The Demise of the United States is Inevitable

Status
Not open for further replies.
craigiri said:
Total GDP. Or, simplified, total income of the country. The Budget is about 3.5 trillion, which is 1/4 of the GDP or 25%.

Therefore, we need 25% to make the book balance.
Click to expand...
Not sure how the GDP can be considered "total income of the country". GDP is the market value of all final goods and services produced within a country and not a measure of personal income.

How about we use real numbers?

According to the IRS, in 2009 the total adjusted gross income (less deficit) was $7,626,430,723 source. A flat tax (no deductions) would bring in $1,143,964,608.

And the interesting part........guess what the actual individual income tax revenue for 2009 was under the current progressive tax? $915,308,000 source

So if we would've had a 15% flat tax, we'd have $228,656,608 more in individual income tax revenue. Shocking right?

A small thing that you're neglecting to mention is that the individual income tax revenue isn't the only income of the US. In 2009 Payroll taxes (Social Security & Medicare) brought in $890,917,000 and Corporate income taxes brought in $138,229,000.

Also unlike popular believe, defense spending isn't the top budget item. Fiscal year 2010:
  • Medicare/Medicaid - 21.2%
  • Social Security - 20.4%
  • National Defense - 20.1%
  • Interest - 5.7%
  • All other items - 32.6%
A good article - http://www.factcheck.org/2011/07/fiscal-factcheck/
 
Fred Sherman said:
You fail to note the hoops that the drug companies jump through before they can even reach a point where they are in the marketplace. The FDA has run them through a long, arduous years (if not decades) long process of research, testing and trials.

Also, bribes? Come on. Its not bribery. Yes, they are wined and dined, taken to sporting events, etc. thats done in every business. I've done it and been on the receiving end too. Its called creating a relationship. People don't do business with companies. They do business with people they know and like.

its like dating, but the goal isn't sexual, its financial. What makes it better than dating is that the sales rep is always looking for a long term relationship.


I don't care how pure the motives are initially, the government has no place dictating treatment. That should remain between the doctor and patient. Why? Because the government's concern is purely financial too. They don't give two wags of a stray cat's tail what's best for the patient either. At least a doctor can be held accountable in court for a bad decision.
Click to expand...
Pharma's advertising compaigns that target consumers' awareness is business the right way. Direct involvement in the decision-making between the doctor and the patient by means of exchanging benefits be it monetary enrichment, wining and dining, or trips for the doctor is bribing in my book of life. Same goes to political lobbying and student loans.
 
Fred Sherman said:
So what? The government should just relieve them off all their money and provide for all of their needs directly? Its not like Uncle Sam has proven more fiscally responsible.
Click to expand...
Healthy middle class is the backbone of american economy. I would rather prefer government to help people in need to negotiate lower rates on their mortgages or even loan forgiveness than see big financial institutions getting bailed out with hundreds of billions of taxpayers' money. Why reward business failures and let ordinary people go under?

Government regulations are really needed to prevent situations like subprime mortgage meltdown from ever happening again.
 
kyrgyz said:
Wrong thread?

Compared to what we are given to choose from, Ron Paul and Obama strike me as honest people's guys. [as I said earlier].
Click to expand...
Lol I'm guessing that you don't live here in the US.

I'm willing to bet that Obama will go down in history as one of the worse presidents ever.
 
Fred Sherman said:
You cannot tax everyone making more that $100,000 at 100% and make up the budget shortfall.
Click to expand...
Well, Fred, if we make up our own facts it will be hard to have a honest conversation!

The top 10% of taxpayers who fit your criteria have an adjusted Gross Income of approx. 4 TRILLION dollars.
The projected budget deficit in 2015 to 2020 is approx. 500-700 billion per year.
This means we could balance the budget 7X over with your suggestion...each year!

C'mon, Fred, time to come back to earth. That is a oft repeated talking point with absolutely no basis in fact - as are a lot of the usual slogans. Do the math
 
DBA said:
I'm willing to bet that Obama will go down in history as one of the worse presidents ever.
Click to expand...

Are you a betting guy?
I'll give you even odds that he falls in the TOP 40%. Really.
GW, BTW, is already in the bottom 15% - a rogues gallery, for sure!
 
kyrgyz said:
Pharma's advertising compaigns that target consumers' awareness is business the right way.
Click to expand...
Pharma ads try to increase sales, not merely inform patient's awareness. Direct to patient pharma ads are banned in Canada. The ads do not improve patient's health.

Direct involvement in the decision-making between the doctor and the patient by means of exchanging benefits be it monetary enrichment, wining and dining, or trips for the doctor is bribing in my book of life. Same goes to political lobbying and student loans.
Click to expand...
This is slowly going away. Thankfully.
Pharma companies still "pay off" doctors by getting them to give talks to other doctors. They'll pay for laptops, projectors, dinner, your time ... etc.
 
DBA said:
Not sure how the GDP can be considered "total income of the country". GDP is the market value of all final goods and services produced within a country and not a measure of personal income.

How about we use real numbers?
Click to expand...
"For United States individual income tax, adjusted gross income (AGI) is total gross income minus specific reduction"

You can't have a flat tax on ADJUSTED gross income...because that is after deductions!
I thought that flat taxes did away with all that stuff.

