After Hours·5,413 discussions

My advice on debt and deficit, Mr. Obama

Locked

If I could write Obama a speech for tonight, I’d give him these three points:

1. “I recognize that, under the 14th amendment, neither Congress nor any other body has the authority to disregard America’s debt. Since Congress has already authorized previous years’ and the current year’s spending, no debt ceiling limitation is constitutional. The fight on this issue is over. We will borrow as needed.”

2. “The Bush tax cuts, all of them, are set to expire in 2012. I will not permit the extension of any of them, for rich and poor alike. The deficit crisis that looms over the coming decades is equal in amount to the Bush tax cuts. This has been a case of borrowing to cut taxes, which is nonsense. The Bush tax cuts have not resulted in prosperity, and seeing government reliably funded would restore confidence to business, and give business the faith to resume investing in this country’s future.”

3. “I will not seek the Presidency in 2012. I’ve been the weakest leader since Millard Fillmore, and it is a disservice to my party, my country, and to liberalism itself for me to pursue re-election. Plus, given that my assertion of the unconstitutionality of the debt ceiling will be sure to come to the Supreme Court, and the Supremes lately have been an arm of Republican interests, it is more likely my decision will be upheld if there is a chance of a Republican President enjoying the authority I seek, instead of me.”

All big problems solved, in one simple speech! Except for the financial industry. That sucker still needs some major fixing. But breaking up the big banks and designing a short leash for them requires a President with much more nerve than the current guy.

Topic

Take the Banks’ control away

In reply to My advice on debt and deficit, Mr. Obama

by realizing that money (including income) is not wealth.

Money is a medium of EXCHANGE! We need to treat it that way and no other.

“Government shouldn’t be giving money to any person or entity, except as payment for a product or service provided to the government by that person or entity.”

Think very carefully about the above, and you’ll see the root cause of the current economic struggles WORLD-WIDE.

Wealth in a capitalistic system builds because the same money get used again and again and again, perpetually in exchange for something of value.

(Here’s the proof… Say a person earns a million dollars and they spend it on something of value (say a grand home with a big yard, garage, pool, etc. Even though that person spent all that money you’d consider that person wealthy, wouldn’t you? And they’ll remain that way as long as those assets they bought maintain their value, right? But someone else has all that money now… the SAME money… which THEY can now use to create their own wealth.)

Now suppose you give that money to someone without getting something in return (as in entitlement programs), or are forced to give MORE of it without getting MORE in return (as in raising the minimum wage). Every time you do that, the money (ALL money) loses a little of its value. Doing it again and again and again causes it to lose more and more and more of its value (just as exchanging it again and again and again created more wealth each time). This is the real cause of inflation… and eventually more serious economic problems (Not so much for those who have acquired non-monetary wealth though… you’re not hurting them a bit… just making what they have worth more money. Mostly it hinders those who are trying to acquire wealth which necessarily affects those who would normally benefit from those trying to acquire wealth… MOST OF US!).

And what does the government usually do? Print more money? Raise minimum wage? Sure, it helps those who get the newly printed money, or those who just got the raise, but at the expense of all the holders of money! They essentially steal a little value from all the money in circulation to give to the new money. How does it end up? Not good! More and more money having less and less value? Hyperinflation…. Devaluation of currency… increasing poverty…

World-wide, people are expecting more for less, or something for nothing. It’s this demand for a “free lunch” that is killing us!

Now, there’s nothing wrong with caring for the poor and infirm, but do it voluntarily, out of your own resources, and only those you are sure need it. That way it will NOT devalue what you have left, and won’t devalue what other people have left either.

Think about it.

Not the way it works

In reply to Take the Banks’ control away

You’re saying that by lowering minimum wage there’d be more wealth.
Why should it be lower? Why should it be higher? Those are directions.
You also fail to realize that the poor (minimum wage) spend more of their money on economy-stimulating goods than the rich (who tuck it away in real estate).
So raising minimum wage takes wealth out of the standing pools (the rich) and pours it into the fast streams (the faster-spending poor), generating more flow, more wealth.

No, I’m not

In reply to Not the way it works

[i]You’re saying that by lowering minimum wage there’d be more wealth.[/i]

I’m saying [that] raising it makes it harder to acquire wealth, by putting upward pressure on prices.

[i]So raising minimum wage takes wealth out of the standing pools (the rich) and pours it into the fast streams (the faster-spending poor), generating more flow, more wealth. [/i]

No, it does nothing to standing wealth,except make it worth more dollars [on paper].

Who pays it?

