backtop


Print 131 comment(s) - last by Schrag4.. on Sep 20 at 12:19 PM

Cuts will affect startups, universities, and various government labs

Whether you're developing a cure for cancer, or dreaming up solutions to put a human on Mars, there's a chance that you could be out of a job next year.

I. Automatic Cuts Loom

That's the grim reality reported by both a 394-page report from the White House's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and a separate, independent analysis by the journal Nature's News Blog.  The reports differ a bit on how much spending will be cut -- but both agree it will be in the billions.

The cuts come due, in part, to a stalemate between the two political parties during an election year.  Both sides seemingly agree that cuts need to be made somewhere, with the annual budget deficit currently at $1.33T USD.  

Democrats tend to focus their efforts on cutting defense department spending, while avoiding cuts to education and only committing to minor reform on entitlements (welfare, Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, etc.). Republicans, meanwhile, are calling for an increase in federal defense spending coupled with sweeping cuts to education and entitlements.

Both sides argue that in the short-term deficit spending is acceptable, but that in the future the deficit should be eliminated.

Budget puzzle
If politicians can't agree on the U.S. budget for 2013, an automatic budget with large mandatory cuts drops into place. [Image Source: St. Anthony's San Francisco]

It's unclear whether either side's plan would manage to "balance" the budget.  But it is clear both sides refuse to meet at a negotiating table.

As a result, there will be only weeks to cut a deal before a series of across-the-board automatic cuts of $1.2T USD kick in.  Congress installed those cuts when it raised the debt ceiling as a failsafe in case a compromise on the 2013 budget could not be reached (in retrospect a pretty likely scenario, given the election year tensions).

II. Who Gets Cut, and How Much?

Defense cuts:
One of the biggest cuts will be to U.S. Department of Defense spending, at $54.7B USD (a 9.7 percent reduction to the agency budget).  That cut will likely impact funding for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), as well as funding for weapons research at private contractors.

Billions will also be cut from non-defense research agencies.  

Medical cuts:
The National Institutes of Health (NIH), a key funder of U.S. medical research, will lose $2.5B USD in funding.  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will take a $464M USD hit to non-defense research.  The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will cut $318M USD in salary and expenses.  

Space cuts:
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) budget is another big loser.  It loses $417M for science research, $346M for space missions, $309M for exploration, and $246M for cross agency support.  Overall the cuts total $1.3B USD.  

Curiousity Rover
The automatic cuts would strip NASA of $1.3B USD in funding. [Image Source: NASA]

When President John F. Kennedy proposed to send a human to the Moon in 1961, the budget was $13.878B USD -- around $101B USD in 2010 purchasing power [source].  Today the budget is expected to dip to less than a fifth of that, at $17.77B USD (2012 dollars).

Exploration cuts:
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) loses $88M USD for surveys and research.

Environment:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) takes a $65M USD hit to its research department, which funds various biology and climatology studies.  The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) loses $217M USD in funding for facilities and research, including climatology studies.

Power/Automotive cuts:
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) takes a $400M USD hit to research funding.

General cuts:
The National Science Foundation (NSF) -- which sponsors all sorts of university research projects -- will lose $463M USD in grant money, plus another $167M cut to funding for new scientific equipment.  The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) would take a $62M USD hit to research and facilities.

III. The Election Effect

Current U.S. President Barack Obama has proposed boosting the overall science budget. Under his plan most agencies would see modest boosts, while NASA would see a smaller cut of $164M USD given the $1.3B USD in cuts the automatic budget cuts would institute.

The President's plan calls for reducing the deficit to $901B USD -- roughly a 1/3rd reduction not adjusting for Producer Price Index (PPI).  It calls for further reduction to $575B USD by 2018 -- roughly a 57 percent cut from 2012's deficit (not adjusting for PPI).


President Obama's proposed budget boosts science, while promising modest deficit reductions.
[Image Source: Reddit]

It's unclear exactly where Mitt Romney stands on the issue of funding for science agencies, although he has made it clear that he wants to increase funding for defense research.

Thus whether U.S. science gets layoffs or a boost hangs not only on who is elected, but whether they can draw a compromise with their rival party to avoid the mandatory cuts.

Sources: White House [PDF], Nature



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Yay for tax cuts.
By reggiep on 9/17/2012 2:03:44 PM , Rating: 4
Well I'm glad that millionaires and billionaires are getting their beloved tax cuts. Research? Education? Who needs it?

Seriously though, we need to go back to pre-Reagan tax policies. Trickle down has failed us immensely (and made a very small percentage of people very wealthy).




RE: Yay for tax cuts.
By Reclaimer77 on 9/17/2012 2:09:36 PM , Rating: 3
We're spending almost a trillion a year on entitlements. 100 million Americans are on some sort of Government assistance, paid for by the productive people who are paying taxes in this country.

Obamacare once in full effect, will add about $1.5 trillion annually to the deficit.

And you're claiming tax cuts are the problem? Trickle down?

There's just no way to tax our way out of these spending levels. Stop using this situation to advance an agenda and look at the facts.


RE: Yay for tax cuts.
By Dradien on 9/17/2012 2:20:55 PM , Rating: 3
AmmoHunt:

"or you reduce or eliminate the capital gains taxes, reduce excessive regulations on employers set a fixed percentage flat tax on everyone!, set an end date on unemployment insurance/welfare benefits and reap the benefits of millions of new new taxpayers, low unemployment and reduced cost of living and savings from welfare payouts.
"

Yes, because living on UC is the BEST THING EVAR!! Where, exactly, do you think these new jobs will come from? Do you think people LOVE living on UC and having thier QoL dropping from when they were working?

Seriously, you need to think this out.

stadisticado:

"Your math of course assumes a static revenue model. That is, you're assuming that the people in those income brackets won't make rational decisions (e.g. tax shelters, loopholes, expatriation) to avoid being taxed at those draconian rates."

Draconian by whos standards exactly?

"And even if all that revenue was actually captured, its still a drop in the bucket of the spending deficit." Citation please.

"No one wants to talk about it or admit it, but the only two options to close the deficit are a severe increase of taxes on the middle and lower classes "

So let me get this right...you don't want to tax the rich at all more because they'll just hide it off-shore, and if they didn't, it wouldn't matter anyway, but you propose taking a shitton of money from the poorest nation, because it'll help?

You need to rethink that.

"(since the bottome 50% pays effectively negative taxes today)"

Giggle....god you're funny.

"Demonizing the rich will not solve the problem."

Nope, but making them pay back into the country that MADE them rich helps. During WW2. right before and right after, the top marginal tax rate was going between 70 and 90 percent. No one was demonizing anyway, it was just known as the way to do it, because the marginal utility of a dollar is way different for those with millions, and those without.

Reclaimer77:

"We're spending almost a trillion a year on entitlements."

Define entitlements.

"100 million Americans are on some sort of Government assistance, paid for by the productive people who are paying taxes in this country."

I hate to tell you this, but every single person in this country pays taxes, and every single person in the country takes assistance of the Government in one way or another.

"Obamacare once in full effect, will add about $1.5 trillion annually to the deficit."

Citation? Because the CBO claimed it would reduce the deficite over about 10 years or so.

"And you're claiming tax cuts are the problem? Trickle down?"

Of course they are. How are you not seeing this?

"There's just no way to tax our way out of these spending levels. Stop using this situation to advance an agenda and look at the facts."

No one said tax our way out of the spending problem, stop putting words in our mouths. It will help the deficit problem. I fail to see how you cannot see this.


RE: Yay for tax cuts.
By shin0bi272 on 9/18/2012 2:41:33 PM , Rating: 3
Unemployment compensation is paid for by businesses to the state. Its only when the state runs out of money due to chronic unemployment in a horrible economy that the feds have to put money into it... Then of course they extend the time benefits are provided so that you'll vote for the party that voted to extend them... Truly our republic is lost.

50% of anyone's money going to big spending government bureaucrats so that they can redistribute it is draconian... You get 50% by 40% federal and 10% state... then there are some places like NYC that charge city taxes too... God forbid the federal government do with LESS than 40% of the money I worked for all year... just so they can stick their hand out and say "pay us for you having a job in our country".

Ronald Reagan's economics adviser Art Laffer studied taxation and figured out that after 12.5% the amount of compliance starts to drop off. Its called the Laffer curve. As the tax rate increases beyong 12.5% people who have the means find a way to minimize their exposure to taxes. Look at the cofounder of facebook... the company goes public he sells his shares and renouces his citizenship to move to like thailand or somewhere with all of his billions. You think he'd of done that if the corporate tax was under the 35% it is now? Highest in the world btw...

and hes right half of us pay no income taxes at the end of the year (mostly due to income levels and the child tax credit)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36226444/ns/business-p...

If you take all of the money... 100% of it... that the people making over 250k a year have you'll have just under 1 trillion dollars. That will put 100% of the American owned businesses out of business and then what kind of trouble would we be in? Especially since 70% of the companies in this country are small businesses that gross over 250k a year. Yeah youre a brilliant communist arent you? Moron.

You seem to think that because the government offers something that it's not constitutionally allowed to offer that that means its ok. Its not and you're making the country worse because of your lack of intelligence and backbone. Youd rather give up and let the government hand you stuff than work for it yourself. Retirement? let the government pay for it... they'll just take it out of my kids paychecks every week. Medical coverage? Why cant the government do that too? They can pay for it by making everyone buy healthcare that doesnt have or want it and by raising the minimums that businesses have to pay for their people to have coverage by 4 fold.

Also the CBO did come out and say that obama care will reduce the costs... before they passed the bill. Afterwards though... about 5 or 6 months after they came out and said that it will cost about 1.8 trillion not 900 billion and that it will not reduce the cost of providing the services themselves.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/14/cbo-hea...

And if you wanna talk health care provided by government lets look at medicare shall we? It was invented by our old communist friend Teddy Kennedy in 1965. He claimed that the ten year cost of it would be 9 billion dollars. After 10 years it was 60 billion. He was only off by... 900%!!! Medicare costs rise 30% faster than everyone elses costs too... so that sounds like a great program lets expand that to everyone right? Moron.

Taxes arent the problem. The problem is spending. In the words of James Madison "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." Since you dont know your history let me enlighten you. When woodrow wilson took office in 1913 the 16th amendment had just been passed and the progressive income tax was available to the government for the first time in its current form. The budget that year was just over 1 Billion dollars. The top tax rate that was implemented was 7%. By the time he left office the top tax rate was 75% and the country was in a major depression. The spending that year was just about 5.5B. So in 8 years we had a 5 fold increase in government spending and a 10 fold increase in the tax rate. When Harding and Coolidge came in they CUT the TOP rate from 75% to 25% and it set off what's now known as "the roaring 20's" ... the decade where more americans got electricity in their homes, refrigerators, irons, radios, etc than ever before or since.

Increasing taxes will only serve to stifle job creation and possibly send jobs overseas... of course communists like you love that cause then you can demonize businesses that do that. Even the buffett rule will only bring in 49 billion over the next 10 years... 49 billion will run the government for like 3 weeks... this year.

Lastly to wrap up all the reasons you keynesian approach is wrong let me explain this to you. Keynesian economics says that for every dollar you take from the rich and give to the poor it will magically generate 3-4 dollars in the economy. The real amount which was researched by nobel prize winning economist Milton Freedman in the 70's... is 80 cents. Every dollar you take from a rich person and redistribute through the government to a poor person generates 80 cents in the economy. So government spending even straight redistribution through taxation (not even getting into the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment which would mean that the progressive income tax is unconstitutional because it takes more from one group than it does to another and redistributes that taken money to another specific group... including social security and medcare which only go to the elderly and thats also a violation of the equal protection clause) is a losing proposition.

As Ayn Rand put it in Atlas Shrugged "When the man who has a dollar more than you is your slave and the man who has a dollar less than you is your master nothing good can come of it" That is communism and that is what you are advocating. Please kill yourself.


RE: Yay for tax cuts.
By tjacoby on 9/19/2012 7:05:43 PM , Rating: 1
WOW.

Epic, elegant, intelligent rant. Gives me a little hope that not everyone out there is an entitled idiot.


RE: Yay for tax cuts.
By nick2000 on 9/17/2012 4:29:00 PM , Rating: 4
Government assistance is a way to address externalities that employers do not cover.
In short, it is a _subsidy_ to businesses by allowing cheap labor to exist.
These subsidies absolutely distort the job market but I am not sure what the best solution is. (Don't even get me started on stupid prison acting as factories, thus driving private companies out of business)

In any case, letting people starve in a country flush with guns may not be such a great idea.

By the way, the actual "job creators" are the consumers. There is no job if there is no demand...


RE: Yay for tax cuts.
By Ammohunt on 9/17/2012 2:11:13 PM , Rating: 3
Remember the good economic times in the 90ies despite the largest tax increase in history put on us by Clinton? That was a direct result of trickle down economics before the neo-cons and socialist democrats got their hands on the economy.


RE: Yay for tax cuts.
By nick2000 on 9/17/2012 2:54:34 PM , Rating: 2
Trickle down is like unicorns. It does not exist in practice


RE: Yay for tax cuts.
By Ammohunt on 9/17/2012 3:41:27 PM , Rating: 2
I doesn't exist any more true like i stated the Socialist Democrats and the Neo-cons destroyed any and all semblance of it starting in 2006.


RE: Yay for tax cuts.
By anactoraaron on 9/17/2012 4:14:46 PM , Rating: 2
Well to be fair, they didn't do it by themselves. Someone from the other side still signed some of that stuff into law. Not that he should be solely blamed for it.

I think a key component of all of this is missing from these discussions, that being the extremely fast artificial inflation caused by the almost overnight tripling of fuel prices. Everything that was budgeted prior to the $4 a gallon of gas went out the window as the cost of everything went up (defense, education, etc) dramatically.

Now that the inflationary damage has been done gas will never fall to what it once was, and the economic imbalance caused by this will take at least a decade to begin to correct itself.

It's why the tax cuts for job creators were passed to begin with. This sudden, artificial, rapid inflation on everything that has a cost in running a business was threatening to break many businesses. These cuts are still needed today for the same reasons they were created to begin with.


RE: Yay for tax cuts.
By Dradien on 9/17/2012 4:19:55 PM , Rating: 2
How exactly did they destroy it in 2006?

Trickle down never worked for the majority, and never will. I guess in theory it works, but the problem comes into play when the people getting that money that are supposed to be trickling it down just SIT on it and do nothing.


RE: Yay for tax cuts.
By Ammohunt on 9/17/2012 5:19:45 PM , Rating: 1
They sit on it and do nothing because they have to pay exorbitant amounts of taxes on it whenever they leverage or move it around 35% capital gains tax keeps Trillions off shore and out of the American economy. If you had a million bucks would you be willing to pay $350k in just the first round of taxes on that money just to bring it in country? i didn't think so! This nonsense idea of some bourgeoisie "Rich" person sitting on a pile of money smoking cigars is just that nonsense. Capitalists like making money its their hobby their job every venture has its risks but if over a third of an investment is gone out of the gate they are better off not investing it at all; these guys want their money working for them at all times!.

Trickle down works just fine i am employed because of it! Microsoft is the best example. Not sure if you were around in the 80ies but the idea of an affordable home computer consisted of a Commodore computer connected to your TV. Bill gates changed that all! A PC in every household was his goal and he succeeded think for a second all the derivative services and business that were built from having a PC in every persons house? It still to this day employs billions worldwide in ways even not related to tech how about the construction guys that built all the building associate with the tech booms? The cleaning crews, security guards, coffee shop workers book writers,restaurant owners etc.. All made possible by trickle down economics i.e. businesses were stimulated from the top by deregulation in the 80ies couple with lower taxes which created stability allowed them to reinvest revenue and grow their business. Microsoft is just one company that directly benefited from deregulation in the 80ies.


RE: Yay for tax cuts.
By nick2000 on 9/17/2012 5:23:57 PM , Rating: 2
Nope. You got _all_ your examples wrong. Your history of the PC and Bill Gates is all wrong too. Deregulation had nothing to do with his success.

High taxes promote investment because they make it unattractive to keep your money doing nothing.


RE: Yay for tax cuts.
By Ammohunt on 9/17/2012 5:49:22 PM , Rating: 2
yeah your right silly me!


RE: Yay for tax cuts.
By Reclaimer77 on 9/17/2012 6:39:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
High taxes promote investment because they make it unattractive to keep your money doing nothing.


LOL what? Can you explain this to me in real economic terms? You can't be serious.

Better yet no, never mind. Don't try to explain. You can't.

Stop. Posting.


RE: Yay for tax cuts.
By Mint on 9/18/2012 1:10:37 PM , Rating: 2
It requires math, so you may not be able to follow.

Let's say I have a business and I'm considering a proposition of reinvesting $10M of my profit, reducing my bottom line in the short term. I predict that in doing so, I will increase the present value of the business by $8M.

If the company pays 0% tax, then it's better to just save the $10M profit and forget about that proposition. If the company pays 40% tax, then it'd only pocket $6M, so it's better for me to reinvest, create jobs, and grow my business.

Now this example is simplified, but if I expanded it to include amortization over X years, you'd get the same result:

Corporate taxes are a punishment for not reinvesting.

By reducing or eliminating them, you reduce the desire for a company to grow. Taxes tell a corporation to "use it or lose it". If you want to increase wealth as a reward for your hard work, then pay yourself salary.


RE: Yay for tax cuts.
By shin0bi272 on 9/18/2012 2:46:55 PM , Rating: 2
The job of a business isnt to create jobs. Its to make a profit you simpleton. Jobs are what result from that business needing to expand to fill the need of their consumers. Your argument is deeply, deeply flawed.


RE: Yay for tax cuts.
By Mint on 9/19/2012 10:38:32 AM , Rating: 2
LOL. If that was the case, then why do we outlaw monopolies? Why do we care about competition? Hell, why don't we just allow businesses to directly steal from us if their prime purpose is to make money?

You're dead wrong. The purpose of a business is to make a product/service.

Compensation for the owners is merely motivation to build/run a business, not its primary purpose. If it made zero profit, but the owner/CEO made $1M/yr, it would continue producing and benefiting all of society.


RE: Yay for tax cuts.
By tjacoby on 9/19/2012 7:12:12 PM , Rating: 2
You really are an idiot. The purpose of a business is to make a profit, plain and simple. That is why people invest in the stock market... Why pour your money into a company that will not grow, but could collapse? People like you scare me.

We outlaw monopolies because it leads to abuse of the consumer. Competition causes 2 things- separation by innovation, and price competition. That does not always mean prices will go down across the board, but price segments will be found and consumer needs will be met (look at the PC industry- Apple has its segment of sheepish loyalist who will pay a premium, ultrabooks are taking the mid-tier, and tablets are taking over the low/mid-low tier).

Monopolies not only reduce those two things, they also put barriers to entry on a market so that no one could compete with them, even if they had the desire and product to.


RE: Yay for tax cuts.
By tjacoby on 9/19/2012 7:24:05 PM , Rating: 2
That was for the other guy, my bad.


RE: Yay for tax cuts.
By JediJeb on 9/17/2012 6:14:03 PM , Rating: 2
One of the biggest problems with nothing trickling down was as soon as the money became available to trickle down, the government began rapidly increasing the regulations heaped upon businesses. As those regulations began to mount up, the expense of complying with them began to rise and ate up all the extra money that should have been able to trickle down. From the mid 80's until now the number of Federal regulations have exploded and large businesses need to hire people just to help them keep up with the ever changing regulation nightmare.


RE: Yay for tax cuts.
By Ammohunt on 9/18/2012 1:37:45 PM , Rating: 2
If i remember correctly there was a period of time in the 90ies where they were trying to slow down economic growth in order to keep the dollar at a reasonable value compared to other currencies and not wreck trade.


RE: Yay for tax cuts.
By Reclaimer77 on 9/17/2012 6:35:38 PM , Rating: 2
"Trickle down" simply states that the American people are better at spending their own money than the Government. And that when people have more of their own money, they will spend it and invest it into the economy. This isn't a "unicorn", this is an incontrovertible fact.

To claim Reaganomics didn't work is the newest revisionist historical fraud of the 2000's. Pretty sure anyone with a shred of intellectual fortitude would choose Reagan economies over what we have now. Or those of his predecessor, Carter.

You cannot have the kind of explosive growth the free market saw under Reagan if people are just "hoarding" all of their money from "trickle down". You people need to get a clue. 20 million private sector jobs were created under Reagan! Hello? How was that trickle down "not working" again?


RE: Yay for tax cuts.
By Rukkian on 9/18/2012 11:45:48 AM , Rating: 2
And Reagan actually raised taxes more than he lowered them. Capital gains were at one of the highest in history, and top tax brackets ended much higher than they are now.


RE: Yay for tax cuts.
By Mint on 9/18/2012 1:58:49 PM , Rating: 2
There's no fraud about it. He lowered taxes, and the economy went into recession again. Tax cuts alone do nothing.

The reason the economy climbed out of recession for good in the 80's was the major interest rate cut and subsequent resumption of massive lending from the banks.

That's how the economy survived the widening income gap. The rich absolutely were hoarding most of their income: They always have, and they always will. The rich got richer, put more money in the banks, and the federal reserve lowered interest rates to discourage this saving and increase demand for borrowing or else money flow would stagnate. Private debt exploded for 30+ years, but the economy was dependent on it, as every time the banks reduced lending, employment would drop. By the mid 2000's, it inched up to 25%+ of GDP funded by private debt increase:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?graph_...
(total private debt from the US flow of funds data)

Let me repeat that: for the last 15 years, private debt increased by $2T-$4T each year. People/corps don't borrow money if they already have it sitting around, or if they didn't immediately spend/invest it and generate economic activity. It's all from entities that had no desire to invest (despite low interest rates in the 2000's), so they lent it to others to spend (who couldn't do so without the loan).

Guess what? We can't do that anymore: The banks can't find enough borrowers with safe enough assets to secure the loans (obviously necessary to prevent another clusterf***). This fundamentally breaks trickle-down.


RE: Yay for tax cuts.
By shin0bi272 on 9/18/2012 2:52:27 PM , Rating: 1
Actually Reagan wanted a 30% across the board tax cut but the democrats only gave him 25% and even THAT they phased in over 3 years. So little commies like you can claim that tax cuts (without spending cuts because the democrats are lying sacks of shit and said they would but didnt) "sent the economy into recession again"... nice try jackass.


Killing R&D is the worst possible option
By Fenixgoon on 9/17/2012 6:53:10 PM , Rating: 2
Technological progress is fundamentally a research activity. Without research, you will NEVER find the next big thing. EVER.

Research in all areas of technology is what has made, and has kept, America ahead. If we continue down this path, we will soon find ourselves very, very far behind.




By wempa on 9/18/2012 9:16:39 AM , Rating: 2
No matter what cuts are proposed, SOMEBODY is going to object and say it's a bad idea. With the hole we (our government) dug ourselves, we absolutely must prioritize and cut spending where it makes the most sense. Cuts to R&D make sense because it can be done in the private sector without government assistance. If a company feels that there is the potential to make money, they will allocate necessary funds to find "the next big thing". As great as something like space exploration is, I'm pretty sure we would be OK without any new fancy space toys for the next decade or so while we focus on getting our finances in order and building a stronger economy. Now, I certainly believe we can find many other places to cut as well. For example, I'd like to see us scale back on the number of foreign bases we have and the amount of financial aid we provide other countries. We need to take care of ourselves first and foremost.


By shin0bi272 on 9/18/2012 1:52:05 PM , Rating: 2
What youre missing here is that its not being completely eliminated... no government programs are ever eliminated (they have about 85 different programs to give food to the poor... why not have 1? It IS a government program after all)... these "cuts" are reductions in the rate of increase.

Washington operates on whats called a baseline budget system. Thats where this years budget is the baseline for next year. If you spent all your money this year you get more next year. If you didnt you get cut by that amount. Its a truly brainless system. The average rate of increase is like 10% a year. So these "cuts" are just reductions in that increase. So next year their budget wont be 110 billion it will be 105billion... oooh look out massive cuts to education! We're all going to be using rocks and sticks to hunt for food in a month because congress is cutting education! So you see how dumb your argument sounds now huh?


By tayb on 9/17/2012 3:51:31 PM , Rating: 2
The only way to solve a debt problem as large as the one we have is to decrease spending and increase taxes. You cannot focus solely on taxation or solely on spending as you'll never come up with enough money or enough cuts.

Most people in this country aren't actually interested in the debt, they're just interested in protecting their own personal interests.




By shin0bi272 on 9/18/2012 2:59:42 PM , Rating: 2
Total money spent by the government for BY2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_fe...

Total money taken in by the government for BY2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_fe...

If you cant provide a defense against all enemies foreign and domestic for 2.46 TRILLION dollars then youre doing something wrong. Go read the constitution article 1 section 8. Try to find medicare and retirement and education and housing and art and science funding in there. You wont.

The big government leftists have engineered over the past 100+ years a system where you have several government hand outs for different victim groups in exchange for either their compliance (welfare) or at the expense of others (social security and medicare). All government spending that isnt on defense or operating the government is unconstitutional.


All Finger Pointing Aside...
By Plazmid19 on 9/17/2012 4:00:38 PM , Rating: 2
Regardless of what side of the fence you are on, cutting funding to research and education will come back to haunt us.

Especially from the government labs, which are mostly unsung, and contribute immensely to science. Unfortunately, most goes unpublished.

If either side cares about the quality of the research, then reform is needed in the selection process, not reform-by-axe.

But, thirsty people rarely care about the quality of the water when they are parched. That care tends to come afterwards when you are sick, and its too late....




RE: All Finger Pointing Aside...
By Solandri on 9/17/2012 6:12:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Regardless of what side of the fence you are on, cutting funding to research and education will come back to haunt us.

Our education problems are not related to funding. The U.S. already has the second-highest spending per student of any OECD nation. Education is getting plenty of money. The pathetic performance of our schools is due to other problems. Ideally, we should be getting much more performance out of fewer dollars.
http://mercatus.org/publication/k-12-spending-stud...

Research can probably stand taking some cuts. Contrary to those who tried to paint him as anti-science, Bush 2 made the biggest increases in research spending in history . (And no it's wasn't military research. The vast majority of Bush's research spending went in health and medicine.)
http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/guihist.htm

Obama initially tried to maintain Bush's research spending levels. But given the stagnant economy I think it's inevitable that he can't keep it up. I'd prefer to see some other programs cut or reformed. The Congressional Budget Office has been telling us for a dozen years that the cause of the deficit is Medicare/Medicaid.* But since the Democrats have declared those untouchable, that leaves cutting discretionary spending like research.
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43295

*If you don't believe me, here's the choice quote (emphasis mine):
quote:
Under the extended baseline scenario, which generally adheres closely to current law, federal debt would gradually decline over the next 25 years—to 53 percent of GDP in 2037—because revenues would reach levels that are high by historical standards, and spending for programs other than the major health care programs and Social Security would reach the lowest level relative to GDP since before World War II .


Please tell me you're kidding
By topkill on 9/17/2012 4:09:25 PM , Rating: 2
More money on defense? Why? We already spend more than the next 20 countries combined, including Russia and China.

Our own Pentagon is not asking for the money the GOP is trying to ear mark for their pet contracts and the kickbacks they will get. When are we going to grow a brain and stop this?

The whole "defense" plan of this country is out of control. We're still following the doctrine Nixon put in place for trying to control the middle east through pretend allies who knife us in the back and it only makes their people hate us.

Leave them alone and buy oil from whoever is in charge. They will sell it to us if we just leave them alone and let them kill each other. It makes them happy.




RE: Please tell me you're kidding
By Ammohunt on 9/17/2012 5:57:35 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
More money on defense? Why? We already spend more than the next 20 countries combined, including Russia and China.


Russia and China does not protect the free world countries allied with the US rely on us for protection.

quote:
Our own Pentagon is not asking for the money the congress is trying to ear mark for their pet contracts and the kickbacks they will get. When are we going to grow a brain and stop this?


Fixed for you.

quote:
The whole "defense" plan of this country is out of control. We're still following the doctrine Nixon put in place for trying to control the middle east through pretend allies who knife us in the back and it only makes their people hate us.


Controls that resulted in the longest time of peace in the middle east in modern times vs. the rise of Islamic theocracies you see now thanks Obama!.

quote:
Leave them alone and buy oil from whoever is in charge. They will sell it to us if we just leave them alone and let them kill each other. It makes them happy.


Agreed as long as its affordable we should use up their resources before we consume our domestic resources.


RE: Please tell me you're kidding
By madtruths on 9/17/2012 6:30:41 PM , Rating: 1
0As far as troop deployments go, we really should withdraw our troops stationed abroad, except for maybe Afghanistan and possibly a couple others, but not only is it costing us money to have them there, but military over extension has historically caused the fall of many empires and nations before us. I would hate to see that same fate befall our country. Though if another country/people attack us, I have no problem with going bat shit crazy on them, we are not push overs, but we also should not be bully's either.

Oh and for people who complain about defense spending, you should look up how many items/devices/appliances/random shit was developed by/for the military that you now you use today.

PS sorry if I replied to the wrong comment, Im still getting used to the system.


Glad to see these cuts
By PontiusP on 9/17/2012 4:23:41 PM , Rating: 2
Without all of the great studies that NIH does with our money, our country is doomed!

http://www.idausa.org/realridiculousresearch/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/25/trackin...

My problem with these cuts is that they aren't cutting nearly enough, and nowhere close to balancing the budget. The cuts need to be quadrupled. Every, single, last, damn wasteful program needs to DIE.




RE: Glad to see these cuts
By MZperX on 9/18/2012 12:31:43 PM , Rating: 2
And conspicuously missing from the list is the NEA. That should be cut by about 95%. Or how about funding for NPR which is a mouthpiece for the Democrats being funded partly by taxpayer dollars? I'd say cut that 100%.

I'm with you man, when I was reading the list I was thinking "That's all?" They better sharpen their pens and get to real cutting. In Washington D.C. double-speak it's called "cutting" when you don't increase funding for a program as much as the other side proposed. In plain English "cutting" is when you actually budget less than was spent in prior years. When you have actually reduced Government expenditure. In any of the proposed budgets, including the Ryan budget, we are lightyears from reducing the debt in any meaningful way.

We need a balanced budget now! Obama and Dems clearly won't do it so let's see if the Republicans will (not holding my breath). If we fire the jerks often enough they might get the message that their #1 priority must be to put our financial house in order.


Tax religion
By chmilz on 9/17/12, Rating: 0
RE: Tax religion
By drmo on 9/17/2012 3:27:45 PM , Rating: 3
Americans donate ~ $100 billion to religious organizations every year. So even if they had to match those donations, that would only be a fraction of the deficit. Maybe add on the $40 billion or so donated to education? - Just another big hit to research. Perhaps you meant on net income (oh wait they are non-profits, so that is ~zero). Perhaps you meant on personal income for employees - already taxed. What about on property - oops that is only local taxes, it would not help the federal government, and the Universities would be much worse hit because they have massive amounts of land and often oppulent facilities.


Wrong Again Jason.
By shin0bi272 on 9/18/2012 1:43:19 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
It's unclear whether either side's plan would manage to "balance" the budget. But it is clear both sides refuse to meet at a negotiating table.


The republican plan (as you incorrectly put it) isnt to increase military spending its to not cut it the 500 billion that obama got them to agree to. And dont forget the republicans balanced the budget in 5 years in the 90's and the democrats back then claimed the same shit... they'll cut your social security, they'll cut your medicare, they'll cut your school lunches... Even if these programs received cuts they werent eliminated... Like I said before the entire government has become big government spenders no matter the party... the republicans just want to spend a little less... which is why they need to be thrown out and replaced with people who want to ELIMINATE programs and who will do whats necessary politically to make sure it happens... But when people arise to try to get that done the media calls them racists and so on. Is there any doubt that the media is in the pocket of the democrats?

First, read the constitution... article 1 section 8: the powers of congress. They are tasked with funding an army and a navy. There's nothing in there about funding everyone's retirement when they hit a magic age set forth 75 years ago by a communist sympathizer president. Plus the military budget is 500bil a year and cutting 50bil a year from its budget isnt a huge problem... until you see where they are cutting. People and parts.

If they were going to close overseas bases and bring our troops home to save money I'd be all for it (pretty sure Germany and Okinawa arent going to start anything anymore). But they are cutting down on the number of troops and forcing the military once again to do more with less because Barry thinks you can get it all done with some drones (shades of clinton anyone?). Hell look at the wounded warriors coming back from afghanistan... they all have arm and leg and head injuries. Why? because the government only protects their chest and back! Sure you'll live through the bombing but you'll be unable to walk or pick up your kids or be a vegetable for the rest of your life... so that the government can save a few bucks. So you see its not always the amount of the spending or the amount of the cuts its the places that the money gets spent thats the problem. A bunch of lawyers and pandering bureaucrats buying votes, are the ones deciding what's best for the defense of our nation... brilliant!

Then, like I told you before reread your history. The government changing with the times (a progressive idea brought in by german immigrants in the late 1800's) is what got people in the early 1900's thinking big government was good. Look where that got us! We're 16 TRILLION in debt because of big government entitlement spending! Good job jackasses! And dont try to point to Reagan because it was the democrats who lied and didnt cut spending when they cut taxes that put us into the huge debt hole we got into during the 80s.

Finally, do the math. social security, medicare, and welfare account for almost 1.5 trillion a year in spending and they are all unconstitutional programs. We currently take in about 2 trillion and spend 3.8... even a grade school child knows you cant spend more than you take in. But apparently when you get over educated in some liberal elite edifice of "higher education" you forget that 2-4= -2




Budget?
By Chaser on 9/17/12, Rating: -1
RE: Budget?
By ritualm on 9/17/12, Rating: 0
RE: Budget?
By StevoLincolnite on 9/17/2012 2:34:46 PM , Rating: 4
Well to be fair, the US Government can pay back all the debt, however the result would be catastrophic to your economy, nor is it expected or needed in any sovereign nation.

The debt-to-GDP ratio in the US was at 109% back at the end of World War 2, today it's at about 101% So it's not completely unmanageable.
The problem lies with the fact that your Government doesn't decrease spending when your economy slows but keeps spending at a constant pace so during the economic crisis and after you spent Trillions bailing out companies your Debt to GDP almost doubled.

Then you need to factor in the Billions you spend a year supporting troops all around the planet, giving other countries aid, the Billions that tax payers have to pay to support bureaucracy and a bloated government...

There is an incredible amount of waste happening that could easily be removed by pulling back troops to enhance USA's defense by having more soldiers at home (Ultimately saving money AND American lives.), slimming down the government and reducing the bureaucracy to make things more efficient etc'.

Nope, instead they reduce research and development funds across the board which would play a greater role in your countries future prosperity than a wasteful and large government.


RE: Budget?
By Dradien on 9/17/2012 2:39:05 PM , Rating: 3
"...result would be catastrophic to your economy, nor is it expected or needed in any sovereign nation."

THANK YOU. You got the point exactly. No sovereign nation is expected to pay back all of the debt.

A lot of people seem to think that the US debt is something like household debt, and it isn't, at all.

There's a number of reasons it doesn't really work like household debt, here are what I think are the biggies.

1) Government spending is not consumption spending, it's investment spending. When the Government spends money, its not the same as you going to Best Buy and buying a $3000 HDTV on 25% interest. If they insist on going for an analogy that's like what people can relate to on a daily basis, its more like a student loan or business loan (but not really, see subsequent points). You take out a student loan because in the long run, the money you make from having that degree will vastly outweigh the cost of the loan plus interest. Likewise, a business make take out a loan to open a second location; and that location may initially be in the red the first few years and require subsequent loans. But in the long run, the second location will generate far more money than the cost of the loan and its interest.

Now, there's an interesting discussion to be had regarding what types of spending are best for the government to be going into debt for, but that's a whole other topic. The point is that spending on things like improving infrastructure, education, and even making government buildings vastly more energy efficient all end up paying off in the long run. Either by saving more money than it cost to implement (efficiency) or by improving the economy and generating more tax revenue for decades as a result. This is very different than dropping tons of money on interest payments for consumer goods like TVs or iPads or designer clothing.

2) The government gets obscenely low interest rates. At times, those interest rates can be even lower than the rate of inflation, which means that in effect, investors are paying the government to take their money. This is because they end up getting less real money back than they put in due to the effects of inflation over 20-30 years. However, they do it because it's a safe place to put their money. And if they can get a 1.5% interest rate on $100,000 over 20 years with 2.5% inflation, that's better than putting it in a checking account with 0% interest with 2.5% inflation for 20 years. This also means that the Invisible Hand of the Free Market is saying that it's so certain that the US will always pay its debts, investors are willing to accept interest rates below the rate of inflation.

3) These low rates are driven by the fact that the global financial markets need a safe place to park money that prevents inflation from eating away too much of the value. If we paid off all our debt, and refused to take on more, the global financial market would go nuts.

4) The US borrows money in a currency that it controls the supply of. This is a huge difference compared to a household, or even many other countries. I can't print my own money to pay off my debts, but the US can. Greece can't either, which is one of the reasons its stupid to suggest the US is becoming the next Greece. Conservatives don't like this point, even though its an important point to make, because they think you're suggesting that we print $14T and payoff all our debt. Which would be dumb, no one is suggesting it. But we could, if we needed to, print a small amount of money to make payments on interest for this year, for example. But we would never need to pay off all of it at once because...

5) The loans have a fixed lifespan. This is more of a follow up to #4, and a response to the whole "China is gonna come collect one day!" meme. We make payments to all our creditors, including China, on a fixed schedule. The US creditors can't just demand all their money back. And even if they could, they wouldn't because...

6) Most of the Federal Government's creditors are American. Not only that, but the single largest holder of Federal Debt is the Federal Government. The second largest, are non-Federal US Governments (State and Local Governments) and US businesses and individuals. Something like 75-85% of US debt is held by the US. It would be like if you bought a $200k house by taking $200k out of your savings and then promising to pay back your savings account with interest. And bought your family's cars and took out a student loan by borrowing all the money from your parents. And then took out a small number of credit cards from real banks. Real households don't work this way. Just like how they can't...

7) Give themselves a raise anytime they want. Congress can raise or lower tax revenue on a whim. Few, if any, households can just decide, "Today I'm going to start getting paid 20% extra!"

Those are the reasons I can think of, though there are probably more. (Like millions on Medicare/SS not being left to die because you decide to cut back on how much you eat out at the Olive Garden, and the fact that most American households don't maintain an army). But I think these are the most important.


RE: Budget?
By Natch on 9/17/2012 3:27:30 PM , Rating: 3
Maybe it's time to send out those bills, for our cost of operations during WW2?? I mean, damn....we ought to get something for helping to save the world, right??


RE: Budget?
By StevoLincolnite on 9/18/2012 4:02:20 PM , Rating: 1
As I recall it was mostly over when the USA decided to jump in near the end, minus Japan though. :P


RE: Budget?
By PontiusP on 9/17/2012 4:40:27 PM , Rating: 5
So much wrong, I don't even know where to begin.

1) "Government spending is not consumption spending"

Mostly wrong. Government spending is primarily consumption based. Food stamps, free housing, free cell phones, farm subsidies, foreign aid, wasteful wars, ridiculous research, entitlements. Very little is "invested".

2) "The government gets obscenely low interest rates."

If I had a dime every time I heard this ignorant excuse for continuing the debt explosion, I'd be rich. Yes, they are currently getting low rates *NOW*. However, that completely ignores what they may be in the future. You do understand that it's possible for interest rates to rise, don't you? You do understand that we have to take a long term view of this stuff, correct? Can you please enlighten us as to what we'll do when we have to pay off $16T in debt at an interest rate of 10%?

3) "Not only that, but the single largest holder of Federal Debt is the Federal Government." I think you mean the Federal Reserve, which is not the same as the Federal Government.

4) "Congress can raise or lower tax revenue on a whim." Dead wrong. Raising the tax rate, is not the same as raising the total amount collected. If raising the tax rate harms economic activity, they may end up collecting less. If it doesn't, then they'll collect more. In the end, it's a complex, chaotic system that *nobody* can accurately predict the outcome of. So no, Congress cannot raise revenue on a whim. They can try, but it may not turn out the way they had hoped.

The biggest fail of them all:

5) "But we could, if we needed to, print a small amount of money to make payments on interest for this year, for example." You have a lack of understanding of how money is created. And this really is the biggest problem of this entire fiasco. The term "print" is a misnomer. A more correct description, is that digital money is borrowed into existence. That is, no new money can be created without being borrowed first, creating new debt.

Have you ever noticed that no matter how much new money is supposedly "printed", the debt level keeps rising, and rising, and rising? The concept is called "debt based money". I'd strongly advise watching the documentary "Money as Debt, I & II". It's something that every single person desperately needs to understand. Money is not printed. It is borrowed into existence. If all debt is paid off, then no electronic money exists, and we are only left with the very small base of paper money.

The idea is that the amount of money in circulation is directly tied to the number of loans in existence. Which means the debt cannot ever be repaid, and that society is in a form of perpetual servitude to banks by having to pay interest for the mere existence of their own money, forever.

Please do some research beyond the high school/early college level before posting. Thanks.


RE: Budget?
By TheJian on 9/18/2012 1:56:00 AM , Rating: 2
ROFL...Someone who gets it...

Good luck with that though...He's got his ears plugged & eyes shut no doubt.


RE: Budget?
By mcnabney on 9/18/2012 9:56:49 AM , Rating: 1
1 - your waste is somebody else's wise investment. Since there isn't a king, every group gets attended to. What do you think a Republic is?
2. Rates are BELOW inflation right now. It would be foolish to not take advantage. A lot of the debt is going back into the Long Bond - 30 year terms!
3. The single largest debt holder is Social Security with ~$2.5T. That is more than Japan, UK, or China - the largest foreign holders.
4. Tax receipts can be increased and those increases raise revenue right up until you get to the Laffer Curve. That curve lies somewhere above 65%. Current tax rates are at an ultra-low 14%. Rates haven't been that low since Harry Truman when we had the dominant global economy.
5. There is no such thing as 'digital' money. Money is money and all fiat currencies are created as a debt instrument. That is just how it works. Deal with it. Considering that we have had 2 rounds (and a third coming) of QE without inflation - I would say there is nothing to worry about by increasing the money supply. We export dollars (what do you think a trade deficit does?) might as well start stabilizing the demand for it.

We are not going back to the gold standard. I don't care what Ron Paul says. If it was done right now the deflation would take 25% off of the GDP and shoot unemployment up to around 30%. All so the gold bugs could get their favorite nearly useless metal up to around $2400 (that is what gold would have to rise to for it to be backed by Federally held gold).


RE: Budget?
By dark matter on 9/18/2012 1:07:35 PM , Rating: 2
Rates are low now.

But does not mean they will always be like that.

It's idiocy what you're recommending.

it's like taking out a loan that you can just about afford to spend on trivial stuff, just because the current rates are low.

What happens in a year, or two years time when rates rise.

Jesus, you're just as bad as the OP.


RE: Budget?
By Mint on 9/19/2012 11:35:24 AM , Rating: 2
Rates are highly unlikely to rise in a year or two. That's why the 10 year yield is below 2%.

Rates will only rise to a significant level if the economy drastically improves, creating a massive investment rush that gives people an alternative to gov't bonds for wealth preservation. Gold isn't an option either, because production is minimal and the US dollars just become someone else's problem.

There's already $2T in excess reserves sitting in banks, because they can't find enough worthy borrowers to lend it to. Only when this depletes (and it's increasing right now) will there be any danger of treasury yields going up.


RE: Budget?
By geddarkstorm on 9/18/2012 1:39:50 PM , Rating: 2
Oh goodness, nothing to worry about due to increasing the money supply? I'm afraid that increasing the money supply -by definition- increases inflation rate all else being equal. If you "print" too much money too fast, you get hyperinflation, ala Zimbabwe or the USSR, and eventual complete abandonment of the currency as it stands.

The equation works like this MV = PQ , where M is the amount of money your country has "printed" (the money supply), V is the velocity of money which means how fast money is exchanged from person to person (this is why a slow economy can cause deflation, as the V value goes way down as people stop spending money), P is the price index and Q is the level of economic activity (the quantity of goods available at price index P).

So, if you increase your money supply, you increase P, price. Conversely, you decrease the value of any single unit of currency, aka inflation.

The poster you replied to is right. "Digital" should actually be "virtual" and it has nothing to do with computers, it simply means that a unit of currency -doesn't actually exist in reality- but exists on ledgers and balance sheets. This is how debt works; it is money that doesn't actually physically exist. You don't usually print more physical money, you just bring into existence more "virtual" money to balance numbers with.

But it always has a cost. If V goes back up, that is, if our economy begins to rapidly recover, then the large amount of debt we've created, which results in a larger M, could drive P through the roof if the economy doesn't expand its manufacturing at the same time. That is, hyperinflation is in our future unless -very, very- careful management of the economy is done. And why? Because of the government's absurd debt level.

Debt is dangerous. How are people forgetting the history of the USSR or Zimbabwe or other such places? We're watching history repeat itself right now, we just haven't felt that inflation yet due to our economy being so depressed and keeping the V part of the equation down.


RE: Budget?
By Mint on 9/19/2012 11:51:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And why? Because of the government's absurd debt level.
This statement is completely incongruous to everything else in your post, as it has negligible impact on any of those quantities. What's more is that all of this is predicated on the economy "rapidly expanding". What indication is there of that happening? Even if it did, why wouldn't the gov't tax receipts rocket up, allowing it to address the debt?

Finally, what's so wrong with a little inflation anyway? You can't get core inflation without nominal wages going up to drive higher prices, minimum wages are indexed to it, and both the gov't debt and the $40T private debt get smaller in real dollars.


RE: Budget?
By Samus on 9/17/2012 3:20:26 PM , Rating: 2
I think the country is doing fine, everyone I know has a job and is doing fine, EVERYTHING IS FINE.

/sarcasm.


RE: Budget?
By lainofthewired on 9/17/2012 10:15:52 PM , Rating: 2
"The problem lies with the fact that your Government doesn't decrease spending when your economy is doing good "

FTFY


RE: Budget?
By Mint on 9/18/2012 11:57:36 AM , Rating: 2
The problem is that nobody knows what's "good" except through often foolish historical comparisons. We thought low interest rates (to increase lending) was a good idea in the mid 2000's, because we thought the economy was worse than it should be. We thought the market could keep increasing private debt this way at astronomical rates with safe asset backing, as we did it for 30+ years without issue.

We were wrong. My opinion? Stop living in a fairytale, as those days are over. We can't fuel our consumption with loans any more, and those who do have the income to consume don't consume much and never have, so low demand and lack of jobs are here to stay. Decide on welfare/benefits for the unemployed, raise taxes to fund it sustainably, and be done.


RE: Budget?
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/18/2012 6:47:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Decide on welfare/benefits for the unemployed, raise taxes to fund it sustainably, and be done.

Yea, no thanks. I don't work hard to get through life so some schmuck can sit on his ass and collect. I don't care if his standard of living is lower as a result, maybe he should go to another country that is willing to import cheap unskilled labor.


RE: Budget?
By Mint on 9/19/2012 11:01:42 AM , Rating: 2
What misanthropes like you don't understand is that if you make the poor poorer or boot them out of the country, companies that produced for their consumption will lose business, and will lay people off. You're going to wind up with the same problem all over again.

We are producing for 300M people with only 133M jobs. If we boot out 30M moochers, why would we have any more than 120M jobs?

That "schmuck" doesn't want to sit on his ass. The problem is that people with money don't want to give him any work to do. They don't want any more toys, any more maids, etc. They don't even want to build assets like houses or new factories at anything more than a snail's pace, as there's already enough. They want to save too much, and banks can't lend it all out safely anymore.

That's not how money is supposed to work. It's supposed to be a placeholder for the exchange of goods/services/assets, not a store of paper wealth.

If people aren't using income to do something with it, then they deserve to be taxed.


RE: Budget?
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/19/2012 1:06:21 PM , Rating: 1
Get off your high horse. I have no problem with humanity, I have every problem with lazy, useless individuals that leech off the system. If you can't make a distinction between the two that's your problem.

Your numbers are completely worthless because you are working off this idiotic idea that production and consumption is isolated to this country alone. We are perfectly capable of importing goods/services, and exporting goods/services. That is how a global economy works.

While you may be fine living in a world of rainbows and unicorns I myself live in a world of reality. There are plenty of "schmucks" that have no desire to work, that believe the government/others owe them for some reason. To tell me that they don't is laughable at best and proves how little you know. A lot of people did this shit during the housing collapse, they could still afford to make payments on their property but stopped. Why? Because the guy down the street who couldn't afford it stopped and it was okay. Why should the guy who can afford it pay his way since it is causing him to really tighten down and curtail spending to make ends meet? If he stops too and increases his spending so it looks like he can't afford it then he too will get assistance. The standard human characteristic is that if one person can get away with it, others will see this and say why not me too? There are so many corporate policies at companies that exist for the express purpose of preventing this sort of death spiral.

You know why the wealthy don't want all that shit? Because they are wealthy. They got that way because they saved and lived well within their means. Most millionaires in the USA are there because they live everyday lifestyles based around a 70-100k salary, but make more than that and stock that cash away for retirement and their children. Why build a new house for 250k when I have one and can renovate it with things I want for something like 20k? It makes a hell of a lot better financial sense to go the 20k route unless for some reason I wanted a new location. Banks never should have been lending out as much as they did in the first place, they took a gamble and it bit them in the ass. As a result banks aren't doing that anymore, they are keeping lending well within tolerance so they don't get burned again.

We are taxed when we earn money (AKA Convert a service to currency) and when we spend money (AKA Convert currency to a good/service/asset). You have no grounds to tax me again for maintaining an asset of a specific type.


RE: Budget?
By Dr of crap on 9/18/2012 10:09:25 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed.
All they even talk about is the debt.
We NEVER pay it back. It's always out there. And it always will be.

Paying it back only comes up during an election, then it's forgot about.


RE: Budget?
By Dradien on 9/17/12, Rating: 0
RE: Budget?
By Flunk on 9/17/2012 2:59:45 PM , Rating: 3
That's the biggest problem with the American Tax system right there, capital gains are considered income in almost all other countries, E.G. Canada.


RE: Budget?
By topkill on 9/17/2012 4:01:55 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you!!! Why do we pretend that Capital Gains are like magic fairy dust? If you make money, you pay taxes on it. End of story.


RE: Budget?
By KCjoker on 9/17/2012 6:07:41 PM , Rating: 5
Well perhaps you might want to consider why we want to create an incentive for the rich people to invest money? If the Capital Gains taxes are increased then less people will invest. Then you have a more stagnet economy. Our economy is already stagnent as it is...you want it to become even more stagnent? BRILLIANT!!!


RE: Budget?
By SpartanJet on 9/17/2012 6:41:22 PM , Rating: 2
Can you explain why the gap between the top 1% and the bottom has been rising ever since we have given these noble people incentives and tax breaks. They aren't the "job creators" and the investments they make are to *gasp* make themselves more money not help America.

Its the middle class that drives the economy, that creates jobs, and makes the country healthy. Only demand creates jobs, not rich people who will use their wealth to become more wealthy (or dodge more taxes to become more wealthy ask Mitt how BAIN dodged taxes). These past 12 years should have driven that lesson home.


RE: Budget?
By PontiusP on 9/17/2012 8:48:22 PM , Rating: 2
During that same time period, government spending has gone through the roof.

Do you ever find yourself puzzled that no matter how much we spend in an effort to equalize outcomes, the gap widens?

Have you ever thought that maybe the gap is not in spite of government spending, but *because* of government spending?


RE: Budget?
By lagomorpha on 9/17/2012 8:13:07 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
If the Capital Gains taxes are increased then less people will invest.


If the income taxes are increase then less people will work.

Oh wait, that's not how things work!


RE: Budget?
By Schrag4 on 9/18/2012 1:53:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If the income taxes are increase then less people will work.

Oh wait, that's not how things work!


Actually, that is how things work. Do you really need someone to paint you a picture? Sorry if you're being sarcastic...


RE: Budget?
By Paj on 9/18/2012 7:32:00 AM , Rating: 1
Rich people keep all their money in offshore accounts or investments - that way they dont have to pay tax on it. They do this because they can.

The idea that all rich people are benevolent philanthropists who go around starting new businesses and creating jobs every time they get a raise is laughable. Some are, sure. But most are in it for themselves.

It's the people on median incomes that are the most important drivers of the economy. What's good for them is good for the economy, as they do the most spending.


RE: Budget?
By MZperX on 9/18/2012 12:49:40 PM , Rating: 2
My goodness this was painful to read. Now here's someone with a Kindergarten level understanding of economics:

quote:
Rich people keep all their money in offshore accounts or investments - that way they dont have to pay tax on it. They do this because they can.

Are you serious? The sheer ignorance dripping from this statement makes me wonder how old you are. So, in your mind the "rich" are just hoarding money in these mythical offshore accounts and what, piling it up? Are they also bathing in the money like that duck in the cartoons? Tell us more about what the evil rich do with their money. Since you know how it's done what's preventing you from doing the same?

Or, since you seem to just make $hit up as you go, why don't you stop posting nonsense and let the adults discuss the issue? Who knows, you might learn something...


RE: Budget?
By Paj on 9/19/2012 8:05:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So, in your mind the "rich" are just hoarding money in these mythical offshore accounts and what, piling it up?


Of course they do. Ever heard of a tax haven? Luxembourg, Bermuda, Canary Islands? Estimates of tax revenue lost in the US alone start at 70B.

It's the main reason why Bermuda is one of the highest GDP/capita figures in the world. Globalisation of finance means that the wealthy can put their money wherever they want - overseas property, accounts, whatever. None of it is subject to tax in their home country.

Its one of the things the US FACTA Act, signed in 2010, is trying to address.

http://www.economist.com/node/8695139?story_id=869...


RE: Budget?
By Schrag4 on 9/18/2012 2:03:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's the people on median incomes that are the most important drivers of the economy. What's good for them is good for the economy , as they do the most spending.


Have you ever stopped to consider that lowering taxes on "rich people" can actually help the middle class? Even if you can't see how that's possible, I'd like to hear why you think it would have the opposite effect.

Here's a hint. I'd love to see my middle-class taxes reduced. I'd ALSO love to see taxes reduced for my employer as well. The reasons should be pretty obvious.


RE: Budget?
By Paj on 9/19/2012 8:13:48 AM , Rating: 2
Why does everyone think that every rich person is rich because of hard graft, a savvy business mind and strong work ethics? There are just as many effete, pampered morons, born into money who havent worked a day in their life and have no need to work at all. Just as there are people who game the entitlements system for their own benefit, there are plenty of poor people who work harder than anyone just to make ends meet.

Saying that all rich people are wealth creators is like saying that all poor people are scroungers. Its a generalisation, and while true in some cases, it is simplistic viewpoint. I suppose I am guilty of this as anyone else.

I think the US would benefit from lower corporate taxes, which will allow companies to keep a greater share of their profits and re invest them into the company, creating new jobs. Also, a progressive tax system, like the one used in Australia, will ensure the tax burden is spread across income brackets more easily.


RE: Budget?
By Schrag4 on 9/20/2012 12:19:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why does everyone think that every rich person is rich because of hard graft, a savvy business mind and strong work ethics?


I'm not sure how you got that from my post. All I was trying to make people think about was the fact that a tax cut to my employer can be a good thing for me and an added tax on my employer can be a bad thing for me.

I'd like to also point out that a tax cut on middle and lower classes can also be a good thing for "rich people" whose businesses might see more revenue as a result. I'm not advocating for tax cuts for the rich, I'm advocating for tax cuts for everyone.

quote:
There are just as many effete, pampered morons, born into money who havent worked a day in their life and have no need to work at all. Just as there are people who game the entitlements system for their own benefit, there are plenty of poor people who work harder than anyone just to make ends meet.


First, I'm not sure why you bring up rich pampered morons or people who game the entitlement system. That's just class warefare. Just because you don't like that somone has more than you doesn't mean you should be able to take it away from them, whether they inherited it or worked for it.

Second, I keep hearing how poor people work SO hard to make ends meet. This seems to suggest that the poorer you are, the harder you likely work, and I just don't think that reflects reality. I'm middle-class and I work pretty hard. I also acknowledge that if I made more than 250k per year running my own business (and therefore would be classified as "rich" by Obama, deserving tax hikes) then I'd probably work TWICE AS MANY HOURS - like 80-100 hours per week instead of 40-50. Does that mean all rich people work hard? Of course not, but neither do all poor people.

quote:
Saying that all rich people are wealth creators is like saying that all poor people are scroungers. Its a generalisation, and while true in some cases, it is simplistic viewpoint. I suppose I am guilty of this as anyone else.


I never said anything to this effect. I'm glad, though, that you can see you're guilty of simplistic generalization. You seem to have an open mind - that's not very common.


RE: Budget?
By JPForums on 9/18/2012 2:10:53 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The idea that all rich people are benevolent philanthropists who go around starting new businesses and creating jobs every time they get a raise is laughable. Some are, sure. But most are in it for themselves.
So you believe it is the middle class that create jobs? No wait it must be the poor.

No, rich people are not all benevolent philanthropists. However, there's really no need for them to be. Here's a very basic (read very simplified and generalized) run down since you seem a little out of the loop. In general, jobs are created to facilitate making products or delivering services. Money to pay for those jobs come from people willing to invest in the necessary workforce to make or deliver said products and services. People are willing to invest because there is some benefit to their investment. Only people with spare assets can invest. See how their own self interest contributes to the making of your job.

In conclusion, contrary to what was stated in an earlier post, it is the rich that create jobs. While it is true that significantly less than 100% of their spare cash goes to investments, they still tend to invest far more than the middle class or the poor. Eventually successful businesses become self sustaining (I.E. Supermarkets), but it took an initial investment by people with enough money to get it going long enough to reach that point. Further, without further investments for marketing, R&D, renovations, ect., even self sustaining businesses can stagnate and fail.
quote:
It's the people on median incomes that are the most important drivers of the economy. What's good for them is good for the economy, as they do the most spending.
Yes the middle class spends the most money in aggregate. However, a much higher percentage of the money spent goes to products and services rather than investments. The money goes back into the business and, if handle properly, contributes to the businesses sustainability. However, it is generally investments into the business that help expand it and create new jobs.

Do all businessmen deserve the salaries and bonuses they get? I'd say no, but that's really for the people who are paying their salary to decide. Incorporated companies have a board of directors to decide whether the company is being handled appropriately. Owners of private businesses deserve every bit of profit they get (legally). They put the money into it and the have the right to make money off of their investment same as anyone else. For that matter, the same can be said for any investor.

Should the rich pay their fair share of taxes? Absolutely, they are just as responsible for contributing to the running of the country as anyone else.

Should they be taxes obscenely high tax rates (I saw a suggestion for 70% above)? Absolutely not. I never understood why people think that the rich should have a disproportionately higher tax burden just because they have more money. They are often better off because they invested wisely and got good returns on their investments. Good returns generally means a successful (probably growing) business. This in turn has a high correlation with job creation and/or higher wages. Why take money from those doing the most good.

Are businessmen benevolent philanthropists? Once again, no, but chances are nearing 100% that neither is anyone who reads this post. The beauty of capitalism is that you don't need them to be. Their own self interest plays right into the system, creating a beneficial situation for multiple parties. Yes, abuses take place, but they are usually illegal, and thus an issue for law enforcement, not taxes.


RE: Budget?
By Paj on 9/19/2012 9:02:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So you believe it is the middle class that create jobs? No wait it must be the poor.


Jobs are created by businesses and government, not individuals. If a company has a good year, they get more money, and will hire more staff. Individuals don't tend to go around starting new businesses every time they get a payrise.

Jobs are also created by the government - public services, education, healthcare, defense, infrastructure projects. These are funded by taxation.

quote:
Money to pay for those jobs come from people willing to invest in the necessary workforce to make or deliver said products and services.


Businesses borrow money from banks, not people. Startups might get investments from individuals, but most businesses don't.

Guess what - the government creates a lot of jobs too!

quote:
However, a much higher percentage of the money spent goes to products and services rather than investments.


And these products and services earn the business more money, which allows them to hire more workers. I've never worked for a company that regularly receives 'investments' from random rich people. They might get a bank loan, if they're lucky, but a businesses' success depends on demand for its goods and services. If that demand goes away, and loans cannot be obtained, then the business suffers, people get fired.

quote:
Should they be taxes obscenely high tax rates (I saw a suggestion for 70% above)? Absolutely not. I never understood why people think that the rich should have a disproportionately higher tax burden just because they have more money. They are often better off because they invested wisely and got good returns on their investments.


I also think 70% is too much. I think the problem is the tax system in the US isn't progressive enough - there should be a more gradual increase in the tax paid as income rises.

This is just silly:
25% tax rate: $33,951 – $82,250
28% tax rate: $82,251 – $171,550

I think tax breaks should be given to small businesses to allow them to hire more staff.


RE: Budget?
By senecarr on 9/18/2012 12:12:14 PM , Rating: 3
That's overtly simplistic. Taxation will leave someone with less to re-invest after they make the money. Capital gains happen AFTER you've already invested and are cashing out the gains.
That it would cause people to stop investing is just silly though. What are investors going to just sit on money that inflation will gradually destroy the value of? Of course not. If rich people actually thought that way, none of them would get rich, they'd all be far too risk averse. To paraphrase Warren Buffet, "I can't afford NOT to invest my money."


RE: Budget?
By Mint on 9/18/2012 12:26:59 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately, that's exactly what they're doing right now. In fact, they've always saved more than they've invested (treasuries plus bank savings), but it was okay because the bank could lend it back out. Now they can't find enough safe lending opportunities to keep up, hence $2T in excess reserves.


RE: Budget?
By Mint on 9/18/2012 12:14:16 PM , Rating: 2
Right now there is no shortage of wealth to invest. $10T in public treasuries, $10T in bank deposits, all earning negative real interest. They don't invest because there's no demand. Until public+private consumption looks good in the long term, they won't invest in new production.

For any desired target deficit, reducing gov't spending to lower taxes for the rich doesn't do anything unless they spend/invest ALL of it or the bank can safely lend out what is saved, none of which will happen in this climate.


RE: Budget?
By Jaybus on 9/17/2012 4:23:52 PM , Rating: 3
One of the reasons that this sounds good to so many people is that it only (directly) affects so few. The 2009 data is freely available from the IRS at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/09in23ar.xls. For 2009, those making more than $1 million had a combined AGI of $375.4 billion and paid $94.2 billion in taxes. If we taxed them 100% of all they made, instead of 25%, it would gain the federal government $281.2 billion.

The problem is, taxing the wealthy at 100% would drop the deficit from $1.3 down to $1.0 trillion. There simply isn't enough wealthy people for it to make nearly enough difference. It's a lie by omission perpetrated by would be Robin Hood politicians.

Simple really. The logical thing to reduce is the nearly $2 trillion in entitlements. But since politicians are not about to do that for fear of losing votes, they are begrudgingly willing to cut funding for research, since that will affect a far, far smaller group of voters.


RE: Budget?
By PontiusP on 9/17/2012 4:43:07 PM , Rating: 2
I've tried to explain those same numbers to idealistic, pro tax liberals, and they completely fail to get it. Trying to explain it to the dimwits on this board is also a futile attempt.

So many people in this country need so much re-education, it's sad.


RE: Budget?
By Ammohunt on 9/17/2012 5:38:47 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed, this is the product of classism; like "Rich" people are the royalty of past centuries and somehow have all the gold in the world locked up in some vault and can pay everything off Scrooge Mcduck style.

Any and all wealth they own exists only as a portion of the commonly accepted value of the/a economy measured in currency. If and when that currency is worth 0 rich people become poor people... *See "The Great Depression" circa 1930ies, Zimbabwe circa 2008

Honestly this is basic economics do they even teach this anywhere any more?


RE: Budget?
By Mint on 9/18/2012 12:50:31 PM , Rating: 1
The income gap is not just about those making $1M+. You can raise plenty of taxes off the top 20% or more.

Cutting entitlements will contract the economy. People in the lower 2-3 quintiles spend almost all their income, and from there, the more you make, the less you consume/invest. That means all entitlement cuts will reduce demand and result in job losses.

You could boot out all the "lazy sponges" from the US, but all you get is lower demand from removal of their consumption, ensuing layoffs, and you're back to square one. There's no shortage of willing workers compared to the past, and no shortage of money to invest.


RE: Budget?
By JPForums on 9/18/2012 2:54:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
People in the lower 2-3 quintiles spend almost all their income, and from there, the more you make, the less you consume/invest. That means all entitlement cuts will reduce demand and result in job losses.
First, consumption and investment are two very different forms of spending. To be clear, investments have more to do with job creation than consumption as most of the consumption dollars go to covering the cost of the product or service.

Second, do you really think the bottom 40% consumes/invests more than the top 60%? Perhaps you meant proportionately, but even that is only true of consumption. Investment tends to go up with income. However, it is the absolute amount spent, not what proportion of your income it makes up, that matters to a business (and thus, job creation). If the bottom 40% have to spend their entire income to make ends meet, then the upper 60% will spend at the very least an equivalent amount to make their ends meet.

Third, how can reduction of entitlements reduce demand? If you are spending 100% of your income on consumables and you get less from entitlements, then you are still going to spend 100% of your income. There may be a shift in what you buy (I.E. less money into electronics, more into food), but getting less will not make you need/want less. It will make you need/want more. Any money you receive from entitlements is neutral (or possibly negative) to the economy as a small increase in your expenditures due to entitlement requires a larger reduction in an others expenditures as some of the money goes to collection, administration, ect.


RE: Budget?
By Mint on 9/19/2012 11:22:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
First, consumption and investment are two very different forms of spending. To be clear, investments have more to do with job creation than consumption as most of the consumption dollars go to covering the cost of the product or service.
You cannot have investment without consumption to back it up. Investment is done precisely for the purpose of getting a share of future production (to satisfy consumption). If consumption goes down, so will investment.

quote:
Perhaps you meant proportionately, but even that is only true of consumption. Investment tends to go up with income.
Of course I meant proportionately. The latter is irrelevant, as there's no shortage of capital looking for investment opportunities, so reduced taxes for the rich will only increase savings, not investment. Only increased consumption will increase investment. Labor is cheaper and more mobile than ever, and financing is cheap with $10T+ earning negative real interest. The only constraint is demand.
quote:
Third, how can reduction of entitlements reduce demand? If you are spending 100% of your income on consumables and you get less from entitlements, then you are still going to spend 100% of your income.
What's your point? 100% of $5k/yr is less than 100% of $2k/yr. If any of those entitlement savings go to people that don't spend 100% of that (or, in reducing the deficit, results in some rich entity putting money in a bank instead of a gov't treasury, i.e. spending 0%), it will reduce demand.


RE: Budget?
By Dradien on 9/17/2012 4:44:50 PM , Rating: 3
You know, this is so ignorant. I've heard this line of thinking so many time...

"If we tax them at 100%, it won't fix the problem, so why tax them at all?"

Well, it's a good thing NO ONE proposes that, at all. NO one says tax 100% of their income and that's all. It's an annual rate of a certain amount. If we tax them 25% for 4 years, it's more then taking everything at once, and they're still rich!

It's funny how you say "Simple Really.", but in all reality, you have not a grasp on anything you're saying.

In your figure, you also forgot all the money corporations are hoarding in tax havens.

But then again, as taxation as we are suggesting is a year on year thing, and not a one time take all thing as the strawman goes, I'll just leave you to your devices to ponder more strawmen.


RE: Budget?
By Solandri on 9/17/2012 5:03:09 PM , Rating: 2
Shifting taxes to corporations accomplishes nothing. GDP is the sum total of the productivity of all the people in the country. If you wish to divert 30% of it to the government via taxes, then that's what's going to happen. Whether taxes are 30% personal income, 0% corporate; or 0% personal income, 30% corporate doesn't matter. It's still 30% of total productivity.

Put another way, if you shifted the entire 30% tax burden of the country to corporations, people would not magically get 30% more money to spend (money is a representation of productivity which we can swap and trade). Corporations would raise prices and/or cut wages to compensate, and the net result is amount of stuff you could buy with your money would be exactly the same as it currently is.

The only way to make something out of nothing (increase average real income) is to improve productivity. Shifting taxes from one place to another does not improve productivity.


RE: Budget?
By Dradien on 9/17/2012 7:38:57 PM , Rating: 3
No, it does not. Do you know what does? People doing jobs, which in turn is created when people have more purchasing power. As it is, a few people have most the money in the country, and it does no good just sitting in bank accounts doing nothing but making rich people richer.

If that wealth were to be where it should be, and we had a strong middle class, people would have more purchasing power, which in turn would increase demand and increase production jobs, service jobs, etc etc.


RE: Budget?
By Reclaimer77 on 9/17/12, Rating: -1
RE: Budget?
By shin0bi272 on 9/18/2012 2:44:46 PM , Rating: 2
Shhh you're introducing logic into an argument of a communist... it will cause his head to asplode.


RE: Budget?
By mattclary on 9/18/2012 11:20:39 AM , Rating: 2
Since reading is hard and stuff, here is a video for you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ


RE: Budget?
By Jaybus on 9/18/2012 2:10:19 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps you should look up the meaning of the word ignorant, Dradien. How many times will you have to hear this line of reasoning before you look up the numbers for yourself? If you have devised a means of eliminating the $1.3 trillion deficit by taxing the $375 billion AGI of the wealthy (those who make $1 million or more per year), then please enlighten us.

In fact, let's lump the middle class in with the wealthy and define this group as those who make $100 k or more per year. In 2009 this group made $2.01 trillion. They paid $334.6 billion in taxes, leaving them with $1.676 trillion. The deficit is $1.3 trillion. Taking that out of this group's AGI in order to not increase taxes on those making less than $100k leaves them with $376 billion. That means 90% of their AGI would have to be paid in taxes.

If everyone making over $100k paid 90% of their AGI then the budget would be balanced. Since AGI is adjusted gross income BEFORE any itemized deductions, this means allowing no deductions whatsoever and increasing both the income tax rate and capital gains rate to 90%.

Explain to me why anyone should think that this level of spending is in any way sustainable. Deciding what to cut is not so simple, but deciding that spending cuts are absolutely unavoidable is quite simple.


RE: Budget?
By Ammohunt on 9/17/2012 2:07:22 PM , Rating: 3
or you reduce or eliminate the capital gains taxes, reduce excessive regulations on employers set a fixed percentage flat tax on everyone!, set an end date on unemployment insurance/welfare benefits and reap the benefits of millions of new new taxpayers, low unemployment and reduced cost of living and savings from welfare payouts.


RE: Budget?
By TheJian on 9/18/2012 2:09:23 AM , Rating: 2
Hey...slow down there buddy...Quit making sense. How dare you ask people to go to work and pay taxes. We can just tax the rich 100% and get another 120billion which will more than cover out 1.3trillion deficit...wait a minute...My math isn't working out here. Taxing the rich even 100% won't even put a 10% dent in the deficit. UH OH. Something must be wrong here. Did some democrats just try to pull the wool over our eyes?...ROFL. WAKE UP people. Vote these fools out or go broke claiming taxing the rich will help. IT WON'T. Cut off unemployment benefits in 3 months and magically 75% of them will get a job a week later...LOL. I'm reminded of all the jobs John Stossel showed just around the block from the unemployment lines in his show.

One shop owner was offering NO EXP needed and 9 openings for that (dishwashers, waiters, front desk etc) and 3 upper level jobs. He couldn't get anyone to work (but lines around the block around the corner claiming there are no jobs "I just can't get a job"), and was losing money because of no help even offering to train workers completely. They're only interesting in the free check around the block until you cut them all off. There were hundreds of jobs just around the block (in a 5 block radius tons of businesses couldn't get workers). Hmmm..You do the math.


RE: Budget?
By Rukkian on 9/18/2012 10:59:25 AM , Rating: 2
You sir have either never been on unemployment, or are just being a troll. While there are people that abuse the system, which will always happen, there are also plenty of people that would much rather work. It is not always that easy to get a job.

Can you get a job as a dishwasher when you were a software engineer, possibly. Will it pay the bills and allow you actively search for another job, maybe not. You also have alot of places that will not hire somebody that they know will quit as soon as they can find a real job.


RE: Budget?
By stadisticado on 9/17/2012 2:07:35 PM , Rating: 2
Your math of course assumes a static revenue model. That is, you're assuming that the people in those income brackets won't make rational decisions (e.g. tax shelters, loopholes, expatriation) to avoid being taxed at those draconian rates. And even if all that revenue was actually captured, its still a drop in the bucket of the spending deficit.

No one wants to talk about it or admit it, but the only two options to close the deficit are a severe increase of taxes on the middle and lower classes (since the bottome 50% pays effectively negative taxes today), or a massive reduction in the size and scope of government across the board. Demonizing the rich will not solve the problem.


RE: Budget?
By FITCamaro on 9/17/2012 2:58:33 PM , Rating: 1
It's long been proven that raising taxes on job creators lowers revenues.

We have a spending problem. Not a collection problem. $2.2 TRILLION dollars should be plenty to run a government on. Even that is far too big if the government was constrained to the authority it has under the constitution.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, such as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and prosperity of the State"

~James Madison arguing FOR the constitution to be ratified


RE: Budget?
By Plazmid19 on 9/17/2012 3:33:34 PM , Rating: 2
I'm confused about the part about taxing job creators lowering revenue....

Are you trying to say that paying taxes cuts into bottom lines?

That if I paid less taxes, I would have more money to go home with...?

Preposterous!


RE: Budget?
By Dradien on 9/17/12, Rating: 0
RE: Budget?
By PontiusP on 9/17/2012 4:47:28 PM , Rating: 2
You just completely outed yourself as you became unhinged over a simple mention of the Constitution. Now that, is rich.

Go ahead and admit it. It causes you much pain to read the Constitution and see just how little it authorizes the Federal Government to do.


RE: Budget?
By madtruths on 9/17/2012 6:05:44 PM , Rating: 2
I am glad to see you guys supporting the Constitution, not that you never did or anything, just that it is being done.

All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
Edmund Burke

Now I am not calling other people on here "evil" but other than that it fits nicely.


RE: Budget?
By Ammohunt on 9/17/2012 5:44:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The simple fact of the matter is this. Any problem we argue about on here is bigger then we can ever comprehend, it's more complex then we can comprehend. The president - any president - has a cabinet, a set of advisers, for exactly this reason.


Funny what we have discussed here so far is basic free market economics. If you don't have a grasp of it that's OK! ignorance is curable!


RE: Budget?
By FITCamaro on 9/17/2012 5:55:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Again, evidence of this other then pulling crap from your ass?


quote:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


I bolded parts that people sometimes forget when looking at the surrounding or preceding statements.


RE: Budget?
By TheJian on 9/18/2012 2:51:18 AM , Rating: 1
Yeah, my 550 million spent on Solyndra went right back into the economy. Nevermind that 500 million spent on Fisker cars that light on fire either, never mind the fact they uprooted the second we found out Obama was going to do it again, and stopped it. They moved back to Finland, never built ONE car in USA. But hey were going to in 2013/2014 maybe. Honest. This guy running our country is an idiot. Then again, that's wrong. He's highly intelligent and is working to BREAK the usa economy and it's strength. He hates our success and our money, hence giving it away by the billions (even to egypt etc who can't be bothered to keep our ambassadors alive for 1.5Billion/year!). Soon we will have no more world economic power in the US as our dollar is becoming worthless, our credit being downgraded 2 times already (many more on the way until we can't pay the interest on new loans, and nobody will give it to us then anyway).

No sir, we don't get all the money back he's blowing. It's just LOST and WE (all of us) still OWE IT all. Rich people create jobs, or loan money to those who create them. Without their money, there is no jobs. If the rich are nervous, or not making much they don't loan it to us poor folks to start a business, buy a house etc. 3000 millionaires have left usa just this year. Get ready for more to exit. Why would you pay the usa 70% (or anywhere near that) when you can just go to ireland etc and pay 0-15%? These people are NOT dumb you know. I would leave too. It's common sense. Teachers earning 2x their peers for 50% failure. Yeah we can cut there. Cops making over $110000, chief making 315K etc. We can cut all over the place. Stop unemployment and suddenly things get really cheap. Stop all green crap and drill baby drill and watch jobs go through the roof. While Palin ran Alaska they had a $35bil cash account and were paying people $3300 per person (everyone in the state!) costing a mere $800 million, and still saving $8-10bil per year. EVery man woman and child got $3300 refund+rebate checks. ($2200 for the rebate, and $1100 for refunds). Oil breeds money. Which she merrily handed out hand over fist. A family of four in Alaska was getting $13500 before doing any work just from the oil profits!
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/05/nation/na-...

Mind you, LA Times is NOT a fan of Palin, but hard to argue with the math. Even republicans hated her for keeping them from spending it all...LOL. That's why neither side likes her, she's a saver not a spender, and they weren't too happy about her giving money back to the citizens either...ROFL. They all want to blow it. We would have been better off with Palin for President over obama. Her record doesn't lie. Meanwhile obama wastes on green crap and blocks oil permits right and left (blocks almost all...no matter what in favor of battery/windmill etc crap). Wasted opportunity while claiming he'll get us energy independent. Not unless he plans on drilling soon. Gas up over 100% since he took office over bush at $1.80. It's over $3.60 and has been for 4 years! Still want another 4 years people? We can't afford it. Palin's profits were about to grow even more, then fools barking about her just made it not worth the fight. We need people like here back in office! It didn't take a village to raise her 5 kids either! Hillary?...She wrote the book on it. Dems are clueless (so are the repubs that dislike her!). Until the rich feel safe they won't spend a dime on the rest of us. Quit making them nervous and maybe they'll start hiring again. Dems complain the rich don't pay their fair share, yet they are the ONLY ones paying much at all. Don't tell me the 50% not paying a freaking dime are paying their fair share. My sister gets her rebate every year and hasn't worked for 4...LOL. Never will until we kick her and the rest off either. NEVER. Collects that $850 a month (kid gets another $450) so together they get buy with no need to ever go back to work. They get food stamps too.

I'm paying for that crap. This is fair? I make ~50K and this pisses me off! It's unbelievable that dems can actually say the rich don't pay enough when 1/2 the country doesn't pay a freaking dime, and even get money back! 50% of the country is on some form of welfare. They pay NOTHING and get money monthly. FAIR? Are you smoking crack? 20million illegals about to get free medical and welfare on my dime? FAIR? Seriously? Throw them all out. I can't afford it and don't even care what it takes or what they lose on the way back home. Tough luck. I want MY MONEY that I earned. They deserve NOTHING from me. Thank god for Jan Brewer who allows them NOTHING in AZ. No welfare, no benefits etc, no teaching us all spanish etc... I love this woman :) We owe them nothing.


RE: Budget?
By Paj on 9/18/2012 12:43:44 PM , Rating: 2
This rant is amazing.

Palin as president would have been a disaster for America. She didnt know the map of the world, failed to name the leaders of several key countries, she even got North and South Korea confused. Her campaign was about as gaffe ridden as its possible to be, she would have made America a laughing stock.


RE: Budget?
By MZperX on 9/18/2012 1:21:14 PM , Rating: 2
While I'm not a huge fan of Palin I wonder what you mean when you say "She didnt know the map of the world..." Are you referring to something she specifically said or you're just making a blanket statement?

As for disastrous, a pretty solid case can be made that she would have been much less of a disaster than the Obama/Biden dynamic duo. You want to talk about gaffes, well Biden is the all time undisputed champion of foot-in-mouth. That man is so dumb and embarrassing that we can rarely see him in the wild. His handlers try to keep him under wraps most of the time lest he open his mouth and say something incredibly stupid. I bet Obama wishes they could just keep him a cage or something. The only thing he's good for, which is why Obama picked him, is an insurance policy against impeachment because no one in their right mind wants Biden to become president.

So "America being made a laughing stock" is pretty much a given with these two. Obama is a lightweight pushover that has no respect on the international stage, and Biden... well he's Biden. No further description needed.


RE: Budget?
By Rukkian on 9/17/2012 4:53:19 PM , Rating: 2
What I don't get is why is it only extremes? Why can't we have a solution that has many facets?

Reduce the size of government, drop entitlements and remove loopholes so everybody actually pays their fair share. You put all of this together and we probably could have a balanced budget. Instead everbody in the country seems to want to just point fingers and say I should only benefit from any changes and everybody else should loose out.

Lets get out of the partisan politics and actually comprimise. Neither side right now is right in my opinion and we are just getting more and more divided.


RE: Budget?
By Solandri on 9/17/2012 5:19:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What I don't get is why is it only extremes?

Because our two-party system exaggerates the power of the extremes. If we had a truly representative government, the average voice in Congress would be someone in the middle. Unfortunately, because of our two party system, the average voice is either moderately to strongly liberal, or moderately to strongly conservative, with almost nobody in the middle.

It's been mathematically proven that simple majority wins voting favors a two-party system. If the Liberterian candidate siphons votes from the Republican candidate, it improves the chances of the Democratic candidate. Or if the Green candidate siphons votes from the Democratic candidate, it improves the chances of the Republican candidate. So people who might vote Libertarian are pressured to vote Republican to defeat the Democrat. Or people who might vote Green are pressured to vote Democrat to defeat the Republican. So small parties lose votes to the two biggest parties, even though people may actually prefer the smaller party.

We need instant runoff voting to eliminate this two-party bias.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting


RE: Budget?
By Ammohunt on 9/17/2012 5:47:21 PM , Rating: 2
The only problem with that logic is its assumed that there is enough people that believe differently to make up an equal third for another party.


RE: Budget?
By Reclaimer77 on 9/17/2012 2:15:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Budgets are done in Washington?


Yes.

quote:
Raise the taxes of the "1%" to 70% you gain 80 billion a year. Raise the taxes of those making over $250,000 to the same and the IRS brings in 400 billion more a year.


First off, 500'ish billion wouldn't even make a dent in our debt. Secondly a 70% tax rate on the "1%" would have diminishing returns. As well as completely destroy our economy in the process.

quote:
In 2011, spending is $10.46 Billion per day. This is based on the projection of Federal Spending of $3.818 Trillion for the year.


Exactly, that's INSANE! So why are you proposing tax increases instead of spending decreases?


RE: Budget?
By anactoraaron on 9/17/2012 4:02:37 PM , Rating: 2
Don't all of these discussions seems silly to an extent? I mean, if we raise more income in taxes from ANY source be it by removing 'entitlement' programs, taxing those 'greedy' rich people (ahem the 'job creators') more, or by cutting programs, the end result is always the same.

Congress led by either party will say "gee we have freed up some money by *removing, cutting, taxing* so now we have the money to *give more tax cuts to ____, go to war, add/extend or add funding to 'entitlement' programs, change laws/tax code to provide 'kickback' to companies who funded election campaign, give everyone $1600, etc*." And thus the additional taxes/revenue gained is then spent + 25% additional since the fed gov't in incompetent at doing anything.

What there needs to be is some kind of legislation that forces congress to be accountable and always have a budget that doesn't overspend the revenue that comes in by making ANY budget illegal/invalid that doesn't reduce the deficit or at the very least keep the deficit from growing. Without that you will ALWAYS have whatever congress that is in overspending as there is no consequence in doing so.


RE: Budget?
By Solandri on 9/17/2012 5:37:55 PM , Rating: 3
Well the bigger problem is that Congress can't see the forest for the trees. When you talk about bulletproof vests for our soldiers, or subsidized medicine for grandma and grandpa, it all sounds good. Any individual budget item has merit. It's only when you add up the cost of it all that you find you're horribly over budget, and forced to decide what to cut.

Except the government doesn't have to cut. It controls the purse-strings of not just the country, but also the future of the country (it can borrow). So that's what it's been doing the last 40 years - borrowing and borrowing and borrowing.

quote:
What there needs to be is some kind of legislation that forces congress to be accountable and always have a budget that doesn't overspend the revenue that comes in by making ANY budget illegal/invalid that doesn't reduce the deficit or at the very least keep the deficit from growing.

No, that's too restrictive. The government does play a role in stabilizing the business boom/bust cycle. But to do that it needs the freedom to spend when the economy (and hence revenue) is down. Unfortunately, it hasn't had the self-control to pay back when the economy is booming.

There are lots of engineering models for dealing with systems like this. You can use a sliding window, which gives you the freedom to spend more than you take in short-term, while making sure it's enforced long-term. Or you can construct a feedback control system which is out of phase with the economy, thus helping stabilize it (slow it down when it's booming, stimulate it when it's in recession). But I think there's only a couple engineers in congress. Most everyone there is a lawyer, which usually means they sucked at math so went into a different field where math wasn't as important.

The best easy-to-understand system I could think of which might work is for Congress to first set a budget for the year. "The IRS says we're going to get $x tax revenue this year. How much are we going to spend?" No debate about the individual programs at this point, first set an overall spending target.

Once that target is agreed upon, take the previous year's budget and convert each item into percentages. Multiply this year's overall target by those percentages, and you have what each individual program will get as a budget this year. Now from this point on, if you want to add $y to an individual program's budget, it must be linked to a $y cut in other program(s).

That insures you stay within the overall spending target. And it eliminates the silly campaign ads which say "my opponent wants to kill kittens by cutting funding for animal control." Each budget increase is linked to an identical budget cut, turning into a straightforward A/B comparison - is program A more worthy of funding than program B?


RE: Budget?
By FITCamaro on 9/17/2012 2:54:59 PM , Rating: 4
You also completely kill the economy.

What small business would want to be in business only to keep just 30% of their income. My sister and her husband sure wouldn't.


RE: Budget?
By Plazmid19 on 9/17/2012 3:49:31 PM , Rating: 2
Yea,

Businesses are bad. Who wants to make a profit anyway?

Not to say that some businesses aren't completely greedy and stomp on employees, but not all.

Why would I, as a business owner, or anyone for that matter, want to have a little extra money to put my kids through college, buy the things I want, or go on vacation? And know that I earned the money myself, and didn't need (or want) help to get it.

Nay, I for one would be extremely honored to give up all of my profits to Uncle Sam, who graciously let me keep 2% after I pledged it all.


RE: Budget?
By Dradien on 9/17/2012 4:50:04 PM , Rating: 2
You are aware that PROFITS are taxed, not revenue, right?

And come on, be a little less hyperbolic. Your tax rate is way less, ANYONES is way less then 98%.


RE: Budget?
By Plazmid19 on 9/17/2012 6:08:58 PM , Rating: 2
Dradien,

I could be less hyperbolic, but I was trying to make a philosophic point.

Businesses should be able to keep a good share of their profits, in my opinion, beyond basic revenue. If all you are doing is just breaking even, there isn't much incentive.

I'm keeping this within the bounds of small to mid-sized domestic companies, not the large internationals.

The balance should come in the form of continued business. If you charge too much or you don't treat your employees with respect, you go out of business. You shouldn't have to worry about being taxed to death or being bullied out of business because the larger businesses can get better tax deals. (And give better prices)

The argument should be in the fairness and equity of the tax. We all need to contribute. Why should businesses have to contribute more money? Especially when they provide jobs and services.

If you start taxing any entity at a higher rate, you are encouraging them to do many things.
-Level profits so you don't have to pay higher rates, which
--lowers the ambitions of businesses
--Discourages head-count increases to meet the status q
-Look for places with better tax rates
-Hide data

If the tax code is simple and fair, if you make more money, the amount you pay goes up by the simple %, not a bracket that punishes for success.

Ask yourself,
Would you be happy paying a higher tax rate? Ever?


RE: Budget?
By Dradien on 9/17/2012 7:57:02 PM , Rating: 2


Dradien,

"I could be less hyperbolic, but I was trying to make a philosophic point." But we're not arguing philosophic points.

"Businesses should be able to keep a good share of their profits, in my opinion, beyond basic revenue. If all you are doing is just breaking even, there isn't much incentive."

Business are keeping a good share of their profits. In my opinion, more then they do, due to absurd tax loopholes.

"I'm keeping this within the bounds of small to mid-sized domestic companies, not the large internationals."

Problem with this is nothing really is small and mid-sized anymore. It's a world economy, no two ways around it.

"The balance should come in the form of continued business. If you charge too much or you don't treat your employees with respect, you go out of business. You shouldn't have to worry about being taxed to death or being bullied out of business because the larger businesses can get better tax deals. (And give better prices)"

You're being hyperbolic again. No company is ever taxed to death. Companies are taxed on profits, not revenue. Not to mention they can deduct some of the costs of business and whatnot.

"The argument should be in the fairness and equity of the tax. We all need to contribute. Why should businesses have to contribute more money? Especially when they provide jobs and services."

They contribute the same percentage-wise (often less) as the rest of us. And the jobs and services? They use the pre-existing infrastructure put there by tax-payers.

And while they provide jobs and all, it's a symbiotic relationship. They couldn't exist without the jobs that the people do, and the people prosper (sometimes) from the jobs offered, and the local economy (sometimes) flourshes, which allows people to buy the stuff the """JOB CREATOR""" makes.

"If you start taxing any entity at a higher rate, you are encouraging them to do many things.
-Level profits so you don't have to pay higher rates, which
--lowers the ambitions of businesses
--Discourages head-count increases to meet the status q
-Look for places with better tax rates
-Hide data"

You see, history doesn't agree with you here, neither does actual data. And it's pretty goddamn terrible your arguement boils down to "Don't tax the business more, they might hide the money!." So in essence, don't piss off the JOB CREATORS!

"If the tax code is simple and fair, if you make more money, the amount you pay goes up by the simple %, not a bracket that punishes for success."

How does progressive taxation punish success? Give me one more example.

"Ask yourself,
Would you be happy paying a higher tax rate? Ever?" Sure would. I wouldn't mind, because I would be investing in my and my childrens futures, and ensures that I'm doing my part in making this country a better place for all.


RE: Budget?
By Plazmid19 on 9/18/2012 4:17:13 PM , Rating: 2
Hello Dradien,

There is no need to be overly rude.

And I would have to disagree with you on the "There is no small or medium-sized" anymore. The world economy, at least the way I see it, is more in reference to what markets you have access to. My reference was to the size of the company, not the potential market size.

I ran a consulting firm for a while, and it was a business of one. Can't get much smaller than that. And I found it very difficult to turn a profit, so much so I got out of the business. I got raked over the coals on my tax returns because of the very high rates imposed on self-employed persons (You have to pay the full rates on SSA and Medicare). And the brackets can be very punishing if you are right on the edges.

If you wouldn't mind, can you list some of your reference material that you use for your historical data and bracket references? I'm all for a debate, but unless you have days to devote to research, you leave me at a disadvantage.

I can't understand how progressive tax rates don't punish. At least to me, they seem to. I've held many jobs, and have made various amounts in salary or hourly rates, and it has been very dissatisfying to me to make more, but actually take home less. Especially as a contractor or self-employed, since you don't have as many options available, such as a 401(k). And for me, that has entailed a bit of anger and bitterness since the government (both Fed and State) were the ones who walked away with my money. The only thing I did wrong was make more. It was actually more beneficial for me to make less. (And yes, I spent days figuring out what rates got me the most take-home pay.) Oddly, this goes against the natural drive to make more money. I would argue that the brackets do affect you psychologically and discourage success to a degree. I now am not as quick to take that higher hourly rate.

I would wager that you will mind later on about the higher tax rates. At least I mind.

I like debating with you. And there is nothing wrong with injecting philosophic points, because a great deal of this debate has a lot to do with the philosophy of taxation. Not just raw mechanics.

-Plaz


RE: Budget?
By Ammohunt on 9/18/2012 4:57:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If all you are doing is just breaking even, there isn't much incentive.


This sums it all up and applies to workers in America. I make a pretty nice salary in IT and as it goes up i get punished with taxes for being successful. Right now my plan is to get as debt free as possible so that my family an i can live comfortably on a lower salary and perhaps even join the 47% of American that pay no federal income tax.


RE: Budget?
By Plazmid19 on 9/18/2012 9:33:04 PM , Rating: 2
That was what I tried to make a point of.

Why would you pour tons of effort and energy into a business that didn't make any profit? If that were the case, we would all work for "the man."

I tried to start a business because I wanted to break out of the rut of just making enough to make ends meet. It almost cost me, because I wasn't prepared for the taxes you get stuck with if you are already working. Holy cow that was a wake-up call. Luckily, I am very careful with my savings and had a cushion (not that I saved it for taxes). That, my friend, was that.

There is a fundamental problem when you make more, you get walloped with extra taxes that exceed the amount you gained.

I can also speak from experience that capital gains hurt too. I tried to get out of the rut by investing, only to get nailed by taxes that pretty much reduced the nice 9% profit I made on that to about 2%. It doesn't just affect "The Rich." If I'm considered rich, wow. The sad part is that this practice also discourages me from investing. You are pretty much left with banks. And their rates are abysmal.

This situation is very discouraging, and you feel stuck in a hole. This doesn't seem like the "Freedom for All" our forefather's envisioned. More like Animal Farm. All are equal until you make more money and we call you rich, then we will tax you until you are not rich. Which, seems like the S word. And that model has some serious drawbacks if you look at those who tried.

-Plaz


RE: Budget?
By Dradien on 9/17/2012 4:15:13 PM , Rating: 2
Now you're being intentionally dense and baiting, or you have literally no idea how tax brackets work.

Also, if it kills the economy, how come it wasn't sunk in the WW2 era of 70 to 90% top marginal tax brackets?


RE: Budget?
By Ammohunt on 9/17/2012 3:49:20 PM , Rating: 2
Great idea free lesson for you watch what happens in France now that they have implemented a %75 tax rate on the "Rich". See Socialist like the current French Government and the Obama Administration(and 99% of college grads for that matter) have no idea how wealth is generated like its an infinite regenerating resource to be tapped and pumped into a failing socialist economy. France is quickly heading towards becoming another Greece; watch in next few months/years as all the remaining wealth leaves France. Do you think millions of middle eastern,African immigrants and poor French people will be able to sustain any semblance of an economy in France? Have you ever got a job from a poor person?


RE: Budget?
By Plazmid19 on 9/17/2012 3:53:53 PM , Rating: 2
Not to worry!

France can just pull out of the Euro if Germany doesn't bail them out! Problem solved....

Just like Greece.......


RE: Budget?
By JediJeb on 9/17/2012 6:52:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Raise the taxes of the "1%" to 70% you gain 80 billion a year. Raise the taxes of those making over $250,000 to the same and the IRS brings in 400 billion more a year.


And when you tax someone making $251,000 dollars per year they now owe $175,700 in taxes which only leaves them $75,300 dollars per year in income. If that is how it will be, many people will begin turning down any promotions that would push them above $249,999 in annual salary since even if you are taxed at 35% at that rate you would owe $87,499.65 in taxes and if you make $250,001 you would then owe $175,000.7 in taxes. That effectively lowers you earnings from $162,499.35 per year to $75,000.30 per year, which makes a $2 increase in salary cost you $100,000.40 in income. I think I would turn down a raise that cost me $100k per year, and I imagine many others would also.

Why is it that people feel that anyone who works hard and is industrious enough to make money automatically owes everyone else money or inherits the responsibility of supporting our government? Our government is here to serve every person who is a citizen of the United States of America not just the rich or the poor or any group, everyone means everyone. Since the government is here to serve everyone, then everyone has a responsibility to contribute to the government. A "fair" system would require everyone to contribute equally, not some contribute heavily and some not at all. If we set a tax on personal income, capital gains, inheritance, business profits and everything else at 10%, I wonder how far that would go to making the budget more balanced? That would be a tax across the board, if you make $1 you owe $0.10 if you make $1,000,000 you owe $100,000. No deductions, no loopholes, no outs of any kind. Also it should include a tax on every type of payment a person receives even government assistance checks. If people always receive money from the government and never see any taken out then they become jaded to just how it feels to be taxed so tax everything.

Nobody, absolutely nobody is entitled to something for nothing, no matter how much people want to believe in Robin Hood economics/politics. Believe me, if and when there is ever a total collapse of the world economics, everyone will be effected and those who have been shielded from that reality by the entitlement society will be the ones in for the worse shock. Many think the rich will be the ones shaken the most by a collapse, but if you think about it most of them know what it is like to work for what they have, and those on the bottom who work and refuse entitlement money also know this, but those who have begun to live and rely on the entitlement money will be devastated once that disappears.

In a previous post a few months back I ran the numbers and even a large percentage tax increase(%35 more than current levels) on the rich, even counting those making over $35,000 per year as rich makes little more than a dent in the deficit yet making a modest increase of about 10% on every single wage earner down to the least of us makes a huge difference in income to the Federal government. To make the point, if the budget deficit was only $1 billion you have to charge 1000 billionaires $1 billion in taxes to cover it. We don't have 1000 billionaires in the country I believe. If you take all people who earn over $1 million dollars per year, you must tax one million of them $1 million dollars to cover the shortfall in the budget. Do we have one million millionaires in the country right now? IF we have ten million people who could afford to pay $100,000 in taxes this year then we could cover this years budget shortfall, but what about next year and the year after? How long could we charge those people $100,000 in taxes and they still be able to pay it?

The only solution is the one nobody wants to accept, that everyone needs to pay a fair share to keep this government going. Also we need to cut way back on the scope of the government and it's services to help get us out of this hole we have gotten into.

Put a person on the ballot who is willing to make the hard decisions and cuts needed to turn this country around and I will vote for him. Someone not worried about a political career or popularity but about serving this nation and I will be first in line to cast my vote, even if it may be painful to me economically. I don't mind a little pain if it will do some good in the end. Just like pulling a tooth is painful when it is done, the end result is much less suffering than to simply try to ignore the problem!


RE: Budget?
By PontiusP on 9/17/2012 8:54:14 PM , Rating: 2
Such a person is already on the ballot. In fact two of them. Ron Paul and Gary Johnson.


RE: Budget?
By Ammohunt on 9/18/2012 5:02:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If that is how it will be, many people will begin turning down any promotions that would push them above $249,999 in annual salary since even if you are taxed at 35% at that rate you would owe $87,499.65 in taxes and if you make $250,001 you would then owe $175,000.7 in taxes.


That's exactly what happened in the UK when the instituted a 50% tax on salaries above 250k pounds sterling i think it was. the top salaries were adjusted to right below the high water mark equalling 0 in new tax revenue for the UK stupid labor party.


RE: Budget?
By EricMartello on 9/17/2012 9:14:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Budgets are done in Washington?


Not since Obama took office.

quote:
Raise the taxes of the "1%" to 70% you gain 80 billion a year. Raise the taxes of those making over $250,000 to the same and the IRS brings in 400 billion more a year.


I have a better idea - how about we stop spending nearly 1/2 of all tax dollars on entitlement programs and if people want to advance in life they put forth the effort required instead of looking to the government for more handouts.

Over 50% of all taxes collected in the USA are paid by 5% of the population; while half of the US population pays zero federal taxes and consumes a majority of the "benefits" programs.

BTW a lot of taxable entities that fall into the $250K plus bracket are small businesses. Nice job living in America and expecting the relatively few self-motivated people in this country to shoulder the burden of lazy trash who thinks they deserve everything they want.

quote:
In 2011, spending is $10.46 Billion per day. This is based on the projection of Federal Spending of $3.818 Trillion for the year.


Reducing spending is a necessary step. Not much else needs to be said on the matter. Military and defense spending would be the last place I issue cuts, and if I did cut said spending in that category it would be highly selective.


RE: Budget?
By TheJian on 9/18/2012 1:48:02 AM , Rating: 2
This is precisely why people saying we need to TAX the rich are fools. Even at your suggested 70% (they'll all just move out of the country to 0-15% countries...what fool wouldn't?), we will only fund the govt for 8 days..ROFL. Anyone thinking taxing the rich will save us is dumb. Maybe the 50% that pay NOTHING should start paying their fair share no? Maybe we could cut those chicago teachers from $79000 a year to $38000 a year since they only pass 50% of the kids in high school? A 50% failure rate sounds like 50% pay earned (and they only work 9 months, unlike the rest of us at 12months!). They retire at 50-55, unlike the rest of us at 65-72. We need to do this across the board for federal employees to bring them back to reality, and more in line with private sector. All the people already retired need to take large cuts also. No fat retirement packages now, states just need to claim bankruptcy so we can speed all this along and get back to fiscal responsibility.

Chief of police in most CA cities make $315,000! That's ridiculous they are NOT running a country for crying out loud. Cut those guys to ~$75K like most management. Basically we just have to kill the unions for a chance at survival :) We can't afford these people. Fire them all or cut their pay 50%+. Avg wage in Chicago ~$40000. Teachers are double that and 1/2 the kids fail? They offered them 16% for 4 years (4% per year guaranteed!) and they freaked wanting 30%...ROFL. Come back to reality people, you suck at your jobs and are heavily subsidized by the rest of us. The party is over. All public employees have to go on obama care too...LOL. That will teach them :) No more voting your own raises either. I could go on all day. Pay your own SS. Don't like that, quit or your fired. Someone else will take your place tomorrow for 1/2 that as they currently have no job. This is what you get when you hire a community organizer who has no idea how to run a business much less a country, for the job of president. He left chicago knee deep in debt and is doing the same thing to the country. Romney on the other hand made ~$250 mil in 15 years in private life. Hmmm, who do you want to run the country? The loser who spends 6 Trillion (chicago worst schools in country, illinois worst DEBT in country..literally #1!), or the guy who makes millions on his own? Fixes a debt ridden olympics when the rest gave up? Seems like a simple decision. We have had TWO downgrades on our debt since he took office. Credit is getting expensive my friends. We can't take much more. Foreign policy is weaker then carter...Jeez. Dead people piling up all around, and he only has time to campaign in Vegas rather than meet with Netanyahu. Embarrassing.

He's played 120 rounds of golf though :) ROFL. Bush quit out of respect for our troops in 2002-2003, he couldn't justify playing a game when mothers would see him on the course while their sons/daughters were dying. Not obama...LOL. Screw the people, what wars, what debt? I have to hit the links pal, and when I'm done back to raising money with hollywood. WOW. Fed just devalued our dollar again printing the 3rd QE! Pretty soon the dollars in your pocket won't be worth a dime. Meet with congress to discuss your jobs? ROFL. I haven't spoke to them in 8-9 months and can't even remember their names. Good grief this guy is a loser. Even the white house press core got pissed because he's only held ONE meeting this year (and only answered 4 questions, 7 minutes each...LOL). Nice. WAKE UP people. Even if you hate republicans, they seem to be the only choice left besides bankruptcy. Romney can't do worse than obama. His record says otherwise.


RE: Budget?
By fishman on 9/18/2012 7:48:32 AM , Rating: 2
Raise the tax rate to 70% and watch businesses move out of the US.


RE: Budget?
By shin0bi272 on 9/18/2012 1:53:42 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks to the democrat controlled senate no they havent passed a budget in over 3 years... just so no one knows how much they are actually spending.


"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere." -- Isaac Asimov














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki