When do we really get to "soak the rich"?

When do we really get to "soak the rich"? If your income was over $160,041, you made it to the top 5 percent and paid 60.63 percent of all federal income taxes. Think about that for a minute. The top 5 percent of taxpayers paid a greater percentage of all federal income taxes — 60.63 percent — than the bottom 90 percent who paid 28.78 percent.

The real problem is not the distribution of the tax burden and the fact that we all want to shift that burden to somebody who makes more than we do. The problem is that the cost of government is too high.

Which is another fact that most of the electorate is realizing.

http://www.twincities.com/opinion/ci...nclick_check=1

[tater]

Agreed. Cut spending. Start with "mandatory" spending. All spending should be contingent on revenue.

I don't have a huge problem with paying a large sum in taxes. I do, however, have a problem with paying huge amounts in tax, then have the SOBs in Washington say "that's not enough!" then spending MORE.

Step 1: Any remaining "stimulus" pork should be cancelled. Or say 90%. They can pick the most "stimulating" 10% to keep. Chose well, we'll be paying attention.

Step 2: freeze all government spending at FY 2000 level plus the inflation rate (nearly zero in that period). Defense being constitutionally required can be maintained. Perhaps specific programs could have higher spending, but only with a 2/3 majority of both houses in agreement.

Step 3: balanced budget Amendment. Entitlements need to be on the table, too, or it's meaningless. Yes, that means cutting SS and Medicare at some level (higher retirement age, etc). Tough crap.

[August]

Originally Posted by tater

Tough crap.

You'll never get my vote.

You realize that we are currently working without any budget whatsoever. Another reason to change a congress which doesn't listen to the people they represent.

[tater]

Originally Posted by August

You'll never get my vote.

Anyone against putting entitlements on the table is the problem. They will bankrupt us.

Phasing in a retirement age increase is the easy way to cut costs, and is 100% fair. It's not like the COnstitution demands that X% of everyone's life is to be leisure.

Anyone peeved by the use of "tough"... well, tough. I used it on purpose, because every time anyone mentioned "the third rail" all rational debate ends. The electorate indeed needs to grow a pair, and be tough.

But, hey, if you prefer insolvency or hyper-inflation, good luck with that. I'll be secure regardless of SS, myself, I'm only thinking of the rest of society. SOME safety net is better than a meltdown and NO safety net.

[mookiemookie]

Entitlements should be considered just as cuts in defense spending should be. If they're serious about balancing the budget, there can be no sacred cows.

[SteamWake]

Well they did decide to not to vote on the current budget.

They were scared and November is comming up, no need to rock the boat with silly things like a budget right now.

[August]

Originally Posted by tater

I'll be secure regardless of SS

So you think.

What have you done to make yourself so immune to national insolvency?

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Entitlements should be considered just as cuts in defense spending should be. If they're serious about balancing the budget, there can be no sacred cows.

Except that defense is discretionary by law, and social programs aren't discretionary by law.

To enjoy your idea social programs should be made discretionary as defense is discretionary.

[tater]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Entitlements should be considered just as cuts in defense spending should be. If they're serious about balancing the budget, there can be no sacred cows.

The military is maybe 20% of the budget. It could certainly be cut, but it is at least a legitimate expense, unlike SS etc.

So cut away, but if we want to hold the line, basically 2/3 of cuts need to be entitlements.

As for insulation from insolvency having some offshore investments and gold is about it if you don't count real estate, guns, and ammo . Not enough, but better than someone depending on SS. Assuming the country doesn't fail we'll be fine without it.

[seanobrgp]

Originally Posted by tater

The military is maybe 20% of the budget. It could certainly be cut, but it is at least a legitimate expense, unlike SS etc.

So cut away, but if we want to hold the line, basically 2/3 of cuts need to be entitlements.

As for insulation from insolvency having some offshore investments and gold is about it if you don't count real estate, guns, and ammo . Not enough, but better than someone depending on SS. Assuming the country doesn't fail we'll be fine without it.

Social Security may be many things, but it is not an illegitimate expense; with respect, to even imply that suggests you are simply projecting your ideological beliefs rather than taking a moment to consider the issue.

The individualist argument against Social Security is at least consistent -- give as little as possible, expect nothing in return -- but I can't agree that it would translate to effective or positive policy, at least not now. According to The Century Foundation, 40 percent of our country's elderly population were kept out of poverty because of Social Security in 1999; another 10 percent were in poverty despite their benefits, and I believe those two figures have remained constant since. Eliminating or significantly reducing the program could thrust anywhere from 13 to 20 million people beneath the poverty line, to say nothing of those who would have their retirements impacted by an amelioration in supplementary income. Assuming that the economy continues to linger for the foreseeable future, it's simply not possible that all of these people could re-enter the labor force to finance their retirement as it is ongoing (it never will be), and that ignores turning this into legislation a majority of politicians could coalesce behind.

I'm far from a supporter of his, but I'm inclined to agree with Robert Reich's argument that the question of Social Security -- which will not be forced to reduce its payments until 2036 in a worst case scenario -- is resolvable with a few adjustments. The Urban Institute wrote an excellent summation on the subject earlier this year; ultimately some combination of an increase in the retirement age (68 or 70, to better coincide with today's longer lifespan), raising the tax rate by a percentage point to 13, and an examination of the Cost Of Living Adjustment will have to be undertaken. I don't welcome the idea of any tax increase, but in the absence of a superior alternative, it's the only fiscally responsible, conservative thing to do if we are committed to retaining Social Security as it exists today. We also have to increase investment and wealth management education, encourage personal prudence, and emphasize the costs of an ideal retirement. In 2003, 34 percent of people on Social Security relied on it for 90 percent or more of their income; if we can reduce that statistic by half or more, then we may have cause to delicately explore how to reduce the benefits Social Security is paying out.

You may disagree with the definition of retirement as a universal or Constitutional right, but it's an eventuality I think we should try to facilitate for everyone, and the implication that some should not be deserving of the privilege is rather draconian. As a society, we need to be better than that. As a Republican, I believe we should strive to find conservative, logical solutions to these challenges, not pretend they don't exist or aren't worthy of our concern because they violate some sacrosanct ideological prism. That's what the Republican Party is truly about.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

If I become rich, overnight, won't I pay as much as the current rich? And that is somehow unfair?

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by seanobrgp

Social Security may be many things, but it is not an illegitimate expense; with respect, to even imply that suggests you are simply projecting your ideological beliefs rather than taking a moment to consider the issue.

The individualist argument against Social Security is at least consistent -- give as little as possible, expect nothing in return -- but I can't agree that it would translate to effective or positive policy, at least not now. According to The Century Foundation, 40 percent of our country's elderly population were kept out of poverty because of Social Security in 1999; another 10 percent were in poverty despite their benefits, and I believe those two figures have remained constant since. Eliminating or significantly reducing the program could thrust anywhere from 13 to 20 million people beneath the poverty line, to say nothing of those who would have their retirements impacted by an amelioration in supplementary income. Assuming that the economy continues to linger for the foreseeable future, it's simply not possible that all of these people could re-enter the labor force to finance their retirement as it is ongoing (it never will be), and that ignores turning this into legislation a majority of politicians could coalesce behind.

I'm far from a supporter of his, but I'm inclined to agree with Robert Reich's argument that the question of Social Security -- which will not be forced to reduce its payments until 2036 in a worst case scenario -- is resolvable with a few adjustments. The Urban Institute wrote an excellent summation on the subject earlier this year; ultimately some combination of an increase in the retirement age (68 or 70, to better coincide with today's longer lifespan), raising the tax rate by a percentage point to 13, and an examination of the Cost Of Living Adjustment will have to be undertaken. I don't welcome the idea of any tax increase, but in the absence of a superior alternative, it's the only fiscally responsible, conservative thing to do if we are committed to retaining Social Security as it exists today. We also have to increase investment and wealth management education, encourage personal prudence, and emphasize the costs of an ideal retirement. In 2003, 34 percent of people on Social Security relied on it for 90 percent or more of their income; if we can reduce that statistic by half or more, then we may have cause to delicately explore how to reduce the benefits Social Security is paying out.

You may disagree with the definition of retirement as a universal or Constitutional right, but it's an eventuality I think we should try to facilitate for everyone, and the implication that some should not be deserving of the privilege is rather draconian. As a society, we need to be better than that. As a Republican, I believe we should strive to find conservative, logical solutions to these challenges, not pretend they don't exist or aren't worthy of our concern because they violate some sacrosanct ideological prism. That's what the Republican Party is truly about.

Thats one hellua first post right there.

[gimpy117]

its funny how the top tax rates are close to the lowest in history, yet the rich see any increase as "gouging them". During WWII and into the cold war the rich paid anywhere from about 91%-70%. Whats even more funny is that our economy was much more vibrant then, then it is now.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

http://whatwepayfor.com/

seems relevant