iowaman
Topic Author
Posts: 3874
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 2:29 am

Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2

Mon Dec 17, 2012 6:05 pm

Since the previous thread reached 300 replies and was largely civil, please continue the discussion here.

Previous thread:
Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? (by tugger Nov 30 2012 in Non Aviation)
 
KBJCpilot
Posts: 210
Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 7:12 pm

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2

Mon Dec 17, 2012 8:21 pm

Reform the US Tax Code:

If you earn/gain--- you pay--- in taxes. Flat rate. No deductions. Tax form on one page. Earnings are per household.

$0-20,000 - 12%
$20,001-$40,000 - 15%
$40,001-$60,000 - 18%
$60,001-$90,000 - 21%
$90,001-$120,000 - 24%
$120,001-$150,000 - 27%
$150,001-$250,000 - 30%
$250,001-$450,000 - 35%
$450,001-$750,000 - 40%
$750,001+ - 40% plus an additional 5% on capital gains

US Budget- cut all spending by 15%. It doesn't matter what it is, it gets cut. Defense, Medicare, etc. 15% cut. And budgets are frozen for for 3 years. After 3 years, budgets rise at the CPI.

Cut all foreign aid by 20% and use that to strengthen the border.

Amnesty for all illegals 0-21 years old. Any others must apply for citizenship from their home country.

Healthcare for all between the ages of 0 and 18. After 18 you are covered if you are attending college or school up until the age of 25. After that, you are on your own. Healthcare for all over 75 years old. Between 25 and 75 you pay.

That's my utopian suggestion.
Samsonite, I was way off!
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2

Mon Dec 17, 2012 8:28 pm

Same as in the previous thread.
10% flat tax one everyone.
No deductions, loopholes, tax credits, write offs, nothing!
10% across the board.

Cut all those departments I listed in the previous thread and then cuts some more.
Cut spending, cut spending and then cut more spending.
When finished with that, cut more spending.
Bring back the Concorde
 
Ken777
Posts: 9063
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2

Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:58 am

Quoting KBJCpilot (Reply 1):
That's my utopian suggestion.

Unfortunately it would be far from Utopia.

What do you do for those unable to work? Starting with Paras & Quads? Now toss in cancers that make working for extended periods of time out of work? Accident victims that can't work?

How about health care for those who cannot afford the glories of private health insurance in America?

Cutting education by 15%? Maybe we can just graduate the kids from High School after 10 years.  


The reality is that we will see minor changes to current budgets. Conservatives can scream all they wan about cutting costs of Social Security & Health Care, but they will never want to touch the non-government side of both. That tax free ride on employer nanny care or tax free rides on private retirement programs apparently are very affordable while the similar government programs are not. Maybe we need to know how many trillions in tax revenues these non-government programs will cost the Treasury.
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2

Tue Dec 18, 2012 2:02 am

I'll throw in what some others have said, I want there to be some pretty steep cuts, BUT, I think they need to be done more slowly than RIGHT NOW to prevent shock and chaos... I can see how it would
Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
 
KBJCpilot
Posts: 210
Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 7:12 pm

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2

Tue Dec 18, 2012 5:37 pm

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 3):
What do you do for those unable to work? Starting with Paras & Quads? Now toss in cancers that make working for extended periods of time out of work? Accident victims that can't work?

How about health care for those who cannot afford the glories of private health insurance in America?

Cutting education by 15%? Maybe we can just graduate the kids from High School after 10 years.

They would still be covered under whatever federal or state program they are now. But that program will have a 15% decrease in funding just as education and defense would have.

Full healthcare benefits up to 18/25 and over 75 is what I am talking about. If you are disabled or have cancer or whatever else ails you you still have access to other programs as you do now.

If healthcare is extended until 25 for those in college it may be a motivation to pursue higher education which makes for a better qualified workforce which in turn provides good health coverage and benefit packages. Coupled with a student loan interest rate on 3% and a rebate if you are hired and keep your first job for 5 years after graduation it would go a long way of improving the middle class over the long run. Heck, it would also provide for a broader taxpayer base as well.

And we all know that there is too much fraud and waste in all of government today so a 15% cut would hurt a little but it would also get rid of a lot of the unnecessary "programs" and "mandates" that serve no purpose other than to line the pockets of the administrators and vendors who push the wasteful programs.
Samsonite, I was way off!
 
Ken777
Posts: 9063
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2

Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:06 pm

Quoting KBJCpilot (Reply 5):
They would still be covered under whatever federal or state program they are now. But that program will have a 15% decrease in funding just as education and defense would have.

So basically we graduate kids after the 10th grade to save 15% and kick 1 out of 7 cripples out in the street.

The military is somewhat easier - simply start with eliminating the Marines. Maybe half the Air Force - they can outsource almost everything but flying and management of "special weapons".

Quoting KBJCpilot (Reply 5):
If you are disabled or have cancer or whatever else ails you you still have access to other programs as you do now.

People who are disabled have access to Medicare, but you want to cut that? Oooops! Your bad. Letting 1 in 7 simply die without care? How about euthanasia? It's cheap and far less abusive than your approach.

What your proposals overlook is that you are dramatically increasing costs by pushing health care to employers. The least expensive approach is to move core care to a tax based program. Everyone, including the poor, get covered by Medicare and, based on how it works overseas, private policies fall 80% in price for those who want it.

Not only provides the same quality of care, but allows all states to cut out the costs of Medicaid.  
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 14002
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2

Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:35 pm

Quoting iowaman (Thread starter):
Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do?

Wouldn't it be nice if we had politicians and bureaucrats that could come up with sensible, workable approaches to this topic? I know "we are the government", but those folks do get paid and paid well to do such things, no?

One thing I hoped would happen as a side effect of Romney picking Ryan was that there'd be a substantive debate around his budget proposals, but it only took Romney a day to say he didn't necessarily support Ryan's budget proposals (or somesuch) and then the topic went quiet, which makes one wonder why he picked Ryan.
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
KBJCpilot
Posts: 210
Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 7:12 pm

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2

Tue Dec 18, 2012 9:12 pm

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 6):
So basically we graduate kids after the 10th grade to save 15% and kick 1 out of 7 cripples out in the street.

The military is somewhat easier - simply start with eliminating the Marines. Maybe half the Air Force - they can outsource almost everything but flying and management of "special weapons".

People who are disabled have access to Medicare, but you want to cut that? Oooops! Your bad. Letting 1 in 7 simply die without care? How about euthanasia? It's cheap and far less abusive than your approach.

The feds do not fund all of education. The states fund a majority of it and they would have to make up any difference. The feds need to focus on national security and interstate commerce. For some reason over the past 70 years the government has become everybody's piggy bank and it needs to stop or we will fail as a country in another generation.

As far as defense goes, I'd eliminate the Marine Corps and make the Army's Special Forces/Rangers more flexible and be able to take over the Marine Corps role. I'd also give the Army the Air to Ground responsibility and let the Air Force handle the strategic mission. I'd also tell the ship builders to clean up their houses or we're going to ask other qualified firms overseas to bid on new acquisitions.

