Who should pay, and how much

[Skull Pilot]

Just as i predicted the same partisan bovine scatology.

Yes, you are high and mighty and condemn others, but offer nothing in any way towards a solution. You complain about the government, but do you vote against the incumbent on election day? It is the incumbent who keeps the status quo in Washington, the experienced legislators that so many of you hold in such high regard. Those experienced Congressmen who collect their honoraria from the lobbyists for stabbing their constituents in the back. That is something the government officials always agree to keep intact in a bi-partisan agreement.

Ah the moonbat assumes again. I have never voted for a Repudlican, nor a Dimocrat and I do not vote for incumbents who break campaign promises (which means I have never voted for an incumbent). Unlike the partisans who can't think beyond right or left or beyond a two party system where they believe that change is voting for one of two of the same group of bloated politicians that are responsible for where we are now.

I would rather vote third party and not be responsible for the continuation of our incestuous political system. And that fact alone defines me as never voting for an incumbent as well.

And you really don't pay any attention to what you read if you actually believe I hold any politician in "high regard"

 

[Iriemon]

it was called the tech bubble.

Wow, a "tech bubble", like Bush's real estate bubble and Reagan's micro computer bubble.

But somehow, despite a 30% tax increase, and the temendous discouragement of work that provided, and just like Cons today, Gringrich and all the other Cons predicting economic collapse -- the economy managed to have a "bubble" and create 22 million jobs.

Simply amazing.

where were you in 2001 when the tech bubble popped and the market nose dived and a lot of businesses saw their income cut in half.

And all those Clinton "created jobs" weren't affected right?

Not much. How many jobs were lost in 2001? 2-3 million? Attribute that to Clinton and that puts him at +19 million.

How does that compare to the tax cut fueled economy of the Bush administration?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Wow, a "tech bubble", like Bush's real estate bubble and Reagan's micro computer bubble.

But somehow, despite a 30% tax increase, and the temendous discouragement of work that provided, and just like Cons today, Gringrich and all the other Cons predicting economic collapse -- the economy managed to have a "bubble" and create 22 million jobs.

Simply amazing.

where were you in 2001 when the tech bubble popped and the market nose dived and a lot of businesses saw their income cut in half.

And all those Clinton "created jobs" weren't affected right?

Not much. How many jobs were lost in 2001? 2-3 million? Attribute that to Clinton and that puts him at +19 million.

How does that compare to the tax cut fueled economy of the Bush administration?

You make the fatal flaw of assuming the government can create jobs. it can't

 

[auditor0007]

At this stage of the game?

Two people making $50K combined in most parts of the USA shouldn't pay any taxes whatever.

They are basically POOR (if they were not asset rich to begin with)

I disagree. There should be a some sort of minimum tax that must be paid by everyone. I don't care if it's $5 a week but everyone should contribute.

Actually, everyone does pay. Everyone pays SS and Medicare at a combined rate of 7.65%with the employer matching that rate. In effect, everyone is paying 15.3%. There are some low income earners with children who actually will see that come back to them in the form of earned income credits, effectively making their overall tax zero, but that number is not that large. Everyone else is paying. The question is how much should everyone pay on top of that amount.

I still believe the fairest tax would be a flat tax on top of the payroll tax. Keep the payroll tax so everyone is contributing something, then add a flat tax after exempting X amount of dollars along with deductions for dependents. Outside of that, one flat tax for everyone and for everything. All income would be taxed at the same rate including capital gains and inheritance taxes, and there would be no additonal deductions. This is where I differ from many proponents of a flat tax who only want to see earned income taxed. Without the taxes from capital gains, inheritance and corportations, the rates they state would never be adequate. However, with everything being taxed, it is likely the rate would be under 20% for everyone.

 

[IMDaugur]

Personally, I say start at the top.

Cap and index the salaries of ALL elected officials at 1.5 times the median income of all Americans. Do not allow elected officials to vote for their own pay raises. No more perks, no more pensions no more expense accounts. After all they're not in it for the money, right?

Cut all government programs not expressly defined in the Constitution and let each state take care of the rest as what was always intended.

Dump Social Security. Require that all people save the 15% of their income in privately owned retirement accounts that the government cannot pilfer to cook its books.

Dump the IRS by simplifying the tax codes with either a purely flat tax or an indexed tax with the top rate not above 20%. For example everyone pays 5% on the first 20K of income, 7% on the portion between 21K and 40K etc. Not perfect but better than what we have now. Do not tax interest on savings accounts and cap long term capital gains at 10%.

End all foreign military operations and use the military to secure our borders and to protect against attack at home.

End all foreign aid, charity after all starts at home.

And I don't have time to punch in all the numbers. But here's a question for you. Instead of having everyone else do the work so you can snipe at their comments, come up with your perfect budget and we'll pick it apart.

My budget would never get passed, in a country of over 400 million people and growing and with the number of jobs shrinking, I understand that a federal government not much larger than a town council would not work. As far as sniping is concerned, you do far more than you share, but then, someone as high and mighty as you are has that right.

As a closing note, keeping the military here at home is ludicrous, you would be one of the first to condemn that policy when something happened like the piracy/hostage situation that ended yesterday. You want so much from the government, but are unwilling to pay for it. When anyone does get elected promising change your type is the first to cheer against any change. So, please stay here and post your criticisms and simplistic messages, they are all you have. Good day to all.

 

[auditor0007]

Good point.
Also, Fed Payroll Tax Deduction discourages work because the more you work, the more taxes you pay.
....

Yet during the Clinton administration, when taxes were increased from 31% to 40%, 22 million new jobs were created. I guess work wasn't discouraged a heck of a lot by that tax increase.

But aside from facts completely undermining your assertion, it's a good point.

it was called the tech bubble.

Most people don't understand the 90's and the tech bubble. It wouldn't have mattered who was in office or how much we taxed anyone, the economy was going through a massive growth spurt due to two things. During the 90's, there were two new items that everyone had to have; computers and cell phones. Not only did every person want one of these, every business needed one or more of them.

Once everyone had one of these, the demand dropped. Of course, they keep coming out with better models that can do more things, and most people want to upgrade over time, but that is now stable. There is no massive growth with either of these products, therefore, economic growth slowed down.

 

[alan1]

I'm in favor of a flat tax.
There are 300 million people in the US. How about a flat tax of $10k for each person? Eliminate all other federal taxes.
I think the government ought to be able to manage to cover expenses on that amount of money. If you are married and have 3 kids, your household share of tax is $50k, if you are single and no kids, your share is $10k.
Anything you earn above and beyond your fair share of the tax burden is yours to do with as you see fit.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

With all of the talk for the need to cut taxes and spending, if given the opportunity, what would the people here on this board offer as a solution? A couple making $50,000/year, what would be a fair percentage for them? If they made $100,000? Or $250,000? Why don't some of you suggest a fair percentage for those I just mentioned and for those making 1 to 5 to 10 million dollars/year? Do a little research and crunch some numbers and see what you would impose if you were fighting two wars, trying to maintain an infrastructure, keep the agencies open that serve the American people, etc. Do not forget to consider the special needs of your own state, things that are important to you, but those from the other forty-nine states call pork. See if you could balance a federal budget, and at the same time pay down the trillions of dollars of the national debt.
Google should have the information you will need to make a ballpark estimate.

How about we start by eliminating from the Budget at the Federal level ALL Unconstitutional Departments policies, business practices and laws.

You know , get rid of HUD, Depart of Education, All Welfare programs for non Government employees, ALL Social Programs for ALL non Government employees. What a concept. The Government at the Federal LEVEL is required by the Constitution to justify all expenditures and there is a very short list of things they can tax us to pay for.

Further it is illegal and UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the Federal Government to require the Individual States to do things that cost the State money that is not reimbursed from the Federal Treasury.

How about THAT. Something like 60 percent of our Budget goes for Social Programs, which are UNCONSTITUTIONAL You know ILLEGAL.

