pandoraPremium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·ooma
·Google Voice
·Future Nine Corp..
 ·Comcast
| Spending $8 for every $1 of income Our government has managed to spend $8 for every $1 of income for the month of March. I can't believe this is sustainable, somewhere something has got to give. There seems to be absolutely no cut in anything our politicians can agree on, and it isn't certain there is enough wealth in the U.S. to cover this rate of spending on a sustained basis.
These numbers are amazing!
»cnsnews.com/news/article/march-m···ght-time
The U.S. Treasury has released a final statement for the month of March that demonstrates that financial madness has gripped the federal government.
During the month, according to the Treasury, the federal government grossed $194 billion in tax revenue and paid out $65.898 billion in tax refunds (including $62.011 to individuals and $3.887 to businesses) thus netting $128.179 billion in tax revenue for March.
At the same, the Treasury paid out a total of $1.1187 trillion. When the $65.898 billion in tax refunds is deducted from that, the Treasury paid a net of $1.0528 trillion in federal expenses for March.
That $1.0528 trillion in spending for March equaled 8.2 times the $128.179 in net federal tax revenue for the month.
Still this seems like fiscal quicksand to me. Like charging Visa for Master Card.
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." |
|
 DSL987
join:2000-03-22
Helotes, TX | said by pandora: I can't believe this is sustainable It's not. |
|
 MrMoodyFree range slavePremium
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC | reply to pandora
Your premise is still right, but to be pedantic, most of the tax refunds paid out are annual, not an ongoing thing every month, while most of the revenue is collected year around.
--
The obstruction of our energy infrastructure has led us into being the world's policeman.-Karl Denninger,market-ticker.org |
|
Zoder
join:2002-04-16
Miami, FL | That's clearly not the numbers every month. Otherwise the deficit for this year alone would be over $10 trillion. |
|
DSL987
join:2000-03-22
Helotes, TX | said by Zoder:That's clearly not the numbers every month. Otherwise the deficit for this year alone would be over $10 trillion. Don't give them any ideas. |
|
 lolwhatYou're getting warmerPremium
join:2001-06-11
PonziWorld
·Callcentric
| reply to DSL987
said by DSL987:
It's not.
The USA can totally sustain fascist redistribution of the nation's wealth. You're gonna need rational minds to cover for you. /sarc
--
Tutto nelle banche, niente al di fuori delle banche, nulla contro le banche |
|
sparks
join:2001-07-08
Little Rock, AR | Welfare both individual and corporate.
Lets see full support for schools and health care for illegals.
SORRY undocumented workers.
WERE ARE F'd
2014 will be the end of America as we know it.
AND NOTHING WILL STOP IT |
|
| reply to DSL987
said by pandora: I can't believe this is sustainable I'm pretty sure if you look back over the last 5 years you'll see it happens every year at the same time (March) so in that effect it is sustainable.
--
"Rule No.1: Never lose money. Rule No.2: Never forget rule No.1." -Warren Buffett |
|
SipSizzurpFo' ShizzlePremium
join:2005-12-28
Houston, TX
kudos:3 | reply to pandora
said by pandora:During the month, according to the Treasury, the federal government grossed $194 billion in tax revenue and paid out $65.898 billion in tax refunds (including $62.011 to individuals and $3.887 to businesses) thus netting $128.179 billion in tax revenue for March.
At the same, the Treasury paid out a total of $1.1187 trillion. When the $65.898 billion in tax refunds is deducted from that, the Treasury paid a net of $1.0528 trillion in federal expenses for March.
That $1.0528 trillion in spending for March equaled 8.2 times the $128.179 in net federal tax revenue for the month. ... There is a mistake in their math. They twice subtracted the $65.898 billion in tax refunds. The total over spend is even greater than the 8.2 times they came up with.
--
I spent most of my money on Women and Beer, and the rest I just wasted ! |
|
| reply to pandora
Even taxing the rich at 100% won't fix the fiscal mess:
»www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w···zNMRPAtw |
|
 RobIn Deo speramus, God Bless the USAPremium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2 | Of course not, which is why Democrats lose in that area.
If you're going to raise taxes, then you must equally reduce spending.
--
CheckSite.us | YourIP.us | Reverseip.us |
|
| said by Rob:Of course not, which is why Democrats lose in that area. If you're going to raise taxes, then you must equally reduce spending. So Bush cutting taxes and starting a war was the right direction on how to fix the budget? Leave the politics out of this forum. The red/blue room is the place for it.
--
"Rule No.1: Never lose money. Rule No.2: Never forget rule No.1." -Warren Buffett |
|
|
|
RobIn Deo speramus, God Bless the USAPremium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2 | said by Midgard:said by Rob:Of course not, which is why Democrats lose in that area. If you're going to raise taxes, then you must equally reduce spending. So Bush cutting taxes and starting a war was the right direction on how to fix the budget? Leave the politics out of this forum. The red/blue room is the place for it. Look who's talking. What does the war have anything to do with the topic at hand? Nothing of the sorts. War does not reduce spending, so I don't know why you even brought the wars up.
I brought up the Democrats because their mantra is to tax the rich. But you can't just tax a group of people if you are not going to reduce the spending. (Which I still see we're in 2.. or wait now 3 wars).
--
CheckSite.us | YourIP.us | Reverseip.us |
|
4 edits | said by Rob:Look who's talking. What does the war have anything to do with the topic at hand? Nothing of the sorts. War does not reduce spending, so I don't know why you even brought the wars up.
I brought up the Democrats because their mantra is to tax the rich. But you can't just tax a group of people if you are not going to reduce the spending. (Which I still see we're in 2.. or wait now 3 wars).
I'm just going to imply stuff and keep it generic since it's hard to equate war to spending somehow for some people. You can't cut taxes for all and increase spending. At least those who would increase taxes are making a move in the correct direction. No one in recent years has been able to reduce spending in any significant amount so we can disqualify that part. It's down to cutting taxes and increases taxes. The later is the only one which helps the problem. Your welcome to quantify this in real dollars over the last decade if you'd like so you have a complete picture.
Edit: I'll even give people a place to start.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_d···al_terms
--
"Rule No.1: Never lose money. Rule No.2: Never forget rule No.1." -Warren Buffett |
|
RobIn Deo speramus, God Bless the USAPremium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2 | said by Midgard:said by Rob:Look who's talking. What does the war have anything to do with the topic at hand? Nothing of the sorts. War does not reduce spending, so I don't know why you even brought the wars up.
I brought up the Democrats because their mantra is to tax the rich. But you can't just tax a group of people if you are not going to reduce the spending. (Which I still see we're in 2.. or wait now 3 wars).
I'm just going to imply stuff and keep it generic since it's hard to equate war to spending somehow for some people. You can't cut taxes for all and increase spending. At least those who would increase taxes are making a move in the correct direction. No one in recent years has been able to reduce spending in any significant amount so we can disqualify that part. It's down to cutting taxes and increases taxes. The later is the only one which helps the problem. Your welcome to quantify this in real dollars over the last decade if you'd like so you have a complete picture. Edit: I'll even give people a place to start. » en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_d···al_terms If we end the two extremely costly wars and stop some of the government hand outs (i.e. tax credit for buying a hybrid car), then we can move in the right direction.
For the record, I have no problem with raising taxes, but it must be met with an equal reduction in spending, and all the money raised in the new taxes must be applied directly to our deficit.
The DoD has room for cuts as well.
Raising taxes will not get us out of the situation we're in, and it won't fix anything. The government continues to spend more and more. Taxing ourselves is NOT the answer.
--
CheckSite.us | YourIP.us | Reverseip.us |
|
1 edit | said by Rob:If we end the two extremely costly wars and stop some of the government hand outs (i.e. tax credit for buying a hybrid car), then we can move in the right direction.
For the record, I have no problem with raising taxes, but it must be met with an equal reduction in spending, and all the money raised in the new taxes must be applied directly to our deficit.
The DoD has room for cuts as well.
Raising taxes will not get us out of the situation we're in, and it won't fix anything. The government continues to spend more and more. Taxing ourselves is NOT the answer.
