Conquer Club

Estimated tax-type receipts for 2009
- Individual income tax - $1,210,000,000,000
- Social security and payroll taxes - $949,000,000,000
- Corporate income tax - $339,200,000,000
- Excise taxes - $68,900,000,000
- Customs and duties - $29,100,000,000
- Estate and gift taxes - $26,300,000,000

Total tax-type receipts for 2009 - $2,622,500,000,000

Estimated expenditures for 2009 - $3,100,000,000,000

So, our taxes account for about 85% of the total expenditures; meaning we're either borrowing or getting the money from somewhere else.

thegreekdog wrote:

bedub1 wrote:

The Government used to spend about 7.5% of the GDP of the country. Last I heard it was nearly 40%. So if you take all the money the entire population creates in a year, the government blows/spends/consumers 40% of it. This number needs to be down to about 10%. If we continue on this trend, then I estimate by about 2110, the government will spend 100% of the nations GDP.

Interesting. My first thought was whether it would be possible to figure out what the effective tax rate was with respect to the US GDP (i.e. we have $X GDP and the average tax rate on that GDP is Y%). I'm not sure that's possible (I also think it's much less than 40%).

Does the government spend too much money? Yes. Should the government be spending money like they did in 1910? Not sure.

I don't think this chart accounts for the current proposals on the debt ceiling being raised. AS I understand it, they are going to raise the ceiling to 14.something trillion. It is also my understanding the USA economy generates about 15 trillion/year. We are almost at 100%, not including entitlement spending (SS, Medicare etc..)

History does not bode well from here

Phatscotty wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

bedub1 wrote:

The Government used to spend about 7.5% of the GDP of the country. Last I heard it was nearly 40%. So if you take all the money the entire population creates in a year, the government blows/spends/consumers 40% of it. This number needs to be down to about 10%. If we continue on this trend, then I estimate by about 2110, the government will spend 100% of the nations GDP.

Interesting. My first thought was whether it would be possible to figure out what the effective tax rate was with respect to the US GDP (i.e. we have $X GDP and the average tax rate on that GDP is Y%). I'm not sure that's possible (I also think it's much less than 40%).

Does the government spend too much money? Yes. Should the government be spending money like they did in 1910? Not sure.

I don't think this chart accounts for the current proposals on the debt ceiling being raised. AS I understand it, they are going to raise the ceiling to 14.something trillion. It is also my understanding the USA economy generates about 15 trillion/year. We are almost at 100%, not including entitlement spending (SS, Medicare etc..)

History does not bode well from here

Wtf are you on about? Japan and Italy and a multitude of other countries are over or very near to 100% public debt/GDP and they are not in any serious trouble. What history lessons are we supposed to be taking lessons from, when in history did this cause an almighty collapse?

Titanic wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

bedub1 wrote:

The Government used to spend about 7.5% of the GDP of the country. Last I heard it was nearly 40%. So if you take all the money the entire population creates in a year, the government blows/spends/consumers 40% of it. This number needs to be down to about 10%. If we continue on this trend, then I estimate by about 2110, the government will spend 100% of the nations GDP.

Interesting. My first thought was whether it would be possible to figure out what the effective tax rate was with respect to the US GDP (i.e. we have $X GDP and the average tax rate on that GDP is Y%). I'm not sure that's possible (I also think it's much less than 40%).

Does the government spend too much money? Yes. Should the government be spending money like they did in 1910? Not sure.

I don't think this chart accounts for the current proposals on the debt ceiling being raised. AS I understand it, they are going to raise the ceiling to 14.something trillion. It is also my understanding the USA economy generates about 15 trillion/year. We are almost at 100%, not including entitlement spending (SS, Medicare etc..)

History does not bode well from here

Wtf are you on about? Japan and Italy and a multitude of other countries are over or very near to 100% public debt/GDP and they are not in any serious trouble.

Famous Last Words...

Phatscotty wrote:

Titanic wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

bedub1 wrote:

The Government used to spend about 7.5% of the GDP of the country. Last I heard it was nearly 40%. So if you take all the money the entire population creates in a year, the government blows/spends/consumers 40% of it. This number needs to be down to about 10%. If we continue on this trend, then I estimate by about 2110, the government will spend 100% of the nations GDP.

Interesting. My first thought was whether it would be possible to figure out what the effective tax rate was with respect to the US GDP (i.e. we have $X GDP and the average tax rate on that GDP is Y%). I'm not sure that's possible (I also think it's much less than 40%).

Does the government spend too much money? Yes. Should the government be spending money like they did in 1910? Not sure.

I don't think this chart accounts for the current proposals on the debt ceiling being raised. AS I understand it, they are going to raise the ceiling to 14.something trillion. It is also my understanding the USA economy generates about 15 trillion/year. We are almost at 100%, not including entitlement spending (SS, Medicare etc..)

