BTW, the S&P 500 fell by 6.66% today!

I thought you were going somewhere with that, but you weren't... that was anticlimactic. :(
Right now I am not arguing for or against a PIT. I am trying to understand what you are proposing as far as the ramifications of a flat tax on the lives of all Americans and the efficacy of the government.

When I responded "that's fine" I was simply saying that supplemental aid of $9,000 or whatever would allow the low income family the same standard of living of what they are used to with the current PIT as long as they can get enough supplemental aid from the government to overcome their substandard income and the extra tax.
After going through the trouble of answering your last "important" question only to get, "That's fine." as a response, I get the feeling I'd just be wasting more of my time by answering all these other questions... So I'll just recap some points I've made over the course of the thread:

The Progressive Income Tax law is not fair according to the dictionary definition of the word, raising the top marginal rates will not just affect "the top 2% of the wealthiest", nor will it only affect "people making over $250k", nor will it have the causal effect of increasing revenue or GDP.

An important corollary to whole idea of a flat tax is left unresolved. How is the budget balanced and aid given to the lower classes and the current level of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Welfare, etc. to be financed by a flat tax alone? How can we not only balance the budget, but also start paying down the debt? For the second time you didn't answer these important questions.

Secondly you ignored other important questions on three types of taxes. Let me repeat them here.

Roughly what percent flat income tax do you think will bring adequate government revenue if not 15%. Further questions are what percent flat capital gains tax do conservatives advocate if not 15%. And you mentioned wealth tax: do you think that a flat wealth tax is fair?​

In short, you can't just shout "FAIR TAX" and then bury your head in the sand. You don't solve the broader problems that way. That's what all of congress is doing -- shouting differing incomplete solutions.
 
Werbung:
In short, you can't just shout "FAIR TAX" and then bury your head in the sand. You don't solve the broader problems that way. That's what all of congress is doing -- shouting differing incomplete solutions.

sure he can...after all poor people are all lazy and who cares about there lives...they choose to be that way so let them rot in the streets if they want...I mean so long as it does not personally effect him...
 
In short, you can't just shout "FAIR TAX" and then bury your head in the sand. You don't solve the broader problems that way. That's what all of congress is doing -- shouting differing incomplete solutions.
That is exactly what you're doing by shouting, "TAX THE RICH!"... Even though you can't offer evidence that raising PIT rates will cause an increase in revenue or GDP, much less "solve the broader problems", you still think we should do it, 'just because'.

Your "solution" doesn't address any of the "broader problems", in short, you haven't offered any solutions at all... Yet here you are trying to hold me to a higher standard than the one you've set for yourself, and that's not "fair".

So I'll make a deal with you, offer your unconditional surrender by admitting that I'm correct about each of the following:

  • Admit that raising PIT rates will not cause an increase in revenue or GDP.
  • Admit that raising PIT rates will not solve the "broader problems".
  • Admit that raising PIT rates will not eliminate our deficit.
  • Admit that raising PIT rates will not pay down our debt.
  • Admit that raising PIT rates on the top two brackets will barely affect, if at all, the "wealthiest 2%" of Americans.
  • Admit that raising PIT rates on the top two brackets will affect more than just "people making over $250,000".
  • Admit the Progressive Income Tax discriminates based on income, that it's prejudiced against the higher income earners, that it favors the lower classes, that it is not impartial, that it does not meet the dictionary definition of "Fair".

If you can admit to all those, then I will ignore the fact that I'm being held to a standard you haven't met and gladly answer every question you have.

Another option would be that you hold yourself to the same standard you're demanding from me, that would be "Fair". This would mean we take the questions one at a time, you ask the question, offer your solution, and then I'll answer the same question.

Of course, you can always take the Pocket option... Use stereotypes and logical fallacies to formulate incomplete sentences, avoid using proper grammar and punctuation, completely ignore spellcheck, be sure to insult my character at some point, and then declare yourself to be morally and intellectually superior.

Ball's in your court. :)
 
That is exactly what you're doing by shouting, "TAX THE RICH!"... Even though you can't offer evidence that raising PIT rates will cause an increase in revenue or GDP, much less "solve the broader problems", you still think we should do it, 'just because'.

