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.

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[Skybird]

Every coin has two sides.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-1...data-show.html

Social parasites, rich parasites - both suck other people'S blood.

Five years ago, I bought the flat I now live in, because I like to be here. Back then, in Germany there was a financial aid that gave you back 1^0% of property value that you bought, over 8 years (it was called Eigenheimzulage). The law was about to end at the time I bought the appartement, but I had the option to sign in for it, since the deal took place some months before the law ended. I decided against using it, because at that time it all looked okay and as if I could afford to not take the money and run, and I did not wish to need to say Thanks to a state that I feel no love or loyalty for, and I wondered why I should expect the public to compensate me for parts of my personal financial deals.

Compared to some others, I certainly do not look clever to say No to catching some thousand bucks for free, and I am probably no clever businessman at all. However, I do not need to say thanks to anyone over my deal, except my parents who helped me a bit with financing it and payed a quarter of it, but family issues are not the issue here. My parents also were in doubt about taking that tax money and thus owing loyalty to the state.

But what really differs me from people like those described in the article, is my lack of shamelessness and greed. And that is a quality of mine for which I will never apologize. Those people are parasites, and jjust having the löegal possibility to ripp off the public and the taxpayer, doe snot mean that ethically it is okay, or that you have to do it just becasue you can do it. If I can say No, and refuse to taske taxmoney, than they can, too. But they don'T, and that is the difference between them and me.

There are not only social wellfare parasites. Many rich people and business people are parasites as well. Plus all those clever smartheads being of so creative in their tax declarations and finding any legal hole in the lawcode to hide. Especially big companies being a problem here.

We have too many expections from the laws, too many special cases being listed, too many ways of tricking out the system. The damage from that is calculated to go into the high billions per year, in Germany. I cannot imagine that it is any different in any Western country.

When you identify a hole in the laws, and a flw in the general design, this must not be understood as an invitation. You are always free to decide NOT to abuse it.