I'm being very rough using the GDP - but total income of the country is somewhere about 12 Trillion.
Even Flat taxes allow people under a certain income to not pay or pay very little. Let's take a figure of 10 trillion gross that we could tax then.
We have 15 Trillion in debt. Any reasonable plan would have to pay off at least 500 billion a year.
There will likely be 300-500 billion a year interest on the existing debt (depends on interest rates).

So let's start with one trillion. Then add one trillion for a cut-down military and security state (it's about 1.3 now).
That's 2 trillion. Still, no courts, interstates, science, health, environment, disaster, employees and their pensions and much more.....
So, add a nice 600 billion or so for everything else.
A stripped down budget would then come in at 2.6 Trillion - I am not figuring the ss and medicare in here.
What percentage of 10 Trillion is 2.6 Trillion?

Any way you look at it, a flat tax would have to be 20% or more, even if you keep corporate taxes high, etc.
 
Digital Doctor said:
Pharma ads try to increase sales, not merely inform patient's awareness. Direct to patient pharma ads are banned in Canada. The ads do not improve patient's health.
.
Click to expand...
It's big business here. They get good looking young women to prance around with the doctors - these drug pushers can easily make 130K a year.
The TV commercials make fearful people want more and more pills to cure their ills, even though a sugar pill often has the same effectiveness.
It's big big big big business. The business end of it is not about making people well - it's about making them want drugs.

Interestingly enough, the vast majority of our increase in longevity is NOT due to medicine, but to sanitation. I think the figure is something like 90%.

The USA rates last among it's peers for health in matters such as infant mortality, life span, etc....which is especially disturbing because we pay almost twice the price as they do. You'd think folks like Fred would rally against paying double for less, but they have ideologies to repeat instead of eyes to see.
 
craigiri said:
Well, Fred, if we make up our own facts it will be hard to have a honest conversation!
Click to expand...
Nothing like the pot calling the kettle black. lol
craigiri said:
The top 10% of taxpayers who fit your criteria have an adjusted Gross Income of approx. 4 TRILLION dollars.
Click to expand...
2009 AGI stats:
Top 2.8% earners (over $200K a year) - $1,964,295,759
Top 12.4% earners (over $100k a year) - $3,765,742,656
Top 20.6% earners (over $75K a year) - $4,756,080,569

craigiri said:
C'mon, Fred, time to come back to earth. That is a oft repeated talking point with absolutely no basis in fact - as are a lot of the usual slogans. Do the math
Click to expand...
Actually if you'd tax the top 12.4% earners 100% of their AGI, you'd have a ~$665 Billion surplus (2009 stats), so ummm you do the math.

AGI of top 12.4% earners - $3,765,742,656
2009 budget - $3.1 Trillion


A few more interesting tidbits (2009 stats).

The top 2.8% earners paid 50.2% of the income tax ($434,280,397,000).
The top 12.4% earners paid 74.7% of the income tax ($646,570,986,000).
 
DBA said:
Nothing like the pot calling the kettle black. lol

2009 AGI stats:
Top 2.8% earners (over $200K a year) - $1,964,295,759
Top 12.4% earners (over $100k a year) - $3,765,742,656
Top 20.6% earners (over $75K a year) - $4,756,080,569

.
Click to expand...
Why are you taking the lowest stats from right after the great crash?
:)

We are discussing now and the future. It seems like your figures and mine agree - the number is about 4 trillion (it was actually higher in 2007, and will probably be higher in a few years).

So, is Fred correct. If we took that 4 trillion would the budget be balanced?
 
craigiri said:
"For United States individual income tax, adjusted gross income (AGI) is total gross income minus specific reduction".

You can't have a flat tax on ADJUSTED gross income...because that is after deductions!
I thought that flat taxes did away with all that stuff.
Click to expand...
Ok I'll give you that, however that would mean an even lower flat tax as the gross income would bring in even more.

BTW AGI is after these reductions ((I'd allow for a few reductions in a flat tax though).
  • Expenses of carrying on a trade or business including most rental activities (other than as an employee)
  • Certain business expenses of teachers, reservists, performing artists, and fee-basis government officials,
  • Certain moving expenses,
  • Penalties imposed by financial institutions and others on early withdrawal of savings,
  • Alimony paid (which the recipient must include in gross income),
  • College tuition, fees, and student loan interest (with limitations and exceptions),
  • Jury duty pay remitted to the juror's employer,
  • Domestic production activities deduction, and
  • Certain other items of limited applicability.

craigiri said:
I'm being very rough using the GDP - but total income of the country is somewhere about 12 Trillion.
Even Flat taxes allow people under a certain income to not pay or pay very little. Let's take a figure of 10 trillion gross that we could tax then.
We have 15 Trillion in debt. Any reasonable plan would have to pay off at least 500 billion a year.
There will likely be 300-500 billion a year interest on the existing debt (depends on interest rates).
Click to expand...
How did we change to paying off the debt? We're talking about changing the current progressive tax to a flat tax.

My point from the beginning has been that a flat tax would bring in more money than the current progressive tax and I proved that in this post. Even though I used the AGI figures, if we were to use your "$10 trillion" gross income figure it'd be even more. (an additional $585 billion in income taxes).

BTW you always seem to be forgetting about Payroll and Corp taxes, which bring in more than the income tax does.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom