The Patriot Tax.

A concept , if there was a way to a make a tax totally for one thing only as "This money can only be used exclusively towards Paying down the debt, it can't be used
for anything but, paying down the Debt. You can't use it for heath care,nor Welfare,or any other social problem. If you could make it Law ... It would be totally Voluntary there would be no problem. Even if ya didn't want to participate there would be no
restrictions on the individual. But I wonder even if that could be a Law.

I wonder how many people would give a week voluntarily to an opt in, opt out system.
I think I could give $1.50 a week maybe 2 bucks... and I don't think it would bother me if it could take the load off our great, grand grandchildren's back.

Even if it was unfair, even if we don't like it, even if you had nothing to do with it..
The problem still exist's .... We have a huge Debt to Payoff... any way just an Idea.

It's a good idea but....
The democrats will inevitably twist it and turn it into their little piggy bank.

I.e they'll take on more debt for their pet projects to offset the earnings from this tax.

Just make a budget amendment that requires X amount yearly for debt reduction.

Break down with math assumptions below

2 bucks a week X lets say 1/3 the population 100,000,000 = 10.4 Billion a year

Current debt is ~ 21 trillion / 10.4 billion

= 2019.23 years

while its doable i doubt many people would take it seriously.

Even if it averages to 10 bucks a week = 52 B a year

403 years to pay off assuming we don't take on any more debt.

Not only will it take at least 400 years we have to think about the money that is not spent on goods. thats 52 billion that no longer flowing through the economy.

I dont think its worth it in my opinion.

I think a balanced budget amendment and significant cuts is the only way to go.

If the Democrats know this voluntarily tax fund is there to pay down the debt,They will leave it alone. However,They will just spend a lot more from other sources and not feeling guilty about it knowing you care enough to pay for it anyway.

(07-27-2016 12:54 AM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  It's a good idea but....
The democrats will inevitably twist it and turn it into their little piggy bank.

I.e they'll take on more debt for their pet projects to offset the earnings from this tax.

Kinda like how the Republicans started dipping into Social Security?

(07-27-2016 09:02 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-27-2016 12:54 AM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  It's a good idea but....
The democrats will inevitably twist it and turn it into their little piggy bank.

I.e they'll take on more debt for their pet projects to offset the earnings from this tax.

Kinda like how the Republicans started dipping into Social Security?

Link?

Here's how it will actually work.

Our debt will continue to increase. At some point, the interest will become too great a burden on the budget.

At this point the politicians will federalize your IRA's in exchange for an IOU to keep it wheezing along for a little while longer.

We will then default....or pay off the debt with super-inflated money.

Either way, you won't have your healthcare, EB cards, new aircraft carriers, social security, etc. anymore.

Enjoy the party while it lasts.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

Thanks for all the input .... guess it wouldn't work , maybe it is a dumb Idea ~?

Or you could just cut spending across the board, without any sacred cows.

(07-27-2016 09:07 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-27-2016 09:02 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-27-2016 12:54 AM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  It's a good idea but....
The democrats will inevitably twist it and turn it into their little piggy bank.

I.e they'll take on more debt for their pet projects to offset the earnings from this tax.

Kinda like how the Republicans started dipping into Social Security?

Link?

http://www.fedsmith.com/2013/10/11/ronal...ity-heist/

(07-27-2016 11:36 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-27-2016 09:07 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-27-2016 09:02 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-27-2016 12:54 AM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  It's a good idea but....
The democrats will inevitably twist it and turn it into their little piggy bank.

I.e they'll take on more debt for their pet projects to offset the earnings from this tax.

Kinda like how the Republicans started dipping into Social Security?

Link?

http://www.fedsmith.com/2013/10/11/ronal...ity-heist/

LOL

EVERY President since Roosevelt created Social Security has done what Reagan did because it is required by the very law that created Social Security that any surplus in the fund beyond current obligations be invested in government securities.

(07-28-2016 12:22 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-27-2016 11:36 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-27-2016 09:07 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-27-2016 09:02 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-27-2016 12:54 AM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  It's a good idea but....
The democrats will inevitably twist it and turn it into their little piggy bank.

