Even a blind man could see this coming. Every American is going to have to take a hit if they want to see the deficit reduced. I think a good idea is to suspend COLA adjustment through 2011 on all government programs. Moreover, the Earned Income Tax credit should be limited. We really need to step back at our government spending and make some tough choices on military spending, social security, and various entitlement programs.

Also, three words for which we will hear over and over:

Value
Added
Tax

Ruh-roh:

As Washington ponders its taxation options, it might also wish to cast its gaze toward the NYSE and Nasdaq, whose companies add very little to the public till. In fact, their contribution as a percentage of GDP ranks in the bottom quartile among OECD nations' figures.

Another group with a huge bulls-eye on its back is hedge fund managers - carried interest is going to get taxed like you wouldn't believe.

Well, just repeal Bush's tax cuts. And bring the troops home from Iraq. Now.

More on reducing the deficit through freezing COLA adjustments:

Well, just repeal Bush's tax cuts.

All of them?

Tax,

How likely do you think the VAT is, as a percentage?

When that commission was formed a few years ago to look at overhauling the tax system, several ideas were floated, including a VAT. At that point I stopped advising lower-bracket taxpayers to go for Roth IRAs, as that would get them taxed twice, once before they put it in, and again once they spent it. After that blew up, I went back to advising Roths for folks in the 15% or lower bracket, and still advise Traditional IRAs for the folks in the 25% or higher bracket, especially those in states with high brackets.

If there's any realistic chance of this passing, I'm going back to recommending only Traditional IRAs and other deferred plans.

Your take?

My favorite from the COLA link:

To those who object that the No COLA year increases federal taxes, the answer is: yes, it would. There is no way to reduce the federal deficit without increasing taxes. To those who object that the No COLA year puts financial pressure on those dependent on federal entitlements, the answer is: yes, it would. There is no way to reduce the deficit without restraining entitlement spending including Social Security and Medicare. To those who object that the No COLA year constrains important spending like defense outlays, the answer is: yes, it would. There is no way to reduce the deficit without belt tightening across the board.

With that said, this idea has a snowballs shot of ever coming to fruition. No one in Congress has the cajones.

How likely do you think the VAT is, as a percentage?

I don't think we will completely convert to a VAT. Instead, a VAT would be supplementary, akin to the VAT in Europe. From what I hear from people I know in the National tax practices of the Big 4, a VAT in the range of 4-7% is a likely possibility - I would say more likely than not.

Who 'toldaya so'? Controlled opposition ravenous wolves Beck and O'Reilly aka Pelosi leading the sheep? They're true conservatives, right tax fraud? You mean the bankers aren't satisfied with 28 Trillion? Or is it the Democrat majority now parroting the same globalist message? We've gotta fund Al Gore's racketeering schemes.

#10 | Posted by L_RContrarian at 2010-03-03 12:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

Do you actually think your incessant babbling makes any sense? Go back to stockpiling, the feds are coming to get you.

If you think the Tea Party pepople are mad now wait till they raise taxes.

That said I agree taxes will go up.

look to greece for our future

SALES TAX now up to 21%,,
massive tax hikes on all sorts of other things..
and THEY SAY there will be massive spending cuts...
so they are about to suffer UNLESS they have thier own version of a goddamn democrat hypocrite PAYGO law they can pass...

"We really need to step back at our government spending and make some tough choices on military spending, social security, and various entitlement programs." - Taxman...

#12 | Posted by 90c2cab at 2010-03-03 12:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

The Tea Party and their libertarian friends are powerless, who cares if they get angry.

You can see no representitive will be able too standup to cut even a little portion of entitlements.

That's why we need to vote fiscally responsible people into office, not people tied to special interests or lobbyists. Step one to accomplishing this is passing a constitutional amendment limiting campaign cash.

One good way to escape some income tax is if you live more than 35 miles from your home office - see if your employer will give you a portion of your income in non-taxable per diem - it saves them and it saves you in the long run. Since my husband's work takes him far from home, we've been doing this for several years - it benefits the employer also from having to pay UI and matching social security on that part of your income.

See IRS publication 1542 to see if you're entitled to this and how much - if your city isn't there, you can use the closest large city.

I'm sure taxman can verify this?

DON'T FORGET TO ITEMIZE!

#15 | Posted by taxFRAUD at 2010-03-03 12:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

#11 | Posted by taxFRAUD at 2010-03-03 12:39 PM | Reply | Flag: Who's believing YOU?

Do you actually think your incessant babbling makes any sense? Go back to stockpiling, the feds are coming to get you.

How much does your disinfo agent position pay per brainless post?

Every little old lady in her little pink house collecting her dead husband's SS check until the day she dies, and all the benefits for the elderly, all these tiny personal fiefdoms because she was a good wife who raised her kids and she is thus entitled to decades of support: SS is a myth. And there are a few old men who somehow survived past retirement age.

#17 | Posted by nanc at 2010-03-03 01:01 PM | Reply | Flag:
Since my husband's work takes him far from home, we've been doing this for several years

Oops. Never should have disclosed that. TaxFraud, who would have commented on this as well had I not, will be there very soon. Nice knowing you.

#14 AndreaMackris> The government has not shown it can curb its current spending. I will be against any tax incease on the principle that it will not go towards what is important, the debt,

I'll agree. The knee jerk reaction from D.C. is to boost taxes. Though that may be required at some point, I'd urge them to start serious spending cuts first and then look at tax increases later on. Not that I think it will happen, due to most politicians looking at spending cuts in the same way vampires look at crucifixes.

Though that may be required at some point, I'd urge them to start serious spending cuts first and then look at tax increases later on.

The flip-side is the reality. Taxes will need to be increased in the short-term while we make tough choices as to where we need to cut spending and by how much. Once spending is reduced, the deficit should shrink, which will result in the reduction of taxes.

"Well, just repeal Bush's tax cuts."

All of them?

#6 | Posted by taxman

Yes.

should anyone really be worreid about cheating on thier taxes coming up soon

all you have to do is plead the GAITHNER case. so how could the head of the IRS who is a tax cheat have the american gestapo come after YOU?????

while we make tough choices as to where we need to cut spending and by how much.

#24 | Posted by taxman at 2010-03-03 01:30 PM

The Good Life surely must be bought. And those who can afford more SHOULD pay more. Prof. Lakeoff suggests rephrasing: It's not a tax burden but a tax investment. We owe the money to OURSELVES. In theory we are the government, the government is us. If tea baggers understood that, we might get out of the toilet. herm

not a tax burden but a tax investment.

True, but real investors have the option of jumping ship when the Board and Officers don't spend capital in a prudent manner.

We can start by not bailing out Wall Street next time they fuck up our economy.

We could have let more banks fail, and it would have seriously hurt for an extended period. It wouldn't be easy for other banks to pop in and fill the roles of the failed banks.

The real elephant in the room is social security, and next to that is military spending.

"The real elephant in the room is social security"

Nah, that's actually within a percentage point or two of being solvent for another 75 years.

The real problem is Medicare, and it's ugly sister, medical inflation. That'll be our doom.

We could have let more banks fail, and it would have seriously hurt for an extended period. It wouldn't be easy for other banks to pop in and fill the roles of the failed banks.

#30 | Posted by taxman at 2010-03-03 04:16 PM

The real problem is Medicare, and it's ugly sister, medical inflation. That'll be our doom.

Which is presicely why I am befuddled by your love of a single-pay system - exacerbating a well-diagnosed problem.

"Which is presicely why I am befuddled by your love of a single-pay system"

Like Social Security, increases will at least somewhat resemble inflation. Without some counterpoint to another decade like the last, we're sunk.

You don't see that???

Which is presicely why I am befuddled by your love of a single-pay system - exacerbating a well-diagnosed problem.

#33 | Posted by JeffJ at 2010-03-03 04:22 PM

The article passed over any real discussion of actually not spending so much fucking money. Of course more taxes will be needed if spending isn't cut. Fucking duh! If we're already in deficit spending, and refusing to cut that spending, than additional revenue will have to be found. That doesn't take an award-winning economist to figure out. It also doesn't take more than a 3rd graded education to realize that one shouldn't spend more than they have. What say we start by spending less and then talk about additional revenues? But that's not the liberal way, is it?

LoD,

For reasons already stated the HSA model is the best way to go - if the feds wanted to set up ta-payer-funded HSA's accross the board, I'd be willing to listen.

LoD,

For reasons already stated the HSA model is the best way to go - if the feds wanted to set up ta-payer-funded HSA's accross the board, I'd be willing to listen.

#37 | Posted by JeffJ at 2010-03-03 04:28 PM

So you don't want tax payer funded insurance, but you do want tax payer funded HSAs? lol!

#38 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

Sort of.

IF we are going to have government run this shit - the HSA model is proven to be the best system (thus far) toward reducing costs and maintaining quality.

"the HSA model is proven to be the best system (thus far) toward reducing costs and maintaining quality."

How?

And in your explanation, include the fact family health costs have risen 131% in the last decade, while inflation went up only 31.5% in comparison.

How did HSAs reduce the costs?

