Isn't Raising Taxes Necessary For The Financial Well Being Of The

[dairygirl4u2c]

isn't raising taxes necessary for the financial well being of the country, aside from utilzing government health care?

 

where are the cuts going to come from to balance the budget, if there are no tax increases?

 

background, we have a seventeen trillion dollar debt, and a deficit that fluctuates up to a trillion a year. everyone worth their salt as an expert says we need to do something about the deficit.

 

about ten percent of the budget is spent on the poor, so even if you cut that in half, it wouldn't make much of a difference. 

 

even if you privatized social security, we'd still have current expenditures to maintain our promise to current retirees, which almost everyone agrees should be done. and most dont want privatized anyways, but again if they did we still have current expenditure to worry about. 

 

perhaps gutting medicare and medicaid would us from having to increase taxes, but is that really what we want, and really necessary? health care is a basic necesssity, a basic right, if you aren't just lazy, no?

plus we should be going in the direction of government health care, or tightly regulated private insurance. all other countries spend around ten percent GDP on healthcare, whereas we spend around 17 percent. that's a savings of a trillion dollars in itself. in fact, if we dont want to increase taxes, or gut government health care, the only other way to save the country's finances is via government health care. 

 

where else would we cut anything of signfiicance? sure there's plenty of waste and fraud and abuse out there, but as far as i can see, the only structurally significant reform is government health care or increasing taxes. 

 

to put it in perspective, roughly, we got 500 billion on defense, 500 billion on interest and debt payments, 500 billion in social security, 500 billion on general government expenses, and 500 billion going on a trillion in health care. 

most "poor' people and general government expenditures, which are often a rallying cry of conservatives, is not much in way of significance.

historically, we had much higher tax rates, and other counties do too, and they all show how a country can do just fine that way. 
http://newsjunkiepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Top-Tax-Rates-1917-20101.png

i grant that im not sure how superfluous government pensions and perks are factored into the whole budget, there's surely places of mention in these areas. 

as per "growing" ourselves out of the problem, historically the government's revenue is only 18% of GDP, which is back to its historical average. i dont see how one could expect to do much better. 

 

so aside from government health care, i dont see how else we can balance the budget other than by increasing taxes. 

Edited June 29, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c

[havok579257]

stop giving corperations tax breaks.  use a fair tax system and that would greatly help.  the rich would pay more in taxes.  although for some reason liberals are against this.  could it be because they get tax breaks and want to keep their tax breaks they just want to appear like they are outraged.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

I think conservatives and liberals agree that something should be done about these problems. We have to realize, however, that the government uses force to get money (see what happens when you refuse to pay your taxes). The better question is, would you personally hold someone up at gunpoint and demand that they contribute to funding project x? If not, why is it any less immoral for our government to do this?

Edited July 4, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[Dr. Bombay]

Why don't they just tax everyone at a 100% rate and then the government will never run out of money!

You're welcome.

[PhuturePriest]

How about we just cut down spending AND taxes, that way we can use our money to pay off our debt? Health care means nothing if we have so much debt the economy collapses. Then we have no money AND no health care. I don't think people quite understand the implications of being seventeen trillion dollars in debt...

[Era Might]

How about we just cut down spending AND taxes, that way we can use our money to pay off our debt? Health care means nothing if we have so much debt the economy collapses. Then we have no money AND no health care. I don't think people quite understand the implications of being seventeen trillion dollars in debt...

 

USA has 15 trillion dollar GDP. Debt is a concern, but we're talking about a country that is in that number range. It's like if a person takes out a $250,000 dollar loan...it's a lot if you make $34,000 a year, but not if you make $250,000 a year...financial context. And, of course, the economy is not a personal bank account...it doesn't help much to imagine national debt like personal finances...there are very complicated, international factors in play.

[PhuturePriest]

USA has 15 trillion dollar GDP. Debt is a concern, but we're talking about a country that is in that number range. It's like if a person takes out a $250,000 dollar loan...it's a lot if you make $34,000 a year, but not if you make $250,000 a year...financial context. And, of course, the economy is not a personal bank account...it doesn't help much to imagine national debt like personal finances...there are very complicated, international factors in play.

 

But we're spending more than we're making, adding to the debt. We can pay for it if we stop spending, but that means cutting off many government programs completely, and people will lose their minds over that.

[Era Might]

But we're spending more than we're making, adding to the debt. We can pay for it if we stop spending, but that means cutting off many government programs completely, and people will lose their minds over that.

 

Infrastructure investment is crucial to the sustainability of modern nations. Merely having debt is not, I don't think, a good indicator of the health or trouble of a nation. All debt, personal or governmental, implies that you are living beyond  your means...the question is whether you are going to get a return on that investment. That is definitely a legitimate question whether how we spend our money is going to pay off, not just now but 10, 20, 50, 100 years from now. Something like education investment has long-term implications. It's not something you can just leave to the private sector, because the private sector follows its own best interests, not the country's. In Brazil, for example, they currently have a burgeoning economy, but they don't have the education infrastructure and it's uncertain whether they can maintain that long-term. And "cutting off government programs" sounds fine in theory, but there are people behind every governmental decision. Nobody has a problem with cutting off government programs until they're the ones being affected.

[dairygirl4u2c]

it's not that i'm against tax cuts. i just dont see how it's possible to do it all with cuts, unless it's infringing on important programs, or something politically not feasible. 

 

ive never seen a decent run down of what is cut, without vague references or something politically not possible. 

[havok579257]

How about we just cut down spending AND taxes, that way we can use our money to pay off our debt? Health care means nothing if we have so much debt the economy collapses. Then we have no money AND no health care. I don't think people quite understand the implications of being seventeen trillion dollars in debt...

 

 

the problem is when  it comes to spending cuts everyone wants cuts to every program but theirs.  I am not talking about politicians but normal people.  people who don't use food stamps want cuts there.  people who are not blind want cuts to those programs.  so on and so on. 

 

I am against any cuts unless we first cut non essential things like money for parks and such.  no way we should be spending millions of dollars a year on things like parks and rec but then demand we cut things like food stamps and indigent care.  if people were willing to make cuts to no essential things first or things which need no more money(military) added to their budgets then I think the debt would be greatly decreased. 

 

I just think its wrong to cut things which help people before we cut things for leisure or things that have over bloated budgets.

[Winchester]

[havok579257]

 

 

sorry but a park ranger is non essential.  when so many children are starving in this country I think they should come first. 

Edited July 14, 2013 by havok579257

[ithinkjesusiscool]

isn't raising taxes necessary for the financial well being of the country, aside from utilzing government health care?

 

Well, I don't think it's that easy. Look at countries like Sweden

Do you really want taxation after reading that!?

btw, what's "aside from utilzing government health care" supposed to mean?

[havok579257]

Well, I don't think it's that easy. Look at countries like Sweden

Do you really want taxation after reading that!?

btw, what's "aside from utilzing government health care" supposed to mean?

 

 

if I am not mistaken isn't Sweden a country where there is universal healthcare and no one dies due to lack of healthcare?

 

we need to remember universal healthcare is a good thing and has been called for by our bishops for close to 100 years I think.  just because the current administration screwed it up doesn't mean we should abandon the idea of it all together.  we need healthcare for all.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i went on to explain my healthcare point. we spent eighteen percent GDP on health care, and other major countrires only around ten percent. and they cover everyone and have better health care results. that eight percent represents a trillion dollars, enough to pay down our debt and take care of bussienss.

we could literally save our country by also saving ourselves in ehalth care.

they usually call it single payer ehalthcare, but sometimes it's tightly regulated private insruance. eitehr way, its saves money, and is a win win situation fior everyone.