Fixing the budget problem

[hwt 0]

Quote

>Cut this government in half . get the government the fuck out of our lives.
>One thing is for sure , DO NOT RAISE THE DEBT CEILING .

It is ironic indeed that in another thread, when Obama said that not raising the debt ceiling would result in reduced benefits, you called it "political bullshit", called him a "clown" for even suggesting that.

Would you apply the same descriptors to your calls to do the same thing, given that they won't even make a dent in the deficit?

Your last statement demonstrates your lack in understanding just how much a determent the local, state and federal government has placed on the businesses in this country . We are unable to compete with the world. If businesses in America prosper , we all prosper...

[DanG 1]

Quote

Why doesn't the government just decide to eliminate federal income taxes for 1 year? Then people will have more money to spend which will create jobs, reducing unemployment and the revenue will pour into the IRS after the year. Makes more sense to me than the government using money to target pork projects in return for political favors.

Because people won't spend that money to create jobs, because they know the money won't be there next year. You yourself said you are holding back creating two new jobs because of uncertainties in your future tax burden. The changes need to be comprehensive, and people need to believe they will be long lasting and predictable.

- Dan G

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Why doesn't the government just decide to eliminate federal income taxes for 1 year? Then people will have more money to spend which will create jobs, reducing unemployment and the revenue will pour into the IRS after the year. Makes more sense to me than the government using money to target pork projects in return for political favors.

Because people won't spend that money to create jobs, because they know the money won't be there next year. You yourself said you are holding back creating two new jobs because of uncertainties in your future tax burden. The changes need to be comprehensive, and people need to believe they will be long lasting and predictable.

I disagree. I think this would jump-start the economy more than the stimulus program and I think that after the year people will begin spending because they will have more confidence in the direction the country is moving. I don't think people are holding off spending because they don't have the money, I think it's just the fear of the future because they don't see things getting better. I'm not so concerned about doing business with the 9.2% that are unemployed, I'm concerned with the 91.8 that are employed. Make them feel more confident they aren't going to lose their jobs and they will spend.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Why doesn't the government just decide to eliminate federal income taxes for 1 year? Then people will have more money to spend which will create jobs, reducing unemployment and the revenue will pour into the IRS after the year. Makes more sense to me than the government using money to target pork projects in return for political favors.

Because people won't spend that money to create jobs, because they know the money won't be there next year. You yourself said you are holding back creating two new jobs because of uncertainties in your future tax burden. The changes need to be comprehensive, and people need to believe they will be long lasting and predictable.

You just made a very nice argument AGAINST the stimulus bill.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Why doesn't the government just decide to eliminate federal income taxes for 1 year? Then people will have more money to spend which will create jobs, reducing unemployment and the revenue will pour into the IRS after the year. Makes more sense to me than the government using money to target pork projects in return for political favors.

Because people won't spend that money to create jobs, because they know the money won't be there next year. You yourself said you are holding back creating two new jobs because of uncertainties in your future tax burden. The changes need to be comprehensive, and people need to believe they will be long lasting and predictable.

You just made a very nice argument AGAINST the stimulus bill.

It didn't work because it didn't "trickle down" to enough people. Plus those "shovel ready jobs" mostly didn't happen. The question is, what happened to the money?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Why doesn't the government just decide to eliminate federal income taxes for 1 year? Then people will have more money to spend which will create jobs, reducing unemployment and the revenue will pour into the IRS after the year. Makes more sense to me than the government using money to target pork projects in return for political favors.

Because people won't spend that money to create jobs, because they know the money won't be there next year. You yourself said you are holding back creating two new jobs because of uncertainties in your future tax burden. The changes need to be comprehensive, and people need to believe they will be long lasting and predictable.

You just made a very nice argument AGAINST the stimulus bill.

It didn't work because it didn't "trickle down" to enough people. Plus those "shovel ready jobs" mostly didn't happen. The question is, what happened to the money?

Unions and gov't jobs that don't produce anything.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Why doesn't the government just decide to eliminate federal income taxes for 1 year? Then people will have more money to spend which will create jobs, reducing unemployment and the revenue will pour into the IRS after the year. Makes more sense to me than the government using money to target pork projects in return for political favors.

Because people won't spend that money to create jobs, because they know the money won't be there next year. You yourself said you are holding back creating two new jobs because of uncertainties in your future tax burden. The changes need to be comprehensive, and people need to believe they will be long lasting and predictable.

You just made a very nice argument AGAINST the stimulus bill.

It didn't work because it didn't "trickle down" to enough people. Plus those "shovel ready jobs" mostly didn't happen. The question is, what happened to the money?

Worse than that! The stimulus did not work because the money was given to union and state governments to help maintian the benifits. (not that is would have worked to any extent anyway)That created nothing and now that that money is gone, the states are doing things like what WI did (which is a good thing anyway you look at it)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

I personally think that this is a damned good start.

http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf

This is the report of President Obama's Debt Commission. I think it has some fantastic ideas. It's bipartisan. And it mentions that the bullshit politicking we're seeing should be punished by the voters.

