I have a pretty effective plan to do this in 8 years. Some people have seen it. The link is below:
Thoughts?
Getting the US out of debt
Posts
Total:
92
-->
@Alec
National debt is merely a concept that manifests as numbers.
Debt is necessary for maintaining social stability. In so much as debt and wealth maintain a structured society.
Without assumed wealth, debt and disparity, there would be unorganisable chaos.
As far as I am aware, save for a few small territories such as Brunei, Lichtenstein and Palau all other nations have a national debt.
National debt is simply the way that things have been contrived to work.
-->
@zedvictor4
Debt is necessary for maintaining social stability. In so much as debt and wealth maintain a structured society.Without assumed wealth, debt and disparity, there would be unorganisable chaos.
How? I wouldn't call the US debt a good thing if it's going beyond control. We should get rid of the debt. It's common sense.
-->
@Alec
Debt gives you a reason to continue working in an age where machines can provide everything.
-->
@Greyparrot
The incentive to work is to get enough money to survive, not just to pay off debt. Moreover, the US should pay off our debt, and I think I've figured how this can efficiently be done.
-->
@Alec
The incentive to work is to get enough money to survive.
That's an insanely low bar to reach.
Especially in a country where you get free emergency care and free food from food stamps.
-->
@zedvictor4
@Alec
@Alec:
Initial salary 60,000Health Care Bonus 13,000Low Income Subsidy 7,000
Your plan to get the U.S. out of debt is to spend more money?
@zedvictor:
National debt is merely a concept that manifests as numbers.Debt is necessary for maintaining social stability. In so much as debt and wealth maintain a structured society.Without assumed wealth, debt and disparity, there would be unorganisable chaos.As far as I am aware, save for a few small territories such as Brunei, Lichtenstein and Palau all other nations have a national debt.National debt is simply the way that things have been contrived to work.
Not in the slightest bit informed by any organized economy of any nation. For example, in the 1750's when the United States were still "colonies," the economy was quite prosperous, and they had no debt, no unemployment, no interest payments. It wasn't until Nathan Rothschild "convinced" the King of England to outlaw the then U.S. currency, colonial script in 1764, that the colonies saw its first recession. When the United States once again gained their power to reissue currency in 1783, the economy was once again prosperous. It wasn't until the Federal Reserve Act that "national debt" became part of Economic lexicon.
National debt is part of a dialectic to create a single global communist economy.
-->
@Greyparrot
Especially in a country where you get free emergency care and free food from food stamps.
I'd get rid of food stamps at the federal level.
-->
@Athias
Your plan to get the U.S. out of debt is to spend more money?
Currently, the US's GDP per capita is $60,000 per year. The healthcare bonus would be the amount of additional salary that employers would have to pay their employees because they wouldn't have to pay for their healthcare with a UHC system. Some of the money would get spent on UHC, but the rest of it the individuals would use for spending and investing, both of which would be subject to tax.
Subsidy is the wrong term. Since any adult making less than $45K per year would be shown where better paying jobs are that only require a college degree (I made a sheet for what those jobs would be), whatever job they pick would yield a higher salary if its from the list, and this would mean that it would inevitably directly or indirectly result in more taxation from the government.
-->
@Athias
You're comparing the !8th century with the 21st.
Things just don't work like that anymore.
As I stated. National debt is merely a concept that manifests as numbers within a contrived global system.
So who does Planet Earth owe everything too.....Martians perhaps.
-->
@zedvictor4
I think the reason why virtually every country has debt is because most countries are creditors as well as nations that owe money. I heard the US owned about $19 trillion in loans that other countries owe it. I'd rather become a nation with no debt and one that other countries owe money too rather than the status quo.
-->
@Alec
Exactly.
It's a contrived system, where debt is really nothing more than an assumption.
It didn't prevent the U.S. from spending $700bn on defence last year did it?
And so answer my questions.
Who does the World actually owe it's debt to?
And if we all owe it to each other.
Then why don't we just simply write it all off and start again?
Wouldn't that be the decent thing to do?
And so why don't we do it?
Because being indebted to each other is what maintains social stability, both nationally and globally.
Money is the one true god that we all worship.
-->
@zedvictor4
Who does the World actually owe it's debt to?
I don't know, but I'd rather have the US pay off its debt, and be a sole creditor to other nations than be in debt to them.
-->
@Alec
The incentive to work is to get enough money to survive
it's funny you say that, in my immense boredom I watched a really bad movie, however there was one conversation the main character had that was interesting.
In this futuristic movie many people send their day in a massive v.r. server (some spend half their time in the real world), kind of like the movie "Ready Player One" However everything is a ghetto except for the 3 or 4 large corporations that run everything (and the government). There is a U.B.I. scheme which gives people enough money for food, rent and internet. In the conversation he asks how they can afford the ubi etc, the reply is basically, because of the sedentary lifestyle, low quality food leading to obesity the average lifespan is 40.
I'm not sure it's that far off from reality, I could easily see that becoming a reality.
-->
@Alec
Modern global debt is just an algorithm.
So change the algorithm.
Nonetheless, who is the U.S. going to pay of it's debt to?
And where will all the money come from when the U.S. becomes the global creditor?...Especially with the U.S's spending demands and expectancies being so lavish.
In simple terms, money is make believe, save for the few notes and coins that one might or might not have in ones pocket.
-->
@Alec
Currently, the US's GDP per capita is $60,000 per year.
Yes, but 40% of households earn an amount below that.
The healthcare bonus would be the amount of additional salary that employers would have to pay their employees because they wouldn't have to pay for their healthcare with a UHC system.
And that's still spending more money. What they "would've paid" isn't a real cost.
Some of the money would get spent on UHC, but the rest of it the individuals would use for spending and investing, both of which would be subject to tax.
How does one direct these individuals to spend and invest? And if these payments are going to be taxed anyway, then what's the point of giving them the amount specified, and not withhold the taxable portion?
Subsidy is the wrong term. Since any adult making less than $45K per year would be shown where better paying jobs are that only require a college degree
"Only a college degree"? Who pays for the education? Who shows them where these better paying jobs are?
I made a sheet for what those jobs would be
Where?
whatever job they pick would yield a higher salary if its from the list, and this would mean that it would inevitably directly or indirectly result in more taxation from the government.
And how would this program regulate the yields from this particular jobs list? And once again, if one's going to tax, then what's the point of providing the taxable portion?
-->
@zedvictor4
You're comparing the !8th century with the 21st.
So?
Things just don't work like that anymore.
My premise wasn't that things work like that; it was to rebut your notion that "without debt..., there would be unorganisable chaos."
As I stated. National debt is merely a concept that manifests as numbers within a contrived global system.
Redundant. Economics is merely a system of gauging value using "contrived" standards. Naturally, debt would be the same.
Modern global debt is just an algorithm.
It's a debt scheme. The reason governments can print paper, and more so now, contrive numbers, is due to the fact that human beings are the collateral, rather than precious metals. Your social security number is your bond number. Or in other words, you're a debt-slave.
The economy is built upon debt, it can't simply be removed with a simple national plan because debt and usury are structually entrenched. Attempting to eradicate this issue would require radical economic and financial reform, along with a return to the gold standard. This would be extremely difficult to do and would have be at odds with global financial oligarchs and banks.
JFK's attempt to get rid of the federal reserve and institute a silver-backed national currency resulted in his assassination.
-->
@Athias
What you say, sort of agrees with what I say. Though you might not care to admit it.
But if there was no such thing as debt, how would society organise itself?
I would suggest that it would require agreement, cooperation and selflessness....Something that the human species is not collectively good at.
Debt and therefore economic and social disparity is what maintains social structure.
-->
@zedvictor4
Nonetheless, who is the U.S. going to pay of it's debt to?
Whoever it owes the money too.
Especially with the U.S's spending demands and expectancies being so lavish.
It doesn't have to be. Taxes and spending, once the debt is gone should be low.
-->
@Athias
Yes, but 40% of households earn an amount below that.
It's more than that, but if a household earns below $45 K per year, the low income people get shown where the better paying jobs are that are attainable for them as a means of increasing their salary and getting them out of poverty. This would be more effective than the counterproductive war on poverty.
How does one direct these individuals to spend and invest?
When people have excess money, they spend some of it and they invest some of it. Some of it they would save, and I factored that in the tax plan.
"Only a college degree"? Who pays for the education? Who shows them where these better paying jobs are?
