Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

US expats thinking of giving up their citizenship.

Discussion in 'The Stump' started by Owen, Sep 27, 2013.

  1. belasar

    belasar Court Jester Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,515
    Likes Received:
    1,176
    The US National debt has been a fixture since the 1840's and reached its lowest point in living memory during the Nixon administration.

    Facts can be a heartless bitch.
     

    Attached Files:

  2. KodiakBeer

    KodiakBeer Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    6,329
    Likes Received:
    1,706
    Location:
    The Arid Zone
    The US National Debt is now over 140 trillion dollars - debt, not deficit which is about 17 Trillion. And about 40% of that is being serviced by borrowing. That means that every taxpayer owes 1.25 million dollars. If there are two taxpayers in your house, you owe 2.5 million dollars. And every year (every day) that debt grows.

    The reason your graph doesn't look too bad is because the CBO does not include the entire budget in the debt today, as they did in the past. For example they do not include SSN, government pensions, and so on, which make up a significant portion of the budget. They're fudging the numbers.
     
  3. A-58

    A-58 Cool Dude

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2008
    Messages:
    8,815
    Likes Received:
    1,645
    Location:
    Baton Rouge, Louisiana
    Thanks for the help KB. It seems much of the world is still enamored with the Nobel Prize winner we have ruining the show.
     
  4. A-58

    A-58 Cool Dude

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2008
    Messages:
    8,815
    Likes Received:
    1,645
    Location:
    Baton Rouge, Louisiana
    Only when he says or does something or tries to hawk his carbon credits.
     
  5. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    9,615
    Likes Received:
    2,291
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    I believe you typo'd here with 140 trillion, and on the debt/deficit you are obviously confused.

    17 trillion is the US National Debt, of that approximately 12.1 trillion is held by the public, while the rest, 4.9 trillion is held by the government(one agency loaning another money - essentially what the US government owes itself).

    The Federal Deficit is what the US government spends as opposed to what it brings in(credits vs. debits). Right now, they are spending more than they are bringing in, so they are in the hole to the tune of 780 billion dollars.

    Also your $1.25 million per taxpayer is off - $1.1 million according to http://www.usdebtclock.org/ , also, since you have not included any assets(credits) which drops it to roughly $770 million per taxpayer.


    Umm, they do for that graph...what somewhat throws it is that they are looking at the debt as a percent of GDP and not in an actual dollar amount.
    http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44521-LTBO2013.pdf
    See table 1-1 on page 9, it's all in there...Medicare/Medicaid, CHIP, SSI, etc.
     
  6. A-58

    A-58 Cool Dude

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2008
    Messages:
    8,815
    Likes Received:
    1,645
    Location:
    Baton Rouge, Louisiana
    Yes, but when our tax laws resemble those in Britain, everything will be free!
     
  7. dbf

    dbf Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2010
    Messages:
    234
    Likes Received:
    80
    Location:
    Wherever the brasso & blanco is
    and here was me thinking you're in the land of the free already ;)

    It's a great trick though, isn't it: to make people believe that things are eg 'free at the point of delivery'.
     
  8. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    9,615
    Likes Received:
    2,291
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    We do live in the land of the free.

    Well, "land of the free to pay for that with credit." anyway.
     
  9. KodiakBeer

    KodiakBeer Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    6,329
    Likes Received:
    1,706
    Location:
    The Arid Zone
    Yep, I should have written 142 trillion. If you toss in unfunded liabilities like SSN, Medicare and government pensions you get an additional 125 trillion dollars.

    • As of September 25th, 2013, the current US national debt stands at: $ 16,952,317,664,146.73 ($16.9 Trillion)
    • Approximate US Tax Revenues (all sources): $ 2,692,511,265,328.74 ($2.6 Trillion)
    • The total GDP of the US is approximately: $ 15,906,156,200,127.89 ($15.9 Trillion)
    • Total US unfunded liabilities (social security, medicare, etc): $ 125,847,920,500,101.98 ($125.8 Trillion)
     
  10. belasar

    belasar Court Jester Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,515
    Likes Received:
    1,176
    For those looking for the Climate Change Car wreck, you may find it in its own thread "Feeling the Heat: Climate Change" in your usual arena, The Stump.
     
  11. Slipdigit

    Slipdigit Good Ol' Boy Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    Messages:
    17,622
    Likes Received:
    2,187
    Location:
    Alabama
    Have to correct you on that, D. It is a full-on train wreck, not a car wreck.
     
  12. belasar

    belasar Court Jester Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,515
    Likes Received:
    1,176
    Well I'm a glass half full kinda guy. :)
     
  13. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    9,615
    Likes Received:
    2,291
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Truthfully, you probably should have written nothing, or at least clarified your statement. Especially, since Stanley Druckenmiller has "pegged" the debt at a far higher $221 trillion.
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-01/druckenmiller-sees-storm-worse-than-08-as-seniors-bankrupt-kids.html
    Seems that these people cannot even agree as to what qualifies as "debt."