It all depends on what your trying to accomplish. If you want to break even you can increase spending and increase taxes to compensate. In an ideal world we'd like to reduce the national debt but only one president over the last decade was able to do that and only on his second term after having 4 years to clean up the previous administrations problems. Those after him have put us into such a crisis that it's going to take another decade to recover. In the last 30 years only 2 presidents have reduced the national debt. It doesn't matter which party took over the current term the economy would be in the same place. It was a losing battle for whomever won this time and they knew it. Over the last 30 years we can see the federal spending, federal debt, and GDP per president. Based on 30 years of history I'm happy with the current administration since their track record speaks for itself. That's all for me on this thread.
--
"Rule No.1: Never lose money. Rule No.2: Never forget rule No.1." -Warren Buffett |
|
Reviews:
 ·AT&T Wireless Br..
| reply to pandora
So we had the former CEO of AEP (American Electric Power) and CEO of Portakleen in our Government and Business class the other day. Both of them strongly believe it's corporate taxes that are killing the US and if they lowered the rates, it would give both large and small business the breathing room to expand HERE, rather than taking billions in jobs/income overseas. Well, you're thinking "oh they work for the company so of course they want lower taxes". That's not the case, the standard corporate tax rate is 35% here. They compiled a list of over 400 MAJOR companies who moved overseas, specifically to Zug, Switzerland alone. Why? 9% corporate tax rate. Our government can claim all the tax cut BS they want, but until it's truly lowered and they quit wasting billions in worthless organizations/programs along with the cuts, we're on a downward spiral.
Another interesting story on government waste spending. CEO of Portakleen stated they have a contract with the government on pricing for shower houses and restroom facilities. During hurricane Katrina, the coast guard rented 9 shower houses from them for 6 months time, equating to almost a hundred thousand dollars. Turns out, the shower houses sat in a parking lot and we're never once used. According to him, that's not the only time it's happened.
FYI I'm not posting this to argue or start arguments, just some interesting points after noticing the thread I thought I'd share.
--
Core i7 920 @ 3.5ghz | OCZ Obsidian 6GB 1600mhz DDR3 RAM | EVGA X58 tri SLI-LE mobo | EVGA GTX 570 | Antec 750w PSU | OCZ Vertex 2 120GB SSD | WD Black 1TB HDD | Antec 1200 Case | G15 keyboard | G9x mouse | G35 Headset | Asus 23" LED-LCD |
|
Andy S
join:2009-05-14
Stockbridge, GA | Only problem with your assumption is that corporations don't pay the actual corporate tax rate of 35%. You will hear a term called effective corporate tax rate which is what they ACTUALLY pay after the write-offs and subsitidies. For GE that rate was actually ZERO and in fact was Negative because of credits it received. So if GE pays 0% tax why do they still move jobs off shore? It is just like the people that cry about 50% of the people don't pay income tax in this country..Well they don't tell you that it is retired parents, Grand parents, Single mothers under the poverty level that make up the majority of those 50% "deadbeats" not paying income tax. Context is a mighty important factor. |
|
Reviews:
·AT&T Wireless Br..
| They move offshore because the wages are cheaper and there are few laws in many countries that require a set minimum wage. Far less government regulation costs the company a lot less money. Specifically China, India, just to name a few. But with less regulation also comes other problems that you don't see as often here in the US. Poor working conditions, poor quality goods, very low wages, etc.
Also, with my last post, I just meant companies who specifically moved to Zug Switzerland, because the corporate tax rate there is 9%. The companies obviously still paid more in taxes here, otherwise what reason would they have to move there with the 9% rate?
--
Core i7 920 @ 3.5ghz | OCZ Obsidian 6GB 1600mhz DDR3 RAM | EVGA X58 tri SLI-LE mobo | EVGA GTX 570 | Antec 750w PSU | OCZ Vertex 2 120GB SSD | WD Black 1TB HDD | Antec 1200 Case | G15 keyboard | G9x mouse | G35 Headset | Asus 23" LED-LCD |
|
 dogmaXYZPremium
join:2002-08-15
Boulder City, NV
kudos:1 | said by tman852:They move offshore because the wages are cheaper and there are few laws in many countries that require a set minimum wage. Far less government regulation costs the company a lot less money. Specifically China, India, just to name a few. But with less regulation also comes other problems that you don't see as often here in the US. Poor working conditions, poor quality goods, very low wages, etc.
Why would lower wages be important enough for a company to relocate manufacturing offshore? |
|
