US Taxes Must Rise Drastically

sorry then. But you did admit to some culpability.

If we continue to allow them to steal the trust fund, rack up deficits it becomes our fault too.

We have to do something about the real problem, and it sits in DC.


Culpability? How?

If Madeline is setting the bottom line of cut off benefits of who should not get benifits as we would be "rich" ...then i would be one of the cut off in time. Why? As i am the one paying for to keep the rest of everyone? It makes no sense.

If my medical last month was 11K and a total annual income is 25,000 how does that work?

That is not fair, I am not Madeline.

What I am saying is if we who are old enough to vote allow the polls in DC to steal our money and run the nation into the ground we are at fault, it is our responsibility to hold them to their oaths.

If somebody fools you once, shame on them. If somebody fools you day in and day out for 10-20-30 years shame on you.

If we don't do something about the shipwreck they are making out of our economy, our taxes and our retirement accounts then we can't blame anybody else.

If we have to march on DC by the tens of millions then by God we should have done that 25 years ago!

But we didn't. And we don't, and we pretend that it isn't our fault. But it is.

cross talking then. I was answering Madeline and you quoted my answer to comment.

I get what you are saying. I sure as hell didn't vote for any of the people who did all of this.
 
WASHINGTON -- Just in time to dash holiday cheer, recently unveiled debt-reduction plans underscore how huge are the fiscal challenges facing the U.S. They also make clear how tough the tradeoffs must be to tame federal budget deficits and the national debt.

Major overhauls of the entire U.S. tax code are at the heart of all these plans. They'd eliminate popular deductions and radically change taxation across the board.

The most influential panel is the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. Earlier this month, the panel's co-chairmen -- Democrat Erskine Bowles and Republican Alan Simpson -- released their preliminary report on how to bring down deficits and debt. It sent shock waves rumbling nationwide.

"We can't grow ourselves out of this problem. We can't tax our way out of it," Bowles told PBS' Charlie Rose Tuesday. "People who want to do just taxes, you'd have to raise the maximum marginal rates to 80 percent. You'd have to raise the corporate rate to 70 percent. You'd have to raise the capital gains rate to 50 percent if you're just going to do taxes.

"We can't cut our way out of it. People say, 'Oh, well, let's just cut the budget.' If you just rely on deficit reduction through cutting, and you want to exclude Social Security, Medicare and defense and of course interest, then you'd have to cut everything else by about 60 to 65 percent. You can't do that, either," Bowles said.

"What we've got to do is some combination. Alan and I have come out with a plan that's balanced that takes $4 trillion out of the deficit over the next 10 years. I think that's the kind of thing we have to do. And if we don't, the markets are going to force us to."

Driving all the plans is this cruel reality: The federal deficit is projected at $1.3 trillion this year, almost as much as last year -- a scale not seen since the end of World War II. Left untamed, experts insist, this monstrous debt threatens the nation's future prosperity and security. Simply paying interest on the nearly $14 trillion national debt will cost more than $1 trillion in 2020 -- 17 percent of all federal spending -- unless big changes are made.

Debt-cutting plans share this: Taxes will go up for everyone | cleveland.com

There are some hard choices ahead, folks. Best find your Big Girl Panties and Big Boy Underoos and face facts.

Those of you who are married to the idea that the deficit must be reduced but that your slice of the federal spending pie should not be touched, I find you to be unpatriotic and selfish. IMO, almost all of us should bear this burden, and no one's cow is sacred.

Your thoughts?
I prefer this method:

US Government Spending Must FALL Drastically

Worked great in 1920 and 1946.
 

So why shouldn't those people get SS? They are the ones who paid into it and are supporting all of those who did not.

25,000 in income and no SS. My medical last month was 11,000. How would you square that if i only made 25,000 a year?

I'd like to say I have all the answers, syrenn. I don't. But that sort of change is what is needed....I wrote it in hopes of making the size of these cuts in spending/increase in taxes "visible" to the reader.

It is time to make some very hard choices.

The problem is that politicians make the choices for you. They protect themselves and fuck everyone else. Right and left do it equally.

Politicians salieries should be cut your 33%
Government employees salieries should be cut your 33%
Government pensions need to be cut your 33%
All government spending, all social programs should be cut your 33% NOTHING spared the ax.
All waste needs to be cut.

That is what should be done first.





.

Exactly!! Problem with Maddie's very hard choices, all of your points above will never happen, she will defend that as well.....

Raising taxes in the progressive manner we have done for the last nine decades is crap to begin with.....

Our tax structure has penalized the achiever from day one, how you tax someone who makes $250K the same as someone who makes $2.5MILL is asinine......

We sit her today with Mexico as a neighbor, Maddie and her brethren do not want to control their access to our country, or their abuse of our privileges, she will tell you that their citizens have not ravished our schools, hospitals, entitlement programs, etc...., and she will tell me I need to pay more than I already do to support their illegal behavior......

Maddie is wrong, very wrong.....the only chance we have to keep this country great is to cut spending, stop spending what we do not have......

The assertion that we could not pay for the Bush tax cuts is a fallacy as well, imagine that your employer continued to spend at the levels prior to the current recession, what would they be labeled if they didn't pay you?? But if the stewards of our tax dollars spend more than they have, we are supposed to believe we need to sacrifice more? Our governments primary purpose is to protect us, not give 51% a free ride.....
 
sorry then. But you did admit to some culpability.

If we continue to allow them to steal the trust fund, rack up deficits it becomes our fault too.

We have to do something about the real problem, and it sits in DC.


Culpability? How?

If Madeline is setting the bottom line of cut off benefits of who should not get benifits as we would be "rich" ...then i would be one of the cut off in time. Why? As i am the one paying for to keep the rest of everyone? It makes no sense.

If my medical last month was 11K and a total annual income is 25,000 how does that work?

This is dilemma everyone will face...."why should I suffer?" That's one reason spending cuts are not as politically feasible as they might seem at first blush.

yeah, if we really were serious we could cut spending in half. The bigger the budget the more the fat, and ours is the largest budget in human history.

I agree with folks who lean toward cutting spending. But we are gonna have to force them in DC to do it. We are really gonna have to make our point stick a LOT more than we have so far.

In the long run if we increase taxes instead or worse yet perpetuate the deficits we will have to revisit this same crossroads again and again until we finally learn to budget within our means.
 
I'd like to say I have all the answers, syrenn. I don't. But that sort of change is what is needed....I wrote it in hopes of making the size of these cuts in spending/increase in taxes "visible" to the reader.

It is time to make some very hard choices.

The problem is that politicians make the choices for you. They protect themselves and fuck everyone else. Right and left do it equally.

Politicians salieries should be cut your 33%
Government employees salieries should be cut your 33%
Government pensions need to be cut your 33%
All government spending, all social programs should be cut your 33% NOTHING spared the ax.
All waste needs to be cut.

That is what should be done first.





.

Exactly!! Problem with Maddie's very hard choices, all of your points above will never happen, she will defend that as well.....

Raising taxes in the progressive manner we have done for the last nine decades is crap to begin with.....

Our tax structure has penalized the achiever from day one, how you tax someone who makes $250K the same as someone who makes $2.5MILL is asinine......

We sit her today with Mexico as a neighbor, Maddie and her brethren do not want to control their access to our country, or their abuse of our privileges, she will tell you that their citizens have not ravished our schools, hospitals, entitlement programs, etc...., and she will tell me I need to pay more than I already do to support their illegal behavior......

Maddie is wrong, very wrong.....the only chance we have to keep this country great is to cut spending, stop spending what we do not have......

The assertion that we could not pay for the Bush tax cuts is a fallacy as well, imagine that your employer continued to spend at the levels prior to the current recession, what would they be labeled if they didn't pay you?? But if the stewards of our tax dollars spend more than they have, we are supposed to believe we need to sacrifice more? Our governments primary purpose is to protect us, not give 51% a free ride.....


Part the waste i want cut is cutting ALL funding for NON citizens. ALL of it. I sure as hell dont want my taxes cut to fund them and any anchor babies they have. I dont want my tax dollars going to feed, house, care for and educated them. (obams aunti included) I don't give a shit if they starve to death, they can go back home and hack out a living there.
 
sorry then. But you did admit to some culpability.

If we continue to allow them to steal the trust fund, rack up deficits it becomes our fault too.

