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.

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.)

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.

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

AV

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.

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

Prove your assertions with legitimate links and documentation.

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.

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.... :)

For the misplaced "they're".

The other misplacements -- I dunno.

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.

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!"

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.

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).

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.

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).

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.

You are the first to mention the possibility in print.

Has to be on more minds than yours alone.

[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.

[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.

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

Kent State

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

... taken individually...

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.

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.

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.")

government services.

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

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.

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

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).

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).

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

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.

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.

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.

"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 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".

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.