Treasury secretary warns US could default on its debt as soon as June

[placeholder]

On 1/16/2023 at 12:59 PM, nauseus said:

Money spent on infrastructure will not necessarily benefit everyone.

 

Tax breaks are not part of this latest mad spending, so no need to include them.

But the Republicans want to repeal increased investment in the IRS. A large portion of which will be targeting the tax evading ways of the wealthy.

[placeholder]

3 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

Wrong Answer.  The problem is not lack of tax revenue.  Federal receipts have gone up 400% in the past two decades.  Despite having far more money, the Democrats with their spending have spent faster than taxes can keep up. Spending as a percent of GDP is now 42.36.  The historical average from 1929 to 2010 was 18.6% of GDP.

The problem is not that we tax too little.  The problem is the USA spends too much.  The 42.36% figure means of every service or product produced in the USA annually the Federal Government spends $42.36 dollars for every $100 earned.  






https://stats.areppim.com/stats/stats_usxrecxspendxgdp.htm

FISCAL YEAR	REVENUE
FY 2021	$4.05 trillion
FY 2020	$3.42 trillion
FY 2019	$3.46 trillion
FY 2018	$3.33 trillion
FY 2017	$3.32 trillion
FY 2016	$3.27 trillion
FY 2015	$3.25 trillion
FY 2014	$3.02 trillion
FY 2013	$2.78 trillion
FY 2012	$2.45 trillion
FY 2011	$2.30 trillion
FY 2010	$2.16 trillion
FY 2009	$2.11 trillion
FY 2008	$2.52 trillion
FY 2007	$2.57 trillion
FY 2006	$2.41 trillion
FY 2005	$2.15 trillion
FY 2004	$1.88 trillion
FY 2003	$1.78 trillion
FY 2002	$1.85 trillion
FY 2001	$1.99 trillion
FY 2000	$2.03 trillion
FY 1999	$1.83 trillion
FY 1998	$1.72 trillion
FY 1997	$1.58 trillion
FY 1996	$1.45 trillion
FY 1995	$1.35 trillion
FY 1994	$1.26 trillion
FY 1993	$1.15 trillion
FY 1992	$1.09 trillion
FY 1991	$1.06 trillion
FY 1990	$1.03 trillion

More B.S. Under Bill Clinton, taxes were raised enough to have a balanced budget in his final year in office. When George Bush came into office, the Republicans slashed taxes on the wealthy and budget deficits once again became the rule.

[Tug]

On 1/15/2023 at 6:04 PM, thaibeachlovers said:

Just my opinion, but if one chooses to not live in a certain country, why should one have a vote there?

Do you vote in your country of origin?oh and on the subject of the debt it would be a big help if the Uber wealthy paid taxes but of course they won’t also it’s becoming more clear what keven McCarthy had to give up to get the speaker ship it bodes Bad days ahead for America the maga nutters are on some of the most important committees and keven is so neutered as to have no control not a good recipe imo 

[heybruce]

12 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

Wrong Answer.  The problem is not lack of tax revenue.  Federal receipts have gone up 400% in the past two decades.  Despite having far more money, the Democrats with their spending have spent faster than taxes can keep up. Spending as a percent of GDP is now 42.36.  The historical average from 1929 to 2010 was 18.6% of GDP.

The problem is not that we tax too little.  The problem is the USA spends too much.  The 42.36% figure means of every service or product produced in the USA annually the Federal Government spends $42.36 dollars for every $100 earned.  






https://stats.areppim.com/stats/stats_usxrecxspendxgdp.htm

FISCAL YEAR	REVENUE
FY 2021	$4.05 trillion
FY 2020	$3.42 trillion
FY 2019	$3.46 trillion
FY 2018	$3.33 trillion
FY 2017	$3.32 trillion
FY 2016	$3.27 trillion
FY 2015	$3.25 trillion
FY 2014	$3.02 trillion
FY 2013	$2.78 trillion
FY 2012	$2.45 trillion
FY 2011	$2.30 trillion
FY 2010	$2.16 trillion
FY 2009	$2.11 trillion
FY 2008	$2.52 trillion
FY 2007	$2.57 trillion
FY 2006	$2.41 trillion
FY 2005	$2.15 trillion
FY 2004	$1.88 trillion
FY 2003	$1.78 trillion
FY 2002	$1.85 trillion
FY 2001	$1.99 trillion
FY 2000	$2.03 trillion
FY 1999	$1.83 trillion
FY 1998	$1.72 trillion
FY 1997	$1.58 trillion
FY 1996	$1.45 trillion
FY 1995	$1.35 trillion
FY 1994	$1.26 trillion
FY 1993	$1.15 trillion
FY 1992	$1.09 trillion
FY 1991	$1.06 trillion
FY 1990	$1.03 trillion

Funny that your middle numbers, the one's headlined with the large 42.36%, are not part of your linked source and are completely out of line with the other out-of-date numbers. 

 

I assume it comes from OECD data, which you didn't want to use as a source because it shows that the US spending is below average among rich nations as a percent of GDP.  https://data.oecd.org/gga/general-government-spending.htm

 

Maintaining the human, physical, legal and other forms of infrastructure necessary for a modern, competitive economy is expensive.  However not maintaining this infrastructure is even more expensive. 

 

The US government is not spending too much, it is allowing far to many tax loopholes for corporations and the wealthy. 

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

Funny that your middle numbers, the one's headlined with the large 42.36%, are not part of your linked source and are completely out of line with the other out-of-date numbers. 

 

I assume it comes from OECD data, which you didn't want to use as a source because it shows that the US spending is below average among rich nations as a percent of GDP.  https://data.oecd.org/gga/general-government-spending.htm

 

Maintaining the human, physical, legal and other forms of infrastructure necessary for a modern, competitive economy is expensive.  However not maintaining this infrastructure is even more expensive. 

 

The US government is not spending too much, it is allowing far to many tax loopholes for corporations and the wealthy. 

As per usual, you're getting the facts wrong. Those OECD figures reflect total government spending in the USA. Including state and local governments. It's not just about federal spending.

[thaibeachlovers]

18 hours ago, heybruce said:

I see.  You believe the GOP must destroy America to save it.  Another indicator of fanaticism.

Not all of America, just certain parts.

[thaibeachlovers]

12 hours ago, nauseus said:

Both sides gave had there share. Silly billy.

Neither party has a valid excuse for the debt. Enough blame to go around for all politicians last 30 or so years.

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Neither party has a valid excuse for the debt. Enough blame to go around for all politicians last 30 or so years.

Republicans consistently slashed taxes while making the absurd claim that slashing taxes will pay for itself because of increased economic activity generated by such cuts. To date, no such result has been observed. It is, in fact, a very big lie.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Republicans consistently slashed taxes while making the absurd claim that slashing taxes will pay for itself because of increased economic activity generated by such cuts. To date, no such result has been observed. It is, in fact, a very big lie.

The issue is debt, which has grown under red and blue govs. 

[placeholder]

8 hours ago, nauseus said:

The issue is debt, which has grown under red and blue govs. 

Do you understand that there are 2 ways to increase debt? One is by more spending and the other is by slashing revenue.

[nauseus]

56 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Do you understand that there are 2 ways to increase debt? One is by more spending and the other is by slashing revenue.

Do you understand why I think that by this question you are being irritatingly patronizing?

[placeholder]

33 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Do you understand why I think that by this question you are being irritatingly patronizing?

I hope it isn't because you sincerely didn't know that spending doesn't necessarily result in net indebtedness. I had assumed you were feigning ignorance and calling you out on it. Was I wrong?

[heybruce]

16 hours ago, placeholder said:

As per usual, you're getting the facts wrong. Those OECD figures reflect total government spending in the USA. Including state and local governments. It's not just about federal spending.

?  Did you reply to the wrong post?  What facts did I get wrong?

[nauseus]

5 hours ago, placeholder said:

I hope it isn't because you sincerely didn't know that spending doesn't necessarily result in net indebtedness. I had assumed you were feigning ignorance and calling you out on it. Was I wrong?

You're always wrong.

[placeholder]

7 hours ago, nauseus said:

You're always wrong.

I want to commend you on your humility. You actually confessed that you had no idea that reducing revenues would effect indebtedness. But don't worry about that. I'll be here to set you straight next time you stray.

[nauseus]

54 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I want to commend you on your humility. You actually confessed that you had no idea that reducing revenues would effect indebtedness. But don't worry about that. I'll be here to set you straight next time you stray.

Wrong again! But at least you're consistent.

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

Wrong again! But at least you're consistent.

And, as per usual, you offer no facts or reasoning to back up your rebuttals. You've got nothing. 

[Longwood50]

On 1/19/2023 at 6:27 AM, heybruce said:

The US government is not spending too much, it is allowing far to many tax loopholes for corporations and the wealthy. 

