US National Debt / Deficit - How does it end? - page 2.

RoadTrain

legendary

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1009

Quote from: Cortex7 on October 11, 2014, 07:38:21 PM

Quote from: RoadTrain on October 11, 2014, 01:28:16 PM

Quote from: Cortex7 on October 11, 2014, 01:12:59 PM

It has grown and grown for sure, but in the end the creditors will call in the debts (dump US bonds) then it's game over.

And what happens then? You know, if someone is selling, someone is buying

Yes there will always be buyers, but for what price?

If someone places a humongous market sell order then it will rip down the bid order book to a very low price, which will (if it's low enough, i.e. china dumps) dissolve confidence in other holders causing a selloff avalanche and the order book will collapse leaving only the US to buy them back using physical assets or more likely screw the whole deal (which could lead to war).

This is not "conspiracy theory", this is a fact of free markets. The holders all know the position they are in, they understand what a bond is perfectly, they are no longer in it for financial gain, the big holders use it as geopolitical leverage tool and will make a sacrificial move to crush the USD if they feel overly threatened.

There are two end solutions
[1]
The books are balanced which is highly unlikely considering the US debt is growing exponentially and not shrinking.

[2]
War, a fair assumption considering USA has used much of it's petrodollar profits to build quite a formidable military.

It still looks like a conspiracy theory. No rational entity would dump by placing a "humongous market sell order". And even if that happens, this dumb entity will just give some free arbitrage money to the most important Treasuty bonds traders - primary dealers. If the current institutional structure of the U.S. monetary system is concerned, the rates of treasury bonds are simply a product of federal funds rate expectations over the bond's maturity. And this is what this "free market" is doing - trading these interest rate expectations. If fed funds rates remain the same, bond yields will converge back to where they were before the selloff.

So, the most likely outcome is
[3]
Things continue as usual.

funtotry

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 250

Ever wanted to run your own casino? PM me for info

Quote from: mmortal03 on October 11, 2014, 05:32:00 PM

Quote from: Eisenhower34 on October 11, 2014, 11:06:10 AM

Quote from: CMMPro on October 09, 2014, 06:35:26 PM

Quote from: redHeadBlunder on October 08, 2014, 11:03:07 PM

Quote from: CMMPro on October 08, 2014, 05:55:25 AM

"It is not a corporation's job to provide an unskilled worker skills to do a job they are not qualified for."

This is absolutely wrong. Corporations take these chances every day and they most often pay off.
It's not their "job" to train workers per se, but they would be stupid to neglect the ability to get quality employees for far less than they are potentially worth.

When a corporation takes a chance on a worker they are investing in the worker. Someone with zero skills is a high risk investment. If it turns out the worker is lazy or is not smart enough to grasp the concept of what is being taught him then they will still have an unskilled employee on their payroll that is not productive and will not be able to get a return on their investment.

A corporation will likely be able to pay someone they will train a somewhat lower wage. If the employee they are training is very smart and can do what is being taught them very well then the employee can take those newly learned skills (that the corporation just paid for) and go to another company that can offer more money.

It is a lose-lose situation to hire and train a no-skilled worker for a job that requires skill

Again...totally wrong. They will swing for the fence 9 times out of 10 and if they hit one home run it is all worth it.

"they will still have an unskilled employee on their payroll that is not productive and will not be able to get a return on their investment"

Not true at all, no one guarantees you a job...if you don't make the cut you are out on your ass. It happens every day.

I'm actually a stunning example of this...but it is a long story no one cares to hear.

Companies will generally not fire you for only a few bad days or if someone does not become as productive as they should be immediately. It generally takes at least ~6 months of poor performance before someone will be let go for bad performance.

The problem is that if someone is very good and is able to be very productive after they received their company paid training, there is nothing that would prevent them from taking those skills and going to another employer who can pay a higher salary because they do not invest as much on training entry level employees. The company that takes a chance and hires someone who has no skills is essentially paying for the 2nd company's training

Same with people who are already trained -- they can leave for more money, too. The difference is that workers will feel more loyalty to the companies who take the time to train them. The issue of companies not generally firing people for only a few bad days, on the other hand, is a specific issue that companies can choose to structure their evaluation process to avoid in various ways, and is not specific to new trainees.

If a worker does not need to be trained then a company can afford to pay more because they have less training costs.

