Message boards :
Politics :
Supreme Court upholds Obamacare
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 . . . 30 · 31 · 32 · 33 · 34 · 35 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
W-K 666 Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 19093 Credit: 40,757,560 RAC: 67 |
WinterKnight, Why do you think increasing taxes will harm economic growth? If you look at all the figures since 1950 then you will find that the economy of the US grew just a well, if not better, when the tax rate was highest. So befome you scream some more about high taxes I suggest you go and study history. I don't have more time but here's a little piece from the NY times http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/15/business/economy/slipping-behind-because-of-an-aversion-to-taxes.html?_r=0 |
OzzFan Send message Joined: 9 Apr 02 Posts: 15691 Credit: 84,761,841 RAC: 28 |
+1 |
bobby Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 2866 Credit: 17,789,109 RAC: 3 |
WinterKnight, I said: I imagine that some will want any rewrite of the tax code to result in smaller government, if that is the case, perhaps it's worth being reminded just how small the US government already is compared to the governments of other nations. and then posted graphic as Firefox had issues with the link provided in that comment. Taking on board the criticism that the graphic is of revenues rather than expenditures, a quick search lead me to this from the OECD which ranks the US as being 24th out of the 34 nations reporting expenditures as a %age of GDP in 2009 (the 10 nations lower than the US are Luxembourg, New Zealand, Slovak Republic, Turkey, Japan, Australia, Switzerland, Korea, Chile and Mexico). Perhaps noteworthy, for the same year, the World Bank shows the US having the 8th highest expenditures for defense from all the nations it reports, or second of the oecd group. Admittedly not all the oecd nations are in the world bank report, there are 2 nations in the oecd report for which the world bank does not have figures (Luxembourg and Korea). Regarding the different numbers from BarryAZ, I'm sure it's already been pointed out, BarryAZ's are for Federal revenues, the OECD's are for government, and it seems likely that as the OCED's are higher than BarryAZ's, the OECD is including more than the federal government in its assessment. I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ... |
BarryAZ Send message Joined: 1 Apr 01 Posts: 2580 Credit: 16,982,517 RAC: 0 |
Guy, you seem to have missed a critical point here -- taxes by the Federal government are at their lowest level in over 60 YEARS. I want to see expenditures dropped to historic levels (ie about the proportion of GDP we saw in 1950 to 2000). I want to see revenues returned to historic levels (ie about the proportion of GDP we saw in 1950 to 2000). Now if to get those revenue increases the best approach is to simplify the code, spread the burden out, AND reduce all the complicating tax dodges available to the wealthy -- I believe that would be a good thing. I would only accept that in conjunction with real reform (reduction) on the expenditure side, not just the burgeoning defense establishment, but also a number of the entitlement areas as well, along with real controls generally on federal spending. |
Sarge Send message Joined: 25 Aug 99 Posts: 12273 Credit: 8,569,109 RAC: 79 |
Guy, you seem to have missed a critical point here -- taxes by the Federal government are at their lowest level in over 60 YEARS. Guy's the one that has said the Dems have controlled or almost completely controlled the US gubment for the past 70 years. I think both Phil Collins and Ozzy have both sung about calling it black when I know that it's white. |
betreger Send message Joined: 29 Jun 99 Posts: 11362 Credit: 29,581,041 RAC: 66 |
Barry, many in the far right seem to rewrite history. |
Ex: "Socialist" Send message Joined: 12 Mar 12 Posts: 3433 Credit: 2,616,158 RAC: 2 |
Guy, you seem to have missed a critical point here -- taxes by the Federal government are at their lowest level in over 60 YEARS. +1 A realistic middle of the road solution. Who knew. #resist |
BarryAZ Send message Joined: 1 Apr 01 Posts: 2580 Credit: 16,982,517 RAC: 0 |
Dave, sadly, while it might be rational -- it is not realistic. Much of the Teapublican party is guided by folks who have a belief system and sense of reality similar to Guy. Also, many of the Democrats are not only too tied to the retention of the level and breadth of entitlements, but also have some inclination to expand them. Of course for the Democrats, perhaps part of that is in response to the absolute intransigence they have encountered from the Teapublican party. Guy, you seem to have missed a critical point here -- taxes by the Federal government are at their lowest level in over 60 YEARS. |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30690 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
Guy, you seem to have missed a critical point here -- taxes by the Federal government are at their lowest level in over 60 YEARS. I believe that is called sequestration. |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30690 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
My, just love the Bush tax cuts were for the uber-rich only. http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/01/pf/taxes/fiscal-cliff-tax/ American households face an average tax increase of $3,500 if Congress doesn't act to avert the fiscal cliff Overall, 88% of households would end up with higher taxes. households making up to $20,113 would see a $412 average increase Yep, that's the 47% who don't pay tax now ... Yes, the Bush tax cuts were only for the uber-rich ... |
Sarge Send message Joined: 25 Aug 99 Posts: 12273 Credit: 8,569,109 RAC: 79 |
My, just love the Bush tax cuts were for the uber-rich only. I hsven't heard a single person claim that, verbally or in an online post. As it is, such a person would then have a hard time explaining the so-called attempts to hold on to the tax cuts for the middle class (and let the ones for the rich expire). |
BarryAZ Send message Joined: 1 Apr 01 Posts: 2580 Credit: 16,982,517 RAC: 0 |
Gary, real reform isn't sequestration -- that simply something of a brain dead across the board cut in all programs that allow it (not entitlements). Real reform goes after those big ticket items and prioritizes reductions in a rational manner. That being said, the plus side of sequestration is that it *ought* to compel both parties to make an effort to work together -- that along with the demise of the Bush tax cuts -- so that a governance oriented deal can be made.
|
BarryAZ Send message Joined: 1 Apr 01 Posts: 2580 Credit: 16,982,517 RAC: 0 |
Gary -- yes, the elimination of all the Bush cuts would place all folks in the depression level Clinton era tax burden. That being said, the nature of the Bush cuts DID disproportionately help out the very wealthy. |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30690 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
Real reform goes after those big ticket items and prioritizes reductions in a rational manner. So you are saying that the levels of government spending we have today aren't rational and are in need of reform. If they were then an across the board hair trim would not change them. As I doubt there will be any meeting of the minds or all the earmarks of past and cutting them, I doubt that any spending reduction can be implemented other than an across the board cut. |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30690 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
disproportionately Someone someday is going to have to define that mathematically. |
betreger Send message Joined: 29 Jun 99 Posts: 11362 Credit: 29,581,041 RAC: 66 |
disproportionately Gary, as you should know, the tax cuts were not linear. |
BarryAZ Send message Joined: 1 Apr 01 Posts: 2580 Credit: 16,982,517 RAC: 0 |
Gary, actually I believe the statistics available on wealth distribution might just have done that for you. That being said, I'm not alone in seeing the need for balance regarding spending cuts and revenue increases. From a Washington Post column today: "Behind the scenes, serious people in the administration and Congress, of both parties, are discussing ways to avert the economic shock of suddenly hiking taxes and throttling back spending. But there can be no pathway to success unless enough partisans on both sides give up on their foundational myths: for Republicans, that the fiscal challenge can be solved through spending cuts alone; for Democrats, that tax increases on the wealthy will suffice." |
BarryAZ Send message Joined: 1 Apr 01 Posts: 2580 Credit: 16,982,517 RAC: 0 |
Gary, the 'simple' approach might be across the board cuts -- but you are bright enough to realize that sequestration does NOT affect Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and a number of other programs. Since it doesn't and you appear to advocate sequestration, that suggests you also accept that these 'protected programs' should continue as they are. The thing is, a different version of you has stated before that you certainly don't accept that the protected programs should continue as they do. That sort of divergence from you sounds almost 'Romney-like'. So, for me, the impending sequestration, and the elimination of all the Bush tax cuts *could* signal to Congress the need to work out some more rational approach. If it did, I believe both you and I would welcome that. |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30690 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
Gary, the 'simple' approach might be across the board cuts -- but you are bright enough to realize that sequestration does NOT affect Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and a number of other programs. Since it doesn't and you appear to advocate sequestration, that suggests you also accept that these 'protected programs' should continue as they are. They are insurance products and should be treated as such, fully funded by the people who are entitles to the benefit without a dime of general funding ever being spent on them. If they are programs then they should be cut to flat zero immediately. The government never should be in the entitlement business. The thing is, a different version of you has stated before that you certainly don't accept that the protected programs should continue as they do. Yes. I seriously doubt it can. If either party doesn't win a landslide the other has far too much political capital to gain by allowing sequestration, pointing and saying the other side did it. If there was a landslide then they could not permit sequestration as it would devastate them. The only rational basis is zero based budgeting. Never going to happen. It would put far to many civil servants out of work. What functions must the Federal Government do? In no particular order: 1) Secure the border in peace time 2) Operate the air traffic control system 3) License radio transmitters 4) Operate a court system 5) Provide a National Defense 6) Operate embassies in other countries 7) Provide Presidential/Congressional Security 8) Investigate/Prosecute Federal Crimes 9) Operate the Library of Congress 10) Run the National Parks, Forests, etc. 11) Collect Taxes 12) Preform a census 13) Promote national standards 14) Spy 15) Run prisons ... Feel free to add, but try and keep it broad. Thinking about preventing duplication of programs in different departments as we do today. I'm sure the list is in the hundreds and I don't think I've even got all that are mentioned in the constitution. Once we agree on the list, then we get to put priorities on them. |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.