Bush tax cut analysis

[tater]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Entitlements?
For a long long time the major expense the US govt had was pensions and payments to civil war vets or their relatives.
The current entitlements program for social spending on vets and their families is the 2nd biggest dept of the government ......after the military.
So where are you going to swing that axe on social spending?

It's not the biggest expense, entitlements (SS, medicare, medicaid, etc) is BY FAR. Veteran's affairs is a fraction of entitlement spending.

Cut SS, medicare and medicaid first.

I don't expect to live off that, so I'm not expecting anyone else to. (obviously it would have to be a phased thing, I do not suggest ending payments to current retirees, but a phased increase in retirement age, and means testing so only people that are too poor to survive get any safety net. As a "retirement plan" it should cease to exist, the Constitution doesn't guarantee a life without work after some arbitrary age.

BTW, when pensions was a major outlay, total government spending as a % of GDP was a tiny fraction of what it is today. (like 2.5% vs 25%)

[AVGWarhawk]

SS is nothing but a revolving account or rainy day fund for Washington. Guess what...it is always raining in Washington. So yeah, SS is basically a joke.

Let dig into say...the welfare system..... Gosh...I know two that are on the governments tab. These are just 2 of thousands taking money were money is not due. High time welfare officials do spot check follow up. The insurance companies follow up on those claiming disablity...why does'nt uncle Sam?

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Originally Posted by tater

It's not the biggest expense, entitlements (SS, medicare, medicaid, etc) is BY FAR. Veteran's affairs is a fraction of entitlement spending.

Cut SS, medicare and medicaid first.

I don't expect to live off that, so I'm not expecting anyone else to. (obviously it would have to be a phased thing, I do not suggest ending payments to current retirees, but a phased increase in retirement age, and means testing so only people that are too poor to survive get any safety net. As a "retirement plan" it should cease to exist, the Constitution doesn't guarantee a life without work after some arbitrary age.

BTW, when pensions was a major outlay, total government spending as a % of GDP was a tiny fraction of what it is today. (like 2.5% vs 25%)

So...cut charity so the wealthy can keep a tax cut?

Do you call yourself a Christian?

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by Torvald Von Mansee

So...cut charity so the wealthy can keep a tax cut?

Do you call yourself a Christian?

Agree. The budget needs balancing. Time the rich ponied up like they used to.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

Agree. The budget needs balancing. Time the rich ponied up like they used to.

They never did until 1913. The income tax was created solely to force the rich to pay "their fair share". If taxes weren't necessary at all you'd still be crying about "the rich".

I cannot think of any reason why I would like the government to take my property in order to give it back to me if I follow their rules, paper work, and regulation, with interest. Let me just keep my money.

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

They never did until 1913. The income tax was created solely to force the rich to pay "their fair share". If taxes weren't necessary at all you'd still be crying about "the rich".

in 3 years it will be 100 years of taxes. Taxes are a necessary thing. Unless you live in Monaco (a country basically existing just because it has no taxes) or Somalia you probably have them. The thing is, The Mega rich pay a disproportionate amount. They have so much expendable income yet are not asked to pay much more than the rest of us (unless you are cripplingly poor).
so when it comes down to it, me making 5,000 for school and having somwhere around $900.00 taken out has more effect than a rich man having his 35% top rate taken.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

in 3 years it will be 100 years of taxes. Taxes are a necessary thing.

Yes they are. Without them a government can't exist. But creating taxes just to soak the rich is an abuse of the reason governments exist in the first place. You can argue the value of helping others all you like, but forcing someone else to fulfill a moral obligation as you see it is abuse, no matter how you sugarcoat it.

The thing is, The Mega rich pay a disproportionate amount. They have so much expendable income yet are not asked to pay much more than the rest of us (unless you are cripplingly poor).

By whose standard? Taxes exist so government can function. Anything more than that is an attempt to legislate your personal morality, pure-and-simple.

so when it comes down to it, me making 5,000 for school and having somwhere around $900.00 taken out has more effect than a rich man having his 35% top rate taken.

That statement makes no sense. You making "5,000" what? If you only make $5000 per year you pay no taxes. I know a guy who gets a huge tax break because of his nine kids. The people who prudently decided to help the population problem by having none have to pay for their schooling. Right? Wrong?

The problem with money isn't this country isn't the bloated individuals with "too much money" - it's the bloated government that keeps spending other people's money to expand its own wasteline (and yes, I misspelled that intentionally).

Yes, taxes are necessary. But they are still a necessary evil, and until you see it that way you will continue to think that government is the answer to all our problems, when in fact it is the creator of most of them.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Yes they are. Without them a government can't exist. But creating taxes just to soak the rich is an abuse of the reason governments exist in the first place. You can argue the value of helping others all you like, but forcing someone else to fulfill a moral obligation as you see it is abuse, no matter how you sugarcoat it.


By whose standard? Taxes exist so government can function. Anything more than that is an attempt to legislate your personal morality, pure-and-simple.


That statement makes no sense. You making "5,000" what? If you only make $5000 per year you pay no taxes. I know a guy who gets a huge tax break because of his nine kids. The people who prudently decided to help the population problem by having none have to pay for their schooling. Right? Wrong?

The problem with money isn't this country isn't the bloated individuals with "too much money" - it's the bloated government that keeps spending other people's money to expand its own wasteline (and yes, I misspelled that intentionally).

Yes, taxes are necessary. But they are still a necessary evil, and until you see it that way you will continue to think that government is the answer to all our problems, when in fact it is the creator of most of them.

Oh, man - excellent post Steve!

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

That statement makes no sense. You making "5,000" what? If you only make $5000 per year you pay no taxes. I know a guy who gets a huge tax break because of his nine kids. The people who prudently decided to help the population problem by having none have to pay for their schooling. Right? Wrong?

oh no, I pay them, I just have to file a tax return to get a refund. But i only get income refunds. If what you are saying was true, i would have and extra 900 in my account right now. which would really help because I could use that cash right about now for school.

also steve, I was not talking about taxing the rich for a "HA! sucks to you" sort of approach, Im talking about how our government is in a money crunch, and the bush tax cuts helped put us there. We need that extra revenue. It will be an unpopular move for sure, But it's not unprecedented.