"Only a college degree" was a typo. I meant to say Jobs that pay well that don't require a college degree. I don't know how the typo came to exist. I'd have federal agents show the homeless people where the better paying jobs are that don't require a college degree. There's only half a million homeless in existence. Hiring 5000 federal agents to get the homeless out of poverty should take a little more than 3 months if each federal agent liberates 1 homeless person from poverty by showing them where better high school grad jobs are. The jobs are in a sheet. The homeless merely pick their favorite job from the list.
I made a sheet for what those jobs would beWhere?
And once again, if one's going to tax, then what's the point of providing the taxable portion?
What do you mean from this?
-->
@zedvictor4
What you say, sort of agrees with what I say. Though you might not care to admit it.
My contention isn't based on a supposed disagreement; it's based on your alleging that society would be chaotic without debt. I gave you a society which functioned without debt; you yourself provided a couple of societies which functioned without debt.
But if there was no such thing as debt, how would society organise itself?
The same way it always has: circuitous, goal-oriented transactions.
I would suggest that it would require agreement,
Yes,
cooperation
Yes,
and selflessness
No. Self-interest has been, is, and always will be, the motivating factor behind all transactions. It is when these interests are mutually served that cooperation and even interaction occurs. Two interests have the capacity to converge whether one is concerned about his neighbor's well-being or not. Case in point, one works for money. The employee-employer relationship isn't necessarily premised on "selflessness," yet they cooperate, organize, and function because one seeks compensation, and the other seeks labor.
Something that the human species is not collectively good at.
Because your standard is collectivist. And "collectively," we can be good at nothing because the exception will always undermine the rule.
Debt and therefore economic and social disparity is what maintains social structure.
And you haven't substantiated how you rendered that conclusion.
-->
@Alec
It's more than that, but if a household earns below $45 K per year, the low income people get shown where the better paying jobs are that are attainable for them as a means of increasing their salary and getting them out of poverty.
How does one show them? And how do you prevent crowding, or is the supply of available positions in this higher yielding jobs unlimited?
This would be more effective than the counterproductive war on poverty.
That has yet to be seen--not that I'm arguing in favor for the War (for) poverty.
When people have excess money, they spend some of it and they invest some of it. Some of it they would save, and I factored that in the tax plan.
How much do they save and how much do they spend? How much is allocated to both short term and long term savings? Where do they invest? And who regulates this? Will it be enforced?
I'd have federal agents show the homeless people where the better paying jobs are that don't require a college degree. There's only half a million homeless in existence. Hiring 5000 federal agents to get the homeless out of poverty should take a little more than 3 months if each federal agent liberates 1 homeless person from poverty by showing them where better high school grad jobs are. The jobs are in a sheet. The homeless merely pick their favorite job from the list.
How much do you pay the federal agents? And three months? Is that how long you anticipate it'll take to get the homeless out of poverty? Please elaborate on how you did your calculation.
Thank you.
What do you mean from this?
What is the benefit of that particular income bracket if they're going to be taxed out of it?
-->
@Athias
How does one show them?
I would hire people to go to homeless people and show them this sheet:
in order to get them out of poverty.
And how do you prevent crowding, or is the supply of available positions in this higher yielding jobs unlimited?
The # of jobs I don't think is unlimited, but it easily would increase with the increase in population. As our population triples, the demand for every job would triple as well, so things cancel out.
How much do they save and how much do they spend?
Up to them, but the average person saves 10% of their earnings and spends and invests the rest. Some more, some less.
How much is allocated to both short term and long term savings? Where do they invest?
Up to the individual. Anytime they sell the stock, they pay the capitol gains tax, which isin't much.
How much do you pay the federal agents?
I'd say $60,000 per year is a fair salary. It's not going to be expensive.
Is that how long you anticipate it'll take to get the homeless out of poverty? Please elaborate on how you did your calculation.
There are 500,000 homeless people in the US. 5000 homeless rescuers (maybe I should pick a better term), each getting 1 homeless person out of poverty per day should take 100 days, or basically 3 months to do.
What is the benefit of that particular income bracket if they're going to be taxed out of it?
It's to show people that look at the sheet that there would be no income tax in my plan. A sales tax and a capitol gains tax is all that is necessary.
-->
@Alec
@Athias
Eligibility requirements for food stamps are stringent, and the benefits provided are minute. Countable resources (including bank accounts) cannot exceed $2,250 dollars for someone to qualify for aid, sans any deductions (1). State rules vary, but for most, those who are unemployed need to actively seek work, and those that turn down potential job offers or reduce their working hours could lose their benefits (2). There are exceptions to the employment requirements (i.e. children, seniors, and other groups) but for able-bodied workers with dependents, there are work requirements that must be met (2). Government outlays for food stamps do not necessarily provide ample aid to the destitute either, with SNAP benefits averaging about $256 a month, or about $1.40 a meal (and for households with disabled workers or seniors, it's often less) (3).
