Eliminate income taxes for the 95% on the bottom.

[Roadrunner]

It is falling on "you don't work, we will pay you to lay around and ****".

Deregulation of the porn industry would help put people back to work.

Porn and prostitution will never pay well with so many duped woman giving it away free and easy.

 

[g5000]

And then drastically reduce government spending, including substantial reductions in food stamps, medicare, and Social Security; that is, a 50% reduction. Also reduce defense spending by 10% total. Doing this would create budgetary surplus in excess of $600 billion on FY 2015.

But I'm sure that nobody wants to talk about that. Would make too much damned sense.

I talk about it frequently. Sorry about that.

I have long advocated banning all tax expenditures. If a politician can't put an exemption or deduction or credit in the tax code, that removes a huge incentive to give politicians campaign cash for doing so. Instant campaign finance reform.

We give out $1.2 trillion a year in government handouts in the form of tax expenditures. That's way, way, way, way more than food stamps. Food stamps account for $80 billion. Tax expenditures add up to $1.2 trillon.

It is interesting you want to go after food stamps but not your own government handouts. That screams of raging hypocrisy. Talk about ignoring the beam in your own eye while pointing out the mote in your neighbor's! $80 billion vs. $1.2 trillion? That's an ASTRONOMICAL beam.

Eliminating tax expenditures alone would provide us with a revenue surplus. Even if you eliminated all food stamps, you wouldn't pay for one month of government, much less approach a surplus. Eliminating tax expenditures would provide three quarters of a trillion dollars of surplus, without cutting a single dime of other spending.


Next, we should raise the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages to 70, and then index them to 9 percent of the population going forward.

Why? Because we are living longer than our ancestors, we should be working longer.

When Social Security was established, only 5.4 percent of the US population was over the age of 65. When Medicare was enacted, 9 percent of the US population was over the age of 65. Today, over 13 percent of the US population is over the age of 65.

There is a smaller and smaller percentage of Americans paying in, and a larger and larger percentage withdrawing from the system. This is an unsustainable trend.

Raising the eligibility ages five years, immediately, means you would work five years longer and take money out five years less. That would keep Social Security solvent.

The cowardly Congress of 1983 raised the eligibility age to 67. But they made sure that did not take full effect until 2022, long after they are all dead. Not only that, average life expectancy has climbed by more than the raise in the eligibility age since then!

These changes would provide us a massive surplus, without cutting a single dime in spending.

However, Defense spending needs to be cut. In real dollars, Bush was spending more on Defense than we were spending in World War Two, and we are not in a world war.


The massive surplus brought about by banning tax expenditures, raising the retirement age, and cutting Defense spending would mean we could use that money to lower tax rates for everyone, and start paying down the federal debt.

Those who want to keep their mouths on the government tit want to preserve tax expenditures, and are forcing everyone to pay higher tax rates.

 

[SwimExpert]

I know. we are about over the cliff I'm afraid. Every time a Republican even mentions cutting something the left/dems head explode. The Democrats knows what they are doing and I'm afraid now the Republicans are no better

The problem is that the children in Congress don't want to proposed balanced solutions. They just want to dump blame and suggest zinger talking points that offer little to no potential for real benefit. The vast majority of them are Cinos who seem desperate to create a serf class in America, so they can feel better about themselves by having someone to look down upon.

Want to lower taxes and reduce spending, without shitting on the American people? Great. Stop focusing on taxes on the most wealthy. Coolidge had it correct. Taxes be less, those paying them be fewer.

 

[SwimExpert]

It is interesting you want to go after food stamps but not your own government handouts. That screams of raging hypocrisy. Talk about ignoring the mote in your own eye! $80 billion vs. $1.2 trillion? That's an ASTRONOMICAL mote.

You are mistaken. I have proposed the hot buttons that are so frequently lamented, and combined them in a way that offers a win-win compromise. I'm curious, exactly what kind of government handouts do you think I receive?

 

[g5000]

cut all the damn pork spending and leave the tax system the hell alone.

Congress has been adding an average of one tax expenditure to the tax code every day for the past decade.

 

[g5000]

I'm curious, exactly what kind of government handouts do you think I receive?

Do you claim any deductions, exemptions, or credits on your taxes? If so, you are receiving a giant government handout.

Do you have employer sponsored health insurance? If so, you are receiving a giant government handout.

 

[g5000]

And here comes the "I get to keep more of my own money" gambit in five...four...three...

 

[SwimExpert]

Next, we should raise the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages to 70, and then index them to 9 percent of the population going forward.

Why? Because we are living longer than our ancestors, we should be working longer.

This is very often discussed and I understand where the idea comes from. But there is a fatal shortcoming. Just because people are living longer does not mean that their health continues to lend itself to laboring longer. For this reason, I think it is more important to reduce Social Security, and possibly phase it out altogether. Individuals will benefit more if they can pay less in payroll taxes and roll the savings into their own retirement investments.

 

[Roadrunner]

I'm curious, exactly what kind of government handouts do you think I receive?

Do you claim any deductions, exemptions, or credits on your taxes? If so, you are receiving a giant government handout.

Do you have employer sponsored health insurance? If so, you are receiving a giant government handout.

All of that should be eliminated.

H&R Block, et al will never allow a simple tax code that enables the average person or small businessman the ability to figure his own taxes without an "expert".

I am not paying for one this year.

I am going to do the Feds like I do the state.

I am going to fill out the form and follow it as far as I can, then I am going to write a letter telling them that is as far as I could get,

and send them a check for 10% of my gross, and wait for them to send me a refund.

It is time for people to demand a simple system.

Hell the government knows everything reportable anyway, they should just send us a bill, and we would not even have to hassle with a return.

 

[SwimExpert]

Do you claim any deductions, exemptions, or credits on your taxes? If so, you are receiving a giant government handout.

1 - That's far too broad a claim to make. Are you seriously saying that someone who files a 1040EZ and takes the standard deduction is receiving a government handout? That's ridiculous.

2 - If you go back and look, I said that income taxes should be eliminated for the bottom 95% of income earners. So you're point becomes moot at best.

Do you have employer sponsored health insurance? If so, you are receiving a giant government handout.

What?

 

[Roadrunner]

Next, we should raise the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages to 70, and then index them to 9 percent of the population going forward.

Why? Because we are living longer than our ancestors, we should be working longer.

This is very often discussed and I understand where the idea comes from. But there is a fatal shortcoming. Just because people are living longer does not mean that their health continues to lend itself to laboring longer. For this reason, I think it is more important to reduce Social Security, and possibly phase it out altogether. Individuals will benefit more if they can pay less in payroll taxes and roll the savings into their own retirement investments.

We have turned into a nation of fatasses, worn out by obesity

We have to have SS because of all the irresponsible sons of bitches that never save anything for the future.

 

[Roadrunner]

Do you claim any deductions, exemptions, or credits on your taxes? If so, you are receiving a giant government handout.

1 - That's far too broad a claim to make. Are you seriously saying that someone who files a 1040EZ and takes the standard deduction is receiving a government handout? That's ridiculous.

2 - If you go back and look, I said that income taxes should be eliminated for the bottom 95% of income earners. So you're point becomes moot at best.

Do you have employer sponsored health insurance? If so, you are receiving a giant government handout.

What?

Call it what you want, it is a handout.

Tax rates should be low, and on the gross income

 

[Siete]

the proponents for smaller government have it figured out ... make government LOOK smaller by cutting Granny's SS and put pork funds into political campaigns ... at taxpayer expense..

 

[SwimExpert]

Call it what you want, it is a handout.

Keeping your own money is a handout? Are you high?

 

[SwimExpert]

We have turned into a nation of fatasses, worn out by obesity

We have to have SS because of all the irresponsible sons of bitches that never save anything for the future.

No we don't. Let the fatasses go on a diet when they retire.

 

[SwimExpert]

cut all the damn pork spending and leave the tax system the hell alone.

So, eliminate a couple billion, continue to overspend, continue to overtax, and then pat ourselves on the back for a job poorly done?

In fiscal year 2009, Congress stuffed 10,160 projects into the 12 appropriations bills worth $19.6 billion

a couple ?

the idiots keep yammering we're broke, then ***** about eliminating $20 billion dollars of NOTHING but waste..

pardon me while I puke ...

Cool story.

Perhaps you'd like to get back to this thread, where I'm proposing a $1.2 trillion reduction in spending, with a significant reduction in taxes for 95% of the population.

 

[g5000]

Next, we should raise the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages to 70, and then index them to 9 percent of the population going forward.

Why? Because we are living longer than our ancestors, we should be working longer.

This is very often discussed and I understand where the idea comes from. But there is a fatal shortcoming. Just because people are living longer does not mean that their health continues to lend itself to laboring longer.

The 65 year old of today is far healthier and fit than the 65 year old of 1935. Simple fact.

 

[The Rabbi]

And then drastically reduce government spending, including substantial reductions in food stamps, medicare, and Social Security; that is, a 50% reduction. Also reduce defense spending by 10% total. Doing this would create budgetary surplus in excess of $600 billion on FY 2015.

But I'm sure that nobody wants to talk about that. Would make too much damned sense.

Wht an idiotic idea. Only a numbskull with no grasp of the situation would suggest it.
Let's start with: Military spending has already been cut and we are having trouble maintaining our readiness. You want to cut even more?
Second, how are you planning on slashing 50% from Social Security. My mother lives on about 1,000/mo SS. You want to cut that to $500?

 

[SwimExpert]

Are we a for profit Country? Are the citizens shareholders? Would the citizens/shareholders then be able to split the $600 billion profit?
If not then we should not look for a budgetary surplus. We should strive balance the budget.
Minimal Surplus and Zero Debt.

The people currently split an $18 trillion debt. It's not about the government operating for profit. It's about paying the bills that have already been accumulated.

Then it is not a budgetary surplus in excess of $600 billion, can;t be a surplus if the money is already spent.

Are you stupid on purpose? Does it come naturally, or do you have to practice? Let me guess, you don't understand the difference between the deficit and the debt either, do you?

 

[g5000]

Do you claim any deductions, exemptions, or credits on your taxes? If so, you are receiving a giant government handout.

1 - That's far too broad a claim to make. Are you seriously saying that someone who files a 1040EZ and takes the standard deduction is receiving a government handout?

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Every deduction, exemption, or credit is a government handout, by definition.

2 - If you go back and look, I said that income taxes should be eliminated for the bottom 95% of income earners. So you're point becomes moot at best.

Eliminating taxes only increases the debt! If we ban tax expenditures, we can lower the tax rates for everyone, which means the current 47 percent who don't pay federal income tax will rise by a huge margin. And once the debt is paid off, we can lower tax rates even more, thus adding even more people who won't be paying federal income taxes.

Do you have employer sponsored health insurance? If so, you are receiving a giant government handout.

What?

The massive tax exemption for employer sponsored health insurance is one of the biggest government handouts there is.

That exemption alone dwarfs food stamp spending.