Throw the bums out

[statsman]

Maybe it's time to raise this old suggestion.

A FLAT TAX

Everyone pays 7.5% of their gross earned income. No exemptions, no loopholes.
No more sales taxes, excise taxes or VATs.
If you earn more, you would keep more than you currently do.
If you earn less, you would probably pay a little bit less.
The Government gets this money and that's ALL they are allowed to spend.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Banana raised a good point to which I agree at least in large part.

Congress uses taxes as a method of social engineering. Taxes are fairer if we tell Congress to stop screwing around with directed tax breaks. Like, you get x% off for this activity, y% off for that activity, z% credit when doing this... In the land of the free, make your choices without Congress bribing you.

If you have to (in essence) bribe people to use a "governmentally preferred" activity, something is inherently wrong with the preference. If it isn't popular enough for people to do it just because it is a good idea, how good an idea is it for Congress to push it? Don't they follow the will of the people? (Don't answer that....)

To me, a graduated but otherwise unstructured tax is much better. If your income is less than X, no tax. Between X and Y, tax rate 1. Between Y and Z, tax rate 2. No deductions or exemptions for this, that, and the other. Deductions for every American citizen. (Which includes children, so it IS fair to allow deductions for kids.)

How many brackets do you need? Don't claim to know that, but I'd say that the right answer is to determine the "poverty" level and make the 0% bracket equal to either that amount or no more than 1.5 x that amount. Then the next breakpoint would be 3 x that amount. Then maybe 6, 12, 18, whatever. Add 5% at every break. The idiots who are taking down so many millions of bucks as CEOs would LOSE MONEY by accepting that high a salary. And they should lose money, given the performance I'm seeing in general for those fat cats.

There was an article in the newspaper here in N'Awlins regarding the AIG executives who went on a little junket that cost tens of thousands of dollars AFTER they got assistance from the feds. Damn if I wouldn't indict EVERY ONE OF THEM for fiduciary irresponsibility and make them reimburse the company (and therefore the taxpayers). What REALLY frosted my cookies was when one of the execs, questioned about that trip, said they would really TRY to do better. HOLY FLAMIN' GUACAMOLE! I remember Yoda's answer to such a comment. There is no "try." There is only do, or not do. There is no try.

I am also reminded of the great lawman, Buford T Justice, who threatened to "fry your hide in molasses" if you screwed up. Buford, where are you when we need you? (Yeah, I know - chasin' after the Bandit and the Iceman.)

 

[Alisa]

Maybe it's time to raise this old suggestion.

A FLAT TAX

Everyone pays 7.5% of their gross earned income. No exemptions, no loopholes.
No more sales taxes, excise taxes or VATs.
If you earn more, you would keep more than you currently do.
If you earn less, you would probably pay a little bit less.
The Government gets this money and that's ALL they are allowed to spend.

Sure, as long as we stop funding the military.

 

[georgedwilkinson]

Sure, as long as we stop funding the military.

That's what the last big liberal (Jimmy Carter) did as President. I have no doubt that is what your man wants to do to.

Our military became the laughing stock of the world under Carter and some radicals in Iran were emboldened to take over the US embassy in Iran. Our military's response under Carter was sad.

Are you sure you want to live in a country with as many enemies as we have with no military?

 

[Alisa]

That's what the last big liberal (Jimmy Carter) did as President. I have no doubt that is what your man wants to do to.

Our military became the laughing stock of the world under Carter and some radicals in Iran were emboldened to take over the US embassy in Iran. Our military's response under Carter was sad.

Are you sure you want to live in a country with as many enemies as we have with no military?

Actually McCain is the candidate who in this election has proposed to cut military spending, even as he seeks to expand our military engagements around the world.

My point was not that I want to stop funding the military. My point was that a 7.5 % tax rate will not bring in enough revenue for us to fund the military, which absorbs the lion's share of our budget each year.

 

[Banana]

Actually, we have $63 trillion IOU in form of unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare. Military spending is a drop in bucket compared to that. And what's more- we're dead broke. Been living off the printing press, mortgaged to foreign investors, guaranteed by good ol' Government of USA!

Whoops.

 

[georgedwilkinson]

Actually McCain is the candidate who in this election has proposed to cut military spending, even as he seeks to expand our military engagements around the world.

I'm not disputing you but it sounds suspicious. Do you have a reference?

My point was not that I want to stop funding the military. My point was that a 7.5 % tax rate will not bring in enough revenue for us to fund the military, which absorbs the lion's share of our budget each year.

I stand corrected. Did you do the math on that or did you eyeball/estimate it?

 

[Alisa]

We have $63 trillion IOU in form of unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare. Military spending is a drop in bucket compared to that. And what's more- we're dead broke. Been living off the printing press.

Whoops.

It is not an "unfunded liability". Social security and medicare are ALWAYS paid for by the next generation. The demographic issue (of a smaller generation funding a larger generation) could be solved in about 2 seconds by either removing the cap and or means testing the benefits.

Military spending is not a drop in the bucket, it IS the federal bucket.

 

[pbaldy]

My point was that a 7.5 % tax rate will not bring in enough revenue for us to fund the military, which absorbs the lion's share of our budget each year.

Defense was 20% of the FY2007 budget. You call that the lion's share? Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid were 42%. You really should check your facts.

 

[Alisa]

I'm not disputing you but it sounds suspicious. Do you have a reference?



I stand corrected. Did you do the math on that or did you eyeball/estimate it?

McCain said it straight out in the first or second debate (my memory fails me right now).

Military spending is about half our federal budget. Every reasonable estimate of a flat tax that I have seen proposes a 25% to 30% tax rate to maintain current levels of spending. I don't have to "do the math" to see that those numbers just don't add up.

 

[Alisa]

Defense was 20% of the FY2007 budget. You call that the lion's share? Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid were 42%. You really should check your facts.

Really? Even with the additional $700 billion Iraq war spending bill that was passed this month?

 

[georgedwilkinson]

McCain said it straight out in the first or second debate (my memory fails me right now).

Military spending is about half our federal budget. Every reasonable estimate of a flat tax that I have seen proposes a 25% to 30% tax rate to maintain current levels of spending. I don't have to "do the math" to see that those numbers just don't add up.

I'm really gonna have to ignore this, lacking any evidence but that it something you believe. It sounds uncharacteristic of McCain (if even in context) and your numbers aren't meshing for me. I'm willing to change my mind if you have any proof (not propaganda or rhetoric).

 

[Alisa]

I'm really gonna have to ignore this, lacking any evidence but that it something you believe. It sounds uncharacteristic of McCain (if even in context) and your numbers aren't meshing for me. I'm willing to change my mind if you have any proof (not propaganda or rhetoric).

Here is a reference for you:

McCain's top economic adviser, Doug Holtz-Eakin, blithely supposes that cuts in defense spending could make up for reducing the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25% and the subsequent shrinkage in federal revenues. Get that? The national security candidate wants to cut spending on our national security. Wait until the generals and the admirals hear that.

http://www.forbes.com/home/2008/06/06/obama-mccain-economy-oped-cx_rl_0609croesus.html?partner=rcp

 

[dkinley]

Ever pay attention to the similar threads at the bottom of the post? Posting what was showing on my screen ... had to chuckle at the irony as a slight reinterpretation of the words jumped out at me ....

"Unsourced Report" (for a post that was claimed as facts)
"Trying to create an argument that loops throw a low-blow set to split a voter from a party"

And finally ... after the previous two - didn't have to touch the last one ..

"Ready to throw my PC out of the window" (when you try to have a discussion against a closed mind).

Maybe there more than we suspect to artificial intelligence when we only use simple routines ...

-dk

 

[pbaldy]

Really? Even with the additional $700 billion Iraq war spending bill that was passed this month?

Given that I specifically stated FY2007, I'm sure spending approved this month is not accounted for. You're the one throwing numbers around without foundation, though. Why don't you provide a source?

FWIW, defense is one of the few things in the Constitution that the federal government is supposed to spend money on.

 

[Alisa]

Given that I specifically stated FY2007, I'm sure spending approved this month is not accounted for. You're the one throwing numbers around without foundation, though. Why don't you provide a source?

FWIW, defense is one of the few things in the Constitution that the federal government is supposed to spend money on.

I guess my sentence was too short: Is defense spending at 20% THIS YEAR given the funding bill that was just passed THIS MONTH?

And I repeat, I am not saying that we should cut funding to the military. My point was that we won't be able to afford our military if we go to a flat tax system.

 

[Banana]

It is not an "unfunded liability". Social security and medicare are ALWAYS paid for by the next generation. The demographic issue (of a smaller generation funding a larger generation) could be solved in about 2 seconds by either removing the cap and or means testing the benefits.

Hey, you kid! Yeah, you kid! Look, here's my credit bill. You pay it off! Yeah, you! Now if you will excuse me, I'm late for my flight to Hawaii.

Also, there are no money in either account right now. It's paid for by freshly printed bills in exchange for debts to foreigners. So we're literally mortgaging our nation to pay for our 'entitlement'.

I've said it before and will say it again: Nobody has ever taxed or spent their way to prosperity. But for some reasons, they think it just doesn't apply to government as it would to private citizens.

As for military, we can do with less just as we can do with less entitlements. Close up bases all over the world and give kids a opt out from social security. Of course, this doesn't even address the deficit spending, made possible by fiat currency where a bunch of old farts make up some numbers and declare it is worth so and so. Silly fsckers.

 

[pbaldy]

So you're ignoring the Constitution on that one?

 

[Alisa]

So you're ignoring the Constitution on that one?

You mean the part where it says wages shouldn't be taxed?

 

[pbaldy]

They probably wouldn't need to be if we limited spending to what's in the Constitution.