CBO sees $3.7 trillion deficit in 2020 as debt exceeds size

[Ricky C]

On Tuesday, April 28, 2020 at 12:14:29 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:

On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 8:41:31 PM UTC-7, Ricky C wrote:
On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 11:23:06 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 3:46:10 PM UTC-7, Ricky C wrote:
On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 6:21:24 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 2:55:11 PM UTC-7, Ricky C wrote:
On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 4:05:00 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 1:30:38 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 9:33:57 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Congress is a pack of criminal idiots. They have been for decades.
They have got so used to spending that they take it for granted now.

Why isn't that all meaningless? Congress can tax (it'd be "extortion" by any
non-government entity) and spend, and (like every government) does so.

The power to do so is written into the Constitution (has been for centuries), by
which it IS granted to, and taken by, Congress.

I see no evidence of idiocy.

There's not that much left to tax. The misleaders have created the impression that the GDP is this huge reservoir of wealth they can tap into at will. But, it's not nearly as big as they make it out to be. For one thing, government spending is included in the GDP, as idiotic as that sounds. And it amounts to typically 20-25% of GDP in a "good" year. It may go into 30-35% territory in the corona era. The useless fools can't sustain an economy for more than 2-3 years before something crashes, which means it's a really flimsy operation. So the kind of tax hikes you're talking about will probably kill it for a long time, and do more harm than good.

Yes, it's a terrible system, really bad. It's just better than all the others.

--

Rick C.

-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

Increasing taxes MIGHT reduce the debt IF the extra tax revenue was used SOLELY to pay off debt. But this is not done - any new tax revenue is spent long before it is collected. Furthermore, we have already shifted the tax burden to the wealthy. The top 10% by income used to pay 50% of all federal taxes in 1980 - now it is up to 70%. A similar shift has occurred in the top 1% and top 5%. There simply is not that much money left to tax. How many more hours would YOU work if the government took more than half of it? The bottom line is that politicians get elected by spending our money, not by cutting programs.

What percentage of federal taxes were paid by the 10% income earners in 2015? Not sure "income" is even the right way to assess wealth. Most of the very wealthy don't have much income. They make money by capital gains which are not "income".

Suggesting there is not much money left to tax ignores the fact that corporate tax rates were just lowered a couple of years ago. Undoing tax cuts instituted over the last few years would be a good start, no?

We already have welfare for the poor. Do we really need it for the rich?

--

Rick C.

-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

News flash: income taxes are taxes assessed on INCOME. Heaven help us if they even enact a wealth tax (it didn't work in Europe). Wealth and income are not the same thing (people can, and do, spend all of their income, leaving no wealth in the aftermath). About 70% of all federal taxes were paid by the top 10% of earners in 2015.

Corporations don't pay any taxes: their CUSTOMERS do. ALL taxes paid by corporations are passed thru to us consumers thru higher prices.

No, undoing the tax cuts would HAMMER the economy, which is hanging on by a thread now. How many companies do you think will be posting profits in the next few quarters, anyhow?

I don't call paying 70% of ALL federal taxes welfare. That is just another liberal lie.

It's also a meaningless statistic. I just feel that taxes should be paid, dollar for dollar. Shouldn't matter if it is income or capital gains (which are taxed as part of the income tax). The really big money guys pays a lower tax rate than their secretaries... at least that is that Warren Buffet would have you believe. Is he lying?

It is sure as hell meaningful if you are the one paying the taxes. I don't set tax rates, Congress does. Capital gains taxes are actually double taxation because the income used to generate the capital gain has ALREADY been taxed at income tax rates. Nobel prize winner Milton Friedman thought that the correct capital gains tax rate was zero, but explained justification for a lower rate thus:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/kejuv/milton_friedman_on_the_treatment_of_capital_gains/
No, Buffett wasn't lying - he is a dyed in the wool liberal.

It is meaningless because the top 10% are gaining a hugh share of the income. So it is inevitable they will pay more than 10% of the total taxes. The only way to have everyone pay the same share is to have a flat tax which no one wants.

Why does it matter if Buffett is a liberal or not??? He is stating a fact about taxes that IS relevant that the wealthy get taxed at lower rates because most of their income is capital gains. I suppose you are just deflecting from this fact.

The Trump tax cuts didn't do diddly for the economy. He claimed they would stimulate the economy and produce a surplus. Never happened. Now we already have a huge deficit before piling on the trillions being spent on propping up everyone during this pandemic.

Yup it did - we are presently generating record levels of tax revenue with outstanding economic results - until COVID hit and they shut the economy down. Deficits are the direct result of even higher spending by Congress.