Medicare- we waste billions of dollars a year. A 15% cut, with harsh penalties on providers found to be defrauding the gov't, would work. If a doctor is caught committing Medicare fraud, their license is suspended for 6 months. 2nd infraction, 12 months. 3rd, 36 months. Hospital and other organizations, 1st infraction- reduction of reimbursements by 10% for 90 days. 2nd infraction, 20% for another 90 days. 3rd infraction, 30% for 180 days. You'd see a sudden decrease of Medicare billings and less fraud.

Everyone wants cuts and higher taxes but nobody wants to give up their own pet causes. An equal cut across the board, no matter what it is, is fair and equitable for all involved and lets everyone share the burden. In addition, if those programs are so important I'm sure local organizations and non-profits could pick up some of the slack if people really cared about those causes.
Samsonite, I was way off!
 
Ken777
Posts: 9063
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2

Wed Dec 19, 2012 2:02 am

Quoting KBJCpilot (Reply 8):
The states fund a majority of it and they would have to make up any difference.

There is no gain for the taxpayer if you simply transfer spending to the states. They will want their own 15% cut.

Quoting KBJCpilot (Reply 8):
Medicare- we waste billions of dollars a year.

Actually, as countries like Australia have proven the move to a full Medicare system for all (with private insurance for those who want to pay extra) is far cheaper. We waste hundreds of billions with our current can of worms - which is why we are the most expensive in the world. Not the best - just the most expensive.

Quoting KBJCpilot (Reply 8):
harsh penalties on providers found to be defrauding the gov't, would work.

I'll go with that. But let's make them harsh.

Quoting KBJCpilot (Reply 8):
If a doctor is caught committing Medicare fraud, their license is suspended for 6 months

No. He (or she) goes to prison and the license is permanently pulled. You need to understand that Medicare fraud is not investigated for someone who has a posting error of a treatments code from time to time. Fraud that is investigated will be in the 6 digit range - or close to it.

Major fraud needs prison time and no return to the profession. A few months suspension of license doesn't slow down fraud at all.

I had an interesting conversation with a policeman in Australia some years ago. He was moving to a Medicare Fraud program and talked about how they were using ex-police, statisticians and programmers to go after fraud. His comments were interesting, especially when it came to popping out potentials for investigation. It takes money - not a 15% cut to fraud programs.
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2

Wed Dec 19, 2012 2:51 am

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 9):
No. He (or she) goes to prison and the license is permanently pulled. You need to understand that Medicare fraud is not investigated for someone who has a posting error of a treatments code from time to time. Fraud that is investigated will be in the 6 digit range - or close to it.

I agree. This is a very severe offense... not something a doctor simply "drifts into." This requires much more than simple human error
Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 14002
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2

Wed Dec 19, 2012 3:12 pm

Quoting KBJCpilot (Reply 8):
As far as defense goes, I'd eliminate the Marine Corps and make the Army's Special Forces/Rangers more flexible and be able to take over the Marine Corps role.

As incendiary as the suggestion is, I've heard many experts say the Marines, or at least the part that is there for Normandy-style invasions, is not relevant any more, certainly not to the degree their funding implies. Desert Storm showed that even with the required months of prep time they are just too vulnerable to risk in an invasion, and once ashore they don't have the staying power that Army units have. However I don't really see the cost savings by cutting them out totally.

Quoting KBJCpilot (Reply 8):
I'd also give the Army the Air to Ground responsibility and let the Air Force handle the strategic mission.

Probably should have had decades ago, but not sure how we'd manage that transition now. Like it or not we're neck deep in the F35 program and we're getting one platform for both missions (again, like it or not), so it's a very bad time to break its support and infra chain into two pieces.

Quoting KBJCpilot (Reply 8):
I'd also tell the ship builders to clean up their houses or we're going to ask other qualified firms overseas to bid on new acquisitions.

I'd imagine once we'd train those other builders how to comply with US regs it would not be cheaper.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 9):
Actually, as countries like Australia have proven the move to a full Medicare system for all (with private insurance for those who want to pay extra) is far cheaper. We waste hundreds of billions with our current can of worms - which is why we are the most expensive in the world. Not the best - just the most expensive.

Indeed we could have been getting this right about now, but the health care lobbyists got their "death panel" messages out there enough to frighten the beejesus out of the average joe shmoe.

I think the model makes sense (government takes care of some baseline level of care, private insurance for the rest) but it seems likely then that private industry would "cherry pick" and dump the most expensive treatments onto the public sector.
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6691
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2

Wed Dec 19, 2012 6:55 pm

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 4):
I'll throw in what some others have said, I want there to be some pretty steep cuts,

Getting somewhere, but the dreaded..........

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 4):
BUT,

There it is

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 4):
I think they need to be done more slowly than RIGHT NOW to prevent shock and chaos... I can see how it would

Unfortunately, this is the same practise that has been taking place for decades, so its just par for the course. Note the new proposals to raise the debt ceiling for a 2 year period, politically, the budget will not be an issue for two years, the debt and interest payments on the other hand.......

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 6):
The military is somewhat easier - simply start with eliminating the Marines. Maybe half the Air Force

The bulk of waste in the US Military is not at the Marines, yes we can talk about the teh F35 and the Osprey, but the Marines wree the last to get the M1, and they still fly Hueys, pound for pound they are the most economical of the services.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 11):
As incendiary as the suggestion is, I've heard many experts say the Marines, or at least the part that is there for Normandy-style invasions, is not relevant any more, certainly not to the degree their funding implies. Desert Storm showed that even with the required months of prep time they are just too vulnerable to risk in an invasion, and once ashore they don't have the staying power that Army units have. However I don't really see the cost savings by cutting them out totally.

I still do not understand why the Marines were deployed ashore in Iraq, once the fake sea bourne invasions were over they should have been sent home. Of course, no one wants to mention that they are the only service meeting their recruiting goals.
Now that things are winding dows, the Air Force wants to gut the Guard to preserve their numbers, in the bigger pictures, the states who fell for the carrot of training with modern equipment suffered the most when their weekend warriors got deployed like full time soldiers, all because the services manpower were cut too much for machines, and recuitment goals could not be met.

The Military Industrial complex needs to be cut big time.
 
Ken777
Posts: 9063
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2

Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:06 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 11):
Desert Storm showed that even with the required months of prep time they are just too vulnerable to risk in an invasion

"Prep" for the Marines was handled by Battleships with their 16" guns. Unfortunately we don't have those on active duty any more and the taxpayers are not willing to pay for 3 or 4 new ones. Or pay for the ammunition. The New Jersey provided gunfire support in Vietnam with WW II ammunition.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 11):
and once ashore they don't have the staying power that Army units have

The Marines tradition was to take a beach head with the Army following up. There are still potential needs for the Marines, but right now we will be cutting personnel from all branches as well as eliminating a lot of the experience. I would not, however, that being a Flag Officer doesn't guarantee we have someone of real value. ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...f9-9b50cb4605a7_story.html?hpid=z3 )
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 14002
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2

Thu Dec 20, 2012 12:50 am

Quoting par13del (Reply 12):
The bulk of waste in the US Military is not at the Marines, yes we can talk about the teh F35 and the Osprey, but the Marines wree the last to get the M1, and they still fly Hueys, pound for pound they are the most economical of the services.

I agree on that point, but the thing is that I also feel their mission is eroding away underneath them.

