Getting a jump on 2012 taxes

<p>For starters, I’d like to see a true balance sheet and income statement for the feds including everything that people like to conveniently leave off. Yes, there are lots of areas where more money can be got, and I agree completely that non-profits and donations to them should be looked at. </p>

<p>But the bigger issue is always on the other side - spending. Unless you have laws that say you cannot spend more than you raise other than when Martians invade, and Ponzis are banned, things will never improve. Anything involving receipts and payments separated by time must have laws to keep them actuarily honest or you’ll always have people who give a buck and demand a return of two, “because they have paid in” and no amount of revenues will help. If anything it’ll make it worse because the more money that’s available, perhaps in the short term, the more they will spend, probably institutionalizing it so that it stays after the revenue source dries up. </p>

<p>Look at universities - as long as the supply/demand is in their favor and they are able to turn away people waving money, their spending will rise higher than others who don’t have this luxury. The Govt. is no different - making more money/credit available is a sure strategy for making the problem worse.</p>

<p>^but keeps them in power, that’s all they care about</p>

<p>The situation is not really that dire. I know that will disappoint some people.</p>

<p>The US government is borrowing at negative real interest rates. That is a pretty good deal.</p>

<p>Things have improved greatly since 2009.</p>

<p>[Financial</a> position of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_position_of_the_United_States]Financial”>Financial position of the United States - Wikipedia)</p>

<p>What in this article makes you say things have “improved greatly” since 2009?</p>

<p>Stock prices for one…</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>By that standard, neither was Madoff. If he was allowed to expand his base of investors and his solvency was measured by how much he took in and paid out one year at a time, he was doing better than the Feds. It’s silly to talk about the Feds being $16T in the hole and conveniently leave out items that are 20, 30, or 40T out of whack.<br>
Geeps, your short statement says it all.</p>

<p>Dadof3, are you kidding? </p>

<p>I am involved in two ponzi schemes now. You don’t know what you are talking about.</p>

<p>The net worth of the United States is 75 TRILLION.</p>

<p>That is an approximate number. That is not my number.</p>

<p>Madoff’s scam had a negative net worth.</p>

<p>People like to look at future liabilities and panic. They like to try to get other people to panic. </p>

<p>I have no idea why they do this. I guess they think getting people to panic is a thrill. </p>

<p>Looking at future liabilities without looking at future assets and income is ridiculous.</p>

<p>Some of our favorite corporations have lots of debt, and will increase their debt over time by several hundred percent. But their assets and income will go up also.</p>

<p>Please direct me to a link that shows the Feds balance sheet up by $75T where assets and liabilities are treated similar to how a company is expected to do.</p>

<p>The country is worth 75 trillion. The fed govt does not have to be worth 75 trillion.</p>

<p>In 75 years the country is going to be worth what? Over 1 quadrillion?</p>

<p>The government is not a corporation. The government is in much better shape than a corporation. The govt can tax, print money, etc…</p>

<p>You are looking for the wrong things.</p>

<p>With negative interest rates, the government should be borrowing money.</p>

<p>And a lot of the government debt is owned by US citizens and entities.</p>

<br>

<br>

<p>Does that include corporations that are privately owned? Or just the natural resources. Does it include private homes, cars, computers and other assets? Does that include foreign debt held?</p>

<p>Let me understand this right: The Feds themselves are in the hole for 50-100T and don’t have money to cover it. Those of us who have worked and saved have 75T. So the argument is if they reach over and take the money, they’re fine. It’s really comforting. I’m sure the Greeks felt this way too.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Reminds me of 1917 - we all know how it ended. I had to live through the aftermath of it, when everything was falling apart. It was not pretty.</p>

<p>P.S. Having escaped that, it boggles my mind to see that US is heading in that direction and so many people do not realize that.</p>

<p>^^Was this in another life or are you in your 90’s?</p>

<p>You’re in your 90s?</p>

<p>^^^^^</p>

<p>I lived through the end of it (meaning the end of Soviet Union), when there was nothing left to take…</p>

<p>This is when there were times that there was nothing, absolutely nothing in stores. They were empty. If you did not have supply of food stashed away, you might as well starve to death or go buy on black market.</p>

<p>And then there was the summer of 1991, when I saw tanks driving on the road in front of my house. And then there was fall of 1993 with another failed government takeover. It was terrifying. I left in 1994.</p>

<p>How old are you??? There is way too much worrying here when the world is going to end in 8 days anyways.</p>

<p>The Fed is in the hole 50 to 75 trillion the same way the gdp of the US is going to be north of 512 trillion a year in 75 years and government receipts are going to be 90 trillion a year. And the net worth of the country is going to 2.4 quadrillion in 75 years (I am only compounding at 5 percent a year). </p>

<p>The 50 to 75 billion dollar number is an assumption based on projections.</p>

<p>So people better save a lot of money.</p>

<p>At 4 percent inflation you are going to need 400,000 36 years to match
what 100,000 buys today.</p>

<p>At 2 percent inflation, you only need 200,000 in 36 years to match what 100,000 buys today.</p>

<p>Look at that…I changed the projection, from 4 percent to 2 percent, just 2 little percent a year, and you only need half the money.</p>

<p>All these numbers like 50 to 75 trillion dollar shortfalls are guesses…</p>

<p>I am 38. Not sure what it has to do with anything though.</p>

<p>Well, my grandparents lost everything when the Communists took over Russia and my grandparents and my dad lost practically everything when Communists took over China, </p>

<p>And the US is nothing like those countries…and if we share the wealth a little bit we won’t become like those countries.</p>

<p>But if we continue in the US to concentrate more wealth and income in the hands of fewer and fewer people, all bets are off.</p>