Does the national debt worry you?

[Mai72]

https://www.thebalance.com/the-u-s-debt-and-how-it-got-so-big-3305778

I'm curious. Does the fact that we owe over $22T scare you, or do you think it's not much of a big deal. How could this affect us 10 years later? Will it be an issue, or do you think we will be able to resolve this with little to no pain.

Congress realizes it is facing a debt crisis. Over the next 20 years, the Social Security Trust Fund won't have enough to cover the retirement benefits promised to baby boomers. That could mean higher taxes once the high U.S. debt rules out further loans from other countries. Congress is more likely to curtail benefits than raise taxes. That would primarily affect retirees younger than 70. It might also hit those who are high income and not as dependent on Social Security payments to fund their retirement.

 

[sandorski]

At best the next Dem President decreases the Deficit into a serviceable level, then the next Rep President balloons it back to troubling levels.

 

[nickqt]

At best the next Dem President decreases the Deficit into a serviceable level, then the next Rep President balloons it back to troubling levels.

Every time I'm told that the big bad debt and deficit is gonna get me, I always ask: how has it ever affected any of us?

Always crickets. Unless someone wants to play the slippery slope game, or fundamentally misunderstands sovereign fiat currency.

MMT, which I am not an expert on, basically treats the debt/deficit as an accounting column. It's the amount of money out and about being used in an economy. And right now, there are too many people sitting on TRILLIONS of dollars of wealth without ever letting it funnel through the citizens living in that same economy.

Or: how would paying off all of the US Debt make anything better? The debt, often "sold" as treasury bonds, are investment vehicles for people, companies, and countries.

Not to mention, about 25% of the US Debt is owed...wait for it...to the US government by the US government.

No, this is not a strawnman argument that we should helicopter dump $10 Trillion dollars over a mall parking lot in Minnesota.

But as a thought experiment, if the US government created $1.5T without first borrowing from the Federal Reserve, and paid off all of the student loan debt, how would that negatively affect the economy? How would people who are now paying hundreds/thousands per month in interest on maybe a piece of paper, going to do with that excess cash? Burn it? Papercut babies? Explain how this becomes a negative. Again, the US government could just print the cash and pay off all the debt. No new debt would be created. How does it negatively affect anything, minus, well, loan companies that are no longer cashing in on student debt interest.

To answer the OP: As long as we aren't just giving more money to the people who already have most of the money, then no, the debt/deficits don't worry me. All of that money is going to end up in corporation hands, and sitting in a bank. Letting the people hold onto it to pay for things that they need, before giving it to...corporations and banks...is not going to crash the economy. It probably wouldn't even substantially affect interest rates, as there is a serious need by most Americans for more money just to get out of debt and to upgrade crumbling private infrastructure.

Or, TL;DR: the debt and deficits that create it aren't necessarily bad, unless we're just shoving it at rich people who already have TOO MUCH money relative to the average citizen.

 

[DrDoug]

Remove the SS tax cap on wages.

 

[cytg111]

I think the US debt is "fine" as long as the US is the biggest economy, biggest trade partner, most influencal on the world stage and last but not least has the biggest guns.
Everything Trump has done uptil now is eroding on those parameters.
No your debt is not fine. We should all worry. Someone is edging away at the world economy.

 

[TheVrolok]

Remove the SS tax cap on wages.

Certainly a considerable starting point, but why continue to make those who are making most of their income through wages pay more?

What I mean is, sure it impacts the top tiers of income earners who can spare it, but not as much the super wealthy where the disparity really kicks in. Just furthers the divide between the "poor rich" and "rich rich."

 

[DrDoug]

Certainly a considerable starting point, but why continue to make those who are making most of their income through wages pay more?

What I mean is, sure it impacts the top tiers of income earners who can spare it, but not as much the super wealthy where the disparity really kicks in. Just furthers the divide between the "poor rich" and "rich rich."

Agreed... a good starting point there is to make earnings as a whole taxable, not just wages. Everything for that year. When everything is tallied up, what did someone rake in at the end of the year? Tax that number.

 

[TheVrolok]

Agreed... a good starting point there is to make earnings as a whole taxable, not just wages. Everything for that year. When everything is tallied up, what did someone rake in at the end of the year? Tax that number.

Totally agreed. I think it's somewhat of a no-brainer packaged with other reforms that target the 0.1% who do not make most of their income from payroll wages.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I was told there would be winning.

 

[DrDoug]

I was told there would be winning.

The cake was a lie.

 

[dawp]

I was told there would be whining.

fixed.

 

[ch33zw1z]

The cake was a lie.

fixed.

Well shucks, those dirty dem's fooled me again.

 

[DrDoug]

Well shucks, those dirty dem's fooled me again.

Now follow the wise words of The Who so you won't be fooled again. At least I think there's a message in there. If not, play it backwards and I'm sure something wise will be said.

Time for another bong hit.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Certainly a considerable starting point, but why continue to make those who are making most of their income through wages pay more?

What I mean is, sure it impacts the top tiers of income earners who can spare it, but not as much the super wealthy where the disparity really kicks in. Just furthers the divide between the "poor rich" and "rich rich."

make income be income, regardless of the source?

 

[Mai72]

make income be income, regardless of the source?

