New Revenue Sources

[Wiseacre]

That's weird, because your party spend the entire campaign that just ended complaining about 700 billion in Medicare cuts.

My understanding is that under the ACA Obama reduced the payment to HC providers by $716 billion, which didn't actually cut Medicare spending at all. But it did cut the revenue for doctors, nurses, and hospitals, which will result in many providers cutting back on new Medicare patients or limiting that number. You can say Romney was a bit disingenuous, but it's not like Obama wasn't just as bad.

So cutting Medicare spending isn't cutting Medicare spending? Because, yes, Medicare payments to providers is Medicare spending.

Romney was more than "a bit disingenuous". His proposal called for cutting the same amount, but taking it directly out of the pockets of seniors with his voucher program. As if that's not bad enough, he then tries to pretend like his proposal didn't do that.

We're talking about reducing gov't spending here Polk, which Romney's plans have nothing to do with now that he lost. Nice deflection, but it didn't work. Focus on what's going on NOW - Obama and the democrats have NEVER offered anything concrete in the way of lowering entitlement spending. For them it's all about taxe hikes, which is like 8 cents on each deficit dollar. It's ridiculous, and he has the nerve to talk about using more revenue to reduce deficts. Bullshit, it's just more money for him and the dems to spend.

 

[Polk]

They've never offered anything... except for the cuts they've already made.

 

[Polk]

It's also dishonest to say it's "all about tax hikes" for Obama, since the deal Boehner was offered during the debt ceiling standoff was overwhelming made up of spending cuts.

 

[chikenwing]

Capital gains taxes hit middle America also.

 

[Wiseacre]

It's also dishonest to say it's "all about tax hikes" for Obama, since the deal Boehner was offered during the debt ceiling standoff was overwhelming made up of spending cuts.

I heard Boehner had $800 billion in more revenue on the table. I suspect the so-called spending cuts were mostly in areas where we weren't going to spend the money anyway, like the Iraq and Afghan wars. Obama has NEVER offered any budget plan that includes spending cuts that could be scored by the CBO. NEVER. Didn't offer any in today's press conference either.

 

[Mr. H.]

Capital gains taxes hit middle America also.

There are certain "tax preference items" that effectively shield income from this tax. I imagine they are being looked at.

 

[Sactowndog]

When are you going to talk about spending cuts?

Nobody doesn't believe we need spending cuts. Spending as a percent of GDP is over 20% when it needs to be 17-18%. But as long as we want to keep our current global military posture we will spend in the 17-18 range and revenue is currently in the 15% of GDP range which means if you are honest about the deficit you have to increase revenue. That means what revenue can I increase with the least negative effect on the economy. Those areas would be, I believe, a capital gains tax increase, a capital exportation tax, and an estate tax.

The cold truth is neither side wants to pay for what we spend.

Blaming the increase in spending on defense is, to coin a phrase, malarkey. You don't think the rise in entitlement spending has more to do with it? Democrats have always been unwilling to address that issue; you cannot possibly raise taxes enough to cover the increase in entitlement program spending; not even close. AND, if Obama gets his 1.6 trill tax hike on the rich on top of all the other tax increases coming Jan 1, the economy WILL suffer. I cannot imagine how any sane person can possibly think that soaking the rich that much will not have serious negative consequences.

At what point did you hear me say we don't need entitlement reform? I said spending was around 22% of GDP and you have to have entitlement reform to get to 18-19%. But Revenue is currently at about 15.7% and you can't get spending to that level when you are at 6-7% of GDP for defense spending.

 

[Sactowndog]

When are you going to talk about spending cuts?

Nobody doesn't believe we need spending cuts. Spending as a percent of GDP is over 20% when it needs to be 17-18%. But as long as we want to keep our current global military posture we will spend in the 17-18 range and revenue is currently in the 15% of GDP range which means if you are honest about the deficit you have to increase revenue. That means what revenue can I increase with the least negative effect on the economy. Those areas would be, I believe, a capital gains tax increase, a capital exportation tax, and an estate tax.

The cold truth is neither side wants to pay for what we spend.

Historically, spending has been just over 18%, but I doubt we will ever see that level again with so many going into retirement. We are currently spending close to 25% of GDP. Realistically speaking, getting spending down to 22 or 23 long term is as low as we are going to get in the immediate future. For the long term, 20 to 21 percent will most likely have to be the goal. That means revenue must be increased dramatically. Part of that can be done by growing the economy, but part of it will have to come through tax increases.

The biggest complaint against government spending should not be how much we are spending but what we are getting back from it. If government spends money and we get back good value for that money, then spending more and paying more taxes isn't necessarily a terrible thing. The gripe that most Americans have is that so much of that money seems to be wasted and we see nothing in return for it. It's not that our government is bad as much as it is that it has become ineffective. Make effective again, and many of our problems are solved.

Your correct on the spending currently it is 24.3 spending and 15.8 on revenue. The current plan is to get to 22%.

 

[Sactowndog]

Capital gains taxes hit middle America also.

Not as much as you would think as many Americans hold their stock in 401k and that is all taxed as income not capital gains.

 

[Sactowndog]

My understanding is that under the ACA Obama reduced the payment to HC providers by $716 billion, which didn't actually cut Medicare spending at all. But it did cut the revenue for doctors, nurses, and hospitals, which will result in many providers cutting back on new Medicare patients or limiting that number. You can say Romney was a bit disingenuous, but it's not like Obama wasn't just as bad.

So cutting Medicare spending isn't cutting Medicare spending? Because, yes, Medicare payments to providers is Medicare spending.

Romney was more than "a bit disingenuous". His proposal called for cutting the same amount, but taking it directly out of the pockets of seniors with his voucher program. As if that's not bad enough, he then tries to pretend like his proposal didn't do that.

We're talking about reducing gov't spending here Polk, which Romney's plans have nothing to do with now that he lost. Nice deflection, but it didn't work. Focus on what's going on NOW - Obama and the democrats have NEVER offered anything concrete in the way of lowering entitlement spending. For them it's all about taxe hikes, which is like 8 cents on each deficit dollar. It's ridiculous, and he has the nerve to talk about using more revenue to reduce deficts. Bullshit, it's just more money for him and the dems to spend.

I think the democrats proposed 4 dollars in cuts for every dollar of revenue. Some of that was draw down from the wars so it isn't really a cut. However domestic discretionary spending it total 3% of GDP so your not going to get it there. Medicare is the big driver.

 

[Wiseacre]

Nobody doesn't believe we need spending cuts. Spending as a percent of GDP is over 20% when it needs to be 17-18%. But as long as we want to keep our current global military posture we will spend in the 17-18 range and revenue is currently in the 15% of GDP range which means if you are honest about the deficit you have to increase revenue. That means what revenue can I increase with the least negative effect on the economy. Those areas would be, I believe, a capital gains tax increase, a capital exportation tax, and an estate tax.

The cold truth is neither side wants to pay for what we spend.

Blaming the increase in spending on defense is, to coin a phrase, malarkey. You don't think the rise in entitlement spending has more to do with it? Democrats have always been unwilling to address that issue; you cannot possibly raise taxes enough to cover the increase in entitlement program spending; not even close. AND, if Obama gets his 1.6 trill tax hike on the rich on top of all the other tax increases coming Jan 1, the economy WILL suffer. I cannot imagine how any sane person can possibly think that soaking the rich that much will not have serious negative consequences.

At what point did you hear me say we don't need entitlement reform? I said spending was around 22% of GDP and you have to have entitlement reform to get to 18-19%. But Revenue is currently at about 15.7% and you can't get spending to that level when you are at 6-7% of GDP for defense spending.

Sorry, I haven't responded sooner, been ill a little bit. Wanted too, wasn't quite up to it. You may not have said we don't need entitlement reform, but the democrats in Washington are saying it, it's like pulling teeth to get anyone to agree to the idea of raising the age limit up a couple of years for people who are at least 10 years out from receiving benefits. Some kind of reform must be done, something that both parties can sign onto and support regardless of who's in the WH or in control of Congress. Be nice if we could actually reduce health care costs; that's the main driver and I don't think the ACA is the answer for that.

There are many in the GOP who were and are adamant about not raising the debt ceiling; I think that's foolish, the drastic measures that would be required would almost certainly tip us over into a recession or depression. We don't need to do that, but we do need both short term and long term plans to deal with the fiscal crisis we're in and keep those entitlement programs solvent. I don't see many in either party who are willing to give up some of their sacred cows; I think that's what it's going to take, but it ain't happening at least not yet.

On spending, I'd like to see us gradually lower it from 24.3% to around 19%. Coupla ways to do that, one is to implement programs that improve economic growth so our GDP number is higher, and the other is to find ways to economize. I just know we could find a couple hundred billion dollars in duplicate or outdated programs. And yes, Defense should be part of that; if it was me, I'd cap spending increases year over year to a max of 3%, excess from one year gets rolled over into the next. Once we get GDP growing faster than 3% then we're on track to cut into the deficits. Doesn't have to be overnight, the US Gov't is going to be around a long time. But we do need some certainty, we need a plan.

On revenue, boosting economic growth is also the best way to get more in taxes. We don't have to raise taxes on anybody, we just have to make the business and investing climate here more attractive. There are plenty of studies that suggest that changes in tax rates WILL influence behavior; money flows to where it gets the best return, therefore we need to be more competitive with the rest of the world. Socking it to the rich may sound great, with the inequality issue and fairness for all as our battle cry, but I think it's counter productive until the economy gets going again at a sustained rate above 3%. THAT's when you raise the rates.

 

[oldfart]

You may not have said we don't need entitlement reform, but the democrats in Washington are saying it, it's like pulling teeth to get anyone to agree to the idea of raising the age limit up a couple of years for people who are at least 10 years out from receiving benefits.

This is a bad idea. Everyone has been assuming that life expectancy is increasing, making more people live into Social Security years and raising spending. This is a misconception. A recent major study by Jay Olshansky, a professor at the School of Public Health, University of Illinois at Chicago and 16 other researchers had startling news.

Researchers have long documented that the most educated Americans were making the biggest gains in life expectancy, but now they say mortality data show that life spans for some of the least educated Americans are actually contracting. Four studies in recent years identified modest declines, but a new one that looks separately at Americans lacking a high school diploma found disturbingly sharp drops in life expectancy for whites in this group. Experts not involved in the new research said its findings were persuasive....The steepest declines were for white women without a high school diploma, who lost five years of life between 1990 and 2008, said S. Jay Olshansky, a public health professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago and the lead investigator on the study, published last month in Health Affairs. By 2008, life expectancy for black women without a high school diploma had surpassed that of white women of the same education level, the study found.
White men lacking a high school diploma lost three years of life. Life expectancy for both blacks and Hispanics of the same education level rose, the data showed. But blacks over all do not live as long as whites, while Hispanics live longer than both whites and blacks.

“We’re used to looking at groups and complaining that their mortality rates haven’t improved fast enough, but to actually go backward is deeply troubling,” said John G. Haaga, head of the Population and Social Processes Branch of the National Institute on Aging, who was not involved in the new study.
The five-year decline for white women rivals the catastrophic seven-year drop for Russian men in the years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, said Michael Marmot, director of the Institute of Health Equity in London.

The implications are that a large segment of the population is experiencing decreases in life expectancy of over four years in the last 20 years. None of this has hit the Social Security actuarial tables, but it will. I think it would be wise to wait a bit and see if the correction for these numbers projected into the future won't reduce the "shortfall" or eliminate it. It also raises a question as to what role access to medical care plays in the numbers.

The reasons for the decline remain unclear, but researchers offered possible explanations, including a spike in prescription drug overdoses among young whites, higher rates of smoking among less educated white women, rising obesity, and a steady increase in the number of the least educated Americans who lack health insurance.

On revenue, boosting economic growth is also the best way to get more in taxes.

Agreed. In fact looking at deficit numbers at the bottom of a major downturn makes it look impossible. The key thing to focus on is what revenues and expenses would be at some benchmark point in recovery (say unemployment hits 5.0%). At that level expenses for unemployment benefits, and a variety of means-tested programs would go down substantially. At the same time revenues would increase. This kind of computation (called a "full-employment" surplus or deficit) used to be seen regularly, but I haven't been able to find a current projection for it. The full-employment deficit should be capable of being closed and would leave the budget at zero net stimulus at full employment.

 

[Interpol]

I'm not sure I came across it on this thread, but I support a transaction fee on Wall Streeters and the deals they make, the way our debit cards face transaction fees for the ways we use those.

I would come to the table and negotiate that I would repeal the Reagan Tax Cuts on the rich, allowing rates to go from 35% to 50% and I would be happy to settle for a middle-ground of 42.5% on the top 2 tax brackets.

I would cut defense spending by $500 billion over 10 years, or basically back to the levels of about 8-10 years ago, which is still enough to make our military the mightiest by far.

I would not raise the retirement age to 67 (I could never ask a career waitress to wait 2 more years, or anyone with a real physical job) but I would make Social Security cuts to people who don't need it, like Bill Clinton or Mitt Romney or Barack Obama.

I would cut corporate subsidies by $500 billion over 10 years.

I'm already somewhere around $3-4 trillion over 10 years and not one single middle class or working poor person is affected in a negative way by it while the well-to-do are doing as good as ever.

 

[Wiseacre]

You may not have said we don't need entitlement reform, but the democrats in Washington are saying it, it's like pulling teeth to get anyone to agree to the idea of raising the age limit up a couple of years for people who are at least 10 years out from receiving benefits.

This is a bad idea. Everyone has been assuming that life expectancy is increasing, making more people live into Social Security years and raising spending. This is a misconception. A recent major study by Jay Olshansky, a professor at the School of Public Health, University of Illinois at Chicago and 16 other researchers had startling news.

Researchers have long documented that the most educated Americans were making the biggest gains in life expectancy, but now they say mortality data show that life spans for some of the least educated Americans are actually contracting. Four studies in recent years identified modest declines, but a new one that looks separately at Americans lacking a high school diploma found disturbingly sharp drops in life expectancy for whites in this group. Experts not involved in the new research said its findings were persuasive....The steepest declines were for white women without a high school diploma, who lost five years of life between 1990 and 2008, said S. Jay Olshansky, a public health professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago and the lead investigator on the study, published last month in Health Affairs. By 2008, life expectancy for black women without a high school diploma had surpassed that of white women of the same education level, the study found.
White men lacking a high school diploma lost three years of life. Life expectancy for both blacks and Hispanics of the same education level rose, the data showed. But blacks over all do not live as long as whites, while Hispanics live longer than both whites and blacks.

“We’re used to looking at groups and complaining that their mortality rates haven’t improved fast enough, but to actually go backward is deeply troubling,” said John G. Haaga, head of the Population and Social Processes Branch of the National Institute on Aging, who was not involved in the new study.
The five-year decline for white women rivals the catastrophic seven-year drop for Russian men in the years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, said Michael Marmot, director of the Institute of Health Equity in London.

The implications are that a large segment of the population is experiencing decreases in life expectancy of over four years in the last 20 years. None of this has hit the Social Security actuarial tables, but it will. I think it would be wise to wait a bit and see if the correction for these numbers projected into the future won't reduce the "shortfall" or eliminate it. It also raises a question as to what role access to medical care plays in the numbers.

The reasons for the decline remain unclear, but researchers offered possible explanations, including a spike in prescription drug overdoses among young whites, higher rates of smoking among less educated white women, rising obesity, and a steady increase in the number of the least educated Americans who lack health insurance.

On revenue, boosting economic growth is also the best way to get more in taxes.

Agreed. In fact looking at deficit numbers at the bottom of a major downturn makes it look impossible. The key thing to focus on is what revenues and expenses would be at some benchmark point in recovery (say unemployment hits 5.0%). At that level expenses for unemployment benefits, and a variety of means-tested programs would go down substantially. At the same time revenues would increase. This kind of computation (called a "full-employment" surplus or deficit) used to be seen regularly, but I haven't been able to find a current projection for it. The full-employment deficit should be capable of being closed and would leave the budget at zero net stimulus at full employment.

Life expectancies may be in decline for some groups, but that doesn't mean raising the age limit is a bad idea. The fact is that we need to find ways to make Medicare/Medicaid financially sustainable. I haven't heard any better ideas lately.

 

[Sactowndog]

Blaming the increase in spending on defense is, to coin a phrase, malarkey. You don't think the rise in entitlement spending has more to do with it? Democrats have always been unwilling to address that issue; you cannot possibly raise taxes enough to cover the increase in entitlement program spending; not even close. AND, if Obama gets his 1.6 trill tax hike on the rich on top of all the other tax increases coming Jan 1, the economy WILL suffer. I cannot imagine how any sane person can possibly think that soaking the rich that much will not have serious negative consequences.

At what point did you hear me say we don't need entitlement reform? I said spending was around 22% of GDP and you have to have entitlement reform to get to 18-19%. But Revenue is currently at about 15.7% and you can't get spending to that level when you are at 6-7% of GDP for defense spending.

Sorry, I haven't responded sooner, been ill a little bit. Wanted too, wasn't quite up to it. You may not have said we don't need entitlement reform, but the democrats in Washington are saying it, it's like pulling teeth to get anyone to agree to the idea of raising the age limit up a couple of years for people who are at least 10 years out from receiving benefits. Some kind of reform must be done, something that both parties can sign onto and support regardless of who's in the WH or in control of Congress. Be nice if we could actually reduce health care costs; that's the main driver and I don't think the ACA is the answer for that.

There are many in the GOP who were and are adamant about not raising the debt ceiling; I think that's foolish, the drastic measures that would be required would almost certainly tip us over into a recession or depression. We don't need to do that, but we do need both short term and long term plans to deal with the fiscal crisis we're in and keep those entitlement programs solvent. I don't see many in either party who are willing to give up some of their sacred cows; I think that's what it's going to take, but it ain't happening at least not yet.

On spending, I'd like to see us gradually lower it from 24.3% to around 19%. Coupla ways to do that, one is to implement programs that improve economic growth so our GDP number is higher, and the other is to find ways to economize. I just know we could find a couple hundred billion dollars in duplicate or outdated programs. And yes, Defense should be part of that; if it was me, I'd cap spending increases year over year to a max of 3%, excess from one year gets rolled over into the next. Once we get GDP growing faster than 3% then we're on track to cut into the deficits. Doesn't have to be overnight, the US Gov't is going to be around a long time. But we do need some certainty, we need a plan.

On revenue, boosting economic growth is also the best way to get more in taxes. We don't have to raise taxes on anybody, we just have to make the business and investing climate here more attractive. There are plenty of studies that suggest that changes in tax rates WILL influence behavior; money flows to where it gets the best return, therefore we need to be more competitive with the rest of the world. Socking it to the rich may sound great, with the inequality issue and fairness for all as our battle cry, but I think it's counter productive until the economy gets going again at a sustained rate above 3%. THAT's when you raise the rates.

We really aren't that far apart. We agree we need to reduce entitlements. I think Obama agrees with that also based on his grand bargain. We agree that 19-20% is a good target although to deal with the boomers it might have to rise to 20-21% to handle the retirement bulge. We agree that taxes affect behavior and that raising the individual tax rate could affect economic performance.

Where we disagree likely is on raising the capital gains tax and imposing a capital exploration tax. I think these can be done without affecting the US economy as so much of capital investment is external to our national borders. If you good take half the revenue and direct it to reducing or eliminating the corporates income tax the country comes out ahead.

 

[freedombecki]

I think Obama expects too much out of other people and too little out of himself.

He wants to throw punches, but that's only so he can justify spending more and shoving the Constitution aside when it suits him.

What a rotten tomato.

 

[Rozman]

When are you going to talk about spending cuts?

Democrats never talk about spending cuts....
Their brain is not wired to process that concept.
They are about raising taxes wherever and whenever they can
and finding ways to spend more.

 

[jasonnfree]

End all deductions for religious groups. Property and income. Let them pay like everyone else. Put a small tax on high frequency computerized trades. Even one or two cents for each trade.

 

[Avorysuds]

Give us numbers, how much revenue you will collect by taxes, then give some idea of how much you will lose because taxes are raised seeing as that WILL happen, be fair. Then subtract your " new revenue's" from our current annual deficit and then you will have the amount needed in spending cuts.

In that moment you will realize just how retarded this conversation is about "raising taxes" as a way to balance the budget VS spending cuts. If raising taxes brought down the annual deficit 40-50% I’d concede you have a point, but seeing you will be lucky to get 5-10% makes it a joke of a debate.

 

[Grandma]

Higher tariffs on nonessential imports, higher luxury taxes on truly luxurious items, no subsidies or grants for corporate sharks.