Due to workfare requirements and tepid benefits, most seek employment. When looking at employment figures for SNAP recipients in 2012, it was found that 52% worked, and nearly 3/4 worked in the last two years (4). The problem is that most SNAP recipients work in volatile, low-income job markets (5). With increased job displacement, many recipients have a "good" year followed by a "bad" one, which is why employment among SNAP recipients is syncopated and uneven.
As far as "liberating" the homeless from poverty, you seriously overestimate employer's acceptance of homeless workers. SAMSHA reports that 26% of the homeless population suffers from a mental illness and 35% had a substance abuse disorder (6). Public ordinances tend to target homeless people too, with laws that outlaw solicitation, panhandling, living in vehicles, sleeping in public, and begging in public (7). Psychiatric problems are not just worsened by punitive measures (i.e. fines and court costs they cannot pay.) Psychiatric problems are also worsened by victimization. The homeless, particularly women and the mentally ill, are at extreme risk for violent and non-violent victimization, particularly sexual violence (9). Trauma of this magnitude worsens mental states, and many may cope with drugs and other dangerous activities. Moreover, many jobs require permanent addresses, which the homeless do not have, and employers maintain negative views of the homeless and formerly homeless. In a review of job discrimination against homeless people compiled by The Yale Law Journal, it was found that multiple employers, especially in food-service and other low-paying occupations, tend to exclude those that are homeless because they perceive them as less trustworthy and more likely to abuse drugs. So, when asking about permanent transportation and housing on applications, they tend to "follow up" with additional questions to ascertain whether an applicant has lived in an address for more than a few years, or if they have a car (8). Even the recently homeless are affected due to intrusive background checks into people's housing history (8).
The number of jobs is not unlimited (as Athias has already pointed out) and the kicker is that we don't know how many people are actually homeless. Sure, we can make estimates, but the actual number of people who do not have permanent dwellings is a difficult number to calculate because of numerous complicating factors including transience and faulty "counts" of homeless that usually take place in the last ten days in January done by scant volunteers, when the homeless try to seek temporary abodes to get out of the cold weather (10). HUD, until recently, did not even include a rural designation in its data collection, which means plenty of rural, homeless people are likely not reported (10). Utah, a state that declared that there was "no more homelessness in the state" in 2015 recently had to rectify their statement, because, wouldn't you believe it, the state now struggles to provide enough temporary shelter for the homeless in their state (11).
So, we don't know really how many people are homeless, so how are we to determine if the economy has generated enough jobs that a homeless person could feasibly fill given the bevy of factors that play into whether a homeless person gets a job? More to the point, while some jobs don't necessarily require degrees, won't these better educated Americans be in direct competition with the homeless? Who do you think they are going to hire, someone with an Associate's degree, or someone who shows up to a job interview who looks like they're homeless, and outright admit they don't have a permanent address? This is not to paint an unfavorable portrait of those that are less fortunate, its with great serendipity that so many can afford to live comfortably in this country, and those that fall through the cracks are no less deserving of a comfortable life (especially if they are precluded form the job market for factors that they cannot account for.) Instead, programs to rehabilitate and train homeless for jobs, providing tax breaks to firms that hire homeless people, and providing direct assistance (cash based or otherwise) should exist, and should be trying to place their clients in jobs and permanent abodes.
Sources
Eligibility requirements for food stamps are stringent, and the benefits provided are minute. Countable resources (including bank accounts) cannot exceed $2,250 dollars for someone to qualify for aid, sans any deductions
I get 200 dollars a month from foodstamps, so I can say your 1st point is 100% wrong in my case. I eat less than 6.50 dollars worth of grocery food a day. More like 5 dollars a day.
Since government welfare is run by the government, you don't need to be much smarter than highschool level to take advantage of all the inherent loopholes and exceptions in the thousands of pages of legislation. Some of the loopholes are ridiculous.
-->
@Athias
In very simple terms and disregarding the evolved complexities of the system:
The hierarchy of ability is what really orders social structure and money has become the established system we use to represent this, both nationally and individually.