Quoting par13del (Reply 12):
I still do not understand why the Marines were deployed ashore in Iraq, once the fake sea bourne invasions were over they should have been sent home. Of course, no one wants to mention that they are the only service meeting their recruiting goals.

Yes, and the two are related. In olden times the Marines did do their invasion duty and once the Army was firmly ashore they gradually were drawn down. Now, the invasion phase isn't that likely to be seaborne, and the Army isn't as big as it once was, so the Marines end up being just another division ashore, yet they aren't really equipped for that. One reason things are kept the way they are is indeed the Marine Corps does well at recruiting due to the way future cannon fodder view them as being so bad-ass.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 13):
"Prep" for the Marines was handled by Battleships with their 16" guns. Unfortunately we don't have those on active duty any more and the taxpayers are not willing to pay for 3 or 4 new ones. Or pay for the ammunition. The New Jersey provided gunfire support in Vietnam with WW II ammunition.

I see your point, but the kind of 'prep' I was referring to was mostly the time needed to get all those brown-water navy assets into place so the Marines could do a seaborne invasion.
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 5393
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2

Fri Dec 21, 2012 2:54 am

Well it appears John Boehner has wasted another couple of days pushing his Plan B around. It couldn't garner enough of his own party's support to put it to a vote.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6691
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2

Fri Dec 21, 2012 4:20 am

Quoting casinterest (Reply 15):
Well it appears John Boehner has wasted another couple of days pushing his Plan B around. It couldn't garner enough of his own party's support to put it to a vote.

Does not bode well for the Presidents plan since that had more tax increases that the Republican rank and file were willing to accept in plan B so............
Go over the cliff, finally do some cuts in spending versus cuts in the rate of increase in spending, restore the tax rates that Bush had cut on a temporary basis and lets see how the economy responds in the first two to three months of the new year.
One thing we know, the financial experts who did not see what they did to create the GFC may not really know what they are talking about when they say austerity which they have pushed for all the other world's economies may actually also be good for the good ole USA.

Will be some interesting reading in the media tomorrow, the Maya calendar may have also included financial predictions, time will tell.
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 5393
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2

Fri Dec 21, 2012 5:09 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 16):
Does not bode well for the Presidents plan since that had more tax increases that the Republican rank and file were willing to accept in plan B so............

No, it bodes very well for the President's plan. The Democrats were voting against it because it didn't raise taxes enough on the wealthy, and the GOP couldn't get the votes because ot the ignorant tea party members that can't do math.

The President's plan will do fine in the senate and house. Boehner was hoping for a black eye by getting a more 2% friendly bill in place, and found out he had some very math challenged members of the house.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
 
Ken777
Posts: 9063
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2

Fri Dec 21, 2012 5:47 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 14):
I was referring to was mostly the time needed to get all those brown-water navy assets into place

As we saw in GW I, it takes time for all branches to get assets in place, even when we are outsourcing as much as possible.

The other problem is that you need to have the assets in the first place, you need to train with those assets and you need to maintain those assets. That includes support ships for fuel, ammunition, food and replacement parts for the fleet.

Quoting par13del (Reply 16):
Does not bode well for the Presidents plan

and

Quoting casinterest (Reply 17):
No, it bodes very well for the President's plan.

I believe this is too fluid to bode well for either side.

My bet now is that we will enter 2013 without addressing those laws that die on Dec 31st. That eliminates the need to talk about raising taxes - discussions can be on what taxes are to be cut. Much easier to negotiate.

I can also see Obama opening up the negotiations to include the top leaders in both houses & both parties. We will see a few weeks where there will no accommodation by either side, but eventually we will get the deals needed.
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2

Fri Dec 21, 2012 5:54 pm

What have the Democrats put on the table? I have not been impressed by what I've seen so far. We need cuts on defense, Republicans. We need to raise some taxes in order for a compromise to go through, Republicans. Democrats, make a case for entitlements, but realize, the Republicans have a case for their programs and just accept that they're gonna need to be cut. Democrats, look at the spending deficit. Do you really think we can continue this spending? Cut.
Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6691
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2

Fri Dec 21, 2012 6:08 pm

Quoting casinterest (Reply 17):
The Democrats were voting against it because it didn't raise taxes enough on the wealthy, and the GOP couldn't get the votes because ot the ignorant tea party members that can't do math.
Plan B was proferred because a number of Republicans were already up in arms over the increases Boehner was giving up and the lack of cuts Obama was offering, hence a plan called fall back.
The President's plan will do fine in the senate and house.

Anything POTUS comes up with will get through the Senate since they have rules and "nuclear" options to prevent a fillibuster, fortunately / unfortunately (whichever side you support) the House is controlled by the Republicans and any presidental plan that does not include real spending cuts and only pushes increased taxes on the rich will not get passed. However loud folks scream and call Tea Party etc. etc. etc. they have been consistent for the last few years on the need for real cuts in government spending, so I afree with the following..........

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 18):
My bet now is that we will enter 2013 without addressing those laws that die on Dec 31st. That eliminates the need to talk about raising taxes - discussions can be on what taxes are to be cut. Much easier to negotiate.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 18):
We will see a few weeks where there will no accommodation by either side, but eventually we will get the deals needed.

I give it a few months because folks may well want to see how investors react to reduced government spending, the idea that a recession is the automatic result of the fiscal cliff may not be accurate, time will tell
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 5393
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2

Fri Dec 21, 2012 6:31 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 20):
House is controlled by the Republicans and any presidental plan that does not include real spending cuts and only pushes increased taxes on the rich will not get

The problem with Boehner's plan b is he couldn't even get his Tea party on board. it means that
1. The last few months of negotiations have been meaningless, as his endgame didn't even match up to what he was peddeling. I don't mind the GOP controlling the house. What i do mind is the idiocy that is coming from members that want to cut only spending to bridge the gap, when there are revenue tools as well.

Quoting par13del (Reply 20):
I give it a few months because folks may well want to see how investors react to reduced government spending, the idea that a recession is the automatic result of the fiscal cliff may not be accurate, time will tell

I think this game of chicken will play out badly. Those amounts of tax increases on the middle class and uncertainty in federal budgets will spell recession in a heartbeat. Especially when the stock market tanks.,
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
 
Ken777
Posts: 9063
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2

Fri Dec 21, 2012 8:18 pm

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 19):
Democrats, make a case for entitlements, but realize, the Republicans have a case for their programs and just accept that they're gonna need to be cut.

Conservatives can talk a good line, but they will be just as strong on spending money when a military base in their area is set to be closed. They need to deliver the bacon, just like Democrats.

I've said it before - if we need to cut Social Security then we also need to cut the tax free ride on personal retirement accounts. And we need to pull the tax on contributions pulled from those accounts now. That alone is going to make a huge hit on the nations debt.

And it we need to cut funding for the poor and elderly we need to cut the tax free ride on employer nanny care. Another very large flow of funds into the Treasury.

In other words, before calling for cuts to "government entitlements" start looking at "private entitlements".
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6691
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2

Fri Dec 21, 2012 9:49 pm

Quoting casinterest (Reply 21):
Those amounts of tax increases on the middle class and uncertainty in federal budgets will spell recession in a heartbeat.