Like Buffett you didn't lie here, but unlike Buffett you distort the truth. Yes, every year Trump has been in office the tax revenue has increased and is at the highest levels. But that is exactly the same as nearly every year under nearly every President. Most of it is due to inflation and another portion is due to the inevitable economic growth that is part of any economy that isn't hurting. In other words, if your economy isn't growing (and therefore the tax revenue) you are failing.

The point is the growth under Trump has been no more than under other Presidents including Obama.

I like the way you want to blame the deficit on Congress. Congress passes bills, but Trump signs them into law. Trump signed the bills for spending just Congress passed the laws for tax cuts and Trump signed for that. If he doesn't approve, he doesn't sign. If he signed, he must have approved. Bottom line, either he gets both credit and blame or neither. Pick one.

Yup, the wrong economic thinking at the wrong time. We just leaned into a left hook all thanks to Trump.

No, again the economy was setting all kinds of GOOD records with record unemployment and good income growth.

Again, Trump is the beneficiary of the previous administration's work digging us out of the 2006-7 real estate bubble collapse. Unemployment peaked near the end of 2009 and dropped steadily ever since. So even Trump wasn't able to screw it up. Wonderful.

The real irony was that Obama handed a pretty sweet economy to Trump when he left office. All Trump needed to do was not fuck it up.

The economy was limping along under Obama with the slowest growth out of a recession since the Great Depression (less than 1% in his last year).

And yet it was doing great as it was handed to Trump after growing 33% under Obama. BTW, your 1% number is a lie according to World Bank.

You really do have a knack for distorting the truth.

--

Rick C.

-+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

On Mon, 27 Apr 2020 08:14:47 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

For fiscal year 2020, CBO's early look at the fiscal outlook shows the following:

The federal budget deficit is projected to be $3.7 trillion.

Federal debt held by the public is projected to be 101 percent of GDP by the end of the fiscal year.

To develop a preliminary view of the deficit and thus of federal borrowing, CBO took into account the estimated effects on the deficit of pandemic-related legislation enacted on March 4, March 18, March 27, and April 24. CBO made a rough assessment of the overall changes in federal spending and revenues resulting from the sharp deterioration in the economic outlook since January, when the agency issued its most recent complete economic forecast.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56335

This is more serious:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-52373888

Of course, this could be number-inflation-alarmism, just like the
prediction of 32 million C19 deaths in the US alone, but I fear not.

Maybe our lockdowns are not just wrecking our economy and saving some
first-world lives, but will kill hundreds of times as many poor
people. That's not unprecedented.


' His blunt warning:

"One way or another, the world will pay for this." '




--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 27 Apr 2020 19:46:46 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 3:55:00 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2020 10:30:29 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 9:33:57 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Congress is a pack of criminal idiots. They have been for decades.
They have got so used to spending that they take it for granted now.

Why isn't that all meaningless?

Suppose, just for example, that China decides to sell bonds at 5%
interest. The US would have to pay 5% to refinance the national debt.

Do you automatically assume that 5% return in yuan-denominated bonds
are directly competitive with dollar-denominated bonds? I wouldn't.

They could denominate in euros or roubles or something.

If anyone big decided to pay reasonable interest rates, the US could
be in trouble.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[Ricky C]

On Tuesday, April 28, 2020 at 3:45:54 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 27 Apr 2020 19:46:46 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 3:55:00 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2020 10:30:29 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 9:33:57 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Congress is a pack of criminal idiots. They have been for decades.
They have got so used to spending that they take it for granted now.

Why isn't that all meaningless?

Suppose, just for example, that China decides to sell bonds at 5%
interest. The US would have to pay 5% to refinance the national debt.

Do you automatically assume that 5% return in yuan-denominated bonds
are directly competitive with dollar-denominated bonds? I wouldn't.

They could denominate in euros or roubles or something.

If anyone big decided to pay reasonable interest rates, the US could
be in trouble.

They are paying reasonable rates, by definition. It's an auction, prices set by the market. It's hard to fight the market. Most people do very well by not bucking the system that works.

Of course the peanut gallery always offers their two cents worth.

--

Rick C.

-++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

On Tuesday, April 28, 2020 at 3:45:54 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 27 Apr 2020 19:46:46 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 3:55:00 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2020 10:30:29 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 9:33:57 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Congress is a pack of criminal idiots. They have been for decades.
They have got so used to spending that they take it for granted now..

Why isn't that all meaningless?

Suppose, just for example, that China decides to sell bonds at 5%
interest. The US would have to pay 5% to refinance the national debt.

Do you automatically assume that 5% return in yuan-denominated bonds
are directly competitive with dollar-denominated bonds? I wouldn't.

They could denominate in euros or roubles or something.

If anyone big decided to pay reasonable interest rates, the US could
be in trouble.

Not going to happen because no other country needs so much money they would put a dent into the U.S. market. And just because some wackadoodle country puts up bonds and notes for sale, it doesn't mean anyone is going to invest in them- chance of payback is zero.
The really big hit comes when financial entities don't want or don't need to invest in U.S. notes, then the Treasury has to raise rates to attract more sales. That's what's going to kill them. When you hold humongous debt, even a very small increase in yield/ interest translates into a humongous debt service cost.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 1:30:38 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 9:33:57 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Congress is a pack of criminal idiots. They have been for decades.
They have got so used to spending that they take it for granted now.

Why isn't that all meaningless? Congress can tax (it'd be "extortion" by any
non-government entity) and spend, and (like every government) does so.

The power to do so is written into the Constitution

No it isn't, that's the problem. The Constitution gives the federal
government specifically limited power to tax, for certain specific
purposes only (Article I, Section 8), including post offices, national
defense, establishing courts, oversee treaties, and a national currency.

If we'd stuck to that we'd be in fine shape.

There's nothing in there about making the whole country bail out
some faltering ACME Consolidated International, or paying someone's
pension or medical costs, which are now 70-odd percent of annual
spending (as of prior to Wuhan's Delight).

(has been for centuries), by
which it IS granted to, and taken by, Congress.

I see no evidence of idiocy.

Spending more than you have makes sense? A government gleaning votes
by promising all citizens a bounty of goods and labors of other
citizens -- in amounts it can't possibly ever deliver -- is good?

Historically, those are all deadly.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 6:46:10 PM UTC-4, Ricky C wrote:

> What percentage of federal taxes were paid by the 10% income earners in 2015?

70%.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Tuesday, April 28, 2020 at 3:45:54 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 27 Apr 2020 19:46:46 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 3:55:00 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2020 10:30:29 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 9:33:57 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Congress is a pack of criminal idiots. They have been for decades.
They have got so used to spending that they take it for granted now.

Why isn't that all meaningless?

Suppose, just for example, that China decides to sell bonds at 5%
interest. The US would have to pay 5% to refinance the national debt.

Do you automatically assume that 5% return in yuan-denominated bonds
are directly competitive with dollar-denominated bonds? I wouldn't.

They could denominate in euros or roubles or something.

If anyone big decided to pay reasonable interest rates, the US could
be in trouble.

You're right in theory but most of our debt is held by our own
citizens. Most of them aren't likely to re-invest overseas chasing
higher yield -- heck, I sure wouldn't.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 11:41:31 PM UTC-4, Ricky C wrote:

> It's also a meaningless statistic. I just feel that taxes should be paid, dollar for dollar. Shouldn't matter if it is income or capital gains (which are taxed as part of the income tax).

If you tax capital gains, you destroy capital.
Without capital, you're back in the Stone Ages.

The really big money guys pays a lower tax rate than their secretaries... at least that is that Warren Buffet would have you believe. Is he lying?

The Trump tax cuts didn't do diddly for the economy. He claimed they would stimulate the economy and produce a surplus.

Which pretty much happened -- the economy soared, and revenues did too.
But Congress spent it all.

Never happened. Now we already have a huge deficit before piling on the trillions being spent on propping up everyone during this pandemic.

Yup, the wrong economic thinking at the wrong time. We just leaned into a left hook all thanks to Trump.

The real irony was that Obama handed a pretty sweet economy to Trump when he left office.

You're insane. The economy was awful, millions were driven from the
labor force. I can't think of a single thing Obama did that wasn't
investment, business, and employment kryptonite.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 12:03:58 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 11:41:31 PM UTC-4, Ricky C wrote:

It's also a meaningless statistic. I just feel that taxes should be paid, dollar for dollar. Shouldn't matter if it is income or capital gains (which are taxed as part of the income tax).

If you tax capital gains, you destroy capital.

Well, 100% would destroy it.

>Without capital, you're back in the Stone Ages.

Tax capital gains a little maybe. Tax *financial transactions* to
dampen the system.

Tax every email while you're at it.

The really big money guys pays a lower tax rate than their secretaries... at least that is that Warren Buffet would have you believe. Is he lying?

The Trump tax cuts didn't do diddly for the economy. He claimed they would stimulate the economy and produce a surplus.

Which pretty much happened -- the economy soared, and revenues did too.
But Congress spent it all.

Never happened. Now we already have a huge deficit before piling on the trillions being spent on propping up everyone during this pandemic.

Yup, the wrong economic thinking at the wrong time. We just leaned into a left hook all thanks to Trump.

The real irony was that Obama handed a pretty sweet economy to Trump when he left office.

You're insane. The economy was awful, millions were driven from the
labor force. I can't think of a single thing Obama did that wasn't
investment, business, and employment kryptonite.

Cheers,
James Arthur

Some people think we can tax our way to prosperity. Some people even
think that politicians are smart.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[Ricky C]

On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 3:04:05 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 11:41:31 PM UTC-4, Ricky C wrote:

It's also a meaningless statistic. I just feel that taxes should be paid, dollar for dollar. Shouldn't matter if it is income or capital gains (which are taxed as part of the income tax).

If you tax capital gains, you destroy capital.
Without capital, you're back in the Stone Ages.

That is just absurd. You don't have capital gains until you liquidate the capital and gain financially. That profit on the gain in capital value is taxed... THE MONEY YOU NOW HAVE IS TAXED. No capital was harmed in the making of this tax. Do you understand anything about finance?

The really big money guys pays a lower tax rate than their secretaries.... at least that is that Warren Buffet would have you believe. Is he lying?

The Trump tax cuts didn't do diddly for the economy. He claimed they would stimulate the economy and produce a surplus.

Which pretty much happened -- the economy soared, and revenues did too.
But Congress spent it all.

There was no soaring, either in the economy or the taxes. It rose at the same rate it had been rising under Obama.

It's like being on a long trip on Rt 95 down the east coast. You pull over and let Trump drive and now he is bragging about the tremendous gains he is making. He's closer to Mar-a-Lago than any other driver on this trip! He has driven by the same speed limit and avoided running the car off the road same as the previous... one President. The one before him ran it off the road in 2007. Now Trump is running it off the road now by not being effective in office and letting the country wallow in this disease.

Never happened. Now we already have a huge deficit before piling on the trillions being spent on propping up everyone during this pandemic.

Yup, the wrong economic thinking at the wrong time. We just leaned into a left hook all thanks to Trump.

The real irony was that Obama handed a pretty sweet economy to Trump when he left office.

You're insane. The economy was awful, millions were driven from the
labor force. I can't think of a single thing Obama did that wasn't
investment, business, and employment kryptonite.

That's because you won't look at the numbers, the data. I think you were the guy I had the conversation with where you claimed we had permanently lost momentum in economic growth. I had to actually draw lines on the data graph to show you the economy was back to growing at the same rate as before and this cycle had been repeated several times before. Or course you refused to acknowledge this and just stopped discussing it.

Why are you in denial of facts? I get that we all have our preferences of what we wish to support and the direction we'd like things to go. But facts are facts. The economy was in the toilet when Obama took over as President. I'm not saying the economy only improved because Obama was running things. After all, it's not often that doctors actually heal the body. They mostly try not to do harm. Likewise a President should at least not do harm. Trump isn't very good at that.

--

Rick C.

+-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Ricky C]

On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 4:36:00 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

Some people think we can tax our way to prosperity. Some people even
think that politicians are smart.

Certainly they are smarter than a lot of people who think politicians aren't.

Taxes are a necessary evil. Like many things they are good in the right amount. We often have different opinions on what the right amount is.

Economics is a difficult field because of the great number of inputs, the many unknowns. That's not the same as saying it is not worthwhile to research and learn about.

It is easy to criticize even when no one has any better insight including the person criticizing. Often especially the person criticizing.

--

Rick C.

+-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, April 30, 2020 at 5:04:05 AM UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 11:41:31 PM UTC-4, Ricky C wrote:

It's also a meaningless statistic. I just feel that taxes should be paid, dollar for dollar. Shouldn't matter if it is income or capital gains (which are taxed as part of the income tax).

If you tax capital gains, you destroy capital.

Only in James Arthur's cloud-cuckoo-land. The Dutch have been doing it for years.

> Without capital, you're back in the Stone Ages.

Capital investment is just one way building up productive assets. Retained and re-invested surpluses are what are actually being mobilised. Having a free market to distribute them in the most cost-effective way can be useful, for certain sorts of services, but it isn't the only way - and as ENRON demonstrated, it can get screwed up.

The really big money guys pays a lower tax rate than their secretaries.... at least that is that Warren Buffet would have you believe. Is he lying?

The Trump tax cuts didn't do diddly for the economy. He claimed they would stimulate the economy and produce a surplus.

Which pretty much happened -- the economy soared, and revenues did too.
But Congress spent it all.

As viewed through James Arthur's distorting spectacles.

Never happened. Now we already have a huge deficit before piling on the trillions being spent on propping up everyone during this pandemic.

Yup, the wrong economic thinking at the wrong time. We just leaned into a left hook all thanks to Trump.

The real irony was that Obama handed a pretty sweet economy to Trump when he left office.

You're insane. The economy was awful, millions were driven from the
labor force. I can't think of a single thing Obama did that wasn't
investment, business, and employment kryptonite.

Well, James Arthur does like to think that. It's not remotely true, but it saves him from having to think about what the Tea Party astro-turfing did to the Republican Party on it way to its degradation to the Donald Trump Appreciation Party.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney