US National Debt Crisis Simplified

[Canuker]

The rally in gold does not equate to the decline of the US$. I think there are going to be a lot of hurt mom's and pop's when the investment industry exits.  If there was a true decline of the dollar equal to the rise in gold you would see every other US$ denominated commodity rising with the same fury and inflation would be insane.

The theory says that the reduced purchasing power of the dollar is what drives up the price, not so for gold.

[Paulonius]

The US Credit rating was downgraded by some analyst companies (Fitch, S&P), but with political wrangling and arguing the rating was "put back" by Moody's and other agencies.  Now if I could just argue my credit rating when I don't pay my bills...

Re. Canuker's comments:  When I see gold advertised on TV, I don't see a buying opportunity, I see people who know what they are doing speculating in gold selling it.  Honestly, when I think doomsday scenario for the economy I think self-sufficiency and self defense, I don't think gold -- particularly since watching the Katrina footage. Before I buy gold I will "invest" in burying 6-10 Kalishikovs, 20,000 rounds and a bullet press sealed in grease in my backyard -- but that is just my particular kind of crazy.

Speaking of Katrina, watching that mess is part of what made me want to move out of the middle of Chicago.  Complete anarchy is a lot closer in larger cities.

[Endless Night]

The US Credit rating was downgraded by some analyst companies (Fitch, S&P), but with political wrangling and arguing the rating was "put back" by Moody's and other agencies.  Now if I could just argue my credit rating when I don't pay my bills...

and we all know we can trust Moody's right .. i mean its not like moodys placed all those AAA ratings on those uncollectable mortgage packages is it... ow wait that was them .. oopps my bad .. but we can still trust them they would never do that again would they .. ??!!

[Cerveza]

Well, I know that there isn't a household in America that can survive on that budget.

It's time for "those that have" to put in their fair share.

As the economy tanks, the middle class are being hit the hardest. Jobs are being lost and more middle class are unemployed now then ever, thus the tax money that comes from middle class is less then ever. Meanwhile big money in America continues to go unchecked. Oil companies claim they "lost" billions when in fact they simply didn't make as much as they previously made. That's not losing LOL, it's just not gaining as much.

I hate to admit this, but Perot and Buchannan actually had some great ideas that I'm seeing make more sense. The biggest two things we could do to help ourselves out of this bind are A) Term Limits and B) Flat Taxes.

The problem is that both items depend on the rich and those in government to get them going and there is no way that they will because it directly affects them.

Oh well. I'm debating moving to Canada eh?

[Paulonius]

I am not convinced that flat taxes or term limits solve much. 

Term limits will tend to create more situations where politicians are unafraid to do the right thing because they know they are leaving office, but that only seems to make a difference right at the end of the last term.  I would almost rather see lifetime appointments subject to regular votes of confidence.  Not sure that is the right solution, but what we have now is a mess.  No one seems to have the stomach to do the right thing where its unpopular. Grow a pair doesn't seem to be catching on and I submit that its not just an American problem.

Flat taxes sound fair, like a VAT (consumption tax), until you consider that ultimately more of the burden, proportionate to income, falls on the poor.  The more you make, the smaller your real expenses are as a proportion of your income.  It doesn't seem popular, but I honestly don't see how it isn't fair that higher earners pay a larger share.  I don't know if that thresshold should be $250,000, but somewhere in there a graduated higher tax seems only reasonable. 

[Cerveza]

Well... after one gets elected the agenda changes dramatically. From promises and good intentions to "how do I keep this cush job". That's the issue. It's so difficult to get someone out once they get in, like cockroaches I suppose. Forcing term limits makes members know that they won't be able to milk the money cow forever, which is how it is now, and maybe they will pay more attention to the promises that got them elected in the first place.

Flat taxes. I agree that there should be some type of scale which starts at 0 for destitute and goes up to say 10% for the rich, it's just easier to say 8% across the board. The point is that if the rich paid the same percentage that I pay there would be no national debt in less then 5 years. Many of the "rich" agree with contributing more, the problem is that there isn't enough on board.

Both of those would eliminate much of whats wrong in America today.

[Canuker]

Some type of flat/consumption tax would have to see a raising of the tax bracket.  I'm not sure what a good level would be but I think that 25K with additional reductions for children would be a good start. 

What is the average wage per year in the US?

[Endless Night]

I think income Flat taxes have potential..., except on the very poor + some.  TO pull a number out of thin air I would say zero tax on all income less than 80k for a family of 4.  A Penny after that 10-30% flat tax across the board .  NO DEDUCTIONS NO EXCEPTIONS.   (that might generate so much tax revenue that it would need to be reduced)

Of course all that would really mean is that the mega rich who pay practically zero tax, currently would use more corporate law to hide their money than they currently do, and never actually have very much income to get taxed.

thats the sad truth of it.

[Crome969]

I think income Flat taxes have potential..., except on the very poor + some.  TO pull a number out of thin air I would say zero tax on all income less than 80k for a family of 4.  A Penny after that 10-30% flat tax across the board .  NO DEDUCTIONS NO EXCEPTIONS.   (that might generate so much tax revenue that it would need to be reduced)

Of course all that would really mean is that the mega rich who pay practically zero tax, currently would use more corporate law to hide their money than they currently do, and never actually have very much income to get taxed.

thats the sad truth of it.

Existence Minimum to live saving. and than as a Algorythm a raising tax for more money you earn.
u said 80k per year? that would be pretty much in Germany.
A standart good Earner( IT Developer as example) earning 3-5k per month.Some times ago a show asked some prominents from Germany, when they would say you count as poor.
The result were 70% of the asked Persons said : Under 300K a year you are poor like a begger...

[Paulonius]

If you take a similar poll in the US you will get different answers depending on who you ask and where you ask them.  The cost of living in Manhattan is a lot higher than in the Midwest. 

If you live in a country like Canada or Germany offset your earnings valuation by costs that you don't have to pay.  We let every Tom Dick and Susan go to university, and its subsidized, but it is primarily the responsiblity of the parents and the student to pay or borrow to cover it.  Employers used to pay for health insurance for most full time employees, but that is going away.  Small business owners like myself have always had to pay for their own health insurance costs. I pay $14,000 a year for health insurance for my family and its not a great plan.

[Crome969]

[Canuker]

While the public health system is good in Canada I plan on purchasing a secondary plan if and when I can.  There are certain benifits derived from such that you just can't get in the public...like quicker service.  I know of a person in my office who was given a death sentence via cancer in Canada who went to Texas and is 5+ years still alive but I could only guess on what the cost of doing this was.

[UOMaddog]

I am of the mindset that we should have a flat tax for EVERYONE! To me, that's the only version of "fair share" that is acceptable and here's why:

My boss makes roughly $245,000 a year running his own private consulting business. His wife wanted to get a part time job for extra income, however if she made more than $5k in a year, they'd be bumped up to the $250,000 tax bracket and pay $10,000 more in taxes which means they actually LOSE $5,000! This gives his wife NO incentive to work! Why should ANY family be punished for working harder and making money?!?!

Here's how I see it: I have always thought a 10% flat income tax would be reasonable (although I wouldn't mind Herman Cain's 9% since it'd be cheaper   ). Here's how you do your taxes: add up all income and move the decimal point one place to the left! DONE! Bye bye IRS (except for a few auditors). All of you who say "the rich should pay more!" are right, AND THEY DO! THEY HAVE FOR YEARS! If you make $5,000 a year, you pay $500. If you make $5,000,000 a year, you pay $500,000! Now some people say this is "regressive" because people who are "rich" can afford MORE than 10% and people who are "poor" CANT afford 10%, but I say that if you're "poor" you're probably getting other money from the government anyways so you'll probably recoup your $500 (not that I really agree with that, but oh well, one step at a time).

For as long as you have tax "brackets" there will always be some point where an individual will get a "raise" that will actually HURT them, instead of helping them and that is WRONG!

And a sidenote for some food for thought, a recent study was done that said, even if you raised taxes on anyone making over $250,000 to 75%, you could still not raise enough in tax revenue to offset the debt limit increase! (That means we need to cut spending!)

[Toptwo]

I think something everybody is forgetting is that we need to have a flat tax on corporations and CHURCH. If you look at this country most of the corporations have HUGE loopholes, you cant tell me companies like Exxon or Microsoft are paying thier fair share...and dont even get me started on church's...They make more money then anybody. Church's are the richest corporations in the world, and they are ALL tax free!  Make em start paying!

  And by that I mean they MUST pay on everything..not only the HUGE amounts of cash they take in, but pay taxes on all of thier real estate holdings...I believe I once read that the catholic church was the largest holder of real estate (besides the federal government) in the U.S...and they pay NO TAXES.

  Thats just the catholic church, there are TONS more that own a LOT and pay NOTHING!

[Paulonius]

I don't disagree with TT, corps are completely flush right now, not hiring, and to a large degree not investing.  There is a TON of money sitting on the sidelines right now, and guess what? Its not helping the economy, and its corporations, for the most part, sitting on it.  Where is the trickle down there?

MD, I would agree with a flat tax as long as it had an offset at the bottom end that accounted for very low wage earners.  I don't think we should be taking anything from a family of four that is making $40,000 a year. I don't know where the number is, but there is a cost of subsistance that ought to fly beneath the tax hit.