You  know you liberals are very good at making up "facts" But short on ever providing any documentation to back up your fake assertions. 

I provided that Revenue had quadrupled in the past 20 years.  Despite that spending increased even faster.  See attached chart.  

No matter how much money is increased the government spends more.  As to the companies I can see you are no student of economics. 

First, companies don't pay tax.  They pass it along to their consumers.  A tax is a cost and all costs must be passed on.  So,  having companies pay more in taxes means higher prices and for those who compete globally it puts them at a disadvantage to other nations with little to no taxes on business.  It also robs the incentive for someone to go into business since they know the government will rob them of the fruits of their labor and HINT expansion of business that provides jobs costs money and if they have less left over after taxes it hinders expansion and hence hurts job creation. 

As to wealthy individuals having tax loopholes.  A "loophole" is any legal deduction.  For individuals, a 401(k) is a loophole, deducting mortgage interest is a loophole, having deducting your state and local taxes is a loophole.   Now the top 1% already pay 37% of the total federal tax bill and the top 10% of income earners pay more than the botton 90% combined.  

Note these figures come from the IRS not made up from the crevices of your mind. 

The fact is that though the Federal Government collects far far far more in taxes than it did two decades ago, it is like a drunken sailor and spends even more.  Why? it is essentially buying peoples votes by spending money on programs that people receive benefits from and hence become like the junkie hooked on drugs.  They will continue to vote for those who feed their habit. 

If you refute these numbers.  SHOW ME. Go to the IRS, not some left wing article and show me the hard facts.  Mine come from IRS published numbers. 

As to your ridiculous assertion that the government does not spend to much, here is the spending chart.  Notice the sharp rise. 

The USA for many decades was in the 18% to 19% range of federal spending to GDP.  For 2021 the Federal Govt spent $6.8 Trillion and the total GDP was $23.32 Trillion.  So unless you flunked math that is 29.16%.  If you subtract government spending from GDP because spending is included in GDP you are closer to 46% ration of federal speding to the remainder of GDP which does not include government spending.  

At $6.8 Trillion the government is spending $52,307 for each and every of the 130 million families in the USA.  The median family income is only $70, 284 so the federal government alone spends 74% of what the typical median income is. 

 

AND YOU REALLY WANT TO TRY AND PEDDLE THE NONSENSE WE DON'T SPEND TO MUCH. 

Historical Tax Share Data

https://www.ntu.org/foundation/tax-page/who-pays-income-taxes#:~:text=Tax Shares in Tax Year 2020&text=The newly released report covers,percent of all income taxes.

https://www.heritage.org/taxes/commentary/1-chart-how-much-the-rich-pay-taxes

[ozimoron]

43 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

You  know you liberals are very good at making up "facts" But short on ever providing any documentation to back up your fake assertions. 

I provided that Revenue had quadrupled in the past 20 years.  Despite that spending increased even faster.  See attached chart.  

No matter how much money is increased the government spends more.  As to the companies I can see you are no student of economics. 

First, companies don't pay tax.  They pass it along to their consumers.  A tax is a cost and all costs must be passed on.  So,  having companies pay more in taxes means higher prices and for those who compete globally it puts them at a disadvantage to other nations with little to no taxes on business.  It also robs the incentive for someone to go into business since they know the government will rob them of the fruits of their labor and HINT expansion of business that provides jobs costs money and if they have less left over after taxes it hinders expansion and hence hurts job creation. 

As to wealthy individuals having tax loopholes.  A "loophole" is any legal deduction.  For individuals, a 401(k) is a loophole, deducting mortgage interest is a loophole, having deducting your state and local taxes is a loophole.   Now the top 1% already pay 37% of the total federal tax bill and the top 10% of income earners pay more than the botton 90% combined.  

Note these figures come from the IRS not made up from the crevices of your mind. 

The fact is that though the Federal Government collects far far far more in taxes than it did two decades ago, it is like a drunken sailor and spends even more.  Why? it is essentially buying peoples votes by spending money on programs that people receive benefits from and hence become like the junkie hooked on drugs.  They will continue to vote for those who feed their habit. 

If you refute these numbers.  SHOW ME. Go to the IRS, not some left wing article and show me the hard facts.  Mine come from IRS published numbers. 

As to your ridiculous assertion that the government does not spend to much, here is the spending chart.  Notice the sharp rise. 