IF we are going to have government run this shit - the HSA model is proven to be the best system (thus far) toward reducing costs and maintaining quality.

#39 | Posted by JeffJ at 2010-03-03 04:44 PM

As long as it doesn't mean the government forcing income out of my wallet and into some HSA I don't need.

Danforth - Compare and contrast the relative success of Indiana and the disaster known as Massachusettes - This is the albatross around Romney's neck IMO.

Is there a full HSA based proposal? I honestly don't know.

It's not even part of the discussion - all of this shit is a self-admitted step toward the goal of a single-pay system.

Which is presicely why I am befuddled by your love of a single-pay system - exacerbating a well-diagnosed problem.

#33 | Posted by JeffJ

Beacause medical inflation is NOT currently being driven by the government. It's driven by overcharges of private industry.

the HSA model is proven to be the best system (thus far) toward reducing costs and maintaining quality.

#39 | Posted by JeffJ

Compared to what?

"Compare and contrast the relative success of Indiana and the disaster known as Massachusettes "

No...it's your point. YOU do it.

#21 | Posted by L_RContrarian - not true - if your job is more than a certain amount of miles from the office, you're entitled to claim maximum allowable per diem - we have a home we use on our driver licenses and a home we stay at for my husband's work - we keep both addresses and our utilities go to respective addresses - it is all legal. And, a benefit to employers - they don't have to match social security or pay UI on wages. Trust me, every CPA we've questioned on the matter has worked it out for us.

#46 nanc
You missed the key point. I won't tip off a greedy snitch to repeat it though.

I don't care who you tip off - we don't intentionally do anything against the law - we're completely within the bounds of tax laws. Why are you in touch with greedy snitches? That concerns me more about you than anything.

Lets wait for the implementation.

"How did HSAs reduce the costs?"

HSAs reduce cost because many people can't afford to go to the doctor. With an HSA you have a very high yearly deductible to meet before the insurance kicks in. My daughter has one, she had to lay out $2,000 when she need an MRI before the insurance paid a dime. She had the money but many don't.

#50 | Posted by danni

HSA's aren't perfect and their limitations should be brought to the forefront. Having said that, they have proven FAR more successful than any top-down alternative that has been employed - Mass. VS Indiana is a great case-in-point.

Surprise, surprise, surprise.

Must be nice to decide to just get more income (at the point of a gun/jail/etc.) instead of cutting back expenses. Wish that worked for me and my fellow Americans.

Oh wait, that's why so many of them used credit cards as income enhancers. With such positive results (/sarc)

Maybe there is something to Going Galt after all....

#50 | Posted by danni

HSAs are not for everyone. The insurance you purchase with it is usually "Catastrophic" insurance. It covers you if you have a heart attack or get cancer, but doesn't cover basic doctors visits. That's where the health savings account comes in. It requires the individual fund it. It also helps if the individual is capable of budgeting, tracking expenses and negotiating with the people providing services. Some people aren't capable of this, but for the people who, are it can cut medical cost drastically. If the individual has some stake in managing their own affairs they tend to watch how "their" money is being spent. But, like I said, not everyone is willing to or capable of managing their own lives.

" but for the people who, are it can cut medical cost drastically."

I'm sure it does but it also discourages people from going to the doctor and instead waiting until problems become more serious. Even someone with the funds would hesitate before just spending $500, usually that would be fine but occasionally it will be a fatal error.

CIVIL WAR II

So if your not going to cut spending your'll have to raise taxes, and you can only do so much with the income tax, so specialty taxes will be needed.

One place to start? Athletes and Hollywood. Have an entertainment tax and a sports tax.

You might not like the CEO of Bank of America, but if you have a pension or a 401K you are invested it that company, and he affects the wealth of a lot of people. How many people are invested in Tom Cruse or Labron James? Other than entertainment what do they do? How many Americans are affected by these people? These entertainers and athletes make millions. Don't know if it's true but I read that Labron James sailary for one year is more that what it cost to build Golden Gate bridge.

This coming from Time/Warner. Aren't they in deep shit financially as well. As a comparison they should raise the subscription rates for their magazine to say $20 per issue. That will solve it for them. Maybe forcing the cable companies to raise rates by $20 per month to cover their cool cable news network. Raising tax rates doesn't always raise revenue. Just look at the Luxury Taxes that the Dems and HW Bush passed 20 years ago.

You Lefties still don't get it do you. It is the spending which is getting us in deep shit.

"It is the spending which is getting us in deep shit."

Unfunded wars to have a tendency to do that.
Get a clue, you don't pass tax cuts during wars.

This is typicak "tax and spend" from the dems. They know nothing else and to try to stop them would be just as impossible as trying to make an alcholic stop drinking or a gambler stop gambling.

Their stupid tax ideas could depress economic activity to a point where less revenue is taken in to the treasury. It will also encourage a thriving black market and barter system. Dems are pushing us into a death spiral for our economy.

I'm sure it does but it also discourages people from going to the doctor and instead waiting until problems become more serious. Even someone with the funds would hesitate before just spending $500, usually that would be fine but occasionally it will be a fatal error.

#54 | Posted by danni

In order to have an HSA you have to fund it. If you fund it you budget for those things. You pay the bills. If you choose not to go, it's your choice. You can't stop people from making bad decisions.

"If you choose not to go, it's your choice."

Or you simply don't have the money.

dan, did you write the article? Why isn't a drastic cut in spending an option?

We need European level taxes.

Or you simply don't have the money.

#65 | Posted by danni

Do you not understand the concept of an HSA? If you have no money you most likely don't have an HSA, are on welfare and can qualify to go to the county clinic.

It seems you would have no problem with HSAs as long as someone else funds it, budgets it, tracks the expenses, negotiates the cost and hauls their ass to and from the doctor. This is why the cost is so high. People not willing to take any responsibility whatsoever.

dan, did you write the article? Why isn't a drastic cut in spending an option?

#66 | Posted by Sniper

Because then people would have to wipe their own asses, and we can't have that....

"Why isn't a drastic cut in spending an option?"

How much would you cut (and where)?

Any of that 40% or so of the entire planet's military expenditures we're currently spending going to fall under your imaginary budget axe?

Anyone know what happens if the U.S. Government defaults and goes bankrupt?

Well, I think we should all be asking because there's a 100% chance it is going to happen.

There is simply no way the elected class will ever reduce spending.

What do we do? What happens?

Will members of congress be the first to lose their pensions?

They had better be. Otherwise certain other government pensioners will be go open season on the politicians.

Blood would run in the DC streets.

Increasing tax rates takes money out of the economy which results in lower tax revenue to the government. Even JFK knew that.

Increasing tax rates takes money out of the economy which results in lower tax revenue to the government. Even JFK knew that.

#73 | Posted by gluon

True; beyond a certain point of diminishing returns.

But where is that point? That's always been the debate.

Raise Taxes and have drastic cuts to military spending will help. Have a small amount on active duty and the rest as reserves. We don't need to be the worlds police. One weekend a month is enough to keep the Army ready to defend the country if needed.

Will members of congress be the first to lose their pensions?

They had better be. Otherwise certain other government pensioners will be go open season on the politicians.

Blood would run in the DC streets.

#72 | Posted by BENDOR

Could be the reason so many members of congress are retiring after this term....

I was interested to hear that Greece has a higher percentage of military expenditure than any country in Europe. I have no idea why except for their permanent fear of the Turks.

Military spending is where the cuts in the US should be focussed. We still have multiple nuclear-armed bombers and submarines doing absolutely nothing except waste money. We have far too many bases in foreign countries who don't like us, often because we have military bases there. We need to instigate a major Peace Conference for reductions in arms expenditure by everybody. This is one little planet. It's time to stop killing each other.

Call me naive, but call me sane.

Why isn't a drastic cut in spending an option?

It is an option, but in the short term spending cuts MUST be coupled with increased taxes in the short term.

Raise Taxes and have drastic cuts to military spending will help. Have a small amount on active duty and the rest as reserves. We don't need to be the worlds police. One weekend a month is enough to keep the Army ready to defend the country if needed.

#75 | Posted by jackass

I retired from the U.S. Navy and was immediately hired as a Systems Engineer by a DOD contractor.

I didn't last very long - totally sickened by what I've seen - the waste, fraud, and abuse - that I quit my job. I was making over $100k.

Now, I can't even get unemployment (wasn't fired) even though I've been paying into it since I was 15 years old.

That's okay though. I sleep better at night now and will probably end up in Grad school for the next couple of years.

My peers think I lost my mind. I think they are blind to whats coming. In two years, they won't have jobs either.

Drastic cuts in military spending are both needed and coming very soon.

We need European level taxes.

#67 | Posted by jackass

Do you mean like Greece?

Why isn't a drastic cut in spending an option?
#66 | Posted by Sniper

Why isn't an answer to what you'd cut and by how much one of the limp tools you carry around in your shinebox, Snoops?

Scandinavian Countries like Finland and Norway.

Do you mean like Greece?
#81 | Posted by Sniper

At last! An informed poster. Tell me, Snoops, what are the tax rates in Greece?

