by "mkbruin, Atlas VP" (mkbruin)
Published 12/07/2017 at 11:59
by "mkbruin, Atlas VP" (mkbruin)
Published 12/07/2017 at 11:59
No Tags
STARS: 2
Let’s talk spending.
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
Start with the debt. It is wonderful that Democrats, who previously considered the national debt somewhere below lawn mold on their list of priorities, have now been reborn as deficit hawks. And there is reason to be concerned that the tax bill will add to the debt. But to keep things in perspective: Under current law, the federal government is expected to collect $43 trillion in taxes over the next ten years, while spending $53 trillion. That will increase the national debt to $30 trillion by 2028. If this tax bill passes, the federal government will collect $42 trillion in taxes over the next ten years, while spending $53 trillion. That will increase the national debt to $31 trillion by 2028. Worse? Absolutely, like a drunk asking for one more drink. But it would be nice if everyone got this worked up about the first $30 trillion. In fact, even after this tax cut, the federal government will be collecting 17.6 percent of GDP in taxes, more than the post-war average of 17.4 percent. The problem is that we will be spending 22.2 percent of GDP, considerably more than the 20.3 percent that we’ve averaged since World War II. We don’t tax too little — we spend too much.
"Chariotoflove" (chariotoflove)
12/07/2017 at 12:21, STARS: 8
Spending less requires saying no to someone. That is seldom conducive to political survival.
"Nothing" (nothingatalluseful)
12/07/2017 at 12:25, STARS: 2
I still find political divisiveness absurd. Not because I worry about what either party is doing. But because I find it fascinating that anybody sees a difference.
You know what’s good about the current political climate? More crap is just out in the open, blowing in the wind. And what changes? Not a damn thing.
"benjrblant" (benjblant)
12/07/2017 at 12:26, STARS: 1
I hope we’re getting miles for that $31 trillion.
"If only EssExTee could be so grossly incandescent" (essextee)
12/07/2017 at 12:29, STARS: 3
I made a post a while back with the story of what went into making the car competetive in racing. It’s a cool read http://oppositelock.kinja.com/whos-looking-for-a-good-read-morning-repost-1709990531
"fintail" (fintail)
12/07/2017 at 12:30, STARS: 7
It’ll be fine. Reaganomics Part Deux will invigorate the economy, and all of the extra money from everyone winning so much will be able to go into paying down the debt. It’s never worked before, but this time it’ll be different.
Randian drone Ryan also wants to cut “entitlements”, no doubt that savings can also go into the debt. It’s sunshine and lollipops from this point forward.
"Milky" (jordanmielke)
12/07/2017 at 12:36, STARS: 4
“Whats another trillion to the deficit? Our rich friends need more money.”
"WilliamsSW" (williamssw)
12/07/2017 at 12:44, STARS: 2
This! And political survival tends to take priority over all else...
"Textured Soy Protein" (texturedsoyprotein)
12/07/2017 at 12:48, STARS: 1
If only those same Republicans who just voted to increase the deficit had some source of spending that they could cut to make up for it, we’d be good. Oh wait .
"Bman76 (hates WS6 hoods, is on his phone and has 4 burners now)" (bman76-4)
12/07/2017 at 12:50, STARS: 3
I think there’s a way to do both. Cut down on the corporate welfare given to employees of companies that don’t pay a livable wage while simultaneously increasing taxes on the people at the tops of those companies who are benefiting from that system to “incentivize” them to rethink their business models.
"punkgoose17" (punkgoose17)
12/07/2017 at 13:34, STARS: 2
I agree we should be paying down the debt which we have not be doing since 2001.
I also wasn’t opposed to a tax cut. This cut had a lot of problems:
-The bottom of the income tax bracket should have dropped to 0% not increased to 15 %
-I do not think grad student tuition waivers should be taxed. Being a TA is how many students afford grad school.
Other random not tax reform related things:
I think people on TANF should be allowed to work up to the amount of the lowest tax bracket. (Most will not be able to work or want to work, but the some who do will increase the amount of money moving in the economy via sales and local taxes, local profits and improve their own standard of living.)
The government should work harder to reduce recidivism, stop using private prisons, and reduce the amount of incarnated people. The U.S. has the highest percent of incarcerated citizens. (The U.S. is doing something wrong.) Private prisons only encourages incarceration. Everyone imprisoned is costing the country money.
With increasing cost of living the 3 big offenders are housing, transportation, and education. The government should change policies to decrease these costs. I don’t want the minimum wage to be increased or to be increased much because that creates inflation. (changing the lowest tax bracket to 0% and allowing people on TANF to work some is my plan to increase the standard of living for the poorest without increasing minimum wage.)
