The debt ceiling

[pondwater]

There is no need to create a new legal pathway for the federal government to impose additional direct taxes; the existing legal pathways are sufficient.

We can go from a budget deficit to a surplus (and, over time, eliminate the national debt) the same way we already did so under Bill Clinton: by raising income taxes on the wealthy.  And since the majority of taxes (not just federal income taxes, but ALL TAXES) in this country are paid by the working class already, this seems like a fair arrangement.

Excluding income tax, currently where do all of those other direct taxes go?

[Spider-Dan]

Excluding income tax, currently where do all of those other direct taxes go?

I don't particularly care, and I don't see why anyone else should in the context of a discussion about deficits and who pays their fair share of taxes.

If you have a point to make, make it.

[pondwater]

I don't particularly care, and I don't see why anyone else should in the context of a discussion about deficits and who pays their fair share of taxes.

If you have a point to make, make it.

Oh, I've already made my point. I'm just trying to unwind all of your word salad and understand your point of view. A wealth tax isn't going to happen. If that's what you're waiting for, I've got some bad news for you

[Spider-Dan]

You're trying to argue against a point you wish I would make instead of what I'm saying.

I already clearly stated that we ran a surplus under Bill Clinton.  If we didn't need a wealth tax then, why would we need one now?  The rich are even richer today (in both absolute and relative terms) than they were then.

[pondwater]

You're trying to argue against a point you wish I would make instead of what I'm saying.

I already clearly stated that we ran a surplus under Bill Clinton.  If we didn't need a wealth tax then, why would we need one now?  The rich are even richer today (in both absolute and relative terms) than they were then.

I guess that I'm misunderstanding your position. Please feel free to clearly explain in detail what exactly you are proposing should happen.

[Dave Gray]

This thread sucks and is the problem.  Defaulting on our debt has nothing to do with taxes and spending.

That's the whole point.

If you default, it fucks up our economy.  So, pass the shit, for God's sake.  Just pass it clean, right now.  Get it done.


Then sure -- let's talk budget and spending and taxes and all that.

[pondwater]

This thread sucks and is the problem.  Defaulting on our debt has nothing to do with taxes and spending.

That's the whole point.

If you default, it fucks up our economy.  So, pass the shit, for God's sake.  Just pass it clean, right now.  Get it done.


Then sure -- let's talk budget and spending and taxes and all that.

Are you actually concerned that they won't pass something? I have zero control over it, therefore there is no need for me to worry about it. As far as I'm concerned it's all optics. How many times has this happened only for it to be resolved at the last minute?

Sure there's a chance we could default. But again, there's absolutely nothing I can do about it. You're just allowing them to pull your chain

[Spider-Dan]

I guess that I'm misunderstanding your position. Please feel free to clearly explain in detail what exactly you are proposing should happen.

To be clear: I agree with Dick Cheney that "Reagan proved deficits don't matter."  More specifically: deficits should never stop you from enacting your political goals when you are in power.  Deficits don't stop Republicans from enacting more tax cuts, and deficits shouldn't stop Democrats from enacting more social spending.  The overwhelming majority of the national debt is owed to us, the American people.  So the deficit and debt should not be used as a reason for any spending cuts; if the cut can't be justified on its own merits, it shouldn't be made.

That being said, my tax strategy is simple:

1) return to Clinton-era income tax rates
2) tax capital gains the same as earned income

Clinton-era tax rates were enough to put us in surplus, but we have added a lot more spending, so maybe that won't be enough, which is why I also suggested the capital gains tax change.  If that doesn't work, a transaction tax on stock trades should do it.  A return to Eisenhower-era tax rates would also be ideal.

Let me also add that this I think this tax policy would be effective at reducing the deficit and debt, but I don't really care about that and it's not the main reason why I would want to enact it.  I want to enact this policy to combat wealth inequality, which is a much larger problem than the national debt.  Any collateral effects on reducing the deficit/debt are simply a bonus.

I have zero control over it, therefore there is no need for me to worry about it.

This statement describes nearly all federal politics, which we all discuss at length anyway.

[Dave Gray]

Are you actually concerned that they won't pass something? I have zero control over it, therefore there is no need for me to worry about it. As far as I'm concerned it's all optics. How many times has this happened only for it to be resolved at the last minute?

Sure there's a chance we could default. But again, there's absolutely nothing I can do about it. You're just allowing them to pull your chain

I think that they probably will pass something because the alternative is so damaging.  Also, I can already see that the White House is posturing to not call their current debate "the debt ceiling".  They're calling it "the budget".  So I think they'll probably pass some kind of budget that they were going to pass anyway.  The White House can deny they negotiated on the debt ceiling and the GOP can claim they beat the white house.  I think that's the likeliest setting.

I know none of us have control over it.  We don't have control over anything the government does, but I still get concerned about it.