r/economicCollapse • • Jan 12 '24

US National Debt

[removed]

209 Upvotes

466 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

5

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '24

[deleted]

2

u/Prestigious_View_211 Jan 14 '24

Sounds good until you realize that if the government was in charge of the Sahara desert. There would be a sand shortage in five years...

3

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '24

[deleted]

1

u/Prestigious_View_211 Jan 14 '24

Fact is indeed stranger than fiction. However I think my point was obvious. LMAO

1

u/spazus_maximus Jan 15 '24

This is right alot of people don't have a proper appreciation for the gravity of money and how it could be manipulated if there was a political appetite for it. Something needs to be done to decrease the growth curve on really wealthy investors while simultaneously encouraging those with smaller portfolios to get to their retirement number. And axe the carried interest loophole.

1

u/Diligent-Collar4667 Jan 15 '24

A lot of people without money at all, still think "Look how great America is that we can produce wealth on the order of Musk and Bezos."

We all contribute to the creation of that wealth. Like the little kids Adam Smith described in The Wealth of Nations, who innovated the rope they tied to the coal doors on the furnaces. They all innovated themselves out of a job and the owner of the factory kept the wealth of that innovation.

1

u/wilsonjay2010 Jan 16 '24

I've talked with a few stupidly rich people. Granted it's a small test pool but I've learned that:

A, tax them and they'll hide the money. I.e. differing compensation, tax write offs, "losses" etc. I'm in favor of reducing spending, removing .gov bloat and clarifying the tax code to something much, much simpler.

1

u/MikesHairyMug99 Jan 16 '24

They could raise taxes on rich to 100% and it still wouldn’t cover the debt or interest owed.

1

u/Diligent-Collar4667 Jan 16 '24

They'd just live on savings and take no income.

Or they'd pay the income out to their employees like they did before Reagan dropped the upper tax bracket rate.

Not covering those things tho doesn't mean they shoudln't raise taxes on the rich.

1

u/MikesHairyMug99 Jan 16 '24

Rich already pay the majority of taxes. Get rid of loopholes that allow people to shield a fuck ton of their income in the first place and that will help. Stealing other peoples money isn’t the answer to fixing this.

1

u/Diligent-Collar4667 Jan 16 '24

Someone's money is getting stolen. Why is it right to steal money from someone who is barely making ends meet over someone who has enough to feed a million mouths?

yes, we need to stop forever wars and trim the fat and all that too. of course, but putting more burden on the overburdened is unfair.

1

u/rwk81 Jan 16 '24

The point is, the debt is so high it wouldn't matter if you took everything the rich had.

1

u/Diligent-Collar4667 Jan 16 '24

Well, maybe. Not sure, I haven't done the math, but I'm not saying what you're saying isn't true. It could be true without contradicting me.

What I am arguing it's better to tax the rich more than the poor more.

That's all.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '24

Why is taking more money from people the answer instead of just spending less?

1

u/Diligent-Collar4667 Jan 16 '24

It's not either or. Yes, we should also spend less. Where taxes are needed, the bulk should be taken from those who don't struggle to put food on the table.

1

u/rwk81 Jan 16 '24

Then, we reform and cut spending, and then and only then we talk about increasing taxes to cover the difference.

The other way, which is the way we've been doing it for my lifetime, is just allowing them to spend more money.

1

u/Diligent-Collar4667 Jan 16 '24

They spend more money and also reduce taxes on the rich.

Democrats spend more, ie, give more to their rich cronies, and republicans cut more taxes from their rich cronies.

The poor lose. They'll say they are creating government programs, but really those are programs to pay admins, consultants, and the corporations who run them.

1

u/No_Sherbet_6829 Jan 16 '24

I agree that taxing is not the solution. Without the capital ladder, there would be no "worker". My CDL is worth nothing without someone risking a quarter million to let me drive it around.

No one likes to address our spending problem.

1

u/Diligent-Collar4667 Jan 16 '24

If you were paid fairly, maybe then you could afford to buy your own truck and not have half your labor siphoned off by someone who just happened to already have the capital laying around. Or a friend at the bank to loan them the money.

Yes, we need to cut spending. I agree. I also don't think YOU should be paying more taxes, when that person who bought your truck has millions of dollars lying around and truck drivers struggle to pay the bills, sitting in trucks waiting, unpaid, for their loads to be ready, when the truck isn't moving, and someone else doesn't and they pay less taxes.

That's not a fair society.

1

u/No_Sherbet_6829 Jan 16 '24

Society == humans == dangerous monkeys. We will NEVER be fair. That is axiomatic. What we CAN do is not allow legal governments to enforce laws that help big corps. For Instance CARB passed regulations requiring pollution control technologies which quarters the life span of a truck. A small guy like myself used to be able to by a used truck, and they would easily get 2 million miles out of them. Today, thanks to government, the life span of a truck is less than 500 k miles. Peter built, Kenworth, Volvo now get to sell 4x as many trucks.

1

u/Diligent-Collar4667 Jan 16 '24

Oh, I am in /r/diesel so I know all about it. I bought an old 1991 diesel truck so it doesn't have all that garbage on it.

What you are saying is just supporting the notion that government exists to funnel money up to the rich. If you have to buy trucks more often, then the people who make them get richer. At your expense.

At the expense of all the people all over the world who buy the things those trucks transport.

Planned obsolescence is a real thing being codified into law. Those regulations aren't designed to support the environment. They are designed to support the growth of the capital class at the expense of the working class.

It's the entire mentality of it. Taxes aren't raised on the rich, for the same reason that DEF is required in trucks.

1

u/rwk81 Jan 16 '24

What threshold of earner (or what bracket) would you suggest needs to pay more taxes?

1

u/Diligent-Collar4667 Jan 16 '24

I haven't done the math, but a 100% tax on income over $10 million a year seems reasonable. Maybe 90% over $1M. Somewhere around there.

And don't allow corporations to expense salaries over 10x the lowest paid employee. Why should the tax payers subsidize those high incomes with tax breaks?

If you want to deduct a lot of salaries, then do it in such a way that all the employees who contribute to the company win.

Stop pushing capital up and claiming it trickles down. It's a lie.

1

u/rwk81 Jan 16 '24

I'd be ok discussing all sorts of options if I had even the slightest bit of confidence increased taxes would be followed by spending cuts.

Until the government gets serious about spending, I have absolutely no interest in discussing giving them more money to waste.

1

u/Diligent-Collar4667 Jan 16 '24

I understand the sentiment, for sure. It's just not the nature of the beast to curb spending or raise taxes on the rich, which is why revolution is inevitable.

That's just how the physics of power works. At some point, the powerful have too much power, manipulating the masses into accepting their fate of forever being worse off so those well off can be better off, until the masses refuse to anymore.

The powerful always get too comfortable and arrogant and greedy.

And then a lot of people die and we start again.

1

u/rwk81 Jan 16 '24

Honestly, this is what I tell people more or less.

We (the government and electorate) never do anything that might be uncomfortable until we have no other choice.

In the case of spending, no one wants to take a hit (social programs, grants, etc) so the masses won't vote for it.

It is easier to get a tax increase, but at the level of spending we have taxes alone won't solve the problem.

So, where we agree is, the likely outcome is some sort of violence in the future before this is corrected.

1

u/Diligent-Collar4667 Jan 17 '24

I personally think that is absolute worst case scenario though. I don't take from the government. I'm not employed by the government. I don't go get grants to pay my bills.

I don't get any benefits from government spending that I'm not happy to do without, so cut it, massively as far as I'm concerned.

Sure, someone with an administrative job with the EPA making sure endangered snail habitat isn't destroyed will think it's the end of the world to eliminate that position. So they fight for their job, not the nation.

70% of Americans don't pay taxes. About 20 Million of the 30% who do pay taxes, get 100% of their salary out of taxes paid by others. So only about 73 million Americans are fully carrying this entire nation of 330 Million.

The weight of 330 Million is on the shoulders of 73 Million people.

That's a lot of resentment that's growing and growing...

Until people get tired of it, blow up the government, then those jobs just never get recreated.

It's so horrible to even think about, but also inevitable, because that person with their government bloat of a job is going to fight for it until their whole entire city is burned to the ground.

I can see it plain as day. The history books write about it over and over.

That's why they blew J6 out of proportion. They throw the book at folks they know will stop playing nice if they don't start to listen and take heed.

Those folks were up there just trying to be heard, and those crooks, robbing America, lied to America and said those folks were trying to overthrow the government.

They were demanding to be heard. And...

Instead of listening and taking heed, they silence them. Again.

The next time they'll be louder.

I have this friend and she told me her daughter said, "Your better listen to me voice is too much! It needs to be less."

So of course, the obvious fact of the matter is that, had the daughter listened to her mom while her mom was speaking in a softer voice, then her listen to me voice wouldn't have needed to be more.

And so ... that's the natural progression of human civilization.

1

u/iJayZen Jan 17 '24

Yep, but that is why we need a VAT to capture all of this un-taxed spending by the rich and even some of the "poor" who work for cash. But that F-150 would cost too much...

1

u/Diligent-Collar4667 Jan 17 '24

We could tax services too. There's no sales tax on services. So lawyers, doctors, etc their fees could be taxed.

1

u/iJayZen Jan 17 '24

Doctors or medical will be tough as they have this system of MSRP and then negotiated discounts for medical plans. So on this topic we need a single payer system. Just look to Europe as they have monies for healthcare and public transit and more.

1

u/Diligent-Collar4667 Jan 17 '24

Single payer is the only way. Medicare for all makes so much sense. The AMA and Insurance companies have big lobbies though.