For example if a company expects two workers to stay with them for two years, one will need to go through training for two months and one will need essentially zero training. The first worker will have zero productivity during training (and will likely have reduced productivity immediately out of training). The company would be able to afford to pay the second worker ~8.3% more then the first worker as they do not need to bear the expense of training the worker (this is disregarding the reduced productivity that is mentioned above). This would result in it being less likely that the worker with existing training will find a better job/salary offer with a competitor

CMMPro

hero member

Activity: 588

Merit: 500

Quote from: mmortal03 on October 11, 2014, 05:32:00 PM

Quote from: Eisenhower34 on October 11, 2014, 11:06:10 AM

Quote from: CMMPro on October 09, 2014, 06:35:26 PM

Quote from: redHeadBlunder on October 08, 2014, 11:03:07 PM

Quote from: CMMPro on October 08, 2014, 05:55:25 AM

"It is not a corporation's job to provide an unskilled worker skills to do a job they are not qualified for."

This is absolutely wrong. Corporations take these chances every day and they most often pay off.
It's not their "job" to train workers per se, but they would be stupid to neglect the ability to get quality employees for far less than they are potentially worth.

When a corporation takes a chance on a worker they are investing in the worker. Someone with zero skills is a high risk investment. If it turns out the worker is lazy or is not smart enough to grasp the concept of what is being taught him then they will still have an unskilled employee on their payroll that is not productive and will not be able to get a return on their investment.

A corporation will likely be able to pay someone they will train a somewhat lower wage. If the employee they are training is very smart and can do what is being taught them very well then the employee can take those newly learned skills (that the corporation just paid for) and go to another company that can offer more money.

It is a lose-lose situation to hire and train a no-skilled worker for a job that requires skill

Again...totally wrong. They will swing for the fence 9 times out of 10 and if they hit one home run it is all worth it.

"they will still have an unskilled employee on their payroll that is not productive and will not be able to get a return on their investment"

Not true at all, no one guarantees you a job...if you don't make the cut you are out on your ass. It happens every day.

I'm actually a stunning example of this...but it is a long story no one cares to hear.

Companies will generally not fire you for only a few bad days or if someone does not become as productive as they should be immediately. It generally takes at least ~6 months of poor performance before someone will be let go for bad performance.

The problem is that if someone is very good and is able to be very productive after they received their company paid training, there is nothing that would prevent them from taking those skills and going to another employer who can pay a higher salary because they do not invest as much on training entry level employees. The company that takes a chance and hires someone who has no skills is essentially paying for the 2nd company's training

Same with people who are already trained -- they can leave for more money, too. The difference is that workers will feel more loyalty to the companies who take the time to train them. The issue of companies not generally firing people for only a few bad days, on the other hand, is a specific issue that companies can choose to structure their evaluation process to avoid in various ways, and is not specific to new trainees.

Additionally, at least here in Canada many companies get you to sign a contract before you go for expensive training.
If you leave within a predetermined period after the training, you are generally either held in a non-comp clause, or a clause where they can bind you to pay back the cost of your training.

The company I work for put $250k of training into me over the last 10 years, $150k of that in the first 2 years alone to get me up to speed initially...they took a shot on me and out of loyalty alone I'm not going anywhere, they compensate me accordingly so I would never even consider moonlighting or going out on my own.

In return, they have made so much fucking money from my work...they have no complaints about training costs.

So, this is the flip side to paying to train people...there are failures and there are success stories.

Cortex7

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 106

Quote from: RoadTrain on October 11, 2014, 01:28:16 PM

Quote from: Cortex7 on October 11, 2014, 01:12:59 PM

It has grown and grown for sure, but in the end the creditors will call in the debts (dump US bonds) then it's game over.

And what happens then? You know, if someone is selling, someone is buying

Yes there will always be buyers, but for what price?

If someone places a humongous market sell order then it will rip down the bid order book to a very low price, which will (if it's low enough, i.e. china dumps) dissolve confidence in other holders causing a selloff avalanche and the order book will collapse leaving only the US to buy them back using physical assets or more likely screw the whole deal (which could lead to war).

This is not "conspiracy theory", this is a fact of free markets. The holders all know the position they are in, they understand what a bond is perfectly, they are no longer in it for financial gain, the big holders use it as geopolitical leverage tool and will make a sacrificial move to crush the USD if they feel overly threatened.

There are two end solutions
[1]
The books are balanced which is highly unlikely considering the US debt is growing exponentially and not shrinking.

[2]
War, a fair assumption considering USA has used much of it's petrodollar profits to build quite a formidable military.

mmortal03

legendary

Activity: 1762

Merit: 1011

Quote from: Eisenhower34 on October 11, 2014, 11:06:10 AM

Quote from: CMMPro on October 09, 2014, 06:35:26 PM

Quote from: redHeadBlunder on October 08, 2014, 11:03:07 PM

Quote from: CMMPro on October 08, 2014, 05:55:25 AM

"It is not a corporation's job to provide an unskilled worker skills to do a job they are not qualified for."

This is absolutely wrong. Corporations take these chances every day and they most often pay off.
It's not their "job" to train workers per se, but they would be stupid to neglect the ability to get quality employees for far less than they are potentially worth.

When a corporation takes a chance on a worker they are investing in the worker. Someone with zero skills is a high risk investment. If it turns out the worker is lazy or is not smart enough to grasp the concept of what is being taught him then they will still have an unskilled employee on their payroll that is not productive and will not be able to get a return on their investment.

A corporation will likely be able to pay someone they will train a somewhat lower wage. If the employee they are training is very smart and can do what is being taught them very well then the employee can take those newly learned skills (that the corporation just paid for) and go to another company that can offer more money.

It is a lose-lose situation to hire and train a no-skilled worker for a job that requires skill

Again...totally wrong. They will swing for the fence 9 times out of 10 and if they hit one home run it is all worth it.

"they will still have an unskilled employee on their payroll that is not productive and will not be able to get a return on their investment"

Not true at all, no one guarantees you a job...if you don't make the cut you are out on your ass. It happens every day.

I'm actually a stunning example of this...but it is a long story no one cares to hear.

Companies will generally not fire you for only a few bad days or if someone does not become as productive as they should be immediately. It generally takes at least ~6 months of poor performance before someone will be let go for bad performance.

The problem is that if someone is very good and is able to be very productive after they received their company paid training, there is nothing that would prevent them from taking those skills and going to another employer who can pay a higher salary because they do not invest as much on training entry level employees. The company that takes a chance and hires someone who has no skills is essentially paying for the 2nd company's training

Same with people who are already trained -- they can leave for more money, too. The difference is that workers will feel more loyalty to the companies who take the time to train them. The issue of companies not generally firing people for only a few bad days, on the other hand, is a specific issue that companies can choose to structure their evaluation process to avoid in various ways, and is not specific to new trainees.

RoadTrain

legendary

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1009

Quote from: Cortex7 on October 11, 2014, 01:12:59 PM

It has grown and grown for sure, but in the end the creditors will call in the debts (dump US bonds) then it's game over.

And what happens then? You know, if someone is selling, someone is buying

Cortex7

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 106

Quote from: BJay87 on October 10, 2014, 08:38:20 AM

Quote from: krodmandoon on September 26, 2014, 01:30:53 PM

it doesn't end. what is the incentive for ending it.

LOL.. Perfectly said. It doesnt end, it will grow and grow.

History of all other fiat money says otherwise.

It has grown and grown for sure, but in the end the creditors will call in the debts (dump US bonds) then it's game over.

Eisenhower34

legendary

Activity: 906

Merit: 1002

Quote from: CMMPro on October 09, 2014, 06:35:26 PM

Quote from: redHeadBlunder on October 08, 2014, 11:03:07 PM

Quote from: CMMPro on October 08, 2014, 05:55:25 AM

"It is not a corporation's job to provide an unskilled worker skills to do a job they are not qualified for."

This is absolutely wrong. Corporations take these chances every day and they most often pay off.
It's not their "job" to train workers per se, but they would be stupid to neglect the ability to get quality employees for far less than they are potentially worth.

When a corporation takes a chance on a worker they are investing in the worker. Someone with zero skills is a high risk investment. If it turns out the worker is lazy or is not smart enough to grasp the concept of what is being taught him then they will still have an unskilled employee on their payroll that is not productive and will not be able to get a return on their investment.

A corporation will likely be able to pay someone they will train a somewhat lower wage. If the employee they are training is very smart and can do what is being taught them very well then the employee can take those newly learned skills (that the corporation just paid for) and go to another company that can offer more money.

It is a lose-lose situation to hire and train a no-skilled worker for a job that requires skill

Again...totally wrong. They will swing for the fence 9 times out of 10 and if they hit one home run it is all worth it.

"they will still have an unskilled employee on their payroll that is not productive and will not be able to get a return on their investment"

Not true at all, no one guarantees you a job...if you don't make the cut you are out on your ass. It happens every day.

