US doomed ?

[Random.Capital]

Quote from syswizard:

This is so appropriate !!! They're the 1 percenters...of course.

90% of Americans are 1%ers.

 

[ExchangeBonds]

Quote from syswizard:

This is so appropriate !!! They're the 1 percenters...of course.

So instead of coming up with an actual counter point, you make a random statement that has nothing to do with the points I made. Who said Americans weren't smart? Like I said, if being a lawyer was so easy and all of them make so much, go and do it.

 

[zdreg]

Quote from piezoe:

You've, identified what is perhaps the second most important benefit to come from well-thought-out tax reform: evening out the tax burden so that virtually everyone pays their fair share and it is very difficult, if not impossible, for the underground economy to escape paying their share. That probably amounts to billions.

The most important benefit of going to something like a national sales tax is of course the billion or so man hours saved each year.

You can't go to a sales tax however without protecting the poor somehow because they spend their entire income. But there is no reason that can't be worked out.

Even more important than tax reform however is fiscal reform at the federal level! It is just that now is not the time for austerity measures. In fact the government needs to leverage up even more to create a million jobs building infrastructure. Ultimately we will recover those costs in the form of higher living standards for everyone.

As military expenditures are brought down to reasonable levels, new jobs in a public and private sector partnership building infrastructure can be created and nurtured using many of the same formerly unproductive dollars that were used to maintain bases in over 60 countries and military personnel in over 150 countries around the world. These things must be coordinated. If we don't do them, ten years from now we will still have unacceptably high unemployment, a still smaller middle class, and still lag the rest of the industrialized world in infrastructure.

Once the economy starts running on all cylinders again it will be time to raise interest rates and taxes. I am a firm believer in Keynesian economics, but both the part that applies in recessions and the part that applies in boom times. When you borrow money in hard times, you must pay it back in good times. [/QUOTE
'You can't go to a sales tax however without protecting the poor somehow because they spend their entire income. "

it is the working middle class in the private sector that needs protection.

why don't you provide hard numbers to the cost of defense?

 

[syswizard]

Quote from zdreg:

Quote from piezoe:


why don't you provide hard numbers to the cost of defense?

Just go to the DC area.....Bimmers and Lexus all over that area.
We've just overspent not only in defense but all areas of government.

 

[piezoe]

Quote from zdreg:


'You can't go to a sales tax however without protecting the poor somehow because they spend their entire income. "

it is the working middle class in the private sector that needs protection.

why don't you provide hard numbers to the cost of defense?

Agreed! My brain still asleep i think. Can you be a little more specific about the hard numbers you're looking for. I'm thinking we can cut defense spending by at least 50 percent (phased in, of course) and still be spending far more than any other nation, still meet our objectives, and probably even improve outcomes. I don't see any downside to cuts in the defense budget at all. Would use the savings there to spark spending on infrastructure and create jobs in the lower middle class. Shift the present defense industry toward infrastructure engineering and away from armaments. I am a strong believer that we should not raise taxes in a recession, but that said I strongly favor a focused roll back of the cuts at the top end. That was a big mistake to begin with. Even Romer, who strongly opposes tax hikes in recessions, has said that such a very focused hike at the upper end, it's only a few percent hike, would make sense, and "probably" not be harmful. This is one place where the Republicans are acting like idiot Democrats.

By the way, a 50% cut in defense spending plus a roll back of tax cuts going to those with adjusted gross greater than 250K recovers right at 1 trillion.

 

[piezoe]

Quote from Random.Capital:

90% of Americans are 1%ers.

It is easy to forget that relative to much of the world's population most of us in the industrialized parts of the world are wealthy.

 

[zdreg]

Quote from syswizard:

Just go to the DC area.....Bimmers and Lexus all over that area.
We've just overspent not only in defense but all areas of government.

policy in most cases should be based upon hard numbers not only observations.

 

[PocketChange]

Why not have 1 fixed pay rate, health and pension plan for all public employees. those who are directly paid from taxes collected.

ie. members of congress and their staff
police/firefighters
teachers
state and local govt
military
prime contractors.

ie. 42% of our taxpayers are paid from taxes...

PAY THEM ALL
Minimum Wage
Medicare
Social Security.

After all this is public service. Maybe make all public jobs part time so they all have a second real job and basis with reality.

When a Niles School Admin has an individual 26M pension things are FUBAR.
When a police chief retires on a $300K pension and is contracted as a consultant back to do the same job for another $300K stinks of self dealing.

Let the politician work part time as a congressman and part time for the corporate interests he is vested in. Why play the donor / superpac sham.. they have him in their pocket... At least make him wear their logo and get full perks.

The 42% of our tax payers that are paid from taxes need to be reigned in to reflect a reasonable average income and reality.

 

[zdreg]

Quote from piezoe:

Agreed! My brain still asleep i think. Can you be a little more specific about the hard numbers you're looking for. I'm thinking we can cut defense spending by at least 50 percent (phased in, of course) and still be spending far more than any other nation, still meet our objectives, and probably even improve outcomes. I don't see any downside to cuts in the defense budget at all. Would use the savings there to spark spending on infrastructure and create jobs in the lower middle class. Shift the present defense industry toward infrastructure engineering and away from armaments. I am a strong believer that we should not raise taxes in a recession, but that said I strongly favor a focused roll back of the cuts at the top end. That was a big mistake to begin with. Even Romer, who strongly opposes tax hikes in recessions, has said that such a very focused hike at the upper end, it's only a few percent hike, would make sense, and "probably" not be harmful. This is one place where the Republicans are acting like idiot Democrats.

By the way, a 50% cut in defense spending plus a roll back of tax cuts going to those with adjusted gross greater than 250K recovers right at 1 trillion.

wrong. you are making the typical lefty error which is a static analysis. you are assuming that if taxes are raised people will report the same total income as before and therefore tax revenue will rise.
people will adjust their financial affairs to maintain the same effective rate.

 

[trefoil]

Quote from zdreg:


'You can't go to a sales tax however without protecting the poor somehow because they spend their entire income. "

it is the working middle class in the private sector that needs protection.

why don't you provide hard numbers to the cost of defense?

There's a very simple way; New Jersey, where I live, does it.
Exclude food (not bought at restaurants, of course), medicine, clothing. Done.
This makes it automatically progressive, but you can even steepen the curve by taxing luxury goods at a higher rate. Simplicity itself.