The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

[unh_hockey]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

You talking about the 47% of all americans who pay ZERO income tax? I am quite sure that 15%>0%.

The average income for the bottom 90% is 31,000 per year. The stratification is pretty extreme as the top 1% controls 35% of the net worth, and the top 10 percent has 73% of the total net worth. Thus even marginal tax rates on the top tiers would have a significant impact compared to even significant tax burdens on the lowest 10% of the nation. So more to your point, yes 15% > 0 % assuming all things are equal. They are not. Thus levying a 1% increase on the top 10% would probably mean more than imposing a 10% tax hike on the bottom 80% that don’t pay anything.

In all actuality, most of the US couldn’t even scrounge up 2000 dollars on a months’ notice. Taxing these people would just create utter poverty.

http://www.businessinsider.com/only...utm_campaign=Feed:+clusterstock+(ClusterStock)

 

[MinnFan]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

The average income for the bottom 90% is 31,000 per year. The stratification is pretty extreme as the top 1% controls 35% of the net worth, and the top 10 percent has 73% of the total net worth. Thus even marginal tax rates on the top tiers would have a significant impact compared to even significant tax burdens on the lowest 10% of the nation. So more to your point, yes 15% > 0 % assuming all things are equal. They are not. Thus levying a 1% increase on the top 10% would probably mean more than imposing a 10% tax hike on the bottom 80% that don’t pay anything.

In all actuality, most of the US couldn’t even scrounge up 2000 dollars on a months’ notice. Taxing these people would just create utter poverty.

http://www.businessinsider.com/only...utm_campaign=Feed:+clusterstock+(ClusterStock)

Wealth doesn't matter though. We have an INCOME tax. The top 1% have 19% of the income and pay 40% of the taxes.

Wealth is the net affect of the decisions that people may with the income they keep. You could make $1B/year and spend it all giving you no wealth. I'd say that we want to encourage wealth as it makes people less dependant on gov't and produces opportunities for others to become wealthy.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

Those are user fees. The idea is that you pay for the those programs that you will use. Of course, the rich actually pay more into those than they will ever collect, but there can never be enough income transfer for you.

Nevermind that those people (and then some) still recieve more form gov't than they pay in. 60% get more from gov't than they pay in

You sound like Tim Pawlenty now. Those are taxes, plain and simple. And the rich only pay into those taxes for those programs up to 100,000 of income.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

You sound like Tim Pawlenty now. Those are taxes, plain and simple. And the rich only pay into those taxes for those programs up to 100,000 of income.

Wrong. Medicare taxes all income.

And why should someone else pay for your retirement?

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

Wrong. Medicare taxes all income.

And why should someone else pay for your retirement?

yes, Medicare does. I know that. But the 12% (before the current stimulus rate) for SS etc. is capped at 100,000.

The reason you pay for these things is they are insurance against having a huge class of people living under bridges or in extreme poverty. Which we seem to have anyway. But, I agree. If you want to eliminate entitlement programs I'm all for it. We can balance the budget in 10 minutes on the backs of the poor and middle class right now by abolishing Medicare and Social Security and taking that 12-15% and paying down the debt. Problem solved, right?

 

[MinnFan]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

yes, Medicare does. I know that. But the 12% (before the current stimulus rate) for SS etc. is capped at 100,000.

The reason you pay for these things is they are insurance against having a huge class of people living under bridges or in extreme poverty. Which we seem to have anyway. But, I agree. If you want to eliminate entitlement programs I'm all for it. We can balance the budget in 10 minutes on the backs of the poor and middle class right now by abolishing Medicare and Social Security and taking that 12-15% and paying down the debt. Problem solved, right?

Again, so why should the rich pay for the vast majority of it? I'm sure they would take your money if you wanted to contribute more.

SS was insurance for living too long(hence the original name of SSI). The fear was that people would live in poverty because they were too old to work. If you want to move the benefit age to 74 I'd be all for that.

 

[unh_hockey]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

Wealth doesn't matter though. We have an INCOME tax. The top 1% have 19% of the income and pay 40% of the taxes.

Wealth is the net affect of the decisions that people may with the income they keep. You could make $1B/year and spend it all giving you no wealth. I'd say that we want to encourage wealth as it makes people less dependant on gov't and produces opportunities for others to become wealthy.

Wealth includes the cost of living – as income does not. This underscores the importance of looking at wages over a number of years. How have incomes changed for various tiers? The top 1% since 1979 have increase over 3 fold in household income while the second 20% have remained flat. Thus contributes to the wealth effect as now the higher incomes can put more of their paychecks away than the bottom tiers can. To say wealth is not a good indicator would be untrue.

Also addressing your point about a billionaire spending all their money…this is significantly harder for them to do than the bottom 80% who only earn 31,000 a year. It is also much less common. The top tier own most of the stocks/bonds.

I agree that we have to encourage people to be less dependent on US government.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

Wealth includes the cost of living – as income does not.

I agree that we have to encourage people to be less dependent on US government.

Over time, incomes rise faster than the cost of living. This is why Congress is trying to change the inflation index for SS to CPI instead of wages.

You say that you want people less dependant on gov't, but the more burden you put on fewer people the more people are going to become dependant on gov't to go after the "rich" so they can get their goodies. If you really want peope to become less dependant on gov't you more people need to feel the full weight of gov't burdens.

 

[unh_hockey]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

Over time, incomes rise faster than the cost of living. This is why Congress is trying to change the inflation index for SS to CPI instead of wages.

You say that you want people less dependant on gov't, but the more burden you put on fewer people the more people are going to become dependant on gov't to go after the "rich" so they can get their goodies. If you really want peope to become less dependant on gov't you more people need to feel the full weight of gov't burdens.

I’ll be clear since I think we are losing track of what the discussion is.

/digression
I am not for a welfare state. Moreover, I understand human and animal nature of tribal groups wherein the power usually percolates to the top in an concentrated manner ( the CEOs earning large salaries, the alpha male having the most mates etc). This doesn’t bother me. In short time I will be in the top 10% ( shockingly) and I will continue to work for even more of that. I don’t ask for handouts, I take what I deserve. /end disgression

That said, my argument was centered around balancing the budget. We had discussed tax brackets, in which you responded that most people don’t pay income tax. My response was that the bottom % barely earns anything, and even a small hike in the top tier would help greatly towards fixing our deficit.

We agree, but lost track of what we agree on…I think. Thoughts?

To your first point, i am not sure that incomes have matched the cost of living. I want to say that in general, the cost of living has grown in share compared to mean incomes. I will find more on this.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

I’ll be clear since I think we are losing track of what the discussion is.

/digression
I am not for a welfare state. Moreover, I understand human and animal nature of tribal groups wherein the power usually percolates to the top in an concentrated manner ( the CEOs earning large salaries, the alpha male having the most mates etc). This doesn’t bother me. In short time I will be in the top 10% ( shockingly) and I will continue to work for even more of that. I don’t ask for handouts, I take what I deserve. /end disgression

That said, my argument was centered around balancing the budget. We had discussed tax brackets, in which you responded that most people don’t pay income tax. My response was that the bottom % barely earns anything, and even a small hike in the top tier would help greatly towards fixing our deficit.

We agree, but lost track of what we agree on…I think. Thoughts?

To your first point, i am not sure that incomes have matched the cost of living. I want to say that in general, the cost of living has grown in share compared to mean incomes. I will find more on this.

I'm not saying tax the lower/middle class more. I've been saying that taxing the "rich" won't solve anything. We've got a $1.4T debt. Repealing the Bush tax cuts only gets you $70B and assumes that everything stays static. Were is the rest of the money going to come from?

On that point. Revenue to the gov't was $1.8T in 2001. Now, after the Bush tax cuts, it is $2.2T. The problem is that in 2001 we spent $2.2T, but now we spend $3.8T

 

[unh_hockey]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

I'm not saying tax the lower/middle class more. I've been saying that taxing the "rich" won't solve anything. We've got a $1.4T debt. Repealing the Bush tax cuts only gets you $70B and assumes that everything stays static. Were is the rest of the money going to come from?

On that point. Revenue to the gov't was $1.8T in 2001. Now, after the Bush tax cuts, it is $2.2T. The problem is that in 2001 we spent $2.2T, but now we spend $3.8T

i was actually going on some of the previous posts on this thread

According to The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget eliminating all the Bush tax cuts but leaving in the patches for the AMT will shave $3T off the budget deficit.

edit: if someone has something better than this, please post it

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html

 

[Priceless]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

If thats the paramaters that are being put on this then you don't want to hear my ideas.

Silly me. I thought this meant we would be spared from your drivel in this thread.

Everyone except for the fringe knows that the tax rates have to be restored to the 1990's levels (for everyone) and everyone but the fringe (or people who are bad at math) knows that entitlements are going to have to be cut to balance the budget. Unfortunately our leaders in Congress are looking out for the interests of those on the fringe and not the vast majority of people that realize that one solution is not going to fix this problem at the expense of the other.

Restoring tax rates to the "Clinton levels" isn't Socialism. Restoring tax rates to the "Eisenhower levels" still isn't Socialism, but it also won't resolve the deficit. Both sides have to sacrifice.

I'm now disabled. When I get approved I will be on the government dole for Social Security benefits. I'm not looking to unilaterally give up any benefits (which, incidentally, I earned, paid taxes on once and will pay taxes on again) but if it's part of a broad solution I'm willing to sacrifice part of my benefit (read: cash) to solve this crisis. What I'm hearing from the opposite side is that they want me to give up all of my benefit (and do what? Drop dead? Become homeless?) but they aren't willing to give up one Goddamned dime to solve the problem. That makes me angry. That makes me fearful. That makes me less willing to sacrifice my benefits and more likely to support raising the top rate to 50% or more. That makes me want to write a very different letter to Senator Snowe. And now I'm back in that fringe again where this problem started to begin with.

I've said it before and I'll keep saying it. Compromise is not a dirty word. This country was built on compromise (not always admirable, but practical) and it can be saved by compromise again.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

i was actually going on some of the previous posts on this thread

According to The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget eliminating all the Bush tax cuts but leaving in the patches for the AMT will shave $3T off the budget deficit.

edit: if someone has something better than this, please post it

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html

I'm not saying tax the lower/middle class more. I've been saying that taxing the "rich" won't solve anything. We've got a $1.4T debt. Repealing the Bush tax cuts only gets you $70B and assumes that everything stays static. Were is the rest of the money going to come from?

On that point. Revenue to the gov't was $1.8T in 2001. Now, after the Bush tax cuts, it is $2.2T. The problem is that in 2001 we spent $2.2T, but now we spend $3.8T

70 Billion and 3 Trillion is a big gap.

MinnFan,

Raising the retirement age is fine with me although I think 74 may be a little steep, but fine. I also think you need to means test Social Security and Medicare. That would pretty much make them solvent. In fact if you're going to hurt the poor by raising the age it seems only fair to me that you also means test it.

 

[Almington]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

Wealth doesn't matter though. We have an INCOME tax. The top 1% have 19% of the income and pay 40% of the taxes.

Wealth is the net affect of the decisions that people may with the income they keep. You could make $1B/year and spend it all giving you no wealth. I'd say that we want to encourage wealth as it makes people less dependant on gov't and produces opportunities for others to become wealthy.

It would be nearly impossible to spend $1B in a year and have nothing to show for it (short of giving it all away). You buy a house, a car, a boat, a plane, nice things of all types, at the end of the year you still have those things and they still have value (short of being deliberatly and extremely wasteful). Even to make a $1M in a year and have nothing to show for it would be a case extreme experence comsumerism. The person living off $31k, between rent, car repairs, medical co-pays, various forms of insurance, utilities, food and 31K can be gone with nothing of any value to show for it.

Those in the top 1% who make 19% of all the income should be happy to pay a larger fraction of the taxes then they take of the income, the marginal utility of the dollar is far less then it is for the typical american and they have far more to lose in terms of status and possessions and comfort then the majority of americans.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

Those in the top 1% who make 19% of all the income should be happy to pay a larger fraction of the taxes then they take of the income, the marginal utility of the dollar is far less then it is for the typical american and they have far more to lose in terms of status and possessions and comfort then the majority of americans.

Why should they be happy to may more for something they use less of? To me the moral thing to do if they make 19% of the income they pay 19% of the taxes (or 20% if you want to exempt the very lowest earners).

Much has been made about going to the previous rates. I certainly hope that those proposing that are saying that everyone would go back because I'll I've seen here is proposals for the "rich" to go back and everyone else staying the same. Back in the 90's we had over 70% of the population paying income tax. We've now got 49%.

Regardless of how much we tax it isn't goinig to come anywhere near taking care of the defecit. How we got here

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

Why should they be happy to may more for something they use less of? To me the moral thing to do if they make 19% of the income they pay 19% of the taxes (or 20% if you want to exempt the very lowest earners).

Much has been made about going to the previous rates. I certainly hope that those proposing that are saying that everyone would go back because I'll I've seen here is proposals for the "rich" to go back and everyone else staying the same. Back in the 90's we had over 70% of the population paying income tax. We've now got 49%.

Regardless of how much we tax it isn't goinig to come anywhere near taking care of the defecit. How we got here

Those are interesting charts and show the chasm between receipts and spending. I've never been a big fan of showing things as a percent of GDP, as just because the economy grows or shrinks it doesn't necessarily correlate that spending on various things needs to grow or shrink accordingly. If the U.S. economy grows 20 percent over the next three years, does that necessarily mean that defense spending needs to grow 20 percent over those three years correspondingly? I don't think so.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

Silly me. I thought this meant we would be spared from your drivel in this thread.

Everyone except for the fringe knows that the tax rates have to be restored to the 1990's levels

Some more drivel for you. The RSC is on the right path to balance the budget without raising taxes (for anyone).

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

Why should they be happy to may more for something they use less of? To me the moral thing to do if they make 19% of the income they pay 19% of the taxes (or 20% if you want to exempt the very lowest earners).

Much has been made about going to the previous rates. I certainly hope that those proposing that are saying that everyone would go back because I'll I've seen here is proposals for the "rich" to go back and everyone else staying the same. Back in the 90's we had over 70% of the population paying income tax. We've now got 49%.

Regardless of how much we tax it isn't goinig to come anywhere near taking care of the defecit. How we got here

Your obsession with income tax is reaching epic proportions. Capital Gains is 15%. Everyone making real income over 34,000 per year is paying a higher percentage than that. That's not even including the 12% (currently 10.5%) poor tax you call a user fee.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

Your obsession with income tax is reaching epic proportions. Capital Gains is 15%. Everyone making real income over 34,000 per year is paying a higher percentage than that. That's not even including the 12% (currently 10.5%) poor tax you call a user fee.

Your obsession with having someone else's work pay for your benefits has always been epic. Again, that 15% actually generates more revenue than a higher rate. We also like to encourage investment in this country to help the economy grow. Your goal seems to be to raise the rate to punish them for being successful and investing in this country.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: The USCHO Budget Thread (warning: political)

This seems to be the crux of the issue today and until we break this pattern we're never going to solve the problem.

Dependency and votes