Forum Post: I keep hearing about this $51,000 debt for every person, are folks that say that ready to redistribute the assets too?
Posted 11 years ago on Oct. 27, 2012, 9:16 a.m. EST by factsrfun
(8310)
from Phoenix, AZ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Many seem to have no problem redistributing debt, but they seem to object if we are talking about assets?
The way I see it the bottom 50% own about 1% of the country so they owe about 1% of the debt, that works out to closer to around a thousand bucks for most of us, the problem is getting those who have a bigger stake to share in the debt to the same extend they share in the country.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33433.pdf
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/19/households-wealth-american-1-percent_n_1687015.html
More data (pesky facts):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States
Put another way:
The way I see it people choose between those that get on the ballot for that you need money, truth be told the whole thing is owed by them that write the checks that send'em to Washington, that's about the top .5%.
I guess talking about wealth inequality is no longer fashionable,,,,,
Talking is fine, but doing something like giving to those less fortunate than you means more.
I think that's a good idea we should decide to do that, say everybody with more than 10 million could give the extra to pay off this damn debt we keep hearing about so the GOP in Congress could move on to other things, really great idea. Let's do that, hell let's make it a law.
[Removed]
This is an excellent point, the 1% seem to only see the sides of issues that work in their favor, never anything for anyone else. They lack basic empathy and understanding of the situations of others. Especially when their own taking of way too much has cause the imbalance in the first place.
Clearly if you are taking the VAST majority of the wealth then you are responsible for the majority of the income taxes. And yet they cry, like little babies, when asked to pay even as much as the middle income earners,. pathetic.
A 90% top tax rate on ALL INCOME over 1 million dollars a year, including CAPITAL GAINES ! (and inheritance),. This is what is needed to balance the equation.
I like the 90% tax rate you propose.!
worked in the fifties, built a middle class that is still not quite dead (yet)
good synergy with the progress tax system
If only there was a way to tag the debt generated by a politician to the people who gave them money to run, and poof the money would be out of politics.
[Removed]
The redistribution happens now. The bottom 50% (more accurately 47%) pay nothing toward the Federal Gov Debt because they pay no net Federal Income taxes.
Of course there is redistribution how do you think billionaires are made?
But the question is how come I hear about everybody having $51,000 in debt from Republicans?
So Romney's new tax plan would drop his rate to .82%, I guess that's not zero, but considering he's got a car elevator and all don't you think he could pay a little more?
Maybe you hear about the $51,000 from Republicans because they are the ones that have to pay it?
If Romney and his ilk paid more what do you suspect that the Gov would do with that money? Pay down the debt? Not likely. You can't buy additional votes if you spend the money paying off loans.
That's what we did when Clinton was in office then Bush came in and starting shouting about Washington taking in too much money. Remember these days?
“The most recent projections from OMB and CBO indicate that, if current policies remain in place, the total unified surplus will reach about $800 billion in fiscal year 2010, including an on-budget surplus of almost $500 billion. Moreover, the admittedly quite uncertain long-term budget exercises released by the CBO last October maintain an implicit on-budget surplus under baseline assumptions well past 2030 despite the budgetary pressures from the aging of the baby-boom generation, especially on the major health programs.
These most recent projections, granted their tentativeness, nonetheless make clear that the highly desirable goal of paying off the federal debt is in reach and, indeed, would occur well before the end of the decade under baseline assumptions. This is in marked contrast to the perception of a year ago, when the elimination of the debt did not appear likely until the next decade. But continuing to run surpluses beyond the point at which we reach zero or near-zero federal debt brings to center stage the critical longer-term fiscal policy issue of whether the federal government should accumulate large quantities of private (more technically, nonfederal) assets.
At zero debt, the continuing unified budget surpluses now projected under current law imply a major accumulation of private assets by the federal government. Such an accumulation would make the federal government a significant factor in our nation's capital markets and would risk significant distortion in the allocation of capital to its most productive uses. Such a distortion could be quite costly, as it is our extraordinarily effective allocation process that has enabled such impressive increases in productivity and standards of living despite a relatively low domestic saving rate.”
