Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

I thought the speech was pretty good actually. One point I liked was the whole tax increases for the wealthy. I mean, most republicans aren't even close millionaires/billionaires anyway, so why in the world would they support more tax cuts for those who don't really need it and can afford to pay more? People became a lot more frugal when the shit hit the fan, so they weren't putting money back into the economy (the most common retardican argument in support of bush-era tax cuts).

Also, pretty sure TARP prevented Depression 2.0. That's according to pretty much every source/person/economist I've heard, not gonna bother linking any sources since everyone thinks their unsubstantiated biases are more credible than any possible source. But this is for another thread.

[✔] [item]Thunderfury, Blessed Blade of the Windseeker[/item] (Three)
[✔] [item]Sulfuras, Hand of Ragnaros[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]32837[/item] & [item]32838[/item]
[✔] [item]Thori'dal, the Stars' Fury[/item]
[✔] [item]46017[/item]
[✔] [item]49623[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]71086[/item]

^-- You always make me giggle. How much should we tax the rich? How are you more deserving of their money? In many cases they're already paying near 50% in taxes... how much more do you think you're entitled to?

The president is just trying to look like he's hard on the budget when we know that isn't the case. First, if he was serious about the budget he would've done everything to be the 'bipartisan' man he wants you to think he is by passing a 2011 budget, with concessions if possible. Instead, we get an endless stream of continuing resolutions and a 2011 budget estimate pushing the 3.8T mark. His 2012 budget is even more frightening, since it's been set at 3.7T. Laughably, his 3.7T budget is supposed to reduce deficits by 1T over 10 years because spending almost 3.7T in one year for 1T in savings over 10 years makes a lot of sense. It's like spending $1000 to open a savings account that has a $100 limit. Since Obama has been in office, each year his administration has been pushing deficits in excess of 1T, running on budgets that are between 3T and 4T dollars.

Meanwhile, the Republicans are celebrating over their hollow victory by reducing spending by tens of billions. While reducing spending is a serious need, the Democrats aren't going to reduce spending (or reforming) in the things that need it. About 3/4 of the annual budget is spend on things like Social Security (~20% in 2010), DoD (~19% in 2010), Entitlements and other Mandatory Spending, like Unemployment (~15% in 2010), Medicare/Medicaid (~20% in 2010) and Obama has, more or less, said that those things can't be touched. Instead, his solution is to tax the rich more. When we're talking budgets that are pushing multiple trillions of dollars while already running deficits that are exceeding trillions of dollars then we're in an unsustainable position and increasing taxes isn't going to fix it.

I hate to say it but I think McCain had the right idea - Go at spending with a hatchet rather than Obama's scalpel. Clearly, the scalpel isn't getting us to a sustainable budget like Clinton had. Obama needs to drastically cut spending in ALL areas of the budget while raising taxes.

Hey Mayo, just pointing out non-hate filled rhetoric from someone on the left... because only Republicans are the ones who say people on the Left should die... right?

50% taxes so they are left with several million? Oh the agony. What ever will they do? And I'm pretty sure Obama touched on every single subject you said he said was untouchable (which I didn't hear him say - and the entitlements are untouchable by both parties, so don't even begin barking up that tree).

Also, I'm pretty sure I'm not using too many tax dollars, so it's not how much I think I'm entitled to. Get it right, brah - I'm not arguing for me (that would make me a republican, of course).

As stated in the other thread...
Democrats - Let's look out for one another.
Retardicans - Fuck you, got mine.

Plain and simple.

[✔] [item]Thunderfury, Blessed Blade of the Windseeker[/item] (Three)
[✔] [item]Sulfuras, Hand of Ragnaros[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]32837[/item] & [item]32838[/item]
[✔] [item]Thori'dal, the Stars' Fury[/item]
[✔] [item]46017[/item]
[✔] [item]49623[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]71086[/item]

so if i make 2 million dollars, i should be taxed for 1.5 million dollars? 1.75?

how much of a penalty should successful people pay?

Do you understand how a budget works? A deficit is the difference between revenue and expenses. The way to reduce the deficit is to either increase revenue or decrease spending. If you're concerned about the deficit, then the total size of the budget is irrelevant - as long as spending and revenue are equal, there is no deficit. If you want to argue that the total size of the government should be smaller, that's a different argument.