I'm actually a stunning example of this...but it is a long story no one cares to hear.

Companies will generally not fire you for only a few bad days or if someone does not become as productive as they should be immediately. It generally takes at least ~6 months of poor performance before someone will be let go for bad performance.

The problem is that if someone is very good and is able to be very productive after they received their company paid training, there is nothing that would prevent them from taking those skills and going to another employer who can pay a higher salary because they do not invest as much on training entry level employees. The company that takes a chance and hires someone who has no skills is essentially paying for the 2nd company's training

BJay87

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

*Bitcoin Betting*

Quote from: krodmandoon on September 26, 2014, 01:30:53 PM

it doesn't end. what is the incentive for ending it.

LOL.. Perfectly said. It doesnt end, it will grow and grow.

mmortal03

legendary

Activity: 1762

Merit: 1011

Quote from: redHeadBlunder on October 08, 2014, 11:03:07 PM

Quote from: CMMPro on October 08, 2014, 05:55:25 AM

"It is not a corporation's job to provide an unskilled worker skills to do a job they are not qualified for."

This is absolutely wrong. Corporations take these chances every day and they most often pay off.
It's not their "job" to train workers per se, but they would be stupid to neglect the ability to get quality employees for far less than they are potentially worth.

When a corporation takes a chance on a worker they are investing in the worker. Someone with zero skills is a high risk investment. If it turns out the worker is lazy or is not smart enough to grasp the concept of what is being taught him then they will still have an unskilled employee on their payroll that is not productive and will not be able to get a return on their investment.

A corporation will likely be able to pay someone they will train a somewhat lower wage. If the employee they are training is very smart and can do what is being taught them very well then the employee can take those newly learned skills (that the corporation just paid for) and go to another company that can offer more money.

It is a lose-lose situation to hire and train a no-skilled worker for a job that requires skill

You are making a straw man argument here. No one is saying that they should hire and train people who have no skills whatsoever.

CMMPro

hero member

Activity: 588

Merit: 500

Quote from: redHeadBlunder on October 08, 2014, 11:03:07 PM

Quote from: CMMPro on October 08, 2014, 05:55:25 AM

"It is not a corporation's job to provide an unskilled worker skills to do a job they are not qualified for."

This is absolutely wrong. Corporations take these chances every day and they most often pay off.
It's not their "job" to train workers per se, but they would be stupid to neglect the ability to get quality employees for far less than they are potentially worth.

When a corporation takes a chance on a worker they are investing in the worker. Someone with zero skills is a high risk investment. If it turns out the worker is lazy or is not smart enough to grasp the concept of what is being taught him then they will still have an unskilled employee on their payroll that is not productive and will not be able to get a return on their investment.

A corporation will likely be able to pay someone they will train a somewhat lower wage. If the employee they are training is very smart and can do what is being taught them very well then the employee can take those newly learned skills (that the corporation just paid for) and go to another company that can offer more money.

It is a lose-lose situation to hire and train a no-skilled worker for a job that requires skill

Again...totally wrong. They will swing for the fence 9 times out of 10 and if they hit one home run it is all worth it.

"they will still have an unskilled employee on their payroll that is not productive and will not be able to get a return on their investment"

Not true at all, no one guarantees you a job...if you don't make the cut you are out on your ass. It happens every day.

I'm actually a stunning example of this...but it is a long story no one cares to hear.

redHeadBlunder

member

Activity: 81

Merit: 10

Quote from: CMMPro on October 08, 2014, 05:55:25 AM

"It is not a corporation's job to provide an unskilled worker skills to do a job they are not qualified for."

This is absolutely wrong. Corporations take these chances every day and they most often pay off.
It's not their "job" to train workers per se, but they would be stupid to neglect the ability to get quality employees for far less than they are potentially worth.

When a corporation takes a chance on a worker they are investing in the worker. Someone with zero skills is a high risk investment. If it turns out the worker is lazy or is not smart enough to grasp the concept of what is being taught him then they will still have an unskilled employee on their payroll that is not productive and will not be able to get a return on their investment.

A corporation will likely be able to pay someone they will train a somewhat lower wage. If the employee they are training is very smart and can do what is being taught them very well then the employee can take those newly learned skills (that the corporation just paid for) and go to another company that can offer more money.

It is a lose-lose situation to hire and train a no-skilled worker for a job that requires skill

mmortal03

legendary

Activity: 1762

Merit: 1011

Quote from: CMMPro on October 08, 2014, 05:55:25 AM

"It is not a corporation's job to provide an unskilled worker skills to do a job they are not qualified for."

