[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/biz/ - Business & Finance

View post   
File: 151 KB, 620x458, house-of-cards.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
218788 No.218788[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Whats the most realistic way the US can deal with their debts with as little societal turmoil as possible?

>> No.218791

Balance the budget through a combination of spending cuts and specific but non-crippling tax increases, mostly aimed at the wealthy.

>> No.218792

The oversimplified answer would be to gradually reduce spending and/or increase taxes.

>> No.218795

Repeal obamacare and ban abortion

>> No.218805

>>218788

cut military and welfare to near oblivion

>> No.218811

>>218805
>with as little societal turmoil as possible

>> No.218824

implying they won't explore frank being a bisexual/homosexual next season
:^)

>> No.218820

>Add in a negative income tax but drastic cuts to welfare
>Allow export of shale oil to become new Saudi Arabia
>Free trade agreements with east asia and the EU
>Shrink our military budget until its only "kick one continents ass instead of 2."

>> No.218836

They literally can not.

The only solution is a break up of the united states.

It's the only way we can have a free market of some sort.

>> No.218850

Not really worry about aside from balancing a budget because our debt relative to GDP isn't as bad as some other developed countries.

>>218836
Ron Paul 2016

>> No.218874

>>218791
>increase taxes on the wealthy
ohohoho

>> No.218876

>>218791
>>218792
Pretty much this.

The democrats have also been resisting any sort of reform or changes to medicaid and entitlement, which as we all know is needed (its not the 50s ppl).

Republicans have been resisting any sort of tax hikes on anyone which historically looking we

are at a very low tax rate raising said tax would help balance.

>> No.218880

Tax code needs to be drastically simplified

>> No.218886

>>218836
Why does someone with such a faint grasp of reality even bother posting in these threads...
Stick you your bitcoin crap and stay out of the rest of /biz/

>> No.218891

>>218886
to your*

>> No.218892

>>218886

Welcome to 4chan.

>> No.218935

Remove elderly

>> No.219020

>>218791

France says hi

>> No.219024

>>218886

>implying the entirety of /biz/ is not just a containment board of dogecoin threads

>> No.219039

Exterminate the boomers

>> No.219043

Inflate/grow our way out as we did after WW2.

>> No.219054

>>218886
>Why does someone with such a faint grasp of reality even bother posting in these threads...


Wait lol you actually think we can pay off the debt?

You think any of us actually want to?

Kill yourself.

>> No.219056

>>218876
We could also, you know, cut military spending.

There is no good solution to medicaid and such. People are just going to get more and more useless as technology gets better.

>> No.219057

>>218876
>historically we are at a very low tax rate
no

>> No.219066

>>219057
The top marginal tax rate was over 50% for a long time before 1987

>> No.219068

>>219056
>We could also, you know, cut military spending.
This is an instant sign you have no idea what you are talking about. Military spending is not the issue and is already going to decline over the next 10 years. The issue is entitlement spending which is rising exponentially and the fall in tax revenue caused by the recession (which is starting to be resolved).

>> No.219076

>>218791
haha, why do you people continue to try this?

European countries have greater debts relative to their GDPs and higher taxes. so clearly higher taxes does jack shit.

>> No.219083

>>219068
>the issue is what I don't like
Yeah fuck you.

>The issue is entitlement spending which is rising exponentially
This statement is meaningless. Any type of spending rises exponentially (assuming no changes in behavior) because of inflation.

>> No.219082
File: 95 KB, 537x2414, 1353293346346.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
219082

>>219066
>The top marginal tax rate was over 50% for a long time before 1987
This is a literal falsehood to brainwash useful idiots like yourself.

>> No.219089 [DELETED] 

>>218788
hyperinflation

>> No.219093

>>219083
You are beyond retarded. You could completely eliminate the DoD and there would still be a deficit. Not only that, but the country would enter a depression as well. Nice going, dipshit.

>> No.219094

remove overtime laws, remove minimum wage. remove income taxes completely. do gradual drawdowns of social programs, deregulate alcohol and cigs completely. legalize drugs.

people will earn more money through working more because companies aren't punished for working them over 40 hours, more people will hire because of cheaper labor which takes people off the street, lower taxes means more money to expand outward and spend on hiring more workers, legalized drugs removes gang violence and the allure of drug dealing forcing blacks to get real jobs, no longer need welfare.

