Hards facts and Simple Math Equal Tough Choices and Small Government

[Matt1970]

That's because they had so many loopholes back then nobody actually paid 70%. We had 90% under Ike and nobody paid that percentage either.

Gotta love the Reps tax ideology, We're (gov't) spending too much so let's take a pay cut (cut taxes). How many of you would do that in real life?

Wait, I thought all the loopholes were recent?

 

[Jhhnn]

As the train wreck approaches, you're looking behind us to see which switch in the track was thrown to put us here, ignoring the ones in front of us and might actually get us out of here. Tax laws changed now won't take effect until January 1, so how will that possibly help anyone?

For 30 years, we've thrown the switch to take the track to the Right. That's how we've arrived at where we are today. That alone should make us leery about moving any further in that direction. The notion that there's some quick fix available is absurd, as is the republican notion that we face a truly urgent dilemma- this debt ceiling issue is a manufactured crisis, a platform for political posturing on their part. They were tickled pink to raise the debt ceiling during the Bush years, putting the lie to their current ravings.

So we should raise the taxes back up to 70% on the Rich like we had in the 1970's we will have surpluses galore again.

Oh wait, we didn’t have surpluses back then……..

Maybe taxing the Rich doesn’t really work.

When you resort to putting words in my mouth, you've already lost the argument, admitted that you're blinded by ideology, that you have no coherent argument.

I didn't argue that we should create surpluses, or that they existed pre-Reagan. I merely pointed out that the observable shift of income to the tippy-top would have yielded higher federal revenues as a % of GDP if pre-Reagan tax rates had been held. Moving income into higher tax brackets while maintaining the same rate structure will yield higher revenues on a % basis. The logic of that is inescapable.

The truth is that the income share of the top 1% has more than doubled over the last 30 years, at the expense of the lowest 75%, and that their effective federal tax rates have fallen by a third. The notion that today's wealthy are over taxed is a trite & contrived absurdity, as is the notion that increased revenues aren't part of any reasonable solution to reducing federal deficits.

 

[soundforbjt]

Wait, I thought all the loopholes were recent?

There's still plenty of loopholes left to go around for the really rich.

 

[StrangerGuy]

There's still plenty of loopholes left to go around for the really rich.

Thats just a coaxial machine gun of their govt-controlling main battle tank to run over the US with.

 

[sao123]

I think we should just bring on the crash... its time for a reset.
Once the ultra-rich are just as ultra poor as the rest of us, then things can finally be corrected.

we will return to fiscal solvency when everyone has to work for their pay, everything is paid for in cash, and people will retire on their savings accounts.

Once there is no more investment to drive up the price of every commodity (leachers be gone) every man will be abe to live and afford to provide for his family based on the labor of his back. Ive got my 6 cows and garden ready.

third world country here we come...most people deserve it, and i think im going to love it.

 

[Fingolfin269]

I think we should just bring on the crash... its time for a reset.
Once the ultra-rich are just as ultra poor as the rest of us, then things can finally be corrected.

we will return to fiscal solvency when everyone has to work for their pay, everything is paid for in cash, and people will retire on their savings accounts.

Once there is no more investment to drive up the price of every commodity (leachers be gone) every man will be abe to live and afford to provide for his family based on the labor of his back. Ive got my 6 cows and garden ready.

third world country here we come...most people deserve it, and i think im going to love it.

I laughed. Would read again!

 

[CycloWizard]

For 30 years, we've thrown the switch to take the track to the Right. That's how we've arrived at where we are today. That alone should make us leery about moving any further in that direction. The notion that there's some quick fix available is absurd, as is the republican notion that we face a truly urgent dilemma- this debt ceiling issue is a manufactured crisis, a platform for political posturing on their part. They were tickled pink to raise the debt ceiling during the Bush years, putting the lie to their current ravings.

That's absolute rubbish. It's virtually impossible to run a deficit while practicing true conservativism. Republicans are not conservative, nor are Democrats. Both just want to choose where the reckless spending occurs. I offered a very clear, very fair solution which you promptly ignored in your blind partisan rage against your perceived enemy. I don't care which party you support because if you support either one, that makes you an idiot in my book.

