Troubles in Small town, USA

[BaliBabyDoc]

Now there's an intelligent statement . . . reform the damn code. Re-write it with basic caveats:

How much SHOULD we spend on defense NOT how much does the military/industrial complex DESIRE?!

We promised the old farts reasonable healthcare/financial support til death; how much does that cost and what MUST be done to make such a program solvent for the foreseeable future?

Now what priorities do we have left; education, public health, general healthcare . . .

So what makes a fair, just tax code . . . well how much does it take to support basic services . . . you exempt all wages from all sources up to that threshold. Then tax additional income from ALL sources at the same rate (progressive of course) . . . end federal coporate taxation but revoke all protections which imply coporations have rights comparable to people, mandate full health coverage (including parity for mental health) and fully funded pensions.

So I agree we need to reform the code but it is not necessary to reform the code BEFORE deciding on how to spend our money. Bush is just full of poop when it comes to having any concept of how to lead America into a sustainable future. He's decided on priorities . . . military spending (while scarcely considering little else) and tax cuts (while scarcely considering little else). I understand the man has limited faculties but the people around him SHOULD have another gray matter to reason that it makes more sense to plan for responsible spending consistent with income than to spend with relative abandon, cut revenue, and then theorize that limited future income will control spending.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison
Until there is tax reform, there will be out of control spending.

How are the two related? Tax reform doesn't necessarily mean collecting less tax, it just means collecting it differently. By itself, tax reform won't affect spending.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison
Until there is tax reform, there will be out of control spending.

How are the two related? Tax reform doesn't necessarily mean collecting less tax, it just means collecting it differently. By itself, tax reform won't affect spending.

The current progressive tax system encourages out of control spending. As long as the lower income group can vote to pick the pocket of the upper 1/2, there will be out of control spending. If there was a flat tax or a national retail sales taxes, you can bet there would be spending reform.

Every person needs to pay their fair share.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison
Until there is tax reform, there will be out of control spending.

How are the two related? Tax reform doesn't necessarily mean collecting less tax, it just means collecting it differently. By itself, tax reform won't affect spending.

The current progressive tax system encourages out of control spending. As long as the lower income group can vote to pick the pocket of the upper 1/2, there will be out of control spending. If there was a flat tax or a national retail sales taxes, you can bet there would be spending reform.

Every person needs to pay their fair share.

Nonsense. The "lower income group" has little voice in government. Government is driven by the special interests with deep pockets. The wealthy pay more because they can afford to pay more, because they have the most to lose, because they have received the most benefit from living in a country where they are able to acquire wealth.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison
Until there is tax reform, there will be out of control spending.

How are the two related? Tax reform doesn't necessarily mean collecting less tax, it just means collecting it differently. By itself, tax reform won't affect spending.

The current progressive tax system encourages out of control spending. As long as the lower income group can vote to pick the pocket of the upper 1/2, there will be out of control spending. If there was a flat tax or a national retail sales taxes, you can bet there would be spending reform.

Every person needs to pay their fair share.

Nonsense. The "lower income group" has little voice in government. Government is driven by the special interests with deep pockets. The wealthy pay more because they can afford to pay more, because they have the most to lose, because they have received the most benefit from living in a country where they are able to acquire wealth.

And this is where we will have to disagree.

You might also want to consider that poor have little voice, because they pay little into the coffers. However I think more often than not, the the bottom 1/2 vote themselves benefits. Social security is a benefit provided to the old by the young. Almost everyone in US admits that SS is flawed, but those with the benefits are unwilling to accept a benefit cut and the young do not want to pay anymore for this program.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Well I'm young and I would pay more for SS (although I don't expect to collect) just to bribe the old farts into taking a pay out. SS as it exists will bleed the next three generations. It might be a tolerable situation if the last three Republicans in the Oval Office could balance a budget . . . yes indeed President's don't write legislation . . . BS . . . the current US House is the epitome of a rubber stamp for remedial Bush Economics.

Bush treats SS just like the rest of the economy . . . he's always scheming for a way to get money for nothing. In the case of SS, his idea is private accounts. The only safe place for investment in the past three years would have been government issued which would have scarcely outpaced inflation . . . that's not salvation for SS that's treading water. Of course, if we had followed the GOP platform since 1996 . . . then gobs of SS money would have gone down the sinkhole of WCOM, ENE, NT, T . . . sadly a couple of those are actually reputable companies.

Tax cuts are not giving money back if we are borrowing to run the government . . . somebody has to pay that bill. Bush doesn't care b/c he will be long gone before the poo hits the fan. His apologists will say he saved the country from terrorism and made the world safer for democracy, while any lack of fiscal fortitude was clearly the fault of overspending, pro-tax Democrats.