History does not bode well from here

Wtf are you on about? Japan and Italy and a multitude of other countries are over or very near to 100% public debt/GDP and they are not in any serious trouble.

Famous Last Words...

Great comeback, intellectually strong argument there...

Titanic wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Titanic wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:


Interesting. My first thought was whether it would be possible to figure out what the effective tax rate was with respect to the US GDP (i.e. we have $X GDP and the average tax rate on that GDP is Y%). I'm not sure that's possible (I also think it's much less than 40%).

Does the government spend too much money? Yes. Should the government be spending money like they did in 1910? Not sure.

I don't think this chart accounts for the current proposals on the debt ceiling being raised. AS I understand it, they are going to raise the ceiling to 14.something trillion. It is also my understanding the USA economy generates about 15 trillion/year. We are almost at 100%, not including entitlement spending (SS, Medicare etc..)

History does not bode well from here

Wtf are you on about? Japan and Italy and a multitude of other countries are over or very near to 100% public debt/GDP and they are not in any serious trouble.

Famous Last Words...

Great comeback, intellectually strong argument there...

By all means Titanic, make the case for borrowing more than you earn.

I'm all ears, now's your chance. shine baby

Japan and Itally have been model economies for the world to emulate in the last oh twenty or so years in the case of Japan...about the last 1900 years for Itally...

rockfist wrote:Japan and Itally have been model economies for the world to emulate in the last oh twenty or so years in the case of Japan...about the last 1900 years for Itally...

not to mention japans "lost decade" yeah, japan.....

My penis is bigger though.

Countries which have greater public debt then the USA - France, Canada, Germany, Japan, Italy, Israel, Egypt, Greece, Singapore

Are all of these countries failing? Are they all heading for imminent collapse and a doomed future?

I am not arguing that public debt is a good thing or should be advise, I am fiscally conservative (which neither US party is btw), but the presence of debt itself is not an immediate indicator of "bad things". The periods after WWII were those with the greatest amounts of public debt but all western nations and some others grew at extraordinary rates and continually paid of the debt they had for decades (ironically up until the conservative bastions of Thatcher and Reagan).

Titanic wrote:Countries which have greater public debt then the USA - France, Canada, Germany, Japan, Italy, Israel, Egypt, Greece, Singapore

Are all of these countries failing? Are they all heading for imminent collapse and a doomed future?

I am not arguing that public debt is a good thing or should be advise, I am fiscally conservative (which neither US party is btw), but the presence of debt itself is not an immediate indicator of "bad things". The periods after WWII were those with the greatest amounts of public debt but all western nations and some others grew at extraordinary rates and continually paid of the debt they had for decades (ironically up until the conservative bastions of Thatcher and Reagan).

According to the IMF data on per capita income in US dollars from 2008:

Singapore 4th - 51,226
USA 6th - 47,440
Canada 13th - 39,098
Germany 21st - 35,539
France 23rd - 34,205
Japan 24th - 34,116
Greece 26th - 30,681
Itally 27th - 30,631
Israel 31st - 28,474
Egypt 101st - 5,897

I'll be charitable and throw out Egypt as an outlier. The mean of the other nations besides the US is $35,496, without Egypt. Based on that and the fact that the US has a larger population than any of those countries I would say that our economic system generates income better than theirs do. Why would we want to emmulate their model?

I can't wait to hear this one...

When you understand Titanic just wants to "bring it all down man", then he starts making sense

Titanic wrote:Countries which have greater public debt then the USA - France, Canada, Germany, Japan, Italy, Israel, Egypt, Greece, Singapore

Are all of these countries failing? Are they all heading for imminent collapse and a doomed future?

I am not arguing that public debt is a good thing or should be advise, I am fiscally conservative (which neither US party is btw), but the presence of debt itself is not an immediate indicator of "bad things". The periods after WWII were those with the greatest amounts of public debt but all western nations and some others grew at extraordinary rates and continually paid of the debt they had for decades (ironically up until the conservative bastions of Thatcher and Reagan).

Nothing i've ever seen you write on these forums has been fiscally conservative. ever.

qwert wrote:i dont know how its in US,but in mine country(with 8 milion people) 10% of Budget going to gouverment salary(yep they need to live good and rest of people can eat s...).
Now when you count 28000 in administration,and 250 people in Parlament,and add 3400 in Ministry departments(25 Ministry seeds this is not normal).
Well you get number of 31650 in gouverment,who spend 10% of Country Budget for hes salary--Its this Normal??

Normal? Well, for Serbia... unfortunately, yes.

thegreekdog wrote:Bedub1 is only talking about spending as it relates to entitlements. He's not talking about spending as it relates to all the other shit our government (and by our government I mean we collectively) spend money on - like, I don't know, fucking roads, our military, police, fire, and other things that didn't exist in 1910 or that we need more of now.

Let's not get confused here bedub, our government is big for the most part because of the military; which is not really an entitlement as you would use that word.