 

[Jhhnn]

Simplify the tax code. Wipe it out and start over completely from scratch. No one pays anything on the $X required to reach the poverty level. Above that, government takes 20% of each dollar (or whatever it happens to be). Automatically deduct this. Fire 90% of the IRS.

Close the entire VA system. Give veterans lifetime insurance benefits (or benefits proportional to their time in uniform) and let them go to whatever hospital they want. The current annual budget for the VA is over $130 billion, and simply insuring all ~26 million vets would cost ~$30 billion. This releases many doctors and nurses to the private sector as well, helping with cost increases due to medical personnel supply.

Cut 50% off the top of the budget for all remaining executive branch agencies. These agencies are bloated to a ridiculous degree. The executive branch exists to enforce laws and provide for defence, so that is ALL these agencies should be doing. Yes, sorry DoD, you're on this list as well. The list of executive agencies includes:

That takes care of the entire deficit with some change left over. This would be very hard for most people to swallow, but it is the most straightforward way to do what is needed. Cutting back bloat in these agencies can be managed within each agency and there is easily enough bloat to cut and still achieve the goal(s) of the agency.

That's absolute rubbish. It's virtually impossible to run a deficit while practicing true conservativism. Republicans are not conservative, nor are Democrats. Both just want to choose where the reckless spending occurs. I offered a very clear, very fair solution which you promptly ignored in your blind partisan rage against your perceived enemy. I don't care which party you support because if you support either one, that makes you an idiot in my book.

I quoted the dreamscape of your delusion, just for reference. Politics is the art of the possible, and what you offered is simply *not* possible, let alone desirable.

The answer to persistent high unemployment in a debt deflation spiral is to... lay off half the federal workforce, simultaneously pretend that trying to be the world's policeman isn't part & parcel of our spending problem... pretend that your solution won't ultimately deliver almost all the wealth of this country into the hands of the financial elite.

Progressive income taxes are necessary economic self defense for the middle and working classes, and we've done a piss poor job of defending ourselves over the last 30 years. the evidence is all around us, obfuscated only by the simplistic right wing pablum so eagerly internalized by much of the electorate.

 

[Icepick]

Hard facts my ASS! The facts are the US is still the largest exporter of manufactured good in the world, the US is still the richest country in the world, the US still has a military equal to the next seven largest combined, after 3 years the corporations are doing about as well as ever, and after 30 years of republican rule the poor are still getting poorer while the rich get richer. Wealth is more concentrated then ever before, the banks are too big to fail, and the deeper in debt we go the richer the banks become.

Thank you for infusing some truth and common sense into this thread.

 

[BarneyFife]

Everybody wants to parade around and talk about big government spending but you knuckleheads don't realize how much of that government spending is politicians funneling it to contractors. In Federal and state government, you have thousands of "contract" workers charging the government $150 hour or whatever obscene amount and nobody questions. You idiots want to look the other way and cut off social security. Just how fucking stupid some of you are.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Small government is a myth perpetuated by dumb conservatives who truly have no idea what that would entail for this country. It will never happen in this country so stop trying to push it out there like it's even a viable solution. The fact that you think it's even possible makes you the idiot IMHO

 

[RFE]

Small government is a myth perpetuated by dumb conservatives who truly have no idea what that would entail for this country. It will never happen in this country so stop trying to push it out there like it's even a viable solution. The fact that you think it's even possible makes you the idiot IMHO

I think the word that you may have been looking for was "smaller". And balancing the budget is dumb and impossible?

Fern lays it out for us in a very logical manner with plenty of supporting facts. Yet, it is still beyond the grasp of some. Truly amazing.

 

[CycloWizard]

I quoted the dreamscape of your delusion, just for reference. Politics is the art of the possible, and what you offered is simply *not* possible, let alone desirable.

What is impossible about my proposal? It is absolutely possible. You might find it undesirable, but that is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact.

The answer to persistent high unemployment in a debt deflation spiral is to... lay off half the federal workforce, simultaneously pretend that trying to be the world's policeman isn't part & parcel of our spending problem... pretend that your solution won't ultimately deliver almost all the wealth of this country into the hands of the financial elite.

If you could read, you'd see that I recommended halving the DoD budget. Sorry to shatter your stereotypes. We can either do what is necessary now or continue to kick the can down the road and pretend that everything is fine. Those of us who passed algebra in middle school have a hard time ignoring the fundamental issues in the current system. My proposal is simplistic to be sure, but it would get the job done with the additional benefit of reigning in runaway government interference in the life of everyday Americans. I know that doesn't fit with your wet liberal dream, but I'm not really worried about preserving the bastardization of the purpose of government to please authoritarians.

Progressive income taxes are necessary economic self defense for the middle and working classes, and we've done a piss poor job of defending ourselves over the last 30 years. the evidence is all around us, obfuscated only by the simplistic right wing pablum so eagerly internalized by much of the electorate.

Whether progressive income taxes are necessary is another matter of opinion. My proposal is actually progressive, but with only two tax brackets rather than the current number. It would raise revenues from the current system. Moreover, it would actually increase the burden on the wealthiest and decrease it on those making less. This is straightforward to show by calculating the actual tax rates from gross income (noting that gross income is less deductions under the current system, but would not be under mine, and including FICA in the current plan):

Income ($) Current (%) Proposed (%)
5000...........16..................0
8500...........16..................0
18077.........19..................0
34500.........20..................10
50000.........23..................13
83600.........27..................16
100k...........28..................16
174400.......28..................18
250............30..................19
379150.......31..................19
500k..........32...................19
1000k........33...................20

So my scheme is actually more progressive than the present "progressive" scheme's nominal rates, let alone current issues with regressivism due to capital gains and deductions by the upper earners in the current system. My system also raises more money than the current system. The bottom earners don't pay anything in my system because I assumed that people below the poverty line really don't have money to give the government, even for FICA, yet FICA costs are still covered by the overall increase in revenues.

 

[Jhhnn]

Oh, please, CycloWizard. Remember what I offered, that politics is the art of the possible?

That's not just referencing reality in terms of the technical, but rather the cultural and ideological as well.

There's no point in addressing the technical aspects of any proposed solution if the cultural & ideological means of achieving them are absent or defective.

Your own proposal illustrates that vividly-

My proposal is simplistic to be sure, but it would get the job done with the additional benefit of reigning in runaway government interference in the life of everyday Americans. I know that doesn't fit with your wet liberal dream, but I'm not really worried about preserving the bastardization of the purpose of government to please authoritarians.

What is this runaway interference in the life of everyday americans? Define that in some way that isn't just blowing a right wing dog whistle, OK?

Bastardization of the purpose of Government? More dog whistle, more conditioned response on your part.

The purpose of govt is whatever we, as a democracy, decide it to be, within the limits of the Constitution, and even that can be and has been amended many times.

Authoritarians? Which are you referencing, which are you ignoring? The authoritarians of democratically elected representative govt, or the authoritarians of corporate oligarchy?

To the extent that govt interferes in our lives at all, it's generally *on our behalf*, which isn't to say that's done perfectly, at all. There are aspects of modern industrial society that simply can't be addressed constructively by anybody other than govt, and sure as hell won't be addressed by the corporate oligarchy if they inhibit profit generation.

 

[Engineer]

*snip*

Income ($) Current (&#37 Proposed (%)
5000...........16..................0
8500...........16..................0
18077.........19..................0
34500.........20..................10
50000.........23..................13
83600.........27..................16
100k...........28..................16
174400.......28..................18
250............30..................19
379150.......31..................19
500k..........32...................19
1000k........33...................20

I'm confused and curious (I often am)...if you are lowering rates on everyone, how can you be bringing in more revenue? Can you explain more clearly for me what the % on the left and right entail (i.e. before any current deductions, do they include FICA (SS?)? or is that separate?).

I just don't see how we can bring in more revenue with the lowering of rates that much unless the deductions are huge at the top?

The current annual budget for the VA is over $130 billion, and simply insuring all ~26 million vets would cost ~$30 billion.

Also, can you explain how you can insure a vet for approximately $1,153 per year? So you can get insurance for vets for under $100 per month and it has good coverage? Really?

 

[Jhhnn]

Also, can you explain how you can insure a vet for approximately $1,153 per year? So you can get insurance for vets for under $100 per month and it has good coverage? Really?

And if Repubs can roll back Obamacare, then insurors won't cover pre-existing conditions, so, uhh, there you are, screwed again...

Say "corn", Julio!

 

[CycloWizard]

I'm confused and curious (I often am)...if you are lowering rates on everyone, how can you be bringing in more revenue? Can you explain more clearly for me what the % on the left and right entail (i.e. before any current deductions, do they include FICA (SS?)? or is that separate?).

I just don't see how we can bring in more revenue with the lowering of rates that much unless the deductions are huge at the top?

Deductions at the top are huge. I already showed the math in a previous post. I compared revenue from my proposed method to real receipts from 2010. That tells you how broken the current system is, eh? In the table you quoted, the left side includes FICA and nominal taxes based on gross reported income. In the right column, the value was 20% of gross income over the weighted poverty level for average household size (3.14 people, working out to be $18,077).

Also, can you explain how you can insure a vet for approximately $1,153 per year? So you can get insurance for vets for under $100 per month and it has good coverage? Really?

I was on a panel within the VA where this was studied. In a shocking move, the VA decided not to publish the findings of this study and cut funding for the study group. I should add that the $30 billion annual value was averaged over the next ten years, and that the number of veterans will decrease dramatically over that period. The number of veterans has been decreasing for a while now, but the VA budget has been moving in the opposite direction. Someone has to pay the valets, lease the parking garages, pay for construction of new research facilities, and all of the other non-healthcare-related things that the VA currently does.

 

[CycloWizard]

Oh, please, CycloWizard. Remember what I offered, that politics is the art of the possible?

That's not just referencing reality in terms of the technical, but rather the cultural and ideological as well.

There's no point in addressing the technical aspects of any proposed solution if the cultural & ideological means of achieving them are absent or defective.

In other words, idiots like you have an R or a D as an anchor around your neck, so you're going to take the rest of us down with you because you're too stupid to recognize that your ideology is the problem rather than the solution. Got it.

Your own proposal illustrates that vividly-

What is this runaway interference in the life of everyday americans? Define that in some way that isn't just blowing a right wing dog whistle, OK?

Bastardization of the purpose of Government? More dog whistle, more conditioned response on your part.

The purpose of govt is whatever we, as a democracy, decide it to be, within the limits of the Constitution, and even that can be and has been amended many times.

Authoritarians? Which are you referencing, which are you ignoring? The authoritarians of democratically elected representative govt, or the authoritarians of corporate oligarchy?

To the extent that govt interferes in our lives at all, it's generally *on our behalf*, which isn't to say that's done perfectly, at all. There are aspects of modern industrial society that simply can't be addressed constructively by anybody other than govt, and sure as hell won't be addressed by the corporate oligarchy if they inhibit profit generation.

Have you tried buying or selling a house recently? I've done both, and currently both ends are tied up by the federal government. What the hell does federal government have to do with my buying a house using a private lender? I'm not sure either, but new regulations will apparently not let me get a mortgage until I have my first month's paystub on file with the federal government. How the hell is that supposed to work? I have to stay in a hotel for the first month of working in a new state. Hard to imagine that putting a damper on employment or housing sales... unless you have two brain cells to rub together. Or how about my being legally required to purchase health insurance under penalty of federal law?

The problem is that you see all of these things as, "on our behalf." Instead, they place an enormous burden on me, making me answerable to government instead of the other way around. Government's purpose is to protect me from people like you, people who think they know what's best for me because I can't possibly know what's best for myself, people who think that the same thing is best for everyone. At the federal level, that's the only possible response: a one-size-fits-all approach to every problem. It's amazing to me that a senator in Washington thinks he knows the best thing for me, and that the best thing for me is the best thing for some random guy in the ghetto on the other side of the country.

My approach is simple, straightforward, and would have prevented all of the mess that those of your ideology have so firmly entrenched. My view aligns with those of the Declaration of Independence,

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

and the Preamble of the Constitution,

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I'm not sure how making me pay for a month's stay in a hotel before buying a house in another state accomplishes any of those goals. I'm not sure how requiring me to buy health insurance helps me to "secure the Blessings of Liberty." Bottom line is that you and your ilk can shovel all of your ridiculous ideology into law, but I don't have to like it; you can tell me that sanity is impossible in the face of your ideology, and I can point out that your ideology is the cause of the problem; you can tell me that I'm being unreasonable for disagreeing with the insanity of the masses, and I can only say that this insanity will bring us all down in short order unless we snap out of the stupor. It's too late for people who have staked their identity on that ideology, so I doubt anything I say will affect you in the least, but I still feel obligated to point out reckless policy when I see it.

 

[theeedude]

I guess it's good news for Republicans, we are going to see your small government in the middle of a recession scenario play out on the American people.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Name one other first world nation that actually has a "small" government. It's a myth, it's not feasible so I don't understand why Conservatives actually think that it's possible in this country. It's a waste of time and energy, your efforts are better spent thinking of REALISTIC ways we could actually reform this country and its government. Simply saying we need to eradicate 3/4 of government departments is pointless and contributes nothing to the discussion.

If you think America's interference in your daily life is bad, you clearly have not visited much of the rest of the world.

Our taxes are supremely low and government "intrusion" is actually quite minimal as well compared to most other modern nations.

 

[CycloWizard]

Name one other first world nation that actually has a "small" government. It's a myth, it's not feasible so I don't understand why Conservatives actually think that it's possible in this country. It's a waste of time and energy, your efforts are better spent thinking of REALISTIC ways we could actually reform this country and its government. Simply saying we need to eradicate 3/4 of government departments is pointless and contributes nothing to the discussion.

If you think America's interference in your daily life is bad, you clearly have not visited much of the rest of the world.

Our taxes are supremely low and government "intrusion" is actually quite minimal as well compared to most other modern nations.

The only thing making it impossible is knuckle draggers like you standing in the way. I'd like to know why it's not feasible.

 

[Engineer]

Deductions at the top are huge. I already showed the math in a previous post. I compared revenue from my proposed method to real receipts from 2010. That tells you how broken the current system is, eh? In the table you quoted, the left side includes FICA and nominal taxes based on gross reported income. In the right column, the value was 20% of gross income over the weighted poverty level for average household size (3.14 people, working out to be $18,077).

So no deductions on the left side then (because someone making $5,000 per year wouldn't be in the 16% rate after deductions)?

 

[CycloWizard]

So no deductions on the left side then (because someone making $5,000 per year wouldn't be in the 16% rate after deductions)?

Correct, no deductions on either side. I can easily update it to include the standard deduction, which is what I should have done in the first place if I had thought about it. I'll update this post in a second.

edit: Here it is with standard deduction for the current tax plan (still none for the proposed system):

Income...........Current %..Proposed %
$5,000.00 6.2% 0.0%
$10,700.00 10.9% 0.0%
$14,200.00 12.2% 0.0%
$18,077.00 18.9% 0.0%
$40,200.00 18.0% 11.0%
$55,700.00 21.7% 13.5%
$89,300.00 25.3% 16.0%
$105,700.00 26.7% 16.6%
$180,100.00 27.2% 18.0%
$255,700.00 28.9% 18.6%
$384,850.00 30.3% 19.1%
$505,700.00 31.4% 19.3%
$1,005,700.00 33.2% 19.6%

 

[Jhhnn]

In other words, idiots like you have an R or a D as an anchor around your neck, so you're going to take the rest of us down with you because you're too stupid to recognize that your ideology is the problem rather than the solution. Got it.

Have you tried buying or selling a house recently? I've done both, and currently both ends are tied up by the federal government. What the hell does federal government have to do with my buying a house using a private lender? I'm not sure either, but new regulations will apparently not let me get a mortgage until I have my first month's paystub on file with the federal government. How the hell is that supposed to work? I have to stay in a hotel for the first month of working in a new state. Hard to imagine that putting a damper on employment or housing sales... unless you have two brain cells to rub together. Or how about my being legally required to purchase health insurance under penalty of federal law?

The problem is that you see all of these things as, "on our behalf." Instead, they place an enormous burden on me, making me answerable to government instead of the other way around. Government's purpose is to protect me from people like you, people who think they know what's best for me because I can't possibly know what's best for myself, people who think that the same thing is best for everyone. At the federal level, that's the only possible response: a one-size-fits-all approach to every problem. It's amazing to me that a senator in Washington thinks he knows the best thing for me, and that the best thing for me is the best thing for some random guy in the ghetto on the other side of the country.

My approach is simple, straightforward, and would have prevented all of the mess that those of your ideology have so firmly entrenched. My view aligns with those of the Declaration of Independence,

and the Preamble of the Constitution,

I'm not sure how making me pay for a month's stay in a hotel before buying a house in another state accomplishes any of those goals. I'm not sure how requiring me to buy health insurance helps me to "secure the Blessings of Liberty." Bottom line is that you and your ilk can shovel all of your ridiculous ideology into law, but I don't have to like it; you can tell me that sanity is impossible in the face of your ideology, and I can point out that your ideology is the cause of the problem; you can tell me that I'm being unreasonable for disagreeing with the insanity of the masses, and I can only say that this insanity will bring us all down in short order unless we snap out of the stupor. It's too late for people who have staked their identity on that ideology, so I doubt anything I say will affect you in the least, but I still feel obligated to point out reckless policy when I see it.

So,uhh, the basis of your rant is that you're inconvenienced by a lazy lender whose claims you believe? A pay stub is only one way to verify income- an employment contract is another.

Here's a synopsis of the rules you reference-

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/bcreg/regz20080714.htm

Not to mention you own apparent laziness & poor level of information peddling. New State, or new employer? there's a difference. If it's the same employer, you shouldn't have any issues at all.

There are a lot of options you apparently haven't explored, being content to throw up you hands & Blame the Gubmint!, martyr yourself on your defective belief structure.

Lending rules were changed in response to certain, uhh, *excesses* on the part of mortgage originators & underwriters that *crashed the whole economy*, remember? Or is that just some old wives' tale?

Millions of people who weren't even involved, who didn't buy a house, who didn't even have a mortgage were negatively affected when they lost their jobs in the Great Recession. That happened because your "small govt, self regulated banking, cutting red tape" idols were running things, "staying out of people's lives!"

Worked great, right?

So, uhh, drive to the store on the socialist! roads, paid for by taxes. Hopefully, you won't need any of the safety features in your vehicle, mandated by the evil Socialist! government. Select something to grill from the USDA inspected selection there, pay for it with govt furnished cash or govt regulated credit/debit card. Otherwise, you'd have to barter, & they might not want anything you have. Drive back home, avoiding govt interference like traffic signals, fire up your gas grill wit the govt approved propane bottle designed so you can hopefully avoid blowing your dumb ass to smithereens. Pour yourself a bourbon & branch, ignore the federal tax stamp on the booze, which certifies that it wasn't distilled in a lead soldered car radiator, and ignore the fact that the water out of the tap has to meet EPA guidelines, just so it won't poison or disease you or you children.

Have a nice meal, enjoy the features of your nice home that met govt building codes when it was built, refuel so you can bitch some more about the evil Gubmint and how they're just killing you. Do it over the internet, which likely never would have existed w/o Evil! Govt! Subsidies! up front.

Or just go piss up a rope, OK?

 

[Demo24]

Correct, no deductions on either side. I can easily update it to include the standard deduction, which is what I should have done in the first place if I had thought about it. I'll update this post in a second.

I read through all your posts and still have no idea what you are doing, your math, or anything beyond 20% tax and no deductions. From what I can gather your strategy makes up all of 19 billion more than 2010? That's hardly effective since it's fallen well more then that due to job loss. Are you counting households, counting total people in those house holds, or what to come up with these figures?


Only real thing I've been able to deduce is that you want to cut government size back to something it was 100 years ago, which is quite simply a ridiculous ideology.