#79 | Posted by StenWilly

My county spends 20% of the total budget paying benefits to people who no longer work there. 61 million a year. How is this possible? It's like having an ex wife.

Maybe public employees should have to sign a prenup...

Considering that outsourcing of jobs not only creates unemployment but it also eliminates the income taxes which would have been paid by those workers perhaps we should consider replacing all lost income tax with tariffs. This would raise revenue, discourage importation of goods and reduce unemployment because manufacturers would be able to make products here cheaper than the cost overseas plus the tariff. Oh wait, the corporate traitors wouldn't like this idea so we aren't even supposed to think it.

raise taxes and the idiots in DC will continue to spend more then they bring in. get rid of them, cut spending and then maybe raise taxes.

come the revolution

raise taxes and the idiots in DC will continue to spend more then they bring in. get rid of them, cut spending and then maybe raise taxes.

come the revolution

#87 | Posted by taxpayer

Lying with a straight face?

DEMS claim that Obamacare will reduce the deficit - by saving $500 billion from Medicare.

If true, why haven't they already realized those savings? If it were easy and doable, wouldn't it be done already?

Simple honesty might have saved the day for the DEMS on health care. The main reason for opposition?

Government itself has no credibility. It's pretty simple really, not enough people believe what the POLS are saying.

Like in the case of MMGW, the DEMS could be right about Obamacare.

However, being lied to trumps all else. Trust requires credibility.

And Government has none.

How much would you cut (and where)?

#70 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

Finaly a good question dok. I would completly do away with the Dept of Energy and the Dept of Education. Both have been huge failures. I'm sure there are more that fall into that description. After that I would cut EVERY department by at least 10% every year until the budget was ballanced. None should escape the axe. Tax refunds that exceed tax payments by indivudals would have to stop.

This country is heading the same direction that Greece is and it doesn't look good. We do need to reigh in government spending.

We do need to reigh in government spending.

#90 | Posted by Sniper

Ain't ever gonna happen.

Instead of arguing between ourselves, maybe we should all be talking about how to prepare ourselves for the coming U.S. Government default...

...something the common folk won't even hear about until all of the insiders have high-tailed it to safety.

What are our options? What can we do to protect ourselves?

So I take it you don't vote for Republicans for the House, Senate, or presidency, right?

Tax refunds that exceed tax payments by indivudals would have to stop.

Wait are you saying that if I have too much withheld from my paychecks throughout the year I should not get a refund?

We do need to reigh in government spending.

#90 | Posted by Sniper

Think of politicians as a single mother, with two crying kids in the car, standing in the grocery checkout line.

And the only form of payment she has left is VISA.

The U.S. Government is buying all the "groceries" on credit cards.

There can only be one end result.

Taxman...

...even though you probably don't agree with my analysis...

...what can regular folks do to prepare themselves against a Government default?

Anything? Or is praying the only thing left?

In Athens, about 200 members of the PAME union group, aligned with the Communist Party of Greece, occupied the six- story ministry building today while protesters took over the nearby General Accounting Office, according to a police spokeswoman. Another group blocked a central road in downtown Athens, snarling traffic.

Will our unions do the same thing? Or will it be the Tea Partiers that go violent? Or, will it be both groups, finally united in a common cause?

This ain't gonna end pretty folks. What can we do now to prepare?

"What can we do now to prepare?"

Stop being an alarmist, the sky is not falling.
Raise taxes, cut some spending where appropriate, start protecting American jobs (and taxpayers).

"What can we do now to prepare?"

Stop being an alarmist, the sky is not falling.
Raise taxes, cut some spending where appropriate, start protecting American jobs (and taxpayers).

Slap a "war surcharge" tax on every registered Ruthug from the 2000 & 2004 elections to make them pay for the little party in the desert.

Stop being an alarmist, the sky is not falling.
Raise taxes, cut some spending where appropriate, start protecting American jobs (and taxpayers).

#98 | Posted by danni

The sky is falling over in Greece.

How are we immune?

One does not need to be an alarmist in order to be prepared.

In fact, if I can figure out a way to be prepared, I would be far less alarmed.

Why? Because the common sense approach you lay out above does not have a snowballs chance of ever happening.

Our elected class is far too corrupt.

I have no faith, no trust in my Government. I've seen first hand the belly of the beast and the situation we are all in is far worse than you might think.

I do Hope I'm wrong - but want to prepare nonetheless (if that is even possible).

The real problem is the cost of everyday items needed for life! If Taxes go up, the cost of GAS goes up due to restricted access to production, the cost of all products will go up due to delivery and storage cost increases.

Electricity, garbage, water, lights, natural gas/heating oil all prohibitively higher (also property taxes - the city has to function)!

That gallon of milk will cost you 45 - 60% more, same for meat, bread, butter, vegetables of all types, and those bottles/cans of beer? No limit due to special luxury levies!

I'm sure you haven't felt any of the State tax/fee increases or the reductions in public services to date (including the ones STILL in the pipeline)!

All of this will be within the next two to three years, after that the sky's the limit!

You say you won't feel this? Good luck on that!

"Under my cap and trade plan, electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket." - President Obama

And so will everything else you need to live.

Apples and oranges. One serves only an inherently high risk group, while the other (single payer) would have the best possible pool: everyone, paying into it.

#35 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

The problem is the spending habits of Congress.

If a city annexes 100 households who will now pay taxes to the city, will this increased revenue lower the overall tax rate?

No, it won't.

So, what will the city do with all this revenue?

Spend it.

Add more people into the pool for medical, do you really think the gov't will use the money to lower costs all around or spend this new revenue...and then borrow the rest?

I think a good idea is to suspend COLA adjustment through 2011 on all government programs.
Try a suspension through 2030. Why should fed workers and those on the fed dole get COL raises while most working Americans do not. Why not cut all federal spending by 10%. Watch how fast the deficit shrinks.

#77 | Posted by sitdown

Military spending is where the cuts in the US should be focussed. We still have multiple nuclear-armed bombers and submarines doing absolutely nothing except waste money. We have far too many bases in foreign countries who don't like us, often because we have military bases there. We need to instigate a major Peace Conference for reductions in arms expenditure by everybody. This is one little planet. It's time to stop killing each other.

Call me naive, but call me sane.
----------
Peace time military spending is about 13% of the Federal budget, go ahead and cut it, but the elephant in the room is the 87%.

#77 | Posted by sitdown

Unfortunately, a part of my personal preparation plan...

...will necessarily include several trips to Cabelas.

The only way to fix our Government...

...is to make them fear us again.

This is not going to end nicely. I'm 100% confident in that.

#73 | Posted by gluon

Increasing tax rates takes money out of the economy which results in lower tax revenue to the government. Even JFK knew that.
---------
I agree, and I think spending should be cut, but the party in charge is not interested in cutting spending, and the so called debt committie, is run by the head of the Federal Employees Union.

The leaks comming out of this committe are all about raising taxes.

"Try a suspension through 2030."

Federal government wages should be linked to the average wage of American workers. If that goes down then federal government wages should too.
No one has any thought on using tariffs to replace taxes lost due to outsourcing jobs???

"The leaks comming out of this committe are all about raising taxes."

Interesting since the members of the committee haven't even been appointed yet.

"One good way to escape some income tax is if you live more than 35 miles from your home office - see if your employer will give you a portion of your income in non-taxable per diem - it saves them and it saves you in the long run. Since my husband's work takes him far from home, we've been doing this for several years - it benefits the employer also from having to pay UI and matching social security on that part of your income. See IRS publication 1542 to see if you're entitled to this and how much - if your city isn't there, you can use the closest large city."

1. The word "miles" does not appear anywhere in IRS Publication 1542.

2. The 35 mile designation used to be for MOVING, although now that minimum for deductibility is 50 miles.

3. To get per diem, you must stay overnight, or not be reasonably expected to return that day (i.e., return after 3am).

4. If your city isn't there, you can NOT use the closest large city; your allowable per diem defaults to the lowest amount: $39 a day if it's before Oct 1st, 2010; $46 a day if it's October 1st or beyond.

Federal government wages should be linked to the average wage of American workers. If that goes down then federal government wages should too.
No one has any thought on using tariffs to replace taxes lost due to outsourcing jobs???

#110 | Posted by danni

Yes; could work in theory and where needed.

As always though, the devil lurks in the details.

Then remember too we are relying on corrupt politicians and bureaucrats to make it work as intended.

I sure wish I shared your faith in Government. My fault, not yours.

So....anyone want to mention that 60% of the budget is defense spending and we spend $800 billion a year paying off debt created by Reagan and Bush?

It's times like this I miss Bush I and Clinton. Both GOOD presidents even if I disagree with them on the details.

#101 | Posted by dogen

Oh! I totally remember this happening in the 90's! ....wait...no, I don't.

Maybe Time could purpose a 50% tax on profits from magazine sales.

#110 Danni> No one has any thought on using tariffs to replace taxes lost due to outsourcing jobs???

Our trading partners would enact tariffs on stuff we ship their way. Getting rid of NAFTA would be a good start, though.

#109 90C2CAB> I agree, and I think spending should be cut, but the party in charge is not interested in cutting spending,

Unfortunately, the other party showed no interest in cutting spending while they held the reins. Us fiscal conservative types are having a hard time finding any politician or candidate that actually gives a hoot about our views. Sigh...

HINT TO OBAMA: CUT THE SPENDING BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!!

More fiscal responsibility from the Obama administration:

"Our trading partners would enact tariffs on stuff we ship their way."

China already does. Since we import more than we export it would benefit us.

The sheep still don't get it. The feds are so deep in debt(bonded & unbonded ~$100 trillion), it is impossible to avoid some kind of default. Are they so stupid to believe that Congress would use a tax increase to pay off debt when all experience says they would increase spending?

"Perhaps China would decide to stop buying opur bonds as a penalty"

If we were bringing jobs home, raising tax revenues through tariffs and higher income taxes, we could stop borrowing so we wouldn't really care if China wanted to buy our bonds or not.

Looking back on the last thirty years I think it is baloney to say tax increases increase spending. Spending increased when they cut taxes. The two things are not necessarily related to each other.
We need PayGo, we need it enforced, we need for neither party to repeal it like the Republicans did in 2001.

Looking back on the last thirty years I think it is baloney to say tax increases increase spending. Spending increased when they cut taxes. The two things are not necessarily related to each other.

That's right. It took Washington decades of reckless borrowing and spending to become insolvent. If not for the Federal Reserve's printing press, they would have defaulted decades ago.

We need PayGo, we need it enforced, we need for neither party to repeal it like the Republicans did in 2001.

It's too little too late. This depression has a long way down to go. It can't be stopped.

In theory we are the government, the government is us.
#29 | POSTED BY HERM AT 2010-03-03 03:48 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

I agree... in theory.

In reality these fools in Washington WILL raise the taxes but forget to stop spending, leaving the deficit for the next guy and leaving us with less cash AND an ever growing deficit.

Increasing tax rates takes money out of the economy which results in lower tax revenue to the government. Even JFK knew that.

LOL...have to laugh at this....so if it leaves the economy, where does it go?.....the moon?

"It is the spending which is getting us in deep shit."
Unfunded wars to have a tendency to do that.
Get a clue, you don't pass tax cuts during wars.

#60 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2010-03-04 09:50 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

Like I said. It is the spending that has us in deep shit. You seem to think that because I'm critical of the Left who are in power now and are setting new records in deficit spending that I am letting the right off the hook. Bush and the repub's and the Dems in his last 2 years of office had set the previous record for irresponsibility with massive growth of government. You on he other hand feel totally justified with Obama's spending agenda

Looking back on the last thirty years I think it is baloney to say tax increases increase spending. Spending increased when they cut taxes. The two things are not necessarily related to each other.
We need PayGo, we need it enforced, we need for neither party to repeal it like the Republicans did in 2001.

#124 | Posted by danni at 2010-03-04 03:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

Tax increases, tax cuts are a product of "us" letting the government spend spend spend.

It is a pipe dream to thing we can enforce pay as you go....it has never happened in the history of the world.

#126 The_Nether> In reality these fools in Washington WILL raise the taxes but forget to stop spending, leaving the deficit for the next guy and leaving us with less cash AND an ever growing deficit.

We've seen that cycle repeated. Neither party shows any real sign of fiscal responsibility. The Repubs used to talk a good game, and possibly some of them actually meant it. But during G.W.'s two terms they spent with wild abandon, only to be topped by Obama and the Demos. Something _will_give and I'm hoping it is not a full-fledged depression.

"You on he other hand feel totally justified with Obama's spending agenda"

You can cut government as much as you want but only expanding teh economy will offer any hope to pay off debt.

Our public debt right now is not as high as it was after WWII as a percentage of GDP. WE enacted very high income tax rates on the richest Americans and kept them that way until JFK lowered them somewhat and then Reagan lowered them again. We need to do the same thing now that we did then. The big money folks know it but they don't want us to think it.

So....anyone want to mention that 60% of the budget is defense spending and we spend $800 billion a year paying off debt created by Reagan and Bush?

#114 | Posted by Sycophant

Where do you get your numbers?

You can cut government as much as you want but only expanding teh economy will offer any hope to pay off debt.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS HOPELESSLY IN DEBT!

It was running a Ponzi Scheme for the past hundred years that finally hit its limit!

Don't believe me. Find out the hard way.

Defense spending by country:

Just cut spending....they have enough revenue...

Picture you having to take a 30% pay cut. Now picture your spouse deciding to go on a spending spree which increased your spending this year by 20%. You tell them they have to stop being so careless with your finances because it is unsustainable and then they tell you "NO, you need to work harder"

If this is accurate, then Defense (so-called) is still the largest percentage and that is sheer madness.

Tax tax.

Tax tax tax.

Tax tax.

Tax tax tax.

Tax tax

Tax tax tax

Tax tax

Tax tax tax

Pants on da ground.

I am reading the wonderful book by Fred Kaplan: "1959 - the year everything changed"

It is amazing how the Cold War went on after 1959 for another 30 years or so, based on both the USA and the USSR having lousy intelligence and lousy perceptions of each other. And we still have lousy intelligence (see 9/11 and Iraq) and we are still spending 23% of our money on what we blithely call "Defence". If we cut our "Defence" budget and invited other nations to do the same, by 10 % a year for the next five years, we might all be more prosperous, and countries like Iran would be just the way they are now. Our politicians, and I suspect most other places' politicians, are feeble, selfish and without imagination or common sense.
And bought off by the highest bidder.

For reasons already stated the HSA model is the best way to go - if the feds wanted to set up ta-payer-funded HSA's accross the board, I'd be willing to listen.

#37 | Posted by JeffJ at 2010-03-03 04:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

I haven't found a doctor that knows how to deal with a cash customer. Very few doctors in "private practice". Mostly LLP's.

Never have I witnessed a business either so afraid to deal with an individual or just unable to decide what they're really worth without either the government or an insurance company dictating them their rate.

Very disappointing.

The definition if insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results.

#14 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2010-03-03 12:47 PM

Funny that nobody commented on your post?

Many people don't want to face reality, and especially when it could take away some their freebies.

Unemployment compensation is responsible for creating the underemployment club.

The saddest part is the club members believe they are such.

Tax refunds that exceed tax payments by indivudals would have to stop.

Wait are you saying that if I have too much withheld from my paychecks throughout the year I should not get a refund?

#93 | Posted by taxman at 2010-03-04 11:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

Would any of you hire this person to interpret tax law for you?

Hey Porkchop, they were talking about you on this thread.

"I haven't found a doctor that knows how to deal with a cash customer. Very few doctors in "private practice". Mostly LLP's.

Never have I witnessed a business either so afraid to deal with an individual or just unable to decide what they're really worth without either the government or an insurance company dictating them their rate."

Not sure where you live, but if you are near Orange County go right into Talbert Medical Center. If I used insurance for a regular doctor visit, they charge $120.00. If I pay cash it cost me $85.00. That inlcudes x-rays and blood work. If you are using your insurance card to buy prescription drugs at CVS, I not only get a discount paying cash, I also get another 20% off using my AAA card.

LOL, Hagbard. Who is "they"?

Do "they" fly helicopters?

The flip-side is the reality. Taxes will need to be increased in the short-term while we make tough choices as to where we need to cut spending and by how much. Once spending is reduced, the deficit should shrink, which will result in the reduction of taxes.
#24 | POSTED BY TAXMAN

I think this guy works for the IRS.

Why are there only 9 members on the facebook page for this website. Even if you disagree add yourself and let people know there is a site like this worth commenting on..............

Raising taxes will only result in increased spending. It won't reduce any debt. It won't reduce spending. Never has.

It is like maxing out a credit card and then getting the limit bumped up. And then maxing out the card again.

We can't expect the politicians to actually be fiscally responsible until we replace them with ones who are willing to do the dirty work of cutting spending. (Put that on the wish list.)

So what to do, short of armed revolt? Reduce taxes. Or at the least, reduce the taxes you pay. Find a way to keep more of your own money.

Maybe Taxman can give us some good ideas on how to reduce our own personal tax burdens. How can we avoid taxes without evading them?

Let's at least figure out how to quit being enablers to the spenders.

Why are there only 9 members on the facebook page for this website.

Posted by THEBULL

Because most of us prefer to remain anonymous. Why are you spamming every thread to ask about it?

Why are there only 9 members on the facebook page for this website. Even if you disagree add yourself and let people know there is a site like this worth commenting on..............

#148 | Posted by THEBULL at 2010-03-04 11:19 PM

Why are there only 9 members on the facebook page for this website. Even if you disagree add yourself and let people know there is a site like this worth commenting on..............

#148 | Posted by THEBULL

I'd considered it, using my retort email. I think that Joe is the only one who's identified himself, last I checked...

FTR, I recommend this site to everyone. I've only convinced one to join. He lasted about six months.

"We can't expect the politicians to actually be fiscally responsible until we replace them with ones who are willing to do the dirty work of cutting spending. (Put that on the wish list.)"

For the record, I agreed with Jim Bunning, and believe he should've held out regardless the consequences. The problem was his hypocrisy: cheerleading when the spending was coming from an (R), and condemning when the guy had a (D) after his name. But I can't think of one good reason not to use the stimulus funds for that...IF it's a good investment (which I don't believe it is).

So 2,000 DOT workers get laid off? That's the least of our problems. And before long, it'll seem positively benign.

Maybe the feds should give back the borrowed stimulus money they haven't used yet....

Higher Taxes Needed to Cut Debt?

It's statements like this why folks have not trust in politicians...

...we all know the truth is closer to something like this...

...Higher Taxes Needed to Raise the Debt Ceiling.

One FACT should not be allowed to be forgotten. Republicans during the Reagan adminstration openly bragged that they planned on "starving the beast" which meant that they intended to run up so much federal debt that when Democrats got power they would be unable to pass any thing like health care.
Our current problems did not happen by accident, weren't caused by politicians passing too many programs that help Americans but by cynical politicians determined to force the destruction of the social programs passed by Roosevelt and Johnson. I notice so many today are so willing to let them have their way even though it will mean poverty for millions of Americans who worked all their lives, paid their taxes, many even fought wars. It isn't surprising that the followers of those Republicans today claim things are hopeless before we have even raised one tax, protected one job, ended one war. Quite honestly I think they are afraid we will figure out that things are not only not hopeless but that just doing what we did in the past would balance our budgets, pay down our debts and continue the programs that millions of Americans depend on. Doing what we did in the past....tax the rich.

Before they should cut spending they need to STOP SPENDING.

If this Health Care bill passes this will be one huge entitlement added to the Federal Budget, before cutting some old programs, you need to stop this new one.

Bailing water out of boat when some else is filling it with a fire hose is pointless.

"If this Health Care bill passes this will be one huge entitlement added to the Federal Budget, before cutting some old programs, you need to stop this new one."

Never mind that health care reform has been reviewed by CBO and found to actually reduce the deficit.

#159 | Posted by danni

Never mind that health care reform has been reviewed by CBO and found to actually reduce the deficit.
-----------
Never mind that the CBO said the same thing about Welafare, SS, Medicaid, Medicare, and we all know how that turned out.

Never mind that fomer heads of the CBO said that the assumptions made in scoring this bill will probably not happen, thus why the above happend.

Never mind that Warren Buffet, and Mayor Bloomberg said this bill will add to the Debt, and everyones cost of living.

"Never mind that Warren Buffet, and Mayor Bloomberg said this bill will add to the Debt, and everyones cost of living."

Couple of rich guys, big deal.

With the current debt outlays being what they are, I think that tax increases are inevitable. What makes it so unpalatable is that most of the current debt being issued will be going to directed groups via increased transfer payment and social entitlements, to be paid for by a small percentage of the population. I think there would be much less hostility if the government increased taxes with some promise that they were going to cut out these services that really benefit a few.

If you gave the taxpayer, even a libertarian one a choice: don't pay taxes and don't drive on the roads, said taxpayer will very likey pay taxes and enjoy the benefit of driving on roads.

If you gave the same taxpayer the choice of not paying taxes and not flying (which uses a gov't funded ATC system) they would very likely pay the taxes and know that doing so allowed them to fly.

If you gave this same taxpayer the choice of not paying taxes, and not having the government support those that aren't supporting themselves, the rational taxpayer will stop paying that tax. Why, because unlike the others, the taxpayer doesn't benefit from this tax at all. he gets nothing in return.

For the value it brough to him, he may as well have wiped his ass with that money. Actually, that's not true, because toilet paper has some value. Maybe he should have lit it on fire and used it to start his barbecue. Oh, wait, there's a little bit of value there to.

In reality, involuntary contributions used as transfer payments have the least value of any way that money could be used.

"Couple of rich guys, big deal."

What we really need is to form a revolutionary council that can properly deal with these reactionary bourgeoise speculators. Where's Beria when you need him.

Let the economy collapse, let chaos become the norm, the wealthy will realize paying taxes isn't the worst thing that can happen to them.

Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare is going bankrupt, now we are creating another huge entitlement.

What make you people think that after 3 lemmons the 4th one will be a cheery.

Before they should cut spending they need to STOP SPENDING.

Sure thing.

Everyone over 62 with AGI greater than $65,000 should get $0 Social security and medicare.

Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare is going bankrupt

Please tell us Captain benefits, when exactly is Social Security going to go bankrupt.

Danni, watch this video of President John F. Kennedy and let us know if his views on taxing the rich are closer to Reagan's or what you posted above.

#166 | Posted by 2008 at 2010-03-05 10:22 AM | Reply | Flag: makes less than $65,000 a year

"Danni, watch this video of President John F. Kennedy and let us know if his views on taxing the rich are closer to Reagan's or what you posted above."

He lowered the highest rate to 76%, quite different from Reagan's 28%. 76% would probably be about right for today.

Why isn't an answer to what you'd cut and by how much one of the limp tools you carry around in your shinebox, Snoops?

#82 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

I did answer it dok. It isn't my problem if you can't read plain english without a bunch of cut-and-paste along with one of your dumb-shit remarks included. You are one limp-wristed trool.

"Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare is going bankrupt, now we are creating another huge entitlement."

Oh gee, what can we do, what can we do????

Oh yeah, just like Reagan we can raise the amount of income subject to SS tax and make Medicare available to all. There, all fixed. Economy boosted at the same time. Got to face the fact, Republicans want us to believe our problems are insurmountable, it is their strategy.

#171 | Posted by Sniper

Yes, you did answer the questinon. Finally. Took you a while, Snoops. But these days I just assume that questions posed to you are like a few loose marbles rattling around in a clothes dryer.

For example, it's been ages and you haven't been able to back up the bullshit you spouted about John Kerry's actions on 9/11.

But that's the way it is with facts, Snoops. Nasty little ass-biters for those like you who sit around and wait for someone to tell them what to think.

"Danni, watch this video of President John F. Kennedy and let us know if his views on taxing the rich are closer to Reagan's or what you posted above."

He lowered the highest rate to 76%, quite different from Reagan's 28%. 76% would probably be about right for today.

#170 | Posted by danni

Are you really suggesting a tax increase to 76% would spur the economy and create jobs?

How, exactly?

"Are you really suggesting a tax increase to 76% would spur the economy and create jobs?"

Yep. With available deductions for investment into the domestic economy it would create incentive for investors to create American jobs.
Obviously cutting taxes hasn't created jobs.
Time to look at our own history and do what we did before.

hmmmm...

Maybe the state of Illinois should advertise a new top tax rate of 76%...

...to get businesses to relocate there.

Would that work?

And once that 76% gets trickled down through the clutches of systemically corrupt Chicago politicians, at least half the money would be missing...

...in non-existent congressional districts.

Even if your tax policy worked in theory, which it doesn't, the management of the tax policy by inept and corrupt officials would certainly seal its fate.

Your tax policy would drive even more businesses into the ground - or overseas to lower tax jurisdictions.

"Let the economy collapse, let chaos become the norm, the wealthy will realize paying taxes isn't the worst thing that can happen to them."

Yep. Then they would be poor. No money to invest. No money to buy things with. The economic engine of society would be gone. Would it be bad for them? Of course. But it would be far worse for the poor, who rely upon the rich to support them.

"He lowered the highest rate to 76%, quite different from Reagan's 28%. 76% would probably be about right for today."

If you made $20 bucks an hour and only got to $4.80, is there really any incentive for you to keep working? Especially when that $4.80 isn't critical to your survival?

The problem with imposing high taxes on the most productive citizens is that you create incentives for them to not work. And not only do you lose the tax revenues they would have otherwise brought in, but you lose the goods and services they would have provided as well. This creates artificial scarcity which drives up the cost of goods and services until the markets once more reach equalibrium.

He lowered the highest rate to 76%, quite different from Reagan's 28%. 76% would probably be about right for today.

are you referring to personal income tax brackets or corporate...both?

on what incomes? I'm assuming you are placing this burden on a bracket above yours?

correct?

Your tax policy would drive even more businesses into the ground - or overseas to lower tax jurisdictions.

Which is what is happening already. For whatever reason, the left is pretty much demanding that the american worker not have to be globally competitive in any way, shape or form; that the government should arbitrarily impose the economic conditions where a low to no skill worker can walk down to the closest factory and get a job paying premium wages.

While this is certainly one way of skinning the cat, it is the most oppressive, least efficient method. Instead, american workers should be encouraged to get the skill and training necessary to fill those positions that are in high demand.

Let's do some math here:

If I keep my money and spend it, then 100% of that money is made available to whoever I choose.

If I send it in as taxes and the government spends it back, it takes a "piece" for taking the money in and sending it out, at a minimum. Meaning that less than 100% of my money is now working.

Now certainly, that means that someone in Leftoffthemap,KY won't get a piece of my money because the government won't "redistribute" my money to that locale.

But then the government will take money from Someplaceoutwest,NV and spend it here.

The government is the "middle man" in all these transactions. And every time the government touches a dollar, a piece is lost to the "middleman".

Yep...nice scam.

"The problem with imposing high taxes on the most productive citizens is that you create incentives for them to not work."

You can repeat talking point all you want but we have decades of history to disprove your comments.

"While this is certainly one way of skinning the cat, it is the most oppressive, least efficient method."

What horse crap. It is far more "oppressive" to lay off millions and outsource their jobs to a Communist dictatorship where any type of labor organizing is against the law and punishments can be quite severe, including death.
As far as efficiency, if you think it
is more efficient to ship raw materials all the way to China and then ship finished goods all the way back then you are simply crazy.

"The government is the "middle man" in all these transactions. And every time the government touches a dollar, a piece is lost to the "middleman".

And the "middleman" spends it and creates more demand for goods and services which creates more jobs. Had the rich guy not been taxed his wealth would have boosted a stock price perhaps or perhaps bought some gold. No increased demand for goods and services, no infrastructure repaired or built, no jobs created.
Those opposed to higher taxes ought to try getting around without driving on interstate highways for a while and then decide whether or not it was worth the investment to build them.

Danni,

let's apply some political reality here.

To me, it isn't all that crazy to consider a higher tax bracket on incomes over a large threshhold....thus forcing folks to put that money in motion into a business or whatever.

but you can't be serious with that strategy when you consider how that would play out politically.

nobody can get elected on a platform like that.

nobody.

all the other side has to say is "look at this fool.....he/she really thinks we can tax our way into prosperity"

independents would run from that candidate.

no chance it can work.

"but you can't be serious with that strategy when you consider how that would play out politically."

Valid point, I won't try to argue that it would be possible to get such a tax increase passed nor that the person trying would be reelected. I think WWII provided the necessary excuse back when they passed those 90% rates, without such a dramatic war it would be virtually impossible. That said, it is also virtually impossible that we will fix our economy, pay down our debt until we do raise taxes significantly.

Never mind that health care reform has been reviewed by CBO and found to actually reduce the deficit.

#159 | Posted by danni

Reduce the deficit.

That's like your spouse saying they will spend less using your credit card - a card you haven't paid off and won't pay off in your lifetime.

#167 | Posted by 2008

Please tell us Captain benefits, when exactly is Social Security going to go bankrupt.
--------------
It's in the red now, we are borrowing money to fund it.
Call it whatever you want, the money going in is not covering the money going out, and as more seniors retire it just going to get worse.

And the "middleman" spends it and creates more demand for goods and services which creates more jobs.

If the gov't is the majority source of revenue for a business, then it must rely on the gov't to sustain the business.

Creating goods and services is fine - if the business can flourish without the gov't after start-up.

I'm fine with creating prosperity through a grant by gov't.

But, if you describe a business that MUST have gov't funding perpetually, we all lose.

Giving more taxes to government to cut debt is like giving a bottle of whisky to an alchoholic expecting him to give up drink. It's foolish thinking like that that is bringing this country to its knees.

"Giving more taxes to government to cut debt is like giving a bottle of whisky to an alchoholic expecting him to give up drink. It's foolish thinking like that that is bringing this country to its knees."

Oh, I see, it's the thinking of those of us who want to pay down debt who are to blame, not those who cut taxes and fought wars on the credit card.
I see. Brilliant.

#169 | Posted by eberly at 2010-03-05 10:29 AM

#166 | Posted by 2008 at 2010-03-05 10:22 AM | Reply | Flag: makes less than $65,000 a year

Clue: 65.31% of American families make less than $65,000 a year! Sounds like the majority to me.

98.5% of families make less than $250,000 a year. If you are in the 98.5%, why are you so obsessed with protecting the income of the other 1.5%, while expressing a "fuck you" attitude to the vast majority of the country? If you are in the 1.5% what are you doing that is so "productive" while spending all your time posting on these boards?

I think WWII provided the necessary excuse back when they passed those 90% rates

Keep in mind that the Federal income tax was "sold" to the American public on the lie that it would be to pay for a war only and then gotten rid of (WW 1....I think) so people didn't accept that on the notion that it would ever continue in perpetuity.

Just remember that when looking backward in history to justify these actions today.

In a similar vein to Ray's #189 post (from my 'quotations' file):

"Giving money and power to government is like
giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."
-P. J. O'Rourke, civil libertarian

"Feeling good about government is like looking
on the bright side of any catastrophe. When
you quit looking on the bright side, the
catastrophe is still there."
-P. J. O'Rourke, civil libertarian

"If government were a product, selling it
would be illegal."
-P. J. O'Rourke, civil libertarian

"In our brief national history we have shot
four of our presidents, worried five of them
to death, impeached one and hounded another
out of office. And when all else fails, we
hold an election and assassinate their character."
-P. J. O'Rourke, civil libertarian

"The Democrats are the party that says government
will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove
the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are
the party that says government doesn't work and
then they get elected and prove it."
-P. J. O'Rourke, civil libertarian

"The good news is that, according to the Obama
administration, the rich will pay for everything.
The bad news is that, according to the Obama
administration, you're rich."
-P. J. O'Rourke, civil libertarian

"The mystery of government is not how Washington
works but how to make it stop."
-P. J. O'Rourke, civil libertarian

"Whatever it is that the government does,
sensible Americans would prefer that the
government does it to somebody else. This is
the idea behind foreign policy."
-P. J. O'Rourke, civil libertarian

When buying and selling are controlled by
legislation, the first things to be bought
and sold are legislators."
-P. J. O'Rourke, civil libertarian

"You can't get rid of poverty by giving people
money."
-P. J. O'Rourke, civil libertarian

"You can repeat talking point all you want but we have decades of history to disprove your comments."

So then you are willing to contribute 75% of your income to "the good of society." A simple yes or no will suffice.

And in fact, the "decades of history," support my position. Jeez, basic common sense supports my position. There would not have been a technological revolution in the 1980s if it hadn't been for the fact that all those entrepreneurs now had the ability to benefit from their productivity in a way they would not have previously. And not just the entrepreneurs, but the engineers and financeers that helped make it all happen. Prior to then, there was no reason to go to college, because you were only going to make slightly more as a skilled employee than you would if you were unskilled. that all changed in the 1980s.

"What horse crap. It is far more "oppressive" to lay off millions and outsource their jobs to a Communist dictatorship where any type of labor organizing is against the law and punishments can be quite severe, including death."

So lets consider what would happen is these workers weren't laid off. First, they are competing globally against equally qualified workers whose labor cost is a fraction of those in the US. So, right out of the gate this company is now at a cost disadvantage in the global marketplace, and while you may care immensely about protecting american jobs, consumers in Ireland or Brazil will not, and they will willing pay more money just so that american workers have more to spend on Ipods and Playstations. Think about it this way. If Safeway sells a block of cheeze for $3, and Wal Mart sells it for $.50, the rational consumer is going to buy it from Wal Mart. In fact, the rational consumer is going to buy it from Wal Mart even if it costs $2.99.

But continuing on, this company is no longer as competitive in the global marketplace. If it's products were highly differentiated with a higher level of elasticity, they may be able to retain some part of their market share, if it is closer to a commodity, they would be garunteed to lose all of it. So the end result is some layoffs to the termination of the business. How is either one good for anybody.

Of course in the past you have suggested that the government restrict competition in the US as a means of favoring these industries. What that amounts to is the government telling people what products they can buy and at what price. The collusion of business and industry, known as corporatism, was perfected by the likes of Mussolini and Hitler. It requires the suppression of individual choice. There is no way around it. I believe it was Von Mises who once described the waterfall effect that governments have when they meddle with the economy. You can't just change one thing, because that one things effects another. And if you change that, it effects yet another. That's why virtually every eocnomist agrees that government meddling causes more problems than it solves.

"No increased demand for goods and services, no infrastructure repaired or built, no jobs created.
Those opposed to higher taxes ought to try getting around without driving on interstate highways for a while and then decide whether or not it was worth the investment to build them."

That's actually completely untrue. Wealthy people usually buy more "dear" products, which may range from televsions and ipods up to Yachts and Private Jets. The difference between the industries that produce high value dear goods and lower value consumer products is that thwe lower valuew products can take better advantage of economies of scale. They can adjust their productive output a couple of points either way without having to buy new equipment or hire more workers. Gulfstream is less able to do that because they will produce a much smaller number of articles, and changes in demand would be met directly by hiring more workers.

Furthermore, you completely ignore the fact that the money wealthy people invest is used to create more wealth, specifically by combining with labor. In other words, creating jobs. Now it's probably not going to be the type of jobs you support, low/unskilled labor...it's more likely to be highly skilled, highly motivated labor, and the end result is very likely going to be another rich person.

#178 | Posted by madbomber at 2010-03-05 11:35 AM

But it would be far worse for the poor, who rely upon the rich to support them.

Bullshit! It is the rich who rely upon the poor (who do all the actual work!) to support them. I am so tired of all this "most productive members of society" crap. What, exactly, are Sam Walton's kids so "productive" about? Do they work in the stores, the distribution system, even management? No. They don't work. A bunch of people who make money by moving money from one pocket to the other don't produce a damn thing!