Altruism and unhindered cooperation is the only real alternative and given human nature and the natural hierarchy of ability, it is highly unlikely that such a system would ever be workable.
-->
@Greyparrot
Tag me so I can respond.
The data I provided is an average though. I'm sure there are others that can reap more from the system depending on the state, other requirements etc.
The data I provided is an average though. I'm sure there are others that can reap more from the system depending on the state, other requirements etc.
-->
@Alec
I would hire people to go to homeless people and show them this sheet:in order to get them out of poverty.
You have a goal in mind. And your sheet demonstrates as much. But you have yet to iron out the logistics. For example, where do you get this money to hire people to go to homeless people and show them your sheet? What if a large number of the homeless refuse the significant portion of the jobs on your sheet? What if they don't have the skills--barring employee training programs--to perform the labor as delineated by the jobs you've selected?
The # of jobs I don't think is unlimited, but it easily would increase with the increase in population. As our population triples, the demand for every job would triple as well, so things cancel out.
Please explain. As I understand and learned, population increase would lead to an increase supply of labor, not necessarily an increased demand for it. Wouldn't the increasing population worsen crowding? Wouldn't the government be provoked into subsidizing additional labor?
Up to them, but the average person saves 10% of their earnings and spends and invests the rest. Some more, some less.
No, the average "household" saves at least 10% of their earnings if they're in the middle/upper middle class/rich income bracket. Your plan is targeting the poor, who typically have a 10% debt-to-savings ratio. Will you pay for classes that teach them about saving? Furthermore, what the specific effect of a 10% savings rate in your plan?
Up to the individual. Anytime they sell the stock, they pay the capitol gains tax, which isin't much.
Who's selling stock? How did they get the stock to start? Can they afford to purchase stock? (Penny stocks excluded of course.)
I'd say $60,000 per year is a fair salary. It's not going to be expensive.
$60,000 x 5000 = $300,000,000 a year for doing three months work. That's not expensive?
There are 500,000 homeless people in the US. 5000 homeless rescuers (maybe I should pick a better term), each getting 1 homeless person out of poverty per day should take 100 days, or basically 3 months to do.
Wait, so your calculation presumes that each homeless person will be dragged out poverty in a single day's time? That's feasible? How?
It's to show people that look at the sheet that there would be no income tax in my plan. A sales tax and a capitol gains tax is all that is necessary.
If you're removing income tax, then how does that result in "more taxation for the government"? Will sales tax and capital gains tax provide the revenue the government solicits to meet its obligations? Furthermore, if savings are to increase, wouldn't tax revenue from sales tax decrease?
You have a goal. But until you can demonstrate objectives and prospective key results, then this is not yet a plan.
-->
@blamonkey
The number of jobs is not unlimited (as Athias has already pointed out) and the kicker is that we don't know how many people are actually homeless. Sure, we can make estimates, but the actual number of people who do not have permanent dwellings is a difficult number to calculate because of numerous complicating factors including transience and faulty "counts" of homeless that usually take place in the last ten days in January done by scant volunteers, when the homeless try to seek temporary abodes to get out of the cold weather (10). HUD, until recently, did not even include a rural designation in its data collection, which means plenty of rural, homeless people are likely not reported (10). Utah, a state that declared that there was "no more homelessness in the state" in 2015 recently had to rectify their statement, because, wouldn't you believe it, the state now struggles to provide enough temporary shelter for the homeless in their state (11).So, we don't know really how many people are homeless, so how are we to determine if the economy has generated enough jobs that a homeless person could feasibly fill given the bevy of factors that play into whether a homeless person gets a job? More to the point, while some jobs don't necessarily require degrees, won't these better educated Americans be in direct competition with the homeless? Who do you think they are going to hire, someone with an Associate's degree, or someone who shows up to a job interview who looks like they're homeless, and outright admit they don't have a permanent address? This is not to paint an unfavorable portrait of those that are less fortunate, its with great serendipity that so many can afford to live comfortably in this country, and those that fall through the cracks are no less deserving of a comfortable life (especially if they are precluded form the job market for factors that they cannot account for.)
This was one of the points I would eventually arrive at when inquiring about crowding. Not only considering the prospect of the homeless competing with high-skilled labor, but also considering that if it's necessary to hire the homeless, does one then force out high-skilled labor? I don't think Alec was meticulous in his consideration of the prospects.