The USA for many decades was in the 18% to 19% range of federal spending to GDP.  For 2021 the Federal Govt spent $6.8 Trillion and the total GDP was $23.32 Trillion.  So unless you flunked math that is 29.16%.  If you subtract government spending from GDP because spending is included in GDP you are closer to 46% ration of federal speding to the remainder of GDP which does not include government spending.  

At $6.8 Trillion the government is spending $52,307 for each and every of the 130 million families in the USA.  The median family income is only $70, 284 so the federal government alone spends 74% of what the typical median income is. 

 

AND YOU REALLY WANT TO TRY AND PEDDLE THE NONSENSE WE DON'T SPEND TO MUCH. 

Historical Tax Share Data

https://www.ntu.org/foundation/tax-page/who-pays-income-taxes#:~:text=Tax Shares in Tax Year 2020&text=The newly released report covers,percent of all income taxes.

https://www.heritage.org/taxes/commentary/1-chart-how-much-the-rich-pay-taxes

Same old tripe. You ignore the tax burden which has been pointed out to you. The rich pay a far lower tax burden than the middle class as a percentage of their income. Is that fair?

 

Source already linked in response to a previous similar post by you.

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

And, as per usual, you offer no facts or reasoning to back up your rebuttals. You've got nothing. 

I didn't confess anything, that's the fact in this case. 

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, Longwood50 said:

You  know you liberals are very good at making up "facts" But short on ever providing any documentation to back up your fake assertions. 

I provided that Revenue had quadrupled in the past 20 years.  Despite that spending increased even faster.  See attached chart.  

No matter how much money is increased the government spends more.  As to the companies I can see you are no student of economics. 

First, companies don't pay tax.  They pass it along to their consumers.  A tax is a cost and all costs must be passed on.  So,  having companies pay more in taxes means higher prices and for those who compete globally it puts them at a disadvantage to other nations with little to no taxes on business.  It also robs the incentive for someone to go into business since they know the government will rob them of the fruits of their labor and HINT expansion of business that provides jobs costs money and if they have less left over after taxes it hinders expansion and hence hurts job creation. 

As to wealthy individuals having tax loopholes.  A "loophole" is any legal deduction.  For individuals, a 401(k) is a loophole, deducting mortgage interest is a loophole, having deducting your state and local taxes is a loophole.   Now the top 1% already pay 37% of the total federal tax bill and the top 10% of income earners pay more than the botton 90% combined.  

Note these figures come from the IRS not made up from the crevices of your mind. 

The fact is that though the Federal Government collects far far far more in taxes than it did two decades ago, it is like a drunken sailor and spends even more.  Why? it is essentially buying peoples votes by spending money on programs that people receive benefits from and hence become like the junkie hooked on drugs.  They will continue to vote for those who feed their habit. 

If you refute these numbers.  SHOW ME. Go to the IRS, not some left wing article and show me the hard facts.  Mine come from IRS published numbers. 

As to your ridiculous assertion that the government does not spend to much, here is the spending chart.  Notice the sharp rise. 

The USA for many decades was in the 18% to 19% range of federal spending to GDP.  For 2021 the Federal Govt spent $6.8 Trillion and the total GDP was $23.32 Trillion.  So unless you flunked math that is 29.16%.  If you subtract government spending from GDP because spending is included in GDP you are closer to 46% ration of federal speding to the remainder of GDP which does not include government spending.  

At $6.8 Trillion the government is spending $52,307 for each and every of the 130 million families in the USA.  The median family income is only $70, 284 so the federal government alone spends 74% of what the typical median income is. 

 

AND YOU REALLY WANT TO TRY AND PEDDLE THE NONSENSE WE DON'T SPEND TO MUCH. 

Historical Tax Share Data

https://www.ntu.org/foundation/tax-page/who-pays-income-taxes#:~:text=Tax Shares in Tax Year 2020&text=The newly released report covers,percent of all income taxes.

https://www.heritage.org/taxes/commentary/1-chart-how-much-the-rich-pay-taxes

So much nonsense here. Among other things that your tax facts leave out is that the wealthy derive their income far more from capital gains than they do from earned income.

The Forbes 400 Pay Lower Tax Rates Than Many Ordinary Americans

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/forbes-400-pay-lower-tax-rates-many-ordinary-americans/

One tactic of theirs is to borrow against shares of stocks they hold. That makes it a loan, not earnings so not subject to tax.

In addition, you fail to note the total tax burden on citizens. If state and local taxes are included the it turns out that the wealthy poy less as a percentage of their earnings than do working class citizens. Check the 2 charts and compare 1980 to 2018,

 

"For the first time on record, the 400 wealthiest Americans last year paid a lower total tax rate — spanning federal, state and local taxes — than any other income group, according to newly released data."

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/06/opinion/income-tax-rate-wealthy.html

Edited January 20, 2023 by placeholder

[placeholder]

16 minutes ago, nauseus said:

I didn't confess anything, that's the fact in this case. 

You made the claim that "Tax breaks are not part of this latest mad spending, so no need to include them."

How else but to conclude that you think tax breaks and the resulting loss in revenue are irrelevant to the present situation. As I pointed out, apparently, you don't believe that the cumulative effect of tax breaks, which cut revenue, are relevant.

[nauseus]

25 minutes ago, placeholder said:

You made the claim that "Tax breaks are not part of this latest mad spending, so no need to include them."

How else but to conclude that you think tax breaks and the resulting loss in revenue are irrelevant to the present situation. As I pointed out, apparently, you don't believe that the cumulative effect of tax breaks, which cut revenue, are relevant.

What tax breaks are occurring simultaneously with this latest mad spending then?

[placeholder]

14 minutes ago, nauseus said:

What tax breaks are occurring simultaneously with this latest mad spending then?

Every tax break that hasn't been repealed. You think they only have an effect the year that they are passed? Or that some law of Nature is stopping Republicans from proposing tax increases?

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

You  know you liberals are very good at making up "facts" But short on ever providing any documentation to back up your fake assertions. 

I provided that Revenue had quadrupled in the past 20 years.  Despite that spending increased even faster.  See attached chart.  

No matter how much money is increased the government spends more.  As to the companies I can see you are no student of economics. 

First, companies don't pay tax.  They pass it along to their consumers.  A tax is a cost and all costs must be passed on.  So,  having companies pay more in taxes means higher prices and for those who compete globally it puts them at a disadvantage to other nations with little to no taxes on business.  It also robs the incentive for someone to go into business since they know the government will rob them of the fruits of their labor and HINT expansion of business that provides jobs costs money and if they have less left over after taxes it hinders expansion and hence hurts job creation. 

As to wealthy individuals having tax loopholes.  A "loophole" is any legal deduction.  For individuals, a 401(k) is a loophole, deducting mortgage interest is a loophole, having deducting your state and local taxes is a loophole.   Now the top 1% already pay 37% of the total federal tax bill and the top 10% of income earners pay more than the botton 90% combined.  

Note these figures come from the IRS not made up from the crevices of your mind. 

The fact is that though the Federal Government collects far far far more in taxes than it did two decades ago, it is like a drunken sailor and spends even more.  Why? it is essentially buying peoples votes by spending money on programs that people receive benefits from and hence become like the junkie hooked on drugs.  They will continue to vote for those who feed their habit. 

If you refute these numbers.  SHOW ME. Go to the IRS, not some left wing article and show me the hard facts.  Mine come from IRS published numbers. 

As to your ridiculous assertion that the government does not spend to much, here is the spending chart.  Notice the sharp rise. 

The USA for many decades was in the 18% to 19% range of federal spending to GDP.  For 2021 the Federal Govt spent $6.8 Trillion and the total GDP was $23.32 Trillion.  So unless you flunked math that is 29.16%.  If you subtract government spending from GDP because spending is included in GDP you are closer to 46% ration of federal speding to the remainder of GDP which does not include government spending.  

At $6.8 Trillion the government is spending $52,307 for each and every of the 130 million families in the USA.  The median family income is only $70, 284 so the federal government alone spends 74% of what the typical median income is. 

 

AND YOU REALLY WANT TO TRY AND PEDDLE THE NONSENSE WE DON'T SPEND TO MUCH. 

Historical Tax Share Data

https://www.ntu.org/foundation/tax-page/who-pays-income-taxes#:~:text=Tax Shares in Tax Year 2020&text=The newly released report covers,percent of all income taxes.

https://www.heritage.org/taxes/commentary/1-chart-how-much-the-rich-pay-taxes

You edited out the sourced facts of my post, probably because they were accurate and you couldn't refute them.  Instead you replied to the final sentence with irrelevant nonsense, some of it quite amusing.  For example, your paragraph that opens with:

 

"First, companies don't pay tax.... It also robs the incentive for someone to go into business since they know the government will rob them of the fruits of their labor..."

 

If the companies aren't paying taxes, how do taxes rob them of the fruits of their labor?  Also, if companies pass on taxes to their customers, isn't that the fairest kind of tax?  Consumers get to choose how much tax they pay by their consumption choices.

 

There are ridiculous loopholes.  For example, if a person invests a thousand and it grows to a million, that person will pay capitol gains tax if he cashes out the investment.  However if he dies and leaves it to his heirs, they can cash in the investment tax free.  In fact they can inherit quite a lot more; inheritance tax only kicks in at $12.6 million.  Why should the people who don't invest or earn the money get it tax free?

 

Allowing people to deduct interest on a first home is arguably justified in promoting home ownership (although the argument is far from ironclad), but what is the point of allowing interest deductions on second homes, or extravagant mansions?  And what about the Trump trick of constantly changing the declared value of property to get the best loan or minimum tax?  Doesn't that show that the really wealthy don't worry about income tax because their wealth is in property and other investments, and they can play games with declared wealth to dodge taxes?

 

BTW:  I don't think too many people are overly concerned about the top 1% paying a 21% tax rate.  During the 1950's and early 1960's they were paying a top tax rate of 90% or more.  https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/historical-highest-marginal-income-tax-rates

 

Granted, the yachts were much smaller back then, and private jets were unheard of.  Yet somehow the rich muddled through.

 

Funny thing; while the economy had its ups and downs, overall it did quite well in those days of high tax rates.  https://www.thebalancemoney.com/u-s-gdp-growth-3306008  https://www.thebalancemoney.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306

 

And the budget deficit was quite low.  https://www.thebalancemoney.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306

 

History shows that to reduce the deficit and improve the economy we need to tax the wealthy more.

 

Before you delete the sourced facts on this post and reply to out of context sentences, why don't you first tell us where you want federal spending cut?  You can see how the money is spent here:  https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/united_states_federal_spending_pie_chart

Edited January 20, 2023 by heybruce

[candide]

4 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

You  know you liberals are very good at making up "facts" But short on ever providing any documentation to back up your fake assertions. 

I provided that Revenue had quadrupled in the past 20 years.  Despite that spending increased even faster.  See attached chart.  

No matter how much money is increased the government spends more.  As to the companies I can see you are no student of economics. 

First, companies don't pay tax.  They pass it along to their consumers.  A tax is a cost and all costs must be passed on.  So,  having companies pay more in taxes means higher prices and for those who compete globally it puts them at a disadvantage to other nations with little to no taxes on business.  It also robs the incentive for someone to go into business since they know the government will rob them of the fruits of their labor and HINT expansion of business that provides jobs costs money and if they have less left over after taxes it hinders expansion and hence hurts job creation. 

As to wealthy individuals having tax loopholes.  A "loophole" is any legal deduction.  For individuals, a 401(k) is a loophole, deducting mortgage interest is a loophole, having deducting your state and local taxes is a loophole.   Now the top 1% already pay 37% of the total federal tax bill and the top 10% of income earners pay more than the botton 90% combined.  

Note these figures come from the IRS not made up from the crevices of your mind. 

The fact is that though the Federal Government collects far far far more in taxes than it did two decades ago, it is like a drunken sailor and spends even more.  Why? it is essentially buying peoples votes by spending money on programs that people receive benefits from and hence become like the junkie hooked on drugs.  They will continue to vote for those who feed their habit. 

If you refute these numbers.  SHOW ME. Go to the IRS, not some left wing article and show me the hard facts.  Mine come from IRS published numbers. 

As to your ridiculous assertion that the government does not spend to much, here is the spending chart.  Notice the sharp rise. 

The USA for many decades was in the 18% to 19% range of federal spending to GDP.  For 2021 the Federal Govt spent $6.8 Trillion and the total GDP was $23.32 Trillion.  So unless you flunked math that is 29.16%.  If you subtract government spending from GDP because spending is included in GDP you are closer to 46% ration of federal speding to the remainder of GDP which does not include government spending.  

At $6.8 Trillion the government is spending $52,307 for each and every of the 130 million families in the USA.  The median family income is only $70, 284 so the federal government alone spends 74% of what the typical median income is. 

 

AND YOU REALLY WANT TO TRY AND PEDDLE THE NONSENSE WE DON'T SPEND TO MUCH. 

Historical Tax Share Data

https://www.ntu.org/foundation/tax-page/who-pays-income-taxes#:~:text=Tax Shares in Tax Year 2020&text=The newly released report covers,percent of all income taxes.

https://www.heritage.org/taxes/commentary/1-chart-how-much-the-rich-pay-taxes

K

You fail to notice the impact of crises (or the absence of crisis).

- There was a good reason for the budget deficit to increase at the beginning of Obama's presidency, as it was necessary to mitigate the effect of the crisis.

- then the deficit increased at the beginning of Trumps mandate. There was no excuse for it, as the country had enjoyed a regular growth during years and the international economic environment was good. It was just to provide tax cuts to the "swamp"(????), and artificially stimulate the stock market.

- then there was the Covid crisis, and again, it was necessary to increase the deficit to mitigate its impact (2020 and 2021)

- after that, it starts to come back to more reasonable levels (2022).

https://www.statista.com/statistics/222196/receipts-and-outlays-of-the-us-government-since-fiscal-year-2000/#:~:text=In 2021%2C the total receipts,to 5.7 trillion U.S. dollars.

Edited January 20, 2023 by candide

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

Every tax break that hasn't been repealed. You think they only have an effect the year that they are passed? Or that some law of Nature is stopping Republicans from proposing tax increases?

By using the words are occurring simultaneously I was inferring the present tense and asking about new laws, not historical ones. Biden has been there for over two years and with a Democratic controlled senate AND house until early this month - if he hasn't repealed these oh-so-damaging Trump tax cuts by now, then I'd have to ask you just why that is? 

Edited January 20, 2023 by nauseus

[nauseus]

28 minutes ago, candide said:

You fail to notice the impact of crises (or the absence of crisis).

- There was a good reason for the budget deficit to increase at the beginning of Obama's presidency, as it was necessary to mitigate the effect of the crisis.

- then the deficit increased at the beginning of Trumps mandate. There was no excuse for it, as the country had enjoyed a regular growth during years and the international economic environment was good. It was just to provide tax cuts to the "swamp"(????), and artificially stimulate the stock market.

- then there was the Covid crisis, and again, it was necessary to increase the deficit to mitigate its impact (2020 and 2021)

- after that, it starts to come back to more reasonable levels (2022).

https://www.statista.com/statistics/222196/receipts-and-outlays-of-the-us-government-since-fiscal-year-2000/#:~:text=In 2021%2C the total receipts,to 5.7 trillion U.S. dollars.

The deficit increased at about the same rate through Obama's and Trump's regimes, until 2020 and Covid. The Trump tax cuts encouraged some businesses (and jobs) to return back to the US. The artificial stimulation of the stock market was mainly enabled right after the 2008 GFC by Federal Reserve low interest rate policies and successive rounds of QE.

 

Government Debt in the United States

 

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-debt

Edited January 20, 2023 by nauseus

[candide]

16 minutes ago, nauseus said:

The deficit increased at about the same rate through Obama's and Trump's regimes, until 2020 and Covid. The Trump tax cuts encouraged some businesses (and jobs) to return back to the US. The artificial stimulation of the stock market was mainly enabled right after the 2008 GFC by Federal Reserve low interest rate policies and successive rounds of QE.

 

Government Debt in the United States

 

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-debt

It's not what the Statista chart is showing (in the post I replied to). I am not talking about the average rate over the whole mandate. I am talking about the different patterns in relation to the impact of crises. Fact is that the deficit grew during Trump's mandate under a good economic context (no impact of crisis), in 2017, 2018 and 2019 (pre-Covid) compared to the end of Obama's mandate under similar conditions.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/222196/receipts-and-outlays-of-the-us-government-since-fiscal-year-2000/#:~:text=In 2021%2C the total receipts,to 5.7 trillion U.S. dollars.

[placeholder]

56 minutes ago, nauseus said:

By using the words are occurring simultaneously I was inferring the present tense and asking about new laws, not historical ones. Biden has been there for over two years and with a Democratic controlled senate AND house until early this month - if he hasn't repealed these oh-so-damaging Trump tax cuts by now, then I'd have to ask you just why that is? 

Actually, if you had been following the news, he did try to generate higher taxes on the wealthy. And he did get some.  But a couple of Democratic senators put the kibosh on a lot of it. While not one Republican voted in favor. Not one.f it. I'm guessing that you're not aware that the Senate was split 50-50 in the previous session. You do see now, don't you, that this could be quite limiting?