AudiDudi
Recycles dryer sheets
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2018
- Messages
- 387
Perhaps spending needs to be decreaased and done more wisely.I can't imagine how they could go down overall. Tax revenue needs to be increased.
Perhaps spending needs to be decreaased and done more wisely.I can't imagine how they could go down overall. Tax revenue needs to be increased.
The message of the Laffer curve is that raising revenue is not as easy as simply raising tax rates. It's complicated.I can't imagine how they could go down overall. Tax revenue needs to be increased.
Now, there's an idea.Perhaps spending needs to be decreaased and done more wisely.
The problem is getting people to agree with WHAT spending should be decreased. If I was in charge I could 100% decrease spending but a lot of people would be upset with what I did. What qualifies as "wisely" is very subjective.Perhaps spending needs to be decreaased and done more wisely.
If that's true (and I have no reason to doubt it) then tax receipts falling as % GDP is a COMPELLING argument to cut spending. It's what we have all done here - lived within our means.US federal taxes as a % of GDP are at the lowest they have been outside of recession in 50 years. It’s not easy to make the case spending is too high when tax receipts % of GDP are falling.
A 100% decrease would mean no Treasury note/bill/bond interest would be paid and no SS or similar payments.The problem is getting people to agree with WHAT spending should be decreased. If I was in charge I could 100% decrease spending but a lot of people would be upset with what I did. What qualifies as "wisely" is very subjective.
That's not what I meant.A 100% decrease would mean no Treasury note/bill/bond interest would be paid and no SS or similar payments.
So yes, you would likely be taken out back and shot...
Then you need to read up on where the money in the Federal budget goes...That's not what I meant.
We don't have that magical printing press in the basement (at least I don't )If that's true (and I have no reason to doubt it) then tax receipts falling as % GDP is a COMPELLING argument to cut spending. It's what we have all done here - lived within our means.
I know what you meant. (not 100% reduction but rather you 100%, all by yourself.)That's not what I meant.
You're closer.I know what you meant. (not 100% reduction but rather you 100%, all by yourself.)
A 100% decrease would mean no Treasury note/bill/bond interest would be paid and no SS or similar payments.
So yes, you would likely be taken out back and shot...
Probably not...I'm wondering if, as being discussed, SALT is modified/increased, would they make it retroactive to the 2024 tax year? Retroactive impacts have been done in the past.
Flieger
Spending hasn’t been $4T in a while, it was $5.47T in 2019. It went up dramatically in 2020-21 and then dropped in 2022. You know you can easily look this stuff up before you post…Saw someone today saying that the federal budget has gone from $4 trillion to over $6 trillion since just before the pandemic...
Nothing to back this up but I do not think that the spending has gone down that much... raised during the pandemic and that is the new base to do next years budget...
Ding Ding Ding, we have a winnerI could 100% decrease = I could absolutely decrease
That’s what they meant
Makes no sense at all for a system that's facing insolvency in about 10 years, but we'll see.Removing SS taxation would reduce my FIT by 35%. Of course, if I outlive the reduced exaustion date, I would quickly lose any gains I made and more.
You mean a politician liedSpending hasn’t been $4T in a while, it was $5.47T in 2019. It went up dramatically in 2020-21 and then dropped in 2022. You know you can easily look this stuff up before you post…