>> No.219095

>>219082
You realize that that image explains that taxes WERE higher in the past right?
>that 91% marginal rate produced an effective income tax rate on the top 0.01 percent of only about 45%
>effective rate was 34% in the high-marginal-rate 1960s and 31% in the low-marginal-rate 2004
You're an idiot.

>> No.219096

>>219093
>Not only that, but the country would enter a depression as well.
No it wouldn't you faggot.

>> No.219102

>>219095
>You're an idiot
Nevermind, I see you're not the same person. Anyway, that image doesn't support the statement here >>219057

>> No.219103
File: 159 KB, 601x537, 1395001531318.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
219103

>>219083
Europeean countries have a higher debt to GDP ratio and they have no significant military. So arguing that by cutting the military we'll become solvent is ridiculous. entitlement spending has exploded since the worst president of modern times LBJ

>> No.219110

>>219095
Can you even READ?

>but they come in with an even lower figure at 31%

Wow you faggot.

Also the not so super rich only paid less than what they pay today.

The average worker paid barely ANY tax.

That's why the 50s was so great.

Fuck you.

>> No.219116

>>219082
I think this might be the biggest lie that the left tells. that and the military is the reason for our massive debt and deficit.

>> No.219118

>>218788
Invest heavily in NASA. For every dollar spent we get several dollars backs. Better than the military were ever dollar spent gets one person to swear an eternal vendetta against the US for blowing up/shooting/raping his children/wife/siblings/parents.

>> No.219122
File: 75 KB, 960x580, 1348803204577.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
219122

Daily reminder after world war 2 we dramatically cut taxes, spending, regulation etc etc

and it resulted in the most economically productive year in american history and led way for the 1950s prosperity.

THIS IS WHAT WE NEED TO DO

>> No.219127
File: 309 KB, 1034x691, muh income ineuqlaity.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
219127

>>219116
That and the income/wealth inequality line, as if it means anything at all.

>> No.219133

>>219110
Yes, I can read an entire paragraph and not just half a sentence like you can.

>> No.219138

>>219127
oh yeah income inequality. The catchall vague meaningless catchphrase that explains all economic problems in the universe. That is definitely one of the worst offenders.

>> No.219141

>>219133
Apparently not.

But at least now you agree that taxes were lower in the 50s.

Why do you think they were able to produce so much?

>> No.219146

>>219141
>But at least now you agree that taxes were lower in the 50s.
Your image proves nothing. It gives two studies. One says tax rates were higher back then, one says they were lower. You don't get to just pick the one you like and then pretend it supports your argument. At best, you can claim that the tax rates were not significantly different.

>Why do you think they were able to produce so much?
Produce so much what? We have more technology now, and better machines. Anything we don't produce is just because its easier to pay foreigners pennies to make it for us.

>> No.219156

>>219146
Actually I believe they both said they were lower or at least comparable overall, and you gotta admit Paul Krugman is a lying faggot for trying to say people paid 91%. I mean that is some serious dishonesty.

>> No.219167

>>219146
>It gives two studies.
From the most highly respected economists in the country?

>One says tax rates were higher back then
If you read it, it says they were slightly lower, for the very very top rich.

For everyone else including the normal rich taxes were much lower than they were today.

>At best, you can claim that the tax rates were not significantly different.
Even then, that still disproves the leftist argument that tax rates were 91%.

:^)

>Produce so much what?
Capital goods, consumer goods.
More than any time in american history, more than any country at that time.

>> No.219170
File: 90 KB, 400x400, 1354634546346.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
219170

>>219156
>Actually I believe they both said they were lower or at least comparable overall, and you gotta admit Paul Krugman is a lying faggot for trying to say people paid 91%. I mean that is some serious dishonesty.
Krugman is a massive lying faggot who manipulates people.

>> No.219174

How about cutting two big tax loopholes?
The Mortgage-Interest Tax Deduction, and the Employer Sponsored Healthcare Deduction.

>> No.219177

>>219174
That'd save 200 billion.
It wouldn't stop the entire deficit, but it'd cut out 1/5th of a trillion

>> No.219176

>>219156
>that 91% marginal rate produced an effective income tax rate on the top 0.01 percent of only about 45%
This is definitely higher than today, if true.

I didn't get my information from Paul Krugman, I just looked up the historic tax rates on wikipedia.

>From the most highly respected economists in the country?
TWO studies. With different results.
>Even then, that still disproves the leftist argument that tax rates were 91%.
I never claimed they were. And although the effective tax rate was lower, as you have argued, the claim that the marginal tax rate was above 50% is still technically correct.
>:^)
Get the fuck back to reddit.