Except the rates were always meant to be at that level, the Bush cuts were never supposed to be permament.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 21):
Especially when the stock market tanks.,

I honestly do not give too much credance to the street, a lot of their experts drove small business into debt by taking the line that their stock was not risky enough, hence they expanded too fast, borrowed to much and fell major prey to the GFC. The thousands of jobs lost of the street in some eyes was good payback for the havoc they wrecked on the small business community.
Also, was the street no gung ho in the summer when it looked like the big package was going to pass rising when the deal looked good then falling when it went sour??? So is spending cuts do actually take place bu going over the cliff, do they really care how it was accomplished just as long as it was cut?
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 5393
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2

Sun Dec 23, 2012 3:52 am

Quoting par13del (Reply 23):

The rates were never meant to be permanent, but their amount and sweeping impact will hurt the econony if they are yanked all at once. Until their is no debt nationally , the current tax rates should be the floor.

Spending needs to be frozen at current levels for at least 5 years, with any adjustment contingent on 10% of a Budget surplus.

Wall Street and the population feed of each other nowadays. When things are bad, they can become really bad. It is not in any politician's best interest to be responsible for bad things . Te GOP just passed the buck on a solution . They are now directly responsible for anything that goes wrong
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
 
seb146
Posts: 14060
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2

Sun Dec 23, 2012 4:50 am

Congress should read these threads. They would learn so much about America!

Quoting casinterest (Reply 24):
The rates were never meant to be permanent, but their amount and sweeping impact will hurt the econony if they are yanked all at once.

Because the economy was hurting until 2001?

Quoting casinterest (Reply 24):
Until their is no debt nationally , the current tax rates should be the floor.

How would that work with little income?

Quoting casinterest (Reply 24):
Wall Street and the population feed of each other nowadays

That is one thing I have never understood: Why does the private sector tie everything into what the government does when the private sector screams about "don't let government into the private sector!!". I don't get it. It is a one-way street?
Patriotic and Proud Liberal
 
NorthstarBoy
Posts: 1416
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 12:53 pm

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2

Sun Dec 23, 2012 11:33 am

Quoting KBJCpilot (Reply 1):
$20,001-$40,000 - 15%

i make around 27K per year, under your tax scheme i'd go from paying zero taxes (I often get a refund) to 3100 dollars a year? Yikes! No thank you!

my idea is:

0-25000 no taxes
25000-50000-5 pct
50001-100000-10pct
100001-250000-20pct
250001-500000-30 pct
500001-1 Million-40 pct
over 1 million and 1 dollars-45 pct.

Another change i'd make is to treat capital gains/interest/dividends for anyone under 75 as ordinary income. Once you reached age 75 it would be considered retirement income and taxed at 50 percent of your last full taxable income rate.

I'd also treat stock options for anyone under age 75 as ordinary income. The value of the options would be calculated based on the value of the stock at the end of the last trading day of the year. This would prevent those in the higher brackets from switching their compensation from mostly cash to cash and stock or all stock to get into a lower tax bracket.

Maybe in the way of our education system, we can go the way of the british system where grades K-10 are compulsory but grades 11-12 are optional. Those who don't want to go to college can get an Ordinary Diploma which allows them to get a job or join the military at age 16 and those who want to go to college continue for the final two years and get an Advanced Diploma. Maybe while we're at it we can also streamline our school system to just primary and secondary, K-5 go to primary school, grades 6-10 go to secondary school. Those who want to pursue their A-Diploma can go on to smaller Upper Schools that are associated with but separate from the secondary schools.
Yes, I'd like to see airbus go under so Boeing can have their customers!
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2

Sun Dec 23, 2012 12:27 pm

Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 26):
i make around 27K per year, under your tax scheme i'd go from paying zero taxes (I often get a refund) to 3100 dollars a year? Yikes! No thank you!



If I were in charge, you'd pay only $2,700. Then you'd be paying your "fair-share". After all, the current President keeps yapping his mouth about people paying their "fair-share" and "shared sacrifice". There are a ton of more people earning $27,000 per year than there are billionaires so it's time folks in your bracket chip in. There are only 425 billionaires in the United States (enough to fill one 747) so they will not be able to balance the budget and pay off the debt alone.
So vote for me!  
Bring back the Concorde
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6691
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2

Sun Dec 23, 2012 1:35 pm

Quoting casinterest (Reply 24):
Spending needs to be frozen at current levels for at least 5 years, with any adjustment contingent on 10% of a Budget surplus.

Sounds reasonable, however, I do not see the democrats in either the House on the Senate supporting such a plan, the cry is that the country is growing so spending has to increase, now if you want to do as in past years and lower the RATE of increse by 10%...........

Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 26):
Once you reached age 75 it would be considered retirement income and taxed at 50 percent of your last full taxable income rate.

I am all for taxing capital gains at rates that would allow buying and selling, rates too high result in all manner of schemes to hide the gains, and can lower trading activity, the more voloume the more money to be made by all parties.
However, not sure I like a 50% rate after the age of 75, I would lower the age to 65 as well as the rate. Ultimately, we need our seniors to enjoy life when they retire, when you consider how fast paced and how much additional work each individual has to perform in todays work environment along with increasing the retirement age, folks on retirement have used up so much of their bodies that they are now heading directly to long term medical care.
Moving them out of the work force earlier also creates more jobs and opertunities for younger persons to move up within companies.
 
NorthstarBoy
Posts: 1416
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 12:53 pm

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2

Sun Dec 23, 2012 2:32 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 28):
However, not sure I like a 50% rate after the age of 75, I would lower the age to 65 as well as the rate.

I should be more clear. Under my scheme, the tax rate wouldn't be 50 percent but rather, if you were in my theoretical top tax bracket of 45 percent, once you turn 75 you'd only pay 22.5 percent.
Yes, I'd like to see airbus go under so Boeing can have their customers!
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6691
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2

Sun Dec 23, 2012 2:36 pm

Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 29):
if you were in my theoretical top tax bracket of 45 percent, once you turn 75 you'd only pay 22.5 percent.

Ah, got it, works for me, the more money we let our seniors keep the more they can provide for themselves.
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2

Mon Dec 24, 2012 7:11 pm

Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 26):
my idea is:

0-25000 no taxes
25000-50000-5 pct
50001-100000-10pct
100001-250000-20pct
250001-500000-30 pct
500001-1 Million-40 pct
over 1 million and 1 dollars-45 pct.

The problem with levels like this is someone making $50000 a year will get $47500 after taxes but someone making $50001 would get $44999.90 after taxes... I would hope any change would be more of a slope rather than steps.

Under your plan (but eliminating these steps), someone making $25000 would pay 5%, $25100 would pay 5.03% or whatever (too lazy to do the math,) and so on
Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
 
StarAC17
Posts: 3400
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 11:54 am

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2

Mon Dec 24, 2012 10:36 pm

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 31):
The problem with levels like this is someone making $50000 a year will get $47500 after taxes but someone making $50001 would get $44999.90 after taxes... I would hope any change would be more of a slope rather than steps.

That isn't true as taxes only effect income above the specified benchmarks and people forget this and Obama doesn't stress it enough.

In that case the person earning $50001 pays the 5% on every dollar over $50000 to prevent someone from earning less on purpose making the economy less efficient as it encourages laziness.

That person earning $50001 would net $47500.90 not $44999.90, the 10% rate is only taxed on $1

When Obama talks about raising rates on people earning more than 250K the tax hikes take effect on every dollar earned above that benchmark.

Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 26):
i make around 27K per year, under your tax scheme i'd go from paying zero taxes (I often get a refund)

Just because you get a refund doesn't mean you are paying nothing you are just paying less than what is taken out of your pay in a given year. You could be paying nothing, in some years I have gotten refunds but it no where is close to the amount I paid to the government.

Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 26):
Another change i'd make is to treat capital gains/interest/dividends for anyone under 75 as ordinary income. Once you reached age 75 it would be considered retirement income and taxed at 50 percent of your last full taxable income rate.

There is a reason that capital gains is lower as it encourages private investment I would argue that the rate is too low right now but it should be about 60-70% of the marginal income rate for how much is earned on an investment. Lets say and investor earns $20 million and pays 15% capital gains on it (ignoring any deductions). The investor nets $17 million. Lets put that against lets say a professional athlete takes home $20 million in straight income pays 35% on the same amount of money and nets $13 million he pays more than double the taxes (3 million for the investor vs 7 million for the athlete).

The investor takes more of a risk and should be rewarded for it but not at the level they are now and in the case of the 35% income rate I would make capital gains about 21-25% (about 60-70% of 35%)

Quoting par13del (Reply 28):
Sounds reasonable, however, I do not see the democrats in either the House on the Senate supporting such a plan, the cry is that the country is growing so spending has to increase, now if you want to do as in past years and lower the RATE of increse by 10%...........

It isn't just democrats who are spendthrift, remember the last guys started 2 wars and cut taxes. Not exactly model fiscal behavior either.

The government should be spending now to get the economy growing and when it does pick up then they need to start with the austerity to have the end goal of sustained surpluses to bring the debt down. If government spending could be seen as investment then this would be no issue but the US government has lost the trust of the people.
Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2

Tue Dec 25, 2012 12:25 am

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 32):
That isn't true as taxes only effect income above the specified benchmarks and people forget this and Obama doesn't stress it enough.

I did not know this, to be fair though, I wasn't accusing Obama of anything cynical here. This makes sense. I wish, however, EVERYONE paid taxes, even if it's 0.5% or something... still "contributing" yet not burdening
Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
 
seb146
Posts: 14060
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2

Tue Dec 25, 2012 1:27 am

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 33):
I did not know this,

That is the problem: Most (not all but most) people follow the punditry. FOX screams about how taxes will be raied on everyone and HuffPo screams about how that is a lie and it devolves into "no, you are stupid!"

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 33):
I wish, however, EVERYONE paid taxes, even if it's 0.5% or something... still "contributing" yet not burdening

All working people pay taxes. I can guarantee that when I send in my returns, I will not get back every penny I paid. That's the way it works. We would all be happy to pitch in a little more if we could be guaranteed affordable health care and/or lowering the deficit like they promise they would. I just don't want my money to be squandered on no-bid contracts.

There was a re-run of Randi Rhodes today. She explained that one part of these no-bid government contracts says that the company says "you (the government) will pay us X amount but we will need you to pay us more later for other expenses that we will bill you for later." Which is where we get $27 screwdrivers and $12 a gallon contaminated water for the troops to use. The right-wing wants waste, fraud and abuse taken out of MediCare and Medicade, but the military has none.
Patriotic and Proud Liberal
 
StarAC17
Posts: 3400
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 11:54 am

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2

Tue Dec 25, 2012 3:30 am

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 33):
I did not know this, to be fair though, I wasn't accusing Obama of anything cynical here. This makes sense. I wish, however, EVERYONE paid taxes, even if it's 0.5% or something... still "contributing" yet not burdening

I didn't claim you were and I apologize if I gave that impression.

My point is that if Obama wants to sell to the American public that he is intending to raise taxes on people making over 250K a year he needs to stress that its on all income earned over 250K a year and not on the amount earned before.
Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
 
Ken777
Posts: 9063
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2

Wed Dec 26, 2012 7:31 pm

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 35):
he needs to stress that its on all income earned over 250K a year and not on the amount earned before.

People "pass through"" each tax bracket. That means that someone going through the 10% bracket pay tax at the 10% rate for the income in that bracket.
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9841
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2

Thu Dec 27, 2012 2:41 am

Quoting seb146 (Reply 34):
We would all be happy to pitch in a little more if we could be guaranteed affordable health care and/or lowering the deficit like they promise they would.

I agree (except for the affordable health care part - whenever the government gets involved it will either become more expensive or rationed). That's why I hope we do go "over the cliff", because that is the only way we are going to see some spending cuts, because right now neither side has proposed to cut anything in 2013 (As I said before, I don't give a rat's ass about promises in a 10-year window - only 2013 matters).

Quoting seb146 (Reply 34):
The right-wing wants waste, fraud and abuse taken out of MediCare and Medicade, but the military has none.

Huh? Where did you hear that?

By the way, I was talking to someone today and it became clear that some people don't understand what this fiscal cliff is all about. He was under the assumption that the Clinton tax rates would go up as of 1/1/2013, and your deductions from your paycheck would increase. But actually it affects your 2012 earnings. The AMT and tax rates already went up to Clinton levels back at the end of 2011. Everyone simply assumed that an agreement would be reached during this year that would retroactively extend the Bush tax cuts, but that hasn't happened. Here's how HR Block explains it.

http://www.hrblock.com/free-tax-tips...paignId=em_mcm_4636_0001_NoSegment

Quote:
Two things creating Taxmageddon (for individual filers)

AMT (alternative minimum tax) has not been patched since Dec. 31, 2011 expiration
More than 70 common tax breaks (extenders) millions rely on have not been renewed

Summary

Whether it is called “Taxmageddon” or the “fiscal cliff,” millions of taxpayers at all income levels are at risk of paying more in taxes this year.

Some could end up owing money to the IRS instead of getting a tax refund as they have previously
- Tax breaks they used to take may no longer exist
- Taxpayers soon could find themselves in difficult financial positions

AMT

What is AMT? The first alternative minimum tax was introduced in 1969. Its purpose was to catch high-income earners who avoid paying taxes due to certain tax breaks. The AMT as we know it today, a complicated system of adjustments and preference, was introduced in 1982 and has the same purpose – to make sure everyone pays at least some tax.

- If AMT will be patched for inflation (the last patch expired Dec. 31, 2011) is one of the biggest unknowns facing taxpayers
- - Many aren’t aware of its impact on their tax liability
- - EXAMPLE: If the AMT is not patched, a family earning $85,000 with two children in college could go from a tax refund of $1,056 tax refund to owing $1,400 (analysis by The Tax Institute)
- Could revert to pre-2001 levels
- 34 million taxpayers could be hit with the alternative minimum tax – many for the first time
- - Taxpayers who had grown accustomed to getting a tax refund could be hit with a hefty tax bill
- Can affect taxpayers for different reasons and it is not always clear when or if it will apply
- - May kick in because of the taxpayer’s income, certain deductions, or even because the taxpayer claimed certain credits
- Hardest hit would be taxpayers in high-income tax states (California, New York and New Jersey)

Expired tax breaks (extenders)

- 2012 tax bills will be larger for millions of taxpayers because more than 70 tax provisions expired Dec. 31, 2011, and have not been renewed
- The tax breaks impact all income levels and touch college students, teachers and homeowners (the tax breaks following won’t exist for tax year 2012 unless renewed)
- - Tuition and fees deduction – worth up to $4,000 per tax return
- - State and local sales tax itemized deduction – most impacting the millions of taxpayers who may reside in states with no income tax
- - Educator expense deduction – worth up to $250 per teacher to help cover unreimbursed classroom expenses
- - Mortgage insurance premium – deductible as residence interest
Charitable distributions from IRAs – non-taxable up to $100,000

Conclusion
Because the extension of these tax breaks requires action by Congress and the President, there isn’t much taxpayers can do to avoid this situation. However, they should be aware of what tax breaks may and may not be available for 2012 in order to plan for their impact. Seek individual advice from a tax professional.


So all this is going to bite you in the ass pretty soon, and all of you had better have a couple of grand extra cash in the bank in case you have an extra payment due in March instead of a refund.

I hope we do go over the cliff, so that people see that taxes go up on everyone, that cuts happen in spending programs that will be noticable, and to everyone's surprise the deficit will still be at an unacceptably high level. Hopefully this will teach all these morons who insist on thinking that simply raising taxes is enough.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 5393
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2

Thu Dec 27, 2012 2:19 pm

Quoting seb146 (Reply 25):
Because the economy was hurting until 2001?

No, the problem is that people have spent their tax cuts already. Mortgages, college, cars. Jacking the rates up all at once will have painfull ramifications to many people. I manage my money well, but I would still be hurt quite a bit if everything went up at once. the collision of the spending cuts in the federal side would also erase a few million jobs.
A Recession would be highly likely.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 25):
How would that work with little income?

My point was the national debt, not personal debt.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 25):

That is one thing I have never understood: Why does the private sector tie everything into what the government does when the private sector screams about "don't let government into the private sector!!". I don't get it. It is a one-way street?

Not a one way street. There are many in the private sector that think that Government is all regulations and taxes. They don't recognize the benefits that Government spending bestows. Go to any town near a military base and ask them what would happen if the military base suddenly dissapeared. They see the benefits more directly than a person that supplies raw materials to a government contractor or business.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 37):

I hope we do go over the cliff, so that people see that taxes go up on everyone, that cuts happen in spending programs that will be noticable, and to everyone's surprise the deficit will still be at an unacceptably high level. Hopefully this will teach all these morons who insist on thinking that simply raising taxes is enough.

I don't think anyone thinks the debt or deficit is at an acceptable level. However the Government has set tax levels so low and manufactured money out of thin air while running deficits for so long that most people ignore the defecit as it is a magical number that just keeps going up.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6691
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2

Thu Dec 27, 2012 4:39 pm

Quoting casinterest (Reply 38):
Go to any town near a military base and ask them what would happen if the military base suddenly dissapeared. They see the benefits more directly than a person that supplies raw materials to a government contractor or business.

One of the primary differences between the democrats and republicans when it comes to military spending, the only time when both sides do come together is on base closing.
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9841
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2

Thu Dec 27, 2012 11:58 pm

Quoting casinterest (Reply 38):
I don't think anyone thinks the debt or deficit is at an acceptable level.

Then why do the Democrats (and to a lesser extent the Republicans) not propose anything that comes close to bringing the deficit back down to a relatively acceptable ~3% or so? Obama's proposals have been nothing more than a bad joke. The GOP's "Plan B" is only marginally better. Going over the cliff, IMHO, is the best option. A) It's already the law, so nothing needs to be done. B) It takes a big whack out of spending - not enough, but it's a good start. C) It raises taxes on everyone, and not just picks on a small minority that can be bullied by the majority. D) It will illustrate that, in spite of steep tax increases on everyone, our deficit will still be too high, and maybe, just maybe, people will begin to understand that the problem is not insufficient taxation, it's too much spending.

I'm ready for it. I've got a couple of grand extra in the bank, fully expecting that I will have to write a big check in March, instead of expecting a refund. Believe me, I have no love of paying taxes, but I support doing it if we all do it together.

Which brings me to another question - The left loves to harp on "solidarity". They love to show solidarity when it comes to demanding stuff. But when it comes to paying for it, the like to point at the "rich" down the road, and demand that he pay for it.

Let's show some solidarity. Let's all suffer together, for the good of the country. A little suffering is good for the soul.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
User avatar
zckls04
Posts: 2591
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:55 pm

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2

Fri Dec 28, 2012 12:17 am

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 40):
Going over the cliff, IMHO, is the best option.

Given the religious war in congress, it's really the only option.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 40):
Which brings me to another question - The left loves to harp on "solidarity". They love to show solidarity when it comes to demanding stuff. But when it comes to paying for it, the like to point at the "rich" down the road, and demand that he pay for it.

Without wishing to reignite old wounds (to use my favorite mixed metaphor of the day), the outrage from the left seems less outrageous if you just stack up the numbers- the rich pay less tax because their earnings are often from capital gains etc.

I realize the GOP philosophy is that capital gains should be a special case w.r.t taxation, however many on the left think it should be taxed the same as any other income. It's a bit of a leap to go from this to "the like to point at the "rich" down the road, and demand that he pay for it"(sic). That may apply to a minority of unionized drones who see the world as a "Metropolis"-style dystopia, but for most others I think their position is more pragmatic than that.
Four Granavox Turbines!
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9841
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2

Fri Dec 28, 2012 3:06 am

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 41):
Without wishing to reignite old wounds (to use my favorite mixed metaphor of the day), the outrage from the left seems less outrageous if you just stack up the numbers- the rich pay less tax because their earnings are often from capital gains etc.

But they pay a higher percentage of the nation's taxes than in just about any industrialized nation, relative to the amount of wealth they earn/have. OECD data points to the US tax system being too progressive already.

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 41):
I realize the GOP philosophy is that capital gains should be a special case w.r.t taxation

Not just a GOP position, it is the position on capital gains taken in many industrialized countries, where capital gains is often not taxed at all. It comes down the the old saw, "If you want more of something, subsidize it, if you want less of something, tax it." The more you tax capital gains, the less capital gains you will get, along with economic growth, than you otherwise would get.

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 41):
however many on the left think it should be taxed the same as any other income.

The low-information voters out in force...

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 41):
It's a bit of a leap to go from this to "the like to point at the "rich" down the road, and demand that he pay for it"(sic). That may apply to a minority of unionized drones who see the world as a "Metropolis"-style dystopia, but for most others I think their position is more pragmatic than that.

Hardly a leap - it appears to the core belief of Obama and the current Democratic Party leadership.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
StarAC17
Posts: 3400
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 11:54 am

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2

Fri Dec 28, 2012 4:16 am

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 37):
I agree (except for the affordable health care part - whenever the government gets involved it will either become more expensive or rationed). That's why I hope we do go "over the cliff", because that is the only way we are going to see some spending cuts, because right now neither side has proposed to cut anything in 2013 (As I said before, I don't give a rat's ass about promises in a 10-year window - only 2013 matters).

There in lies the problem that causes pretty much all problems "Short term thinking"!!

If you are suggesting that the US federal government run a balanced budget next year at all cost you will accomplish two things.

- Driving the US and world economy back to 2008 at best affecting the whole world.
- Not being able to balance the budget because the government revenues will drop

This should be a process that does at little damage as possilble to the US economy because if the economy doesn't grow all it will be harder and harder to accomplish it.

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 41):
I realize the GOP philosophy is that capital gains should be a special case w.r.t taxation, however many on the left think it should be taxed the same as any other income.

I am not a conservative but capital gains should be a special treatment as opposed to regular income.

When you invest you take risk and when you work you are performing a service for a set out compensation and you are not taking any risk.

I think that capital gains should be lower than regular income but not over 50% lower and earlier in this thread I suggested it should be 60-70% of income tax rates. I will also say the guy who owns a stock for one day isn't really investing and they are gambling and if you are looking to be paid capital gains on a stock you have to hold it for a certain length of time say a quarter.

Remember the stock market was intended for the average person to invest in corporations with the average stock held today for literally seconds that isn't an investment.
Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
 
Ken777
Posts: 9063
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2

Fri Dec 28, 2012 4:44 am

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 42):
OECD data points to the US tax system being too progressive already.

Which is why some one like Romney can make over $20 Million and pay 13%. Forget the "rate" and look at around 300 pages of loopholes with Romney's return. Does the OECD data points look at just how many loopholes and hiding places that the wealthy actually have? Doubt that big time.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 42):
Not just a GOP position, it is the position on capital gains taken in many industrialized countries, where capital gains is often not taxed at all.

WHich is so stupid. Capital gains is simply another term for "income" and should be considered normal income.

We have moved so far from a rational system that the middle class is shrinking and the absurdity of bowing down to the wealthy is a joke.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 42):
The more you tax capital gains, the less capital gains you will get, along with economic growth, than you otherwise would get.

I believe that is BS. An investor will be looking at the investment and will evaluate that investment at a "net of tax position". Some will leave and that opens the door for those who fill in the void.

If an investor wants to leave the market because they will have to pay taxes on income at a normal level then let them go. We'll rebound from them fairly quickly and be better off in the end,
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 5393
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2

Fri Dec 28, 2012 4:45 am

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 40):
Then why do the Democrats (and to a lesser extent the Republicans) not propose anything that comes close to bringing the deficit back down to a relatively acceptable ~3% or so

Because they don't want to piss off the voters.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 40):
Going over the cliff, IMHO, is the best option

No, it is too much , too fast. We need to put in the handicap ramp for access here. The cuts and the revenue both need to come, bu not at a pace that destroys current economic growth. This is why I like the tax increase on the rich, not because it is the only increase that needs to occur but it is the one that should occur first. As the economy progresses, then we can rasie the revenue a bit more. We need to keep raising revenue, until we are paying principal and interest on he national debt. We also need to control and cut spending. It has to be done gradually over itme, but we need to do it. The revenue increases also give a failsafe for future legislatures to use should another unforseen deficit issue occur.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 40):
I'm ready for it. I've got a couple of grand extra in the bank, fully expecting that I will have to write a big check in March, instead of expecting a refund. Believe me, I have no love of paying taxes, but I support doing it if we all do it together.

You and I both have it, but there are millions that do not. And there are millions who will lose their jobs due to this fiscal cliff.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 40):
Which brings me to another question - The left loves to harp on "solidarity". They love to show solidarity when it comes to demanding stuff. But when it comes to paying for it, the like to point at the "rich" down the road, and demand that he pay for it.

The right has the same problem, but they mask it by wrapping it in the flag and calling it honor and defense as they spend more than can possibly be raised in revenue.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 40):

Let's show some solidarity. Let's all suffer together, for the good of the country. A little suffering is good for the soul.

A little suffering is good, but asking for blood letting it a bit extreme, and doesn't really accomplish what you want it too. Just ask George Washington.

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 41):

Given the religious war in congress, it's really the only option.

It's the best option until Jan 3rd when Boehner is speaker and then the GOP can politically stand for tax cuts . Just perverted can kicking. The Dems need the GOP voite, and the GOP feels that they can't cross their Dictator: Heir Norquist. THerefore they wait till it is no longer a tax increase, but a tax decrease.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 42):
But they pay a higher percentage of the nation's taxes than in just about any industrialized nation, relative to the amount of wealth they earn/have. OECD data points to the US tax system being too progressive already.

They pay a higher percentage of the gross taxes. Not a higher percentage relative to their own funds. Just ask the single income no kid renters in NYC that make above 65 K what they pay.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 42):
Not just a GOP position, it is the position on capital gains taken in many industrialized countries, where capital gains is often not taxed at all. It comes down the the old saw, "If you want more of something, subsidize it, if you want less of something, tax it." The more you tax capital gains, the less capital gains you will get, along with economic growth, than you otherwise would get.

However we need taxes to pay off the defecit, never mind just keeping the current budget funded.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 42):

The low-information voters out in force...

It should be taxed as it is money working for the owner as an investement. Just the same hte investor can write off their losses.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 42):
Hardly a leap - it appears to the core belief of Obama and the current Democratic Party leadership.

It is not the core beleif. The core belief of the democratic party is that together we can do better.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9841
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2

Fri Dec 28, 2012 3:57 pm

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 43):
There in lies the problem that causes pretty much all problems "Short term thinking"!!

Sorry, but the "long term thinking" is a fraud in this case. People are calling for spending cuts over 10 years - which is absolutely non-binding on any future congress. That is BS.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 43):
If you are suggesting that the US federal government run a balanced budget next year at all cost you will accomplish two things.

- Driving the US and world economy back to 2008 at best affecting the whole world.
- Not being able to balance the budget because the government revenues will drop

I understand fully that pulling back sharply on spending immediately will probably trigger another recession. But we have to do it. A lot of our so-called "growth" the past couple of years has simply been government printing money, and the piper has to be paid.

A few years ago I advocated strict spending limitations after the 2008 crash. Had we followed that path, the 2008-2009 shock would have been a bit deeper, but by now the economy would have been running at full throttle, without the 16 trillion debt load.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 44):
Does the OECD data points look at just how many loopholes and hiding places that the wealthy actually have? Doubt that big time.
Quoting casinterest (Reply 45):
They pay a higher percentage of the gross taxes. Not a higher percentage relative to their own funds.

The OECD study looked at the percentage of total taxes paid by the top 10% vs how much money the top 10% earn compared to everyone else.

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/news-o...es-has-most-progressive-tax-system

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 44):
WHich is so stupid. Capital gains is simply another term for "income" and should be considered normal income.

But it's already been taxed. If IBM employs you, it can deduct your salary, on which you pay income tax, so that it is only taxed once. But if you buy IBM stock with money which you already have paid taxes on, and IBM makes money which, after corporate income tax can be added to the equity value of your stock, why should you have to pay tax on precisely the net gain that IBM paid income tax on?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 44):
I believe that is BS. An investor will be looking at the investment and will evaluate that investment at a "net of tax position". Some will leave and that opens the door for those who fill in the void.

If an investor wants to leave the market because they will have to pay taxes on income at a normal level then let them go. We'll rebound from them fairly quickly and be better off in the end,

If an investor wants a return of no less than 30% over 5 years, after tax, that threshold is much harder to attain with higher taxes, and thus fewer opportunities (especially the marginal ones) will be funded. The little guy who wants to open a restaurant or incorporate his little widget factory is going to have a more difficult time raising the funds.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 45):
No, it is too much , too fast. We need to put in the handicap ramp for access here.

I'm fine with a gradual approach. One like this - in 2013, every single government check that is written (with the exception of Social Security, which is off-budget, and wages for military enlisted men) will be cut by 5%. That means all federal employees, 5% less money for Lockheed Martin, 5% less fuel for the carrier groups, etc. All elected politicians get a 10% whack off their salary.

In 2014, we do it again - another 5% cut across the board. Another 10% off of politicians.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 45):
You and I both have it, but there are millions that do not. And there are millions who will lose their jobs due to this fiscal cliff.

Life's a bitch, ain't it? We have been living large, spending money we did not have for years - especially recently. Well, the credit card company is at the door, and the repo man is putting the car on the truck as we speak.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 45):
However we need taxes to pay off the defecit, never mind just keeping the current budget funded.

I keep repeating this, but the message does not seem to sink in. TAXES CANNOT FUND THE DEFICIT.

Obama's desired tax increases amount to (according to CBO) around $70-$80 billion of extra revenue per year. But his projected deficits are greater than $1 trillion every year for the next 10 years. In 2013 it will likely be around $1.5 trillion, at the current rate.

$80 billion is only 5% of the deficit. Taxes are not the problem. Spending is the problem.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 45):
It is not the core beleif. The core belief of the democratic party is that together we can do better.

When someone else pays for it.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2

Fri Dec 28, 2012 4:58 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 46):
If IBM employs you, it can deduct your salary, on which you pay income tax, so that it is only taxed once.

I may be wrong, but this the way i see it is that its because its a different chain altogether.

What you are saying is akin to: If i buy a service from IBM, and I pay taxes on that service, why would IBM have to pay taxes on that income?

If that is the case, why pay taxes at all? The money flows thru a chain and it gets taxes along the way. If you only tax the first link in the chain - then who pay taxes?

I can do whatever i want with my salary. I can start a new chain, and be taxed just like every other chain.. why should it be any different?

To me this "taxed once" argument is bogus. It has been taxes several times before it reaches your bank account.
Step into my office, baby
 
User avatar
zckls04
Posts: 2591
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:55 pm

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2

Fri Dec 28, 2012 5:02 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 46):
But it's already been taxed. If IBM employs you, it can deduct your salary, on which you pay income tax, so that it is only taxed once. But if you buy IBM stock with money which you already have paid taxes on, and IBM makes money which, after corporate income tax can be added to the equity value of your stock, why should you have to pay tax on precisely the net gain that IBM paid income tax on?

You're getting taxed once on amount A (income tax from the amount you started with) and once on amount B (the amount you end up with minus the amount you started with). At no point is any of your money double taxed on your tax return. It may be subject to corporate tax from IBM's perspective, but so what? The money will be subject to sales tax if you spend it, or inheritance tax if you leave it to your children. Double taxation across different entities happens all the time.

I actually think that capital gains should be taxed at a lower rate than regular income (primarily for selfish reasons), however arguments like this:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 42):
Not just a GOP position, it is the position on capital gains taken in many industrialized countries, where capital gains is often not taxed at all. It comes down the the old saw, "If you want more of something, subsidize it, if you want less of something, tax it." The more you tax capital gains, the less capital gains you will get, along with economic growth, than you otherwise would get.

are a far more compelling case to me than the "double taxation" stuff, or any of the boring "Obama and the Democrats are rich-hating scum" stuff.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 45):
It's the best option until Jan 3rd when Boehner is speaker and then the GOP can politically stand for tax cuts . Just perverted can kicking. The Dems need the GOP voite, and the GOP feels that they can't cross their Dictator: Heir Norquist. THerefore they wait till it is no longer a tax increase, but a tax decrease.

A good point- I hadn't thought of that. A neat way to keep their promise and do what is necessary at the same time.
Four Granavox Turbines!
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 5393
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2

Fri Dec 28, 2012 6:52 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 46):
The OECD study looked at the percentage of total taxes paid by the top 10% vs how much money the top 10% earn compared to everyone else.

Still not the same thing. Your comparison is based on how much taxes the super rich pay. Not the relative rate to their earnings. We have a progressive system, and even the super rich pay the same 10% at the bottom of the scale that everyone does. Their reach into the stratosphere of income inequality in the US is what puts their share of the taxes so high.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 46):
But it's already been taxed. If IBM employs you, it can deduct your salary, on which you pay income tax, so that it is only taxed once. But if you buy IBM stock with money which you already have paid taxes on, and IBM makes money which, after corporate income tax can be added to the equity value of your stock, why should you have to pay tax on precisely the net gain that IBM paid income tax on?


Because IBM is paying you for the service of using your equity for corporate support. It is like interest.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 46):
I'm fine with a gradual approach. One like this - in 2013, every single government check that is written (with the exception of Social Security, which is off-budget, and wages for military enlisted men) will be cut by 5%. That means all federal employees, 5% less money for Lockheed Martin, 5% less fuel for the carrier groups, etc. All elected politicians get a 10% whack off their salary.

In 2014, we do it again - another 5% cut across the board. Another 10% off of politicians.

Still possibly too steep. I would rather do it over 10 years with guaranteed 10% reductions.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 46):
Well, the credit card company is at the door, and the repo man is putting the car on the truck as we speak.

But there is no repo man, and if we were really paying a credit card company, we would not only reduce our spending on new items, but we would accelerate our payments on the old debt to minimize the interest charges.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 46):
I keep repeating this, but the message does not seem to sink in. TAXES CANNOT FUND THE DEFICIT.

Obama's desired tax increases amount to (according to CBO) around $70-$80 billion of extra revenue per year. But his projected deficits are greater than $1 trillion every year for the next 10 years. In 2013 it will likely be around $1.5 trillion, at the current rate.

$80 billion is only 5% of the deficit. Taxes are not the problem. Spending is the problem.

Part of it gets handled if the economy grows faster than anticipated. Part of it gets handled by inflation as people hit the higher tax rates. Taxes are part of the solution just as spending is part of the solution, and it is not in a linear matter. Unless you don't believe in compound interest. Most of the 1 trillion dollar gap is due to folks retiring earlier, and not enough folks working to pay into social security and medicare. Rather they are on the recieving end.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 46):

When someone else pays for it.

Sure because we all don't use and pay for the same services at some point in our lives. This belief in flat math, and time singularity is a hallmark of GOP shortsightedness that has overtaken and destroyed the US economy.

it was the GOP belief that paying for a war in IRAQ and Afghanistanc would reap rewards in the future worth the sacrifice of the extra spending. Why is that the GOP only believes in overspending when it means they can bomb the hell out of people with little proof of future rewards? Why does the GOP cower into a fetal position and blame the people in this country that are suffering, when they use magnanimous gestures to get spending approved for the poor and oppressed in foreign countries? The GOP has always been about other people's money which is why they have a full congress protecting 2% of the populations tax rates.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ken777, L410Turbolet, salttee and 12 guests