It appears escalating public costs are unavoidable. An expert analysis puts the necessity of infrastructure investment around the world by 2030 at 57 to 67 trillion dollars. Kind of hard to opt out when the absence of these expenditures means more road accidents, bridge collapses, water deficits and sewer backups, floods, wild fires, oil spills, loss of power, pollution in general etc. exacting private and local costs and debt - basically no escape. And then there is global warming to add to the increased cost challenges. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...infrastructure-by-2030-yes-trillion-with-a-t/
IMO this represents the struggle between an economy which is robust enough to provide the taxation necessary versus an economy which cannot keep up with societal needs. This is not a fault of the economy...the economy is what it is and is intertwined in the global economy. The US for years now has been accumulating more and more debt which clearly states we can't pay our way today with the existing expenditures...it is not fathomable in the near future of the US to have the funding for any more than our current infrastructure Band-Aid projects. This simply means however bad your article above suggests we are it will get worse. Of course we all know that current government spending is grossly inefficient, and correcting this would provide lots of money, however....Americans are too self-serving to allow their president and representatives to remove the bacon...
Heck, we can't even get enough affordable water to the residents of Detroit which is sitting next to a huge fresh water lake. Maybe China has some kind of answer. Apparently for them food homegrown is not sufficient because of among things diminishing water supplies. So they are developing and importing the food resources of a major part of the 3rd world. The big and rich whether through bribery, seduction or force take from the poor. At least they leave them some infrastructure ready to exploit a diminishing resource, that is if they can maintain the infrastructure. Interesting that addictive drugs whether legal or illegal never seem to have a bad year.
First, our debt isn't a problem. Second, we could do some extremely modest actions, like slight increases in top marginal income taxes, topping out at 50%, that would not only reduce deficits, but also address places where spending needs to grow. And some of that spending, like on infrastructure, would definitely pay for itself within a decade, by growing the economy of the US.
That's the problem, we've been taxing people at sub-100% levels. The problem is that people have control over how much they work. Society has needs, people are selfish. We should force them to work to provide for all the services and infrastructure they receive.
Again, IMO...we have simply outgrown and/or outspent the economy. We earn $40K but live like we earn $100K. Our government has out of control spending with deficits for years to come. The tap is dry! Government can suck more tax revenue from society for infrastructure but what will be the ramifications of doing this? Government can create trillion$ more debt for infrastructure but again at what cost? We need to spend within our means, and spend much more efficiently but Americans will resist this... - - - Updated - - - Your annual debt interest is $450 billion...if you don't think this is a 'growing' problem then you should not be in this discussion...
A politician has no incentive to 'force' anyone to do anything...they know they will be voted out of office. When you have a nation of greedy and self-serving people, politicians must meet their demands, no matter the fiscal lack of responsibility...
That's true enough, people are fine with having some percentage of their labor stolen so long as they get to choose when and where they do that labor. I'm sure the politicians will find some roundabout way of increasing labor and thus their take. The front on approach is far too obvious.
The solution is simple: sell the assets into private hands and use the proceeds to service the debt. After that, close the government down.
Too many Americans don't pay their way which conditions them to believe they can ask for more and more government yet not pay the price and they are voters so politicians pander to them. This will sound stupid, but I think the government should present an annual invoice to every American over the age of 18, showing their share of funding the 2014 federal government is $12,380 per citizen...a family of four owes $49,523 per year! At least this will bring some awareness and dialogue...but it won't change anything. Bottom line; the US simply does not have the money to greatly improve the infrastructure. We don't even have the money to pay our way and instead simply allow deficit spending for years to come. We're a pathetic and greedy bunch...
That's never stopped them before It's not their property, what do they care? I never cared much how I spent my parents' money either.
If the gubbermint wanted to spnd a trillion dollars restoring the offshore sandbars, marshlands, etc to break up hurricanes before they made the real landfall, I would be like, "You go, girl. Spend $1.5T. You earned it witch your old bad self." Likewise, if the gubbermint wanted to spend $500B repaving roads or building new ones, I am all like "What? Your skanky ass has been stepping out on me and you want ME to pay for your abortion. Not just no, but HELL NO."
I'm not going to call a problem wholly invented by the wing nuts a problem that can't be addressed through higher revenues. Look, for years we keep hearing the wing nuts whine over the deficits and debt, while they were running them up. The debt we have isn't even high compared to the debt we had after WWII. It's only about 40% of the debt the UK had after WWII. The same can be said of Japan's debt now. Their debt is like 225% of GDP, and they are able to borrow money with no problems, in spite of credit downgrades. Even the CBO long term projections of US debt and debt servicing are showing our debt to not be a huge problem. How do we reduce our debt? Primarily, economic growth. Infrastructure fostered growth during the war years and post war years, and with how neglected our infrastructure is now, we could see it spur growth again. - - - Updated - - - That would definitely end the US as we know it.
