An Inconvenient Truth About The Bush Tax Cuts

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from deltastrike:

I suppose I should clarify for both of our sakes:

Ideally auditing/reform before cuts or tax levies. Unfortunately, it almost seems like reform would take too long for the short term needs (e.g. the next few months), forcing us to let the Bush era cuts expire, thus raising taxes from their current level.

Government budgets don't get more efficient from Government auditing. No one in the private sector gets audited to see where they get cut. They get cut and then are told to figure it out. If we are lucky, we are ASKED how much we can give up first, which requires self auditing, all in a very, very short time frame. I've been asked to get results back in a 24 hour period before. It can be done.

In the Government, the only way is to force austerity upon a budget. Then the cuts get made and somehow what is needed to get done gets done. Efficiently.

But if the budgeting folks know that they can hold out and they'll just get more revenue, what do you think they'll do?

 

[deltastrike]

Quote from Tsing Tao:

Government budgets don't get more efficient from Government auditing. No one in the private sector gets audited to see where they get cut. They get cut and then are told to figure it out. If we are lucky, we are ASKED how much we can give up first, which requires self auditing, all in a very, very short time frame. I've been asked to get results back in a 24 hour period before. It can be done.

In the Government, the only way is to force austerity upon a budget. Then the cuts get made and somehow what is needed to get done gets done. Efficiently.

But if the budgeting folks know that they can hold out and they'll just get more revenue, what do you think they'll do?

It's not so much "audited to see where they get cut" as much as it is just flat out creating a more efficient process or program. Cost savings would be a byproduct of such reform/auditing. An example would be streamlining a qualification procedure for a program, and making sure the program is screening potential participants correctly. There would be savings on the processing side of the program as well as the actual spending as only those who truly qualify would be able to participate. Factor in actual competitive bidding for government contracts and so on you can see where the savings start to happen. THEN get into the budgeting and cost-driven efficiencies to optimize even more.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from deltastrike:

It's not so much "audited to see where they get cut" as much as it is just flat out creating a more efficient process or program. Cost savings would be a byproduct of such reform/auditing. An example would be streamlining a qualification procedure for a program, and making sure the program is screening potential participants correctly. There would be savings on the processing side of the program as well as the actual spending as only those who truly qualify would be able to participate. Factor in actual competitive bidding for government contracts and so on you can see where the savings start to happen. THEN get into the budgeting and cost-driven efficiencies to optimize even more.

Absolutely fantastic. You still, however, continue to ignore incentive to do what you're referring to. There is no incentive if the agencies just continue to get more and more money. The only way to get them to work harder with less is to cut off some of their money and force them down that path.

 

[BSAM]

The inconvenient truth is that there shouldn't even be a tax on income.

 

[BSAM]

Most of you still don't get it:

Government is only a game.
Government is not your friend.

 

[Mercor]

Quote from RCG Trader:

There is no answer because this varies from zip code to zip code.

That is why a flat tax is the only answer. Close every loophole, and then a flat tax.

For all you bible thumpers out there, how does 10% sound?

This is a good idea. How could you ever vote for Obama?
His views are contrary.
He would never agree that Mitt Romney and a family making $25k a year should pay the same percent of taxes.

Remember, Its about taxing the rich out of spite. because the revenue raised does not do much to help the issue.

 

[BSAM]

Flat tax is worthless because it's too easy to hide income.
A consumption tax, as a replacement for the income tax, is what would makes everybody contribute to the welfare of the country.
If you buy something, you are a tax payer.
This, of course, forces all current tax cheats to pay.
Even the drug dealers become tax payers.
How cool is that?
We would all pay to support the country we live in.

 

[Scataphagos]

Quote from Mercor:

"... Remember, Its about taxing the rich out of spite. because the revenue raised does not do much to help the issue.

YES! Odumbo is trying to make a "power and control" statement.

Projected revenues from "soaking the rich", $82B, in 2013.

Projected deficit, $1.04TRILLION... that is, the "soak the rich tax" only covers 8% of the deficit.

People should be able to see through this charade.

Odumbo's initial "Fiscal Cliff Solution" proposal desires "$1.6T" in revenue enhancements. $820B to come from currently proposed "soak the rich" tax policy... where does the other $800B come from????

House Republicans should stand their ground... "No $100B in 'soak the rich' tax revenues until $1TRILLION in spending cuts"...