• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Should government tax revenues be more, less, or the same as now?

Should real federal tax revenues be increased from what they were in FY2012?

  • Yes (Obama's FY2013 requested revenue increases were reasonable or they didn't go far enough)

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,649
0
76
www.facebook.com
I think tax revenues should be less and a lot of government revenue should come from sales of military weapons, the National Parks system, and reduction of federal water socialism. Ideally, the state would be abolished. However, it can't all be done in one step.

From Obama's requested budget I figured out at least $1.9Tn that could be reasonably cut, $500Bn (guesstimate) of which includes his requested tax increases cut, Obamacare cut, and some new tax reductions. Those tax reductions are as follows:
reduction of the Corporate tax to a 13% flat marginal rate and removal of all employer/corporate deductions for health expenses;
repeal of capital gains taxes on precious metals;
repeal of the AMT (we didn't have it before LBJ was President);
increase of personal deductions including personal deductions for all medical expenses, combining the personal exemption and standard deduction into an automatic exemption;
allowing complete deductions of state and local property and income taxes (whenever applicable);
100% individual income tax free HSAs

There would be two tax increases: which would be a low fee on all goods flowing into and out of the country (that would replace the current tariffs and all quotas would be repealed so there would be no more protectionism).

Sar-Ox and Dodd-Frank need to be completely repealed also.

I think the above is generally reasonable considering what we could face if we don't balance the budget immediately. The poor would not suffer more than the wealthy under my budget which means there wouldn't be any riots. Some poor would suffer, but not as much as the MIC, Big Pharma, and protected, subsidized corporations would be cut off.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,874
4,203
126
This has always been a cart before the horse issue. We need to examine how the bureaucracy is functioning and determine what improvements are needed and implement. Once things are running properly (which certainly is harder than arguing taxes so that's why it isn't done) then get back to me on funding levels.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,649
0
76
www.facebook.com
This has always been a cart before the horse issue. We need to examine how the bureaucracy is functioning and determine what improvements are needed and implement. Once things are running properly (which certainly is harder than arguing taxes so that's why it isn't done) then get back to me on funding levels.
Spending is a tax and the absolute debt owed by the U.S. is higher than that owed by Greece.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,874
4,203
126
:rolleyes:
Spending is a tax and the absolute debt owed by the U.S. is higher than that owed by Greece.
There is the concept of value. We are going to have the bells and whistles and there's not much that you can do to convince people that they ought to just ignore the paupers in any case. That leaves looking at what works and what does not and why. Are resources being properly allocated? Would spending a little more money here save a lot more there? What do things really need to cost? I submit that at the level I describe no one has a friggin clue. We need to get one. At that point a prudent assessment of our situation can be made and proper action taken.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
101,020
4,766
126
federal water socialism
wut




This has always been a cart before the horse issue. We need to examine how the bureaucracy is functioning and determine what improvements are needed and implement.
you're more an idealist than i'd ever imagined. congress will never decide it has nothing more to do. :)
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,812
192
106
This has always been a cart before the horse issue. We need to examine how the bureaucracy is functioning and determine what improvements are needed and implement. Once things are running properly (which certainly is harder than arguing taxes so that's why it isn't done) then get back to me on funding levels.
When you were hired for your current job, did you and your employer discuss how much money you could spend, and then yall talked about your salary?

Government spending should be based on a fair tax burden.

The tax burden should not be based on how much the government can spend.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
26,051
6,028
136
:rolleyes:

There is the concept of value. We are going to have the bells and whistles and there's not much that you can do to convince people that they ought to just ignore the paupers in any case. That leaves looking at what works and what does not and why. Are resources being properly allocated? Would spending a little more money here save a lot more there? What do things really need to cost? I submit that at the level I describe no one has a friggin clue. We need to get one. At that point a prudent assessment of our situation can be made and proper action taken.
Yeah, the problem isn't that we need to cut medicare, for example, it's that we need to cut the waste in the medicare program. Same with all the other programs. How many government agencies run with the philosophy of 'we need to use 100% of our budget or it will be cut next year' so they just waste the excess? Probably most. It all boils down to getting people in power that care about streamlining the system *logically* rather than aquiring more power. At every level. Good luck with that. :\
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
60,213
12,714
136
Americans like government to spend money. Americans may not agree on spending priorities but they sure do like government spending. This is very clearly demonstrated through the representatives they elect again and again. So the choice comes down to a preference for taxes or deficits. For forty years or so, Americans have expressed a strong preference for deficits over taxes. Until Americans decide they don't want government to spend so much or decide they prefer taxes to deficits and vote based on these preferences then what we got is what we'll get more of.
 

the DRIZZLE

Platinum Member
Sep 6, 2007
2,955
0
76
Yeah, the problem isn't that we need to cut medicare, for example, it's that we need to cut the waste in the medicare program.
No, we need to cut medicare. You could cut all the waste out of healthcare and it will still unsustainable. We simply cannot afford to to provide ever increasing levels of care to people in the last 5 years of their lives. It's a nice idea that we can have our cake and eat it too if we eliminate waste but it's not reality.
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,133
1
0
No, we need to cut medicare. You could cut all the waste out of healthcare and it will still unsustainable. We simply cannot afford to to provide ever increasing levels of care to people in the last 5 years of their lives. It's a nice idea that we can have our cake and eat it too if we eliminate waste but it's not reality.
We can if we use the profits from the young and the healthy instead of giving them to corporations...
 

the DRIZZLE

Platinum Member
Sep 6, 2007
2,955
0
76
We can if we use the profits from the young and the healthy instead of giving them to corporations...
No we can't. Insurance company profits are 1-3% of total healthcare costs depending on how you count. The right says we can solve our problems by cutting government waste, the left says the fix is eliminating insurance company profits. They are both in denial. We simply can't afford to keep doing what we are doing. We could spend thousands of dollars to equip every car in the country with better brakes and save thousands of lives every year. We don't do it because its not worth the cost. We need to look at healthcare in a similarly rational way.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
344
126
Americans like government to spend money. Americans may not agree on spending priorities but they sure do like government spending. This is very clearly demonstrated through the representatives they elect again and again. So the choice comes down to a preference for taxes or deficits. For forty years or so, Americans have expressed a strong preference for deficits over taxes. Until Americans decide they don't want government to spend so much or decide they prefer taxes to deficits and vote based on these preferences then what we got is what we'll get more of.
Pretty much all Americans want some spending cut.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,402
3,939
126
No we can't. Insurance company profits are 1-3% of total healthcare costs depending on how you count. The right says we can solve our problems by cutting government waste, the left says the fix is eliminating insurance company profits. They are both in denial. We simply can't afford to keep doing what we are doing. We could spend thousands of dollars to equip every car in the country with better brakes and save thousands of lives every year. We don't do it because its not worth the cost. We need to look at healthcare in a similarly rational way.
Profit maybe 2% but what is their operating costs? You remove that as well and put the brakes on medical costs by flooding the market with doctors instead of letting the mda dictate how many doctors tee will be.

There are a lot of problems with the system but I think it can be solved while keeping coverage.
 

IBMer

Golden Member
Jul 7, 2000
1,137
0
76
I'd be all for an increase of revenue that is directed to only pay off interest and debt and for no other use.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
344
126
They haven't voted as if this were true.
Well, part of that is which choices they have, and part is they have voted that way, most in Congress would be happy to cut some spending too.

Progressives would be happy to cut things like Homeland Security and the military weapons (while spending more on each soldier), Republicans would be happy to cut all kinds of social programs, non-Proressive Democrats would likely go for some cuts through 'reform' type programs among other cuts...

There are a lot of cuts that a minority of Congress members want cut - I doubt any Congress member doesn't want some cuts. But they need a majority vote.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
344
126
Profit maybe 2% but what is their operating costs? You remove that as well and put the brakes on medical costs by flooding the market with doctors instead of letting the mda dictate how many doctors tee will be.

There are a lot of problems with the system but I think it can be solved while keeping coverage.
Recent info is that the profit margin for healthcare insurance is 4.54%.

That's not bad - though big pharma, the biggest contributor to Republians under Bush (haven't checked lately), have profits of 23%.

However, a bit older report says healthcare insurance at 10 top companies had profit increases of 428% from 2000 to 2007.

The issue isn't just profits, it's also inefficiencies and inflated costs, like duplicate forms and large amounts spent rejecting claims and then negotiating them.

That might save them some money, but adds to the cost of the system - one source, one set of forms and rules, cuts costs.

http://blog.aflcio.org/2009/05/27/health-insurance-profits-soar-as-industry-mergers-create-near-monopoly/
 

jstern01

Senior member
Mar 25, 2010
532
0
71
Sar-Ox and Dodd-Frank need to be completely repealed also.
Do you even know what these to Acts do?

Sarbanes-Oxley Act is to prevent fraudently income reporting by corporations (in other words prevent companies from lying to investors). How is this a bad thing?


Dodd-Frank bill is designed to prevent another too big to fail scenerio and provide basic comsumer protections, like banks and credit card companies from jacking interest rates without warning, amoung other accounting regulation.

Neither of these are business killing issues. Its just making sure that businesses are up front and honest with consumers and investors.
 

tydas

Golden Member
Mar 10, 2000
1,284
0
76
I think we need to get out of the current downturn before we make any serious cuts (Europe has shown what happens with austerity)

But...once governement incomes are up we need to get serious about medicare...all the other stuff ithat people bitch about is a little more predictable in comparison.

The answer? well either single payer or a 'ryan' type rationing plan but neither will ever happen because any politician that enacts it will be doomed...so on the end..we are doomed!!!
 

a777pilot

Diamond Member
Apr 26, 2011
4,261
21
81
Income/profits from any source and private real property ought not be taxed at all.
 

the DRIZZLE

Platinum Member
Sep 6, 2007
2,955
0
76
Profit maybe 2% but what is their operating costs? You remove that as well and put the brakes on medical costs by flooding the market with doctors instead of letting the mda dictate how many doctors tee will be.

There are a lot of problems with the system but I think it can be solved while keeping coverage.
My position is that the difference between the profit and overhead of the insurance companies and the administrative costs of a single payer system aren't different enough to make much of a difference either way. If you look at the numbers and take some educated guesses it's hard to find more than 5% total savings that way.

Flooding the market with doctors and allowing nurses and PA's to do more will have a much more significant effect. But that goes back to my original point, which is that we cant afford the current level of care. You are just advocating cutting the level of quality not quantity.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,098
18,864
136
My position is that the difference between the profit and overhead of the insurance companies and the administrative costs of a single payer system aren't different enough to make much of a difference either way. If you look at the numbers and take some educated guesses it's hard to find more than 5% total savings that way.

Flooding the market with doctors and allowing nurses and PA's to do more will have a much more significant effect. But that goes back to my original point, which is that we cant afford the current level of care. You are just advocating cutting the level of quality not quantity.
Can you explain how other states that spend vastly less than we do achieve similar levels of quality in health outcomes?
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,649
0
76
www.facebook.com
Do you even know what these to Acts do?

Sarbanes-Oxley Act is to prevent fraudently income reporting by corporations (in other words prevent companies from lying to investors). How is this a bad thing?


Dodd-Frank bill is designed to prevent another too big to fail scenerio and provide basic comsumer protections, like banks and credit card companies from jacking interest rates without warning, amoung other accounting regulation.

Neither of these are business killing issues. Its just making sure that businesses are up front and honest with consumers and investors.
Yes, I know that those do a lot of bad things and they do nothing good that a free market couldn't.

Dodd Frank was at least partially written by Wall street and it doesn't even protect property rights. It's also anti-gold. I can maybe understand if they had just reinstated Glass Stegall, but Dodd Frank doesn't fix any problems. Better than reinstating Glass Stegall would be to end the FDIC's charter.

Sar-Ox created a massive barrier to entry for American start-ups. I believe most other countries have no equivalent either.

Governmental regulations never do any good--look at how the SEC failed to catch Bernie Madoff before people got defrauded.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,098
18,864
136
Spending is a tax and the absolute debt owed by the U.S. is higher than that owed by Greece.
That is an incredibly dumb comparison.

GDP of Grece in 2010: $300 billion
GDP of America in 2010: $14.5 trillion

They have 2% of our GDP, why would we compare debt levels in absolute terms with them?
 

the DRIZZLE

Platinum Member
Sep 6, 2007
2,955
0
76
Can you explain how other states that spend vastly less than we do achieve similar levels of quality in health outcomes?
It's a complex issue and it comes down to how you define outcomes. The data I've seen shows that we do extremely well in outcomes when you look at something like 5 year mortality rates for a given cancer but poorly for overall health compared with other OECD countries.

The bottom line is that we are less healthy because we live less healthy lifestyles. We receive more and higher quality health care but that can't offset the effect of lifestyle factors on overall health. We also spend much more on end of life care which by it's nature has a minimal effect on health outcome numbers. We aren't getting a particularly good value for our money which is why I'm willing to trade lower quality and quantity for lower costs.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY