The Federal Deficit and Amtrak

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.

scientist

Train Attendant
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
22
Location
Arlington, VA
As you probably know, Congress returns to Washington this week, and its Special Deficit Committee needs to come up with $1.5 trillion in budget cuts. Amtrak and many other programs can expect to be up for cuts. The link below is to a Boston Globe article in which former senator John Sununu (New Hampshire) puts forward that it is time to eliminate Amtrak's long-distance routes. Take a read:

http://www.boston.co...ks_crazy_train/

So, what do you all think? What would you tell Congress? As Sununu notes, we are hearing from all sides that there is a call for "shared sacrifice." Let's start the discussion now (before Congress returns to work) to see what the forum is thinking about the budget deficit, shared sacrifice, and Amtrak.
 
When they raise the tax rate on millionaires and billionaires to what it was under President Clinton,(we had a budget surplus when he left office!) and cut the Defense Budget, then the budgets of the other departments and programs, including Amtrak,(which is pocket change compared to the wasteful stuff!) could be cut the same percentage! Shared means just that, shared! Fair is fair! Warren Buffet is right! :excl: :excl: :excl:
 
SSSHHHH! Many of us are in denial around here.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall in Mr. Boardman's office whenever the future of Amtrak is discussed in earnest.

My impression is that things are so schizophrenic in THAT town just to the north of me, that it is hard to know what to believe. I am very worried about what the future holds, especially when the extremem right wing, which the country seemed to kowtow to in the last Congressional elections, has Amtrak in its sights. You know the drill: Passenger rail is socialistic, therefore the Red menace must be stamped out!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Part of the problem is, pardon my French, but cutting Amtrak is akin to telling somebody not to fart in the middle of a hurricane. It's not a fix. Now, if we want to talk about decent sacrifices, why don't we punt the cost of airline security back to the airports (i.e. have the TSA more or less bill the airports for their agents if they use the TSA)? As I understand it, that's closer to $4-5 billion right there?

Another point to make is that, increasingly, you've got a lot of corridor trains that are "turning the corner" on profitability (I think we're up to about 10 that are within 10% CR of profitability), and the numbers have been sharply improving on a number of the LD services.
 
The whole millionaire/billionaire thing is a smokesecreen to keep people looking another way while they soak it to people making much less. There are not enough M/B's to make a difference worth noticing. Likewise, there is not enough money going to Amtrak to make a difference worth noticing. Again, to make Amtrak an issue is a smokescreen. There is enough fraud in medicare and welfare to pay for 10 or more likely 100 Amtrak's. Start there. Look into military contracts. Prohibit people who have served in the military as anything above some rank around Captain, the Army version, not the Navy version, from working for any company doing business with the Defence department until at least 10 years after their retirement. Likewise for any other person in the government from going to any private sector business that deals with that part of government. This should go a long way to reducing costs in government contracts.
 
I read this article earlier today along with the 63+ comments written in response to it. By a magnitude of 10 to 1, readers called out Sununu's disingenuousness and hypocrisy with great clarity. He's merely a right wing ideologue who, after losing his 2008 reelection bid to the Senate, is desperately gasping for one last breath of relevancy. [And no, I am not a Dem but rather a lifelong independent.] Amtrak has been shamefully starved over the years, and there are thousands of other places in government that must be shaved before we talk about stripping the food out of the hands of the starving.

You don't ask a shark attack victim bleeding to death in the ER to donate blood. The time has come to invest properly in Amtrak, not begin arguing about what should be written on its tombstone.
 
The whole millionaire/billionaire thing is a smokesecreen to keep people looking another way while they soak it to people making much less. There are not enough M/B's to make a difference worth noticing. Likewise, there is not enough money going to Amtrak to make a difference worth noticing. Again, to make Amtrak an issue is a smokescreen. There is enough fraud in medicare and welfare to pay for 10 or more likely 100 Amtrak's. Start there. Look into military contracts. Prohibit people who have served in the military as anything above some rank around Captain, the Army version, not the Navy version, from working for any company doing business with the Defence department until at least 10 years after their retirement. Likewise for any other person in the government from going to any private sector business that deals with that part of government. This should go a long way to reducing costs in government contracts.
Good ideas George, you are correct! However Ill point out that 5% of our population has 90% of the wealth in this Country!!! Not even during the Gilded Age, and the Robber Baron Days, was there such disparity in Income/assests as exists now!

