Where would you like your tax dollars to go?

[popeyespappy]

I thought Social Security was not funded by the government, but by people paying into it?  I'm not sure I trust this graph, then.

Also, I think it's pretty clear we need to increase revenue, not just cut spending.  The current admin will cut revenue by cutting taxes on those who can afford to pay them by quite a lot.  This needs to be reversed.  The top 1% used to pay much higher taxes and get along just fine, and the economy did better as well.

We can find places to make cuts, but cuts alone aren't ever going to cut it (pun intended) if we don't also find a way to pay for the things we do want.

It's a CBO chart for physical year 2016, and I'm not sure I trust it completely either. For example the chart lists interest on the debt at $241 billion, but the treasury has 2016 interest at $432 billion. But that doesn't mean the chart doesn't illustrate my point that total defense spending is less than total deficit spending. Deficit spending remains more than the entire defense budget. The average annual deficit from 2000 through 2016 was $818.66 billion a year. In 2016 alone it was $1.4 trillion.

The chart also shows that social security and medicare tax revenue are only about 75% of social security and medicare spending by a wide margin. Those numbers don't even include medicaid and other mandatory entitlement spending which add almost another $1 trillion to the bill.

[Aroura]

As I said, I agree that cuts alone won't fix the US debt. We need increased revenue. Sadly, that does not seem likely for at least 4 years. Our debt is only going to continue to get worse.

[popeyespappy]

As I said, I agree that cuts alone won't fix the US debt.  We need increased revenue.  Sadly, that does not seem likely for at least 4 years.  Our debt is only going to continue to get worse.

According to republican math tax cuts = increased revenue though economic growth. While history does show lower taxes often leads to faster growth, more often than not it also shows that the growth is not enough to increase revenue by the predicted amount.

---

Properly fund health care through a tax on everyone, none of this insurance shit.

Implementing a single payer healthcare system in the US is probably harder than balancing the budget.

How would you do it?

[Mister Agenda]

I question that 130 billion (around 25% of the total military budget) a year combined with current payments (around 400 billion) would not begin to pay down the debt. That's like saying that if I'm meeting the minimum payment on my debts and increased what I'm paying by 35%, I wouldn't get out of debt sooner, or at least go into debt slower, depending on the terms. The debt has been growing (nearly 20 trillion dollars now) because of course we've been borrowing more than we've been repaying, not unusual in a recession (or a war followed by a recession). Paying more than the minimum without increasing borrowing will reduce it.

The problem with what you're saying is reducing spending by $130 billion doesn't balance the budget. Annual spending will still be more than annual revenue. We are still going to be borrowing, and the debt will continue to rise until we stop borrowing. Completely zeroing out defense spending wouldn't balance the budget.  



Zeroing out the defense budget would have negative effects as well. Not the least of which is 6 million more people (about 5% of the workforce) would suddenly become unemployed. That would double the unemployment rate, and probably send us into another depression. That would reduce revenue and make it even harder to balance the budget.

Don't get me wrong. I think we should reduce spending starting with defense. I think we should increase tax revenue starting with raising social security and medicare taxes. We need to get to the point where we can start paying down the debt. Getting there without crashing the economy is going to be the equivalent of juggling chainsaws and flaming cats while riding a unicycle across a loose tightrope in gale force winds. It ain't going to be easy.

I feel kind of bad about not claiming it would balance the budget, considering all the work you're putting into refuting that claim.

A: Hey, I'm paying $100 a month on this card, but I need to be paying $150 just to not go farther in debt. I found something in my budget to cut that will let me pay $125 a month.

B: No, don't do that! Your budget still won't be balanced!

[popeyespappy]

The problem with what you're saying is reducing spending by $130 billion doesn't balance the budget. Annual spending will still be more than annual revenue. We are still going to be borrowing, and the debt will continue to rise until we stop borrowing. Completely zeroing out defense spending wouldn't balance the budget.  



Zeroing out the defense budget would have negative effects as well. Not the least of which is 6 million more people (about 5% of the workforce) would suddenly become unemployed. That would double the unemployment rate, and probably send us into another depression. That would reduce revenue and make it even harder to balance the budget.

Don't get me wrong. I think we should reduce spending starting with defense. I think we should increase tax revenue starting with raising social security and medicare taxes. We need to get to the point where we can start paying down the debt. Getting there without crashing the economy is going to be the equivalent of juggling chainsaws and flaming cats while riding a unicycle across a loose tightrope in gale force winds. It ain't going to be easy.

I feel kind of bad about not claiming it would balance the budget, considering all the work you're putting into refuting that claim.

A: Hey, I'm paying $100 a month on this card, but I need to be paying $150 just to not go farther in debt. I found something in my budget to cut that will let me pay $125 a month.

B: No, don't do that! Your budget still won't be balanced!

Your original claim, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here, was that cutting defense spending by half then using half of that to pay down the debt would reduce the debt. That would reduce the rate of growth of the debt, but it wouldn't reduce the debt. Eliminating defense spending altogether is not enough to reduce the debt.

BTW, the last time the federal debt decreased from one year to next was 1957 and Eisenhower was president.

[Mister Agenda]

Your original claim, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here, was that cutting defense spending by half then using half of that to pay down the debt would reduce the debt. That would reduce the rate of growth of the debt, but it wouldn't reduce the debt. Eliminating defense spending altogether is not enough to reduce the debt.

BTW, the last time the federal debt decreased from one year to next was 1957 and Eisenhower was president.

This is my original statement: "Cut military spending until it's only equal to the next four countries combined. Use half the savings to pay down debt. Use the other half for sensible results-based programs. A fiscal conservative should consider that a win-win."

'Use half the savings to pay down debt' is a direction , not a claim that it will, by itself, balance the budget. It's a suggestion on what to do with half the money saved. Whether it succeeds in paying down debt is another matter, and it likely won't if it's the only thing you do to address that issue. If I tell you that you can save $50 on a personal budget item and say 'use half what you saved on that to pay down your debt'; I'm not making a claim that another $25 a month is all you need to do to address your debt. In other words, I was just saying where I would like my tax dollars to go. I suppose I'm claiming that that is where I would like my tax dollars to go, but I think I'm in a position to know if that claim is true.

My claim was  that 'A fiscal conservative should consider that a win-win', that is, they should be okay with increased social spending if it's part of an overall reduction of spending. Both sides (liberals and fiscal conservatives) get what they want, win-win. It ought only be considered a loss by someone who is against cutting military spending that much or someone who considers increasing sensible result-based programs a bad thing in itself.

[popeyespappy]

Your definition of paying down debt is different than mine. To me paying down debt is reducing it not slowing the rate it grows.

I've said all along that reducing military spending is something we need to do. That in itself though isn't going to be enough though. We are going to need to reduce in other areas and/or raise revenues to to get us where we need to be. Where we need to be is have the flexibility to reduce (pay down) our national debt in times of prosperity. Something we haven't done in 60 years.

[Mister Agenda]

Your definition of paying down debt is different than mine. To me paying down debt is reducing it not slowing the rate it grows.

I've said all along that reducing military spending is something we need to do. That in itself though isn't going to be enough though. We are going to need to reduce in other areas and/or raise revenues to to get us where we need to be. Where we need to be is have the flexibility to reduce (pay down) our national debt in times of prosperity. Something we haven't done in 60 years.

Paying down debt is reducing it, not slowing the rate it grows at. However, if I give you $20 bucks and tell you to use it to pay down your debt, I am not telling you that it will reduce your debt, I'm telling you to use it to increase your debt payment. This seems like common parlance to me.

However, barring the semantics, we are in agreement on this matter.

[John V]

Actually I'd like them to stay in my pocket as much as possible.

If you're being honest the question should really be, Where would you like other people's tax dollars to go?

Not really; you're projecting here I think.  

Yes, really. Note that her last point was:

"7. Increase the tax burden on the wealthy, decrease it on the middle class and poor."

So, yeah, it's about spending other people's money.

[Aroura]

Not really; you're projecting here I think.  

Yes, really. Note that her last point was:

"7. Increase the tax burden on the wealthy, decrease it on the middle class and poor."

So, yeah, it's also about spending other people's money.

FIFY
Um, I still pay taxes.  My money is still being spent. Is this also about where other people's taxes are spent? I guess we discussed it both ways, how taxes as a whole should be spent, and how we would prefer our own personal taxes are spent. 

By acting like we are only discussing other people's money, you are completely strawmanning.  As if we all don't get a say in a democracy.  As if it were selfish to desire everyone to pay a fair share. That is what your strawman incorrectly implies.

I would be happy to reword it "where should your country's tax dollars go?".  This is something people discuss all the time, and includes our own tax dollars as well as others. 

I have no problem paying my taxes.  You, however, said "Actually I'd like them to stay in my pocket as much as possible."
and "If you're being honest the question should really be, Where would you like other people's tax dollars to go?".  

You want to keep more of yours for yourself.  Other people would like to force you to contribute your fair share, and not to be a selfish ass.  This is why charity alone fails, because there enough people who will fuck everyone else for their own small gains. 

Tragedy of the Commons