NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, here is your thread. How does a government pay its military, security and contract enforcement budgets without raising taxes? What are those "other means"? And this time no vagueness please.

Bake sale.

:D

Ok, here is your thread. How does a government pay its military, security and contract enforcement budgets without raising taxes? What are those "other means"? And this time no vagueness please.

Loans that can be rolled-over, bonds. We don't pay for nearly everything we spend, thats why there is a deficit.

Ok, here is your thread. How does a government pay its military, security and contract enforcement budgets without raising taxes? What are those "other means"? And this time no vagueness please.

I've come in late. Aren't those legitimate functions of government? If the answer is yes, then taxes to support them aren't necessarily bad. It's the non-govermental things that shouldn't be funded with tax money. User fees can pay for airports, why can't user fees pay for Air Traffic Control?

I suppose user fees could fund an Army. Part of the reason for having an army is deterence, so there might be a lot of lean times. I think you might need an alternate source.

I guess funding the army, security, etc, might be accomplished by siphoning off a portion of user fees for other functions. Take 10 percent of the tolls collected, 10 percent of the ATC fees, whatever.

Make the soldiers outfit themselves. In a small country, that might work. I don't know how big the standing army is in a country like Switzerland, but there are a lot of militia.

As an explanation: Reason and Reality stated, in the thread "Abortions and tax money" that the aforementioned goverment functions are the only legal ones and to fund them no taxes should be raised. None, ever. For funding "other means" should be used. Since i dont see how one can produce monetary value from nothing i asked several times about those means and got no answer, because in Reason and Reality's oppinion it didnt fit there. So this here is the thread were i wait for my answer.

Thus, Vittos Ordination, loans wont work, because without an income you get none. At least not 399.1 billions for the fiscal year 2004 and military spending alone.

Since i dont see how one can produce monetary value from nothing.The Fed can create monetary value with inflation. But the federal bank is supposed to be independant from the government, therefore it can not give away money.

1)Cut off Welfare to foriegn nations.
2)When a CEO raids a 401K plan seize his capital and make him pay it back instead of letting Social Security pick up the bill down the road.
3)Downsize huge beuracratic departments (Dept. of Agri. comes to mind)
4)Legalize drugs, let substance prisoners go and keep violent criminals in. (you can now tax and regulate drugs the same as alchohol and cigarettes)
5)Of prison convicts still left outsource them to building public works, use them to build roads instead of contracting companies that waste time and money to bleed their contracts dry.
6) Balanced budget amendment to prevent none inflation increase of national dept.

If we effectively use the resources at hand and cut unneseccary expenditures this country would have money like never before (and thats saying something)

everything the government does it paid for by taxes. sometimes we make it sound nice by calling it a fee or license but its all TAX

we can run a deficit this year but sooner or later it has to be paid back by revenues. (another pretty word for taxes)

now sometimes you can avoid raising taxes by cutting spending on some things. you can have a good economy so that more tax money comes in without raising the tax rates, but in the end its all paid for by taxes.

Make sure to only invade countries with exploitable resources, then bleed 'em dry? That seems to be the current method...

Bake sale.

:D
i like his idea best

Make sure to only invade countries with exploitable resources, then bleed 'em dry? That seems to be the current method...
that ones nice but we have to get the recorces b4 they blow us up

i like his idea best

That's because everybody will buy those little chocolate cupcakes with the sprinkles. *nod*

End corporate welfare.

Make a law limiting exit packages and golden parachuettes.

A guy who screws up a company should not be able to "retire" with severl million in his pocket.

As an explanation: Reason and Reality stated, in the thread "Abortions and tax money" that the aforementioned goverment functions are the only legal ones and to fund them no taxes should be raised. None, ever. For funding "other means" should be used. Since i dont see how one can produce monetary value from nothing i asked several times about those means and got no answer, because in Reason and Reality's oppinion it didnt fit there. So this here is the thread were i wait for my answer.

Thus, Vittos Ordination, loans wont work, because without an income you get none. At least not 399.1 billions for the fiscal year 2004 and military spending alone.

Why again won't loans and bonds work?

How do you think the government manages to spend more money than it takes in every year? Why do you think there is a deficit? We use debt.

Create a perpetual state of war in several areas. Sell the participants in those wars weapons.

Create a perpetual state of war in several areas. Sell the participants in those wars weapons.

And cupcakes.

Create a perpetual state of war in several areas. Sell the participants in those wars weapons.

Sell the participants. The losers, that is.

Sponsorship.
Pro sports arenas are all corporately sponsored, as are athletes.
Just do the same with Government and politictians.
ie
The Pepsi Senate building in Washington.
The WalMart White House.
VP Dick Cheney, brought to you by Prozac, don't be depressed......
And so on etc....

The most morally proper way would be to levy heavy punitive fines on (real) criminals, such as rapists, thieves, murderers, kidnappers, etc. Such criminals have renounced their humanity, so there's nothing wrong with taking anything from them without their consent--and in fact, they're the reason government's needed in the first place.

I suppose user fees could fund an Army. Part of the reason for having an army is deterence, so there might be a lot of lean times. I think you might need an alternate source.


User fees. How about Haliburton funding the Army? Who else is using it?

Sponsorship.
Pro sports arenas are all corporately sponsored, as are athletes.
Just do the same with Government and politictians.
ie
The Pepsi Senate building in Washington.
The WalMart White House.
VP Dick Cheney, brought to you by Prozac, don't be depressed......
And so on etc....
ohmyGOD thats brilliant!

instead of new mexico senator pete domenici we could have the Lockheed-martin senator pete domenici!

why dont we do this already???

Our politicians already have corporate sponsors. They just don't have the advertising in their names. :p

Simple. Print more money. They ARE the government.

However printing TOO much money would be a problem. It'll end up like Japan.

Simple. Print more money. They ARE the government.

However printing TOO much money would be a problem. It'll end up like Japan.
Deflation, that is your answer? When the yen becomes the dollar i'll be sad...

Why again won't loans and bonds work?

How do you think the government manages to spend more money than it takes in every year? Why do you think there is a deficit? We use debt.

debt
Pronunciation: (det), —n.
1. something that is owed or that one is bound to pay to or perform for another: a debt of $50.
2. a liability or obligation to pay or render something: My debt to her for advice is not to be discharged easily.

You see, the thing about debt is that you do eventually have to pay it. Saying "I'll give you the money later" is not really a valid alternative to paying the money, and when you do have to pay, where does the money come from? Ultimately, taxes. Loans and bonds are a delayment of giving up tax money, not an alternative to taxation.

The most morally proper way would be to levy heavy punitive fines on (real) criminals, such as rapists, thieves, murderers, kidnappers, etc. Such criminals have renounced their humanity, so there's nothing wrong with taking anything from them without their consent--and in fact, they're the reason government's needed in the first place.

Assuming that all criminals are already wealthy. :rolleyes: Why do you think people become thieves and kidnappers in the first place? True, not all crimes stem from economics, but I think you'd have a hard time funding a government that way. Plus, how could you have an unbiased judiciary system that funds itself through the conviction of criminals?

debt
Pronunciation: (det), —n.
1. something that is owed or that one is bound to pay to or perform for another: a debt of $50.
2. a liability or obligation to pay or render something: My debt to her for advice is not to be discharged easily.

You see, the thing about debt is that you do eventually have to pay it. Saying "I'll give you the money later" is not really a valid alternative to paying the money, and when you do have to pay, where does the money come from? Ultimately, taxes. Loans and bonds are a delayment of giving up tax money, not an alternative to taxation.

Didn't that enthusiastic european guy with the mustache find a way around paying his debts? It worked out, more or less...

The most morally proper way would be to levy heavy punitive fines on (real) criminals, such as rapists, thieves, murderers, kidnappers, etc. Such criminals have renounced their humanity, so there's nothing wrong with taking anything from them without their consent--and in fact, they're the reason government's needed in the first place.

Ok, you have no clue. Thats all i wanted to know. And criminals are human, animals dont do that.

Guys, when i said "raise" taxes i wasnt talking of taking more, but taking taxes at all. Like in fund raising. Thus indebtment would not work, because there is no income to pay off the credits.

Ok, here is your thread. How does a government pay its military, security and contract enforcement budgets without raising taxes? What are those "other means"? And this time no vagueness please.
By getting rid of useless, inefficient programs that don't work.

debt
Pronunciation: (det), —n.
1. something that is owed or that one is bound to pay to or perform for another: a debt of $50.
2. a liability or obligation to pay or render something: My debt to her for advice is not to be discharged easily.

You see, the thing about debt is that you do eventually have to pay it. Saying "I'll give you the money later" is not really a valid alternative to paying the money, and when you do have to pay, where does the money come from? Ultimately, taxes. Loans and bonds are a delayment of giving up tax money, not an alternative to taxation.

Sure the government eventually has to pay it back. You know what our government does? It takes out more loans, they roll them over, they issue more bonds. Why do you think we have such a large national debt?

Thus, Vittos Ordination, loans wont work, because without an income you get none. At least not 399.1 billions for the fiscal year 2004 and military spending alone.

:eek:
or the 497.2 billion for Social Security,
or the 324.9 billion for Income Security,
or the 258.8 billion for Medicare,
or the 246.5 billion on Health Department outlays,
or the 176.3 billion for Interest and Retirement fund payments
or the 84.3 billion for Education,
(Federal dollars only, your state and local contribututions to your child education isnt counted, much less the amount you spend)
or the 63.4 billion for Transportation,
or the 62 billion for Veterns Benefits,
or the 39.4 billion for Department of Justice,
or the 31 billion for Natural resources and the environment,
or the 25.6 billion for Foreign Aid programs
or the 22.8 billion for General Scientific and Space Research
or the 20.7 billion for Agriculture,
or the 20.5 billion for general government operations
or the 17 billion for Community and regional development.

( Note if you will, that of the top 7 budget items 5 of them are Social services of one form or another and use 1,411 billion dollars or 62.9 % of the total Federal Budget. DoD used 17% of the Budget during a war)

for a total budget or 2.243 Trillion dollars

Of this 1.856 Trillion was on budget, or in other words taxes were raised to cover these expendatures This amount of tax is a 4.2% increase in tax revenues from 2003 which raised 1.780 Trillion and a 7.6% increase from 2002 when taxes raised 1.724 Trillion.

From http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/sheets/fct_2.xls

And thats with the massive tax cuts.....Gee...wonder how you can have an increase in tax revenues when you keep cutting taxes....Oh yeah...more money flowing in the economy = more jobs ( 2.4 million jobs since August 2003 ) = more people paying taxes...and before you go there the bottom 50% of the wage earning population pays less than 4% of the federal income taxes

http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls
Row 161 for percentages of the income tax paid by income bracket

You will note that 887 Billion was paid in personal income tax, the remaining 975 billion was made up of Corporate income tax, Fees Fines excetra exetra...The governemnt did borrow 386 billion dollars to make up the difference...or would you rather they had stopped paying benefits and salaries for the last month of the Fiscal year?

Point is there is pleanty of tax income and with the 2005 budget having only 1% increases across the board on nearly everything except Defense and Homeland security it is possible 2005 will show a decreased deficit.

If Clinton and a Republican Congress could balance the budget what makes you think Bush and a Republican Congress cant to do the same thing?

Just remember who holds the actual purse strings...and it aint Bush...

Respectfully

AAhhzz :)
Sorry for the long winded post but it just irritates me to no end when someone tries to use the Military budget as a scapegoat for economic woes, particularly when there are programs that use more of MY tax dollars...particularly irritating if it seems the person who is doing so never has nor will he ever raise their hands in the defense of the country...just a perception of my own, may have no actual corrolation to reality....but I would bet money on it....

Ok, here is your thread. How does a government pay its military, security and contract enforcement budgets without raising taxes? What are those "other means"? And this time no vagueness please.
User fees, printing more money, borrowing money, selling government-owned property ( real estate and otherwise ), etc. I'm sure there are other ways, but not being an economist, I wouldn't know about all of them.

Sure the government eventually has to pay it back. You know what our government does? It takes out more loans, they roll them over, they issue more bonds. Why do you think we have such a large national debt?

And it's starting to cause you serious trouble. Continuing to take out loans is a temporary soloution. Just because you've managed to maintain it so far does not mean that it can be kept up for ever. Plus, you are still taking in taxes at the same time, which gives confidence that the loan can eventually be paid back. It's far more difficult to continue taking out more loans when there is no other visible source of revenue. Also, we're speaking of a hypothetical nation, not the United States in particular, and most nations would not have been able to maintain their economies with a similar debt load.

I've seen a lot of people suggest "print more money". This simply doesn't work I'm afraid. The value attached to Money is not set in stone. It's worth is only representitive for the actual wealth of products, services and utilities. The more money is printed, the less valuable money becomes, because there's so much of it around. So printing more money doesn't solve the problem, the same amount of actual WEALTH is still present. Because money is worth less, prices will go up. You can have a million dollars, but if a loaf of bread costs a billion dollars you're still going to starve.

Thus, Vittos Ordination, loans wont work, because without an income you get none. At least not 399.1 billions for the fiscal year 2004 and military spending alone.

One other thing that could be done to increase federal revenues, eliminate the ceiling on Social Security payments. Currently SS taxes are only placed on the first 86,000 dollars of income, eliminate that and you would increase the SS tax base by over 2 trillion dollars annually...or to put it another way increase SS Income by 124 billion dollars. Should help stave off the SSI crisis a few more years...

Also give the president a line item veto so that they can cut the pork off the budget and do not allow any department to increase their budget by more than the inflation index. If a department needs more ( Such as FEMA this past summer responding to the hurricanes in Florida make Congress allocate the money ) Thus you would not see a 15% increase in a budget of ANY department.

Eliminate Foreign Aid, (except for close allies) according to everything I have read recently we are almost universally hated, why give 25 billion to people that hate us?...and that way maybe they would realize how much we had been helping them

Eliminate Department of Education and public school system, home schooling or Private schools only would save the National ( Federal/State/local Budgets ) budget over 1 trillion annually....yeah like that would fly...LOL

Respectfully

AAhhzz

On the question itself, I agree with a couple of the people who have posted - most public services will function more efficiently when handed over to the private sector. There are obvious exceptions, and the police and military spring to mind as services which should be provided by the government. If the police force of a nation was privatized, the government would wield no power at all, and the country would be run by what would in essence be a mafia.

I've seen a lot of people suggest "print more money". This simply doesn't work I'm afraid. The value attached to Money is not set in stone. It's worth is only representitive for the actual wealth of products, services and utilities. The more money is printed, the less valuable money becomes, because there's so much of it around. So printing more money doesn't solve the problem, the same amount of actual WEALTH is still present. Because money is worth less, prices will go up. You can have a million dollars, but if a loaf of bread costs a billion dollars you're still going to starve.Is the national debt indexed on inflation?

I've seen a lot of people suggest "print more money". This simply doesn't work I'm afraid. The value attached to Money is not set in stone. It's worth is only representitive for the actual wealth of products, services and utilities. The more money is printed, the less valuable money becomes, because there's so much of it around. So printing more money doesn't solve the problem, the same amount of actual WEALTH is still present. Because money is worth less, prices will go up. You can have a million dollars, but if a loaf of bread costs a billion dollars you're still going to starve.
The question was "How does a government pay its military, security and contract enforcement budgets without raising taxes? What are those 'other means?' And this time no vagueness please." No mention was made of stating the relative merits of each alternative. :)

Eliminate Foreign Aid, (except for close allies) according to everything I have read recently we are almost universally hated, why give 25 billion to people that hate us?...and that way maybe they would realize how much we had been helping them
"foreign aid" is a politically correct way to say "foreign investment", like paying Talebans to fight the USSR instead of the US and so that the USSR fight the taleban instead of the US, or to cut Opium production flooding the US, or like securing oil resources in the Middle east.

"The question was "How does a government pay its military, security and contract enforcement budgets without raising taxes? What are those 'other means?' And this time no vagueness please." No mention was made of stating the relative merits of each alternative."

Heh. Sorry, I'll be more careful

Ok, you have no clue. Thats all i wanted to know.
How does that follow?

Grow up.

And criminals are human, animals dont do that.

They ARE inhuman. By choosing to initiate physical force or fraud without the consent of their respective targets, they renounce their humanity.