This.

The majority of gov. spending goes to the military, which (although being one of the few legitimate functions of government) is bloated and responsible in large part for our excessive debt.

You can't say that increased spending is the sole reason for improved infrastructure. To do so is to ignore natural improvements through science, engineering, etc.

bedub1 wrote:

The Government used to spend about 7.5% of the GDP of the country. Last I heard it was nearly 40%. So if you take all the money the entire population creates in a year, the government blows/spends/consumers 40% of it. This number needs to be down to about 10%. If we continue on this trend, then I estimate by about 2110, the government will spend 100% of the nations GDP.

Can you please outline how you expect to get the percentage down to 10% ?

john9blue wrote:You can't say that increased spending is the sole reason for improved infrastructure. To do so is to ignore natural improvements through science, engineering, etc.

where do you think these scientific breakthroughs come from? fairies from mars?

This is a list of Public debt loads around the world complied by the CIA.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... rank=61#us

It seemed relevant to the conversation. In it it appears the US public debt is rather modest at 37% of GDP, compared to the Extreme case of japan at 172% of GDP. it looks like very few rich countries have lower debt burdens.

this is a list of median incomes on wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income

SultanOfSurreal wrote:

john9blue wrote:You can't say that increased spending is the sole reason for improved infrastructure. To do so is to ignore natural improvements through science, engineering, etc.

where do you think these scientific breakthroughs come from? fairies from mars?

Yes, good point Sultan...
The internet was invented by the government, of course (Al Gore, I believe).
Then we have motor vehicles... invented by some senator from Wisconsin or something.
Let's see what else... the telephone, computers, cellular phones, various pharmaceuticals including Viagra... I mean the list goes on and on...

SultanOfSurreal wrote:

72o wrote:

sultanofsurreal wrote:so what you're saying is, f*ck the poor and elderly

cool, at least you're honest

Pretty much

well that's not very nice, but at least we all know to discount your opinions out of hand in the future

But he calls it "personal responsibility"! That makes it noble and good.

Baron Von PWN wrote:This is a list of Public debt loads around the world complied by the CIA.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... rank=61#us

It seemed relevant to the conversation. In it it appears the US public debt is rather modest at 37% of GDP, compared to the Extreme case of japan at 172% of GDP. it looks like very few rich countries have lower debt burdens.

this is a list of median incomes on wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income

Did you happen to find anything that says from whom Japan is borrowing most of its money? Is it the US or China or private lenders? I have no ulterior motive, just curious.

internal market

thegreekdog wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:This is a list of Public debt loads around the world complied by the CIA.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... rank=61#us

It seemed relevant to the conversation. In it it appears the US public debt is rather modest at 37% of GDP, compared to the Extreme case of japan at 172% of GDP. it looks like very few rich countries have lower debt burdens.

this is a list of median incomes on wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income

Did you happen to find anything that says from whom Japan is borrowing most of its money? Is it the US or China or private lenders? I have no ulterior motive, just curious.

The only number I've found is one from the economist which says 94% of the debt is owned domestically. I did find an academic journal "Public Debt and the Macroeconomic Stability of Japan" but not being an economist it's a bit over my head.

It also appears that Japan pays very low interest for it's debt, only 1.1% and sometimes lower so this is how they can manage such a high debt load. The Japanese just keep buying government bonds and aren't being very pushy about being paid back.

EDIT**

Snorri1234 wrote:

SultanOfSurreal wrote:

72o wrote:

sultanofsurreal wrote:so what you're saying is, f*ck the poor and elderly

cool, at least you're honest

Pretty much

well that's not very nice, but at least we all know to discount your opinions out of hand in the future

But he calls it "personal responsibility"! That makes it noble and good.

So when you call it "social programs" instead of "handouts" or "wealth redistribution", that's somehow different. I see.

john9blue wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Bedub1 is only talking about spending as it relates to entitlements. He's not talking about spending as it relates to all the other shit our government (and by our government I mean we collectively) spend money on - like, I don't know, fucking roads, our military, police, fire, and other things that didn't exist in 1910 or that we need more of now.

Let's not get confused here bedub, our government is big for the most part because of the military; which is not really an entitlement as you would use that word.

This.

The majority of gov. spending goes to the military, which (although being one of the few legitimate functions of government) is bloated and responsible in large part for our excessive debt.

You can't say that increased spending is the sole reason for improved infrastructure. To do so is to ignore natural improvements through science, engineering, etc.

Do you even consider the possibility of actually researching a "fact" before it pours out of your thick skull like diarrhea? Military spending is not even close to the majority of our federal government's budget. Although it is a huge number, and more than almost all other defense spending in the world combined, it is a falsehood to say "it's the military that causes us to overspend." The fucking social programs dwarf the military budget by a shit ton. If you want to blame the debt on something, blame that shit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Unite ... ral_budget