You are positive that your proposal would get the country back on track and provide jobs and affordable housing, education, repair infrastructure, support the wars, etc? You offer no numbers to support your position, it is easy to eliminate agencies in theory, but what are the repercussions or advantages when this is done in realty? Talk is cheap, the needs of the American citizens are not. The wealthy need roads to move their products and supplies, it is alright for the rest of us to walk or drive on dirt trails, but how would you explain your failure to serve the needs of the wealthy in this and many other ways that require great amounts of tax dollars?

Trying to change the subject or lie about what I said I see. Roads and Commerce are COVERED by the Constitution. It is one of the POWERS Congress can tax and spend for. Remove the 60 percent of the budget that is illegal and let the States, who are the rightful Governments to run such programs, tax their citizens if they chose to run those programs. And the people will have more direct representation on such issues and can more easily prevent or direct their State Governments to meet their needs.

Further the Social programs are out of control and are growing faster then any amount of taxes can pay for.

You may want to actually read the Constitution and see what powers are GRANTED the US Congress. Helps to actually KNOW what you are talking about.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

With all of the talk for the need to cut taxes and spending, if given the opportunity, what would the people here on this board offer as a solution? A couple making $50,000/year, what would be a fair percentage for them? If they made $100,000? Or $250,000? Why don't some of you suggest a fair percentage for those I just mentioned and for those making 1 to 5 to 10 million dollars/year? Do a little research and crunch some numbers and see what you would impose if you were fighting two wars, trying to maintain an infrastructure, keep the agencies open that serve the American people, etc. Do not forget to consider the special needs of your own state, things that are important to you, but those from the other forty-nine states call pork. See if you could balance a federal budget, and at the same time pay down the trillions of dollars of the national debt.
Google should have the information you will need to make a ballpark estimate.

How about we start by eliminating from the Budget at the Federal level ALL Unconstitutional Departments policies, business practices and laws.

You know , get rid of HUD, Depart of Education, All Welfare programs for non Government employees, ALL Social Programs for ALL non Government employees. What a concept. The Government at the Federal LEVEL is required by the Constitution to justify all expenditures and there is a very short list of things they can tax us to pay for.

Further it is illegal and UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the Federal Government to require the Individual States to do things that cost the State money that is not reimbursed from the Federal Treasury.

How about THAT. Something like 60 percent of our Budget goes for Social Programs, which are UNCONSTITUTIONAL You know ILLEGAL.

Why is it UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

Simple it is NOT a power granted to Congress or the Federal Government by the Constitution. The Constitution LIMITS what the Government can do it does not enable it to expand its power without resorting to Amendments.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

For those who propose cutting social programs, that is fine, but there will still be the need for government subsides to corporations and agriculture. These are GOP favorites, and do not benefit the poor so they must be preserved. Housing subsides help sell homes, and that benefits many large corporate builders, so cutting those would also be out of the question. If the legislative layman wants to make cuts in federal agencies, it is best to understand who put these policies in place, and if it was done to benefit corporate interests or other influential people, eliminating favorable programs to these powerful folks will not be acceptable.

Now you want to CHANGE the rules. You stated we would be in charge and could make the changes we wanted. You do not have a defense for what I have said so now attempt to change the rules of the exersize.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

With all of the talk for the need to cut taxes and spending, if given the opportunity, what would the people here on this board offer as a solution? A couple making $50,000/year, what would be a fair percentage for them? If they made $100,000? Or $250,000? Why don't some of you suggest a fair percentage for those I just mentioned and for those making 1 to 5 to 10 million dollars/year? Do a little research and crunch some numbers and see what you would impose if you were fighting two wars, trying to maintain an infrastructure, keep the agencies open that serve the American people, etc. Do not forget to consider the special needs of your own state, things that are important to you, but those from the other forty-nine states call pork. See if you could balance a federal budget, and at the same time pay down the trillions of dollars of the national debt.
Google should have the information you will need to make a ballpark estimate.

Get out of Iraq. Saves about $125 billion a year. Reduce military spending to 2000 GDP adjusted levels. We don't need to spend as much on the military as the rest of the world combined. Saves another $150 billion a year.

The Warren Buffets don't need to be on the SS dole. Make SS means tested and phased out for those who have more than $100k of income. Overhaul health care. Tighten up wasteful spending in Govt.

Repeal the Bush tax cuts. That will provide another $200-250 billion a year. Add a debt reduction surcharge tax up to 50% on those making over $1m a year.

Aside from temporary anti-recession stimulus spending, that should get us back into a surplus budget. Or pretty close.

Ohh look, wanting to cut one of the ACTUAL Powers of the Government under the Constitution and to redistribute OTHER peoples money.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

With all of the talk for the need to cut taxes and spending, if given the opportunity, what would the people here on this board offer as a solution? A couple making $50,000/year, what would be a fair percentage for them? If they made $100,000? Or $250,000? Why don't some of you suggest a fair percentage for those I just mentioned and for those making 1 to 5 to 10 million dollars/year? Do a little research and crunch some numbers and see what you would impose if you were fighting two wars, trying to maintain an infrastructure, keep the agencies open that serve the American people, etc. Do not forget to consider the special needs of your own state, things that are important to you, but those from the other forty-nine states call pork. See if you could balance a federal budget, and at the same time pay down the trillions of dollars of the national debt.
Google should have the information you will need to make a ballpark estimate.

How about we start by eliminating from the Budget at the Federal level ALL Unconstitutional Departments policies, business practices and laws.

You know , get rid of HUD, Depart of Education, All Welfare programs for non Government employees, ALL Social Programs for ALL non Government employees. What a concept. The Government at the Federal LEVEL is required by the Constitution to justify all expenditures and there is a very short list of things they can tax us to pay for.

Further it is illegal and UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the Federal Government to require the Individual States to do things that cost the State money that is not reimbursed from the Federal Treasury.

How about THAT. Something like 60 percent of our Budget goes for Social Programs, which are UNCONSTITUTIONAL You know ILLEGAL.

Gee, I wonder why you parced out non-government employees from NOT recieving welfare?

What a tool.

But at least you understand what side of the bread your slice is buttered.

WRONG AS USUAL, Dumb ASS, the Federal Government has the power to tax and spend for employees. Always has always will. Social Security is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Federal run Welfare programs for NON Government employees is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Those are State Powers.

 

[Iriemon]

where were you in 2001 when the tech bubble popped and the market nose dived and a lot of businesses saw their income cut in half.

And all those Clinton "created jobs" weren't affected right?

Not much. How many jobs were lost in 2001? 2-3 million? Attribute that to Clinton and that puts him at +19 million.

How does that compare to the tax cut fueled economy of the Bush administration?

You make the fatal flaw of assuming the government can create jobs. it can't

I made no such assertions or assumptions.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Why is it UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

Because the Constitution does not give the federal government authority to do those things.

Article I Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Sounds like it does to me.

That is NOT an enabling section of the Constitution, it means with in the confines of the SPECIFIC powers granted. Once again for you tools, IF this sentence actually means what you claim then there would be absolutely no reason to continue on and address the SPECIFIC Powers granted to Congress at all. In fact this sentence negates the very concept that the Constitution LIMITS the Government.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

How about we start by eliminating from the Budget at the Federal level ALL Unconstitutional Departments policies, business practices and laws.

You know , get rid of HUD, Depart of Education, All Welfare programs for non Government employees, ALL Social Programs for ALL non Government employees. What a concept. The Government at the Federal LEVEL is required by the Constitution to justify all expenditures and there is a very short list of things they can tax us to pay for.

Further it is illegal and UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the Federal Government to require the Individual States to do things that cost the State money that is not reimbursed from the Federal Treasury.

How about THAT. Something like 60 percent of our Budget goes for Social Programs, which are UNCONSTITUTIONAL You know ILLEGAL.

Gee, I wonder why you parced out non-government employees from NOT recieving welfare?

What a tool.

But at least you understand what side of the bread your slice is buttered.

Let me guess, he's on the dole of some sort with a govt pension, so *that* spending is OK?

Lots of Cons rail about spending, until it comes to their "entitlements".

You are as DUMB as Editec, I have a MILITARY Disability, which is COVERED by the Constitution, one I EARNED via the CONTRACT that I enlisted and reenlisted under. You may want to read the rest of your Constitution on Powers granted the Federal Government.

The Federal Government has the power to pay such compensation to people they employ or employed. They do NOT have the power to do the same for people not employed by the Government.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Article I Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Sounds like it does to me.

The "general welfare clause" doesn't give the government the authority to do anything. The powers of the government are explicitly stated in the Constitution, not hidden in double meanings to be "found" by corrupt politicians.

what did they mean by the general welfare when they put that in?

It simply means with in the confines of the listed powers the Government can do anything it needs to do that is for the Good of the Country.

 

[Mr. President]

Get out of Iraq. Saves about $125 billion a year. Reduce military spending to 2000 GDP adjusted levels. We don't need to spend as much on the military as the rest of the world combined. Saves another $150 billion a year.

The Warren Buffets don't need to be on the SS dole. Make SS means tested and phased out for those who have more than $100k of income. Overhaul health care. Tighten up wasteful spending in Govt.

Repeal the Bush tax cuts. That will provide another $200-250 billion a year. Add a debt reduction surcharge tax up to 50% on those making over $1m a year.

Aside from temporary anti-recession stimulus spending, that should get us back into a surplus budget. Or pretty close.

I hope that I misread this and you meant it all out of sarcasm. If not reality is so far from your grasp that to you neverland is a vacation option.

 

[Agnapostate]

You make the fatal flaw of assuming the government can create jobs. it can't

That is not an accurate assessment. For instance, we could refer to Yu's A New Perspective on the Role of the Government in Economic Development.

This paper argues that the government possesses certain unique features that allow it to restrict competition, and provide stable and reliable conditions under which firms organise, compete, cooperate and exchange. The coordinating perspective is employed to re-examine the arguments for industrial policies regarding private investment decisions, market competition, diffusion of technologies and tariff protection on infant industries. This paper concludes that dynamic private enterprises assisted by government coordination policies explains the rapid economic growths in post-war Japan and the Asian newly industrialising economies.

Study into the role of the state in class creation and its continued protection of private property (which serves to legitimize the exploitation of wage labor and extraction of surplus value that occurs in a capitalist economy), is a critical element in illustrating the fact that rather than being a foe of capitalism, the state is a fundamental element of its existence and perpetuation. As put by Yu:

[The government] possesses some unique features that distinguish it from the firm. Such features allows the government to regulate competition, reduce uncertainty and provide a relatively stable exchange environment. Specifically, in the area of industrial policy, the government can help private enterprises tackle uncertainty in the following ways: first, locating the focal point by initiating projects; providing assurance and guarantees to the large investment project; and facilitating the exchange of information; second, reducing excessive competition by granting exclusive rights; and third, facilitating learning and diffusion of technologies, and assisting infant industry firms to build up competence. The history of developmental success indicates that the market and the state are not opposed forms of social organisation, but interactively linked (Rodrik, 1997, p. 437). In the prospering and dynamic nations, public-private coordination tends to prevail. Dynamic private enterprises assisted by government coordination explain the successful economic performances in the post-war Japan and the Asian newly industrialising economies. It is their governments' consistent and coordinated attentiveness to the economic problems that differentiates the entrepreneurial states (Yu, 1997) from the predatory states (Boaz and Polak, 1997).

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I'm in favor of a flat tax.
There are 300 million people in the US. How about a flat tax of $10k for each person? Eliminate all other federal taxes.
I think the government ought to be able to manage to cover expenses on that amount of money. If you are married and have 3 kids, your household share of tax is $50k, if you are single and no kids, your share is $10k.
Anything you earn above and beyond your fair share of the tax burden is yours to do with as you see fit.

Are you insane? MOST people do not make 50k dumb ass.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Not much. How many jobs were lost in 2001? 2-3 million? Attribute that to Clinton and that puts him at +19 million.

How does that compare to the tax cut fueled economy of the Bush administration?

You make the fatal flaw of assuming the government can create jobs. it can't

I made no such assertions or assumptions.

YES you did, you claimed Clinton had something to do with 22 million new Jobs.