We have to do something about the real problem, and it sits in DC.


Culpability? How?

If Madeline is setting the bottom line of cut off benefits of who should not get benifits as we would be "rich" ...then i would be one of the cut off in time. Why? As i am the one paying for to keep the rest of everyone? It makes no sense.

If my medical last month was 11K and a total annual income is 25,000 how does that work?

This is dilemma everyone will face...."why should I suffer?" That's one reason spending cuts are not as politically feasible as they might seem at first blush.
It is one thing to bitch and cry "why should i suffer" when its your pocket they have their grubby hands in. I am the one suffering. Its MY money that i worked hard for.

Its a totally different story in my opinion when you are getting a free ride and the ride is shortened. And then crying "why should i suffer?" Tough shit. Your are still getting something for nothing just less of it. Its still free and more then what you would be getting without it at all.
 

Culpability? How?

If Madeline is setting the bottom line of cut off benefits of who should not get benifits as we would be "rich" ...then i would be one of the cut off in time. Why? As i am the one paying for to keep the rest of everyone? It makes no sense.

If my medical last month was 11K and a total annual income is 25,000 how does that work?

This is dilemma everyone will face...."why should I suffer?" That's one reason spending cuts are not as politically feasible as they might seem at first blush.
It is one thing to bitch and cry "why should i suffer" when its your pocket they have their grubby hands in. I am the one suffering. Its MY money that i worked hard for.

Its a totally different story in my opinion when you are getting a free ride and the ride is shortened. And then crying "why should i suffer?" Tough shit. Your are still getting something for nothing just less of it. Its still free and more then what you would be getting without it at all.

Dun expect to be alone in the "I feel entitled" section, syrenn. I expect it will be very crowded.
 
I'd like to say I have all the answers, syrenn. I don't. But that sort of change is what is needed....I wrote it in hopes of making the size of these cuts in spending/increase in taxes "visible" to the reader.

It is time to make some very hard choices.

The problem is that politicians make the choices for you. They protect themselves and fuck everyone else. Right and left do it equally.

Politicians salieries should be cut your 33%
Government employees salieries should be cut your 33%
Government pensions need to be cut your 33%
All government spending, all social programs should be cut your 33% NOTHING spared the ax.
All waste needs to be cut.

That is what should be done first.

Exactly!! Problem with Maddie's very hard choices, all of your points above will never happen, she will defend that as well.....

Raising taxes in the progressive manner we have done for the last nine decades is crap to begin with.....

Our tax structure has penalized the achiever from day one, how you tax someone who makes $250K the same as someone who makes $2.5MILL is asinine......

We sit her today with Mexico as a neighbor, Maddie and her brethren do not want to control their access to our country, or their abuse of our privileges, she will tell you that their citizens have not ravished our schools, hospitals, entitlement programs, etc...., and she will tell me I need to pay more than I already do to support their illegal behavior......

Maddie is wrong, very wrong.....the only chance we have to keep this country great is to cut spending, stop spending what we do not have......

The assertion that we could not pay for the Bush tax cuts is a fallacy as well, imagine that your employer continued to spend at the levels prior to the current recession, what would they be labeled if they didn't pay you?? But if the stewards of our tax dollars spend more than they have, we are supposed to believe we need to sacrifice more? Our governments primary purpose is to protect us, not give 51% a free ride.....

* I fully support spending cuts. I have said so, and proposed such cuts directly to Medicare and Social Security. Syrenn and asterism hated my ideas. Can't you read?

* We have not raised taxes for each of the previous 9 decades. In some we did not alter them, in others we lowered them. It is true that in some we raised them. I'm not sure what your point may have been.

* Taxing two people the same "way"? I have no clue what this is meant to say. Please elaborate.

* I doubt anyone on USMB is more "conservative" on illegal immigration than I am. I also belong to an anti-illegal immigration PAC and am quite the activist on the topic. Kindly refrain from putting any more POVs in my mouth; you dun know me. And my "brethren" are other Republicans.

* Yes, deep spending cuts must be made. No one debates that, certainly not me. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the bipartisan panel's report, which determined that steep increases in taxes must also be made.

* The Bush tax cuts did not work. The economy did not grow as a result. Allowing them to expire is a first taste of the bad medicine we need if we are to pull this nation back from the brink.

It is dishonest and unhelpful to scream like a banshee that the deficit must be reduced, then in the next breath, call for tax cuts.
 
We do need tax cuts. The problem is we need loophole elimination just as bad. It is economic fact, as shown by Art Laffer and Milton Friedman that if you lower the overall tax burden while eliminate loopholes, you increase revenue to a certain point. We are well above that balance point currently, and can achieve great revitallization by doing this.

* The Bush tax cuts did not work. The economy did not grow as a result.
Horsecrap. It countered the economic collapse that the dot bomb and 9/11 caused. If they haddn't been done, you would have seen the economic hardship that the media so desperately tried to report on that didn't exist.

Oh noes! 4.9% unemployment! Worst economy in 5000 years! :rolleyes:

It is dishonest and unhelpful to scream like a banshee that the deficit must be reduced, then in the next breath, call for tax cuts.
It is not. What is dishonest is to scream for the reduction while proposing new programs and spending. THAT is dishonest. Now... what's Obamacare again? It's certainly not deficit neutral no matter what was promised.

Still, best solution.

1. flat tax, no exemptions set at 12-15% (the rich won't try to dodge it so hard, and the poor don't get wealth redistribution and a far lower chunk of withholding taken out. No second christmas on Apr 15th for the poor. Plus you reduce an entire agency to skeleton crew saving those costs.)

2. Cut budget to 2007 levels, eliminate all new programs, agencies and departments created after that point. (all departments would have to reduce their budget appropriately)

3. Freeze budget for the next 10 years at that level. (This acts as a cut to all departments equally as inflation automatically cuts spending)

4. Stop printing dollars and begin to drain the 'swamp' of too much currency. (Slowly decrease the money in the system as to control the coming hyperinflation by using deflation)

5. No more bailouts. Ever again. (Consequences from bad investments must be part of the plan. No more taxpayer guarantees of financial risk. This will stabilize the financial markets and purge bad debts.)

Do those five points and you will cure a million ills.
 
Last edited:
* The Bush tax cuts did not work. The economy did not grow as a result.
Horsecrap. It countered the economic collapse that the dot bomb and 9/11 caused. If they haddn't been done, you would have seen the economic hardship that the media so desperately tried to report on that didn't exist.

This simply isn't true. Low interest rates caused the meager economic growth post 9/11. Then the refi boom, an auto sales boom and finally the housing boom occurred, personal debt increased and we all sailed on 6 years of jobless recovery as a result.

Changes to the tax policy had no measurable impacts at all.
 
We do need tax cuts. The problem is we need loophole elimination just as bad. It is economic fact, as shown by Art Laffer and Milton Friedman that if you lower the overall tax burden while eliminate loopholes, you increase revenue to a certain point. We are well above that balance point currently, and can achieve great revitallization by doing this.

* The Bush tax cuts did not work. The economy did not grow as a result.
Horsecrap. It countered the economic collapse that the dot bomb and 9/11 caused. If they haddn't been done, you would have seen the economic hardship that the media so desperately tried to report on that didn't exist.

Oh noes! 4.9% unemployment! Worst economy in 5000 years! :rolleyes:

It is dishonest and unhelpful to scream like a banshee that the deficit must be reduced, then in the next breath, call for tax cuts.
It is not. What is dishonest is to scream for the reduction while proposing new programs and spending. THAT is dishonest. Now... what's Obamacare again? It's certainly not deficit neutral no matter what was promised.

Still, best solution.

1. flat tax, no exemptions set at 12-15% (the rich won't try to dodge it so hard, and the poor don't get wealth redistribution and a far lower chunk of withholding taken out. No second christmas on Apr 15th for the poor. Plus you reduce an entire agency to skeleton crew saving those costs.)

2. Cut budget to 2007 levels, eliminate all new programs, agencies and departments created after that point. (all departments would have to reduce their budget appropriately)

3. Freeze budget for the next 10 years at that level. (This acts as a cut to all departments equally as inflation automatically cuts spending)

4. Stop printing dollars and begin to drain the 'swamp' of too much currency. (Slowly decrease the money in the system as to control the coming hyperinflation by using deflation)

5. No more bailouts. Ever again. (Consequences from bad investments must be part of the plan. No more taxpayer guarantees of financial risk. This will stabilize the financial markets and purge bad debts.)

Do those five points and you will cure a million ills.

I like it.:clap2::clap2::clap2:
 
* The Bush tax cuts did not work. The economy did not grow as a result.
Horsecrap. It countered the economic collapse that the dot bomb and 9/11 caused. If they haddn't been done, you would have seen the economic hardship that the media so desperately tried to report on that didn't exist.

This simply isn't true. Low interest rates caused the meager economic growth post 9/11. Then the refi boom, an auto sales boom and finally the housing boom occurred, personal debt increased and we all sailed on 6 years of jobless recovery as a result.

Changes to the tax policy had no measurable impacts at all.

"Jobless recovery," huh? 4.9% unemployment. That's a fact.
 
No one will be paying a flat rate of 38% on income -- that'd be crazy. If you read the article, they are actually discussing lowering rates (which would seem as if it'd reduce your tax burden) but since we don't yet know where they'll cut in, we can't know what effect the new rate schedule they are proposing will actually have. The more important suggestion for most, I'd imagine, is whether (as proposed) to do away with the charitable contribution and mortgage interest deductions. In most middle class households, I'd expect that to increase the income tax burden about 10%. Not to 10%....if last year, you paid $2,500, I estimate the proposed changes would raise your burden to $2,750.

I never said "flat." Stop mis characterizing my words. 38% is crazy? That's what the current rates are going to increase to without an extension. The alternative plans in the article just get it done in a less transparent way. They cut rates but also cut deductions further, deductions on investments in our small business. I and my accounting staff have analyzed the proposals for planning purposes. The net result is a higher tax on the same income.

Also, a 10% increase in taxes across the board won't do much to help assuming it doesn't actually hurt the economy. FY 2009 federal receipts were $2.1T with $3.5T outlays, resulting in a deficit of $1.5T. Assuming the tax increases don't hurt, an additional 10% ($210B) still leaves us with a $1.3T deficit.

there are plans in the works now to cut the spending. But that won't be enough unless you want draconian cuts in spending.

Personally I wish we could vote on this. I would probably go for draconian spending cuts with no tax increase. But the pols will never allow it.

Whatever spending cuts are legislated may be rolled back in 2 years when the republicans resume their typical deficit smorgasbord.

I want draconian cuts in spending. So many of these "services" are glorified social programs with so much government bureaucracy that they are ineffective. The Defense Appropriations process is entirely broken. There is no need to have local tax dollars go to the Federal Government and then get allocated through the FHA to the state Housing Authorities to then help our local community. A simple Federal oversight committee can provide standards and a simple State oversight committee can direct initiatives and cut out the 12 layers of "management" in between.

There is no incentive at any level of government to be efficient, and that is why we pay so much for so little.
 
No one will be paying a flat rate of 38% on income -- that'd be crazy. If you read the article, they are actually discussing lowering rates (which would seem as if it'd reduce your tax burden) but since we don't yet know where they'll cut in, we can't know what effect the new rate schedule they are proposing will actually have. The more important suggestion for most, I'd imagine, is whether (as proposed) to do away with the charitable contribution and mortgage interest deductions. In most middle class households, I'd expect that to increase the income tax burden about 10%. Not to 10%....if last year, you paid $2,500, I estimate the proposed changes would raise your burden to $2,750.

I never said "flat." Stop mis characterizing my words. 38% is crazy? That's what the current rates are going to increase to without an extension. The alternative plans in the article just get it done in a less transparent way. They cut rates but also cut deductions further, deductions on investments in our small business. I and my accounting staff have analyzed the proposals for planning purposes. The net result is a higher tax on the same income.

Also, a 10% increase in taxes across the board won't do much to help assuming it doesn't actually hurt the economy. FY 2009 federal receipts were $2.1T with $3.5T outlays, resulting in a deficit of $1.5T. Assuming the tax increases don't hurt, an additional 10% ($210B) still leaves us with a $1.3T deficit.

I dun know for sure what the numbers are, asterism. And no one knows for sure what they should be....except that they should go up.

The current effective rate will never reach 38%....it is mathematically impossible.

Setting all that aside, I'm more interested to know whether you think we have reached the crisis the authors of the bipartisan report perceive, and if so, what you think should be done about it?

Again with the mis characterization of my words, I never suggested a 38% effective tax rate.

As for my thoughts on the crisis, I had the same position in 1998 as I do now. Government at all levels has gotten too big and too inefficient. I didn't care much for Bush in 2000, but after the dot com bomb exploded and the economic indicators hadn't caught up yet I noticed Al Gore running on the success and prosperity of the previous 5 years and said "we should do more," which really meant, "we need to raise taxes and expand government handouts."

We can't afford to stay on the path we're using, but we can't afford your ideas either. You can afford them, but that's because you've already achieved early retirement. It's also why you have no problem raising the marginal rate to 38%, you'll never have to pay it.
 
Horsecrap. It countered the economic collapse that the dot bomb and 9/11 caused. If they haddn't been done, you would have seen the economic hardship that the media so desperately tried to report on that didn't exist.

This simply isn't true. Low interest rates caused the meager economic growth post 9/11. Then the refi boom, an auto sales boom and finally the housing boom occurred, personal debt increased and we all sailed on 6 years of jobless recovery as a result.

Changes to the tax policy had no measurable impacts at all.

"Jobless recovery," huh? 4.9% unemployment. That's a fact.

unemployment-rate_2009-05.png


With further overall employment reduction in 2009 not reflected in the chart above (changes since March 2009), there ultimately was zero net job creation in the 2000-2009 decade in the USA. This is even worse than it seems, given US population growth during that time with no new jobs created for them, creating a shortage of about 18 million jobs relative to previous decades by one estimate by Paul Krugman if this ground was to be made up in five years.[9] To understand such a calculation from another perspective, looking at the chart above, about 17 million net new jobs were created in the 1990-1999 decade relative to population growth. Assuming continuing population growth at about the same rate, for the USA to return to the level of employment of 2000 relative to population, starting from a lost decade, overall about 34 million net new jobs would need to be created by the end of the 2010-2019 decade (new jobs beyond replacements for jobs that are normally lost). By whatever calculation, this vast "jobs deficit", completely unpredicted by almost all mainstream economists, is causing "leading economists and policymakers to fundamentally rethink the underpinnings of the nation's growth.".[10]
 
The problem is that politicians make the choices for you. They protect themselves and fuck everyone else. Right and left do it equally.

Politicians salieries should be cut your 33%
Government employees salieries should be cut your 33%
Government pensions need to be cut your 33%
All government spending, all social programs should be cut your 33% NOTHING spared the ax.
All waste needs to be cut.

That is what should be done first.

Exactly!! Problem with Maddie's very hard choices, all of your points above will never happen, she will defend that as well.....

Raising taxes in the progressive manner we have done for the last nine decades is crap to begin with.....

Our tax structure has penalized the achiever from day one, how you tax someone who makes $250K the same as someone who makes $2.5MILL is asinine......

We sit her today with Mexico as a neighbor, Maddie and her brethren do not want to control their access to our country, or their abuse of our privileges, she will tell you that their citizens have not ravished our schools, hospitals, entitlement programs, etc...., and she will tell me I need to pay more than I already do to support their illegal behavior......

Maddie is wrong, very wrong.....the only chance we have to keep this country great is to cut spending, stop spending what we do not have......

The assertion that we could not pay for the Bush tax cuts is a fallacy as well, imagine that your employer continued to spend at the levels prior to the current recession, what would they be labeled if they didn't pay you?? But if the stewards of our tax dollars spend more than they have, we are supposed to believe we need to sacrifice more? Our governments primary purpose is to protect us, not give 51% a free ride.....

* I fully support spending cuts. I have said so, and proposed such cuts directly to Medicare and Social Security. Syrenn and asterism hated my ideas. Can't you read?


I'd like you to show me that. I have no problem with means testing either entitlement program. In fact, I actively campaigned for both.

* We have not raised taxes for each of the previous 9 decades. In some we did not alter them, in others we lowered them. It is true that in some we raised them. I'm not sure what your point may have been.

That is false. So many tax shelters and limitations on "foundations" have been enacted it will make your head spin. The tax rates in the code might have gone down but the actual rate of tax collected from the same amount of income has gone up - way up.

* Taxing two people the same "way"? I have no clue what this is meant to say. Please elaborate.

* I doubt anyone on USMB is more "conservative" on illegal immigration than I am. I also belong to an anti-illegal immigration PAC and am quite the activist on the topic. Kindly refrain from putting any more POVs in my mouth; you dun know me. And my "brethren" are other Republicans.

* Yes, deep spending cuts must be made. No one debates that, certainly not me. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the bipartisan panel's report, which determined that steep increases in taxes must also be made.

* The Bush tax cuts did not work. The economy did not grow as a result. Allowing them to expire is a first taste of the bad medicine we need if we are to pull this nation back from the brink.

It is dishonest and unhelpful to scream like a banshee that the deficit must be reduced, then in the next breath, call for tax cuts.

You can proclaim that all you want, but it doesn't make it any less false.

FairTax at 23% is a rate cut but a revenue increase.

Americans For Fair Taxation: Americans For Fair Taxation
 
Last edited:
As an aside - Maddie, can you please not make it deliberately hard to quote you by using a different font and color? People respond to you to have a discussion so you don't need to do special things to attract attention to your posts.

It's half the reason I rarely respond to the other creative formatters, it's just not worth the effort.
 
The problem is that politicians make the choices for you. They protect themselves and fuck everyone else. Right and left do it equally.

Politicians salieries should be cut your 33%
Government employees salieries should be cut your 33%
Government pensions need to be cut your 33%
All government spending, all social programs should be cut your 33% NOTHING spared the ax.
All waste needs to be cut.

That is what should be done first.

Exactly!! Problem with Maddie's very hard choices, all of your points above will never happen, she will defend that as well.....

Raising taxes in the progressive manner we have done for the last nine decades is crap to begin with.....

Our tax structure has penalized the achiever from day one, how you tax someone who makes $250K the same as someone who makes $2.5MILL is asinine......

We sit her today with Mexico as a neighbor, Maddie and her brethren do not want to control their access to our country, or their abuse of our privileges, she will tell you that their citizens have not ravished our schools, hospitals, entitlement programs, etc...., and she will tell me I need to pay more than I already do to support their illegal behavior......

Maddie is wrong, very wrong.....the only chance we have to keep this country great is to cut spending, stop spending what we do not have......

The assertion that we could not pay for the Bush tax cuts is a fallacy as well, imagine that your employer continued to spend at the levels prior to the current recession, what would they be labeled if they didn't pay you?? But if the stewards of our tax dollars spend more than they have, we are supposed to believe we need to sacrifice more? Our governments primary purpose is to protect us, not give 51% a free ride.....

Madeline said:
* I fully support spending cuts. I have said so, and proposed such cuts directly to Medicare and Social Security. Syrenn and asterism hated my ideas. Can't you read?


Madeline said:
I dun want to see even one single graybeard protesting cuts in Medicare and Social Security. Not ONE. And if you have at least $25,000 in come from other sources or at least $500,000 in assets, not including the family home, then IMO you should not receive Social Security at all.
I guess this is the quote you're referring to, correct? If so it is telling everyone, you do not care what they paid into SS or Medicare and if they succeeded in anyway, you want to steal their SS contributions to support the ones who don't, you're advocating Socialism with this statement......

Madeline said:
* We have not raised taxes for each of the previous 9 decades. In some we did not alter them, in others we lowered them. It is true that in some we raised them. I'm not sure what your point may have been.

We have a progressive tax system today, and have from day one of the income tax, the more you make the higher the tax rate, do you believe it is different?

Madeline said:
* Taxing two people the same "way"? I have no clue what this is meant to say. Please elaborate.

Currently if you make $373,650 or more you are paying at a 35% rate, so if you made $2.5MILL or $20MILL, you would be taxed at the same rate, is that clear enough? What Obama wants is to step that down to a starting point of $250K, an even greater divide.....

When Warren Buffett makes the claim his secretary pays more in taxes than he does, his companies pay the vast majority of his expenses, this serves to prove one thing, he is out of touch with the average American Taxpayer.....

The assertion that we are cutting taxes if we keep the Bush tax cuts alive is a pure fallacy, can you spend money you do not have? I can't, everyone I know can't, but the US Congress can, how is that? When your kid spends money their ass can't cover, what do you do?


Madeline said:
* I doubt anyone on USMB is more "conservative" on illegal immigration than I am. I also belong to an anti-illegal immigration PAC and am quite the activist on the topic. Kindly refrain from putting any more POVs in my mouth; you dun know me. And my "brethren" are other Republicans.

Knowing you personally is not necessary, unless what you share here is pure bull shit, you as well as I air our POV's on this board, secondly, your no where close to being a "Conservative" or for that matter a Republican, maybe a RINO, which is a stretch, to say the least.....

I find it hard to believe you're Anti-Illegal Immigration, I think this is window dressing, more in line with your RINO approach.....

So you believe we should build / complete the wall? Take the necessary action to stop Illegal Immigration? Expel all current illegals and their families? Cut them off from free medical care, education, food stamps, etc....


Madeline said:
* Yes, deep spending cuts must be made. No one debates that, certainly not me. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the bipartisan panel's report, which determined that steep increases in taxes must also be made.

A Steep tax increase is a mistake, this philosophy will retard good growth, I disagree strongly with Bowles & Simpson in this regard. The left has this misconception that more taxation will cover our sins and allow good growth, it has not worked to date, what makes anyone believe it will. I contend this is nothing more than a whimsical hail Mary pass, if it is caught maybe we will turn this around?

We can not continue to support the illegal population, anything different will fail, why is this so hard for some to grasp?



Madeline said:
* The Bush tax cuts did not work. The economy did not grow as a result. Allowing them to expire is a first taste of the bad medicine we need if we are to pull this nation back from the brink.

It is dishonest and unhelpful to scream like a banshee that the deficit must be reduced, then in the next breath, call for tax cuts.

The Bush Tax cuts are what kept our economy alive, post Dot.com and 9/11, have you forgotten how bad it was? It is funny how the left forgot how Jeff Skilling convinced Clinton's SEC Chairman to let Enron book future profits, yes that's right BOOK FUTURE Profits!!!!
 
GWV5903, your reply has everything in it but the kitchen sink. Lemme address your points as best I can in succinct fashion.

* IMO, we need to deport every single illegal immigrant. Legal immigrants should be microchipped and tracked, and booted the instant their eligibility expires. I dun agonize over what healthcare, etc., they should receive as I am 100% opposed to allowing them to remain here. As for the wall, I dun know. Before we spend the money, I'd like to see if it will be effective....but posting an armed US solider every 20 feet sure as shit would be.

* The Baby Boomers constitute a ginormous population bubble, and when they all retire, about 20% to 40% of the US population will be over 65. Between 2000 and 2030, the number of Americans over 65 will more than double, and this population cannot be supported by the contributions of workers who will be taxable then. To make matters worse, this population will be the longest-lived, albeit for many years as sickly people, to ever exist in this country. We can dodge this data and hide our heads in the sand, but that does not make it go away. Talking about Social Security and Medicare in terms of "stealing the contributions of successful people" is unhelpful.

Demographics of Aging

* No one pays a flat rate of 35% on their income. Under our system, if a 35% rate is applicable, it only applies to dollars of income within that bracket. The first dollars are untaxed; the next tier of dollars taxed at the entry level rate, etc.

* Congress spends money it does not have by issuing and selling US debt. This has been going on all our lives and has been manageable, but a few things have changed. China has made efforts to try to drive up the cost of our debt, forcing us to borrow at higher interest rates. If this has not been successful yet, it soon will be. Our borrowing capacity is more or less maxed out. And worst of all, our debt load is more or less equal to our GDP. Meaning that taxes must be quite high just to service the debt, before a single government service is offered.....that is unsustainable.

* The impact of taxes on growth is complex. I happen to think no matter what the government may do, we will never again live to see a high-growth economy. So to a degree, this argument is a nonstarter for me. Beyond that, even if taxes would retard growth, they still must go up. The only alternative would be for the US to default on its debt, which I think would be catastrophic. Government revenues are not going to be sufficient to service debt and pay for government functions, regardless of how stripped down they may be. You seem focused on the tax burdens of the rich, but I am talking about driving up the tax burdens on everyone.....you, me, the poor, the very wealthy.....every taxpayer.

 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top