Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US Published National Debt: $28T. The Truth: $146T. Each Taxpayer's Share: $951k

truthinaccounting.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–168 of 168 posts

Re: US Published National Debt: $28T. The Truth: $146T. Each Taxpayer's Share: $951k

#161

Post by subject119 »

TbobbyZ wrote: post #104
meepmorp wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh no, whatever shall we do without if we no longer have rich people but still have all their assets?

Zimbabwe. That’s what we will do. You can’t simple hand assets over to normal people and expect the assets to maintain their value. The Zimbabwe government took the farms from their owners and gave them to normal people. Mismanagement of them lead to food shortages.

Look at how well our government manages their current assets, if given more assets they will surely do well managing those too! ;(

Re: US Published National Debt: $28T. The Truth: $146T. Each Taxpayer's Share: $951k

#162

Post by slv77 »

mfer wrote: post #43
janandonly wrote: post #3

This is more a discussion of semantics than about the amount itself. The way I read the statistics is that the current debt is $28T of money that is already spent while the quoted debt of $146T is the amount of money needed to be spent to fill full current promises and expenses . It's interesting that since the USA got off the gold standard in 1971[1], and thereby all countries that had a currency backed by dollars,…

> My parents are in their 70's and they still have furniture that was (second hand) given to them when they got married. Can you imagine an piece of IKEA furniture being used daily and lasting for >40 years? My point about "cheaper alternatives" exactly... Part of this is cultural. People now consume more than they used to. For many generations people patched their clothes. Now they throw them out. It's a culture of…

Outside of housing, healthcare, daycare, education and transportation the two income household of today consumes less then a single income household in the 1970’s. The spending is different, with households today spending less on things like china or formal clothes but net it all out and it is less.

Housing is larger but also older and mostly driven by proximity to good schools. It is hard to consider the other expenses discretionary.

This was the conclusion a Elizabeth Warrens research summarized in The Two Income Trap.

Re: US Published National Debt: $28T. The Truth: $146T. Each Taxpayer's Share: $951k

#163

Post by EastOfTruth »

jfengel wrote: post #30

It's a misleading way of calculating the number, since it refers to all of the future debt obligations, including Social Security out many decades -- but also ignoring the fact that we'll be collecting taxes all that time. It's a bit like concluding that you're a million dollars in debt because you are going to need to buy food for the rest of your life. I suppose it's true -- it is something you need to plan for. Bu…

28T or 150T ... either way it is really bad....

Re: US Published National Debt: $28T. The Truth: $146T. Each Taxpayer's Share: $951k

#164

Post by TbobbyZ »

Ekaros wrote: post #143
m_ke wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No sane person is sitting on mountains of cash.

I take you then don't consider Warren Buffet sane? As he is currently sitting on mountains of cash, or at least would be if it weren't digital...

Warren Buffet isn’t most rich people…

Re: US Published National Debt: $28T. The Truth: $146T. Each Taxpayer's Share: $951k

#165

Post by dhritzkiv »

OldHand2018 wrote: post #142
dhritzkiv wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's nice and in good condition, then yes. Nothing "depressing" about that. Even if tastes change, styles usually come back around, hence why good century- or MCM furniture is so sought after as antiques/vintage. It's to be seen if laminate or pressed fibre board furniture will stand the test of time, even if it comes back into style in 25 years. HDPE might last longer, as long as it doesn't discolour or crack.

Your viewpoint (which matches mine) is in the minority. The best part of solid wood furniture is the insane depreciation! We moved from a tiny condo to a house this summer. Rented a Home Depot van and ran around picking up free/extremely cheap solid wood furniture! Pieces that cost many thousands new, you can get for $50 or some other token amount. And then you keep it for years, decades, whatever.

Interesting! Your experience does not mirror mine: finding solid wood furniture is either hard and/or expensive.

I don't know how much it might have cost new, but decent quality, older tables, for example, are easily close to $1000CAD and up. This is both antique stores (where there is a understandable markup), but also Craigslist/Kijiji. The only place I've seen similar furniture go for anywhere near $100 are auction sites, but these don't come with the downside of not being able to inspect the piece, and often require you to drive 100s of kms to pick it up. I might also include yard sales, but they are far and few between.

Re: US Published National Debt: $28T. The Truth: $146T. Each Taxpayer's Share: $951k

#166

Post by Jensson »

grawprog wrote: post #67
throwdecro wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can you imagine an piece of IKEA furniture being used daily and lasting for >40 years? Yeah. IKEA's not bad.

Every piece of IKEA furniture I've owned has collapsed or fallen apart within 5 years. I've got an old coffee table I carried in on a skateboard when I was like 13 or something that I found during spring cleanup. It's solid and made of real wood. It's been going strong for 20 years now of heavy use and who knows how long it was used before I got it. I can see it lasting another 20 years easily.

Everything in my home as I grew up was Ikea. It is all there still working 20 years later. If what you are buying isn't holding then you bought some brittle stuff, there is plenty of cheap and sturdy things from ikea but they might not be the best looking furniture.

Re: US Published National Debt: $28T. The Truth: $146T. Each Taxpayer's Share: $951k

#167

Post by OldHand2018 »

dhritzkiv wrote: post #165
OldHand2018 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your viewpoint (which matches mine) is in the minority. The best part of solid wood furniture is the insane depreciation! We moved from a tiny condo to a house this summer. Rented a Home Depot van and ran around picking up free/extremely cheap solid wood furniture! Pieces that cost many thousands new, you can get for $50 or some other token amount. And then you keep it for years, decades, whatever.

Interesting! Your experience does not mirror mine: finding solid wood furniture is either hard and/or expensive. I don't know how much it might have cost new, but decent quality, older tables, for example, are easily close to $1000CAD and up. This is both antique stores (where there is a understandable markup), but also Craigslist/Kijiji. The only place I've seen similar furniture go for anywhere near $100 are auctio…

Nothing we got is ever going to be a valuable antique, despite the ability to last "forever".

From the sounds of it, you are not located near a large city. That may be the difference. I am in the Chicago metro area. I lived in skyscrapers for the last 20 years - in the city there is no stigma attached to doing anything, so there is a thriving market of giving things away or selling them to avoid the trash. All the skyscrapers have loading docks and freight elevators (and they all charge money to dispose of large things that don't fit in the regular trash). It's easy and nobody looks at you strangely or judges you. Out here in my new house on the edge of the metro area, you can tell that things are different. There is less stuff available and when you talk about it people either have a blank look or raise an eyebrow as if to say "Why would you do that, don't you have any money?"

Perhaps next time you head to Toronto/Calgary, bring along a trailer?

Re: US Published National Debt: $28T. The Truth: $146T. Each Taxpayer's Share: $951k

#168

Post by candiodari »

dragonwriter wrote: post #151
tibbon wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Removing the income cap is really a clear way to mitigate this problem greatly. From what I understand it doesn't fix it entirely. I wonder if we could put SS on capital gains, even at 1%. That would help this include investment gains.

Applying the full amount of payroll (both SS and Medicare) tax to income regardless of origin, including capital gains (and the both-halves self-employment style to all non-wage income) or amount (uncapping contributions), while also uncapping benefits (but adding additional “bend points” above the current cap so the revenue-to-obligation ratio for high incomes is better) is a great way to secure the programs, increa…

> But it means that people with disproportionate political clout would be taxed more heavily ...

Not really, you could do what the Jeff Bezos does: "0 profit" (by reinvesting everything) and just enough income to live (very well, but still). Meanwhile the stocks he has amass value (and he can trade stocks, which can't be a taxable event if you use the company to do it and "don't do it yourself", for good reasons (for example joint-ventures would become impossible if this were to be taxed)).

So you can still amass large amounts of wealth under these circumstances without getting taxed on them. Plus you can cheat by having the business pay for your expenses (and if you live for your job that's not even unreasonable).

Post reply on HN