>> No.219179

>>219174
how is raising taxes going to help anything? European countries have higher tax rates by and large and higher debts as a percentage of GDP

>> No.219181

>>219176
>This is definitely higher than today, if true.
Did you read the rest of that paragraph?

Holy shit.

>I just looked up the historic tax rates on wikipedia.
Then you are wrong by default because the tax code was different back then and people didn't actually pay those taxes.

>TWO studies. With different results.
With similar results.
Why does this anger you?

>I never claimed they were.
What? That's what all liberals and leftards say about the 50s.

>Get the fuck back to reddit.
You're the libtard.

>> No.219182

>>219179
Politicians are always talking about how they're going to "close loopholes", but the 200 billion dollar tax loophole is never actually closed.

>> No.219183

Why don't we raise taxes to 95% and spend a quadrillion dollars on infrastructure spending so we can end like with ghost cities like china?

Sounds like a plan, I love poverty.

>> No.219189

>>219181
>Did you read the rest of that paragraph?
The rest of the paragraph is about THE OTHER STUDY
Holy fuck how dumb can you be.
>With similar results.
A difference of 14% is not similar you retard.

As for the rest, go back to /pol/ or wherever you're used to circlejerking.

>> No.219190

>>219176
>I never claimed they were. And although the effective tax rate was lower, as you have argued, the claim that the marginal tax rate was above 50% is still technically correct.
using the marginal tax rate as any kind of indicator of what people actually paid in taxes and not the effective tax rate is being blatantly dishonest. when people discuss taxes do you think theyre talking about marginal tax rates or effective tax rates?

>> No.219196

>>219182
closing loopholes is just raising taxes in disguise. The GOP should push for lower taxes on everyone. that would get people excited to vote for them.

>> No.219200

>>219189
>The rest of the paragraph is about THE OTHER STUDY
I KNOW

>As for the rest, go back to /pol/ or wherever you're used to circlejerking.
Does the fact taxes in the 1950s were not as high as you think upset you?

>> No.219203

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6vi528gseA

>> No.219205

>>219190
>using the marginal tax rate as any kind of indicator of what people actually paid in taxes and not the effective tax rate is being blatantly dishonest. when people discuss taxes do you think theyre talking about marginal tax rates or effective tax rates?
True, I will admit I am not an expert on this. I was curious so I looked up on wikipedia what the tax rates were, and posted that it said that they were in fact higher. I also assumed that, since Reagan was the president when the tax change was implemented, that the change would be favorable to the higher tax brackets. Perhaps I was wrong, but I don't think I deserved this underage /pol/tard attacking me just for that post.
>>219200
>I KNOW
You clearly don't.

>Does the fact taxes in the 1950s were not as high as you think upset you?
No, because I had no opinion about them before this thread.

>> No.219206

People here seems to think cutting the military spending won't help how come?

My basic understanding is our military is over bloated with ridiculous spending take for example a jeep the Marines use its $200,000

For a fucking jeep not even a larger more heavily armored Humvee is more expensive

>> No.219209

>>219206
I think they are just claiming that it would not be enough to reverse the deficit. Which does seem to be the case. But that doesn't mean cutting it wouldn't help.

>> No.219210

>>219205
>No, because I had no opinion about them before this thread.
Then go away, you're not my target.

>> No.219217 [DELETED] 

>>219205
>True, I will admit I am not an expert on this. I was curious so I looked up on wikipedia what the tax rates were, and posted that it said that they were in fact higher. I also assumed that, since Reagan was the president when the tax change was implemented, that the change would be favorable to the higher tax brackets. Perhaps I was wrong, but I don't think I deserved this underage /pol/tard attacking me just for that post.
>he's not a poltard just because he assumed you were being willfully dishonest. and don't get mad because people are more educated than you on these subjects or because they are angry that you still believe something which to them seems blatantly obvious. it is frustrating watching people believe ridiculous lies and halftruths all day long, so sometimes people lash out at people who still believe the lies. so don't take offense. Faggot.