If you are in the 98.5%, why are you so obsessed with protecting the income of the other 1.5%, while expressing a "fuck you" attitude to the vast majority of the country?

easy there. look back to what I was responding to. someone suggested that we pay no SS to anybody making over $65K. absurd.

so I responded in kind.

I make over $65K, and I have been paying in for 46 years! You're damn right I expect to collect! There is a social contract in place here, and you just want to abrogate!

Less spending will solve the problem, and it is the only way to do so...

Whodaman,

take it up with this guy and maybe you can stop assigning stupid positions to me that I don't have.

Everyone over 62 with AGI greater than $65,000 should get $0 Social security and medicare.

#166 | Posted by 2008 at 2010-03-05 10:22 AM

Bullshit! It is the rich who rely upon the poor (who do all the actual work!) to support them.

actually it is a 2-way street. they are obviously reliant on each other.

#190 Danni> Oh, I see, it's the thinking of those of us who want to pay down debt who are to blame, not those who cut taxes and fought wars on the credit card.

Here are some questions I started asking people in the real world (although they should work equally well in the virtual world). Feel free to cut-and-paste the following as needed:

-------------- cut and paste here -------------

1. If you believed "deficits don't matter" under G.W.'s administration, but gripe about deficits under Obama, you are a right-wing party hack and hypocrite.

2. If you did not believe "deficits don't matter" under G.W.'s administration, but do believe "deficits don't matter" under Obama, you are a left-wing party hack and hypocrite.

3. If you believed "deficits don't matter" under G.W. AND Obama, you are financially clueless.

4. If you believed that deficits did matter under G.W.'s administration, and are far more concerned about much larger deficits under Obama's administration, you are one of the few people who have a clue. People in this category often think there is a financial train wreck just around the bend for the locomotive America.

-------------- cut and paste here -------------

#187 | Posted by 90c2cab at 2010-03-05 12:16 PM

It's in the red now, we are borrowing money to fund it

Link, please. To my knowledge, SS is still (for the next few years, anyway) running a surplus

#200 | Posted by eberly at 2010-03-05 12:55 PM

Sorry, I stand corrected. My post was, indeed, intended for 2008.

no problem whodaman.

#201 | Posted by eberly at 2010-03-05 12:56 PM

You apparently don't understand that labor precedes capital, until somebody accumulates enough capital to hire somebody else. This was a lot easier when everything was "free" (e.g., land stolen from the natives). Anybody could go out and find some natural resources and figure out how to make wealth by converting them into something useful. Once everything is "owned" by somebody, that ability is severely restricted. Sorta like trying to open a new store in an area where there's a Walmart. That, however, doesn't make the "owner" "productive".

I barely have enough money as it is. A tax increase will break me.

"Less spending will solve the problem, and it is the only way to do so..."

You make that comment almost as if you knew what the hell you were talking about instead of just pulling it from your ass.

I barely have enough money as it is. A tax increase will break me.

#207 | Posted by mictian101 at 2010-03-05 01:14 PM

Sounds like a definition of "working poor". Nobody's talking about increasing your taxes. You got a tax decrease in 2009, although it was small enough that you might not have noticed it. When we talk about increasing income tax on the marginal income above $250,000 the increase is only on the amount above that number. The first $250,000 continues to be taxed as it is now. BTW, only 1.5% of families in the US make over $250,000!

"Less spending will solve the problem, and it is the only way to do so..."

You make that comment almost as if you knew what the hell you were talking about instead of just pulling it from your ass.

#205 Danni> You make that comment almost as if you knew what the h_ll you were talking about instead of just pulling it from your a$$.

See the analogy further up-thread where someone pictured our financial situation as akin to a small boat being filled with water by a firehose while those inside the boat bail with small buckets. It might just be a good idea to turn off the firehose (aka SPENDING) or cut the flow as much as possible.

Seems like you just can't understand the idea of federal spending cuts. See post #197, specifically question #2 on the list. Sound familiar to your often stated position???

#202 Mictian101> I barely have enough money as it is. A tax increase will break me.

I don't see what you have to worry about. Here's Obama's promise that I'm sure he will honor as long as he lives in the White House (hint of sarcasm here):

"I can make a firm pledge: Under my plan, no family
making less than $250,000 will see their taxes
increase--not your income taxes, not your
payroll taxes, not your capital gains taxes,
not any of your taxes."
-Barack Obama, Sept. 12, 2008

You make that comment almost as if you knew what the hell you were talking about instead of just pulling it from your ass.

#203 | Posted by danni

You are an expert on that little trick.

#207 | Posted by AKat at 2010-03-05 01:37 PM
not your income taxes, not your
payroll taxes, not your capital gains taxes

AFAIK, none of these have been increased on families earning less than 250K, and payroll taxes were reduced.

"Less spending will solve the problem, and it is the only way to do so..."

You make that comment almost as if you knew what the hell you were talking about instead of just pulling it from your ass.

#205 | Posted by danni

Danni,

If I pulled a turd out of my ass and asked it how to fix the deficit, it would understand the issue better than you do.

Debt comes from overspending....period....it's not really that complicated...the average kindergardner understands this....

#209 Whodaman, what I meant was that Obama and the Demos will likely raise taxes of some kind (even the verboten ones per his campaign promise) even on those making less than $250k per year. Apparently I didn't make it clear.
Thanks,
Akat

You apparently don't understand that labor precedes capital

Actually, you have it backwards. Capital precedes labor, every time.

Perhaps... but the situation when the current administration was inaugurated was considerably worse than it was during the campaign. I would rather see my taxes go up (a small amount) if it would reduce some of the debt my children and grandchildren would be burdened with. But the fact is, that for most of the history of this country, the rich and the corporations have paid a much higher percentage of the tax revenue than they do now. The apologists never seem to understand that the rich and corporations are far more dependent on the existence of the government than the average citizen is!

You apparently don't understand that labor precedes capital, until somebody accumulates enough capital to hire somebody else.

we've debated the "which came first...chicken or egg" to death.

It doesn't matter.

the reality is that both need each other. I am not placing one ahead of the other although our system does place ownership/capital ahead of labor.

Who gets a seat at the table when policy is decided? who can purchase influence?

answer...capital/ownership? Is that right? no. both sides need to be represented.

But our system is a top-down system.

We are always going to have the poor. policy can't change that. we need to focus on making the middle class stronger.

Sorta like trying to open a new store in an area where there's a Walmart. That, however, doesn't make the "owner" "productive".

I don't exactly know what you mean there but it's an interesting analogy. A lot of buisnesses now locate near a Walmart to capture the traffic Walmart generates. ie..RadioShack.

Actually, you have it backwards. Capital precedes labor, every time.

#212 | Posted by JeffJ at 2010-03-05 02:13 PM

Really? What was the capital that produced the agricultural revolution?

I would rather see my taxes go up (a small amount) if it would reduce some of the debt my children and grandchildren would be burdened with.

and how would you feel if you paid more in taxes and, in the end, burdened the same debt or more to your children and grandchildren.

what guarantees do you have from an entity (the Federal Government) that they can be trusted to take the extra revenue you send them to reduce the debt?

"We are always going to have the poor. policy can't change that. we need to focus on making the middle class stronger."

A society which operates on the principle that there must be winners (rich) and losers (poor) and provides the institutional structures that enforces that result, has an obligation to provide for the losers. The income in this society is remarkably lop-sided based on a false valuation. A CEO doesn't create any wealth. He sits upon a structure which depends on a lot of people below him creating wealth, i.e., taking something and adding value to it through labor. What value does a CEO add?

what guarantees do you have from an entity (the Federal Government) that they can be trusted to take the extra revenue you send them to reduce the debt?

What guarantee do you have that the world won't end tomorrow? At some point one must make decisions based on what seems reasonable to assume.

#213 Whodaman> I would rather see my taxes go up (a small amount) if it would reduce some of the debt my children and grandchildren would be burdened with.

I would agree with that theoretically but in reality, based on the actions of many Repubs and Demos holding national office, they will spend whatever tax receipts we send their way and go over budget. Every time. I have absolutely no trust in anyone (outside of Ron Paul) to act in a fiscally responsible manner in Congress or in the White House.

I guess that is why many of us here argue long and hard for spending cuts as a vital and necessary first step towards fiscal soundness. I can't imagine most politicians today ever agreeing to anything other than token spending cuts (or cuts to growth ... sold as a 'spending cut').
Thanks,
Akat

What value does a CEO add?

leadership, direction, vision. and he/she should hire the right people, influence the right people, get control of all factors that can impact the organization.

or you could ask Corky (self proclaimed CEO)

What was the capital that produced the agricultural revolution?

The land.

The seed to be sowed.

Agricultural tools (plow, shovels, etc.).

In order to labor one must first possess the physical goods to labor with.

Either we are a people capable of self-governance (i.e., creating a government that acts on our behalf, not "free market" anarchy), or we are not and need an authoritarian elite over us. Contrary to the opinion of some on this board it's actually the former that is the "liberal" position and the latter that is "conservative" one. I'm not going to address party labels in this context because they are, in many cases, irrelevant.

At some point one must make decisions based on what seems reasonable to assume.

I see. It's "reasonable" to assume that if you give extra money to the Fed Govt, they will take it and pay off the debt.....because you want them to.

one man's definition of "reasonable" is another's definition of "insanity".

Let me ask you.....are you happy with the way YOUR govt has spent money in the last 10 years?

seriously....answer that with "yes" and we can "reasonably assume" you are "insane".

and yet, you "assume" the govt will behave more responsibly going forward.

WOW

let me remind you.....another cabal like Bush and the repubs will be back in power someday...........someday before you hand all of this debt to your children grandchildren.

but go ahead and "assume" the govt will have a "coming to Jesus" moment and start behaving in a manner you and I would want them to.

#220 | Posted by eberly

Or you could ask this poster, the self-proclaimed 3rd Everly Brother, Eberly Everly.

Couldn't sing woth a shiite, but was subject matter for, "Kathy's Clown".

#220 | Posted by eberly at 2010-03-05 02:29 PM
leadership, direction, vision. and he/she should hire the right people, influence the right people, get control of all factors that can impact the organization.

I have been employed in Fortune 500 companies for the last 35 years, and I call bullshit! The average CEO has no idea what actually goes on in his company where the wealth is actually produced. They more often put obstacles in the way of the "producers" (management not included; they don't produce anything") than to do anything to facilitate it.

Or you could ask this poster, the self-proclaimed 3rd Everly Brother, Eberly Everly.

LOL

you have to admit the irony though...the shit being slung at CEOs by the left and the only person claiming to be a CEO here is you.

I'm used to the shit.

I'm a Christian, conservative, and in the insurance industry.

The average CEO has no idea what actually goes on in his company where the wealth is actually produced. They more often put obstacles in the way of the "producers"

my answer is not in conflict with what you are talking about.

CEOs, certainly of fortune 500 companies, delegate all of what you are talking about to others including all operational responsibilities.

Does Obama understand what you do? no. his title is CEO of this country.

if you were to steal the calendar of your CEO....what do you think it would reveal?

you would see most of their time being spend looking outwardly versus inwardly.

politics (gigantic responbility for fortune 500 CEOs)

financing (including relationships with all financial institutions that can impact your company and the stock price)

board of directors (who he really answers to)

community stuff (ribbon cutting..fundraisers etc)

probably less than 5% of their time is spent worrying about what you do. He has plenty of people to do that.

and yes......it does suck. I have worked for CEOs like that too......and the same problems you mentioned are real and I wish, like you, that the CEO could really see what is going on.

#217 | Posted by WhoDaMan
What value does a CEO add?
---------------------
He or she adds value through the decisions they make. You going to tell me that a football coach doesn't make a difference.

Some examples: The CEO of DEC computer decided that mainframes were the way to go, and we know how well that decision turned out.

Steve Jobs focused on hardware, and Bill Gates focused on Software, and we now know which was the better decision.

The CEO of a record company in England hired the Tremalos over the Beatles, that decision cost his company millions of dollars.

"What was the capital that produced the agricultural revolution?

The land."

Well now you're defining capital as land. You might just as well define humans as capital as well. Humans start with nothing but land. Everything beyond that is produced by labor. The word "capital" is used by economists in the capitalist context and doesn't mean just everything.

Well now you're defining capital as land.

If ownership of the land requires some form of payment, then yes.

"Agricultural tools (plow, shovels, etc.)."

Yes, and those tools came into existence how? By the human labor of creating tools by molding raw materials.

"If ownership of the land requires some form of payment, then yes."

Where did the capital come from to make the payment?

By the human labor of creating tools by molding raw materials.

Wouldn't raw materials qualify as capital?

Wouldn't some form of capital be needed to compensate laborers for molding raw materials?

Regardless, I see it much as Eberly does - both need eachother.

I stand corrected.

Nice work, Null

It was produced, in contrast to "land," which refers to naturally occurring resources such as geographical locations and minerals.

Good work, Jeff. I was just about to post this:

"In classical economics, capital is one of three (or four, in some formulations) factors of production. The others are land, labor and (in some versions) organization, entrepreneurship, or management. Goods with the following features are capital:

* It can be used in the production of other goods (this is what makes it a factor of production).
* It was produced, in contrast to "land," which refers to naturally occurring resources such as geographical locations and minerals.
* It is not used up immediately in the process of production unlike raw materials or intermediate goods. (The significant exception to this is depreciation allowance, which like intermediate goods, is treated as a business expense.)"

"Bullshit! It is the rich who rely upon the poor (who do all the actual work!) to support them."

Do you understand how the Walton family got rich? Sam Walton ran a store that was very popular with consumers. Those consumers willingly gave him lots of money for provding goods at a lower cost than the competitor. So, while it is true that without the support of the poor Sam Walton would not have become rich, the poor (and everyone else) only made him rich because doing so benefitted them as well.

What I was reffering to more specifically was that the bottom 50% of income earners pay little or no taxes, while the top 5% pays 60%. In other words, the bottom 50% are supported by the bottom 50%. Those in poverty or below are totally reliant on the top 50%, and without them would starve.

"I make over $65K, and I have been paying in for 46 years! You're damn right I expect to collect! There is a social contract in place here, and you just want to abrogate!"

You make plenty of money. You can afford to give some of it to those that are not as productive as you are. Stop being so goddamn greedy! Without the poor you would have never been able to make the money you do.

"Anybody could go out and find some natural resources and figure out how to make wealth by converting them into something useful. Once everything is "owned" by somebody, that ability is severely restricted. Sorta like trying to open a new store in an area where there's a Walmart. That, however, doesn't make the "owner" "productive"."

Natural resources? The real value in america comes from the innovation of our people. Any half-wit living in a dirt hut can dig diamonds out of the ground, and it's not a bad gig, but Mozambique is never going to rival the united states in terms of aggregate value because they currently lack the technology and the motivation to create the next ipod, or the next XBoX, or the next cell phone, or whatever the next high value consumer device is developed. maybe it will be a new form of energy. regardless, it will be popular, it it will make those who created it very rich.

"The first $250,000 continues to be taxed as it is now. BTW, only 1.5% of families in the US make over $250,000!"

Only 1.5%? Why not take it all. That's what? 3.5 million people. They could never stand against the other 98.5%.

We should do whatever we want with their money.

Null,

The problem was that I was ignorant as to the specific definition of capital as it pertains to economics. A factual-error like that can ruin an otherwise solid argument.

#198 | Posted by WhoDaMan
It's in the red now, we are borrowing money to fund it

Link, please. To my knowledge, SS is still (for the next few years, anyway) running a surplus

"In 2007, the cumulative excess of Social Security taxes and interest received over benefits paid out stood at $2.2 trillion"
www.ssa.gov
-------
On CNBC they said that for the 1st time SS FICA taxes would not cover the SS outlays, so they had to dip into the general tax fund.

"Either we are a people capable of self-governance (i.e., creating a government that acts on our behalf, not "free market" anarchy), or we are not and need an authoritarian elite over us."

The free market is a reflection of the aggregate consumption habits of society. It represents how free people act without coersion. You sir, sound like someone who dislikes the decisons made by free people, perhaps preferring that they be governed by a body that is better able to make decisions for them than they themselves.

If ownership of the land requires some form of payment, then yes.

MY GOD! Have any of you ever taken an econ course!?

Here's the deal, when people discuss the traditional factors of production, they are generally meaning those of the classical model; developed. Developed by Smith and adapted by Marx.

Labor: The human energy used in the wealth production process. Earns wages.

Capital: The assets used in the production process that are not consumed. Earns profits.

Land: Land, but also includes things like trees, ore, etc. Earns rents, which are far more complex than I'm willing to explain at this time.

Sure, raise taxes.

Hell, just take the tax rate to 100%, divide the gnp among all the citizens, and we should all be happy... Each person would take what they need and provide what they can... Hmmm... didn't some country try something like that once before? Sounds kinda familiar...

Washington needs more taxes like a drunk needs another bottle of vodka.

#239 | Posted by madbomber

Yes, that was explained in #235.

"On CNBC they said that for the 1st time SS FICA taxes would not cover the SS outlays, so they had to dip into the general tax fund."

Bull shit.

"Washington needs more taxes like a drunk needs another bottle of vodka."

Yeah, we can just tell all those holding bonds to go fuck themselves. We borrowed the money, now we're going to have to pay it back. Oh wait, Ray's depending on us defaulting which will make gold more valuable. If we actually raise taxes and start paying down the debt his gold will start dropping in value. I think his advise is a bit too self-serving.

"Yeah, we can just tell all those holding bonds to go fuck themselves."

uh, that's exactly what the Obama administration did to the GM/Chrysler bondholders. Of course the UAW got hooked up.

Time: Higher Taxes Needed to Cut Debt

What R ya, ignert or something?

Is amazing how absolutly clueless some of these lefties are!