I.e they'll take on more debt for their pet projects to offset the earnings from this tax.

Kinda like how the Republicans started dipping into Social Security?

Link?

http://www.fedsmith.com/2013/10/11/ronal...ity-heist/

LOL

EVERY President since Roosevelt created Social Security has done what Reagan did because it is required by the very law that created Social Security that any surplus in the fund beyond current obligations be invested in government securities.

I love it. The "Everybodys doing it defense"

(07-28-2016 08:47 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-28-2016 12:22 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-27-2016 11:36 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-27-2016 09:07 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-27-2016 09:02 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Kinda like how the Republicans started dipping into Social Security?

Link?

http://www.fedsmith.com/2013/10/11/ronal...ity-heist/

LOL

EVERY President since Roosevelt created Social Security has done what Reagan did because it is required by the very law that created Social Security that any surplus in the fund beyond current obligations be invested in government securities.

I love it. The "Everybodys doing it defense"

I admittedly am not familiar with the specific statute that Kaplony is referencing, but I'm pretty sure it's not the "Everybody's doing it" defense....but the "It's the law" defense.

(07-28-2016 09:06 AM)ummechengr Wrote:  

(07-28-2016 08:47 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-28-2016 12:22 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-27-2016 11:36 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-27-2016 09:07 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  Link?

http://www.fedsmith.com/2013/10/11/ronal...ity-heist/

LOL

EVERY President since Roosevelt created Social Security has done what Reagan did because it is required by the very law that created Social Security that any surplus in the fund beyond current obligations be invested in government securities.

I love it. The "Everybodys doing it defense"

I admittedly am not familiar with the specific statute that Kaplony is referencing, but I'm pretty sure it's not the "Everybody's doing it" defense....but the "It's the law" defense.

Im not following. Its the law to steal money from S.S.

(07-28-2016 09:23 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Im not following. Its the law to steal money from S.S.

Not one dime has been 'stolen' from SS or anything else. This is one of those silly political stories we've been told.

The money held 'in trust' for SS and Medicare etc, like virtually all other 'money' only really exists on a balance sheet. There is no 'lock box' no matter what Al Gore told you. It is a general ledger accounting item. Those deposit items are paid interest (by law)... thus they purchase 'debt' issued by the government and earn the interest that the government pays. It would seem silly for the government to borrow billions from China and investors to cover our debt, and then issue additional debt that we don't need to issue simply so that we can pay interest to our 'depositors'... so instead, we let social security invest in our 'normal' debt.

The reason we buy this 'lock box' story is because there are few situations in personal or even corporate finance where such a thing would exist... but to NOT do this would be like a corporation taking investors money and paying them a return on that money, but not using that money to further the corporations goals... instead, borrowing OTHER money to do so.



Having said that, the premise is at least somewhat similarly false on its face. How can money be used to pay down debt, but not spent on any of the items that created the debt in the first place? What about it stops them from generating even more debt that this tax would have to cover? Money is too fungible.

(07-28-2016 11:23 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-28-2016 09:23 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Im not following. Its the law to steal money from S.S.

Not one dime has been 'stolen' from SS or anything else. This is one of those silly political stories we've been told.

The money held 'in trust' for SS and Medicare etc, like virtually all other 'money' only really exists on a balance sheet. There is no 'lock box' no matter what Al Gore told you. It is a general ledger accounting item. Those deposit items are paid interest (by law)... thus they purchase 'debt' issued by the government and earn the interest that the government pays. It would seem silly for the government to borrow billions from China and investors to cover our debt, and then issue additional debt that we don't need to issue simply so that we can pay interest to our 'depositors'... so instead, we let social security invest in our 'normal' debt.
The reason we buy this 'lock box' story is because there are few situations in personal or even corporate finance where such a thing would exist... but to NOT do this would be like a corporation taking investors money and paying them a return on that money, but not using that money to further the corporations goals... instead, borrowing OTHER money to do so.
Having said that, the premise is at least somewhat similarly false on its face. How can money be used to pay down debt, but not spent on any of the items that created the debt in the first place? What about it stops them from generating even more debt that this tax would have to cover? Money is too fungible.

It's amazing how little so many people understand about finance.

(07-28-2016 01:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  It's amazing how little so many people understand about finance.

Or Insurance.

You can tell by the ads that you see every day about insurance... someone claiming their car insurance is 'so expensive', just because they've had an accident... ignoring that they're buying $50,000 in coverage for $35/month... which means that they would take take a lifetime to pay their OWN claim...

or the guys who talk about 'maybe you used the wrong insurance company' ignoring that they likely chose the other policy because it was cheaper, and it was cheaper because it didn't cover depreciation (or whatever).

The REAL problem with the ACA or healthcare coverage in general, is that insurance already 'spread the risks' among subscribers... in that insurance is priced to an average for a population.... what the ACA does is further spreads the risk among an even more diverse population... which in and of itself is not that big a deal, but it doesn't in any way encourage 'good' behaviors or 'punish' poor ones... ESPECIALLY among those who are on subsidized policies and mandated premiums. That's why they're going under... because the government sets 'claim levels' at a certain point to justify the premium they want to pay, and then people use more care than they thought they would, because there is no downside to doing so.

Money doesn't come from thin air. Insurance isn't magic, it's math.

(07-28-2016 11:23 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-28-2016 09:23 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Im not following. Its the law to steal money from S.S.

Not one dime has been 'stolen' from SS or anything else. This is one of those silly political stories we've been told.

The money held 'in trust' for SS and Medicare etc, like virtually all other 'money' only really exists on a balance sheet. There is no 'lock box' no matter what Al Gore told you. It is a general ledger accounting item. Those deposit items are paid interest (by law)... thus they purchase 'debt' issued by the government and earn the interest that the government pays. It would seem silly for the government to borrow billions from China and investors to cover our debt, and then issue additional debt that we don't need to issue simply so that we can pay interest to our 'depositors'... so instead, we let social security invest in our 'normal' debt.

The reason we buy this 'lock box' story is because there are few situations in personal or even corporate finance where such a thing would exist... but to NOT do this would be like a corporation taking investors money and paying them a return on that money, but not using that money to further the corporations goals... instead, borrowing OTHER money to do so.



Having said that, the premise is at least somewhat similarly false on its face. How can money be used to pay down debt, but not spent on any of the items that created the debt in the first place? What about it stops them from generating even more debt that this tax would have to cover? Money is too fungible.

Does this mean you disagree with my link?

(07-28-2016 07:36 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-28-2016 11:23 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-28-2016 09:23 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Im not following. Its the law to steal money from S.S.

Not one dime has been 'stolen' from SS or anything else. This is one of those silly political stories we've been told.

The money held 'in trust' for SS and Medicare etc, like virtually all other 'money' only really exists on a balance sheet. There is no 'lock box' no matter what Al Gore told you. It is a general ledger accounting item. Those deposit items are paid interest (by law)... thus they purchase 'debt' issued by the government and earn the interest that the government pays. It would seem silly for the government to borrow billions from China and investors to cover our debt, and then issue additional debt that we don't need to issue simply so that we can pay interest to our 'depositors'... so instead, we let social security invest in our 'normal' debt.

The reason we buy this 'lock box' story is because there are few situations in personal or even corporate finance where such a thing would exist... but to NOT do this would be like a corporation taking investors money and paying them a return on that money, but not using that money to further the corporations goals... instead, borrowing OTHER money to do so.



Having said that, the premise is at least somewhat similarly false on its face. How can money be used to pay down debt, but not spent on any of the items that created the debt in the first place? What about it stops them from generating even more debt that this tax would have to cover? Money is too fungible.

Does this mean you disagree with my link?

I'm not Hambone but I disagree with your link. Reagan didn't do anything any different than any other President before him or after who had a surplus after that year's obligations had been met. He did exactly what the law required him to do.