>> No.219219

>>219205
>True, I will admit I am not an expert on this. I was curious so I looked up on wikipedia what the tax rates were, and posted that it said that they were in fact higher. I also assumed that, since Reagan was the president when the tax change was implemented, that the change would be favorable to the higher tax brackets. Perhaps I was wrong, but I don't think I deserved this underage /pol/tard attacking me just for that post.
he's not a poltard just because he assumed you were being willfully dishonest. and don't get mad because people are more educated than you on these subjects or because they are angry that you still believe something which to them seems blatantly obvious. it is frustrating watching people believe ridiculous lies and halftruths all day long, so sometimes people lash out at people who still believe the lies. so don't take offense. Faggot.

>> No.219225

>>219219
He's a /pol/tard because he insists on turning small debates about localized subjects into his ideological war. He's an idiot because he thinks that it is ok to just ignore the study that doesn't fit his argument and pretend that only the study that does fit his belief system is accurate.

>> No.219226

>>219206
>>219209
European countries have higher debts as a percentage of GDP and higher taxes.

>> No.219227

>>219209
Of course it won't do shit unless we cut the entire military budget for a year but that's retarded

We'll just cut the fat off the military no big deal

>> No.219251

>>219227
neither will fix the problem because the problem is entitlements and social programs.

>> No.219274

>>219122
lol wait. Are you implying that drastic cuts are the reason we were economically on top? Not, you know, the fact that the entire world was bombed to shit except us.

>> No.219276

>>219274
>Are you implying that drastic cuts are the reason we were economically on top?
Lol wait.

Are you actually denying this fact?

You think massive government spending is the reason we're on top?

> the fact that the entire world was bombed to shit except us.
Lol WHY THE FUCK WOULD THAT MATTER?

If other countries were around and successful that would make us BETTER OFF during that time.

lol

>> No.219279

>>219226
Yeah, but look at European Countries spending on Military as a percentage of GDP

>> No.219281

>>219279
irrelevant if theyre even less solvent than the US is.

>> No.219282

>>219276
>Lol WHY THE FUCK WOULD THAT MATTER?
No competition. Everyone would depend on USA for manufacturing along with many other economic assets (which is what happened).

>> No.219283

>>219282
>Everyone would depend on USA for manufacturing along with many other economic assets
No shit.
The products americans produced they consumed themselves.

The rest of the world had nothing to give americans.

If they actually had economies they would actually have things we can trade with them and make us both better off.

>> No.219291

The offshore tax haven is estimated to hold $23 trillion dollars of taxable corporate income. The tax system is at fault in the United States. The U.S. entitlement/military spending is only at their current levels, because we assume the tax system is being fairly used.

>> No.219294

In 2012, the total income of US citizens was about $13.5 trillion. The total spending was about $15.5 trillion. Assuming that $2 trillion isn't coming from savings, that's $2 trillion of accrued debt.

That debt comes from banks, which get it from the federal reserve. It is absolutely impossible to pay this off if incomes don't rise over our spending. People will default on their loans, and that debt will become the government's when they do. That's $2 trillion of accrued debt per year, assuming the gap remains unchanged. Add on the interest we're gathering on existing debt. No one can reasonably expect this to ever be paid off.

>> No.219295

>>219281
Nope.
It is completely relevant

>> No.219305

There doesn't exist a thing as "paying off the debt" in a fractional reserve banking system

>> No.219329

>>219295
How is military spending relevant if countries with insignicicant militaries are less solvent?

>> No.219351

>>219291

What would make our tax system better and incentivize the companies to bring that taxable income home?

>> No.219357

>>219351
lower taxes, dumbass.

>> No.219365

There are $11 trillion in circulation in the united states. Source: http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/H6/Current/

The national debt is $14 trillion. Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/infographics/us-national-debt

The US owes more money than it collectively has. It is impossible to pay this off with taxes alone.

>> No.219369

>>218788
Nationalizing the oil industry

>> No.219372

>>219351
lower corporate taxes, but close the loopholes this is the issue. Although 35% tax rate is extremely high.

>> No.219407

Roads are paid for with gas tax.
Schools are paid for by state property tax.
The military is paid for by federal corporate tax.
100% of income tax collected by the FED is spent on debt. (that continues to grow every year). The system is a wealth redistribution system funneling money into big corporations.

>> No.219423

>>219365
Why doesn't the US just ignores its internal debt then?
Or kills the people it owes money to?

>> No.219431

>>219423
because appearing to be insolvent makes people lose faith in the economy.

>> No.219455
File: 19 KB, 268x322, 1394917871598.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
219455

>>219423
>Why doesn't the US just ignores its internal debt then?
>Or kills the people it owes money to?
Who would ever come collect?

>> No.219461

>>219369

I hope you aren't serious. You know all the innovations that made our oil industry the best in the world came about because we actually have a competitive industry instead of a state run peice of shit like pumex. U.S. Was supposed to be out of oil and now we are looking at the possibility of being the number 1 producer in a few years.

Seriously the worst fucking idea. You are far beyond stupid.

>> No.219491

>>219423
The debt is largely held by the Federal Reserve, the Social Security Trust Fund, and foreign countries. Defaulting with the Fed is like admitting that our government literally just prints whatever money it needs, and it would kill the dollar as an international currency. Defaulting with Social Security would lead to Social Security dying far earlier than expected. Voiding our bonds held by foreign countries would mean we probably wouldn't be able to borrow money again for a while.

Really, we could just kill the Fed and Social Security, wipe out 30% of our debt, and not be that much worse off (minus the old people that are depending on Social Security, but they're poor and old, so they can't fight). It would just be harder for people to get loans... and this really needs to happen anyway. The real issue is that we'd be pissing off the bankers that make up the Fed by doing this. They're collecting interest on everything they get the government to loan itself.

>> No.219505

>>219491
Private banks also print money, they're legally allow to do so.

>> No.219552
File: 100 KB, 281x211, 1394089116120.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
219552

You people make me laugh.

You act like the debt is something tangible and that we have to worry about it.

Let me point out that money is an intangible and its value is simply perception.

I have an old saying...

The US Dollar is backed by nuclear weapons, the world's largest army, and the world's largest prison system.

If you are a country and don't value the US dollar we'll invade you (like Iraq).

If you are an individual and don't value the US dollar (by not paying your taxes) we'll throw you in jail.

So yes... The dollar will be valuable no matter how much they print, because there is real consequences for those who don't value it.

>> No.219575

>>219094
You're serious?

Do you have any understanding of the economy.

No you don't.

>>219122
Nope. We need to add regulation. It has to be good regulation though.

>> No.219584

>>219552
>we'll invade you for not valuing the US dollar
>like Iraq

stay pleb anon

>> No.219597

>>219369
>become Mexico 2.0

>> No.219617

>>219552
Are you literally 14?

>> No.219621

>>219575
>You're serious?
whats the problem?

>> No.219632

Does the debt really matter at all when everyone else is in debt too?

>> No.219641

>>219632
its all about perception. if people lose faith in the US dollar we're fucked. right now the US dollar is built on a massive ponzi scheme that right now benefits most of the world

>> No.219646

Stop making 1 cent coins. That'll save a few billion before anything else (1.8 cents to make a cent, lolzors).

Display the actual cost of items in stores, instead of calculating sales tax at the checkout (y'know, like all the sensible countries do).

Both these actions will reduce the time it takes to buy goods since no-one's pissing about with pennies (a coin so useless you can make more money melting them down for copper) and people can have the exact amount needed to make their purchases at the checkout with no added sales tax surprise. Stores can therefore serve more people per day, which brings in more tax revenues. The increased returns would be comparable to pissing in the ocean, but OP specifically states "as little societal turmoil as possible".

>> No.219650

>>219641
Its built on confidence and the stability of government. Its a very fragile system.

>> No.219656 [DELETED] 

>>219641
No it's not. Our government is making payments on that debt. That money comes from somewhere and it goes somewhere else. It's income redistribution on the scale of trillions of dollars. That's not just "perception".

>> No.219736

Penny Plan motherfuckers.

Simply reduce spending by 1 cent from every dollar in the budget. We'll be on good shape in 6-10 years.

>> No.219796

>>219646
>melting them down for copper

American pennies are almost 100% zinc.

>> No.219821

>>219796

Good point, although pre-1982 pennies are about 90% copper. Melt those bitches down (outside of the US, because melting money is illegal)

>> No.219937

>>219461

>what is venezuela

>> No.219941

>>219646

>Stores can serve more people per day

This is the dumbest thing i've heard all day.

>> No.219962

>>219941

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/24/AR2006092400946.html

>the National Association of Convenience Stores and the Walgreens drugstore chain have estimated that handling pennies adds 2 to 2.5 seconds per cash transaction

If you went to a Walmart and said you could save 2 seconds on each transaction, would the manager call that the dumbest thing he'd heard all day?

>> No.219963

>>219937
>he thinks Venezuela has "little societal turmoil".

Lowqualitybait.jpeg