Raise America’s Taxes

[Gerald]

President Obama in his speech on Wednesday confronted a topic that is harder to address seriously in public than sex or flatulence: America needs higher taxes.

That ugly truth looms over today’s budget battles, but politicians have mostly preferred to run from reality. Mr. Obama’s speech was excellent not only for its content but also because he didn’t insult our intelligence.

There is no single reason for today’s budget mess, but it’s worth remembering that the last time our budget was in the black was in the Clinton administration. That’s a broad hint that one sensible way to overcome our difficulties would be to revert to tax rates more or less as they were under President Clinton. That single step would solve three-quarters of the deficit for the next five years or so.

Paradoxically, nothing makes the need for a tax increase more clear than the Republican budget proposal crafted by Representative Paul Ryan. The Republicans propose slashing spending far more than the public would probably accept — even dismantling Medicare — and rely on economic assumptions that are not merely rosy, but preposterous.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/opinion/14kristof.html?ref=opinion


Note: April 13, 2011

[GoldenRivet]

America needs less spending.

America has plenty of taxes... just about everything here except oxygen is taxed.

The problem is the government is trying to subsidize everything, when in reality it needs to be:

providing firefighting, police, defense, and regulating international commerce and that's just about it.

instead we have thousands of things - all of them receiving untold amounts of tax money - that are not essential.

the budget needs to be cut - and cut hard... by a matter of about 30% at least.... not the recent 0.1% :doh:

[gimpy117]

plenty of taxes?

Ill bring Up GE again. Too many loopholes.

[Armistead]

Tax rates mean nothing when you're rich, tax shelters and loopholes do.
Corporations don't care about tax rates as long as they have all their shelters and can buy regulation. Our code is so complex for one reason, it keeps average Americans out of the know. The tax code is much like our criminal code, we give people 3 life sentences, then they get out in 5 years. It's laughable when the GOP talks about lowering taxes, then only mentions closing a few possible loopholes.

They say the rich pay most of the taxes. First, we're going into mass debt, so it's not being paid for, second, the average american pays boat loads.
Everything is taxed, gas, sales, power, you name it, it probably has taxes built in. Corporations pay very little for what they get.

We need a complete reworking of the tax code, better known as the rich man's handbook. Get rid of loopholes, shelters, then adjust the tax..

[tater]

We have a spending problem, not a taxation problem.

Tax revenue as a % of GDP remains remarkably constant. Spending is insane right now. Obama spends 2 times more in the red each year than Bush spent in EIGHT.

[gimpy117]

We have a spending problem, not a taxation problem.

Tax revenue as a % of GDP remains remarkably constant. Spending is insane right now. Obama spends 2 times more in the red each year than Bush spent in EIGHT.

thats because of the stimulus. thats a temporary thing.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Tax rates mean nothing when you're rich, tax shelters and loopholes do.
Corporations don't care about tax rates as long as they have all their shelters and can buy regulation. Our code is so complex for one reason, it keeps average Americans out of the know. The tax code is much like our criminal code, we give people 3 life sentences, then they get out in 5 years. It's laughable when the GOP talks about lowering taxes, then only mentions closing a few possible loopholes.

They say the rich pay most of the taxes. First, we're going into mass debt, so it's not being paid for, second, the average american pays boat loads.
Everything is taxed, gas, sales, power, you name it, it probably has taxes built in. Corporations pay very little for what they get.

We need a complete reworking of the tax code, better known as the rich man's handbook. Get rid of loopholes, shelters, then adjust the tax..
I generally agree, though I am a bit miffed about you questioning my beloved corporations. For the record, corporations are pretty good about paying their taxes. They're also pretty good about passing that overhead cost on to the consumers, which is why corporate tax is a patently stupid idea. Business is good. We want more of it, not less. No taxes for business. :yeah: No capital gains tax either. Capital is also good, especially when one is gaining it.

That said, Kristoff can go to hell. While I agree thathistaxes should be raised, seeing as how he has so magnanimously offered, he has no right to raise my taxes to fund things I don't support. Well, no moral right, anyway. He talks about politicians running from fiscal reality but he is not willing to cut medicare and medicaid or social security; by whose powers combined- not even Captain Planet can save us.

This ridiculous entitlement spending has to stop. It's eating nearly two-thirds of the GNP all by itself and nobody is happy with the results. I don't say that because I'm a heartless capitalist, I say that because everyone already knows it, though they have not yet admitted it. While the goals of these programs are noble and I retain enough of my former liberal enlightenment to appreciate that, the fact of the matter is that they have all been complete disasters.

Something has to be done, but whatever it is, do not let the government have too much discretionary power over it. I'd prefer it not have any at all, but I'm willing to compromise. Remember, this is the same agency that somehow managed to obtain the power to tax people's earnings in the interests of providing for them in retirement, a very simple task by any measure, and then managed to misplace all of that money. Worse, the government now effectively owes money to social security. How the ******* do you even do that? They literally could have taken that money and put it into a CD at a bank and done nothing else with it and made money.

We are running out of time. Estimates vary, but our interest payments will eclipse our taxable income soon enough that we should be concerned. No amount of taxation, no matter how well-intentioned, nor how wisely-spent, is going to fix the Supreme Mongolian Cluster-**** that is our Federal Government. We need to get right to the heart of the matter, and that means drastic cuts in federal spending and power. It also means boosting our tax base by creating an environment favorable for business. Not this multibillion-dollar forward-thinking green-job BS that obviously isn't working, but a real environment that is favorable for business. No business taxes, no duties, no tariffs, no quotas. We are in an increasingly global market, and that means we need a competitive edge.

/rant Sorry if I stepped on anyone's toes.

[Onkel Neal]

I like.:hmmm:

[August]

I like.:hmmm:

New taxes? :stare: Burn the witch! :D

[les green01]

don't need more taxes what we need is to get his and congress hands out of the piggy bank stop giving them a blank checks stop the earmarks or the pork or whatever you want to call it.i think neal should run for president way he runs subsim he be a great one.i been on medicad years ago sad thing it does need to go its hard to find doctor that takes it then when you do they charge the gov double what everything cost.as far obama i don't believe nothing he saids.

[AVGWarhawk]

No new taxes! Just raise the old ones! :O:

You know what, they made the mess, they can figure out how to pay for it without my help! I missed my bail out so can the government. "Hi, we made such a mess of things we need your money to fix our screw up." :down:

[TorpX]

A liberal (socialist) president wants to raise our taxes. Same old story. What garbage! They need to cut and cut deep. Also, they should adopt a much simpler tax code. Of course this would mean them giving up their power to manipulate us, so they will have to be forced to do this.


For the younger people who think raising taxes is a reasonable solution, I'll give you a short history lesson. Many times in the past, congress made similer budget deals to reduce the deficit. The Republicans agreed to sign on to some tax increases, and the Democrats agreed to sign on to some spending cuts. The idea was to get X cuts for Y taxes. What happened was that the tax increases went into effect right away, but the spending cuts were delayed. The supposed cuts came to be watered down, killed or were offset by new spending. End result - no deficit reduction.

Most of what the Fed spends is either wasted, or worse, even harmful to the nation. There is no legitimate reason why they can't make the neccessary cuts.

As UnderseaLcpl said:
We are running out of time. Estimates vary, but our interest payments will eclipse our taxable income soon enough that we should be concerned. No amount of taxation, no matter how well-intentioned, nor how wisely-spent, is going to fix the Supreme Mongolian Cluster-**** that is our Federal Government. We need to get right to the heart of the matter, and that means drastic cuts in federal spending and power.

Well put.

[elephantium]

What would y'all cut? Currently, about 40% of federal spending is deficit spending. You can't cut Social Security; people have been paying in to that system for decades with the expectation of receiving benefits. Besides, cutting Social Security also means cutting tax revenues by about 30%.

Cut Medicare? Good luck with that -- and keep in mind that eliminating it would only fix half of the deficit problem. OTOH, the civil unrest from millions of people suddenly losing health coverage would make deficits seem a lot less important.

Cut military spending? Again, good luck with that. Though TBF, we could easily afford to trim the defense budget. Slow down R&D a bit, decommission 2-3 carrier groups, close some of the hundreds of bases on foreign soil, and bring the troops back home (I'd make an exception for Korea, but we really should get out of most places).

Everything else in the budget? That would make a dent in the problem, but doing a blanket-dismantling of the entire rest of the government would cause more problems than it would solve.

People talk a lot about raising taxes to cover the budget or cutting spending, but no one ever has anything remotely like a realistic plan.

[UnderseaLcpl]

What would y'all cut? Currently, about 40% of federal spending is deficit spending. You can't cut Social Security; people have been paying in to that system for decades with the expectation of receiving benefits. Besides, cutting Social Security also means cutting tax revenues by about 30%.
True, but Social Security is not supposed to be a source of general tax revenue. It's supposed to Social Security, the beneficent and wise measure taken by our Federal government to ensure that nobody slipped through the cracks. Obviously, that hasn't worked out, so I suggest doing what many private retirement plans that were raided by Social Security under Carter do; cut the benefits, keep the withholdings to pay off the beneficiaries.

We can accomplish this by cutting benefits for everyone who isn't drawing them or near to drawing them. I wouldn't put Social Security dependents out on the street any more than you would, but we have to do something to fix this disaster. If it falls to our generation to suck it up and pay social security tax with no expectation of benefits, I say we should do it.

But that's not a solution in and of itself. We also need to make sure that this kind of travesty never happens again, lest we simply postpone the problem. That means we need to abolish powers and agencies of the government, by constitutional amendment if possible, and by civil rebellion if necessary.

Cut Medicare? Good luck with that -- and keep in mind that eliminating it would only fix half of the deficit problem. OTOH, the civil unrest from millions of people suddenly losing health coverage would make deficits seem a lot less important.
Only half of the deficit? As if that's some kind of triviality? Cutting Medicare would be a major step, and again, we could do it without disenfranchising the already disenfranchised. Keep the tax, cut the future entitlements and thus eliminate exponential growth of spending. Problem solved.

Cut military spending? Again, good luck with that. Though TBF, we could easily afford to trim the defense budget. Slow down R&D a bit, decommission 2-3 carrier groups, close some of the hundreds of bases on foreign soil, and bring the troops back home (I'd make an exception for Korea, but we really should get out of most places).

And leave all those people and allies stranded without our support? Yeah, I can't see that backfiring in any way. In an increasingly globalized environment. Where we need friends who are willing to trade with us.

The fact of the matter is that no matter how stupid or obsolescent the promises of friendship and military support that our predecessors made are, we need to keep them now, so it again falls to us to fix the problems. I say we should step up and accept the challenge.

And it doesn't have to cost us. We could fix our vast military expenditure in no time flat by allowing US PMCs to take up... let's say a third of our global commitments. Frees up a third of the military budget and we could actually tax 5% or so of their income to make a profit. There's a lot of conflict in the world and there are people willing to pay handsomely for a resolution.

And don't even get me started on the reliability or efficacy of PMCs, just in case you're thinking about it.

Everything else in the budget? That would make a dent in the problem, but doing a blanket-dismantling of the entire rest of the government would cause more problems than it would solve.

Not necessarily, as demonstrated above. That's not including the huge number of failed programs and initiatives we could easily cut or replace with private industry or charitable contributions if we would adopt an attitude of fiscal responsibility. As seemingly-unreachable as they are, politicians actually do respond to voter pressure, even when it starts from one post. The Tea-Party is evidence enough of the effectiveness of grass-roots movements. It can be done, and it needs to be done.

People talk a lot about raising taxes to cover the budget or cutting spending, but no one ever has anything remotely like a realistic plan.
Now you have one. Granted, it is not going to go over well politically, but it is sound and there is a popular movement backing it. You can back it or you can resign yourself to the fate your realism has assigned you. It is your choice.

[tater]

Yet another year and according to the accountant (he just called) we are both still unqualified for an Obama Cabinet position.

Meaning we now have an unbroken string of over-paying taxes for our entire adult lives ('cept 2 years when we didn't withhold, and had to write a huge check for the exact tax (on time, of course, since we're not criminals like, say, the Secretary of the Treasury)). Regardless, we've never underpaid taxes.

[yubba]

I have always wondered, what they were thinking, when they cut down the last tree on Easter Island.

[FIREWALL]

Or maybe a simpler way. Put all the massive unemployed citizens back to work that will pay taxes and, help take the burden off the already working taxpayers.

Just a thought.

[elephantium]

Now you have one. Granted, it is not going to go over well politically, but it is sound and there is a popular movement backing it. You can back it or you can resign yourself to the fate your realism has assigned you. It is your choice.

I said realistic plan.

What you've said amounts to little more than a revolutionary fantasy, IMO ... the Tea Party movement (or at least elements of it) would support you in that, but I don't think we'll see any effective change on that front. Dysfunction is very strongly entrenched in Washington.

[gimpy117]

Or maybe a simpler way. Put all the massive unemployed citizens back to work that will pay taxes and, help take the burden off the already working taxpayers.

Just a thought.

its something our government should be making a priority yes, Build the middle class; that is where stability and a health economy comes from. But Washington is too focused on giving their corporate buddies handouts.

[Terrax]

I'm in the minority, but no pain no gain. If the US would actually stick to a plan and drive down debt, as a citizen, I would gladly pay more taxes. I myself HATE being in debt & am working my ass off to get out.

But our budget is a typical situation. I'm way over simplifying it, but pay off one debt, & another pops up. Get the mortgage paid off & then the the family wants a new car. Most people can't save money, excess $$$ must be spent. You've got to make sacrifices to dig yourself out a hole that you've made for yourself. Our government should be the same way.

Even if we (unlikely as it is) pass a long term workable budget, sh!t will come up before we reach zero that puts us into the red again.

I would gladly deal with new taxes, if It meant solving the problem & getting the US out of debt. But bastards in Washington would raise taxes, balance the budget, & then fuk it all up again.

So as it is, I've become selfish & just worry about my own little corner of the world. As a result, I've become part of the problem. Painful cuts are the only way to fix the problem, but because politicians want to get re-elected, they refuse to make changes that will be unpopular with voters so they can keep their jobs. Even if it's the right thing to do for the country.

I can see the temptation though. Once someone got a taste of the power & the good life, they would probably do all they could to keep all the perks & the $$$.

That's my problem, I haven't seen anything from anyone of those people in the last few years that shows me that they have my best interest in mind. It just seems like a big pissing contest. It's really hard to care at this point, and it seems like the guys in DC don't care either.

So to summarize, if the government spent my $$$ responsibly (determined by gentleman much smarter than myself), I would be glad to lower my quality of life to help my country.

[FIREWALL]

its something our government should be making a priority yes, Build the middle class; that is where stability and a health economy comes from. But Washington is too focused on giving their corporate buddies handouts.


:up::up::up: :salute:

[elephantium]

I'm in the minority, but no pain no gain. If the US would actually stick to a plan and drive down debt, as a citizen, I would gladly pay more taxes. I myself HATE being in debt & am working my ass off to get out.

But our budget is a typical situation. I'm way over simplifying it, but pay off one debt, & another pops up. Get the mortgage paid off & then the the family wants a new car. Most people can't save money, excess $$$ must be spent. You've got to make sacrifices to dig yourself out a hole that you've made for yourself. Our government should be the same way.


Agreed -- we'll need to pay more in taxes fund the government services we expect, or we'll have to learn to do without a lot of those services. Either way, it's a sacrifice.

OTOH, I'm not too keen on the idea of making deep sacrifices myself in order to pay an extra million to the multi-billionaires in this country.

[UnderseaLcpl]

I said realistic plan.

What you've said amounts to little more than a revolutionary fantasy, IMO ...
Killjoy.:O:

the Tea Party movement (or at least elements of it) would support you in that, but I don't think we'll see any effective change on that front.
That's the popular movement I was referring to. I know it's sort of in vogue to bash the Tea party and laugh about how dumb they are in certain circles(not implying that you're among them, no grudge if you are), but don't underestimate the Tea Party. There aren't many times in our history where a popular movement has resulted in a major shift in politics, but the Tea party is thus far showing every sign of being one of those, particularly the most important sign: They are really pissed off.

This is not just some "revolutionary fantasy" of mine. Well, there's a little bit of fantasy in there. I don't imagine that any of the things I suggested will be implemented in the fashion I suggested, nor do I suppose that the Tea Party will be completely successful in eradicating the dysfunction of government. These same people will probably do the exact same thing previous generations did, which is to say they will empower the government again as soon as they want something fixed. What's important is that they will rob the government of its primary means for empowering dysfunction, namely free money. With fiscal responsibility comes, well, responsibility. The government won't be able to be co-opted by their demands or those of anyone else, because it will not have the means.

At a time when national expenditures have nearly reached a crux, movements like the Tea Party are likely to gain momentum rather than lose it. And even if they lose in the near future, they will win when things inevitably get worse. And even if they somehow manage to not win then, there will certainly be a revolution should our economy collapse under the strain of government spending. Of that you can be certain.

It's not really a revolutionary fantasy, just a bit of revolution mixed with fantasy.

Dysfunction is very strongly entrenched in Washington.
Agreed, but that's no reason to give up.

[Platapus]

Or maybe a simpler way. Put all the massive unemployed citizens back to work that will pay taxes and, help take the burden off the already working taxpayers.

Just a thought.


Sort of what FDR did with the many work programs. :yep:

Unfortunately with the technology we have today, the safety regulations, not to mention the unions, there is very little untrained unemployed labor could do

We need to find some program that will serve society that we can implement in a deliberately labor inefficient way to put people to work. I just can't think of one that will get past the regulators and the unions.

Maybe we need to work through the unions. Hey, the US government worked through the Mafia during WWII, maybe they can work through the unions?

Wish I had the answer. :nope: