New political party

[Ten oz]

Well, they aren't necessarily more expensive, but it depends on how you spend the money. A social program that generates $2 for every $1 spent is a good investment even if you have to borrow money with interest payments to fund it.

 

In general though, yes. Our current spending is based on what programs and services people want, and our taxes are based on what people want to pay. And there is very little effort to get the two to line up.

 

Cutting popular programs isn't popular and raising taxes to pay for them also isn't popular, so neither gets done and we continue running a deficit, which again, isn't popular.

I meant deficit spending (borrowing) is more expensive; it must be paid back with interest. Better to just tax the amount needed.

[Raider5678]

Well, they aren't necessarily more expensive, but it depends on how you spend the money. A social program that generates $2 for every $1 spent is a good investment even if you have to borrow money with interest payments to fund it.

 

In general though, yes. Our current spending is based on what programs and services people want, and our taxes are based on what people want to pay. And there is very little effort to get the two to line up.

 

Cutting popular programs isn't popular and raising taxes to pay for them also isn't popular, so neither gets done and we continue running a deficit, which again, isn't popular.

Some basic math really quickly.

Americans made $12.95 trillion in 2011.

10%(actually less then what would be brought in because there isn't the 20% of the richer people) would make $1,295,000,000,000. The amount of taxes paid every year.

So crunching some basic numbers, I immediately realize a flaw in that plan as the U.S. currently makes 7 trillion ever year.

My bad.

[Delta1212]

Some quick googling for budget breakdowns:

 

The Social Security Administration's annual budget is just shy of $1 trillion. Medicare + Medicaid is a bit over $1 trillion.

 

Adding them together gives you over $2 trillion that you need to cover just those programs unless you want to make cuts. That's not even touching the military budget which, even if you make substantial cuts, is still going to be sizable, nor does it touch any of the substantial investments you have been talking about putting money into.

 

The current budget is over $4 trillion for the year. Assuming you can offset all of the spending you are talking about adding with cuts to the military budget (which I'm not sure you can do, but I'll grant you anyway for the sake of simplicity) and even manage to trim other programs down to make the total budget an even $4 trillion, that's the approximate amount you need to raise in revenue from federal taxes. ($7 trillion is federal + state + local revenue).

 

So unless you are willing to make some substantial cuts, you need to raise about three times the amount of revenue you are saying you'd get from your current tax plan in order to cover costs.

[Ten oz]

Some quick googling for budget breakdowns:

 

The Social Security Administration's annual budget is just shy of $1 trillion. Medicare + Medicaid is a bit over $1 trillion.

 

Adding them together gives you over $2 trillion that you need to cover just those programs unless you want to make cuts. That's not even touching the military budget which, even if you make substantial cuts, is still going to be sizable, nor does it touch any of the substantial investments you have been talking about putting money into.

 

The current budget is over $4 trillion for the year. Assuming you can offset all of the spending you are talking about adding with cuts to the military budget (which I'm not sure you can do, but I'll grant you anyway for the sake of simplicity) and even manage to trim other programs down to make the total budget an even $4 trillion, that's the approximate amount you need to raise in revenue from federal taxes. ($7 trillion is federal + state + local revenue).

 

So unless you are willing to make some substantial cuts, you need to raise about three times the amount of revenue you are saying you'd get from your current tax plan in order to cover costs.

Over 4 trillion and at about 3.7 trillion of it is all stuff like DOD, Soc Sec, and medicare which no wants to cut. Meanwhile the EPA accounts for less than half of a single percent of the budget. Cuts aren't going to get it done. We need more money. We pay over 400 billion in interest towards debt per year and every deficit we run only increases that amount.

 

People's refusal/displeasure with paying taxes often complicates their own lives and makes conditions less desirable. I was raised in California. I currently live in Washington DC. Everytime I leave the Capital and venture out I am amazed by all the tolls on the highway. It is somethings feeways in cali don't have. There are tolls physically on the highways and depending on the highway tolls at every exit. The infastructure for the tolls is enormous. It must cost a significant percentage of the toll money collected just to finance to system of collection. It would be far more simple for the state to just tax citizens and pay for the darn roads than it is to interrupt traffic and maintain an industry of toll collection. Just taxing people via their pay would be more cost effective and it would improve traffic. Instead everyone is stuck stop for tolls and coughing up cash as they go. Far more inconvenient and for worse service. I guess some would argue that it is a jobs program but the effort put into toll collection could easily be redirected to road improvement. Believe me, Virgina and Maryland could have much nicer roads.

 

That is just one example. We see it all over another example would be cities with police dept. that have aggressive citation writing campaigns because it is revenue source. It would be easier if we could all just pony up they money via taxes instead of constantly pushing for tax cuts which result in govts just find some other way to get the money they need to function.

[Raider5678]

There.

Started a political party.

Now just need some good old fashion manipulation to get started.

[OldChemE]

You can start a party-- but the real problem is gaining majority. This is a huge issue in the USA. In countries where the elected representatives form a government, multiple parties can work, because several parties, each having a minority of the total, can form a coalition to select the leader (such as a Prime Minister). In a system like the US where the President is directly elected separate from the Senators and Representatives, it takes some form of majority (electoral or popular, or both) for party to get someone in office to push their platform and not veto legislation.

[Raider5678]

You can start a party-- but the real problem is gaining majority. This is a huge issue in the USA. In countries where the elected representatives form a government, multiple parties can work, because several parties, each having a minority of the total, can form a coalition to select the leader (such as a Prime Minister). In a system like the US where the President is directly elected separate from the Senators and Representatives, it takes some form of majority (electoral or popular, or both) for party to get someone in office to push their platform and not veto legislation.

That's the plan my good friend.

That's the plan.