What Warren Buffet is saying is that he pays less in Taxes than his secretary, this is blatantly unfair! And whats up with the Oil Companies and the Multi-Nationals making Billions and paying NO Income Tax!

As I said, stop the waste overseas,(undeclared phony,pointless "wars") make the Rich,say anyone with assets over $1 million, (people as well as corporations)pay their fair share, and Voila, we can then take a look @ Social Programs! The richest country on earth shouldnt have 14 million out of work, 30% of the people without Healthcare, and people starving to death in our cities!! Amtrak is necessary but it's budget, as you said, is pocket change compared to the graft and waste going on in government at all levels!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The whole millionaire/billionaire thing is a smokesecreen to keep people looking another way while they soak it to people making much less. There are not enough M/B's to make a difference worth noticing. Likewise, there is not enough money going to Amtrak to make a difference worth noticing. Again, to make Amtrak an issue is a smokescreen. There is enough fraud in medicare and welfare to pay for 10 or more likely 100 Amtrak's. Start there. Look into military contracts. Prohibit people who have served in the military as anything above some rank around Captain, the Army version, not the Navy version, from working for any company doing business with the Defence department until at least 10 years after their retirement. Likewise for any other person in the government from going to any private sector business that deals with that part of government. This should go a long way to reducing costs in government contracts.
Good ideas George, you are correct! However Ill point out that 1% of our population has 90% of the wealth in this Country! Not even during the Gilded Age and the Robber Baron Days was there such disparity in Income/assests as exists now!

What Warren Buffet is saying is that he pays less in Taxes than his secretary, this is blatantly unfair! And whats up with the Oil Companies and the Multi-Nationals making Billions and paying NO Income Tax!

As I said, stop the waste overseas,(undeclared phony,pointless "wars") make the Rich,say anyone with assets over $1 million, (people as well as corporations)pay their fair share, and Voila, we can then take a look @ Social Programs! The richest country on earth shouldnt have 14 million out of work, 30% of the people without Healthcare, and people starving to death in our cities!! Amtrak is necessary but it's budget, as you said, is pocket change compared to the graft and waste going on in government at all levels!!
It's not 90%, Jim. Per this article from Business Insider, it was about 1/3 in 2007...and the recession hasn't been that bad. The top 10% comes to about 71%...but it's not anywhere near 90% for the top 1%.

Also, what Warren Buffet is saying in most of those points isn't that he pays less in dollar terms, but that his total marginal rate is substantially lower than hers because most of his income is dividends rather than wages (and therefore not subject to payroll taxes...and also taxed at a lower rate).
 
Also, what Warren Buffet is saying in most of those points isn't that he pays less in dollar terms, but that his total marginal rate is substantially lower than hers because most of his income is dividends rather than wages (and therefore not subject to payroll taxes...and also taxed at a lower rate).
However, what is not being said is that dividend income makes two passes by the tax collector. First the tax on corporate profits and then a tax on the dividend income. Quite how that is sliced up I do not know. However, it would seem most reasonable to make the whole tax fall on the person receiving the dividend and at the same rate as income tax. After all, why should the type of income be making much if any difference. If that happened, the Buffet would be paying the right slice of the pie.
 