    The "unfunded liabilities" of social security, medicare, and medicaid for $125.8 trillion are projections only, and do not take into account what has already been paid or will be paid into these accounts.
    http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/tr/2013/IV_B_LRest.html#267528
    http://downloads.cms.gov/files/TR2013.pdf
     
  14. green slime

    green slime Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,143
    Likes Received:
    578
    Its the age old story.

    The car wreck of the European Economy, or the train wreck of the American Social Services. Throw in a dose of UN-scepticism, a dash of Middle Eastern conspiracy theories, a thimbleful of arrogance, and Bob's your Uncle! One Internet served fresh to your screen, in a language that might not be yours.
     
  15. Poppy

    Poppy grasshopper

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2008
    Messages:
    7,725
    Likes Received:
    811
    Our debt is 618 billion. According to the Canada Debt Clock: http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/canada
    *Couldn't help but notice one of the "facts" says the debt could wrap around the earth- in dollar bills- 2410 times. lol.
    We use a coin for our dollar.
    What does it mean that every person owes x amount? ..Would most of that money be expected to be absorbed by new /existing business, and the term "every person owes X amount" is just a fear phrase used to ..make people save/work harder?
    If nations like Canada and the US owe so much, how do other 2nd, 3rd world countries fair?
     
  16. KodiakBeer

    KodiakBeer Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    6,329
    Likes Received:
    1,706
    Location:
    The Arid Zone
    No, because you pay all the business taxes. Throw a 10% tax on donut shops, and they raise the price of donuts by 10%. The consumer pays all business taxes. The cry to "tax the rich" or tax those greedy corporations is a lie that most people never seem to grasp.
     
  17. green slime

    green slime Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,143
    Likes Received:
    578
    Not always. You can tax the accumulation of wealth.

    Because raising the price of your donuts by 10% may make consumers turn to bagel shops, hurting your business.

    Usually such taxes also come along with incentives to reinvest in R&D or company growth, etc.
     
  18. KodiakBeer

    KodiakBeer Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    6,329
    Likes Received:
    1,706
    Location:
    The Arid Zone
    Taxes wouldn't be levied specifically on donuts, it would be a business tax that would affect bagel shops as well. It doesn't matter where you levy the tax, because taxes are just overhead and all overhead is passed to the consumer. That's how it works.

    So, you'd tax the income as the individual earned it, then turn around and tax anything left as "accumulated wealth?"
     
  19. Slipdigit

    Slipdigit Good Ol' Boy Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    Messages:
    17,622
    Likes Received:
    2,187
    Location:
    Alabama
    Huh?

    So what you are saying is that someone should not be allowed to enjoy the fruits of their labor and that is acceptable to tax one business more than another because the first business already provides a product that the public prefers, at a price they are willing to pay and in an apparently efficient manner and makes money while doing so?

    With this loss of business you propose, where do you suppose that the donut shop is going to acquire the capital for R&D? But then, isn't that the idea behind Mr. Obama's current Ponzi scheme, where insurance companies are concerned?

    We've already seen a centrally planned economy. It folded in 1992.

    I rate those damned Marxists right up there with Herr Schnicklegruber and his jack-booted malefactors.
     
    KodiakBeer likes this.
  20. green slime

    green slime Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,143
    Likes Received:
    578
    Your asking me, when I showed his analogy was flawed? A flawed analogy shows nothing. It was far, far too simplified to actually show anything relevant. While taxes are passed inevitably on to the consumer, the relationship is seldomly so direct, and there are other considerations (political, ecological, social, etc) which dictate what form or direction they (the taxes) take.

    As an example; as the UK has no tax on books (to encourage reading). Consider a raising of taxes on restaurants and cafés and subsequent price hike on donuts (KB's original premise) might lead me to spend less money on donuts, and buy a book instead. The restaurant owner cannot immediately pass this tax increase on to the consumer, without affecting his business. This is what taxation does: it reduces economic activity. It does so in order to direct social effort into other areas, which would otherwise see little activity, and for which there is seen to be a social or long term benefit. Such as the NHS in the UK, Yellowstone in the USA, the armed forces and police everywhere.

    I rate those damned liberal free market economists right up there with... (hang on, what were we discussing again? Or was this the place to rant about political beliefs?)

    I think if you don't quite understand the difference between what I remarked, and Marxism, you need to re-examine Economic theory. Or do you actually believe the EU (and the UK) to be Marxist? I've heard US congressmen make some pretty stupid comments to that effect.

    The planned economy to which you refer, collapsed for a multitude of reasons, one of which was the disconnect between the actual cost to produce, and the consumer price (production costs exceeding price). Not because of some tax on labour or profits (increasing consumer price further above production cost). Obviously, the people decided they really needed advertising, private insurance, private pensions, and pyramid investment schemes.

    Time to chuck the tea into the harbour again? It wasn't the tea tax per se, but the tax without representation. Yes a rigid planned economy such as in the Eastern bloc was too inflexible in a modern world, when people "need" the "newest" toy. But don't tell me the free market is entirely without ills. The failure to consider and correctly value future assets, is among the most glaring. It is left to governments to lightly direct and correct these shortcomings, because individuals and businesses cannot, and will not. But feel free to label me a Marxist, if that fits your definition.
     
    Karjala likes this.

Share This Page