Actually increasing taxes could quite easily eliminate the deficit. The US is a low tax nation already, and just allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire would eliminate most of your deficit. There are also lots of options for eliminating loopholes in the existing tax code, and adding a carbon tax or federal VAT could make balancing the budget easy far into the future. As for spending, the biggest problem isn't current expenses, but the rate of growth of medical expenses. Either you will need to figure out how to control that growth (which is part of the ACA, and is strengthened in Obama's budget), or decide that you're OK with some people not getting the treatment they need because low taxes for rich people are more important.



The size of government is the primary ideological difference between the left and the right, and it's silly to hope that a Democratic president will advocate budget ideas that appeal to the far right. Higher taxes and generous social programs can be economically viable, as can lower taxes and few social programs. Not implementing your preferred budget doesn't mean that Obama is stupid or trying to destroy the country, he just has a different vision for it than you do.

Laelia Komi Anomalocaris

...

Laelia Komi Anomalocaris

They'll deal. That's not the point, though. The point is more than your simple comparison between Democrats and Republicans (which is horribly misguided and short-sighted, but I'd expect nothing less from you). People who have money, of any amount, should be able to hold onto it. Just because a person with millions (or billions) amassed their fortune doesn't mean you, I, or anyone else is entitled to a larger percentage of that fortune. It's theirs - not ours.


According to what the President said...
...Medicare/Medicaid changes are to save a whopping 500B by 2023. (Approx. 41B/yr)
...Limiting Itemized Deductions for the Wealthy will save 320B by 2022. (Approx. 32B/yr)
...Reducing DoD budget by 400B by 2022. (Approx. 40B/yr)

He also mentioned the 1T savings Obamacare will bring over 10 years, despite being an issue with the CBO where it's been said Obamacare isn't going to save much money (if any) and that it'll create a loss for the workforce. The reason I say they're more-or-less untouchable is because the cuts he's hoping to make isn't going to significantly reduce the deficit nor is it going to pay down the national debt. Remember, this guy has been over-spending by over a trillion each year. He's going to have to cut spending by over a trillion, or increase revenue by a trillion, to balance a budget and that's not going to happen based on what he said in his meeting. He's not serious about the budget. He never has been. (Anyone else curious about this 12-year savings he talked about yesterday... I thought it was weird since things are normally done on a 10-year basis... maybe it's to get higher numbers?)


I'm not arguing for me, either, since I'm not in the top 2% yet. I'm not championing taking someone else's money and giving it to someone else though - I'm saying the rich should get to keep what they earned since no one is entitled to that money. Sure, people have been hoarding their cash since Obama's economy has continued to crawl, but why wouldn't they? The job market is tough and companies still fail. My wife and I are holding onto our money so if we ever lose our jobs (at the same time) then we can survive at our current standard of living... right now, for about seven months.


I donate my money to different charities for children and veterans. I also hook up with local churches to renovate houses for easier accessibility for the elderly or disabled. (Paid for by charitable donations) I'm pretty sure I'm looking out for others... you though, what is it you do with your time and money?

I assume your comparison would more accurately read:
Fanta - Let's look out for one another by taking someone else's money, giving it to the government then watching them piss it away.
Eturnal - Fuck you, got mine... after I used some of mine to look out for others.

Maybe when you're actually in the real world making a real living and a nice salary then you'll open your eyes.

@ Laelia - I'm well aware of how a budget works. I (well, my wife), unlike the government, manages a successful budget each month. Plus, I'm not saying slashing spending or raising taxes is the right way to go - I'm saying doing BOTH is the right way to go. Before tax rates start increasing the economy should be in a healthier position - lower unemployment rates and a GDP that isn't in decline would be nice, since those two things would generate more revenue, too. Obama want's to appear as this bipartisan guy so that's what he's going to need to do, especially come next year when Republicans gain more seats. (Hell, that's if he's even a two-term president which, at the current rate, I believe to be unlikely.)

If you want lower unemployment and a stronger economy, you shouldn't be worrying about the short term deficit, and certainly shouldn't be advocating slashing social spending. When private spending is down (as it currently is, almost everywhere in the world), it makes sense for the government to spend more to make up for that, especially since interest rates are so low that borrowing money is cheap. And as for cutting spending while raising taxes, that's what Obama is proposing. Perhaps he's not doing it to the degree you'd like, but I think to go beyond that you would need to go into specifics of exactly which programs you would cut and how you would increase revenue, rather than saying "less spending and more taxes". It's easy to say you want a balanced budget, its rather harder when you're deciding that you're not going to give someone's grandparents enough money to pay their medical bills or getting accused of making America less safe by cutting the defense budget.