This is absolutely wrong. Corporations take these chances every day and they most often pay off.
It's not their "job" to train workers per se, but they would be stupid to neglect the ability to get quality employees for far less than they are potentially worth.

Especially given the fact that you hear all these companies out there complain that they always struggle to find the talent that they're looking for. What this really means is that they either don't want to pay someone enough who has the talent, or they aren't willing to develop the talent themselves.

CMMPro

hero member

Activity: 588

Merit: 500

"It is not a corporation's job to provide an unskilled worker skills to do a job they are not qualified for."

This is absolutely wrong. Corporations take these chances every day and they most often pay off.
It's not their "job" to train workers per se, but they would be stupid to neglect the ability to get quality employees for far less than they are potentially worth.

money420weed

member

Activity: 78

Merit: 10

Quote from: mmortal03 on October 01, 2014, 12:30:07 AM

Quote from: Traffic4u on September 30, 2014, 10:30:52 PM

Corporations will pay what the market will support so if people are willing to work for low wages (because they have no skills and receive government benefits) then there is no reason for a corporation to pay more.

You do realize that a corporation benefits from whatever welfare their workers are receiving from the government, by not having to pay that amount themselves to keep their own workers afloat? Do you really support having your tax dollars go to prop up corporations in this manner, while their CEOs take bonuses?

Corporations have the power and money to be able to make a difference by creating programs to train these workers with "no skills", and to pay them wages that will create demand in the economy, the one in which their workers will inevitably spend their earnings in.

For some reason, you focus on the poor individual as if they somehow hold all the power and are simply parasites, but then allow the corporations (who actually do hold the power) to take no flack for the consequences of their larger scale, parasitic behavior? There is only so much that individuals on the poor end of the spectrum can do to change their own circumstances, whereas corporations have the capability to do great things for the community, given their resources. Instead, you give these corporations some sort of merit in their decision to make it a race to the bottom?

It is not a corporation's job to provide an unskilled worker skills to do a job they are not qualified for. This kind of training is very inefficient and will likely result in the corporation never receiving a return on this investment.

Corporations do not benefit from welfare as workers often give up opportunities for advancement, more hours and better pay in order for them to stay on welfare. People believe they are entitled for something in exchange for nothing.

I think the best solution would be to shut off welfare so the lazy cannot give up the above opportunities. When this happens, maybe workers will demand to get paid higher wages

mmortal03

legendary

Activity: 1762

Merit: 1011

Quote from: Traffic4u on September 30, 2014, 10:30:52 PM

Corporations will pay what the market will support so if people are willing to work for low wages (because they have no skills and receive government benefits) then there is no reason for a corporation to pay more.

You do realize that a corporation benefits from whatever welfare their workers are receiving from the government, by not having to pay that amount themselves to keep their own workers afloat? Do you really support having your tax dollars go to prop up corporations in this manner, while their CEOs take bonuses?

Corporations have the power and money to be able to make a difference by creating programs to train these workers with "no skills", and to pay them wages that will create demand in the economy, the one in which their workers will inevitably spend their earnings in.

For some reason, you focus on the poor individual as if they somehow hold all the power and are simply parasites, but then allow the corporations (who actually do hold the power) to take no flack for the consequences of their larger scale, parasitic behavior? There is only so much that individuals on the poor end of the spectrum can do to change their own circumstances, whereas corporations have the capability to do great things for the community, given their resources. Instead, you give these corporations some sort of merit in their decision to make it a race to the bottom?

Traffic4u

full member

Activity: 168

Merit: 100

Quote from: mmortal03 on September 29, 2014, 11:53:26 PM

Quote from: a447513372 on September 29, 2014, 09:26:29 PM

Quote from: mmortal03 on September 29, 2014, 12:38:58 AM

Quote from: ScreamnShout on September 26, 2014, 12:36:54 AM

Quote from: mmortal03 on September 26, 2014, 12:22:33 AM

Quote from: wasserman99 on September 14, 2014, 06:40:40 PM

unless you are part of the 47% who pay no taxes and rely exclusively on government

This is factually wrong. While 47% of households paid no federal income tax for 2009, only 14% paid neither income nor payroll tax. Also, people pay sales taxes at the state and local levels.

If you pay no federal federal income taxes then you are receiving benefits from the federal government (national defense, food security, protections from federal regulations) but are paying nothing in return.

If it actually worked that way, you would be correct, but it doesn't. In actuality, any surplus money, of which you can consider the lower income brackets to be contributing a certain proportion of, has gone into treasury bonds, meaning intra-governmental debt has been created so that other areas of the government can spend it. The government always finds a way to do whatever it wants with the money it gets from people.

if someone was paying their fair share in taxes then the government would need to borrow a little bit less then what it otherwise would need to. If the entire 47% of the people who pay no federal income taxes paid their fair share of taxes then the government would need to borrow a lot less (or potentially be running a budget surplus)

Again, it's not 47%, but please don't blame these individual people. Worker efficiency has been going up, while salaries have been declining. Any lack of tax revenue is simply due to structural reasons in the economy, including large corporations paying as low a wage as they possibly can, jobs being outsourced to foreign countries, etc.

I think you should have to pay federal in come taxes even if you make min wage. Corporations will pay what the market will support so if people are willing to work for low wages (because they have no skills and receive government benefits) then there is no reason for a corporation to pay more.

Also a very high percentage of people who pay no federal income taxes will also receive some kind of government benefit (read: welfare)

mmortal03

legendary

Activity: 1762

Merit: 1011

Quote from: a447513372 on September 29, 2014, 09:26:29 PM

Quote from: mmortal03 on September 29, 2014, 12:38:58 AM

Quote from: ScreamnShout on September 26, 2014, 12:36:54 AM

Quote from: mmortal03 on September 26, 2014, 12:22:33 AM

Quote from: wasserman99 on September 14, 2014, 06:40:40 PM

unless you are part of the 47% who pay no taxes and rely exclusively on government

This is factually wrong. While 47% of households paid no federal income tax for 2009, only 14% paid neither income nor payroll tax. Also, people pay sales taxes at the state and local levels.

If you pay no federal federal income taxes then you are receiving benefits from the federal government (national defense, food security, protections from federal regulations) but are paying nothing in return.

If it actually worked that way, you would be correct, but it doesn't. In actuality, any surplus money, of which you can consider the lower income brackets to be contributing a certain proportion of, has gone into treasury bonds, meaning intra-governmental debt has been created so that other areas of the government can spend it. The government always finds a way to do whatever it wants with the money it gets from people.

if someone was paying their fair share in taxes then the government would need to borrow a little bit less then what it otherwise would need to. If the entire 47% of the people who pay no federal income taxes paid their fair share of taxes then the government would need to borrow a lot less (or potentially be running a budget surplus)

Again, it's not 47%, but please don't blame these individual people. Worker efficiency has been going up, while salaries have been declining. Any lack of tax revenue is simply due to structural reasons in the economy, including large corporations paying as low a wage as they possibly can, jobs being outsourced to foreign countries, etc.

a447513372

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

DLISK - Next Generation Coin

Quote from: mmortal03 on September 29, 2014, 12:38:58 AM

Quote from: ScreamnShout on September 26, 2014, 12:36:54 AM

Quote from: mmortal03 on September 26, 2014, 12:22:33 AM

Quote from: wasserman99 on September 14, 2014, 06:40:40 PM

unless you are part of the 47% who pay no taxes and rely exclusively on government

This is factually wrong. While 47% of households paid no federal income tax for 2009, only 14% paid neither income nor payroll tax. Also, people pay sales taxes at the state and local levels.

If you pay no federal federal income taxes then you are receiving benefits from the federal government (national defense, food security, protections from federal regulations) but are paying nothing in return.

If it actually worked that way, you would be correct, but it doesn't. In actuality, any surplus money, of which you can consider the lower income brackets to be contributing a certain proportion of, has gone into treasury bonds, meaning intra-governmental debt has been created so that other areas of the government can spend it. The government always finds a way to do whatever it wants with the money it gets from people.

if someone was paying their fair share in taxes then the government would need to borrow a little bit less then what it otherwise would need to. If the entire 47% of the people who pay no federal income taxes paid their fair share of taxes then the government would need to borrow a lot less (or potentially be running a budget surplus)

Cortex7

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 106

Quote from: krodmandoon on September 26, 2014, 01:30:53 PM

it doesn't end. what is the incentive for ending it.

All fiat systems fail eventually, this article explains it well:

http://goldsilverworlds.com/gold-silver-insights/research-shows-all-paper-money-systems-failed/

Topic: US National Debt / Deficit - How does it end? - page 2. (Read 9057 times)