“Returning to the broader fiscal picture, I continue to believe, as I have testified previously, that all else being equal, a declining level of federal debt is desirable because it holds down long-term real interest rates, thereby lowering the cost of capital and elevating private investment. The rapid capital deepening that has occurred in the U.S. economy in recent years is a testament to these benefits. But the sequence of upward revisions to the budget surplus projections for several years now has reshaped the choices and opportunities before us. Indeed, in almost any credible baseline scenario, short of a major and prolonged economic contraction, the full benefits of debt reduction are now achieved well before the end of this decade--a prospect that did not seem reasonable only a year or even six months ago. Thus, the emerging key fiscal policy need is now to address the implications of maintaining surpluses beyond the point at which publicly held debt is effectively eliminated.”
Testimony of Chairman Alan Greenspan Current fiscal issues Before the Committee on the Budget, U.S. House of Representatives March 2, 2001
What's the point? It is all spent money. The question is what to do now.
raise taxes big time that's what Clinton did and we made 23 million jobs I remember those days you couldn't find enough people to fill slots, remember "the world's biggest tax increase" that passed without a single Republican vote, if American wants this thing fixed first they got to send the GOP packing then we can fix it
Raising taxes had nothing to do with the job creation in the 1990s. Thank Bill Gates, Lucent, the wireless build-out, and the introduction of the internet. That said, like all bubbles, it burst and in 2000 in spite of Clinton's taxes it all came crashing down.
Whatever "crash" you speak of is nothing compared to what happened when those tax cuts that Bush enacted in 2001 kicked in, I'll take the 90's any day.
Get out and show your solidarity and support Papa Johns
LOL at least you know your ass from a hole in the ground.
Right now, the bottom 50% arent paying ANYTHING toward income tax so for all intents, the debt is being shouldered by the wealthiest.
Nice try tho at fomenting class wsrfare.
Let's look at that statement another way. So much wealth has been concentrated at the top that 50% of the country make so little that they are not paying income tax. That sounds like a reason to engage in class warfare. The top have been pushing class warfare since the 80's.
The problem is that your statement isn't factual - many of these rich pay more in taxes in a single year than most will make in a lifetime.
and most of them are born with more money than most people will make in a lifetime...
Listen if you fail to enrich yourself in this country you have no one to blame but yourself. I'm not wealthy but I'm not blaming the rich for that - we all have that opportunity.
who's blaming anybody, just stating a fact, most rich people ae born that way and most employers want to pay as little as possible for your time so the odds of anybody putting a few buck together are slim, it can be done trust fund babies aren't very good at keeping hold of their money so you can take it that's how bankers and brokers and private equity funds are born, but rewarding hard work would be better than giving all our economic decisions over to con men
The con men don't own that machine - you do. And you have no one to blame but yourself.
What "machine"?
Has the whole thing just become too much for you?
(PS I was a taker no trust fund here, don't blame me I didn't create the game, I just played rather well)
I didn't say they don't pay taxes. The fact that their yearly tax burden is greater then some peoples lifetime wage is the problem. If you have a full time job you should make enough to survive.
No, I totally disagree with that.
Survival should be optional? people will work hard for food if they are hungry enough, but in a democracy they can elect people to write better rules so the Royals don't get to keep it all just cause they were born rich that's what we told King George III do you think Washington et. all were wrong to do that?
And so you would recommend what, that we do as they did and seek out those in the community with political ties to enrich themselves, confiscate their property, and toss them out of the country? Times have changed and only you can prevent forest fires.
you people kill me none of you could win without buying votes with tax cuts then you charge others with trying to buy votes just for saying we should pay our bills and oh by the way we've been steadily cutting the top tax rate for 65 years
I'm not suprised about that.
That's the problem with peasants, they got no gold for the Crown how do they expect us to pay for the prisons?