Also, what Warren Buffet is saying in most of those points isn't that he pays less in dollar terms, but that his total marginal rate is substantially lower than hers because most of his income is dividends rather than wages (and therefore not subject to payroll taxes...and also taxed at a lower rate).
However, what is not being said is that dividend income makes two passes by the tax collector. First the tax on corporate profits and then a tax on the dividend income. Quite how that is sliced up I do not know. However, it would seem most reasonable to make the whole tax fall on the person receiving the dividend and at the same rate as income tax. After all, why should the type of income be making much if any difference. If that happened, the Buffet would be paying the right slice of the pie.
Oh, I absolutely agree. That said, I also tend to prefer policies that promote returns via dividends over returns via stock price increases. However, all of this is sort of an aside to the topic at hand.
 
The whole millionaire/billionaire thing is a smokesecreen to keep people looking another way while they soak it to people making much less. There are not enough M/B's to make a difference worth noticing.
John Stewart does a hilarious job of breaking down who actually has the money and who is actually going to be paying more in taxes when all is said and done.

See this link...
 
There is enough fraud in medicare and welfare to pay for 10 or more likely 100 Amtrak's.
Really? There's $100 billion per year in medicare/welfare fraud? I'd like to see some proof of that.
I'd love to see his numbers to back up his claims about the insignificance of higher tax rates for millionaires and billionaires as well.
 
There is enough fraud in medicare and welfare to pay for 10 or more likely 100 Amtrak's.
Really? There's $100 billion per year in medicare/welfare fraud? I'd like to see some proof of that.
I'd love to see his numbers to back up his claims about the insignificance of higher tax rates for millionaires and billionaires as well.
Yes, so me real numbers to back up claims would be very useful. Otherwise it is just a contest of he said - she said.

I was reading this delightful book titled Jat Age on my flight back from Halifax yesterday, which is about the history of the development of the first commercial jetliners - the de Haviland Comet and the Boeing 707. I was surprised to learn that bill Allen was able to convince his board to get Boeing to foot the bill for the development of the Dash-8 mainly because of high corporate income tax back then. He figured that he could write off the research expense against the huge profits from military contracts while building a future on the commercial aviation side for his company, since he did not see the military side ever coming back to the WW II levels, instead of paying them out as taxes and dividends. Boeing at that time had less than 1% market share in the commercial aircraft market. The government at that time was unwilling to subsidize research for commercial jet aircraft, and Boeing was already getting some development money for the military side of things.

Well, the net net of it was that Boeing and the US vaulted to the forefront of the commercial jet age after a relatively late start because of Bill Allen, who was actually tax expert, deciding to go the way he did. And as they say the rest is history. Counter-intuitive, isn't it? It is conceivable that if business income taxes were low there would have been no Boeing 707!
 
I'd love to see his numbers to back up his claims about the insignificance of higher tax rates for millionaires and billionaires as well.
Number of Millionaires in America 3,104,000

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millionaire#United_States)

Federal Deficit

As of August 3, 2011, the gross debt was $14.70 trillion dollars

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt)

The tax increase on each millionaire would need to be $4,735,824.74 to pay off the debt.

You guys need to learn to use Google, LOL.
 
I'd love to see his numbers to back up his claims about the insignificance of higher tax rates for millionaires and billionaires as well.
Number of Millionaires in America 3,104,000

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millionaire#United_States)

Federal Deficit

As of August 3, 2011, the gross debt was $14.70 trillion dollars

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt)

The tax increase on each millionaire would need to be $4,735,824.74 to pay off the debt.

You guys need to learn to use Google, LOL.
Did anyone say that the entire debt must be paid off by raising taxes on the millionaires? I must have missed that part. That particular figure is not particularly useful for the overall discussion. It is a good soundbite though! :)
 
I'd love to see his numbers to back up his claims about the insignificance of higher tax rates for millionaires and billionaires as well.
Number of Millionaires in America 3,104,000

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millionaire#United_States)

Federal Deficit

As of August 3, 2011, the gross debt was $14.70 trillion dollars

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt)

The tax increase on each millionaire would need to be $4,735,824.74 to pay off the debt.

You guys need to learn to use Google, LOL.
There is a significant difference between the annual deficit and the Federal debt - about $13 Trillion dollars.

If the millionaires and billionaires would pay the annual deficit, it would cost them $548,680 each.

