If we look at it from a smaller point of view ...if a household's income is suddenly or even gradually decreased then the odds are that the household's spending habits will change. The U.S is a very creditworthy country , if that does not change then all should continue (bread and circuses as a recent book writes) especially if the military presence elsewhere decreases and nothing else happens to increase spending. The people demand a certain lifestyle- administrations like to give when they can- if they can cut taxes(which make administrations popular) and have foreigners buy up all the debt issues then its likely to continue. Reminds me of a Dire straights tune called" money for nothing" lots of reference to housing boom in that one too.
Creditworthy? That is the general consensus but if you look at the financial statements they say something else. The politicians have aready spent 8.5 Trillion, or approximately four years worth of revenue, and they continue to spend more than they take in. Where does it end? Or more importantly, how can US citizens bring it to an end? Because the politicans certainly seem content to keep things status quo.
Creditworthy? "February 16, 2006 BY MARTIN CRUTSINGER ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON-- The Bush administration told Congress on Thursday it had begun to use a government pension fund to keep from hitting the $8 trillion debt limit. Treasury Secretary John Snow warned in a letter to congressional leaders that he would run out of room to make such maneuvers in about four weeks, meaning the government would lose the ability to meet its obligations unless Congress had raised the borrowing limit by then. As of Tuesday, the government's borrowing subject to the limit stood $38.8 billion below the current debt limit of $8.184 trillion." http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/debt16.html
The debt limit is a joke. They always vote to raise it everytime it becomes a problem. WHich has become more frequently in recent years. The last time Congress voted to increase the debt limit was in November 2004 when it was raised from $7.38 trillion to its current level of $8.18 trillion. Wow!! They made it almost 15 months!
Pass the FairTax. The cost of big government will be plain to all. Right now the government uses nifty tricks like corporate income taxes which are then passed onto the consumer via higher priced goods. Also there are social security and medicare taxes that your employer supposedly pays half of, but really comes out of the money that would otherwise be paid to you in wages. Plus the government has the audacity to steal the money right out of your paycheck before you get it via withholding. They've got you trained to only look at your net income. If people had to pay their taxes by sending a check to Washington each month there would be riots. Their main weapon is Karl Marx's progressive income tax system. The top 20% are paying 80% of the taxes. With the Fair Tax everyone will pay their share, hence everyone will feel the pain. Then people will think twice next time a politician is making promises.
I am a trader. This is a traders forum. Traders must send a check every quarter. If they are profitable and don't pay quarterly, they pay more at the end of the year... Are you promoting a riot? or just quoting something fancy that your read? If people had to pay their taxes by sending a check to Washington each month there would be riots.
No Captain PostAlot. Im not quoting something fancy. Do you really think withholding is just for your convenience?
Most people do not pay pay estimated taxes quarterly, only business owners & self-employed. If I'm not mistaken withholding was started around the time of world war II. If anyone knows exactly please chime in. Many working class people and some higher up the wage scale really only look at their take home as their income. However, the fairtax proposal has major flaws. The worst of which is turning everyone into government dependents by sending them a check every month for $300 regardless of what they spend. Why can't we go back to no income tax at all? After all it was only instituted less than 100 years ago, with the excuse being it was necessary to pay for WWI expenses. Anyway, back to the thread topic. DownsizeDC.org has written a bill that no senator or congressman could explain their way out of signing. Simply that they must READ the bills they pass. How can they say no to that, after all isn't that their JOB? Now I think that is a great idea, but I doubt it will ever get any public attention unless it gets major media coverage. You can help by checking out their site where they have an automated and simple method of contacting your senators & congressman on this particluar bill. SO rather than ideas of what should be done, does anyone have any clue how to get rules passed that would limit or constrain the house & senate?
Im down with whatever it takes to get the government to spend less money. I like the bill that forces the house and senate to fully read each bill, it'll definitely slow down the number of laws passed which is a good thing. I respectfully disagree with you that the fairtax turns everyone into a welfare recipient. The rebate is to ensure that the base necessities of life are tax free. Based on the size of your family you will get a prebate for what you would pay in taxes up to the poverty level. You mentioned you would love to go back to the days before the income tax. I would love that too, that's why im all for a national sales tax. Im tired of the government needing to know every intimate detail of my finances in order for me to pay my taxes. Just scrapping the income tax with no replacement won't fly.
I was originally in favor of the fair tax even though I didn't like the idea of everyone recieving a monthly prebate. But the more I thought about it, I really became convinced that the fairtax could never pass in it's current form. I believe that there are simply too many special interests built into the current tax code to allow that. But if the idea of a national sales tax gained enough support the politicians could use it to initiate a national sales tax (probably to pay for a war as before) but the income tax would never be phased out completely and then we would be stuck with both. If you look at their track record it's not really that far fetched of a possibility. Fairtax.org is defintely a well intentioned cause but its merits are debatable. The beauty of the DownsizeDC.org idea is that it is immune to debate. How could anyone possibly argue that congressmen & senators shouldn't be required to read the bills they pass?