The highest taxed are the people who work for a living. The poor don't pay taxes, and the wealthy find loopholes, or they put their wealth into tax exempt things like real estate. It's always the middle class who picks up the tax burden.

You could tax all sources. Would never be law though. The wealthy will make sure of that. When I taught in Asia the one huge benefit to me was I paid ZERO federal taxes. That's 22-30% on $52k. Tax free. It's why people were running oil trucks in Iraq for $100k a year. A very dangerous job, but the tax exemptions are amazing. That's extra money that you can invest, etc.

The wealthy are always going to rule America. If you can play their game on a smaller scale, I think that's the only way. Complaining about it isn't going to do anything. Just my opinion.

 

[TheVrolok]

make income be income, regardless of the source?

Fine by me.

 

[TheVrolok]

The highest taxed are the people who work for a living. The poor don't pay taxes, and the wealthy find loopholes, or they put their wealth into tax exempt things like real estate. It's always the middle class who picks up the tax burden.

You could tax all sources. Would never be law though. The wealthy will make sure of that. When I taught in Asia the one huge benefit to me was I paid ZERO federal taxes. That's 22-30% on $52k. Tax free. It's why people were running oil trucks in Iraq for $100k a year. A very dangerous job, but the tax exemptions are amazing. That's extra money that you can invest, etc.

The wealthy are always going to rule America. If you can play their game on a smaller scale, I think that's the only way. Complaining about it isn't going to do anything. Just my opinion.

I think this oversimplifies a bit. It's not just the middle class, even the early upper class bears a significant burden (by %) if their income is entirely wages.

The divide between "weathly" and "super wealthy" is way bigger than the divide between the middle class and the upper class.

Easier to burden the more "concrete" upper class than the more "abstract" corporate class.

Disclaimer: I'm being fairly loose with verbiage here, but I hope the point comes across. Also, I'm in the "rich" but far far from the "really rich" class.

 

[ralfy]

Also, unfunded liabilities at more than $120 trillion.

https://www.usdebtclock.org/

 

[soulcougher73]

It’s simple really. Tax all income regardless of source and get rid all of exemptions and loopholes. Make people responsible for their choices in life.

 

[fskimospy]

Also, unfunded liabilities at more than $120 trillion.

https://www.usdebtclock.org/

I mean I guess, but that’s only if you stretch the time line into infinity. US gdp will grow vastly larger during that time period, meaning that $120 trillion adds up to a few percent of GDP.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...es-have-128-trillion-in-unfunded-liabilities/

 

[Bitek]

I think this oversimplifies a bit. It's not just the middle class, even the early upper class bears a significant burden (by %) if their income is entirely wages.

The divide between "weathly" and "super wealthy" is way bigger than the divide between the middle class and the upper class.

Easier to burden the more "concrete" upper class than the more "abstract" corporate class.

Disclaimer: I'm being fairly loose with verbiage here, but I hope the point comes across. Also, I'm in the "rich" but far far from the "really rich" class.

I talked a little bit about this in the tax cut results thread. My wife and I both work and have good jobs, so AGI had grown to a good amt In the top %s.

Otoh, nearly all our earnings is from income, so no tax breaks apply (no private jet write-offs for us..) you pay a good amt in taxes, but so many things need to be saved for you try to put the as much of the rest away. Feels more like "not broke" rather than wealthy.

 

[TheVrolok]

I talked a little bit about this in the tax cut results thread. My wife and I both work and have good jobs, so AGI had grown to a good amt In the top %s.

Otoh, nearly all our earnings is from income, so no tax breaks apply (no private jet write-offs for us..) you pay a good amt in taxes, but so many things need to be saved for you try to put the as much of the rest away. Feels more like "not broke" rather than wealthy.

My wife and I are in the same spot, we're "gold collar" workers and feel very much the same way. Now, I realize how we have much more than the average person, and we are able to save dramatically more the average, but with our savings goals our disposable income is relatively tight especially with massive student loan debt (4k a month). I know, middle class readers weep for us.

It's just more that "life in the six figures" is not nearly as opulent as many would think.

 

[Jhhnn]

Certainly a considerable starting point, but why continue to make those who are making most of their income through wages pay more?

What I mean is, sure it impacts the top tiers of income earners who can spare it, but not as much the super wealthy where the disparity really kicks in. Just furthers the divide between the "poor rich" and "rich rich."

Predators always attack the weakest members of the herd first & work their way up. It works the same for economies as it does for wildlife. They just haven't gotten to you yet.

 

[Atreus21]

Remove the SS tax cap on wages.

Insufficient revenue isn't the problem. When the government makes any attempt at all to bring its spending habits into accordance with its revenue, I'll listen to plans for tax increases.

If all the government is gonna do is go to China or whoever else to get deeper into debt, I'd prefer the taxpayers keep as much of their income as possible. Lord knows they'll spend it more wisely than DC would.

 

[Jaskalas]

Does the national debt worry you?

Sure, and it's a damn good reason to never vote Republican.

When I propose a policy to fully fund and expand our safety net, it is either paid for in taxes directly, or proposed to be a loan or investment that will be paid back in due time. I want the United States to stop with the pyramid schemes and other BS economics of "excess and eventual collapse". It is past time we paid our bills and stopped dumping our greed on the backs of our children and grandchildren.