Which side is actualy following the recommendations? Neither. The only idea in it even being put forth that is in the document is "no additional taxes." But the GOP isn't talking about streamlining the tax code or anything.

This is about pushing the problem down the road to be handled later. Neither side willing to fix the long term.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

On the revenue side, our business and income taxes make up about a trillion of our income. So we raise them by 80% by an across the board tax rate increase. So the current top rate (35%) goes to 63%. If you make $40,000 a year, your tax bracket goes from 25% to 45%. Everybody gets impacted, unless you make less than $8500 a year.

Companies see a similar increase; an increase in tax rates of 80%.

Would that sort of compromise be acceptable to both sides?

I will admit that everyone needs to be a part of this solution but I have a hard time with a simple across the board tax increase on everyone. There is a minor segment of our society which has profited immensely and vastly disproportionately over the last three decades from the current tax system. Closing tax loopholes, which keep the effective tax rate for these folks lower than that of the middle class, is imperative IMO. So is increasing the capital gains tax. I can think of no reason that these people should have a marginal tax rate of 15% on much of their earnings, especially when you consider that the effective tax rate for nearly everyone is lower than the marginal tax rate.

[mnealtx 0]

Anyone that invests can get that rate - this is just economy of scale jealousy.

Higher capital tax rates stifle the economy.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[lawrocket 3]

The fiscal commission recommended taxing capital games and dividends as income, but lowering the tax rates significantly (and closing loopholes).

This is a system that I cannot see too much trouble with. It imposes some fairness and equality to the tax treatment of all. Of course, the left won't have it. They'd rather tax corporations and the wealthy at a higher rate but cut breaks to them for campaign contributions. Reforming the tax system to remove tax breaks and eliminating earmarks means elimination of the greatest money laundering system that Congress has.

Closing loopholes and lowering the tax rate is what happened in 1986 and the Tax Reform Act. It was bipartisan (Reagan, Rostenkowski and Bradley were the point ment). Since then, the marginal rates have gone up and loopholes have been opened.

The biggest proposal I saw was that the debt commission recommended LIMITING revenues. The commission understands that the quest for more revenue is self defeating. When have you ever heard a politician say, "we need to take in less money?"

This is the groundbreaking - and COMPLETELY contrary to the stated position of the Democrats and the de facto position of the GOP.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[mnealtx 0]

I haven't been able to get the report to download to read it - I'll try again in a bit.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[chuckakers 372]

Quote

We make up half of that with spending cuts...

B.O. would never let that happen...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19v5Kjmc8FI

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Anyone that invests can get that rate.

Let them eat cake too.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[airdvr 200]

Quote

OK. We make a minimum 10% tax for everyone, no matter what their income

Might as well tax them at 100%. They make no reportable income and pay no taxes.

Quote

Are you suggesting that ALL the savings comes from spending cuts?

Indeed. I'm against cutting benefits for the people who've earned it and are due. It took years to get into this mess and it will take years to get out, if ever. I would support a means test for SS benefits. I support random drug testing for welfare recipients. I think it's always been a bad idea to incentivize creating mor mouths to feed when you're on welfare. I think we spend way too much money on foreign aid and was happy to see this week that we cut aid to Pakistan. Any way you slice it somebody's going to feel their getting fucked. I would just like to see us fuck the people who don't contribute, never contribute, and have no plans to before turning your sights on productive citizenry.

You who say we need to cut military spending...I agree. Do you have a firm grip on how much of our current economy is dependent upon military spending?

BTW, how many weeks of unemployment are we up to now?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Do you have a firm grip on how much of our current economy is dependent upon military spending?
?

Way too much, and that is a big part of the problem.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[airdvr 200]

Quote

Quote

Do you have a firm grip on how much of our current economy is dependent upon military spending?
?

Way too much, and that is a big part of the problem.

Agreed John. I'm sure you understand what cutting the militayr budge by 50% would do to unemployment.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[grimmie 177]

This guy leads the charge for no taxes on the wealthy.

Rich people don't create jobs. Most small business leaders are middle class.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/07/14/norquist.pledge/

[lawrocket 3]

Might sound odd, but I am not necessarily in disagreement with Kallend. Part of the problem is that in order to invest they have to have assets TO invest. For many of us this is difficult. Lowering the tax burden on all can allow some spare cash to be invested.

There is the sense that people earning a living off of capital gains is somewhat unjust. Nevertheless, there is wisdom in encouraging investment and a lower tax rate helps. The debt Commission actually recommended treating capital gains as income and taxing as such, but significantly lowering the income tax rate.

I think it's an idea that deserves some exploring.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[weekender 0]

Quote

Might sound odd, but I am not necessarily in disagreement with Kallend. Part of the problem is that in order to invest they have to have assets TO invest. For many of us this is difficult. Lowering the tax burden on all can allow some spare cash to be invested.

There is the sense that people earning a living off of capital gains is somewhat unjust. Nevertheless, there is wisdom in encouraging investment and a lower tax rate helps. The debt Commission actually recommended treating capital gains as income and taxing as such, but significantly lowering the income tax rate.

I think it's an idea that deserves some exploring.

Its not so easy to just raise taxes on the rich hedgefund managers. the hedge fund industry is just that. an industry. it employs thousands and thousands of people. very few of which will ever become rich. regular people doing regular jobs you'd find in any office. adjusting the tax rates could have a material impact on that industry and them. this is why in NY its rarely called upon to change that section of the tax code. regular people could lose their jobs.

it seems to me that outside of NY people have this image. they see hedgefund managers as mean old men with top hats and monocles that arrive to work in chauffeur driven cars, throwing coins on the ground and laughing at homeless children chasing them. Picture Mr. Burns from the Simpsons.

In NYC they are just viewed as your boss or somebody elses boss.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[billvon 2,478]

>Might as well tax them at 100%. They make no reportable income and pay no taxes.

Incorrect.

>I would just like to see us fuck the people . . .

You can do that on your own; don't need government to do that.

>Do you have a firm grip on how much of our current economy is dependent upon
>military spending?

Quite a bit. Make no mistake; cutting that amount of government spending will decimate our economy, and it will take decades to recover. But if fixing the problem is worth that, then that's what we have to do.

[lawrocket 3]

Significant cuts in spending mean:
(1) Medicare;
(2) Social Security;
(3) Defense;
(4) Medicaid; and
(5) Debt servicing.

This is 80% of the budget. And climbing. The biggest are Medicare and Social Security and they are getting bigger. Without any changes to the laws these two programs - and debt servicing - will constitute the entirety of funding for the federal government. They are underfunded by $100 trillion by 2100. That's "underfunded."

I was reading yesterdau that there are fewer children now as a percentage of the population than ever before. Medicare and Social Security - since they are not paid for by investment bur are funded by present earners, it creates a bad situation. It is a Ponzi Scheme because it depends on new contributors to support the old ones. Those that got in early got the benefit.

Kallend has written often about the fantastc returns on SS. Of course. Madoff would have drooled over them. When there aren't enough new inverstors to pay the earlier ones the system collapses. We are on the brink of it now. The Debt Commission said it.

So the problem, as positioned by the Left, is that the proposals balance the budget on the shoulders of the old and the poor. Well, this makes sense, since it isn't the weathy and young that are being funded. So if the balance of the budget is spent on the elderly, the poor and defense, then budget cuts are going to affect the elderly, the poor and defense.

The debt commission recommended a slash in taxes, a slash in benefits, and a gradual drawing down of the government by loss of government jobs through attrition.

It's worth giving it a shot. We have no solution that is painless. Defense? Slash it. Medicare and Social Security? Slash it. Taxes? Lower them.

The economy has sucked lately. Increasing spending hasn't fixed it. The trillions borrowe and spent haven't worked. It seems as though something new could be tried.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,478]

>It's worth giving it a shot. We have no solution that is painless. Defense?
>Slash it. Medicare and Social Security? Slash it. Taxes? Lower them.

That makes as much sense as raising taxes and increasing spending once we have enough money. Shouldn't take much increase, right? Just a little bit.

We will never make any progress unless both sides are willing to compromise. If you think it's better to keep racking up debt than to compromise your politics, then that's a decision you can make. But best make it and then accept the consequences, rather than just refuse to think about it and then act surprised when the problem keeps getting worse.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

>It's worth giving it a shot. We have no solution that is painless. Defense?
>Slash it. Medicare and Social Security? Slash it. Taxes? Lower them.

That makes as much sense as raising taxes and increasing spending once we have enough money. Shouldn't take much increase, right? Just a little bit.

We will never make any progress unless both sides are willing to compromise. If you think it's better to keep racking up debt than to compromise your politics, then that's a decision you can make. But best make it and then accept the consequences, rather than just refuse to think about it and then act surprised when the problem keeps getting worse.

By raising taxes are you talking about simplification and elimination of loopholes? Then yes, I agree.

However once simplified, we should hold off on changing the base income tax rates until we see what effect was achieved.

Taxes are a funny thing as they impact not just what is collected but also encourage or discourage growth as well. Tax too little and while growth flourishes, tax revenue suffers. Tax too much and growth is stifled, tax revenue suffers.

Finding that proper balance is going to take time. In the meantime simplification of the tax code and budgets cuts are straightforward.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[billvon 2,478]

>Taxes are a funny thing as they impact not just what is collected but also encourage or
>discourage growth as well. Tax too little and while growth flourishes, tax revenue
>suffers. Tax too much and growth is stifled, tax revenue suffers.

True of government spending as well. Spend too little and while the deficit drops temporarily, revenues tend to go down overall because defense contractors lay off workers, solders are discharged, teachers are laid off, companies sell less goods - and that all depresses the economy, which leads to lower tax revenues.

That in and of itself, of course, is not a reason to spend lots of money. Growth is not the goal of either spending or tax cuts - although it is reasonable to consider the effects of both on growth since that indirectly determines future revenues.