That's quite the sob story, but again, the debt will reduce itself as the economy recovers. By the way, do you think it's perfectly ok to strangle me, my kids, grandkids and great grandkids by reducing education spending, healthcare spending, unemployment insurance spending, and more social programs that ALSO affect vulnerable folks immediately in the short term? But I digress; it's better to borrow to make investments in infrastructure now while interest rates are extremely low so that when the economy picks up and interest rates rise, we won't have to pay more to make these infrastructure improvements. In short, this "think of the children argument" is complete bull when investments are exactly what our children need.
By your line of thinking its perfectly ok to strangle my kids, grandkids and great grandkids with a debt burden that is unsustainable, as long as it doesn't affect vulnerable folks immediately or short term.
I get the feeling that this is all we'll agree on. But nobody says that $200,000 and $250,000 earners are "rich," that's just our top income bracket. Should there be another bracket for millionaires? Maybe, maybe not. The effective tax rate of someone making $250,000 is much closer to that of the previous tax bracket anyways, whereas a millionaire will certainly be closer to paying an effective tax rate of 35%.
I've got no problem rolling back pre-Bush tax rates on individual income tax for earners in the highest income bracket - but I'll never agree that a single person earning $200,000 or a couple earning $250,000 makes them "rich". That threshold is too low. I'm all for fixing the loopholes in corporate tax rates and eliminating abuse of the tax system by the uber-wealthy too. I'm all for keeping middle income and low income tax rates where they are. Deduction caps for high earners, scaled social benefits for high earners and other tax code revisions that further the goal of making the tax system in the US fair for all the citizens should also be on the table.
Yes well, if one removes the toilet paper roll from around his eye and gets a much larger, more objective view of the world (something most Texans fail to do), then it becomes apparent why VAT and carbon taxes should be considered. And again, the spending will reduce itself as the social safety net is used less and less when the economy picks up. But since you really failed to bring up any argument against the carbon tax and VAT, other than "big gubment bad," I'm going to just assume that you really don't have an argument against them.
Carbon taxes and VAT.........? Are you really from Texas because I didn't know that there was anyone that liberal living in the state. Tax increases MUST be accompanied by enough debt reduction to produce a budget that yields more revenue than what is spent. It doesn't matter how bad the short term impact is.
This is completely irrelevant. Personal budgets and government budgets can hardly be compared. Governments are responsible for numerous programs that affect millions of people -- education, national security, health, transportation, energy -- all of which are INVESTMENTS to gain money back in the future. My personal spending consists of my college debt and bonbons (or whatever unnecessary goods you want to include here). But if I wanted to prove a point, I could rack up substantial amounts of college loans and investors will still have confidence that I will pay them back because it's an INVESTMENT. As long as I don't default on these loans (and the US government has never defaulted on theirs) then investors have little reason to worry because I'm not just taking loans and burning the money, I'm putting it into my education so that I can get a better paying job.
How long could you continue to balance your personal budget by borrowing what you needed to spend on a daily, monthly or yearly basis. And, then at what point have you given up complete control of your own destiny because you are so deeply indebted to your debtors?
I would even go along with a proposal (written into law) that all new tax revenues (regardless of source) are earmarked towards balancing the budget and deficit reduction. But you know the problem with that???? It will never happen, because the parties in power will always find a way to spend and overspend the existing revenue AND the new revenue.