Your "solution" doesn't address any of the "broader problems", in short, you haven't offered any solutions at all... Yet here you are trying to hold me to a higher standard than the one you've set for yourself, and that's not "fair".

So I'll make a deal with you, offer your unconditional surrender by admitting that I'm correct about each of the following:

  • Admit that raising PIT rates will not cause an increase in revenue or GDP.
  • Admit that raising PIT rates will not solve the "broader problems".
  • Admit that raising PIT rates will not eliminate our deficit.
  • Admit that raising PIT rates will not pay down our debt.
  • Admit that raising PIT rates on the top two brackets will barely affect, if at all, the "wealthiest 2%" of Americans.
  • Admit that raising PIT rates on the top two brackets will affect more than just "people making over $250,000".
  • Admit the Progressive Income Tax discriminates based on income, that it's prejudiced against the higher income earners, that it favors the lower classes, that it is not impartial, that it does not meet the dictionary definition of "Fair".

If you can admit to all those, then I will ignore the fact that I'm being held to a standard you haven't met and gladly answer every question you have.

Another option would be that you hold yourself to the same standard you're demanding from me, that would be "Fair". This would mean we take the questions one at a time, you ask the question, offer your solution, and then I'll answer the same question.

Of course, you can always take the Pocket option... Use stereotypes and logical fallacies to formulate incomplete sentences, avoid using proper grammar and punctuation, completely ignore spellcheck, be sure to insult my character at some point, and then declare yourself to be morally and intellectually superior.

Ball's in your court. :)

So, your "solution" is to cut, cut, cut, right?

You think that this country has enough entitlement programs that can afford to be cut to the level needed to balance a budget, without actually provoking DEATH among the poor, the disabled and the elderly?

But, you probably are AGAINST cutting CORPORATE entitlement programs. . .because that would be the equivalent of "raising taxes!"

Get your head out of your butt, and smell the roses (it may be a nice change!). It will take BOTH raising taxes AND making cuts in EVERY possible areas (including defense and corporate welfare) to resolve our budget problem

No one needs to "declare" oneself intellectually and morally superior. Everyone can judge on his own!
 
So, your "solution" is to cut, cut, cut, right?

You think that this country has enough entitlement programs that can afford to be cut to the level needed to balance a budget, without actually provoking DEATH among the poor, the disabled and the elderly?

But, you probably are AGAINST cutting CORPORATE entitlement programs. . .because that would be the equivalent of "raising taxes!"

I am all for cutting corporate subsidies...let's just make sure that includes all those "green" subsidies and all the other.

Get your head out of your butt, and smell the roses (it may be a nice change!). It will take BOTH raising taxes AND making cuts in EVERY possible areas (including defense and corporate welfare) to resolve our budget problem

No one needs to "declare" oneself intellectually and morally superior. Everyone can judge on his own!

We have already made cuts to defense, I am all for cutting corporate subsidies, what entitlements are you prepared to cut?
 
I am all for cutting corporate subsidies...let's just make sure that includes all those "green" subsidies and all the other.



We have already made cuts to defense, I am all for cutting corporate subsidies, what entitlements are you prepared to cut?

ONLY entitlements that will not:

1. slow our economy by reducing the available money that boosts the demand
2. put our most needy in jeopardy to risk their life, the life and future of their children, and their health.
 
ONLY entitlements that will not:

1. slow our economy by reducing the available money that boosts the demand
2. put our most needy in jeopardy to risk their life, the life and future of their children, and their health.

....I ask again, WHICH entitlements are you preparead to cut?
 
....I ask again, WHICH entitlements are you preparead to cut?

I believe that social security could be adjusted down for any retired person making more than $65,000 a year from dividends or other sources of income.

I also believe that Medicare should be adjusted to give a choice to people who are currently purchasing "supplemental insurance" to cover what medicare doesn't cover (i.e., co-payment and extended coverage for hospitalization and nursing home) to purchase that "supplemental insurance" from a private health care carrier (i.e., my husband currently pays $182.00 a month for his supplemental insurance. . . which ONLY begins where Medicare stops), or to get the "full service" from medicare at a fee lower than the current private insurance fee, but higher than the current medicare fee.

I believe that the list of items that one can buy with food stamps should be carefully reviewed and limited to "healthy, nourishing" food, no soda, no candies, no cigarettes (which, I believe, is already a nono), etc. .

I believe that tax exemptions on mortgage interest payment should be limited to NON JUMBO mortgage. . .that means that the interest payment on the first $300,000 or so mortgage could continue to be tax deductible, but interest payment above the "jumbo mortgage" would NOT be tax deductible.

This would be a start.

Now. . let's see some of YOUR ideas! Not just criticisms and bashing of what is proposed, but actual ideas!

What do you think should be cut? Poor kids' school lunches? Disability benefits for adults with mental health diagnosis?

Have a ball!
 
Your "solution" doesn't address any of the "broader problems", in short, you haven't offered any solutions at all... Yet here you are trying to hold me to a higher standard than the one you've set for yourself, and that's not "fair".

Another option would be that you hold yourself to the same standard you're demanding from me, that would be "Fair".
Yes, that would be fair. My solution is given below.
Of course, you can always take the Pocket option... Use stereotypes and logical fallacies to formulate incomplete sentences, avoid using proper grammar and punctuation, completely ignore spellcheck, be sure to insult my character at some point, and then declare yourself to be morally and intellectually superior.
Cut the personal crap.


The following plan will exhibit no debt by 2015, and will pay down about $281 Billion of the debt by 2030. Not much pay down, but it's certainly a trend in the right direction that we have not seen in a long time.

The following categories are debt reduction proposals. The amounts after each category in bold face are respectively the savings in 2015 and 2030. In total, 42% of the savings is due to tax increases, and 58% is due to spending cuts.
The data and categories came from a NYT site.

Cut foreign aid in half .... $17 billion $17 billion

Eliminate earmarks.... $14 billion $14 billion

Eliminate farm subsidies.... $14 billion $14 billion

Reduce the federal workforce by 10 percent.... $12 billion $15 billion
The government could hire two new workers for every three who leave service, the chairmen of the fiscal commission said.

Cut 250,000 government contractors.... $17 billion $17 billion
Recent estimates suggest that contractors outnumber federal employees by millions.

Other cuts to the federal government.... $30 billion $30 billion
Eliminate some agencies, cut research funds for fossil fuels, reduce funds for the Smithsonian and the National Park Service, eliminate certain regional subsidies, and eliminate the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools.

Cut aid to states by 5 percent .... $29 billion $42 billion
In 2005, it equaled 3.4 percent of gross domestic product, compared with 2.3 percent in 1990.

Reduce nuclear arsenal and space spending.... $19 billion $38 billion
Reduce number of nuclear warheads to 1,050, from 1,968. Reduce the number of Minuteman missiles and some R&D.

Reduce military to pre-Iraq War size and reduce troops overseas.... $25 billion $49 billion
According to the bipartisan Sustainable Defense Task Force, 50,000 personnel would be withdrawn. Reduce the standing size of the military as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan wind down.

Cancel or delay some weapons programs.... $19 billion $18 billion
like the F35 fighter jet and MV-22 Osprey. Delay other purchases and R&D in some areas.

Reduce troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to 60,000 by 2015.... $51 billion $149 billion

Enact medical malpractice reform.... $8 billion $13 billion
Begin to reduce the chances of large malpractice verdicts, and defensive medicine. The savings estimate comes from the Congressional Budget Office.

Cap Medicare growth starting in 2013.... $29 billion $562 billion
This option would cap the Medicare growth at G.D.P. growth plus 1 percentage point, starting in 2013.

Reduce Social Security benefits for those with high incomes.... $6 billion $54 billion
Workers just above the 60th percentile would grow at a rate between inflation and wage growth.

Tax Increases:
President Obama's proposal.... $10 billion $24 billion
Capital gains and dividends tax would rise to 20% for households making roughly $250,000 a year and above.

Allow expiration for Bush tax cuts
Income above $250,000 a year..... $54 billion $115 billion
Income below $250,000 a year..... $172 billion $252 billion

Payroll tax: Subject some incomes above $106,000 to tax.... $50 billion $100 billion
When FICA was created, it covered 90 percent of all income. Today, it covers closer to 80 percent. This option would gradually raise the ceiling, until 90 percent of income was again subject to the tax.

Bank Tax.... $73 billion $103 billion
Larger, riskier banks would pay more tax, both to discourage them from taking big risks and to help cover the costs of future financial crises.


What is your suggestion?
 
Yes, that would be fair. My solution is given below.
Cut the personal crap.


The following plan will exhibit no debt by 2015, and will pay down about $281 Billion of the debt by 2030. Not much pay down, but it's certainly a trend in the right direction that we have not seen in a long time.

The following categories are debt reduction proposals. The amounts after each category in bold face are respectively the savings in 2015 and 2030. In total, 42% of the savings is due to tax increases, and 58% is due to spending cuts.
The data and categories came from a NYT site.

Cut foreign aid in half .... $17 billion $17 billion

Eliminate earmarks.... $14 billion $14 billion

Eliminate farm subsidies.... $14 billion $14 billion

Reduce the federal workforce by 10 percent.... $12 billion $15 billion
The government could hire two new workers for every three who leave service, the chairmen of the fiscal commission said.

Cut 250,000 government contractors.... $17 billion $17 billion
Recent estimates suggest that contractors outnumber federal employees by millions.

Other cuts to the federal government.... $30 billion $30 billion
Eliminate some agencies, cut research funds for fossil fuels, reduce funds for the Smithsonian and the National Park Service, eliminate certain regional subsidies, and eliminate the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools.

Cut aid to states by 5 percent .... $29 billion $42 billion
In 2005, it equaled 3.4 percent of gross domestic product, compared with 2.3 percent in 1990.

Reduce nuclear arsenal and space spending.... $19 billion $38 billion
Reduce number of nuclear warheads to 1,050, from 1,968. Reduce the number of Minuteman missiles and some R&D.

Reduce military to pre-Iraq War size and reduce troops overseas.... $25 billion $49 billion
According to the bipartisan Sustainable Defense Task Force, 50,000 personnel would be withdrawn. Reduce the standing size of the military as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan wind down.

Cancel or delay some weapons programs.... $19 billion $18 billion
like the F35 fighter jet and MV-22 Osprey. Delay other purchases and R&D in some areas.

Reduce troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to 60,000 by 2015.... $51 billion $149 billion

Enact medical malpractice reform.... $8 billion $13 billion
Begin to reduce the chances of large malpractice verdicts, and defensive medicine. The savings estimate comes from the Congressional Budget Office.

Cap Medicare growth starting in 2013.... $29 billion $562 billion
This option would cap the Medicare growth at G.D.P. growth plus 1 percentage point, starting in 2013.

Reduce Social Security benefits for those with high incomes.... $6 billion $54 billion
Workers just above the 60th percentile would grow at a rate between inflation and wage growth.

Tax Increases:
President Obama's proposal.... $10 billion $24 billion
Capital gains and dividends tax would rise to 20% for households making roughly $250,000 a year and above.

Allow expiration for Bush tax cuts
Income above $250,000 a year..... $54 billion $115 billion
Income below $250,000 a year..... $172 billion $252 billion

Payroll tax: Subject some incomes above $106,000 to tax.... $50 billion $100 billion
When FICA was created, it covered 90 percent of all income. Today, it covers closer to 80 percent. This option would gradually raise the ceiling, until 90 percent of income was again subject to the tax.

Bank Tax.... $73 billion $103 billion
Larger, riskier banks would pay more tax, both to discourage them from taking big risks and to help cover the costs of future financial crises.


What is your suggestion?

It sounds fair! My only concern is what those major cuts in employment (both government and private contractors) would do to our economy. . .obviously, those people would have to go on unemployment, since there is no way job growth can match the job lost!

Otherwise, I think it's a very fair plan.
 
It sounds fair! My only concern is what those major cuts in employment (both government and private contractors) would do to our economy. . .obviously, those people would have to go on unemployment, since there is no way job growth can match the job lost!

Otherwise, I think it's a very fair plan.

I was concerned with balancing the budget, but you are right, we don't want to reduce jobs because that is what will start the economy growing. Those jobs only amount to about $30 billion. There are a number of things that could be done as a substitute. The cuts in state aid could be doubled to 10% and still be generously larger than what it was in 1990. Then there would not have to be a need to cut government employees and contractors and keep the same budget.
 
Yes, that would be fair.
Let's keep it fair.

Cut the personal crap.
Why do you say nothing when Pocket takes personal pot shots at me but become indignant when I point out his tactic? :rolleyes:

42% of the savings is due to tax increases...
Let's look at some earlier statements:

There is no causal link between PIT rates and revenue, in either direction. That is a fact, not an opinion. - Gen

That is what I have been saying. - Lag


But that's not what the NYT's is saying... And you've been citing their claim that increasing rates will CAUSE an increase in revenue.

Do you have any evidence of a causal link between PIT rates and revenue?

If you do not, then "42% of the savings" is Wishful Thinking. (Let me know if you need to see the definition again)
What is your suggestion?
Considering your effort consisted of copying and pasting suggestions and projections you found at the NYT's, I guess I'll have to find a different website and do the same... That way neither of us will have put in more time, effort, or thought than the other... That will keep it fair. :)

Proposed Federal Budget Cuts
Agency and Activity Annual Savings
$ billion
Department of Agriculture
End farm subsidies 29.5
Cut food subsidies by 50 percent 52.7
End rural subsidies 4.2
Total cuts 86.4​
Department of Commerce
End telecom subsidies 2.3
End economic development subsidies 0.6
Total cuts 2.9​
Department of Defense
Enact Preble/Friedman reforms** 150.0​
Department of Education
End K-12 education subsidies 52.7
End student aid and all other programs 33.1
Total cuts (terminate the department) 85.8​
Department of Energy
End subsidies for energy efficiency 10.2
End subsidies for vehicle technologies 5.2
End the technology loan program 1.2
End electricity research subsidies 2.0
End fossil energy research 1.1
Privatize the power marketing administrations 0.5
End nuclear energy subsidies 0.6
Total cuts 20.8​
Department of Health and Human Services
Block grant Medicaid and freeze spending** 226.0
Repeal 2010 health care law** 87.0
Increase Medicare premiums** 39.8
Cut non-Medicaid state/local grants by 50% 37.7
Cut Medicare payment error rate by 50% 28.6
Increase Medicare deductibles** 12.6
Tort reform 10.0
Total cuts 441.7​
Department of Housing and Urban Development
End rental assistance 28.6
End community development subsidies 15.0
End public housing subsidies 8.9
End housing finance and all other programs 8.3
Total cuts (terminate the department) 60.8​
Department of Justice
End state and local grants 5.0​
Department of Labor
End employment and training services 4.8
End Job Corps 1.7
End Community Service for Seniors 0.8
End trade adjustment assistance 1.3
Total cuts 8.6​
Social Security
Price index initial benefits** 41.1
Raise the normal retirement age** 31.4
Cut Social Security disability program by 10% 13.2
Total cuts 85.7​
Department of Transportation
End urban transit grants (federal fund savings) 5.8
Privatize air traffic control (federal fund savings) 5.8
Privatize Amtrak and end rail subsidies 2.9
Total cuts 14.5​
Department of the Treasury
Cut earned income tax credit by 50% 22.5
End refundable part of child tax credit 22.9
Total cuts 45.4​
Other Savings
Cut federal civilian compensation costs 10% 29.6
Cut foreign development aid by 50% 5.2
Cut NASA spending by 50% 9.8
Privatize the Corps of Engineers (Civil Works) 10.6
Repeal Davis-Bacon labor rules 9.0
End EPA state and local grants 6.5
End foreign military financing 5.4
End subsidies for the Corp. for Nat. Comm. Srv. 0.6
End subsidies to the Corp. for Public Broadcasting 0.5
End the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corp. 0.2
Total cuts 77.4​
Grand total annual spending cuts $1,084.9

I didn't actually bother reading it, that would have taken extra time and effort on my part which wouldn't be fair.
 
That I agree with, but it won't amount to anything near $1.75 trillion.

I think all the regulations are beneficial to employees under various circumstances some are great for one group, but inconsequential for another. I don't think picking one to quibble about is a fruitful way of proceeding.

I'm talking about poorer paycheck to paycheck people, and there are a lot of them. They can't be counted on to save their money, so when they can no longer work, they are out on the street, and it becomes our problem.

That's the way life is. As I said they become our problem.

The average cost per inmate is $29,000 a year. That has to be funded. Ironically it is more than minimum wage.

What I meant by "what jobs" is that in Florida there is over 10% unemployment there are no jobs for bagging, clerks, etc.

Here is my overall concern. By every statistic, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. If we want to keep the streets clear of neer-do-wells, much resources are needed. Eliminating social programs is undesirable in that regard, but it is crushing the economy. It is a dilemma. I have not seen a solution including any that I have given that will satisfy congress as a whole. The Tea Party is myopic to these problems. The bickering congress will not come up with anything. It is truly a dilemma.

It is no surprise that in a day of expanding entitlement programs that reward sloth the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer. how about we try prorgrams that reward work.

With programs that reward work those who live paycheck to paycheck will be less inclined to become leaches, or is it leeches?

But if they cannot be counted on to save (and I have more faith in them than you do) then morally they do become our responsibility, but not under the rules of the constitution. I propose that we do accept responsibility for the poor morally but not under the umbrella of the federal government.

There is sound economic evidence that regulations designed to help very often hurt far more - regulations like minimum wage and rent caps.
 
So, your "solution" is to cut, cut, cut, right?
Yes. The scheduled rate of growth for our government is 12% annually. Government spending is roughly 24% of GDP while revenue is less than 18% of GDP, this creates a deficit which is then added to our debt. Our GDP cannot keep up with the growth of government, GDP cannot be expected to grow at 12% a year, we're lucky to get 2-3% growth in good years, so our deficits and debt will grow, grow, grow if we don't change course.

We need to make massive cuts to prevent insolvency, which is what will happen if we continue to rack up deficits and grow, grow, grow, our debt. Eventually, other nations will stop buying our debt, then the whole system collapses, and all those people who you think can't get by with a penny less than what their getting from the government now, won't be getting any pennies at all from our government in the future.

You think that this country has enough entitlement programs that can afford to be cut to the level needed to balance a budget, without actually provoking DEATH among the poor, the disabled and the elderly?
Were things really so terrible under Clinton? I don't remember his policies "provoking DEATH among the poor, the disabled and the elderly", I thought we were doing pretty well while he was in office... and our federal budget was 53% smaller than it is today.

But, you probably are AGAINST cutting CORPORATE entitlement programs. . .because that would be the equivalent of "raising taxes!"
I would support ending any, and all, forms of corporate welfare, subsidies, bailouts, etc... Which you would know if you read anything I've said on the subject.

Get your head out of your butt, and smell the roses (it may be a nice change!).
I'm quite sure Lagboltz, because he's such a fair guy, will be along any moment to scold you for taking pot shots at someone else... :rolleyes:

It will take BOTH raising taxes AND making cuts in EVERY possible areas (including defense and corporate welfare) to resolve our budget problem
What leads you to believe raising PIT rates causes increased tax revenue? I realize that some people think it's "obvious", they consider it "basic math", "common sense" even, but the historical data shows that such an assertion is false, there is no causal link between PIT rates and revenue.

No one needs to "declare" oneself intellectually and morally superior. Everyone can judge on his own!
So when you said, "Get your head out of your butt, and smell the roses (it may be a nice change!)", you weren't trying to suggest that I was, somehow, morally or intellectually inferior to you? Is that really how you address people you believe to be your moral and intellectual equals?
 
Werbung:
how about we try prorgrams that reward work.
I believe we have private sector programs that do just that... We call them "Jobs"... :D

But if they cannot be counted on to save (and I have more faith in them than you do) then morally they do become our responsibility, but not under the rules of the constitution. I propose that we do accept responsibility for the poor morally but not under the umbrella of the federal government.
But Dr.Who... Then we couldn't use government's monopoly on the legal use of force to provide benefits to some at the expense of others! I'm told (by welfare statists) that is the proper role of government, they even claim it's in the Constitution somewhere (perhaps not the US Constitution but whatever). :)

There is sound economic evidence that regulations designed to help very often hurt far more - regulations like minimum wage and rent caps.
Can you imagine the reaction that would come from the left if we abolished the min wage?

3050354749_8d2ce85f29_o.gif
 
Back
Top