You're President for the day. Fix the budget

[Gunner]

You're president for the day. Fix the budget

Kinda fun!!! It's amazing how when you cut earmarks and entitlements our deficits are significantly reduced.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?ref=weekinreview

 

[thoughtone]

So how much more tax give aways did you give the millionaires and billionaires?

 

[BrainChild09]

So how much more tax give aways did you give the millionaires and billionaires?

Here's a cure for the so-called tax giveaways. Get rid of the myriad deductions and tax credits for EVERYONE. Start over by implementing a flat tax rate for EVERYONE above a floor regularly adjusted for inflation. Introduce a negative income tax into the system. Also get rid of the government subsidies and rule-bending (like exemption from the new healthcare law) for different politically connected companies, corporations, and unions.

I'd really like to see this happen. Under this system, what could you call a tax give-away for millionaires and billionaires? The millions or billions any of these people accumulate is the money they would have earned, same as those who earned hundreds of thousands, or tens of thousands. That'd be fantastic. I don't know if it's politically feasible though.

 

[thoughtone]

Start over by implementing a flat tax rate for EVERYONE

I don't know how old your are, but the US has NEVER had a flat tax. Ever since the mid 1800s the tax rates have been progressive. In fact I can't think of any country that has a flat tax rate. Only the right wing corporatists would come up with such a concept. 15& of the population own over 80% or the wealth. Their is absolutely no reason why we should have flat tax rate.

 

[Fuckallyall]

I don't know how old your are, but the US has NEVER had a flat tax. Ever since the mid 1800s the tax rates have been progressive. In fact I can't think of any country that has a flat tax rate. Only the right wing corporatists would come up with such a concept. 15& of the population own over 80% or the wealth. Their is absolutely no reason why we should have flat tax rate.

Why shouldn't you pay for what you use ?

 

[Lamarr]

You're president for the day. Fix the budget
[/url]

The answer lies in spending cuts, not further taxation

wow, Didn't Bush start the Dept of Homeland Security?
We can start by getting rid of that whole Dept.

oh yeah, bring ALL the troops home!

What else did Bush create that we can get rid of?

 

[nittie]

Hire a private company to do a audit on govt spending. Eliminate the waste and jail the people responsible for it.

Cut the defense budget back to 1980's level and eliminate most if not all contractors.

Put a freeze on wages until the budget is manageable and do something about the postal service there is no way it should be losing billions every year.

End corporate welfare and bailouts.

 

[Retired Mizer]

IMMEDIATELY end the Wars: Iraqi and Afghanistan,THEN let the Bush Crime Family's tax cuts expire TOTALLY. Pass a separate tax cuts for ALL middle class families UP TO $300,000,and let the Republicans vote against them. END ALL corporate tax loopholes for ALL corporations-period. Enforce corrected corporate tax brackets to accurately reflect the true amounts of money that these corporations actually make.Get rid of ALL tax breaks for companies who ship jobs overseas and immediately make it illegal for corporate assets shelter overseas.Also end all disparate trade policies allowing and insisting equally in trade or else we do not enter those agreements.We will then BUILD what we cannot trade for and put folk to work. That will put us on the right path

 

[thoughtone]

The answer lies in spending cuts, not further taxation

wow, Didn't Bush start the Dept of Homeland Security?
We can start by getting rid of that whole Dept.

oh yeah, bring ALL the troops home!

What else did Bush create that we can get rid of?

We can start by getting rid of that whole Dept

Yea and don't forget how efficient FEMA was. Now their are cost no one can figure out what they are for.

 

[Lamarr]

Yea and don't forget how efficient FEMA was. Now their are cost no one can figure out what they are for.

Yep, I knew it was some things we could agree on

keep it goin, What else did Bush create?

We want Pres. Obama to correct the problems, not continue them, right?

 

[Lamarr]

Why shouldn't you pay for what you use ?

I'm in agreement, people need to stop with the class-warfare

We must understand why taxation is bad - it prevents capital from being accumulated by the less wealthy. I can't say it any more clearly than that

The better tax policy is to tax consumption, because that encourages savings and investment.

 

[BrainChild09]

I don't know how old your are, but the US has NEVER had a flat tax. Ever since the mid 1800s the tax rates have been progressive. In fact I can't think of any country that has a flat tax rate. Only the right wing corporatists would come up with such a concept. 15& of the population own over 80% or the wealth. Their is absolutely no reason why we should have flat tax rate.

You do understand that we are in debt because of the spending right? It's not because the US isn't taxing people enough. Think about if you saw someone call into Suze Orman & they were explaining to her their financial issues & said they were $20,000 in debt. No one in their right mind would say well the problem is that they're not making enough money or that there boss isn't paying them enough money. You would say that person is clearly spending too much money.

I've addressed the corruptness of the bailouts, subsidies, government interference, and such things that benefit the wealthy and politically connected several times in threads you've participated in. I've even addressed it in this thread so please don't try to counter me with something that doesn't apply to what I'm saying.

Realize that the money people earn doesn't belong to the government. It doesn't how much they earn, it's there's. The government takes the citizens money for whatever it is they choose. Some things pretty much all people agree on (roads for example), some things there's a roughly even split on people for/or against it (the new healthcare bill for one), and then there's things I'd say most people are against (the bank bailout). Regardless of what it is the government does with this money, when it comes down to taxpayer money, it is the people's money. It doesn't matter if you think what they do with it is good or not. That doesn't negate the fact that it is the people's money first and foremost.

The fact is, "cutting" someone's taxes isn't an example of the government giving someone anything. They're simply not taking as much away from that person as they were before. When a bully who typically takes $3 everyday from a kid at lunchtime all of a sudden decides to start taking $2 for whatever reason, no one with a brain would say the bully has started giving that kid $1 everyday. It doesn't make sense. Neither does saying the government deciding they won't take as much money away from someone is in truth giving more money.

Practically speaking, no, we couldn't just go into a flat tax rate system now. We need to drastically cut spending and will eventually have to raise taxes on EVERYONE to get our national finances somewhere close to solvency. But when, and if, that ever happens I don't see what would be wrong with a flat tax rate. The only reason taxes have to be as a high as they are now, for any "class", is because of all the spending. That shouldn't be hard to understand.

What is inherently wrong with a flat tax when the spending is drastically curtailed and tamed? Isn't it more fair to say everyone (except for those underneath a specified income floor of course) pays the same rate and not allowing the tax code to become a political plaything? Don't you understand that the progressive tax system in this country has not only not benefitted the US economy but it's allowed our tax code to become complicated that it's just another lever the wealthy and politically connected use to benefit themselves?

Again I've addressed the people being benefitted by their government connections. We agree that that is enormously wrong and do not want it to continue. We also agree that people who commit fraud, a Bernie Madoff say, are wrong and it is wrong for people to make money this way. Aside from these type things though, do you think it's wrong for someone to be a millionaire? A billionaire? Is the mere state of being wealthy wrong to you? Why?

I look forward to your answers.

Last thing, saying there has never been a flat income tax rate in this country is a bit of an oversimplification. But whatever, it's not important. What I want to point out is that, just because a country hasn't had something before doesn't mean it never should. This country's never had universal healthcare. Yet that's what the current administration and several members of Congress were pursuing. And several of our country's citizens were in support of it. Just an easy example.

 

[Greed]

I'm awesome. 28% savings from tax increases and 72% savings from spending and surplus all around.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=zz16c058

 

[thoughtone]

Yep, I knew it was some things we could agree on

keep it goin, What else did Bush create?

We want Pres. Obama to correct the problems, not continue them, right?

It's not just GW. I think farm subsidies could be eliminated.

We need our markets protected however. The price of milk would drop and many New England and Midwestern farms would go under. Europe and Argentina protect their markets. Replace them with something more efficient.

 

[thoughtone]

I'm in agreement, people need to stop with the class-warfare

We must understand why taxation is bad - it prevents capital from being accumulated by the less wealthy. I can't say it any more clearly than that

The better tax policy is to tax consumption, because that encourages savings and investment.

need to stop with the class-warfare

We have always had class warfare. They wealthy have won. They have better access to elected officials, they hide their wealth, they have benefited disproportionately over the last 10 years and in general over the last 30 years more so since the 1920s.

The wealthy accumulate capital and then save it or send it overseas. We have had the GW tax cuts since 2003. So were are the jobs?

The better tax policy is to tax consumption

How ridiculous. A $300 grocery bill for someone making $35,000 is more of bite out of their income than a $300 grocery bill for someone making $300,000. Sorry, but that is class-warfare.

 

[thoughtone]

You do understand that we are in debt because of the spending right? It's not because the US isn't taxing people enough. Think about if you saw someone call into Suze Orman & they were explaining to her their financial issues & said they were $20,000 in debt. No one in their right mind would say well the problem is that they're not making enough money or that there boss isn't paying them enough money. You would say that person is clearly spending too much money.

I've addressed the corruptness of the bailouts, subsidies, government interference, and such things that benefit the wealthy and politically connected several times in threads you've participated in. I've even addressed it in this thread so please don't try to counter me with something that doesn't apply to what I'm saying.

Realize that the money people earn doesn't belong to the government. It doesn't how much they earn, it's there's. The government takes the citizens money for whatever it is they choose. Some things pretty much all people agree on (roads for example), some things there's a roughly even split on people for/or against it (the new healthcare bill for one), and then there's things I'd say most people are against (the bank bailout). Regardless of what it is the government does with this money, when it comes down to taxpayer money, it is the people's money. It doesn't matter if you think what they do with it is good or not. That doesn't negate the fact that it is the people's money first and foremost.

The fact is, "cutting" someone's taxes isn't an example of the government giving someone anything. They're simply not taking as much away from that person as they were before. When a bully who typically takes $3 everyday from a kid at lunchtime all of a sudden decides to start taking $2 for whatever reason, no one with a brain would say the bully has started giving that kid $1 everyday. It doesn't make sense. Neither does saying the government deciding they won't take as much money away from someone is in truth giving more money.

Practically speaking, no, we couldn't just go into a flat tax rate system now. We need to drastically cut spending and will eventually have to raise taxes on EVERYONE to get our national finances somewhere close to solvency. But when, and if, that ever happens I don't see what would be wrong with a flat tax rate. The only reason taxes have to be as a high as they are now, for any "class", is because of all the spending. That shouldn't be hard to understand.

What is inherently wrong with a flat tax when the spending is drastically curtailed and tamed? Isn't it more fair to say everyone (except for those underneath a specified income floor of course) pays the same rate and not allowing the tax code to become a political plaything? Don't you understand that the progressive tax system in this country has not only not benefitted the US economy but it's allowed our tax code to become complicated that it's just another lever the wealthy and politically connected use to benefit themselves?

Again I've addressed the people being benefitted by their government connections. We agree that that is enormously wrong and do not want it to continue. We also agree that people who commit fraud, a Bernie Madoff say, are wrong and it is wrong for people to make money this way. Aside from these type things though, do you think it's wrong for someone to be a millionaire? A billionaire? Is the mere state of being wealthy wrong to you? Why?

I look forward to your answers.

Last thing, saying there has never been a flat income tax rate in this country is a bit of an oversimplification. But whatever, it's not important. What I want to point out is that, just because a country hasn't had something before doesn't mean it never should. This country's never had universal healthcare. Yet that's what the current administration and several members of Congress were pursuing. And several of our country's citizens were in support of it. Just an easy example.

You do understand that we are in debt because of the spending right? It's not because the US isn't taxing people enough

We are in debt because of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, Operation Iraqi Freedom and Medicare Part D. When GW entered office the federal budget was balanced and the federal debt was manageable. Since then, the upper 2% of income earners have gotten wealthier than any time since the Roaring 20s and the rest of the country has gone to pot. The premise behind the GW tax cuts was to create jobs. Were are they?

Last thing, saying there has never been a flat income tax rate in this country is a bit of an oversimplification. But whatever, it's not important. What I want to point out is that, just because a country hasn't had something before doesn't mean it never should. This country's never had universal healthcare. Yet that's what the current administration and several members of Congress were pursuing. And several of our country's citizens were in support of it. Just an easy example.

There has never been a flat income tax rate in this country is a fact, not subject to dispute. As the late New York Senator, Daniel Patrick Moynihan stated, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

The first income tax was moderately progressive and ungraduated, imposing a 3 percent tax on annual incomes over $800 that exempted most wage earners.

The flat income tax rate is scheme concocted in the 1970s by corpitists. National health care has been contemplated since the founding of this country and attempted to be made law for about 100 years. it makes even more sense today because of the modern costs of medicine.
​

​

 

[BrainChild09]

We are in debt because of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, Operation Iraqi Freedom and Medicare Part D. When GW entered office the federal budget was balanced and the federal debt was manageable. Since then, the upper 2% of income earners have gotten wealthier than any time since the Roaring 20s and the rest of the country has gone to pot. The premise behind the GW tax cuts was to create jobs. Were are they?



There has never been a flat income tax rate in this country is a fact, not subject to dispute. As the late New York Senator, Daniel Patrick Moynihan stated, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

The flat income tax rate is scheme concocted in the 1970s by corpitists. National health care has been contemplated since the founding of this country and attempted to be made law for about 100 years. it makes even more sense today because of the modern costs of medicine.
​

​

You're right, you're not entitled to your own facts. You should check a more valid source before you make your assertions. Read up on the Revenue Act of 1861 & read right under the subtitle "The Civil War." Then tell me what yout think about your statement that here has never been a flat tax in this country's history.

You can go see for yourself that the federal debt was anything but manageable when GW took office. It was over $5.7 trillion. What on earth is manageable about that? Yes it has skyrocketed and I think he was a very bad president like most people. I disagree with the wars and I disagree with cutting taxes while introducing enormous increases in spending. The increase in federal spending combined with a decrease in federal income which has exacerbated the debt even more has not been good for the country. If you want to buy the claim that Congress really would have followed a series of budgets that would have gotten us to financial solvency if it weren't for GW & the Republicans, remember that the Iraq War resolution wouldn't have passed without significant Democratic support in the Congress (not the majority of Democrats in the House voted for it but many did, majority of Dems in the Senate did vote for it).

But the premise on which you stand that believes some people are poorer because some people are richer is simply wrong. The so-called "middle class" in this country, whose income far surpasses that of most of the world, has not caused the people in the streets of India to be more destitute. This principle which is applicable on a global scale is also true in a national, state, or local scale. One person's prosperity does not necessarily mean someone else becomes less prosperous. You seem to think that there is a fixed set of money in the world and it simply is a matter of dividing it up equitably.

That's not how it works. Bill Gates, long the richest man in the world (don't know he is now, Warren Buffett maybe), where are the millions or billions of people he's made poor by becoming so wealthy?

 

[thoughtone]

You're right, you're not entitled to your own facts. You should check a more valid source before you make your assertions. Read up on the Revenue Act of 1861 & read right under the subtitle "The Civil War." Then tell me what yout think about your statement that here has never been a flat tax in this country's history.

"Under the Constitution, Congress could impose direct taxes only if they were levied in proportion to each State's population. Thus, when a flat rate Federal income tax was enacted in 1894, it was quickly challenged and in 1895 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional because it was a direct tax not apportioned according to the population of each state."

Am I missing something? Of course with today's right wing Supreme Court, It would probably overturn Stare Decisis.

You can go see for yourself that the federal debt was anything but manageable when GW took office. It was over $5.7 trillion.

Manageable from the stand point of interest. The US has always had a debt. Having a debt allows US bonds to be bought and sold. Their was no doubt that our credit rating remained high, because paying the interest on the debt was manageable.

But the premise on which you stand that believes some people are poorer because some people are richer is simply wrong. The so-called "middle class" in this country, whose income far surpasses that of most of the world, has not caused the people in the streets of India to be more destitute.

You have made quite the stretch with this assertion and for you to compare the living standards of the US verses India, I will not waste my time to engage you with your mindset.

You seem to think that there is a fixed set of money in the world and it simply is a matter of dividing it up equitably.

This is not my thinking. This is the basis for those that want the gold standard to return. Ask Cruise.

That's not how it works. Bill Gates, long the richest man in the world (don't know he is now, Warren Buffett maybe), where are the millions or billions of people he's made poor by becoming so wealthy?

You would think the more wealthy their are the more jobs would be created by pouring their profits back in to the economy. However, that trickle down or Voodoo economic theory seems to be proven wrong since the number and quality of the jobs we have has been declining for almost 30 years.