Laelia Komi Anomalocaris

It is easy in the confines of our current system to point the finger at "the rich" or the "wealthiest 1%/2%" (who actually aren't the "wealthiest," but the top 1-2% of income earners, a distinction they may not maintain from year-to-year) when every fiscal maneuver is a sleight of hand made to provide an advantage to one group/organization at the disadvantage of another. Many people in this country work hard and see little or no improvement in their standard of living while watching companies like GE, with a chairman (Jeffrey Immelt) who has cozied up to play grab-ass with the current administration, get subsidies that essentially negate their tax liabilities despite being an incredibly large and profitable company. Despite the complaint about those "wealthiest" people, many of the people in Congress and on Pennsylvania Ave. rank among them, and the rules are written to their benefit, not the benefit of the "little guy." The "tax increases" for the "wealthy" only partially materialize, and then only for those who aren't part of some preferred political/business/social sector, and all the loopholes and making "corporations pay their fair share" only serve to push more of the cost down on the "little guy" so many of you think you're helping with this nonsense.

The people screaming about the "wealthy" and wanting to tax them more are the "wealthy." They aren't going to do anything to harm their own interests. A house divided against itself cannot stand.

In order to fix the system, we need to decide whether we're going to tax individuals on their incomes or corporations on their profits. Doing both only allows for a bait-and-switch whereby some politician starts screaming about "corporations not paying their fair share," gets higher taxes passed on business, and business passing that increased tax cost on to consumers (including the "little guy") in the form of increased prices in their products, on top of the individual income taxes they're already paying.

I'd avoid the corporate/business tax model completely, and take business out of tax system for two reasons: 1) by negating the tax penalty associated with doing business in the U. S., we would become a magnet for not just the companies that have moved their business overseas to avoid our current high-tax atmosphere, but we would also attract new businesses from abroad. 2) Removing business from the tax picture would eliminate the ability of politicians to hide the true cost of their tax policies from the true end-payer, the average citizen/voter.

Further, I do not like the idea of a 'progressive' tax system, and think everyone should bear their "fair share" (a phrase we constantly hear about the "wealthy" and their tax burden). Since a share (fair or not) can be expressed as a percentage, I'd institute a flat tax on income with no exemptions and have everyone pay a flat 10% of their income in the form of taxes. This would add more money to the economy almost immediately since it would lower the cost of tax compliance by super-simplifying the tax system. There would no longer be any need to file taxes at the end of the year, because the system would simply take only the 10% tax, and there would be no exemptions, leaving no reason to file reams of paper at the end of the year.

However, in order for this to work, pork spending has to die. Corporate welfare has to join the dodo. Foreign adventures have to be curtailed. Foreign aid has to stop...not just because of the budget, but also because I have to wonder at the quality of the "allies" we have to pay to be our "friends."

If we're going to keep entitlement spending (outside Social Security, which needs to be completely restructured, separated from the general budget/fund by force of law, and refunded any and all monies--with interest--that have been misspent from that pool), there needs to be a realistic evaluation of what is and is not sustainable, simplifications of the system to reduce bureaucratic clutter, means testing, and limits to aid for those capable of finding gainful employment and providing for their own needs (with attendant aid for assisting them in doing so).

That will never happen, though, because the man behind the curtain doesn't want you to know he's not a giant talking head with all the answers, and he's padding his own pockets while pointing you at "the rich" and telling you it's their fault.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

Completely don't care about the speech.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

This isn't a bad idea in some respects, as corporate taxes are the most distortionary. You should consider other taxation models as well though. Most economists think that consumption taxes (ie. a VAT) and property taxes are the best way for governments to raise revenue, since they don't cause as much distortion as income taxes (personal or corporate). Well-designed pollution taxes would also be a good way to raise revenue while ensuring economic activity is environmentally sustainable.



One of the main problems with a flat tax is that essential goods and services (food, clothes, housing, etc) consume a much higher percentage of the income of poorer people than rich people. There's a huge difference in the relative impact of a 10% tax on a single parent with 2 kids, paying rent and earning $15k per year and on a couple with no kids, who own their home and earn $200k per year.



The question of what's worth spending money on is different from what's sustainable. A lot of highly developed countries have much more government spending (as a share of GDP) than the US, and they're doing fine financially (or as well as could be expected given the recession). High social spending is definitely sustainable, and a lot of people think it's worth the money.

Laelia Komi Anomalocaris

A national sales tax would probably be a better model, but I think it would be rife for abuse. One of the current problems with our tax system that has allowed for a lot of the cronyism and rewards to special interests is precisely because the government attempts to use the tax system as a carrot/stick for ends like "ensuring economic activity is environmentally sustainable." I could see a sales tax being manipulated in the same manner, which would eventually lead to that system having the same problems we now have with our current system.

On that note, if an activity causes damage to the environment, which in most cases means it causes damage to communal/common property (air, for example) or damage to property beyond the property boundaries of the actor, that activity should be regulated to reduce its impact (as such activity may actually be necessary for the common good and some of the pollution attributed to it unavoidable) or expressly forbidden by an act of legislation. The tax code should be used strictly for its primary purpose, providing the government revenue, and not as a method of manipulating public behavior.

While taking $100 out of every $1000 dollars does carry more of an impact than taking $1000 out of every $10000, there are benefits that would balance the scales for those on the low end of the income scale. For starters, by removing business from the tax system, the 'embedded tax' cost associated with good and services would cause the prices of those goods to lower. More and better jobs would become available to allow for social mobility from the low income levels to the higher ones because the proposed tax system would attract new business to the country, as well as bringing home business that has fled to avoid our current onerous tax system. Citizens won't decide not to participate in economic activity for fear of finding themselves in a higher tax bracket, because their won't be a higher tax bracket, which would further stimulate economic growth. Most importantly, the flat tax removes the argument that anyone is not paying their fair share by making everyone pay the same share of their income by removing all the loop-holes, write-offs, and other mechanisms by which taxes are skirted.

The U. S. is not like "a lot of highly developed countries," in that our cultural ideals are based on a different set of norms. Self-reliance is (was?--let's hope not) a huge part of the American ideal. Social spending is necessary in America, even as it is in other places in the world, but the average American does not want the sort of nanny-state seen in Canada and across Europe. Americans have traditionally viewed such spending as a safety-net to make sure citizens with no other recourse have some form of aid in times of difficulty, not as a cradle-to-grave care program. There is also the twin problems of efficiency and bureaucracy in the American entitlement system, and even in Europe, most notably the U. K., it's becoming apparent that high levels of social spending are not as sustainable as once believed, which is why the word "austerity" is being batted around like a beach volleyball. European nations would have been hard-pressed to afford their social spending without the U. S. subsidizing their defense, and further funneling money into their nations with the spending associated with the extensive web of U. S. military bases they host, on top of our payments of "foreign aid."

No one wants poor people to starve, or old people to die alone in their own filth, or whatever other obligatory "you're evil if you want to cut social programs" bullshit is being bandied about this week, but no one wants unchecked spending or a tax code meant to meddle in people's lives and/or reward political favors, either. I've laid out my plan for fixing the tax part. Somebody tell me how we're going to fix social spending in a meaningful way that ensure the social safety net and we're off to Washington to put some boot to asses.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

$4 a gallon gasoline will affect the $15k earner more than $200k earners too.

Should we charge someone who makes more, more for the gallon of gas, because they can afford to pay more for it?

The regulatory system you seem to be suggesting would work best as something like cap-and-trade, which doesn't necessarily increase government revenue. It is more or less interchangeable with a pollution tax in terms of economic and environmental effects, provided it's properly designed. Which you choose is basically a matter of preference, although I like the idea of pollution taxes since it makes revenue available for offsetting price increases for consumers or for other social programs.



Some of this may be true, but most of it is magical thinking and ignores the role of social programs paid for by current taxes. Either way, it doesn't change the fact that a flat tax has stronger effect on the poor than the rich, and unless your flat tax is 0% that will continue to be the case.



The US isn't as different as you think. Opinion polls consistently show that the only category of government spending that a majority of Americans want cut is foreign aid, which is a tiny part of actual spending.



I'm not sure what defense subsidies to European nations you're referring to, but that doesn't have much to do with the levels of social spending in those countries. The reason some countries are trying austerity programs is because the recession reduced their revenues and increased demand for social services, and they're irrationally afraid of short-term deficits. Unfortunately, it seems they aren't helping the situation.



You can't just "fix the tax part" and hope the other side of the equation will be OK. Social programs cost money, and if you're not raising enough money you won't be able to provide them.



The purpose of progressive taxation is that poorer people will have more money available, so that they can afford the things that cost them a larger share of their income. Economically this actually isn't much different from charging a flat tax and then refunding people a share of what they spent on necessities, but the latter system would be unworkably complex while progressive taxes are simple.

Laelia Komi Anomalocaris