OT: On some level, we all know this,
- Thread starter pseudonym
- Start date
- Status
Does Genespage still have a political board?
We are undertaxed compared to history and to other 1st world nations. Our debt load is smaller than others have successfully handled.
So no, we don't "all know this". But if Elon is so worried about it, he can start arguing that he should pay higher taxes.
Are we undertaxed or are there too many people getting a cut?
Dude just said that 3 out of 4 dollars in taxes are going to China or Wallstreet.
Japan holds 1.15 trillion in Treasury securities as of April '24, which is 14.3%.
China holds 770 billion, which is 9.6%.
UK holds 710 billion, which is 8.85%.
Luxembourg holds 384 billion, which is 4.79%.
Canada holds 338 billion, which is 4.22%.
So the top 5 countries hold 1/3 of US debt and China holds less than 30% of that 1/3.
China isnt even the largest holder and holds only 2/3 of the largest holder.
The UK holds almost the same as China.
And sure, Wallstreet holds a lot of that US debt, but its really US banks, state governments, US governments, mutual funds that private citizens can own, pension funds that private citizens use for retirement, savings bonds holders, etc.
But why list the country that holds 50% more than China and is an ally to the US, when you can instead say 'China' and make it sound dangerous?
And why mention the country that holds almost the same as China and is an ally to the US, when you can instead say 'China' and make it sound dangerous?
Continuing, why mention all the investments that US citizens own and benefit from that holds a significant amount of US debt, when you can instead say 'Wallstreet' and make it sound greedy?
Japan holds 1.15 trillion in Treasury securities as of April '24, which is 14.3%.
China holds 770 billion, which is 9.6%.
UK holds 710 billion, which is 8.85%.
Luxembourg holds 384 billion, which is 4.79%.
Canada holds 338 billion, which is 4.22%.
So the top 5 countries hold 1/3 of US debt and China holds less than 30% of that 1/3.
China isnt even the largest holder and holds only 2/3 of the largest holder.
The UK holds almost the same as China.
And sure, Wallstreet holds a lot of that US debt, but its really US banks, state governments, US governments, mutual funds that private citizens can own, pension funds that private citizens use for retirement, savings bonds holders, etc.
But why list the country that holds 50% more than China and is an ally to the US, when you can instead say 'China' and make it sound dangerous?
And why mention the country that holds almost the same as China and is an ally to the US, when you can instead say 'China' and make it sound dangerous?
Continuing, why mention all the investments that US citizens own and benefit from that holds a significant amount of US debt, when you can instead say 'Wallstreet' and make it sound greedy?
I guess we could start sending out invoices for all that world policing we do. Only being half sarcastic there - we probably should.
Seriously though, what can we do? The entire planet is in a masssive net debt position. No governments really have paper receivable positions any longer. This is all just fun money and promises made to citizens. The promisors have the biggest guns - so what can I do when they inflate my paper money away or take my physical assets? And don't tell my crypto fixes it either. Refer back to biggest guns comment.
Seriously though, what can we do? The entire planet is in a masssive net debt position. No governments really have paper receivable positions any longer. This is all just fun money and promises made to citizens. The promisors have the biggest guns - so what can I do when they inflate my paper money away or take my physical assets? And don't tell my crypto fixes it either. Refer back to biggest guns comment.
Yes to both. There's plenty of room to get tax revenue from SOMEWHERE, with reasonable debate as to where.
Unconstitutional spending does it every time....
Well, when the problem is debt, the solution comes down to money 100 times out of 100....
We could cut spending, but it's mostly defense and old people. Good luck cutting those.
Let's say aliens visited us and gave the US govt 100 gazillion tons of gold for us to wipe out our debt, these clowns in DC would ring it right back up.
We could. But it would come around to....US billionaires. We don't put destroyers around Somalia for the sake of the Somlians. We do it to protect the profits of US owners. We don't put whole armies in African countries where rare earth mining and such are going on for the sake of the poor starving Africans. We do it for the sake of US profits.
So, there's a pretty easy way to recoup those costs. Tax the beneficiaries.
For every issuer of debt, there is a holder of that debt. There's nothing "fun money" about it.
Well in that case the gold would become worthless right off the bat....
But yes, the incentives for deficit spending are massive. Even ignoring that some small amount of deficit spending ($100B?) is probably better than none.
Best you can do is a Constitutional amendment that sets revenue and spending in some manner, leaving Congress only with the leeway to decide how to split up that pie, not increase the size of it. Good luck.
Gotta be a bipartisan approach or they'll be too much finger pointing and it won't get enough momentum. Both sides need to come together, admit they have a spending problem, and lay out a plan to increase revenue while decreasing spending. The Fed and Treasury officials need to back it also. There's not enough voices uniting behind push to reign in the deficit. The US is in the top 10 of debt to gdp ratio now.
And then what happens 2 years later, and 2 years after that, and so on.....?
Both sides are clear with their intentions. Dems want to reduce the deficit by taxing billionaires more. GOP wants to not do that, claims they want to reduce spending, but never do. So their plan is to do nothing.
I know which one I'm voting for.
You're right, but it won't happen. Personally, I have zero hope that DC will fix the problem. I only care about how to mitigate the effects of this disaster on my family.
I don't know exactly what Musk means when he says
America is headed for bankruptcy, but I fully expect the U.S. to avoid a hard default. It will be a soft default. In other words, every "dollar" borrowed will be paid back. But the dollars repaid will be worth less than the dollars borrowed. This is already happening. This is achieved through inflation (expansion of the money supply), putting the burden of the disaster on the backs of those who hold dollars and no hard assets.
When you are indebted to a large part of the world, you better be sure you can whip them if needed. Can't cut defense.
During WWII we loaned China 1.9 billion dollars. Never got paid back, with Interests added we should be about even. *******
I agree Republicans (the "conservative" party) haven't done much of anything to reduce spending.
But I can disabuse you of the notion that this problem is fixed by taxing billionaires with simple arithmetic: The debt is between 6 and 7 times the combined net worth of all billionaires in the U.S.
Peter has plenty to say about the Fed.
The Rich get Richer. Thanks to the Fed.
The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and it’s all thanks to the Federal Reserve.
www.profstonge.com
The fact that this never gets any traction during elections baffles me. Nobody asks the candidates how they would deal with the debt.
And yes, Republicans will occasionally scream about it when they are out of power, gain power and then spend even more than the Democrats. The Dems will say they need to tax the rich people more to combat it, but then they'd just increase spending instead. This is something I think term limits might help as they all want lifetime jobs and don't want to be the person that advocating cuts to programs that potentially wouldn't be popular.
I'm not sure what the best solution is but Ron White's idea of flipping Mexico is appealing. New paint, new shrubs!
And yes, Republicans will occasionally scream about it when they are out of power, gain power and then spend even more than the Democrats. The Dems will say they need to tax the rich people more to combat it, but then they'd just increase spending instead. This is something I think term limits might help as they all want lifetime jobs and don't want to be the person that advocating cuts to programs that potentially wouldn't be popular.
I'm not sure what the best solution is but Ron White's idea of flipping Mexico is appealing. New paint, new shrubs!
- Status
Latest posts
Get unlimited access today.