drbrumley
Well-known member
Excellent choice my friend...:first:
toldailytopic: Taxing more or spending less? Which is the most wise path to reduce th
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Excellent choice my friend...:first:
exminister
Well-known member
That's the problem. Both are wise after so many years of imbalance and war debt. I think ignoring or avoiding one side or the other will continue to push the growing debt to future generations. We are soft and unwilling to sacrifice like the WW2 generation. We have acted like there wasn't even a war or two going on. We were told to just keep shopping. It was the craziest response to a war. We should pay for it now to show respect for our children and grandchildren.
The Berean
Well-known member
I believe it was you that recommended this book to me, Doc...
I'm reading through it again currently. oly:
exminister
Well-known member
drbrumley
Well-known member
Just a matter of perception......when one continues the raid on social security and even uses it to balance the books, of course things look rosy.
This is what the money apparently is being spent on.
If you want to say "spending cuts," then explain to me where spending should be cut.
The biggest costs are medicare, social security and the military.
On ethical grounds, I don't think that it's OK to cut medicare and social security. The people who are receiving social security and medicare paid into it. People are presently paying into it. Furthermore, the elderly have a just claim to it. The elderly are less able to work, and frankly, employers tend not to want to hire them anyways. This is just a brute fact of life. Old people are less likely to get hired.
Not to mention the various maladies that afflict the eldery...memory problems, back problems, arthritis...it's just not fair to expect them to work. They've paid their dues. As a nation, we should all be OK with letting Grandma and Grandpa enjoy their golden years without having to work until they drop.
So, as far as I am concerned, medicare and social security are off the table. The Republicans, of course, beg to differ. But I think that the Republicans are morally bankrupt in this respect.
Well, OK. The other big ticket item is the military. The Republicans are adamant about not cutting that.
Ok. So the Democrats (and anyone of any moral decency) don't want to cut entitlement programs. The Republicans don't want to cut the military.
So now it's just a matter of cutting nickles and dimes here and there, isn't it?
But wait! I do see what's becoming a larger and larger piece of the pie. Presently, we spend 7% of the budget a year on INTEREST payments on the debt. Seven percent. About 248 billion dollars this year. And it's only going to get bigger.
You want to cut spending? Well, that seems like a good place to cut. That's money that we're just throwing away.
But the only way to cut spending in this area is to pay off the debt.
There's really no way around it. Revenues have to be increased, at least until the debt is paid off.
If you want to say "spending cuts," then explain to me where spending should be cut.
The biggest costs are medicare, social security and the military.
On ethical grounds, I don't think that it's OK to cut medicare and social security. The people who are receiving social security and medicare paid into it. People are presently paying into it. Furthermore, the elderly have a just claim to it. The elderly are less able to work, and frankly, employers tend not to want to hire them anyways. This is just a brute fact of life. Old people are less likely to get hired.
Not to mention the various maladies that afflict the eldery...memory problems, back problems, arthritis...it's just not fair to expect them to work. They've paid their dues. As a nation, we should all be OK with letting Grandma and Grandpa enjoy their golden years without having to work until they drop.
So, as far as I am concerned, medicare and social security are off the table. The Republicans, of course, beg to differ. But I think that the Republicans are morally bankrupt in this respect.
Well, OK. The other big ticket item is the military. The Republicans are adamant about not cutting that.
Ok. So the Democrats (and anyone of any moral decency) don't want to cut entitlement programs. The Republicans don't want to cut the military.
So now it's just a matter of cutting nickles and dimes here and there, isn't it?
But wait! I do see what's becoming a larger and larger piece of the pie. Presently, we spend 7% of the budget a year on INTEREST payments on the debt. Seven percent. About 248 billion dollars this year. And it's only going to get bigger.
You want to cut spending? Well, that seems like a good place to cut. That's money that we're just throwing away.
But the only way to cut spending in this area is to pay off the debt.
There's really no way around it. Revenues have to be increased, at least until the debt is paid off.
Any time revenues are increased, spending matches it.
Yeah, it's really bizarre. It's as though the people in Washington have absolutely no common sense. I mean, consider the analogy of an actual household:
I have x amount of expenses that are non-negotiable. I can't afford to pay them off every month. So I charge some of it to a credit card. In addition to the x amount of expenses that I have to pay every month, I now have credit card debt plus interest that I have to pay off too.
It seems like I have to do three things:
1. I have to cut spending where I can, if that's possible, but without failing to live up to my responsibilities. If Grandma's in a nursing home...
2. I have to avoid, so far as I can, incurring new expenses. But again, I must not fail to live up to my responsibilities. If I have to get back and forth to work every day, I can only do this in a car, and my car breaks down...
3. I have to find a way to make more money. Maybe I need to work overtime or get a second job for a while. Maybe I need to get a higher paying job.
I think that there is a debt of justice which the better off among the citizenry must pay to the less well off of the citizenry, which the younger must pay to those who are older and no longer should be expected to work. You can say that it's not something that's the government's business, but the tithes of the Mosaic Law seem to beg to differ.
Spend less and change to a flat rate income tax on personal income only.
All taxes are merely in income tax on personal income anyway. Tariff? Income tax (like all sales taxes). Property tax? It's an income tax. Fees? Indirectly income tax. Corporate taxes? They all come from the personal income of the corps workers or customers.
Another thing to note: Taxes were raised in CA, and revenue is down. Taxes were lowered in TX, and revenue is up. Learn from that... and read Laffer to do better.
And where should we cut? First, in mandatory spending which is about 75% of the budget, Military is #1. Stop the wars, but keep the foreign bases. Cut defense spending until it is closer to 15% of the budget. Then Soc Sec and Medicare, reduce them until they are gone, over 5-10 years.
The rest of the 25%, discretionary spending, of the budget can be cut faster. As soon as something is found that the government should not do, like education, that department and any money it commands should be cut.
All taxes are merely in income tax on personal income anyway. Tariff? Income tax (like all sales taxes). Property tax? It's an income tax. Fees? Indirectly income tax. Corporate taxes? They all come from the personal income of the corps workers or customers.
Another thing to note: Taxes were raised in CA, and revenue is down. Taxes were lowered in TX, and revenue is up. Learn from that... and read Laffer to do better.
And where should we cut? First, in mandatory spending which is about 75% of the budget, Military is #1. Stop the wars, but keep the foreign bases. Cut defense spending until it is closer to 15% of the budget. Then Soc Sec and Medicare, reduce them until they are gone, over 5-10 years.
The rest of the 25%, discretionary spending, of the budget can be cut faster. As soon as something is found that the government should not do, like education, that department and any money it commands should be cut.
Got any evidence of that? We just raised tax rates in CA, and I'm not aware of any numbers coming out yet.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc?
This would be extremely unjust.
It's directly in the interest of the State to educate the young.
It's directly in the interest of the state that all of its citizens are housed and fed, too.
Texas: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-07/texas-starts-budget-debate-flush-with-energy-boom-cash.html
California:
The supermajority must exercise fiscal discipline in order to fix the structural deficit that exists in the state budget. State Controller John Chiang, a Democrat, issued this chilling warning when revenues fell 10.8% below their expected return in November, “This serves as a sobering reminder that, while the economy is expanding, it is doing so at a slow and uneven pace that will require the State to exercise care and discipline in how its fiscal affairs are managed in the coming year.” - source
That seems right.
When can I expect the state to pay for my mortgage and grocery bill?
You've brought this point up before against other posters. I'm not sure whether or not you've brought it up against me. The most recent context was in the healthcare debate, right?
I don't think that this follows. Yes, I grant that it's probably in the interest of the state to make sure that all of the citizens are fed and housed. It doesn't follow from this that it is the duty of the State to subsidize all housing and/or food directly (though it does probably justify at least some government action, at least in some cases).
There is a disproportion between medicine or education versus housing and food.
"What do you want for dinner tonight?" Even if I stipulated that you must answer with a meal which is nourishing (not lacking in nutritional value), there's any number of answers that you could give me.
Again, "where do you want to live, and what kind of housing accomodations do you want or need?" There's any number of answers that you could give me, depending upon your own needs and desires.
But consider the question: "What ought you to know?" There is some variance in the way that you might answer that question. But not nearly as much. There are certain things that everybody should know in order fully to participate in our society.
Again, consider the question: "What kind of medical care do you want?" There's really not much variance in the range of probable answers. The answer is: "I want to be healthy. I want a doctor to figure out what is necessary for me to be healthy, and then I want access to the things that he says that I need in order to be healthy."
Of course, this is not an exhaustive answer to the problem. But I think that it's food for thought, and it's certainly a start.