civil War. When the constitutional amendment process (the vehicle the founders gave us to resolve our most difficult constitutional and political differences peacefully) is considered an impossibility, danger lurks at the door.
  

  ptown_trojans_1;822119 wrote:How would you cut the defense budget, yet not tick off Congress or endanger allies?

  Currently congress does not posses the will to do so. They will not "endanger allies", leave troops in the field, ill equip them, close foreign bases or scale them back, etc...
  

  ptown_trojans_1;822119 wrote:Not going to dispute what you are saying but only ask what some of my professors taught me, "Don't tell me what you want, tell me how you will make it happen."

  I moved this question to the end becuase it sums up the futility of our government (and the people who support it) coming to the correct conclusion on its own outside of external economic and political forces. The basic laws of economics like the basic laws of mathematics cannot be violated.
  
  The government cannot declare that 2+2=5. The feds cannot continue to ignore numbers. They will be forced to at some point. It will take revolutionary force to turn this ship around. I am not saying it will be violent. Many strong revolutionary moments have occurred in world history with little or no violence. That has not been our history though. Just sayin.
• dwccrew

  

  Steal as much as you can for as long as you can. The gov't does it, why not you too?
• I Wear Pants

  No one has said we don't have a spending problem. Just some of us think that it's not wise to also reduce our income when we have a spending problem (and while we should definitely lessen our spending I still don't think it's the best idea to lower the income even then because I'd rather pay things off more quicky).
  
  We have a spending problem that's for sure, but I disagree with the idea that we're over taxed.
• tk421

  

  I Wear Pants;822179 wrote:No one has said we don't have a spending problem. Just some of us think that it's not wise to also reduce our income when we have a spending problem (and while we should definitely lessen our spending I still don't think it's the best idea to lower the income even then because I'd rather pay things off more quicky).
  
  We have a spending problem that's for sure, but I disagree with the idea that we're over taxed.

  
  I'm not reducing income, in fact it would increase almost 7% of GDP along with the 20% budget cut.
• believer

  

  I Wear Pants;822179 wrote:We have a spending problem that's for sure, but I disagree with the idea that we're over taxed.

  I haven't seen ANYONE posting anything about cutting taxes. Current tax rates + spending cuts = economic sanity.
• gut

  I don't think collecting 21% of GDP in revenues is sustainable or good for the economy. The historical average is around 18%, and has hit 21% like just once despite all kinds of different tax regimes.
• coyotes22

  

  How out in right field, and stupid is this idea, to increasing GDP and collecting more taxes, without raising taxes:
  
  Taxes- Cut the National Minimum wage back from $7.25 to $6. This allows for employers to hire more people. Lowers unemployment, and at the same time, increases tax revenue. (because more people that have a job, more money comes in, via taxes,,, just so the liberals are clear on that) This may also help fix the GDP----
  
  GDP- Get the Governments hand out of the Housing cookie jar. Let the banks and Mortgage companies offer houses at cheaper interest rates, without predatory lending. The Government should not have control of Mortgages anyway. This is a bad thing, as now the Gov. owns houses and land, that they should not own. If we can get more people jobs, and they buy houses, the GDP goes up. The housing markets is what, 17-18% of the GDP?
  
  Lower Min. Wage, quit telling companies and businesses how to operate (because we all know how the Gov runs the post office), get the housing market back on track. All this, plus cut more Gov. spending.
• dwccrew

  

  coyotes22;822357 wrote:How out in right field, and stupid is this idea, to increasing GDP and collecting more taxes, without raising taxes:
  
  Taxes- Cut the National Minimum wage back from $7.25 to $6. This allows for employers to hire more people. Lowers unemployment, and at the same time, increases tax revenue. (because more people that have a job, more money comes in, via taxes,,, just so the liberals are clear on that) This may also help fix the GDP----
  
  GDP- Get the Governments hand out of the Housing cookie jar. Let the banks and Mortgage companies offer houses at cheaper interest rates, without predatory lending. The Government should not have control of Mortgages anyway. This is a bad thing, as now the Gov. owns houses and land, that they should not own. If we can get more people jobs, and they buy houses, the GDP goes up. The housing markets is what, 17-18% of the GDP?
  
  Lower Min. Wage, quit telling companies and businesses how to operate (because we all know how the Gov runs the post office), get the housing market back on track. All this, plus cut more Gov. spending.

  
  Do you honestly believe that the people that make minimum wage are paying anything in taxes? Generally they get a full refund at the end of the year. If anything, the gov't should eliminate minimum wage all together. Let the free market dictate how much a job should be paid. If an employer offers $3 an hour, no one will apply for that job, forcing them to offer higher pay.
• jmog

  I Wear Pants;822179 wrote:No one has said we don't have a spending problem. Just some of us think that it's not wise to also reduce our income when we have a spending problem (and while we should definitely lessen our spending I still don't think it's the best idea to lower the income even then because I'd rather pay things off more quicky).
  
