U.S. Debt discussion

[Shazam]

Also, historically, house prices in the USA have been very low, relatively speaking. Hell, I remember waterfront property in SF going for $200K in the early 2000s.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Also, historically, house prices in the USA have been very low, relatively speaking. Hell, I remember waterfront property in SF going for $200K in the early 2000s.

I think you might be missing a few zeros.

That would suprise me.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

I think you might be missing a few zeros.

That would suprise me.

What's so surprising about that?

Hey, did you know in the US most people used to buy their homes with cash?

[Jedi Ninja]

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by Jedi Ninja

Thanks, is this a waterfront property chart?

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by Shazam

What's so surprising about that?

Hey, did you know in the US most people used to buy their homes with cash?

Sure there are many cheap homes I get that. But waterfront property in SF for $200K...wow!

[Jedi Ninja]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

Thanks, is this a waterfront property chart?

No, this is median prices for all of SF metro. A waterfront property would have been substantially beyond the median.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by Jedi Ninja

No, this is median prices for all of SF metro. A waterfront property would have been substantially beyond the median.

yeah I assumed, hence my shock at a $200K for waterfront price

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

Sure there are many cheap homes I get that. But waterfront property in SF for $200K...wow!

Oh I'm sure there were/still are some waterfront properties for that price. The question is just a matter of (tiny?) size and (poor?) quality for such a value.

Very roughly speaking, I still find it interesting that Americans and Canadians make about the same amount of money but housing prices are double here (at least at this stage.)

But that's a sidebar to this thread, back to the US debt - apparently things are getting a little closer to a deal?

[Azure]

Apparently the deal is very close to coming together.

Exactly like I figured it would, and they even included some of the provisions that I think are very important.

Appearing on CNN and CBS, Mr. McConnell said he hoped to soon be able to present to his fellow Republicans an agreement “that they'll consider supporting.” That agreement would include raising the debt ceiling, cutting spending by some $1-trillion initially and creating a joint committee of members of Congress that would look at a larger plate of cuts including tax and entitlement changes.

Mr. Schumer later told CBS that one of the last sticking points is the creation of a “trigger” mechanism that would hit priorities of both parties if the committee does not come up with a plan for further deficit reduction.



Among the trigger ideas being discussed are automatically reducing spending on entitlement programs such as Medicare along with closing tax loopholes or reducing defence and non-defence programs by an equal amount.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

Sure there are many cheap homes I get that. But waterfront property in SF for $200K...wow!

Yeah, it was an apartment, 1500 sq ft or something. Point being, stuff like that existed back then, and probably doesn't now

I shudder to think what it is now.

Most of the waterfront seemed to be multi-family units, with the single unit stuff further back.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

What I'm saying is, if the tax floor is X and only Y amounts of people earn enough to reach it, maybe it isn't the tax floor that needs lowering, but that wages need to be increasing.

Right. That's what I thought you were saying.

The tax floor is a lot higher than you might think. I've probably only actually 'paid' federal income tax maybe 10 years out of my adult life (roughly half), because the rest of the time I either made too little to be required to pay or had enough dependents to offset the increase in my income.

Again, a huge problem in my eyes is that our government 'refunds' people with little or no income in huge numbers as a way of subsidizing their income. It was great when I was getting it as a young guy, but it is not very fiscally sound.

[Azure]

Well obviously the tax floor needs to be lowered then. Everyone should pay something. Even if its only 10%, because at the end of the day, everyone is still going to be using government services, welfare, etc, etc. Plus, the $600 billion dollar defense budget that the taxpayers pay for is to protect everyone, not just those that pay their taxes.

I still think a flat tax of 20-25% across the board is the way to go. Anyone under $25,000 in income in exempt. But they don't get refunds either if their income is that low.

[RedJester]

If America wasn't the 3rd last on the list of countries in the developed world that generated GDP revenue via taxing, and if so many of it's corporations who made their billions by screwing over the very country that provided them the means to their wealth were sought after and made to pay accordingly, there would be no debt crisis right now.

The kingdom burns, the peasants starve, and the dragons sleep on their ridiculous amounts of gold.

[Azure]

Does it have anything to do with being less taxed? Or is it that some people/companies are paying no taxes at all?

Seems to me when you have 300 million people that depend on a variety of government services, than all 300 million of them should pay taxes in some form. Whether it is a consumption tax, personal taxes, sin tax, or a corporate tax.

I still think they could have a very low tax rate but still run a balanced budget. A country that rich shouldn't have any problem finding a trillion dollars in additional revenue/savings PER YEAR without raising taxes like crazy.

[RedJester]

I'd say it has more to do with companies like General Electric making $10 billion+ last year, paying no taxes, and actually get a $1.1 billion tax benefit.

Fixing the loopholes in the system would definitely help things.

[Azure]

Oh absolutely. I'm not sure where the number comes from, but something like $600 billion has been mentioned from closing the loopholes.

That would almost eliminate the deficit without any spending cuts.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Azure

Does it have anything to do with being less taxed? Or is it that some people/companies are paying no taxes at all?

Seems to me when you have 300 million people that depend on a variety of government services, than all 300 million of them should pay taxes in some form. Whether it is a consumption tax, personal taxes, sin tax, or a corporate tax.

Are there any Americans who pay literally "no taxes at all"? I know there's people who make so little money that they don't have to pay income tax or are so rich that they employ tax accountants to exploit loopholes to pay no income or capital gains tax, but how do people avoid things like taxes on gasoline, public transit, liquor, sales tax, etc.?

Also, have you actually looked into how much revenue would be generated if the poorest Americans who currently pay no income tax were instead taxed at, say, 10%? I may very well be wrong, but I suspect it wouldn't make much of a dent at all into the deficit. On the other hand, I'm guessing that increasing taxation slightly (and closing tax loopholes) on the richest 1-5% of the population would go a much longer way to solve the debt crisis.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Thanks

He was referring to your intimate knowledge of the F-22 Rapers, not the Raptors.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Are there any Americans who pay literally "no taxes at all"? I know there's people who make so little money that they don't have to pay income tax or are so rich that they employ tax accountants to exploit loopholes to pay no income or capital gains tax, but how do people avoid things like taxes on gasoline, public transit, liquor, sales tax, etc.?

Also, have you actually looked into how much revenue would be generated if the poorest Americans who currently pay no income tax were instead taxed at, say, 10%? I may very well be wrong, but I suspect it wouldn't make much of a dent at all into the deficit. On the other hand, I'm guessing that increasing taxation slightly (and closing tax loopholes) on the richest 1-5% of the population would go a much longer way to solve the debt crisis.

I'm not sure if they're paying 'no' taxes at all. Recent posters have talked about a tax floor that is apparently pretty high.

Either way, the idea isn't to tax poor Americans 'more.' The idea is to fairly tax everyone. Rich Americans are getting away with not paying any taxes because they can exploit loopholes and tax havens. If you reform the tax code and apply it fairly to everyone then rich Americans like Buffet don't get away with paying 15% rates, while middle class Americans pay 35% rates.

In the end you would probably be taxing the lower/middle class less, and the upper class more simply based on the even percentage. Course, politically that would be suicide, so I doubt it will ever happen.