Taxmageddon

[WuDrWu]

I found it kind of interesting that (now that President Obama has cleared the way for him to be the next President of Dartmouth) Tim Geithner has come to the revelation that Social Security will be out of money earlier than expected.

No kidding Tim? Thanks for letting us know on the way out. Hell, even Illinois has figured out the gravy train is ending and the liberals are making changes....you know it's bad at that point. They're all guilty, but these buffoons set a new low in incompetence.

[pinstripers]

We probably should just keep spending money.

[Kung Wu]

Cutting outrageous spending unquestioning will help. But it only helps to the extent that if we cut it to the bare bone, the national debt does not increase any more than what it currently is or will soon be.

Since the only source of revenue the government has is to tax us tax payers, for the government to reduce the national debt will have to result in a tremendous increase in taxes from us, the tax payers.

I don't have any solutions, but the U.S. of A. generates $2.5 Trillion a year in taxes. There are two ways to improve cash flow. Cut expenses or earn more. Any businessman knows it is easy to find ways to permanently cut costs, and much more difficult to permanently increase revenue.

That said, politicians leverage small amounts of money ($1 billion to become President and another $1.8 billion for US/House seats) to control large supplies of money by promising not to cut spending.

The real question is: Can you live without taking any government money? Can your neighbors? Will you help those that really need it by way of charity or local taxes, should nearly all federal government spending suddenly desist? Didn't our grandparents, great grandparents, great-greats (and so-on) do that before SocSec, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, D.O.D., Dept. of Education, Dept. of Labor, E.P.A.? I dunno.

[ShockBand]

Social Security, Medicare, DOD, and Medicaid are the lion's share of our nation's spending. The large and active voting block of seniors cares very much about SS, Medicare, and even Medicaid (which ends up being what a lot of seniors, like my dad will be soon, are on as they spend out everything they've ever saved for health care and long term care), so those can be politically dicey to mess with too much. Defense spending is like a crack we can't kick as a nation, even though we outpace every other country in the world on defense spending by a LONG ways. We could eliminate everything except those four and debt interest, and from what I've seen it still wouldn't solve our problems.

OTOH, do we want to get to a point where destitute people, including many seniors, won't get the health care or long term care they need? Would we REALLY be willing to pick up that slack through state and local taxation or charitable donations? I'm not sure. We've become a society with an attitude of "!#@% you, I've got mine" in far too many cases.

My deep gut feeling is that we would have to cut spending to some degree AND raise taxes in order to really fix the mess we're in. Perhaps the Bush tax cuts should be expired for EVERYONE, not all at once, but phased back in over four or five years. No one would like any of that solution, which may mean its probably the right one. Just MHO.

[SB Shock]

If u look at the numbers in a objectionable fashion (if u want graphs I can provide) this country has a spending problem. The first step in controlling that spending problem is you freeze your budgets. But politically this is called a cut.

2nd if you want to increase revenue, you are not going to get it done by taxing the extremely wealthy. First our problem is that our spending problem is much to large, and second the wealthy have the resources to go hide/move that money anyway. You have to increase taxes across te board and the middle class will have to take the brunt. Again politically nobody want to do this.

The way I see it, if u are going to raise taxes you have to impose at the very minimum budget freezes or u have no chance. Additional revenue burns holes in the pockets of politicians. So if u just raise taxes it will just get spent anyway.


I really see our future as a Kevin Costner film (waterworld for the global warming freaks, or postman) or maybe Mel Gibson movie.

[ShockBand]

My feeling would be to go back to the last budget pre-Obama stimulus, and use that as a benchmark for either freezing or reducing spending, somehow. It will suck tremendously as the SS/Medi program costs would increase regardless of the plan due to simple numbers - more people tapping into those programs. And as you said, across the board tax hikes which means the REAL drivers of the economy, the middle class, take it in the shorts. And you are right, politically it is probably impossible. Everyone wants someone else to bear the brunt of our problem.

And, yes, I agree we have a spending problem, but it isn't rooted in the things that politicians like to beat on (discretionary areas), it is in those BIG FOUR.

[WuDrWu]

Built in increases should halt immediately. It's this kind of thinking that's gotten us in trouble over all these years.

Every government pension should be SLASHED, and I mean slashed hard on a descending scale based on years from retirement.

The retirement age for Social Security should be gradually raised to at least 70, if not higher (see Paul Ryan's plan).

Every penny of tax increases should be accompanied by a 2 fold decrease in spending across the board and none of those decreases should be related to slower growth of budgets (see my first comment).

Health insurance companies should be allowed to compete across state lines and deregulated somewhat to allow for a more competitive environment and there should be NO increases in medicare and medicaid (other than the number of people they service) for at least 10 years. Let the providers figure it out.

Every American should be forced to pay a Federal Income Tax, even if it's $25. Even if they get that ridiculous EITC (welfare). They should have to write a check to the IRS so they at least have to pay attention. 40% of Americans paying nothing in Federal Income Tax is insane.

NONE of this is related to the rich, or so called rich, not paying their fair share. They already not only pay their fair share, they pay a vastly disproportionate amount.

Read your history books. Look back to the times where the wealthy were vilified and "big business" was evil. See how that worked out for the country.

This country as a whole needs a lot of soul searching. And we need to stop counting on the other guy's soul.

[Kung Wu]

I like this conversation. I don't agree with some points and I definitely agree with others, but the conversation is great regardless.

[ShockBand]

I concur @KungWu, it is a good and worthy discussion. I'm just afraid we've gotten to the point where the solution will mean things that nobody likes, and that doesn't make for good politics.

[Wu du Nord]

Sweet.

I think that @WuDrWu: hates poor people almost as much as I hate old people. It's good to hate. We have our hatred in common, but check this out. I think @WuDrWu: really just hated lazy-sit-around-freeloaders. If that's the case, then I'm certain that I can have him hating old people with a quickness.

My history books say "Let them eat cake" was bad policy. More importantly it's bad humanity. Perhaps @WuDrWu: was thinking of a different example.

[Wu du Nord]

And, yes, I agree we have a spending problem, but it isn't rooted in the things that politicians like to beat on (discretionary areas), it is in those BIG FOUR.

Well, we can't defund the military. Absolutely no way America could reintegrate all those people back into civilian life (to what jobs). Reduce defense contracts? Many of those programs represent backbones of the American economy. Many communities need those contracts to exist.

Old people? Mostly they are annoying. They spend too much time gossiping and complaining. They're going to die anyways. They had their chance to get'r done. Now it's time to do your patriotic duty. Get to work, or get to pullin' that plug, I say.

Again, phrasing this as a 'spending problem' and not a 'revenue problem' is bad form. It is both.

[pinstripers]

Foreign Aid...............

[WuDrWu]

Sweet.

I think that @WuDrWu: hates poor people almost as much as I hate old people. It's good to hate. We have our hatred in common, but check this out. I think @WuDrWu: really just hated lazy-sit-around-freeloaders. If that's the case, then I'm certain that I can have him hating old people with a quickness.

My history books say "Let them eat cake" was bad policy. More importantly it's bad humanity. Perhaps @WuDrWu: was thinking of a different example.

I'd like to start by saying how much I miss @Maggie: and his input on these discussions. I hope he and his family are well.

WdN, in NO way, shape or form do I hate poor people. In fact, in my world, government would provide for the needy in ways that would choke today's fiscally responsible billy goat. The huge difference, and the part that petrifies bleeding heart liberals like yourself, is that in most cases (excluding those that cannot help themselves) my "hand up" (instead of handout) is going to come with expectations and stop dates.

My world doesn't incent people to have children out of wedlock. My world doesn't pay 50% more than the market does for unskilled labor and then tack on a benefits package that no free market employer could possibly match. My world doesn't set up one monopoly after another in repeated failed attempts to control a "free" economy. My world doesn't keep a class of people so dependent upon my free gifts that they never learn what they really want to do in this life. My world would have (politically) no Barney Franks and no Bob Doles (to name just 2). My world wouldn't send the bill for my corruption, failures and complete lack of fiscal responsibility to my grandchildren. My world wouldn't kick the can down the street.

And with a tiny hint of sarcasm, my world would pay a lot less attention to philosophical Scandinavians.

[Wu du Nord]

Oh, that's right. @WuDrWu: doesn't hate poor people. He just hates when they don't pay taxes. It's important, you know, so they can feel a little pain like @WuDrWu: feels. I simply hope to ameliorate his condition by allowing him the glorious and bustling pride of that little chubby he surely sprouted upon having opportunity to call me a 'bleeding heart liberal' and toss me on the heap of 'philosophical Scandinavians'.

In fact, I'm quite certain that @WuDrWu: is a much more liberal fellow than I am.

Methinks @WuDrWu: prefers to be left alone. Until, of course, he gets old enough to fully latch on to Uncle Sam's teats.

[WuDrWu]

Why do you think I hate poor people? I hate the SYSTEM that thinks they help the poor but does just the opposite in ENSURING they stay poor.

And you don't know me very well if you ever think I'm going to "latch on to Uncle Sam's teat".

Fortunately, the heap of philosophical Scandinavians isn't as big as it appears, so I shouldn't hurt myself.