-The government should change laws that drive large sprawling suburbs to encourage smaller more dense suburbs. They are more cost efficient for the government and the residents. (It was cheaper for me to buy a house and maintain a home than to rent something similar, and it is even more expensive to build new construction.) (I liked the removal of tax breaks for $500,000 houses. If you can build a 1/2 million dollar home you don’t need a tax break.)
-For transportation I have no plans/ideas yet.
-For education I have no plans yet.
—Sorry/not sorry for the random list/rant I just wanted to put these ideas out somewhere
"punkgoose17" (punkgoose17)
12/07/2017 at 13:55, STARS: 0
I started out voting for who seemed to be the best for a political position, I am now at the point where I am voting 3rd party when possible and always against the incumbent.
"BigBlock440" (440-4bbl)
12/07/2017 at 14:45, STARS: 0
That 1.4T is divided up over more than 75% of the population. The vast majority would be considered rich only when compared to citizens of African nations or the like.
"RacingShark" (racingshark)
12/07/2017 at 14:57, STARS: 0
military spending is the republican version of social security/medicare/WIC/
"Milky" (jordanmielke)
12/07/2017 at 14:58, STARS: 0
But everything for the middle class expires in 5 years.
"RacingShark" (racingshark)
12/07/2017 at 15:30, STARS: 1
Interesting... Voting third party has consequences in states that have First-past-the-post voting voting systems (All of them).
Maine’s governor has won the last 2 terms with less than 50% of the vote (he won with 37% of the vote in 2010). He actively blocks things that were passed by voters on the state wide ballot. (Legal Pot, ranked choice voting, taxes, etc.)
He has only been able to win because a significant percentage of people voted for a third candidate.
"BigBlock440" (440-4bbl)
12/07/2017 at 16:06, STARS: 0
It’s not 2020 yet. And they’ll get extended, or whoever’s in office at the time will be accused of raising taxes. I’ll worry about that 8 years from now though, a lot will change between now and then.
"Milky" (jordanmielke)
12/07/2017 at 16:33, STARS: 0
Hell that stuff might not even last the next 2 weeks of negotiations! lol, good thing it has already been passed.
"themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles" (themanwithsauce)
12/11/2017 at 00:09, STARS: 1
I’m a bit late to this party but I really hope you read this because I fully agree with you - we do spend way way way WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY too much. But the answer isn’t to save a penny here and there by cutting minor social programs or tax breaks for graduate students. It’s the military. It is so much the military.
I have been to defense contractor/supplier meetings and whatnot. I’ve seen the ridiculous ways we spend our tax dollars and the asinine excuses some people in the supply chain give for their spendings. It is utterly stupid that the defense budget takes up so much of our tax dollar yet gives us so little in return. I’ll give you one specific example that I am INTIMATELY familiar with.
Starting at the beginning - My company is trying to work with a few others to sell new aircraft coatings, treatments, and electroplating of parts so that the aircraft are lighter, easier to paint, use fewer heavy metals and toxic chemicals, and would be more difficult to detect via radar/heat tracking/etc....
A bunch of us have jointly developed a system for treating landing gear pieces that is currently approved for some aircraft. In fact, some of us in this chain have the contracts and our parts are supposed to be on “all new planes produced”. BUT! Here’s what that actually means - When the plane is produced, it is fitted with the old “toxic chemicals” parts. Because it must be produced that way. But the second it comes in for any service, it then MUST be decomissioned while our parts are retrofitted onto it. Then, and only then, is it fully prepped with the parts it is supposed to have.
Keep in mind - the original supplier is still making their parts and is still shipping them to be installed on the planes. Despite the immediate call for service when it lands, the plane cannot take its first flight (and subsequent flights until its first service) without those originally specced parts. Even in a contract situation, most suppliers would just have a buyout clause and be done with this but no, the planes are still subject to things like parts shortages and production issues even though those parts are already designated to be replaced the second the plane needs any service at all. So the budget for the plane grows, and the supply chain gets bloated and our tax dollars get flushed down the toilet but hey - some lawmaker’s buddy is having a really damn merry christmas this year!
To recap - I agree with you 100%. But you will never find more efficient savings via cutting than you will by slashing the defense supply budget. I promise you, if you cut that budget by 10%, all the suppliers would wheel and deal like they’re selling used cars because half of them only supply the government because of contractual obligations - NOT because they are the best supplier for the job. And definitely not because they supply the most superior part. In fact, I’m going to make that takeaway in bold for future reference.
Our tax dollars, yours and mine, are being spent on inferior parts to be used on the equipment that our armed forces use every day. Better parts are available, but our lawmakers make sure that these inferior parts get used to “protect jobs” and whatnot. It is ass-backwards to me that that spending is protected by the government while they also see fit to tax college students on their grants and scholarships while they research what might be the next big breakthrough for American industries and business.