US economy thread (3 Viewers)

[Instinctive]

If the government is willing to truly commit to get high speed internet into every corner of rural America then I would be fine with ridding ourselves of daily mail pickup and delivery

Why couldn't the daily pickup be more centralized like the boxes and delivery be every other day?

 

[the moops]

If the government is willing to truly commit to get high speed internet into every corner of rural America then I would be fine with ridding ourselves of daily mail pickup and delivery

Why couldn't the daily pickup be more centralized like the boxes and delivery be every other day?

It could I suppose

 

[djmich]

If the government is willing to truly commit to get high speed internet into every corner of rural America then I would be fine with ridding ourselves of daily mail pickup and delivery

You don't need high speed internet to get a bank statement. USPS is not streaming GoT.

 

[beer 30]

Any recovered cash should be retired. Anything not spent in the huge spending bills lately should be legislated out of existence. Shut. It. Down.

As much as I'd like a $5k check, I don't need it and I'd much rather they just put it toward paying down the debt. All of the above

 

[the moops]

If the government is willing to truly commit to get high speed internet into every corner of rural America then I would be fine with ridding ourselves of daily mail pickup and delivery

You don't need high speed internet to get a bank statement. USPS is not streaming GoT.

I'm just trying to look out for the rural folk here.

 

[djmich]

If the government is willing to truly commit to get high speed internet into every corner of rural America then I would be fine with ridding ourselves of daily mail pickup and delivery

You don't need high speed internet to get a bank statement. USPS is not streaming GoT.

I'm just trying to look out for the rural folk here.

I know. I'm not educated enough to really feel strongly one way or another about the government ensuring high speed internet is accessible for rural folks (as far as I can tell the market is progressing a solution there rapidly, a company that shall not be named)...just that I don't think its specifically a requirement to change how we deliver physical mail today.

 

[Stoneworker]

Any recovered cash should be retired. Anything not spent in the huge spending bills lately should be legislated out of existence. Shut. It. Down.

As much as I'd like a $5k check, I don't need it and I'd much rather they just put it toward paying down the debt. All of the above

Good points on CNBC today that putting savings toward debt reduction would have an outsized, positive impact on the 10-year Treasury interest rate (and therefore mortgage rates, etc). Outsized because it would send a signal that the U.S. is serious about the deficit.

OTOH there are arguments both pro and con that the $5K dividend may be inflationary.

 

[Instinctive]

If the government is willing to truly commit to get high speed internet into every corner of rural America then I would be fine with ridding ourselves of daily mail pickup and delivery

Why couldn't the daily pickup be more centralized like the boxes and delivery be every other day?

It could I suppose

It's just the kind of thing somebody needs to actually look at.

1. "What is the need?"
2. "If we started from zero, what would be the best way to meet that need?"
3. "Knowing where we are now, what can we do to get to #2?"

 

[djmich]

Any recovered cash should be retired. Anything not spent in the huge spending bills lately should be legislated out of existence. Shut. It. Down.

As much as I'd like a $5k check, I don't need it and I'd much rather they just put it toward paying down the debt. All of the above

Good points on CNBC today that putting savings toward debt reduction would have an outsized, positive impact on the 10-year Treasury interest rate (and therefore mortgage rates, etc). Outsized because it would send a signal that the U.S. is serious about the deficit.

OTOH there are arguments both pro and con that the $5K dividend may be inflationary.

If its a $5k dividend, its a lot of cutting of government spending, which would be deflationary. So I dont think we can talk about one, without the other.

 

[Stoneworker]

Any recovered cash should be retired. Anything not spent in the huge spending bills lately should be legislated out of existence. Shut. It. Down.

As much as I'd like a $5k check, I don't need it and I'd much rather they just put it toward paying down the debt. All of the above

Good points on CNBC today that putting savings toward debt reduction would have an outsized, positive impact on the 10-year Treasury interest rate (and therefore mortgage rates, etc). Outsized because it would send a signal that the U.S. is serious about the deficit.

OTOH there are arguments both pro and con that the $5K dividend may be inflationary.

If its a $5k dividend, its a lot of cutting of government spending, which would be deflationary. So I dont think we can talk about one, without the other.

But if the gov't is issuing a dividend then it's not using those dollars for cutting gov't spending. Therefore it's more like a stimulus check.

 

[beer 30]

Any recovered cash should be retired. Anything not spent in the huge spending bills lately should be legislated out of existence. Shut. It. Down.

As much as I'd like a $5k check, I don't need it and I'd much rather they just put it toward paying down the debt. All of the above

Good points on CNBC today that putting savings toward debt reduction would have an outsized, positive impact on the 10-year Treasury interest rate (and therefore mortgage rates, etc). Outsized because it would send a signal that the U.S. is serious about the deficit.

OTOH there are arguments both pro and con that the $5K dividend may be inflationary.

If its a $5k dividend, its a lot of cutting of government spending, which would be deflationary. So I dont think we can talk about one, without the other.

But if the gov't is issuing a dividend then it's not using those dollars for cutting gov't spending. Therefore it's more like a stimulus check.

Yea, you can call it whatever you want but that's what it boils down to. Just like the COVID checks.

Keep it, put it toward debt. Won't move the needle a bit but does send the message.

 

[djmich]

Any recovered cash should be retired. Anything not spent in the huge spending bills lately should be legislated out of existence. Shut. It. Down.

As much as I'd like a $5k check, I don't need it and I'd much rather they just put it toward paying down the debt. All of the above

Good points on CNBC today that putting savings toward debt reduction would have an outsized, positive impact on the 10-year Treasury interest rate (and therefore mortgage rates, etc). Outsized because it would send a signal that the U.S. is serious about the deficit.

OTOH there are arguments both pro and con that the $5K dividend may be inflationary.

If its a $5k dividend, its a lot of cutting of government spending, which would be deflationary. So I dont think we can talk about one, without the other.

But if the gov't is issuing a dividend then it's not using those dollars for cutting gov't spending. Therefore it's more like a stimulus check.

Typically stimulus checks are financed through deficit spend, which is why its stimulatory, nothing is cut. COVID checks did not have corresponding expense cuts to offset their inflationary effect, it was deficit spending. In a vacuum a $5,000 check is inflationary. In a vacuum a $5,000 reduction in government spend is deflationary. Hold aside the manner in which they offset, my point is that they do, to at least some extent.

I'd personally like to see deficit addressed before checks are written to citizens, but there is potentially a place for both.

 

[the moops]

We probably should stop talking about this 5K number for even the rosiest DOGE projections doesn't add up to 5K per person

 

[Orange&Blue]

Aside from the upheaval of so many government workers and their lives, what I think is being lost is that I don't need/want my government to be run like a business, maximizing profit and/or minimizing loss.

I need/want our government to provide service to its citizens. Provide quality infrastructure, education, medical care, protection for the vulnerable , and basically ensure that ALL citizens have access to basic human rights. Not just those with money.

When we start losing sight of that just to make sure we cut out waste, a lot of people get hurt. And that's not what our government should be about. I'm willing to accept some excess expenditures to make sure those services aren't lost.

I get what you're saying here, but I strongly disagree with you on some points.

I do want government services to be more efficient. And I'll give a few anecdotes. The USPS, is getting it's shorts handed to it by private organizations who are able to operate much more efficiently and much more profitably. And while the USPS will state it's not a government agency, let's see who paid for all of their land, buildings, equipment. Who else is able to deliver to a PO Box or US mail? It's a government created and backed monopoly and as such operates terribly. If we privatized mail we would see much better service and probably at much better pricing.

I feel for people that have lost their jobs. But at the same time, I also bet that there was a ton of redundancy and mis-management because people that have government jobs just don't give af. They are on their payscales and do what they have to do to earn their check. But if these organizations were better managed, I feel that there would be much better service throughout government organizations.

It's like a story I heard about an ex-pat living in Russia in the 80's. He said that while everything worked, it worked like crap. And he wasn't sure if it was because the workers didn't care, or else they didn't have something better to compare against.

One of the things that makes the U.S. successful is competition and the innovation it brings along. The US government has no competition.

I too want ALL citizens to have access to basic human rights, but that isn't happening and hasn't been happening for a long time now. We can continue to bury our heads in the sand and think it will get better or we'll try to innovate. How many times do you drive down a road and see a construction crew with 20 people standing around and 3 or 4 working? That's suboptimal.
I will not get into education at all, but I would love love love improvements in our education system.
And medical care, come on. If you don't have money, you don't get very good care. Everyone knows this.

We shouldn't cut waste is counterintuitive and one of the reasons our national debt is over 120% of our GDP.
Something needs to be done. This is a start.

You want the USPS to operate profitably?

Sorry, nitpicking a good post. But it stood out.

Do you think the DoD should turn a profit?

Yes, I want to USPS to operate profitably.

No, I don't think of the DoD the same as the USPS. I'm not sure who competes with the DoD? Does the DoD charge citizens for services directly?

dla charges dod 35%???

start there

 

[Stoneworker]

Any recovered cash should be retired. Anything not spent in the huge spending bills lately should be legislated out of existence. Shut. It. Down.

As much as I'd like a $5k check, I don't need it and I'd much rather they just put it toward paying down the debt. All of the above

Good points on CNBC today that putting savings toward debt reduction would have an outsized, positive impact on the 10-year Treasury interest rate (and therefore mortgage rates, etc). Outsized because it would send a signal that the U.S. is serious about the deficit.

OTOH there are arguments both pro and con that the $5K dividend may be inflationary.

If its a $5k dividend, its a lot of cutting of government spending, which would be deflationary. So I dont think we can talk about one, without the other.

But if the gov't is issuing a dividend then it's not using those dollars for cutting gov't spending. Therefore it's more like a stimulus check.

Typically stimulus checks are financed through deficit spend, which is why its stimulatory, nothing is cut. COVID checks did not have corresponding expense cuts to offset their inflationary effect, it was deficit spending. In a vacuum a $5,000 check is inflationary. In a vacuum a $5,000 reduction in government spend is deflationary. Hold aside the manner in which they offset, my point is that they do, to at least some extent.

I'd personally like to see deficit addressed before checks are written to citizens, but there is potentially a place for both.

Yes. On the "con" side of dividend=inflation argument is that the money supply is not increased since it was already earmarked federal spending, and so no inflationary impact.

On the "pro" side, however, it is still helicopter money for consumers to spend keeping egg prices high and does nothing to reduce the deficit. Bond investors will not change their perception on future inflation baked into the 10-year

But don't disagree that having both could be a good outcome

 

[fruity pebbles]

We probably should stop talking about this 5K number for even the rosiest DOGE projections doesn't add up to 5K per person

Not too mention those $5000 checks are only supposed to be 20% of the savings, the other 80% is geared towards deficit reduction, tax savings etc. If they can send back some money, even if not nearly 5 grand, it’ll do a lot to get the majority behind these cuts and even encourage them.

 

[uwillbsoon]

We probably should stop talking about this 5K number for even the rosiest DOGE projections doesn't add up to 5K per person

Not too mention those $5000 checks are only supposed to be 20% of the savings, the other 80% is geared towards deficit reduction, tax savings etc. If they can send back some money, even if not nearly 5 grand, it’ll do a lot to get the majority behind these cuts and even encourage them.

This is a humorous discussion.

They're cutting taxes at a cost of 4.5 trillion in revenue over ten years. I haven't seen a firm plan, but my impression was around 20% of that reduced revenue comes from dropping the corporate rate to 15%

The expected spending cuts are 1.5 trillion over ten years.

The deficit will grow per their projections.

We shouldn't be sending checks to people. We shouldn't be giving tax cuts to corporations, either, if we're worried about the deficit.

If we are serious about the deficit, we need to cut spending AND increase taxes.

Anything else and you aren't serious about reducing the deficit, in my opinion.

 

[Sleestak]

If we are serious about the deficit, we need to cut spending AND increase taxes.

Anything else and you aren't serious about reducing the deficit, in my opinion.

 

[Sand]

We probably should stop talking about this 5K number for even the rosiest DOGE projections doesn't add up to 5K per person

Not too mention those $5000 checks are only supposed to be 20% of the savings, the other 80% is geared towards deficit reduction, tax savings etc. If they can send back some money, even if not nearly 5 grand, it’ll do a lot to get the majority behind these cuts and even encourage them.

This is a humorous discussion.

They're cutting taxes at a cost of 4.5 trillion in revenue over ten years. I haven't seen a firm plan, but my impression was around 20% of that reduced revenue comes from dropping the corporate rate to 15%

The expected spending cuts are 1.5 trillion over ten years.

The deficit will grow per their projections.

We shouldn't be sending checks to people. We shouldn't be giving tax cuts to corporations, either, if we're worried about the deficit.

If we are serious about the deficit, we need to cut spending AND increase taxes.

Anything else and you aren't serious about reducing the deficit, in my opinion.

The last tax cut ended up with a ~50% increase in tax receipts. If memory serves the CBO was way off on that one and predicted a deficit from those cuts.

Put me down for extending tax cuts as they have been proven to increase tax revenue and nixing the helicopter money. We don't need inflationary pressures.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

We probably should stop talking about this 5K number for even the rosiest DOGE projections doesn't add up to 5K per person

Not too mention those $5000 checks are only supposed to be 20% of the savings, the other 80% is geared towards deficit reduction, tax savings etc. If they can send back some money, even if not nearly 5 grand, it’ll do a lot to get the majority behind these cuts and even encourage them.

This is a humorous discussion.

They're cutting taxes at a cost of 4.5 trillion in revenue over ten years. I haven't seen a firm plan, but my impression was around 20% of that reduced revenue comes from dropping the corporate rate to 15%

The expected spending cuts are 1.5 trillion over ten years.

The deficit will grow per their projections.

We shouldn't be sending checks to people. We shouldn't be giving tax cuts to corporations, either, if we're worried about the deficit.

If we are serious about the deficit, we need to cut spending AND increase taxes.

Anything else and you aren't serious about reducing the deficit, in my opinion.

In our current state, any checks cut to us and put back into the economy will have negative impacts on inflation. I don't really understand what scenario a talking head could come up with where that wouldn't be true.

 

[the moops]

We probably should stop talking about this 5K number for even the rosiest DOGE projections doesn't add up to 5K per person

Not too mention those $5000 checks are only supposed to be 20% of the savings, the other 80% is geared towards deficit reduction, tax savings etc. If they can send back some money, even if not nearly 5 grand, it’ll do a lot to get the majority behind these cuts and even encourage them.

This is a humorous discussion.

They're cutting taxes at a cost of 4.5 trillion in revenue over ten years. I haven't seen a firm plan, but my impression was around 20% of that reduced revenue comes from dropping the corporate rate to 15%

The expected spending cuts are 1.5 trillion over ten years.

The deficit will grow per their projections.

We shouldn't be sending checks to people. We shouldn't be giving tax cuts to corporations, either, if we're worried about the deficit.

If we are serious about the deficit, we need to cut spending AND increase taxes.

Anything else and you aren't serious about reducing the deficit, in my opinion.

The last tax cut ended up with a ~50% increase in tax receipts. If memory serves the CBO was way off on that one and predicted a deficit from those cuts.

Put me down for extending tax cuts as they have been proven to increase tax revenue and nixing the helicopter money. We don't need inflationary pressures.

How are we thinking that cutting taxes increases tax revenue?

 

[Sparky Polastri]

We probably should stop talking about this 5K number for even the rosiest DOGE projections doesn't add up to 5K per person

Not too mention those $5000 checks are only supposed to be 20% of the savings, the other 80% is geared towards deficit reduction, tax savings etc. If they can send back some money, even if not nearly 5 grand, it’ll do a lot to get the majority behind these cuts and even encourage them.

This is a humorous discussion.

They're cutting taxes at a cost of 4.5 trillion in revenue over ten years. I haven't seen a firm plan, but my impression was around 20% of that reduced revenue comes from dropping the corporate rate to 15%

The expected spending cuts are 1.5 trillion over ten years.

The deficit will grow per their projections.

We shouldn't be sending checks to people. We shouldn't be giving tax cuts to corporations, either, if we're worried about the deficit.

If we are serious about the deficit, we need to cut spending AND increase taxes.

Anything else and you aren't serious about reducing the deficit, in my opinion.

The last tax cut ended up with a ~50% increase in tax receipts. If memory serves the CBO was way off on that one and predicted a deficit from those cuts.

Put me down for extending tax cuts as they have been proven to increase tax revenue and nixing the helicopter money. We don't need inflationary pressures.

The CBO used the inputs requested of them and those inputs required north of 3% GDP growth per year to be in the "pay for themselves" category. Every year we don't hit 3% GDP, those cuts from 2017/18 are contributing to the deficit for that year. AND they were a major shift in wealth distribution upwards. I don't think anyone outside of Trump himself and maybe Laffer would agrue that those tax revenues went up.

ETA: Now that I reread, you use the words "receipts" here and not revenues. Are you saying an increase in the number of returns filed went up? I have no idea if that's true or not. I know that revenues did not and that they continue to cost us each year they are in place and we don't hit 3$ GDP.

 

[Sand]

How are we thinking that cutting taxes increases tax revenue?

2017 tax revenues - 3.32 T
2024 tax revenues - 4.92 T

48% increase. I'll turn that around and say, given this historical record, why do we believe that not extending the cuts is the right move? The burden of proof is on the one with the predictions rather than the history, no?

 

[uwillbsoon]

We probably should stop talking about this 5K number for even the rosiest DOGE projections doesn't add up to 5K per person

Not too mention those $5000 checks are only supposed to be 20% of the savings, the other 80% is geared towards deficit reduction, tax savings etc. If they can send back some money, even if not nearly 5 grand, it’ll do a lot to get the majority behind these cuts and even encourage them.

This is a humorous discussion.

They're cutting taxes at a cost of 4.5 trillion in revenue over ten years. I haven't seen a firm plan, but my impression was around 20% of that reduced revenue comes from dropping the corporate rate to 15%

The expected spending cuts are 1.5 trillion over ten years.

The deficit will grow per their projections.

We shouldn't be sending checks to people. We shouldn't be giving tax cuts to corporations, either, if we're worried about the deficit.

If we are serious about the deficit, we need to cut spending AND increase taxes.

Anything else and you aren't serious about reducing the deficit, in my opinion.

The last tax cut ended up with a ~50% increase in tax receipts. If memory serves the CBO was way off on that one and predicted a deficit from those cuts.

Put me down for extending tax cuts as they have been proven to increase tax revenue and nixing the helicopter money. We don't need inflationary pressures.

I'll need to see a source on this.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

How are we thinking that cutting taxes increases tax revenue?

2017 tax revenues - 3.32 T
2024 tax revenues - 4.92 T

48% increase. I'll turn that around and say, given this historical record, why do we believe that not extending the cuts is the right move? The burden of proof is on the one with the predictions rather than the history, no?

you have a causation vs correlation problem here that needs to be addressed, especially after having gone through a major bout of inflation and growing of the wealth gap like we haven't seen in a really long time.

I'm also not sure where the numbers came from. Treasury page suggests that in 2015 it was $4.31T rising to $4.92T in 2024 <-----This is TOTAL revenue of which individual/corp taxes are only a part.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

We probably should stop talking about this 5K number for even the rosiest DOGE projections doesn't add up to 5K per person

Not too mention those $5000 checks are only supposed to be 20% of the savings, the other 80% is geared towards deficit reduction, tax savings etc. If they can send back some money, even if not nearly 5 grand, it’ll do a lot to get the majority behind these cuts and even encourage them.

This is a humorous discussion.

They're cutting taxes at a cost of 4.5 trillion in revenue over ten years. I haven't seen a firm plan, but my impression was around 20% of that reduced revenue comes from dropping the corporate rate to 15%

The expected spending cuts are 1.5 trillion over ten years.

The deficit will grow per their projections.

We shouldn't be sending checks to people. We shouldn't be giving tax cuts to corporations, either, if we're worried about the deficit.

If we are serious about the deficit, we need to cut spending AND increase taxes.

Anything else and you aren't serious about reducing the deficit, in my opinion.

The last tax cut ended up with a ~50% increase in tax receipts. If memory serves the CBO was way off on that one and predicted a deficit from those cuts.

Put me down for extending tax cuts as they have been proven to increase tax revenue and nixing the helicopter money. We don't need inflationary pressures.

I'll need to see a source on this.

Fiscal Data Explains Federal Revenue

Check out @FiscalService Fiscal Data’s new federal revenue page! #FederalRevenue

fiscaldata.treasury.gov

 

[uwillbsoon]

How are we thinking that cutting taxes increases tax revenue?

2017 tax revenues - 3.32 T
2024 tax revenues - 4.92 T

48% increase. I'll turn that around and say, given this historical record, why do we believe that not extending the cuts is the right move? The burden of proof is on the one with the predictions rather than the history, no?

Oh, we're saying revenue is up. Got it.

You have inflation adjusted numbers?

 

[Stoneworker]

In our current state, any checks cut to us and put back into the economy will have negative impacts on inflation. I don't really understand what scenario a talking head could come up with where that wouldn't be true.

Please explain how inflation occurs if a) the checks are not deficit-financed (i.e. financing comes from existing expense savings) and b) the money supply doesn't increase

 

[Sand]

How are we thinking that cutting taxes increases tax revenue?

2017 tax revenues - 3.32 T
2024 tax revenues - 4.92 T

48% increase. I'll turn that around and say, given this historical record, why do we believe that not extending the cuts is the right move? The burden of proof is on the one with the predictions rather than the history, no?

you have a causation vs correlation problem here that needs to be addressed, especially after having gone through a major bout of inflation and growing of the wealth gap like we haven't seen in a really long time.

I'm also not sure where the numbers came from. Treasury page suggests that in 2015 it was $4.31T rising to $4.92T in 2024 <-----This is TOTAL revenue of which individual/corp taxes are only a part.

U.S. Federal Government Tax Revenue

The federal government generates tax revenue through sources like income and corporate taxes. Learn how much tax revenue the U.S. generates each year.

www.thebalancemoney.com

As far as causation vs. correlation I'll need to see your work on showing how the tax cuts are simply correlation. It's a horribly complex system and if you want to argue against historical data - hey, have at it.

Oh, we're saying revenue is up. Got it.

You have inflation adjusted numbers?

CPI is at 25.5% inflation from 2018-2024. Tax revenues at +48% have well outpaced inflation over that time period.

 

[lakerstan]

Isn’t this just smoke and mirrors though? Sure, you may save money by laying off IRS workers, but if it increases tax fraud and keeps billionaires from paying their taxes, what is the actual financial benefit?

If you lay off air traffic controllers, but planes fall from the sky and families sue, what is the benefit?

If you lay off people at the VA, and that increases homelessness or medical issues to Veterans that John Q. Taxpayer ends up paying, what is the benefit?

It’s like a corporation only reporting revenue, but not expenses or net income.

 

[djmich]

Isn’t this just smoke and mirrors though? Sure, you may save money by laying off IRS workers, but if it increases tax fraud and keeps billionaires from paying their taxes, what is the actual financial benefit?

If you lay off air traffic controllers, but planes fall from the sky and families sue, what is the benefit?

If you lay off people at the VA, and that increases homelessness or medical issues to Veterans that John Q. Taxpayer ends up paying, what is the benefit?

It’s like a corporation only reporting revenue, but not expenses or net income.

If you believe the government is operating at maximum efficiency, and that the growth in government that we've seen and illustrated by Sand above is completely necessary...then yes every lost dollar is a lost service value. I'm not sure anyone believes this, I don't.

 

[Instinctive]

Aside from the upheaval of so many government workers and their lives, what I think is being lost is that I don't need/want my government to be run like a business, maximizing profit and/or minimizing loss.

I need/want our government to provide service to its citizens. Provide quality infrastructure, education, medical care, protection for the vulnerable , and basically ensure that ALL citizens have access to basic human rights. Not just those with money.

When we start losing sight of that just to make sure we cut out waste, a lot of people get hurt. And that's not what our government should be about. I'm willing to accept some excess expenditures to make sure those services aren't lost.

I get what you're saying here, but I strongly disagree with you on some points.

I do want government services to be more efficient. And I'll give a few anecdotes. The USPS, is getting it's shorts handed to it by private organizations who are able to operate much more efficiently and much more profitably. And while the USPS will state it's not a government agency, let's see who paid for all of their land, buildings, equipment. Who else is able to deliver to a PO Box or US mail? It's a government created and backed monopoly and as such operates terribly. If we privatized mail we would see much better service and probably at much better pricing.

I feel for people that have lost their jobs. But at the same time, I also bet that there was a ton of redundancy and mis-management because people that have government jobs just don't give af. They are on their payscales and do what they have to do to earn their check. But if these organizations were better managed, I feel that there would be much better service throughout government organizations.

It's like a story I heard about an ex-pat living in Russia in the 80's. He said that while everything worked, it worked like crap. And he wasn't sure if it was because the workers didn't care, or else they didn't have something better to compare against.

One of the things that makes the U.S. successful is competition and the innovation it brings along. The US government has no competition.

I too want ALL citizens to have access to basic human rights, but that isn't happening and hasn't been happening for a long time now. We can continue to bury our heads in the sand and think it will get better or we'll try to innovate. How many times do you drive down a road and see a construction crew with 20 people standing around and 3 or 4 working? That's suboptimal.
I will not get into education at all, but I would love love love improvements in our education system.
And medical care, come on. If you don't have money, you don't get very good care. Everyone knows this.

We shouldn't cut waste is counterintuitive and one of the reasons our national debt is over 120% of our GDP.
Something needs to be done. This is a start.

You want the USPS to operate profitably?

Sorry, nitpicking a good post. But it stood out.

Do you think the DoD should turn a profit?

Yes, I want to USPS to operate profitably.

No, I don't think of the DoD the same as the USPS. I'm not sure who competes with the DoD? Does the DoD charge citizens for services directly?

The DoD competes with the PRC, the RAF, Taliban, Hezbollah, and to a lesser extent the BAF, SAS, etc.

One could also argue to some extent they compete with Boeing, Lockheed, GD, Electric Boat, Fincantieri, Raytheon, HII, etc...although that's more coopetition than competition.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

In our current state, any checks cut to us and put back into the economy will have negative impacts on inflation. I don't really understand what scenario a talking head could come up with where that wouldn't be true.

Please explain how inflation occurs if a) the checks are not deficit-financed (i.e. financing comes from existing expense savings) and b) the money supply doesn't increase

The obvious answer to this is, it doesn't. I'm not sure why you bring that hypo up though. That's not our reality.

Our reality is that we have over 30T in dollars we've spent that we have not collected in taxes yet and our debt limit continues to be raised everytime we hit the limit. As long as that remains true, every penny going out is deficit spending. We aren't "saving" anything. We are merely taking it from one place and putting it somewhere else. If I take $10 away from creditor A and give it to creditor B, I haven't saved a single thing. I've just given it to someone else.

This whole conversation would change if we're balancing budgets and collecting taxes equal to expenses, but that's not where we are.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

How are we thinking that cutting taxes increases tax revenue?

2017 tax revenues - 3.32 T
2024 tax revenues - 4.92 T

48% increase. I'll turn that around and say, given this historical record, why do we believe that not extending the cuts is the right move? The burden of proof is on the one with the predictions rather than the history, no?

Oh, we're saying revenue is up. Got it.

You have inflation adjusted numbers?

There's still a causation problem. It seems rather obvious that the investment in the IRS was pretty impactful on revenues going up. We've seen study after study showing us that the dollars we put into collecting taxes pay for themselves many times over. One of the best places we can put our money under current circumstances.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

@Sand I didn't make the assertion you are asking me to support. I merely pointed out the problem with yours.

 

[uwillbsoon]

How are we thinking that cutting taxes increases tax revenue?

2017 tax revenues - 3.32 T
2024 tax revenues - 4.92 T

48% increase. I'll turn that around and say, given this historical record, why do we believe that not extending the cuts is the right move? The burden of proof is on the one with the predictions rather than the history, no?

Oh, we're saying revenue is up. Got it.

You have inflation adjusted numbers?

How are we thinking that cutting taxes increases tax revenue?

2017 tax revenues - 3.32 T
2024 tax revenues - 4.92 T

48% increase. I'll turn that around and say, given this historical record, why do we believe that not extending the cuts is the right move? The burden of proof is on the one with the predictions rather than the history, no?

you have a causation vs correlation problem here that needs to be addressed, especially after having gone through a major bout of inflation and growing of the wealth gap like we haven't seen in a really long time.

I'm also not sure where the numbers came from. Treasury page suggests that in 2015 it was $4.31T rising to $4.92T in 2024 <-----This is TOTAL revenue of which individual/corp taxes are only a part.

U.S. Federal Government Tax Revenue

The federal government generates tax revenue through sources like income and corporate taxes. Learn how much tax revenue the U.S. generates each year.

www.thebalancemoney.com

As far as causation vs. correlation I'll need to see your work on showing how the tax cuts are simply correlation. It's a horribly complex system and if you want to argue against historical data - hey, have at it.

Oh, we're saying revenue is up. Got it.

You have inflation adjusted numbers?

CPI is at 25.5% inflation from 2018-2024. Tax revenues at +48% have well outpaced inflation over that time period.

Does your analysis disregard the CBO's baseline revenue projection?

Seemed it might. If so, I won't pursue any longer.

 

[djmich]

Aside from the upheaval of so many government workers and their lives, what I think is being lost is that I don't need/want my government to be run like a business, maximizing profit and/or minimizing loss.

I need/want our government to provide service to its citizens. Provide quality infrastructure, education, medical care, protection for the vulnerable , and basically ensure that ALL citizens have access to basic human rights. Not just those with money.

When we start losing sight of that just to make sure we cut out waste, a lot of people get hurt. And that's not what our government should be about. I'm willing to accept some excess expenditures to make sure those services aren't lost.

I get what you're saying here, but I strongly disagree with you on some points.

I do want government services to be more efficient. And I'll give a few anecdotes. The USPS, is getting it's shorts handed to it by private organizations who are able to operate much more efficiently and much more profitably. And while the USPS will state it's not a government agency, let's see who paid for all of their land, buildings, equipment. Who else is able to deliver to a PO Box or US mail? It's a government created and backed monopoly and as such operates terribly. If we privatized mail we would see much better service and probably at much better pricing.

I feel for people that have lost their jobs. But at the same time, I also bet that there was a ton of redundancy and mis-management because people that have government jobs just don't give af. They are on their payscales and do what they have to do to earn their check. But if these organizations were better managed, I feel that there would be much better service throughout government organizations.

It's like a story I heard about an ex-pat living in Russia in the 80's. He said that while everything worked, it worked like crap. And he wasn't sure if it was because the workers didn't care, or else they didn't have something better to compare against.

One of the things that makes the U.S. successful is competition and the innovation it brings along. The US government has no competition.

I too want ALL citizens to have access to basic human rights, but that isn't happening and hasn't been happening for a long time now. We can continue to bury our heads in the sand and think it will get better or we'll try to innovate. How many times do you drive down a road and see a construction crew with 20 people standing around and 3 or 4 working? That's suboptimal.
I will not get into education at all, but I would love love love improvements in our education system.
And medical care, come on. If you don't have money, you don't get very good care. Everyone knows this.

We shouldn't cut waste is counterintuitive and one of the reasons our national debt is over 120% of our GDP.
Something needs to be done. This is a start.

You want the USPS to operate profitably?

Sorry, nitpicking a good post. But it stood out.

Do you think the DoD should turn a profit?

Yes, I want to USPS to operate profitably.

No, I don't think of the DoD the same as the USPS. I'm not sure who competes with the DoD? Does the DoD charge citizens for services directly?

The DoD competes with the PRC, the RAF, Taliban, Hezbollah, and to a lesser extent the BAF, SAS, etc.

One could also argue to some extent they compete with Boeing, Lockheed, GD, Electric Boat, Fincantieri, Raytheon, HII, etc...although that's more coopetition than competition.

Ha, wrong angle imo.

US citizens are the customer. Who are they competing with to earn our dollars. Not Hezbollah. Essentially nobody…one reason why bloat is likely but more importantly why it’s not like the usps.

I’d liken at that second set of entities more as vendors of DoD, no?

 

[Stoneworker]

In our current state, any checks cut to us and put back into the economy will have negative impacts on inflation. I don't really understand what scenario a talking head could come up with where that wouldn't be true.

Please explain how inflation occurs if a) the checks are not deficit-financed (i.e. financing comes from existing expense savings) and b) the money supply doesn't increase

The obvious answer to this is, it doesn't. I'm not sure why you bring that hypo up though. That's not our reality.

Our reality is that we have over 30T in dollars we've spent that we have not collected in taxes yet and our debt limit continues to be raised everytime we hit the limit. As long as that remains true, every penny going out is deficit spending. We aren't "saving" anything. We are merely taking it from one place and putting it somewhere else. If I take $10 away from creditor A and give it to creditor B, I haven't saved a single thing. I've just given it to someone else.

This whole conversation would change if we're balancing budgets and collecting taxes equal to expenses, but that's not where we are.

If the dollars were going to be spent by the gov't anyway, then giving the savings to the taxpayers to spend has no net effect on what inflation would have otherwise been. It's simply a difference in who is doing the spending.

So what you're saying doesn't justify how inflation would increase on a relative basis

On the other hand, if a taxpayer used their $5K to buy 200 egg-laying chickens, I'm pretty sure that would help reduce egg prices even though the gov't deficit might not be lowered

 

[SFBayDuck]

In our current state, any checks cut to us and put back into the economy will have negative impacts on inflation. I don't really understand what scenario a talking head could come up with where that wouldn't be true.

Please explain how inflation occurs if a) the checks are not deficit-financed (i.e. financing comes from existing expense savings) and b) the money supply doesn't increase

The obvious answer to this is, it doesn't. I'm not sure why you bring that hypo up though. That's not our reality.

Our reality is that we have over 30T in dollars we've spent that we have not collected in taxes yet and our debt limit continues to be raised everytime we hit the limit. As long as that remains true, every penny going out is deficit spending. We aren't "saving" anything. We are merely taking it from one place and putting it somewhere else. If I take $10 away from creditor A and give it to creditor B, I haven't saved a single thing. I've just given it to someone else.

This whole conversation would change if we're balancing budgets and collecting taxes equal to expenses, but that's not where we are.

If the dollars were going to be spent by the gov't anyway, then giving the savings to the taxpayers to spend has no net effect on what inflation would have otherwise been. It's simply a difference in who is doing the spending.

So what you're saying doesn't justify how inflation would increase on a relative basis

On the other hand, if a taxpayer used their $5K to buy 200 egg-laying chickens, I'm pretty sure that would help reduce egg prices even though the gov't deficit increased

This might be true if "the government" and consumers are buying the same things. But if the government doesn't spend the money on weapons and SpaceX contracts (lol), and instead households are given a bunch of extra money to spend on eggs and la-z-boys, the prices of eggs and la-z-boys won't go up? The price of a rocket o-ring may go down, but I don't have that on my shopping list so that doesn't help much.

 

[Mitchie]

Isn’t this just smoke and mirrors though? Sure, you may save money by laying off IRS workers, but if it increases tax fraud and keeps billionaires from paying their taxes, what is the actual financial benefit?

If you lay off air traffic controllers, but planes fall from the sky and families sue, what is the benefit?

If you lay off people at the VA, and that increases homelessness or medical issues to Veterans that John Q. Taxpayer ends up paying, what is the benefit?

It’s like a corporation only reporting revenue, but not expenses or net income.

If you believe the government is operating at maximum efficiency, and that the growth in government that we've seen and illustrated by Sand above is completely necessary...then yes every lost dollar is a lost service value. I'm not sure anyone believes this, I don't.

Of course govt is not operating at maximum efficiency, but that doesn't mean that additional IRS employees doesn't lead to additional tax revenue. It's a pretty easy conclusion to come to that less IRS workers increases fraud and leads to less revenue, and this has been proven to be true.

 

[TheAristocrat]

I'm fundamentally unprepared for the chicken farmer economy

 

[Stoneworker]

If the dollars were going to be spent by the gov't anyway, then giving the savings to the taxpayers to spend has no net effect on what inflation would have otherwise been. It's simply a difference in who is doing the spending.

So what you're saying doesn't justify how inflation would increase on a relative basis

On the other hand, if a taxpayer used their $5K to buy 200 egg-laying chickens, I'm pretty sure that would help reduce egg prices even though the gov't deficit increased

This might be true if "the government" and consumers are buying the same things. But if the government doesn't spend the money on weapons and SpaceX contracts (lol), and instead households are given a bunch of extra money to spend on eggs and la-z-boys, the prices of eggs and la-z-boys won't go up? The price of a rocket o-ring may go down, but I don't have that on my shopping list so that doesn't help much.

If eggs and lazy boys are part of the CPI, then it would probably go up. But if O-rings are as well then it would be a wash

 

[fruity pebbles]

In our current state, any checks cut to us and put back into the economy will have negative impacts on inflation. I don't really understand what scenario a talking head could come up with where that wouldn't be true.

Please explain how inflation occurs if a) the checks are not deficit-financed (i.e. financing comes from existing expense savings) and b) the money supply doesn't increase

The obvious answer to this is, it doesn't. I'm not sure why you bring that hypo up though. That's not our reality.

Our reality is that we have over 30T in dollars we've spent that we have not collected in taxes yet and our debt limit continues to be raised everytime we hit the limit. As long as that remains true, every penny going out is deficit spending. We aren't "saving" anything. We are merely taking it from one place and putting it somewhere else. If I take $10 away from creditor A and give it to creditor B, I haven't saved a single thing. I've just given it to someone else.

This whole conversation would change if we're balancing budgets and collecting taxes equal to expenses, but that's not where we are.

If the dollars were going to be spent by the gov't anyway, then giving the savings to the taxpayers to spend has no net effect on what inflation would have otherwise been. It's simply a difference in who is doing the spending.

So what you're saying doesn't justify how inflation would increase on a relative basis

On the other hand, if a taxpayer used their $5K to buy 200 egg-laying chickens, I'm pretty sure that would help reduce egg prices even though the gov't deficit increased

This might be true if "the government" and consumers are buying the same things. But if the government doesn't spend the money on weapons and SpaceX contracts (lol), and instead households are given a bunch of extra money to spend on eggs and la-z-boys, the prices of eggs and la-z-boys won't go up? The price of a rocket o-ring may go down, but I don't have that on my shopping list so that doesn't help much.

I don’t know the net effect but there’s also going to be a lot of former government workers spending a whole lot less

 

[djmich]

Isn’t this just smoke and mirrors though? Sure, you may save money by laying off IRS workers, but if it increases tax fraud and keeps billionaires from paying their taxes, what is the actual financial benefit?

If you lay off air traffic controllers, but planes fall from the sky and families sue, what is the benefit?

If you lay off people at the VA, and that increases homelessness or medical issues to Veterans that John Q. Taxpayer ends up paying, what is the benefit?

It’s like a corporation only reporting revenue, but not expenses or net income.

If you believe the government is operating at maximum efficiency, and that the growth in government that we've seen and illustrated by Sand above is completely necessary...then yes every lost dollar is a lost service value. I'm not sure anyone believes this, I don't.

Of course govt is not operating at maximum efficiency, but that doesn't mean that additional IRS employees doesn't lead to additional tax revenue. It's a pretty easy conclusion to come to that less IRS workers increases fraud and leads to less revenue, and this has been proven to be true.

Yes, I’m not getting hung up on specific employee examples. Some cuts will make sense, some will not, but that doesn’t mean the whole thing is smoke and mirrors.

As a tangent, when I hear that 86,000 IRS agents need to be hired to reduce fraud, I instinctively believe this is a problem that can be solved more efficiently. That would be the best of both worlds.

 

[fruity pebbles]

Isn’t this just smoke and mirrors though? Sure, you may save money by laying off IRS workers, but if it increases tax fraud and keeps billionaires from paying their taxes, what is the actual financial benefit?

If you lay off air traffic controllers, but planes fall from the sky and families sue, what is the benefit?

If you lay off people at the VA, and that increases homelessness or medical issues to Veterans that John Q. Taxpayer ends up paying, what is the benefit?

It’s like a corporation only reporting revenue, but not expenses or net income.

If you believe the government is operating at maximum efficiency, and that the growth in government that we've seen and illustrated by Sand above is completely necessary...then yes every lost dollar is a lost service value. I'm not sure anyone believes this, I don't.

Of course govt is not operating at maximum efficiency, but that doesn't mean that additional IRS employees doesn't lead to additional tax revenue. It's a pretty easy conclusion to come to that less IRS workers increases fraud and leads to less revenue, and this has been proven to be true.

Yes, I’m not getting hung up on specific employee examples. Some cuts will make sense, some will not, but that doesn’t mean the whole thing is smoke and mirrors.

As a tangent, when I hear that 86,000 IRS agents need to be hired to reduce fraud, I instinctively believe this is a problem that can be solved more efficiently. That would be the best of both worlds.

Seems like the exact kind of job AI would be perfect for.

 

[SFBayDuck]

If the dollars were going to be spent by the gov't anyway, then giving the savings to the taxpayers to spend has no net effect on what inflation would have otherwise been. It's simply a difference in who is doing the spending.

So what you're saying doesn't justify how inflation would increase on a relative basis

On the other hand, if a taxpayer used their $5K to buy 200 egg-laying chickens, I'm pretty sure that would help reduce egg prices even though the gov't deficit increased

This might be true if "the government" and consumers are buying the same things. But if the government doesn't spend the money on weapons and SpaceX contracts (lol), and instead households are given a bunch of extra money to spend on eggs and la-z-boys, the prices of eggs and la-z-boys won't go up? The price of a rocket o-ring may go down, but I don't have that on my shopping list so that doesn't help much.

If eggs and lazy boys are part of the CPI, then it would probably go up. But if O-rings are as well then it would be a wash

And that's exactly the point - pretty sure O-rings sold to rocket companies are not figured in the CPI. It's literally in the name, Consumer Price Index. So it's disingenuous to pretend that it would be "a wash".

 

[Instinctive]

If the dollars were going to be spent by the gov't anyway, then giving the savings to the taxpayers to spend has no net effect on what inflation would have otherwise been. It's simply a difference in who is doing the spending.

So what you're saying doesn't justify how inflation would increase on a relative basis

On the other hand, if a taxpayer used their $5K to buy 200 egg-laying chickens, I'm pretty sure that would help reduce egg prices even though the gov't deficit increased

This might be true if "the government" and consumers are buying the same things. But if the government doesn't spend the money on weapons and SpaceX contracts (lol), and instead households are given a bunch of extra money to spend on eggs and la-z-boys, the prices of eggs and la-z-boys won't go up? The price of a rocket o-ring may go down, but I don't have that on my shopping list so that doesn't help much.

If eggs and lazy boys are part of the CPI, then it would probably go up. But if O-rings are as well then it would be a wash

And that's exactly the point - pretty sure O-rings sold to rocket companies are not figured in the CPI. It's literally in the name, Consumer Price Index. So it's disingenuous to pretend that it would be "a wash".

What about o rings for my tankless hot water heater?

 

[djmich]

If the dollars were going to be spent by the gov't anyway, then giving the savings to the taxpayers to spend has no net effect on what inflation would have otherwise been. It's simply a difference in who is doing the spending.

So what you're saying doesn't justify how inflation would increase on a relative basis

On the other hand, if a taxpayer used their $5K to buy 200 egg-laying chickens, I'm pretty sure that would help reduce egg prices even though the gov't deficit increased

This might be true if "the government" and consumers are buying the same things. But if the government doesn't spend the money on weapons and SpaceX contracts (lol), and instead households are given a bunch of extra money to spend on eggs and la-z-boys, the prices of eggs and la-z-boys won't go up? The price of a rocket o-ring may go down, but I don't have that on my shopping list so that doesn't help much.

If eggs and lazy boys are part of the CPI, then it would probably go up. But if O-rings are as well then it would be a wash

And that's exactly the point - pretty sure O-rings sold to rocket companies are not figured in the CPI. It's literally in the name, Consumer Price Index. So it's disingenuous to pretend that it would be "a wash".

Someone said earlier that this is really not complicated, and I think this proves that yeah it kinda is. Really depends on what sort of time horizon you’re looking at and how many second order effects you want to include.

Regarding the O-ring discussion, I think what would be argued is that if O-rings aren’t being purchased, the capital used to produce O-rings will be shifted to where there’s demand, in this case which would be to consumer goods

So as demand increases supply will correspondingly increase, and the free market wins. This is an aggregate over time, in the short term there will be disruptions and variations.

At the end of the day, if we can legitimately reduce a large portion of government expenses to the extent that it would actually cause inflation if we gave some of that back to consumers that would be a problem I’d love to have.

 

[Stoneworker]

If the dollars were going to be spent by the gov't anyway, then giving the savings to the taxpayers to spend has no net effect on what inflation would have otherwise been. It's simply a difference in who is doing the spending.

So what you're saying doesn't justify how inflation would increase on a relative basis

On the other hand, if a taxpayer used their $5K to buy 200 egg-laying chickens, I'm pretty sure that would help reduce egg prices even though the gov't deficit increased

This might be true if "the government" and consumers are buying the same things. But if the government doesn't spend the money on weapons and SpaceX contracts (lol), and instead households are given a bunch of extra money to spend on eggs and la-z-boys, the prices of eggs and la-z-boys won't go up? The price of a rocket o-ring may go down, but I don't have that on my shopping list so that doesn't help much.

If eggs and lazy boys are part of the CPI, then it would probably go up. But if O-rings are as well then it would be a wash

And that's exactly the point - pretty sure O-rings sold to rocket companies are not figured in the CPI. It's literally in the name, Consumer Price Index. So it's disingenuous to pretend that it would be "a wash".

Calling it "disingenuous" is ridiculous. The gov't spends plenty on consumer items. Ever hear of a paper clip? Or an office chair?

 

[the moops]

In our current state, any checks cut to us and put back into the economy will have negative impacts on inflation. I don't really understand what scenario a talking head could come up with where that wouldn't be true.

Please explain how inflation occurs if a) the checks are not deficit-financed (i.e. financing comes from existing expense savings) and b) the money supply doesn't increase

The obvious answer to this is, it doesn't. I'm not sure why you bring that hypo up though. That's not our reality.

Our reality is that we have over 30T in dollars we've spent that we have not collected in taxes yet and our debt limit continues to be raised everytime we hit the limit. As long as that remains true, every penny going out is deficit spending. We aren't "saving" anything. We are merely taking it from one place and putting it somewhere else. If I take $10 away from creditor A and give it to creditor B, I haven't saved a single thing. I've just given it to someone else.

This whole conversation would change if we're balancing budgets and collecting taxes equal to expenses, but that's not where we are.

If the dollars were going to be spent by the gov't anyway, then giving the savings to the taxpayers to spend has no net effect on what inflation would have otherwise been. It's simply a difference in who is doing the spending.

So what you're saying doesn't justify how inflation would increase on a relative basis

On the other hand, if a taxpayer used their $5K to buy 200 egg-laying chickens, I'm pretty sure that would help reduce egg prices even though the gov't deficit increased

This might be true if "the government" and consumers are buying the same things. But if the government doesn't spend the money on weapons and SpaceX contracts (lol), and instead households are given a bunch of extra money to spend on eggs and la-z-boys, the prices of eggs and la-z-boys won't go up? The price of a rocket o-ring may go down, but I don't have that on my shopping list so that doesn't help much.

I don’t know the net effect but there’s also going to be a lot of former government workers spending a whole lot less

What sort of unemployment benefits are we gonna be on the hook for too?