A question for me is whether we have the growth potential we had back then and we weren't hostage to large future expenditures like Medicare.
We're good. Tax rates are far lower now, and the wealthy are far more wealthy than they were. So, the revenue streams are there. And mixed with job growth, which means less dependence on government by the unemployed, means that spending, relative to inflation and/or GDP falls, while raising GDP. - - - Updated - - - That's incredibly ridiculous, and a total divorce from reality. .
Reality is that government is just a collection of individuals who claim the monopoly of the use of force and collect taxes over a given geographical area. They are no more necessary to society than a parasite is to the body. The State does nothing that we as a society cannot do in the voluntary sector of society (aka the Free Market). The initiation of violence or the threat of violence is the basis of the State's power, and it is immoral.
Governments don't just build roads, which as you point out, some of the private sector can do in limited means. Government can build a system of roads, that can create opportunities for people and businesses to expand the economy. The private sector cannot do that. Government regulates the worst of the private sector's overreach. The private sector will often never self regulate, or only regulate if laws are in place and enforced. Look, I know that wearing t-shirts with the may impress your friends, and anarchy may sound cool, but the reality is that once we go your way about it, that guy over there is going to shoot you, take your stuff and your girlfriend, and live until someone else shoots him and his new girlfriend. Unless he just makes you his new girlfriend. Whatever.
$450 billion debt interest payment versus $3 trillion in income...this means that 15% of every dollar we take in we pay in debt interest! And paying debt interest is a priority before other government spending. And this debt interest is growing every single year! This is not about 'wing nuts'...it's about American nuts, all 315 million of them, who are too greedy and self-serving to demand fiscal responsibility. It is absurd IMO that anyone believes paying 15% of our income on debt service is 'no big deal'? If you didn't have this debt to service you would have $450 billion per year to spend on infrastructure...
2% per year growth on average. Medicare is supposed to be self-funded via FICA. Obamacare is not self-funded.
We have the money. But conservatives cut taxes that have never once translated into growing the economy. And a short term, but large program of spending on the infrastructure now means lowering debt overall starting in the medium term. Econ 101 has shown that infrastructure spending, to both put people to work, and to increase the movement of goods and people and information, will pay for itself as revenues are generated. The problem is partly spending on stuff with low multipliers, like the military, and low multiplier tax cuts aimed at top income and capital gains earners. That approach has created deficits and debt, along with poor economic policies that deregulation has fostered. http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45471 Again, the debt projections aren't huge for the US. Anti few repeal some of the tax cuts going back to Reagan, the deficits and debt are paid down.
ObamaCare reduces the deficits for the next couple of decades through increased revenues to the government. The rest of it is paid for in the private sector through insurance premiums. We do need to look at increasing revenues to Medicare, before the Medicare trust runs into deficits. But, those are relatively small increases to payrolls taxes. Personally, I'd like to see Medicare and Social Security rolled into one funding structure, with caps completely eliminated on income, which would put both programs' funding on stable ground.
No they will not be...................Politicians will just spend it............. Its already been proven that no matter what the tax rate is..................the government seems to get the same amount. And for all your blathering.............The record year for revenues came under Bush's tax cuts Our deficit is shrinking only because of more revenue, not a lack of spending................. and that CBO chart you provided shows spending above revenue for the foreseeable future....... You CANNOT tax the American people into prosperity............no matter how much you wish it so.
I've never bought the idea that calling something an insurance program makes it a nontax. Social Security and Medicare are taxes, in fact the biggest taxes we pay for. It all comes out of the same pool of wealth and in a more or less zero sum game perhaps precludes our ability to maintain our infrastructure adequately.
Sounds good but I think you are whistling in the wind. Required insurance payments should also be included as taxes. And our depleting capital base and social and environmental challenges need to be factored in. It would be hard for me to assure a 25 year old that things will hold together for another 40 years so he could enjoy the benefits of his retirement contributions. There are a lot of developments that raise a question as to whether the center will hold. Overpopulation and global warming and their costs are a couple of them. From Africa to Latin America to Eastern Europe I'm seeing a world that is drifting into disintegration and I see no light at the end of that tunnel. Certainly not a lot of wisdom is coming from the US which with all our advantages is having its own severe problems.
