America: Here is your tax dollars.
- Thread starter Godwynn
- Start date
If it wasn't for the debt, I think the national economy would grow faster than inflation; which would mean that (even allowing for inflation) the same tax base should give a larger and larger budget with which to attack the debt.
Canada has been chipping away at its debt for more than a decade.
Canada has been chipping away at its debt for more than a decade.
First, we already have a partially private system. In all but the most rural school districts in America, parents will have another option besides the local public school within a 45 bus ride. Usually, that will be a catholic school.
It isn't economically viable to have a secular, private option in every school district. That doesn't mean there isnt school choice (Depending on your state, you could have public open enrollment options, a charter school, or a magnet), but the costs in creating a whole new private system would be HUGE. Poor students would get royally screwed.
Private schools don't always spend more anyways. Their income comes from tution (often waived) and donations, instead of a tax base. Catholic schools are the ones who are most often on budget crunch.
The Privatize everything crowd at CFC often thinks that because that had a bad teachers or too, that the public system is teh ruined, and it needs to be privatized...but that isn't the answer.
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
Catholic Schools also can't be considered to function economically, as they get funds from the Catholic Church.
How much though, depends on where they're located. Catholic School districts don't get money from Rome. If their Dioscese is hurting for money, they're going to outside revenue sources. Around Ohio, except for the top 4 or 5 elite schools (which focus more about being college-prep schools than for their religious education, and have a wealthy donor base), the myraid of other schools can't afford to spend more, and sometimes not even, what the local public district can.
Plus, if a school's population isn't Catholic enough, the church can cut off funding.
Raki
The European
Wrong. Either spend enough money all the time to be able to go to war whenever you like. Or go to war and then raise the military budget. I guess, in the US it's both.
This explains at least the qualitative and quantitative difference to the german army - we spend about 10.5% for nothing.
Way to support the troops in a time of war.
You know there's no quick answers but let me illustrate some of the structural problems.
I think it's a good idea to view the history since some of you were barely a twinkle in your parents eye.
First is the AMT that started in the early 70’s originally impacting less than 1% of the population. Today, the tax brings the government too much needed revenue to make any simple adjustment feasible and the problem is growing.
Constituent concerns, especially in high income blue states, will clearly drive Congress to deal with AMT but there also is the more fundamental consideration of Washington’s precious power. The issue here is tax deductions.
Washington uses people’s desire for deductions to control their spending and saving habits. When something gets a tax break, people do more of it. But because AMT disallows deductions, it will, as it grows, leave fewer Americans with reason to consider deductions. Washington, consequently, will lose economic influence. It will be interesting to watch how they tap dance around this one.
Next during the 80's, the “Greenspan commission on Social Security”, named for Alan Greenspan (the future Federal Reserve Board chairman). Greenspan’s team recommended a hike in the payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare that, when it was actually enacted, raised the take for these programs well beyond the needed outlays of the time. The problem you'll see is the government now uses these payroll revenues on an increasing basis. These taxes are regressive and in the case of Social Security they’re capped. I’m not sure we can afford to do this anymore.
Check the trend on how much more Congress depends on Soc Security/Medicare revenue. 2000 was a bit of an personal income aberration due to the internet bubble.
The story in Washington is one of mismanagement. If the politicians knew what they were doing, it is a story of inequity and hypocrisy. If they did not know what they are doing, then it is one of incompetence. Either way, neither Democrats nor Republicans can claim the high ground.
The abuse (or incompetence) clearly is bipartisan. Now, time is running out. Whichever party has power, Congress must begin acting to meet the demands of the retiring baby boomers and fill the budget gap.
I think it's a good idea to view the history since some of you were barely a twinkle in your parents eye.
First is the AMT that started in the early 70’s originally impacting less than 1% of the population. Today, the tax brings the government too much needed revenue to make any simple adjustment feasible and the problem is growing.
Constituent concerns, especially in high income blue states, will clearly drive Congress to deal with AMT but there also is the more fundamental consideration of Washington’s precious power. The issue here is tax deductions.
Washington uses people’s desire for deductions to control their spending and saving habits. When something gets a tax break, people do more of it. But because AMT disallows deductions, it will, as it grows, leave fewer Americans with reason to consider deductions. Washington, consequently, will lose economic influence. It will be interesting to watch how they tap dance around this one.
Next during the 80's, the “Greenspan commission on Social Security”, named for Alan Greenspan (the future Federal Reserve Board chairman). Greenspan’s team recommended a hike in the payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare that, when it was actually enacted, raised the take for these programs well beyond the needed outlays of the time. The problem you'll see is the government now uses these payroll revenues on an increasing basis. These taxes are regressive and in the case of Social Security they’re capped. I’m not sure we can afford to do this anymore.
Check the trend on how much more Congress depends on Soc Security/Medicare revenue. 2000 was a bit of an personal income aberration due to the internet bubble.
The story in Washington is one of mismanagement. If the politicians knew what they were doing, it is a story of inequity and hypocrisy. If they did not know what they are doing, then it is one of incompetence. Either way, neither Democrats nor Republicans can claim the high ground.
The abuse (or incompetence) clearly is bipartisan. Now, time is running out. Whichever party has power, Congress must begin acting to meet the demands of the retiring baby boomers and fill the budget gap.
Make boomers pick up their social security checks in Fallujah. Several problems solved at once.
Do you have anything constructive to say or is this just your nature?
Lockbox - which will never happen.
MamboJoel
Cool.
Note that it's not reducing the debt, it's just the interests...
In France it comes in 2nd place, just after education, about as much as military spendings...
Thank you and I agree.
What we may have to do, as much as it pains me, is consider scaling the Medicare and Social Security tax. I don't think Congress can adjust AMT quick enough without being a major disruption to the economy.
We need a complete overhaul of Medicare soon because that problem becomes exponential.
The AMT is a big problem. I think enough people are getting hit by it to understand the issue and that the Dems, if the were willing to reform the AMT, could get away with not making the Bush tax policies permanent.
Congressional Budget Office said the tax in 2006 affected more than one-third of all taxpayers with annual incomes in the $50,000–100,000 range. That is up from less than 3 percent of such taxpayers in the 2000 tax year.
But the Congress just tied their own hands by adopting rules that any new tax relief must find compensatory tax increases elsewhere in the budget or comparable cuts in spending (yeah, right).
My guess is the wage cap comes off Social Security. That one seems easy.
Aye. We tried that idea in this polsim, and we found it might just actually work... but then again, we did this with GOP control of Congress and the Presidency, so the chances of it happening in real life are the chances of the flying spaghetti monster for becoming Pope.
warpus
In pork I trust
I think this ought to cover it, 6% of the current budget to provide enough military, courts, and law enforcement to maintain order, and let the free market work on everything else. That would knock the current average income tax of 35% down to about 2.1%.
Ya, and what would be the incentive for a private company to maintain roads, build new ones, build & maintain libraries, schools, hospitals, fire stations, subways, canals, tunnels, harbours, sewage treatment plants, etc?
Their good will?
Private enterprize already does these. Reason? it makes money. (Except for the libraries. Those are usually philanthropic works)
Desmond Hawkins
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2002
- Messages
- 9,922
@aussieboy. Private enterprise generally demands a large initial public investment in infrastructure, even if they are willing to operate it.
Especially if it isn't expected to pay for itself for 50 or 60 years.
And what the hell is AMT?
Especially if it isn't expected to pay for itself for 50 or 60 years.
And what the hell is AMT?
Similar threads
- Locked