  We have a spending problem that's for sure, but I disagree with the idea that we're over taxed.

  
  I can buy that, cut spending leave taxes where they are.
  
  
  If they can balance the budget quickly (year or 2) by doing that, at that point I'd be more than willing to accept tax increases if in the law for the tax increase it states it is going to pay off the debt (not deficit).
  
  I think you would find most conservatives would be willing to go with that.
  
  I also don't think most conservatives are asking for tax cuts right now, they are saying leave the tax levels alone, right where they are.
• fish82

  

  jmog;822390 wrote:I can buy that, cut spending leave taxes where they are.
  
  
  If they can balance the budget quickly (year or 2) by doing that, at that point I'd be more than willing to accept tax increases if in the law for the tax increase it states it is going to pay off the debt (not deficit).
  
  I think you would find most conservatives would be willing to go with that.
  
  I also don't think most conservatives are asking for tax cuts right now, they are saying leave the tax levels alone, right where they are.

  +1
• derek bomar

  

  coyotes22;822357 wrote:How out in right field, and stupid is this idea, to increasing GDP and collecting more taxes, without raising taxes:
  
  Taxes- Cut the National Minimum wage back from $7.25 to $6. This allows for employers to hire more people. Lowers unemployment, and at the same time, increases tax revenue. (because more people that have a job, more money comes in, via taxes,,, just so the liberals are clear on that) This may also help fix the GDP----
  
  GDP- Get the Governments hand out of the Housing cookie jar. Let the banks and Mortgage companies offer houses at cheaper interest rates, without predatory lending. The Government should not have control of Mortgages anyway. This is a bad thing, as now the Gov. owns houses and land, that they should not own. If we can get more people jobs, and they buy houses, the GDP goes up. The housing markets is what, 17-18% of the GDP?
  
  Lower Min. Wage, quit telling companies and businesses how to operate (because we all know how the Gov runs the post office), get the housing market back on track. All this, plus cut more Gov. spending.

  
  lol @ fixing the problem by counting on taxes from those who don't (and won't) pay taxes if they're hired
• BGFalcons82

  

  dwccrew;822370 wrote:Do you honestly believe that the people that make minimum wage are paying anything in taxes?

  
  Yes. I'm pretty sure the FICA tax kicks in at the first dollar earned. AND the employer matches it, so the minimum wage folks indeed pay a net rate of almost 15% on every dollar earned. This is also one of the beneficial tenets of the Fair Tax program. Under the Fair Tax, roughly the first $27,000 of income has the taxes rebated, so those earning less than this amount do NOT pay FICA tax, as it would be eliminated (www.fairtax.org).
  
  As we all know, the FICA tax goes into the Medicaid and Social Security "Trust Fund". This is the fund that is currently running at a surplus (for not much longer however) and the spendaholics in DC can't control their money-lust greed from grabbing the surplus and giving the "Trust Fund" an IOU to tide them over.
  

  If anything, the gov't should eliminate minimum wage all together. Let the free market dictate how much a job should be paid. If an employer offers $3 an hour, no one will apply for that job, forcing them to offer higher pay.

  Absolutely true. I would also add that at lower wages, the turnover costs, quality control concerns, and training costs would force the business to pay a higher wage for employee retention.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  jmog;822390 wrote:I can buy that, cut spending leave taxes where they are.
  
  
  If they can balance the budget quickly (year or 2) by doing that, at that point I'd be more than willing to accept tax increases if in the law for the tax increase it states it is going to pay off the debt (not deficit).
  
  I think you would find most conservatives would be willing to go with that.
  
  I also don't think most conservatives are asking for tax cuts right now, they are saying leave the tax levels alone, right where they are.

  
  +2
• derek bomar

  

  dwccrew;822370 wrote:Do you honestly believe that the people that make minimum wage are paying anything in taxes? Generally they get a full refund at the end of the year. If anything, the gov't should eliminate minimum wage all together. Let the free market dictate how much a job should be paid. If an employer offers $3 an hour, no one will apply for that job, forcing them to offer higher pay.

  
  I agree with this.
• Footwedge

  dwccrew;822370 wrote:Do you honestly believe that the people that make minimum wage are paying anything in taxes? Generally they get a full refund at the end of the year. If anything, the gov't should eliminate minimum wage all together. Let the free market dictate how much a job should be paid. If an employer offers $3 an hour, no one will apply for that job, forcing them to offer higher pay.

  With all due respects to you Mr. Crew......if you eliminate the minimum wage law then you will have plenty of people working at 3 bucks an hour.....or a boatload more people on welfare. Our system today is already designed to reap an end game of 2 classes....and 2 classes only. History over the past 30 years or so has proven that. It is just a matter of time. You eliminate the minimum wage laws, then you are simply hastening the process.