Romney VP

[SB Shock]

I think a gradual increase in taxes over a 5 year period might be a better solution. People won't notice it near as much and the money is still getting there.

And also cutting the military budget in half could do a whole lot to help the nation's finances.

So is that 1%, 2%, 5% increase a year?

Cutting defense in half? Where would u reinvest that money (or some of it) to help mitigate all the job losses that would happen?

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

My question is much more simpler than you are making it. You obviously believe taxes should be increased, how much of increase would you find acceptable for you before it would become a burden?

For example if you make 2,000 per pay period ($52,000/year) up to what % would u be able to pay (this should be easily scalable for whatever your circumstances are) - these $ are what would be withheld:

5% - $100
10% - $200
15% - $300
20% - $400

Those wouldn't be the actual withholdings, but let's not split hairs. Just like our government needs to spend less, so do I. I'm not exactly sure why you want to establish some exact percent, but I'll play along for now. The max at my current income level would probably be around 30%, using your scenario as an example. Of course, as income levels rise, less is spent percentage-wise on living expenses--so as my income level rises, so does that percent you want to nail down.

[SB Shock]

Those wouldn't be the actual withholdings, but let's not split hairs.

No this is just an increase, over your current withholding.

Just like our government needs to spend less, so do I.

Interesting. Got a lot of credit card debt or something?

I'm not exactly sure why you want to establish some exact percent, but I'll play along for now. The max at my current income level would probably be around 30%, using your scenario as an example. Of course, as income levels rise, less is spent percentage-wise on living expenses--so as my income level rises, so does that percent you want to nail down.

I'm just trying to understand what additional % above your current withholding you think would be fair for your to give to the government to spend - that is all. The 2,000/pay period example is just to put it into context. I'm not why it that hard of question to answer.

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

No this is just an increase, over your current withholding.

Ah, I see. Those still wouldn't be the amount of increased withholdings because withholdings aren't based on a fixed percentage like that, so I got confused. But I see what you're saying now. I change my answer to between 30-40%. But that's just my answer based on my personal situation. I wouldn't necessarily ask everyone to sacrifice that much.

Interesting. Got a lot of credit card debt or something?

Paying for a wedding. Shoot me now.

I'm just trying to understand what additional % above your current withholding you think would be fair for your to give to the government to spend - that is all. The 2,000/pay period example is just to put it into context. I'm not why it that hard of question to answer.

It's a simple question that isn't conducive to a simple answer. Partly because of what you say--"fair for you to give to the government to spend." I'm not giving it to the government to spend, I'm giving it to them to pay off debt--BIG difference. The money is already spent. I'm willing to help us pay off debt, not spend with the same reckless manner that got us into this mess to begin with. So it depends on where the money goes. It depends on how my additional %, combined with what others are willing/able to contribute, affects the timeframe of how fast the debt is paid off. It depends on how much my additional %, combined with what others are willing/able to contribute, affects our economy. I'd give my right arm if it means our kids won't have to face a world where our nation's financial system collapses--I hope we can agree on that at least.

[SB Shock]

Paying for a wedding. Shoot me now.

I feel for you. I got one just about to go to college.

It's a simple question that isn't conducive to a simple answer.

No it not, and that is the point. It easy to say "raise taxes", it is even easier to say "raise the other guys taxes". But when you start putting hard numbers on it.

I'm not giving it to the government to spend, I'm giving it to them to pay off debt--BIG difference.

But there is rub, that is the only thing they know - republican or democrat. Whoever is in charge spends, whoever not talks a good game about needing to balance the budget, but when the roles reverse - they spend.

Me the first thing I would try is just freeze spending.

I'd give my right arm if it means our kids won't have to face a world where our nation's financial system collapses--I hope we can agree on that at least.

Yip, I worry about what my children world will be like than my own. Of course, I guess if Europe financial system collapse who knows what will happen.

[rrshock]

So is that 1%, 2%, 5% increase a year?

Cutting defense in half? Where would u reinvest that money (or some of it) to help mitigate all the job losses that would happen?

Half is drastic. But needs to be cut sharply. The budget is higher than the next two top spending countries combined. The money isnt really there anyways so it wouldnt need to be reinvested.

[JohnnieBallgame]

For those of you who feel you should pay higher taxes/more taxes...what is stopping you? There is no law against overpaying what you owe.

The government has their way of doing things such as "current services baseline budgeting". If they don't spend it this year they won't get it next year. Government also likes to classify spending less than a budgeted increase as a spending cut, even though they spend more than they did in the previous year...go figure!