In reply to No, I’m not

Pay increases for the poorest does not equal inflation.
The economy works better if the middle class is wide.
A low minimum wage works towards widening the gap between the rich (who own and derive income from the wage-paying corporations) and the wage-earners. Thus shrinking the middle class, because fewer of the lowest wage earners will be able to support themselves or their children reaching the middle class.

The government doesn’t pay that minimum wage.

I’m not saying it should rise or fall, but it should be at a level that helps obtain the optimal social structure.

It doesn’t?

In reply to Who pays it?

[i]Pay increases for the poorest does not equal inflation.[/i]

Then where does the money for the raise magically come from? They’re not working any harder for this extra money, so there’s no “exchange” taking place. More money for the same (goods OR services) is the very definition of inflation!

Overall wage increases, without corresponding growth equals inflation.

In reply to It doesn’t?

If one segment gets more and another less, that’s not inflation.
If the owning class have to take less for themselves because they can’t raise prices and stay competitive, then there is no inflation.
That’s why free trade can be a good thing, it can force corporations to eat the cost themselves.

Have you been to the store? (NT)

In reply to Overall wage increases, without corresponding growth equals inflation.

.

But that’s not what’s happening…

In reply to Overall wage increases, without corresponding growth equals inflation.

Businesses are laying off (and making the ones who stay pick up the extra work for no extra pay), or reducing the quality (and charging the same price), or moving out of the country (to lower costs), or lobbying lawmakers for tax breaks (which end up being picked up somewhere else). They’re not “eating it”, or at least not over the longer term. Profit margins in most businesses are at the bare minimum.

Sorry Tony

In reply to Overall wage increases, without corresponding growth equals inflation.

I was talking in general terms. Not middle-of-recession terms.
Should’ve made that clear.
Also, I don’t argue for raising minimum wage (that’s a direction), I just argue against the general idea that minimum wage should be abolished (as someone else suggested just then).

Forced pay increases

In reply to Who pays it?

Forced pay increases equal inflation. You can force an employer to raise their minimum wage, but they will pass on the raise in their pricing. So the same people who got the raise are now paying more for the same products as before and will also pay more in sales taxes. They’ve gained nothing.

The wage should be set by supply and demand. If an employer can’t get employees to work for him, he will raise wages on his own or go out of business. You don’t need the Government involved in wage decisions.

Not only that,

In reply to Forced pay increases

[i]So the same people who got the raise are now paying more for the same products as before and will also pay more in sales taxes. They’ve gained nothing. [/i]

The guy who was making just over the new minimum wage before has LOST purchasing power.

True..

In reply to Not only that,

But fortunately, our politicians have a solution for that. When people start losing purchasing power, they’ll just raise the minimum wage again. That way the people will have more money to buy those products that are now more expensive.

If THAT were the solution

In reply to Not only that,

we could have solved the country’s problems a long time ago by making minimum wage $200 an hour!

No, now you’re increasing prices for people making above minimum wage, and they’ll put pressure on their employers to increase their wages, then those employers will raise THEIR prices, and the cycle will not stop. Inflation…

Well, actually, it will slow down…. when some of the employers pick up and leaves the country…. but that just makes it more an employer’s market… with so many people now looking for jobs, there’s less pressure to raise wages, so THOSE people (the ones in the middle) will just have to “eat it”. And they will… until demand drops, People get laid off… And then you”ll see growing resentment. Then what? US soldiers murdering protesters like Syria is doing now? Well, that’s one way to cut unemployment, I guess.

That I know of

In reply to Not only that,

You are the first to mention the possibility in print.

Has to be on more minds than yours alone.

As long as you’re at it…

In reply to Not only that,

Can you make it $250 an hour? I could really use the extra cash in these tough times.

I hope.

In reply to Not only that,

[i]Has to be on more minds than yours alone. [/i]

I hope… I just want real solutions. Not more government power-mongering and double-talk.

Security forces

In reply to Not only that,

Killing protesters, is what I meant. You appear to be a protestant.

Oops!

In reply to Not only that,

[i]Killing protesters, is what I meant. You appear to be a protestant. [/i]

Kent State

We need to treat it that way and no other.

In reply to My advice on debt and deficit, Mr. Obama

What that means, specifically, is that we need to quit TAXING money. PERIOD.

Tax WEALTH instead. (Most wealth anyway… I would exempt some small amount. Probably the equivalent to the personal bankruptcy exemption.)

Nearly half of the wealth in this country is owned by fewer than a million people, most of who pay relatively little tax.

A small tax on wealth can replace a much larger tax on income. One percent would replace all federal taxes with some to spare. Freeing up this income will allow more people to build more wealth faster, putting more money in the government coffers (which should be used to retire the debt as quickly as possible, probably less than ten years.)

One Question

In reply to We need to treat it that way and no other.

Who took over TonytheTiger’s mind?

Took over?

In reply to One Question

I’d call it “evolving”. I observe, and process what I’ve seen. I’m not done yet.

Tony has consistently hated all forms of taxation

In reply to One Question

He dislikes any feature of government that requires somebody be taxed to make it possible. Hates Social Security, too. He believes that taking money from one pocket and putting it in another is robbery, and that while helping the elderly and the sick is not intrinsically evil, it ought to be done by private charity and not by government.

Well, he aparently had an epiphany…….

In reply to Tony has consistently hated all forms of taxation

……. if he advocates taxing [i]wealth[/i] (whatever that is).

Not exactly

In reply to Tony has consistently hated all forms of taxation

I have always advocated that services that benefit all people be paid by each in proportion to the benefit they receive.

I think that programs that benefit only some people at the expense of other people should not normally be provided by the government, but by charity. Exceptions for disasters or war damage, but even such relief should be in the form of loans, not gifts.

This will be interesting to watch

In reply to Not exactly

A former libertarian on the threshold of becoming a liberal / progressive.

Self-Interest wasn’t a factor, I’m sure………….. Yea, right!

Excuse me while I throw-up.

Could it be the other way around maybe?

In reply to This will be interesting to watch

[i]Self-Interest wasn’t a factor, I’m sure………….. Yea, right!
[/i]

Right now, my income is less than $2600 a month, Max… I Pay ZERO federal income tax. Under the plan I suggested, I would be paying at least $2,000 a year in federal taxes.

Do you have descendants, Max?

I’m MORE concerned with what my children and grandchildren are going to have to pay, through no fault of their own.

I’m disappointed in your apparent shortsightedness.

That’s why

In reply to Not exactly

[i]I have always advocated that services that benefit all people be paid by each in proportion to the benefit they receive.[/i]

Property taxes are higher for a million dollar home than a hundred thousand dollar home… The benefit of preventing a million dollar home from burning down is greater than the benefit of preventing the hundred thousand dollar home from burning down.

Good thinking…

In reply to That’s why

Let’s go further: The received benefit of fixing up a broken leg is greater if the leg is attached to a wealthy person longing for some R&R in Aspen than if it’s attached to a homeless person with nothing more to look forward to than more of the same.

Tony, you’re a genious!

I was talking about

In reply to Good thinking…

government services.

Come to think of it, who do YOU think the government would fix up first once they complete their takeover of healthcare?

Over here the government is responsible for the baseline health services.

In reply to Good thinking…

So they have to treat both.

But I was being completely honest, you see, I only ever hear that comparison as an argument NOT to treat the person who is of the least value to society, but if we look at it from the other side, it’s clear why the service is worth more to the rich, they have a better life to get back to, once they’re fixed.

I’ve never looked at it like that before, thanks Tony.

Absolutely right jp85257

In reply to Good thinking…

“You can visit any emergency room in the US and find all sorts of uninsured people getting proper medical care. After all, that’s where many of the illegal aliens get their medical treatment.”

Absolutely true, saw it with my own eyes.

AV

I never understood the connection

In reply to Good thinking…

between employment and health insurance. It seems to me that the way to lower costs is to open it up to competition. Give the employee the money and let them buy their own. More choices too. No more portability problems…

Jp: Have you tried that?

In reply to Good thinking…

A broken leg is one thing, the ER can fix that.
A condition like type 2 diabetes is another. As just a single example.
Can we agree that it’s a condition that is easily fixed?
Can we agree that a worker is more productive if their diabetes is treated?
Can we agree that a person with two jobs and a family might not have the time to go wait five hours for ER treatment which may never come?

There is a strong economic reason to keep a baseline level of treatment available to all people. People can then pay for skipping the waiting lines, for having whatever additional services they desire, etc.
But the baseline is worth a lot of money in avoided waste of worker hours.

Ansu,

In reply to Good thinking…

Yes, type 2 diabetes is easily fixed, although I’d use the word controlled.

Yes, we can agree that a worker is more productive if their diabetes is treated.

Yes, we can agree that a person with two jobs and a family might not have the time to go wait five hours for ER treatment. Of course, this could be partially resolved by removing all of the illegals currently using the system.

But there are other options for health care as well. I haven’t had insurance in 10 months and have some medical conditions that require me to see a doctor occasionally. I’ve never had a problem finding a doctor who would give me a discounted rate for cash. There are also clinics and urgent care facilities that will help control costs if you ask.

People should have the ability to have health care. I just don’t believe that a Government that has bankrupted Social Security and Medicare should be in charge of it.

Social security is NOT bankrupt

In reply to Good thinking…

It CANNOT go bankrupt. Here’s a simple and rational discussion of how Social Security actually works: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2011/04/08/why-social-security-cannot-go-bankrupt/

It’s a difficult decision…

In reply to That’s why

[i]I only ever hear that comparison as an argument NOT to treat the person who is of the least value to society, [/i]

You can’t tell what a person’s “value to society” will be simply by looking at any particular “current state”. You have statistics, of course, but when dealing with individuals, you may shortchange society by relying too much on them.

agreed.

In reply to It’s a difficult decision…

some people keep trying, though.
By undercutting public healthcare the end result is that the poor cannot afford proper care.

cannot afford proper care.

In reply to It’s a difficult decision…

Because the target (proper care) is constantly moving. Well care, for example… My home insurance doesn’t pay for new paint, and my car insurance doesn’t pay for oil changes.

Another problem is that one person can intentionally run up costs for everyone, by their negative lifestyle choices… or by misuse of resources (going to the ER to have a splinter removed).

Some things don’t change though…

In reply to It’s a difficult decision…

Now, this may not be fact, but I’ve heard stories about people in the US (working one or two jobs as I recall, not lazy slobs), who can’t afford to go to a doctor to get what could be an easy and necessary fix for a medical ailment. So they limp by on painkillers and grit… but that can’t but hurt their work performance.
I think the economy has more to gain from people working at full capacity than from saving on medical support. Especially since the money for medical aid goes back into the economy (so long as medical pricing is monitored to keep cynical profiteering out).

Ansu…Painkillers?

In reply to It’s a difficult decision…

If they can’t afford to go to the doctor, where did they get the painkillers?

Jp, ever hear of acetylsalicylic acid?

In reply to It’s a difficult decision…

There are others.
They sometimes alleviate some pains, hence painkillers.
They are not prescription drugs, are they?

Ansu

In reply to It’s a difficult decision…

Try using the words “aspirin” or “Tylenol” when trying to make your point. It would eliminate any confusion for the reader.

Whatever.

In reply to It’s a difficult decision…

Did you have a point back there?

Yes

In reply to It’s a difficult decision…

The point was that you should stick to commenting on things you know about rather than mentioning that you “heard some stories”.

You can visit any emergency room in the US and find all sorts of uninsured people getting proper medical care. After all, that’s where many of the illegal aliens get their medical treatment.

Jp : You make me sick

In reply to It’s a difficult decision…

Your knee jerks in revealing ways.
You’re not even trying to argue on the points, just grasping at whatever you can use to invalidate them.
You are what’s wrong with the US political system, on both sides.
God-Damned unthinking partisan.

Well Ansu,

In reply to It’s a difficult decision…

it’s a good thing you have medical coverage then.

What irritates me is foreigners who criticize the US system even though they’ve never used it. It’s not perfect by any means but it’s also not as bad as those “stories you’ve heard”.

Name any other country and I can point you to horror stories about their medical care. So if you want to bash the US, go for it, but don’t pretend it’s because you care about the “poor” people.

If you know different, enlighten me.

In reply to It’s a difficult decision…

I actually listen, if you can keep your agenda out of it.
If I sense propaganda, I simply assume what you say to be too twisted to rely on – i.e. just another “story”.

Because the target (proper care) is constantly moving.

In reply to It’s a difficult decision…

Means that 50 years ago, what was expected as “proper medical care” is a lot different than what is expected today. That is also the problem when comparing cost then vs now.

True Tony.

In reply to It’s a difficult decision…

Some things can be treated today (at astronomic cost) which could not be treated then. Other things can be treated now at a fraction of the cost of back then, when that treatment was new and in its infancy.

But then, some services of fifty years ago are now not even for sale… like a doctor who knows your background and cares about your entire health situation.
Nowadays we only ever seem to get “per consult” treatment, treating the here and now. Unless we luck out and happen to get a doc who can’t help him/herself.

That’s true of a lot of thngs,

In reply to It’s a difficult decision…

and is a large part of what’s made society more expensive.

People who know you know better what you need. Socially as well as medically.

If there’s a bright spot about the economic situation, it is encouraging groups of people who care about one another to huddle together and help each other out more. Yes, it misses some people, but if your in a group, it makes it more bearable. For example, Meat, bread, and milk are about all I buy at the store… A lot of us grow out own vegetables, and some of those who don’t help by canning (preserving). We trade amongst ourselves and save at least a third of our grocery bill.

We have one guy (me) who keeps everyone’s computers going and we have another who mows neighbors’ grass. We get three or four families together for pay-per-view night once a week instead of everybody driving to town to rent movies…

As the economy worsens (as I expect it will), I think we’ll see more of this type of cooperation.

Ansu….

In reply to It’s a difficult decision…

You want to tell people how to spend their money and force people to fund failed programs, and yet you claim I have an agenda because I disagree with your “solution”?

Your agenda is far more destructive than anything I can come up with.

Jp: Wrong foot?

In reply to It’s a difficult decision…

Maybe I reacted the wrong way to your initial entries.
I felt they were too streamlined, it reminded me of tools I’ve spoken with at other times. I am beginning to think that you’re not a tool, and that I did not have a frame of reference for your initial entries.
Sorry about that.

Maybe your system does really suck, and maybe your officials are the kind of people unable to hammer a nail into a turd without breaking both.
I’ll let you be the judge of that, you and your fellows.

If your experience is, that the government can’t do anything right, then the solution would be either stopping government from doing anything, or fixing it.
It seems like a lot of people feel the latter is too unlikely.
Again, I won’t be the judge of that.

@jp

In reply to It’s a difficult decision…

One person’s “tell people how to spend their money and force people to fund failed programs” is another person’s social conscience, and may be a third person’s survival.

I’m not saying that the existing programs are succeeding, or even the right thing to do, but I am asking if you think our society (read: government) should do nothing for those unable to do for themselves?

Nick

In reply to It’s a difficult decision…

Yes, there should be some government involvement, but only at the local level. Having it addressed closer to the actual problem means less waste and a better chance to actually help those in need.

Nick (social conscience)

In reply to It’s a difficult decision…

[i]One person’s “tell people how to spend their money and force people to fund failed programs” is another person’s social conscience, and may be a third person’s survival.[/i]

Isn’t it funny though, how some people’s sense of social conscience becomes keener when they’re spending “other people’s money” on it?

That, Tony…

In reply to It’s a difficult decision…

is why I agree with JP that such programs should be funded and managed locally. If the people providing the money not only know where you work, but can visit you on a whim, you tend to be much more conservative about your spending.

More Questions

In reply to We need to treat it that way and no other.

Regardless of the true whereabouts of the real TonytheTiger – the one with whom we’ve all become acquainted – a few more questions.

1. Define wealth? Who are they? How much wealth do they have? Etc.?
2. How would those people be identified?
3. Personal wealth or corporate wealth? Or both?
4. If wealth is not money, how would said wealth be confiscated – I mean, collected?
5. How would it be enforced? Who would do the collecting?
6. How would people be prevented from hiding their wealth?
7. Would a person’s personal retirement account be counted as part of their personal wealth? If so, how would that work?

That’s enough for now.

P.S. One more.

7a. Would people whose personal retirement accounts are kept in the form of the very generous state benefit plans – you know, the ones that are bankrupting a lot of states – be considered among the wealthy based on the estimated value of their accumulated and projected benefits? A guy who retires at 55, for example, from some state agency, one who didn’t have to save for his own retirement because of the aforementioned very generous state benefit plan, might have a comparative life-time value of 1 million dollars or more. Would that be counted as [i]wealth[/i] equal to the working stiff who actually saved 1 million dollars?

Answers

In reply to More Questions

1. Things of value which are acquired but not consumed. There is about $135 Trillion of wealth (2005 dollars) in the United States. Fewer than one million people own over half of it.

2. When you buy a house, car, etc., in this country, you are already identified.

3. Both. Each paid by the entity that owns it.

4. Wealth isn’t confiscated or collected. Tax is paid with money (although it is possible you’d have to sell some of your wealth to obtain said money).

5. The same way property tax is collected now.

6. Much the same way people are prevented from hiding income, with similar imperfections. Some work to be done there for sure.

7. No.

7a. When either is exchanged for a non-consumable thing of value (wealth), that thing will be taxed.

Think of it like electricity. Money is the voltage, wealth is the current.

shaking my head in disbelief

In reply to Answers

NT

Re: There is about $135 Trillion of wealth (2005 dollars) in the U.S.

In reply to Answers

And Re:[i] Fewer than one million people own over half of it.[/i]

Prove your assertions with legitimate links and documentation.

I swear

In reply to Re: There is about $135 Trillion of wealth (2005 dollars) in the U.S.

If I hear that word — “prove” — one more time around here without metier…

Here’s one to chew on.

In reply to Re: There is about $135 Trillion of wealth (2005 dollars) in the U.S.

http://www.foresaleconomics.com/wealthofthenation.htm

Of course, that was last year, and it has lost value since then..

I have errands. Back in a few hours.

And to be clear,

In reply to More Questions

i am only talking about federal taxes.

And to be clear

In reply to And to be clear,

So it doesn’t affect your very generous state-funded pension.

And so you are on the record as stating that the federal government should not bail-out bankrupt state-funded pension plans.

That is correct.

In reply to And to be clear

I am on the record as stating that the federal government should not bail out state funded pension plans.

They should, however, pay back what they took from Social Security.

I’m not sure what you mean by “not affect” since any wealth I acquire with my retirement savings I would pay the wealth tax on. Same as I would with wealth I acquired with wages… or Vegas trip winnings… or inheritance… or money I get picking up aluminum cans from ditches…

We already tax wealth. That’s called the "property tax." Folks hate it.

In reply to We need to treat it that way and no other.

I can’t figure a way we could tax savings (which is wealth, for most people) without having all sorts of unintended ugly consequences. I can’t figure out how you’d even count it, for tax purposes. Taxing wealth is what the commissars did. You’d get a nasty revolution going if you tried that.

Real estate tax barely passes public approval, because it’s used to finance schools and local government.

They hate it because

In reply to We already tax wealth. That’s called the "property tax." Folks hate it.

it’s “another” tax.

Congratulations! You’ve just abolished private ownership :D

In reply to They hate it because

Look at it this way: Taxes are rent. As it is now, it’s the government’s money, we pay rent on using it (VAT) and on receiving it (income tax).
In your system, no-one owns the money, but the government seems to own all goods, all value, even value created by the work of people.

People have to pay rent on what they “own”.

That’s why people hate property tax, it makes them feel like they have to pay for what they already paid for.

it makes them feel like they have to pay for what they already paid for.

In reply to Congratulations! You’ve just abolished private ownership :D

You’re not paying “for it”. You’re paying the government to protect it. (from fire, crime, natural disaster, foreign invasion…)

How does someone who has no taxable income pay their fair share of this cost?

I’m just telling you what the opposition will say…

In reply to it makes them feel like they have to pay for what they already paid for.

All the people with lots of stuff tucked away will see it like you’re claiming rent on their property.
I’m not entirely opposed to the idea, I think it’s fun to see where it goes; so how about government owned property, does the government pay taxes on that?
Even worse, how to valuate undeveloped land? According to market value?
That would make it easy for big business to get small people out of the way of development : simply create a huge perceived demand – then the “people who are in the way” will have to either pay taxes on that demand, or sell. And if they have to sell the actual price won’t have to match the market price, after all – it’s a buyers market.
Just exploring your idea.

My goal

In reply to I’m just telling you what the opposition will say…

Is to maximize “wealth building”, as that creates more opportunities than “wealth having”. More opportunities equals less people who don’t have opportunities, which would lessen the need for some government services. This, plus the wealth built by those taking advantage of new opportunities, would lower the needed rate. Perhaps to a few tenths of a percent. And it maximizes liberty, because YOU CONTROL how much wealth you want. And most importantly, we will be paying our own way, and not foisting the responsibility onto our descendants.

[i]so how about government owned property, does the government pay taxes on that?[/i]

On paper, it would be zero-sum (it would be “paying itself”), so I’d say no.

[i]Even worse, how to valuate undeveloped land? [/i]

By what it last sold for, adjusted for inflation, plus actual cost of improvements (if any), less depreciation (if any).

The people that scream the loudest about property tax

In reply to Congratulations! You’ve just abolished private ownership :D

are usually the first to complain when services are cut. What’s funny is that, quite often, they may save on the tax, but other costs rise. There’s the story of the community that cut the fire department by half because the city council voted down a tax rate increase that was strongly opposed by many in the community. Insurance companies promptly changed the coverage zone because of the higher risk. Home insurance premiums rose sharply in response, by an amount greater than what was saved by not raising taxes….

Reponse To Answer

In reply to We need to treat it that way and no other.

Tax individual and corporate *spending* and leave income alone.

What corporations spend,

In reply to Reponse To Answer

they include in the cost of their goods and services, charging them tax on that spending will only increase prices (assuming they don’t abandon the country).

One of the things I realized

In reply to My advice on debt and deficit, Mr. Obama

is that the 16th amendment changed the burden of paying for government from those who “already got theirs” to those who “are trying to build theirs”. The “I got mine, screw you” mentality has to stop. It has led to the reduction of opportunity for those who came after, and is directly responsible for most of the entitlement programs that now exist. “Might makes right”, regardless of what kind of might”, is a piss-poor policy.

Okay, now tell your congressional representatives. No comment.

In reply to My advice on debt and deficit, Mr. Obama

.

I have

In reply to Okay, now tell your congressional representatives. No comment.

and continue to. (I also tell “other people’s” representatives.)

I think we should get rid of the Bush tax cuts

In reply to My advice on debt and deficit, Mr. Obama

Take that money and apply it to the deficit, only. Thats fair. Rich and poor alike. Time to take our medicine.

AV

Compromise got us into this mess, you know.

In reply to I think we should get rid of the Bush tax cuts

I wish you would make up your mind.

We need to get serious and stop the politics

In reply to Compromise got us into this mess, you know.

We are are not going to get out of this mess on tax cuts alone.

Its going to take all of us to solve the debt crisis and we’re not going to do it if we can’t talk to each other and come to an agreement. Get rid of the pledges and the politics and lets sit down together and come to a common sense solution that can SOLVE the problem. We are broke. Our system is broke.

Its time to make the hard choices. No one wants to do that in Washington because they’re all too busy with political posturing and re-election prospects. I think they should take a fair and balanced approach to solving the debt crisis. Revenues and cuts. EVERYTHING is on the table, because it has to be. We have a big problem. Everyone will bear the brunt of this, rich and poor. So lets just get it over with.

AV

Edited: removed a misplaced they’re

You are forgiven, my child

In reply to We need to get serious and stop the politics

For the misplaced “they’re”.

The other misplacements — I dunno.

Wrong "rich" people.

In reply to I think we should get rid of the Bush tax cuts

You’re going after the ones who are building their wealth (and creating opportunities for others to do the same) instead of the “Already got mine” crowd, who create fewer and lower paying jobs.

Who is “richer”? Someone who made $1 million last year, and spent most of it building a $950,000 home? or someone who made $70,000 last year, but who lives in a $2 million home? Which one will pay more federal taxes?

Congress has made my plans moot. Hope they didn’t blow the economy.

In reply to My advice on debt and deficit, Mr. Obama

The House passed a debt ceiling bill last night. The Senate will today.

It’s good we don’t go into default. The idea of slashing government spending in the trough of a recession, no less a world wide economic slump, is a receipe for turning a recession into another Great Depression. Its proponents talk about creating jobs and reducing uncertainty, by this will do the opposite on both fronts.

Reponse To Answer

In reply to Congress has made my plans moot. Hope they didn’t blow the economy.

The real issue with this is both houses of congress and office of the president didn’t do one D@MN thing to solve the money/debt problem they focused only on political solutions. We all lost on this one!

I think giving spend-drunk politicians a new credit card

In reply to Congress has made my plans moot. Hope they didn’t blow the economy.

will only encourage them to drive us deeper into debt. I wish the government HAD defaulted!

I’m laughing at the demand for a balanced-budget amendment

In reply to I think giving spend-drunk politicians a new credit card

Congress has been taking the easy path since 2001, by reducing taxation to satisfy one constituency and increasing spending to satisfy another. I see a balanced-budget amendment as Congress saying “Stop me before I spend again!” And, while it might pass the current House, it will never make it out of the Senate. It wouldn’t be necessary at all if our elected representatives would (figuratively, of course) each grow a set and make the tough decisions again.

balanced budget in Constitution

In reply to I’m laughing at the demand for a balanced-budget amendment

California has that, and usually the budget is a couple of months late – and there is still somehow tremendous debt.

They did that to themselves

In reply to balanced budget in Constitution

They have Prop’ed themselves against the wall, and are now finding out exactly how hard it will be to stay on their feet. The only good to come of it is the collapse of the real estate market has brought property taxes back in line with where they should be.

Another interesting wrinkle you made me realize.

In reply to They did that to themselves

You can live in a state, vote for perks for others at “your” expense in that state, then move, thus shirking the obligation you created for yourself.

I shall ponder.

Marginal

In reply to Another interesting wrinkle you made me realize.

I don’t think that’s a big wrinkle.

None are…

In reply to Another interesting wrinkle you made me realize.

[i]I don’t think that’s a big wrinkle. [/i]

… taken individually…

Big picture…

In reply to Another interesting wrinkle you made me realize.

One persons vote doesn’t make a law.
And how many people would have to move to make that be felt? Meaning: How many would have to vote-and-move in order to saddle the majority of the remaining ones with a burden they didn’t want?
I just don’t see it happening on a significant scale.

A strictly balanced budget does nothing to eliminate debt

In reply to balanced budget in Constitution

If your revenue equals your expenditures, the debt you have accumulated in prior years continues to accrue interest(assuming that debt payment isn’t counted in your expenditures).

You need to generate a surplus to make a dent in the debt.

In Canada, we chose to wait until an economic upturn to do this. If you layoff government employees when the private sector is hiring, it doesn’t depress the economy. Laying off government employees in this market will not help the economy, as they will cut back their spending dramatically, and there won’t be jobs for them to move into.

Becaues the debt is not part of the budget

In reply to balanced budget in Constitution

only the payments are.

It’s like a consumer who goes to a check cashing store every payday.

I wish the government HAD defaulted?…

In reply to My advice on debt and deficit, Mr. Obama

They already had defaulted.
Why do you think they raised the ceiling of expenditure?
Cut back non-essentials in the whitehouse, raise taxes if possible where needed including the rich people.
Mind you the rich people will go abroad and do business but the taxes can still be issued and collected on their businesses.
I would like to know who gets paid back this lot of money, who do the government owe, what person loaned the money in the first place?
We wish we could be that person, here is wishing…. 🙂

This is how the debt breaks down

In reply to I wish the government HAD defaulted?…

To Whom Does the U.S. Government Really Owe Money?

The same mentality prevents this from being fixed.

In reply to My advice on debt and deficit, Mr. Obama

as that of the pompous white guys who first came here (slashing and hacking their way through the humans who were already here) to get “liberty”, then having the balls to make laws infringing on others’ right to do the same!

That mentality: “We got ours. Screw you!”

Re: the pompous white guys

In reply to The same mentality prevents this from being fixed.

You’ve got to be kidding me! Did you really say that? (Shaking my head in disbelief.)

Liberty

In reply to Re: the pompous white guys

They had the right to come over without jumping through anyone’s hoops, but nobody else does? Can you spell hypocrite?

Liberty should be for ALL human beings, none of whom had any say in where they were born, not just for who you decide it’s for.

Tony

In reply to Liberty

They “made” their own hoop when they came here. Then, they made the indigenous jump through any hoops they cared to imagine, unto extinction in some cases. Then, by the same, “they” got and we still get to make any hoop we care to imagine — by force of arms.

Hypocrisy is the only part you get partly right. The word stems from “decision” and is related to “certainty”, aside from playing a part on the stage, all of which are involved.

Probably lost on Max, too.

Yep.

In reply to Liberty

[i]They “made” their own hoop when they came here. Then, they made the indigenous jump through any hoops they cared to imagine, unto extinction in some cases. Then, by the same, “they” got and we still get to make any hoop we care to imagine — by force of arms.[/i]

“Might makes right”, right? Oh, except for bullying… that’s not OK, is it? More hypocrisy.

Didn’t take long…

In reply to My advice on debt and deficit, Mr. Obama

http://news.yahoo.com/us-aaa-rating-still-under-threat-204040123.html

take 2

In reply to Didn’t take long…

http://www.cnn.com/2011/BUSINESS/08/05/global.economy/index.html?hpt=us_c2

So maybe this won’t be classified a a tax increase caused by the ‘fools on the hill’, but it certainly won’t decrease US debt!

Nor will it

In reply to take 2

create jobs, or stave off inflation.

Sometimes

In reply to Nor will it

You and the others come across as though — “create jobs”…”stave off inflation” — you discourse by means of television sound bites.

The terms of that discourse, having got us into the mess and having failed us, may very well end with a Guardsman bullet.

While that may be true…

In reply to Sometimes

I like this new TonytheTiger.
I don’t think I share a lot of his ideals, but his perspective is certainly refreshing.

So do I

In reply to While that may be true…

He appears to have done some thinking over the course of his (new) retirement.

Mostly

In reply to So do I

observing. Watching the wealthy circle their wagons and roll up their sidewalks. Watching them refuse to meet the gaze of the needy.

(personal anecdote) You know where the beggars hang out? Not at or around the ritzy stores,,, around WALMART! Of course, outsiders will say it’s where the suckers are… but I reject that, because I KNOW most of them (that’s the great thing about a small town).

(And no, Max, I’m not turning into a liberal progressive (unless you want to use the dictionary definition instead of the political one). I don’t want the government helping these people. It’s PEOPLE’S place to help people and I consider it a privilege and an honor to be able to.

2 Corinthians 9:7 says, “Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.”)

I try to use common terms to promote understanding.

In reply to Sometimes

Their similarity to television soundbites is purely coincidental.

[i]You and the others come across as though — “create jobs”…”stave off inflation” — you discourse by means of television sound bites.[/i]

Some couldn’t (or wouldn’t) relate to the personal anecdote. I see the effects of the government taking from the wrong people, while the right ones sit by and watch it crumble, content in the knowledge that they’ll soon have even more people to look down their noses at (I got mine, screw you!).

[i]The terms of that discourse, having got us into the mess and having failed us, may very well end with a Guardsman bullet. [/i]

Or “it” may START with one.

@santeewelding

In reply to Sometimes

The sound bites did nothing to do with getting us into this mess. Brinkmanship and politics got us here, and we all lost in this foolishness. Possibly the media and “Instant Access” prompted the “fools on the hill” to their preposterous in-actions. And now we have S&P entering the political quagmire …… I wonder how many fingers the mess will grow to point at others?

[Author]

Replies