We need to raise taxes

[theHawk]

Well after listening to our friends on the left scream and rant and rave about "paying" for everything, I am inclined to agree.

I think we should raise taxes, up to 90% if we have to, on the lower income brackets. These, after all, are the folks that soak up a majority of government welfare. Clearly if someone is living in poverty, it would be best if the government spent their money for them, as they have already demonstrated the inablility to manage their own money. The government should be taking most all of their money to pay for their housing, food, and education, no more 22" rims, gold jewlery and big screen TVs.

Your thoughts?

 

[Big Black Dog]

I think your idea is a bit extreme BUT I do feel that everybody in America needs to pay taxes on income. We need to do away with all the various exemptions such as for dependents, earned income, giving to charity, home mortgage interest, etc. No more tax exemption loopholes for anybody. Then everybody should be required to pay taxes at the same rate - 10% of your income for the Federal government and 5% of your income to the State that you live in. By law, nobody's tax rate would be over 15% of what you earn. Then, taxes in America would be more fair. To help out the people of America, Congress would be mandated by law not to spend more money then they take in on taxes. For example, if the Treasury collected 50 trillion dollars in taxes for the year of 2010, in 2011 they could not spend more than 40 trillion dollars. 5 trillion would go to mandatory savings and 5 trillion to pay off the national debt. Then Congress could spend the remaining 40 trillion in anyway they felt they would like to but they had to ensure the budget was balanced at the end of the year.

 

[WillowTree]

I think so too. Those that scream for so much need to step up and help pay for it.

 

[Bern80]

I have a simple solution. Why not just make contributing more taxes voluntary? We keep rates where they are now and if you feel government needs more of your money than that you are more than welcome to give it to them. There are tons of liberals who are saying we need to give government more money. So we simply remove the procedural barrier where government gives you your money back if you pay more than what they say you owe. If you don't want to pay more than legally required, that's fine too. I'm sure there are more than enough liberals out there who will readily give more of their own money to compensate for those of us that don't want to.

 

[loosecannon]

I have a simple solution. Why not just make contributing more taxes voluntary? We keep rates where they are now and if you feel government needs more of your money than that you are more than welcome to give it to them. There are tons of liberals who are saying we need to give government more money. So we simply remove the procedural barrier where government gives you your money back if you pay more than what they say you owe. If you don't want to pay more than legally required, that's fine too. I'm sure there are more than enough liberals out there who will readily give more of their own money to compensate for those of us that don't want to.

Most liberals clearly do not support the runaway deficits, in fact republicans are generally allergic to fiscal responsibility.

IOW your thesis is bogus.

Do you oppose expiration of the Bush tax cuts?

Are you willing to do what it takes to reduce spending? Like cut 70% from the military budget? Eliminate medicare? Increase taxes so it is possible to pay down the debt? Organize politically to make this happen instead of just whining?

 

[Bern80]

Most liberals clearly do not support the runaway deficits, in fact republicans are generally allergic to fiscal responsibility.

IOW your thesis is bogus.

No it isn't. My thesis (if you must call it that) is not that liberals like deficits. My thesis is essentially a satyrical solution to the suppossed problem that government just has to have more money and my point is okay assuming I agree with that, what's stoppin ya? Government says I owe them x, if you think they need more, give it to them. Simple.

Do you oppose expiration of the Bush tax cuts?

yes

Are you willing to do what it takes to reduce spending? Like cut 70% from the military budget? Eliminate medicare? Increase taxes so it is possible to pay down the debt? Organize politically to make this happen instead of just whining?

The question isn't whether I would do what it takes. I don't have a choice in the matter. The question is, are our elected officials willing to? I agree with cutting all of things, including the military. There can be no sacred cows. But it's going to take more than cutting a budget. It's going to take fundmental shift in thinking about what the role of government is to significantly cut the deficit.

BTW, organizations for these types of ideals already exist. They're called libertarians.

 

[loosecannon]

OK, it was satire.

Libertarian orgs may exist but I don't see the public at large jumping on board. The tea party got one thing right, it demonstrated that enough pissed off people can upturn the cart. Now do it at full scale and upturn the cart. Throw the bums from both parties out. Get housewives and plumbers and teachers elected to high office.

 

[fyrenza]

Why not make it ALL Sales Taxes?

THEN, those who earn more and spend more, pay more in taxes.

 

[theHawk]

I have a simple solution. Why not just make contributing more taxes voluntary? We keep rates where they are now and if you feel government needs more of your money than that you are more than welcome to give it to them. There are tons of liberals who are saying we need to give government more money. So we simply remove the procedural barrier where government gives you your money back if you pay more than what they say you owe. If you don't want to pay more than legally required, that's fine too. I'm sure there are more than enough liberals out there who will readily give more of their own money to compensate for those of us that don't want to.

Most liberals clearly do not support the runaway deficits, in fact republicans are generally allergic to fiscal responsibility.

IOW your thesis is bogus.

Do you oppose expiration of the Bush tax cuts?

Are you willing to do what it takes to reduce spending? Like cut 70% from the military budget? Eliminate medicare? Increase taxes so it is possible to pay down the debt? Organize politically to make this happen instead of just whining?

Nobody would ever say they "support" the huge deficits. But libs do spend far more than anyone else, they want a government program for every little grievance that pops up.

Don't care about "Bush tax cuts", its the current tax rate and has been for years, not a "tax cut".

No matter what the tax rates and tax revenue is, the government just needs to spend less than it takes in, and deficits evaporate. Its pretty stupid to argue that we need to tax "the rich" with a 39%+ tax in order to "pay" off the deficit, when the government has no intention of spending within its means no matter what tax revenue they collect.

 

[william the wie]

Why not make it ALL Sales Taxes?

THEN, those who earn more and spend more, pay more in taxes.

Substituting an average 19% VAT with the usual rebates for exports as a substitute for all other taxes works for me but it would put 10 of the top 20 population states into default. Without exemption from federal income tax most municipal bonds would drop to 12+% yield. I have already posted that I think voluntary taxes: lotteries and a green card auction would be the way to go.

 

[Neubarth]

We need to totally do away with the military. They are very expensive. I ask you, "How many wars would be have been in in the past fifty years if we did not have a military?"

 

[Sallow]

I might go along with this absurd idea..if something else were to take place.

No more government contracts to private industry.

None.

Government 401ks would be taken out of all financial firms. The government would no longer bank with private banks. The government would no longer buy cars from private companies. The government wouldn't buy planes, food or any other goods from private factories. R&D grants would come to a halt. No more weapon systems from private companies. No roads, bridges, building built by private companies. Nothing. There would be a complete separation of Corporations and Government.

 

[Sallow]

We need to totally do away with the military. They are very expensive. I ask you, "How many wars would be have been in in the past fifty years if we did not have a military?"

More realistic idea would be to follow the letter of the Constitution.

Permanent navy..and a temporary army derived from the militia when needed to be funded every two years or disbanded if no longer needed.

The Constitution makes no provision for an airforce. But they could be included with the navy.

 

[editec]

Well after listening to our friends on the left scream and rant and rave about "paying" for everything, I am inclined to agree.

I think we should raise taxes, up to 90% if we have to, on the lower income brackets. These, after all, are the folks that soak up a majority of government welfare. Clearly if someone is living in poverty, it would be best if the government spent their money for them, as they have already demonstrated the inablility to manage their own money. The government should be taking most all of their money to pay for their housing, food, and education, no more 22" rims, gold jewlery and big screen TVs.

Your thoughts?

Best insure that Americans don't have any guns, first.

Because if your plan were implemented there'd be one hell of a lot of well armed Americans with NOTHING TO LOSE.

Aside from the fact that it would lead to anarchy, it's a brilliant idea, of course,

 

[RetiredGySgt]

One does not RAISE taxes in a recession or a depression. Pretty simple concept.

 

[Sallow]

One does not RAISE taxes in a recession or a depression. Pretty simple concept.

Yeah..that's generally done when you start a war or something.

Oh wait.

 

[onecut39]

I have a simple solution. Why not just make contributing more taxes voluntary? We keep rates where they are now and if you feel government needs more of your money than that you are more than welcome to give it to them. There are tons of liberals who are saying we need to give government more money. So we simply remove the procedural barrier where government gives you your money back if you pay more than what they say you owe. If you don't want to pay more than legally required, that's fine too. I'm sure there are more than enough liberals out there who will readily give more of their own money to compensate for those of us that don't want to.

Is this a broad concept or just a concept for the low income folks? Subsidies = welfare.

So should the first thing we do be the cutting of the 160 odd billion in business subsidies? If they can't run the damn business why should I support these failures?

Exxon Mobile made about 19 billion bucks last year. They paid not one dime in federal income tax yet they get a couple billion in subsidies. And oh yeah, the price keeps going up even though there is more supply than demand. Why?

If we let the income tax expire and ended the cap on social security and cut the military in half our financial problems would be 80% fixed and we might then be more than a third world country.



And don't forget those corporate subsidies. Not very productive there either

 

[PoliticalChic]

I have a simple solution. Why not just make contributing more taxes voluntary? We keep rates where they are now and if you feel government needs more of your money than that you are more than welcome to give it to them. There are tons of liberals who are saying we need to give government more money. So we simply remove the procedural barrier where government gives you your money back if you pay more than what they say you owe. If you don't want to pay more than legally required, that's fine too. I'm sure there are more than enough liberals out there who will readily give more of their own money to compensate for those of us that don't want to.

Most liberals clearly do not support the runaway deficits, in fact republicans are generally allergic to fiscal responsibility.

IOW your thesis is bogus.

Do you oppose expiration of the Bush tax cuts?

Are you willing to do what it takes to reduce spending? Like cut 70% from the military budget? Eliminate medicare? Increase taxes so it is possible to pay down the debt? Organize politically to make this happen instead of just whining?

Total nonsense.

1. Liberals, unchecked, leave those budget time bombs:

The New Deal gave us Social Security, Obama gave us Obamacare, and the Great Society left us Medicare. Beck, Balfe, “Broke, “ p. 207

2. Peter Orszag tells it like it will be:

‘As background to its estimates, the CBO notes that spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will rise rapidly in the future, pushing up "primary" federal spending (excluding interest payments on the debt) from 18.2 percent of GDP today to 28.3 percent in 2050 and 35.3 percent in 2082. With interest payments included, spending will hit 41.8 percent of GDP in 2050 and 75.4 per¬cent by 2082…."[t]he tax rate for the lowest bracket would have to be increased from 10 per¬cent to 25 percent; the tax rate on incomes in the current 25 percent bracket would have to be increased to 63 percent; and the tax rate of the highest bracket would have to be raised from 35 percent to 88 percent. The top corporate income tax rate would also increase from 35 percent to 88 percent." Peter R. Orszag, Director, Congressional Budget Office, letter to Representative Paul Ryan (R–WI), May 19, 2008, Taxes to Pay for Medicare, Medicaid, and SSI | Medicare Insurance | eons.com

3. “Spending on the three major entitlements, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, will more than double in the next 40 years. Without major reforms, entitlement spending will consume all federal tax revenues by 2052.” http://www.issues2010.com/pdf/Entitlements.pdf


4. "Are you willing to do what it takes to reduce spending? Like cut 70% from the military budget? Eliminate medicare? Increase taxes so it is possible to pay down the debt? Organize politically to make this happen instead of just whining."

Wow, talk about whining!

There is no possible way to pay down 13 trillion in debt!

The solution is
a) balanced budget...to the extent possible: cut the gimmicks

b) cut taxes and red tape, regulation, to produce the business-friendly environment that will pour taxes in.

c) encourage initiative and never, never elect a President who demonizes business! We have to make entrepreneurs the heros of the economy that they were before the 60's and the SDS generation!

Of course, the proof of what I just wrote is the White House signing on to the 'no raising taxes' doctrine of the GOP, proving that the left always knew that the demonization was bogus.

 

[loosecannon]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, time bombs that have to date not only paid for themselves but contributed trillions to the general fund to be wasted by republicans.

Your point crumbled on that failure alone.

Of course, the proof of what I just wrote is the White House signing on to the 'no raising taxes' doctrine of the GOP, proving that the left always knew that the demonization was bogus.

all that proves is the the problem is not one party or the other party but both parties working in tandem to promote the same policies of disaster.

And on a closing note I dare you to list a "budget time bomb" more dangerous than the escalating debt. You do realize that by 2020 our interest on that debt alone will be a $trillion/year right?

And even that figure is based on allowing unemployment bennies to expire along with all of the current tax cuts.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, time bombs that have to date not only paid for themselves but contributed trillions to the general fund to be wasted by republicans.

Your point crumbled on that failure alone.

Of course, the proof of what I just wrote is the White House signing on to the 'no raising taxes' doctrine of the GOP, proving that the left always knew that the demonization was bogus.

all that proves is the the problem is not one party or the other party but both parties working in tandem to promote the same policies of disaster.

And on a closing note I dare you to list a "budget time bomb" more dangerous than the escalating debt. You do realize that by 2020 our interest on that debt alone will be a $trillion/year right?

And even that figure is based on allowing unemployment bennies to expire along with all of the current tax cuts.

Let's Review:
1. By a vast preponderance, it is liberal/ progressive programs that have given us the debt time bombs.

2. a. National debt $13 trillion
b. State and Local debt $2.5 trillion
c. State and Local pensions (underfunded) $3 trillion
d. Social Security $7.7 trillion*
e. Medicare $ 38 trillion*
f. Total US debt $64.2 trillion
g. Total GDP of entire world $61.0 trillion
*covers commitments for 75 years

b., c. The Other National Debt - Kevin Williamson - National Review Online
d., e. The 81% Tax Increase - Forbes.com
f. 65 Trillion - U.S. Financial Obligations Exceed The Entire World's GDP
g. Silver: Declining supply, increasing demand - Precious Metals - Resource Investor

3. "...to date not only paid for themselves but contributed trillions..."
Herein is the proof of you lacunae!
Contrbute???

They are debt!
Money stolen from the trust funds must be repaid! That is debt.

The pols have hoodwinked you and most Americans into thinking that using IOU's in the funds and double counting the same as revenue and as future dept ' paid for themselves but contributed trillions."

Wrong.

"Your point crumbled on that failure alone."
No, friend cannon, it is you education and understanding of the matter that has crumbled, and allows the pols to carry on.