The forecasted annual deficit is approximately $1,700,000,000 for fiscal year 2011.
 
There is a significant difference between the annual deficit and the Federal debt - about $13 Trillion dollars.

If the millionaires and billionaires would pay the annual deficit, it would cost them $548,680 each.

The forecasted annual deficit is approximately $1,700,000,000 for fiscal year 2011.

The problem with that is that the forecasted annual deficit is based on the current interest rate. If you have an increase in inflation, you will result in having an increase in the interest rate. This will cause your forecast of the annual deficit to be way off and to take a significant percentage of your income from the tax base.

It's a lot like having a variable rate on your mortgage and then having the interest rate rise. The result can quickly become out of control.
 
Bored? Looking for something challenging and important to do? Boy, what an opportunity! <g>

Amtrak needs support. No matter how you cut it, what the reasons or justifications you formulate, it's existence depends on politics. Anybody who decides they want to see Amtrak long distance passenger survive, much less prosper, might want to consider applying as much "encouragement" as they can to anybody they can reach. Friends, enemies, power figures, children, anybody. Do something "out in the world". Anything. Anywhere. Starting now. Work up and go on from there.

ACT on your ideas and beliefs in this forum so they become real out there and make a difference to the next generation.

Rufus
 
There is a significant difference between the annual deficit and the Federal debt - about $13 Trillion dollars.

If the millionaires and billionaires would pay the annual deficit, it would cost them $548,680 each.

The forecasted annual deficit is approximately $1,700,000,000 for fiscal year 2011.

The problem with that is that the forecasted annual deficit is based on the current interest rate. If you have an increase in inflation, you will result in having an increase in the interest rate. This will cause your forecast of the annual deficit to be way off and to take a significant percentage of your income from the tax base.

It's a lot like having a variable rate on your mortgage and then having the interest rate rise. The result can quickly become out of control.
But if they payed the ~$550K on an average that would make a significant dent irrespective of the interest rate issue. So the interest rate issue appears to be a red herring to me.
 
Did anyone say that the entire debt must be paid off by raising taxes on the millionaires? I must have missed that part. That particular figure is not particularly useful for the overall discussion. It is a good soundbite though! :)
The part you missed:

http://www.peoplesworld.org/congressional-democrats-call-for-raising-taxes-on-millionaires/
Nowhere in that article did it say that anyone was suggesting the entire deficit be eliminated by taxing the wealthy.
 
But if they payed the ~$550K on an average that would make a significant dent irrespective of the interest rate issue. So the interest rate issue appears to be a red herring to me.

Negative.

By your own post you said that you wanted half a million from each millionaire just to balance the annual debt. You still have 14.7 Trillion in debt that you must pay interest on.

An example: Just because you balance your yearly household budget doesn’t make your mortgage go away.

That’s no red herring.
 
Nowhere in that article did it say that anyone was suggesting the entire deficit be eliminated by taxing the wealthy.

That's kind of the point. The Democratic Senators are saying they are serious about reducing the deficit by taxing the millionaires:

"It goes to the heart of whether we are serious about reducing the deficit, as opposed to just shrinking government," a Democratic Senate aide told The Hill.

My point is, the math doesn't add up. Plus, pulling that kind of capital out of the private sector is going to produce huge numbers in unemployment. Remember, there is only so much capital availble.
 
But if they payed the ~$550K on an average that would make a significant dent irrespective of the interest rate issue. So the interest rate issue appears to be a red herring to me.

Negative.

By your own post you said that you wanted half a million from each millionaire just to balance the annual debt. You still have 14.7 Trillion in debt that you must pay interest on.

An example: Just because you balance your yearly household budget doesn’t make your mortgage go away.

That’s no red herring.
Stop being silly. We are talking of the annual deficit, and you keep setting up the strawman of total debt and keep knocking it down. No one has said that the entire debt can be wiped out by just taxing the billionaires. Of course other cuts will be needed and other taxes will also need to be raised to get the whole mess under control.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top