The class warfare bit is getting old, government can take all the wealth of the 1% and not make a dent in the debt. All they will accomplish is killing the goose that lays the golden eggs....oh yeah, and maybe win an election. Eventually, they will run out of other peoples money and provide enough disincentives for productive people not to produce!

[WuDrWu]

I'm not giving it to the government to spend, I'm giving it to them to pay off debt--BIG difference.

RMS, you are a lot smarter than this comment. You ABSOLUTELY ARE giving it to the government to spend. We're currently running a $1 TRILLION deficit per year.

We have to close that $1 trillion gap before we pay off $1 in debt. Even Ryan's plan (I think) doesn't close that gap for 15+ years, which of course leads to an even larger debt.

I'm all for slight tax increases to pay off debt. I am not for any increases that lower the deficit. Fix the problem.

[Smooth007]

It is absolutely insane to me that reasonable smart people keep on talking about taxation. It's like having a discussion with an 18 year old.

Dad: So it looks like you spent $1,000 on your credit card last month.
Son: Yeah, but I am going to take an extra $25 out of my paycheck each week and eventually pay it off.
Dad: Maybe you should take $30 out instead. If you do that, I chip in an extra $5 too.
Son: Thanks Dad! Your the best.

Really the conversation should go like this....
Dad: So it looks like you spent $1,000 on your credit card last month.
Son: Yeah, but I am going to take an extra $25 out of my paycheck each week and eventually pay it off.
Dad: (Looks at son annoyed, takes out a pair of scissors and cuts card in half) Your grounded son....

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

RMS, you are a lot smarter than this comment. You ABSOLUTELY ARE giving it to the government to spend. We're currently running a $1 TRILLION deficit per year.

We have to close that $1 trillion gap before we pay off $1 in debt. Even Ryan's plan (I think) doesn't close that gap for 15+ years, which of course leads to an even larger debt.

I'm all for slight tax increases to pay off debt. I am not for any increases that lower the deficit. Fix the problem.

That's exactly my point. When I said "I'm not giving it to the government to spend," I meant in this hypothetical situation that SB was describing. In the real world, I'm not in favor of increasing taxes to justify current or increased levels of spending. I'm only in favor of increasing taxes if that exact amount of increased revenue is ONLY used to reduce debt. I agree with everyone here that reducing spending is the way to fix the deficit. But gutting the federal budget so much that current revenue would BOTH cover spending and debt principal payments (to the point that the debt is paid off within a reasonable period of time) I think is impossible.

[Ixiah]

If I remember correctly, Ryan doesn't change SS for those who are on it or soon to be on it. The only changes would be for those who are younger and paying into it and will never get any of it back.

Actually there will always be $ going into SS from taxes on current workers - just not enough to cover what is promised to retirees. I think it is something like 70% but don't trust me on that number.

As it is, people I believe are getting less than they put in anyway.

I read a little while back that this is the first generation of people going into social security that will receive less then what they put in. You are correct.

So what's the point of paying into it? I'd be better off if I were allowed to take the money that I'd be paying into SS and put it into some sort of savings plan. I know not everyone would choose to do such a thing, but I know I could handle it and not worry about touching it. And I'd have more of my own money when I needed it down the road than what the gov't is going to give me under the current system. And I'm not convinced I'd get anything at this point anyway. I want to say that it would only change for those under 50. And there may have been some sort of balancing act with some. It's been a while since I've read up on it.

The biggest benefit of Social Security is that its almost impossible for creditors to take. So everyone is guaranteed a hovel and not eating dog food in their golden years. In fact, pretty much the only one that can take SS benefits away from you is the US government for things like student loans and back taxes. Even then it is a garnishment of up to 15%. If you put your money into a savings plan you could, depending on the account type(s) and the laws of the state you live in, be taking a serious risk with ALL your retirement funds. For less sophisticated investors I can see this being an endless series of financial disasters.

[SB Shock]

Here is chart of Revenue vs Spending. It is not a revenue problem, it is a spending problem. You have to get the spending problem under control - otherwise raising taxes is just like DOFO peeing in his pond to relieve the drought.

Capture.JPG

[1979Shocker]

Paul Ryan’s plan for America is not credible

By Martin Wolf

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/7d45818a-e608-11e1-bece-00144feab49a.html

[Kung Wu]

By Martin Wolf
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/7d458...44feab49a.html

You worry about Biden's plan, we'll worry about Ryan's.

[1979Shocker]

You worry about Biden's plan, we'll worry about Ryan's.

Does Biden have a plan?