News Stories

[Vexx]

Additional hypocrisy arises when the "cuckooland" people take huge vats of expenditures ripe for "auditing" off the table (like defense spending, corporate loopholes/welfare/undertaxing ... and oh "all those projects that go to MY district"). Its just road-gravel-stupid to eliminate infrastructure expenses that are historically proven to improve society (educational support for the workforce, efficient transport, quality of life, and wouldn't-be-great-if-small/medium-business-didn't-have-to-worry-about-healthcare-costs-because-the-workforce-had-a-single-payer-network).

[MeoTwister5]

I don't think it's surprising that those people would cut infrastructure and support expenses you mentioned since they're the ones sending their children to private schools, flying their own personal jets and owning their own buildings etc etc.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

I give Ron Paul credit for consistency, and always holding to his principles. But I think his principles are a bit incorrect. I think his aversion to raising taxes (and his overall ideas for taxation) are wrong. Taxation is a tool to be used by the state, and it shouldn't be something anyone should rule out on principle. There are other anti-tax right wing parties around the world, but I don't know a single one that completely bars the possibility of raising taxes. Look at the conservative party in the UK, they've been hiking taxes since they came into office, and they were correct to do so (though some might argue with the timing).

Government should in a sense be run like a business. A business is always looking at it's profit margin, and a business knows there's 2 ways to increase that margin: cut expenditure, or raise revenue. Most businesses are loath to cut expenditure, so they always try and raise their revenue. Likewise the government is loath to cut it's own expenditures. So like a good business, they should try and make their operation more efficient (cut wasteful spending), and should also seek new ways to raise more revenue. In the case of the US government, that can only mean raising taxes, in one way or another.

The US won't be able to get itself out of this mess without raising taxes, anyone who thinks so is living in cloudcuckooland. The US can't cut enough spending without ravaging it's already weak welfare programs that many are dependent on, and who would need to resort to crime otherwise.

I agree if we're talking about tariffs and creating taxes that punish corporations that send jobs overseas (like John Kerry had wanted to do) then I agree that taxes should be made/increased.

However, if you mean simply "raising" income taxes, then no, I don't see that as having the kind of effect many people think it will.
Title 26 has changed too much over the last 20 years for that to be an effective method anymore.
That's the problem with income tax increases on the "rich."
The definition of rich usually ends up being anyone making $200,000 to 1 million dollars (basically small business owners) and people making more than 1 million/year pass the tax cost down to the consumers through government corporate welfare (via the Federal Reserve bank) and loopholes in the tax laws.
Not to mention megacorps that can move overseas will reincorporate in countries that have less strict or intrusive tax laws and thus pay less tax to the US overall.
Raising income taxes only hurts the small businesses that cannot leave the US.
If the idea is to stimulate growth and thus tax revenue then much of the tax system has to be overhauled to protect small businesses here in the US (and their products) and this is where Ron Paul and I part company.
I am in favor of protecting US companies and products sold in this country because it keeps jobs in this country.
I'm not a "Free Trade" believer.

I'm also not a fan of progressive tax schemes like the USA's Title 26 "income" tax.
The reason is because corporations always either lobby their way out of paying or pass the costs down to the consumer.

I'd rather the US congress get its head out of its derrier and pass a national sales tax with healthy foods, non-luxury clothing, and medical drugs exempt from the tax; and with higher sales tax rates for luxury items such as sports cars, houses larger than 4000 square feet, unhealthy foods, tabacco products, recreational drugs (like pot), liquor, luxury sports cars, and other items commonly priced well above what they are worth.
I guess that would be a "progressive" sales tax.
Items imported or brought into the country should have a heavy tariff applied as well just like what Japan has.

Elimination of the fiat money system would also help since the value of the dollar would become more stable and increase, thus increasing the buying power and the savings of most citizens.
When I say eliminate it, I don't mean making everyone carry gold, silver, copper, and platinum in their pockets. I mean the electronic money and paper money would be backed by a gold exchange system.

Higher taxes will not help in an inflationary debt crisis.
That only works in a deflationary debt problem like the "great depression" era.

[Jinto]

@GundamFan0083,

the idea with the luxury tax can only work when you punish savings at the time, otherwise people start to hort money/assets. When you tax actual wealth progressively but not the income it might make more sense (this also creates a healthy wealth limit for individuals - and its not socialism when it grows linear with the GDP ).

This wealth tax, should be higher then the actual luxury tax then. This way people are rewarded when buying stuff (the size of their income doesn't matter then).
Furthermore one should exempt from the tax all investment into the (own) economy.
The banks must be regulated to always have at least 60% of the money that they lend on their own account (and not the accounts of their customers). This also includes all sorts of reinvestment.

Well, it will never happen, but it might work.

[solomon]

Ron Paul is a PALEO-conservative..........essentially the pink unicorn of the Republican party.

They don't exist. He won't win presidency.

[Ithekro]

So were is the Progressive Republican Party these days? Or just the Progressive Party (Bull Moose style I mean).

[Xion Valkyrie]

So is the world ending yet? Or do we have until tonight?

[Haak]

They already reached a deal, I think.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14379240

[synaesthetic]

Yeah, deal was reached last night and the president went on camera and gave a little speech about it.

The deal wasn't what everyone hoped for, of course, but at least the Bush tax cuts are going to expire and there's nothing the GOP can do about it, short of armed revolution.

What is it that the Republicans are fond of saying? "There's no free lunch," right? Well, now they can't get their free lunch anymore, either.

[solomon]

Is it really realistic to look at the President and lay blame at the govenment's inefficency?

The white house operates at arms length from the Congress, which is targeted with forming domestic policy. I admired Obama's original message of bipartisanship and compromise only realizing that it's impossible if the congress and their constituiences dont want to.

[Xion Valkyrie]

Did any tax loopholes get closed?

It seems like the final bill that got passed looks almost EXACTLY like what both sides have been pushing for in the last 2 weeks.

It's like they reached a backroom deal months ago and decided to use this time to make people think the world is ending, only to show that they could 'compromise' in the last minute and look good.

Although most Americans will probably buy it...

[Anh_Minh]

... Look good? They're weeks too late for that. At best, they made the other side look bad.

[Ithekro]

This amount of idiocy would normally call for a clean sweep out in the next election...save that there really is no one to fill the void that anyone will take seriously since both parties are equally at fault and none of the third parties are credible enough to put someone up people will actually want to vote for (because it is either party lines or a popularity contest...and if you aren't in the two parties you damn well better be popular).

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

This amount of idiocy would normally call for a clean sweep out in the next election...save that there really is no one to fill the void that anyone will take seriously since both parties are equally at fault and none of the third parties are credible enough to put someone up people will actually want to vote for (because it is either party lines or a popularity contest...and if you aren't in the two parties you damn well better be popular).

the main issue is there are too many *Safe" seats. Congress isn't worry about the voters in the general election but the voters in the primary.

[solomon]

I agree with the above, Romney couldn't get the hard cores behind him and Bachman would probably alienate moderates.

Anyways, what does it really matter domestically, it's all congress.

Anyways, there is not enough (is there at all) demand for tax loopholes being cut. The tea party doesn't seem to be yelling about that. Until a wide swath of people yell and march about it, it's a non starter.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

I agree if we're talking about tariffs and creating taxes that punish corporations that send jobs overseas (like John Kerry had wanted to do) then I agree that taxes should be made/increased.

However, if you mean simply "raising" income taxes, then no, I don't see that as having the kind of effect many people think it will.
Title 26 has changed too much over the last 20 years for that to be an effective method anymore.
That's the problem with income tax increases on the "rich."
The definition of rich usually ends up being anyone making $200,000 to 1 million dollars (basically small business owners) and people making more than 1 million/year pass the tax cost down to the consumers through government corporate welfare (via the Federal Reserve bank) and loopholes in the tax laws.
Not to mention megacorps that can move overseas will reincorporate in countries that have less strict or intrusive tax laws and thus pay less tax to the US overall.
Raising income taxes only hurts the small businesses that cannot leave the US.
If the idea is to stimulate growth and thus tax revenue then much of the tax system has to be overhauled to protect small businesses here in the US (and their products) and this is where Ron Paul and I part company.
I am in favor of protecting US companies and products sold in this country because it keeps jobs in this country.
I'm not a "Free Trade" believer.

I'm also not a fan of progressive tax schemes like the USA's Title 26 "income" tax.
The reason is because corporations always either lobby their way out of paying or pass the costs down to the consumer.

I'd rather the US congress get its head out of its derrier and pass a national sales tax with healthy foods, non-luxury clothing, and medical drugs exempt from the tax; and with higher sales tax rates for luxury items such as sports cars, houses larger than 4000 square feet, unhealthy foods, tabacco products, recreational drugs (like pot), liquor, luxury sports cars, and other items commonly priced well above what they are worth.
I guess that would be a "progressive" sales tax.
Items imported or brought into the country should have a heavy tariff applied as well just like what Japan has.

Elimination of the fiat money system would also help since the value of the dollar would become more stable and increase, thus increasing the buying power and the savings of most citizens.
When I say eliminate it, I don't mean making everyone carry gold, silver, copper, and platinum in their pockets. I mean the electronic money and paper money would be backed by a gold exchange system.

Higher taxes will not help in an inflationary debt crisis.
That only works in a deflationary debt problem like the "great depression" era.

The United states can definitely sustain higher income taxes, on all earners, barring the very poor. Most European states have income tax in 30-40s, while the US it's 20-30. In particular I think the upper middle class of people who make 80,000-200,000 could easily afford higher income tax. Meanwhile with people who make more then that it's enough to try and plug significant loop holes they use.

I don't think protectionism is the solution. It will only cause prices on consumer goods to increase, and also spark off trade wars with other countries which will harm everyone, and benefit no one. Furthermore, I think in the long run the problem of jobs going abroad will peter out. Every country that american jobs are exported to start to see wage rates go up, and eventually we'll get to a stage where industrial wages worldwide are harmonised. I doubt it will really prevent that many jobs going abroad anyway, as it will still mean companies will go to other countries to sell internationally. Coca Cola is always going to be manufactured close to their consumers. Meanwhile the US benefits from the fact it can export advanced products (EG electronics) worldwide. If they put up Tariffs, bye bye exports.

Free Trade zones often work quite well. Usually in the short term it benefits the poorer country, but what's wrong with that? I'm all for policies that benefit less developed places, better then giving them aid, as this way they develop based on their own efforts. And in the long term it benefits the advanced country as it provides them with a market for their goods. The success of the EU is largely based on the fact it's a free trade zone. The Currency zone may have had issues, but the Free trade zone was extremely succesful.

Better people then me can probably extoll the qualities of Free Trade zones further. But consider the US as a Free trade zone in itself. It allows people to sell goods and services on a pan US basis, and it leads to a more stable economy. Imagine if each state applied tariffs to the products of other states? Suddenly there'd be a fully fledged car industry in every state, but with all of them lacklustre and unable to make gains from economies of scale. Meanwhile a foreign competitor manages to take the global market.

[Xion Valkyrie]

We should put a maximum age of 30 on running for office. Obviously experience seems to mean nothing, might as well get some young people in there to really stir things up. Maybe we'll get lucky and whatever goofball legislation they pass might actually 'work'.

[solomon]

You mean like young people in the tea party?

Youth means relatively little to me any more.

[Xion Valkyrie]

Originally Posted by solomon

You mean like young people in the tea party?

Youth means relatively little to me any more.

Good point. I guess we need to use preschoolers.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

The United states can definitely sustain higher income taxes, on all earners, barring the very poor. Most European states have income tax in 30-40s, while the US it's 20-30. In particular I think the upper middle class of people who make 80,000-200,000 could easily afford higher income tax. Meanwhile with people who make more then that it's enough to try and plug significant loop holes they use.

I don't think protectionism is the solution. It will only cause prices on consumer goods to increase, and also spark off trade wars with other countries which will harm everyone, and benefit no one. Furthermore, I think in the long run the problem of jobs going abroad will peter out. Every country that american jobs are exported to start to see wage rates go up, and eventually we'll get to a stage where industrial wages worldwide are harmonised. I doubt it will really prevent that many jobs going abroad anyway, as it will still mean companies will go to other countries to sell internationally. Coca Cola is always going to be manufactured close to their consumers. Meanwhile the US benefits from the fact it can export advanced products (EG electronics) worldwide. If they put up Tariffs, bye bye exports.

Free Trade zones often work quite well. Usually in the short term it benefits the poorer country, but what's wrong with that? I'm all for policies that benefit less developed places, better then giving them aid, as this way they develop based on their own efforts. And in the long term it benefits the advanced country as it provides them with a market for their goods. The success of the EU is largely based on the fact it's a free trade zone. The Currency zone may have had issues, but the Free trade zone was extremely succesful.

Better people then me can probably extoll the qualities of Free Trade zones further. But consider the US as a Free trade zone in itself. It allows people to sell goods and services on a pan US basis, and it leads to a more stable economy. Imagine if each state applied tariffs to the products of other states? Suddenly there'd be a fully fledged car industry in every state, but with all of them lacklustre and unable to make gains from economies of scale. Meanwhile a foreign competitor manages to take the global market.

People keep saying this, but the people in the $80,000 to $200,000 actually pay a very heavy amount of tax already. Everyone in that range would be paying 28% to Federal Income taxes and depending on state, an additional 5-8% to state.

They also generally have to pay straight out of pocket for higher education for their children, because their income is generally too high to quality for financial aid.

Even at 100k a year, 35% of that to taxes would leave you with 65k. Public university tuition is running about 20 to 30k a year now (UC's are getting another 20% fee increase this year). Private universities are running from 40-50k per year. That'd leave you with about 25-45k depending on public/private. Throw in a $2000-3000/month mortgage payment and you're left with maybe $10-20k to spend on living expenses, gas, utilities, etc. Whatever left you'll probably need to divert some to entertainment and then if you have any left, savings.

There's definitely a significant gap between people in $80,000 bracket and those in the $120,000+ bracket, and then another significant gap between those them and those in the $200,000 bracket.

Of course, you also have to take into consideration the family size. A single unmarried guy can easily be very well off with an $80,000 income, but a family with 3 kids with 2 kids in college might actually be penny pinching on a $200,000 income.

The tax cuts do need to expire, but instead of raising taxes even more, they should close off the loopholes that the top 1% use to siphon money from everyone else.

[MeoTwister5]

I think I'd rather have old, inept and impotent old men out of touch with reality in government than active, hyper idealistic youths with a straight, self-serving agenda.