Raise America’s Taxes

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by 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%.

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.

[elephantium]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

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.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by elephantium

I said realistic plan.

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

Killjoy.

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.