Let's have a look at just one of your items for illustrative purposes, shall we? You referred to property taxes, which are paid to municipalities and are based on valuations, where changes are loosely tied to market values in the main. What possible bearing does this have on federal tax policy? And do not increased municipal taxes largely reflect increased property values, and therefore wealth, in the main? Unwittingly or otherwise, you lose sight of the fact that the argument has to do with actually relevant content, context and proportion, none of which you choose to acknowledge. The sooner you accept your ignorance, the sooner you will be able to take corrective measures to address your many deficiencies. I suggest you do so gradually, so as not to overwhelm yourself. Perhaps you can start by abstaining from posting, and focus on reading content written by those smarter than you. Then you can go from there.
Wonkbook: 84 percent oppose Ryanâs Medicare plan
- Thread starter Covertibility
- Start date
Nice try at obfuscation, but here's what you said (and you must have been proud of it. You went on to quote yourself at least twice in this thread...very telling):
"It is not enough for you that in recent years the rich have been paying less in taxes than they have in decades? The party should continue while everyone else should just look forward to erosion of services and benefits?"
Again, you simply said "paying less in taxes." Which rich are paying less? Are they really paying less when you factor in a host of taxes besides income? A quick cut-n-paste or paraphrase from Google on property taxes does nothing for you. That's one of many taxes that has skyrocketed since the "glory days" of high tax rates, when tax shelters also shielded the wealthy. And then there's the implicit assumption that tax rates = tax revenues, which is anything but a stable relationship.
But thanks for the obfuscation example. I couldn't have made up anything better than that. I'll move on--this is going nowhere. But I suggest you take your own advice and read others more learned than yourself. And stop assuming that everything you hear in an Obama speech/CBO projection is gospel truth while anything that smacks your worldview in the face is biased propaganda. Anyone with even a rudimentary grasp of math/physics stopped listening to Obama when he first pushed the green/renewable energy snake oil.
In relation to income, and as compared to the non-rich in relation to their income. Proportion and context, remember?
Careful not to change the channel from FOX before covering your eyes and ears. You might catch a clue. And then you could potentially morph into a human being. And then what would you do, as you become exposed to all manner of conditions ranging from understanding, context and empathy to all around decency.
I used to think that was the case too. Now I'm starting to suspect that the middle class and upper middle class pay most of the taxes, and the very wealthy don't pay as much as they should, and they are able to do that through the myriad of tax loopholes available. The other downside of this is that the US spends billions of dollars on 'tax compliance'...money going to accountants, etc. That is money wasted.
If the government was able to excercise any kind of restraint at all you might be able to work the numbers at 3 to 1. For example had the government been investing the money they took in from medicare 114,000 would have been worth 355,000 with compounding rates by the time the people retired.
But that is precisely the problem, and the reason why social security is fucked too, cause the government is incapable of saving any of this money. The second it comes in the door they figure out some way to blow it on something new, and they rely on current tax payers to subsidise peopls benefits, then when the population starts to age like it is now we end up screwed.
It will never cease to amaze me that people can look at what a complete train wreck every single government program is, and still want to give them our money in order to handle problems. I mean how can you look around at everysingle government program in the United States going bankrupt and want more of that. It defies logic. It would be like going out and taking out a an interest only mortgage, after you just went bankrupt because you couldnt afford mortgage payments.
Edit: didnt realise someone else in the thread already showed an example of this.
Indeed, the problem is that the government has apparently been using both S.S. and medicare revenue as a piggy bank that can be dipped into whenever needed. However ther seems to be a major difference in the way S.S. funds and Medicare funds are handled. S.S. goes into a Trust fund that by law can't be dipped into directly but must be borrowed at interest. This has left the S.S. fund in relatively good shape, and only, at this point, very minor adjustments in the contribution rates (about 1.5 cents per dollar per employer and 1.5 cents per employee) are needed to make S.S. sound into the foreseeable future, and to take into account changing demographics. It seems Medicare is just treated as revenue. however, and is dipped into directly. I don't know if this is correct, but if it is, then why not treat Medicare just as S.S. is? That would go a long way toward correcting the situation, wouldn't it?
Both S.S. and Medicare should also be moved off budget, and not shown as general revenue. I believe that is the way S.S. was in fact treated prior to the Nixon administration. (Someone please correct if this is not true, thanks.)
Another difficult problem is that medical costs are rising much faster than the inflation rate. My suggestion for that problem would be to deregulate medicine and bring in competition, and by that means break the back of the medical cartel. That's radical, but I believe it is doable, and necessary. The "public option" would have been a small step in this direction, but was killed via pressure brought by the for profit insurance industry.
This still leaves the problem of where does the money come from for medical care of the indigent. I would suggest we leave that as it is now, with those who can pay, either via private insurance or medicare, paying collectively, and indirectly for the indigent, either through government subsidy, or as it is mostly now, via higher fees. The alternative is to just deny access to medical treatment for the indigent, as in third world countries. Not many of us would want that.
I have to disagree with one of your statements. It seems not every government program is a train wreck, not yet anyway. S.S. stands as one shining example of a good government program that has worked beautifully and just as envisioned. There is a plethora of misinformation floating around about social security, and Wall Street would seem to be the ultimate source of much of it.
I would be in support of a 2 tier medical system, if immigrants who practiced medicine were given citizenship, for having some sort of a cap on their salary. The people who dont want to pay as much, and young people who dont necessarily need alot of medical care could opt for the cheap cost controlled stuff, while the people willing to pay up for it get access to better doctors. It would definately bring costs down if we werent sending every single person who cant afford to pay for anything to any doctor of their choosing.
The problem with the "public option" is that once again it would be putting to much control in the hands of the government whereby they would screw it up to no end, and you would just end up with a bloated beaurecracy that would end up being just as bad or else worse then the private insurance companies.
The problem with the "public option" is that once again it would be putting to much control in the hands of the government whereby they would screw it up to no end, and you would just end up with a bloated beaurecracy that would end up being just as bad or else worse then the private insurance companies.
Most Americans are against the huge deficits we have. Yet when they are polled about which cuts we should make they are against pretty much anything that would make a difference. They don't want to cut medicare, medicaid, social security, or even defense spending. The Department of Education does nothing useful but they don't want to cut that either. The TSA stomps all over the 4th Amendment thousands of times a day at our airports but they don't even want to cut that. They want to tax the rich (so long is "rich" is defined as some level of income well above whatever they are earning) but don't seem to realize that even doubling income taxes would not eliminate the budget deficit.
Anytime any sort of austerity is proposed the immediate response is "You bailed out the bankers! Why can't you bail out me!". This is childish but is the sort of response we can expect when Congress creates huge moral hazards.
So, it is obvious to me that Congress is going to continue to take the path of least resistance, making token cuts where there is some political grandstanding to be done (e.g., cutting funds to NPR) and promising big cuts sometime in the distant future ($4 trillion in ten years!) while continuing to deliver deficits in excess of $1.5 trillion year after year.
That is why the dollar is toast, and I am very glad I bought gold and silver years ago.
Anytime any sort of austerity is proposed the immediate response is "You bailed out the bankers! Why can't you bail out me!". This is childish but is the sort of response we can expect when Congress creates huge moral hazards.
So, it is obvious to me that Congress is going to continue to take the path of least resistance, making token cuts where there is some political grandstanding to be done (e.g., cutting funds to NPR) and promising big cuts sometime in the distant future ($4 trillion in ten years!) while continuing to deliver deficits in excess of $1.5 trillion year after year.
That is why the dollar is toast, and I am very glad I bought gold and silver years ago.
Yeah this is precisely the problem, people dont put two and two together and realise that it is their money which is being spent on these things.
I have often wondered what would happen to some of these programs if on a tax return there was a seperate section where every different government program was on a line, along with how much of a persons taxes were going into that, and a box to check off whether or not the person wants to spend that amount of their money on the program.
The lines on the return would read something like this:
Do you want to fund the department of education..... total cost to you 150$ Yes/No
Do you want to fund the Tsa... total cost to you 75$ Yes/No
Do you want to fund the department of energy.... total cost to you 30$ Yes/No
Then the person could simply check off which services they want, and the amount which is needed to fund the program would be added to their taxes. If they dont check off the service they lose access to it, but dont pay for it.
How many of these programs do you think would actually exist if a person was forced on a tax return, to check off a box, and actually give up a corresponding amount of money, if they really want the service. My guess is that if people actually had to willfully pony up their own money for most of these services, the government would be cut in half over night.
Of course this would never work cause the bottom 45% dont pay any federal income taxes, but it is just a hypothetical, if we had a flat tax or something then it would work.
I have often wondered what would happen to some of these programs if on a tax return there was a seperate section where every different government program was on a line, along with how much of a persons taxes were going into that, and a box to check off whether or not the person wants to spend that amount of their money on the program.
The lines on the return would read something like this:
Do you want to fund the department of education..... total cost to you 150$ Yes/No
Do you want to fund the Tsa... total cost to you 75$ Yes/No
Do you want to fund the department of energy.... total cost to you 30$ Yes/No
Then the person could simply check off which services they want, and the amount which is needed to fund the program would be added to their taxes. If they dont check off the service they lose access to it, but dont pay for it.
How many of these programs do you think would actually exist if a person was forced on a tax return, to check off a box, and actually give up a corresponding amount of money, if they really want the service. My guess is that if people actually had to willfully pony up their own money for most of these services, the government would be cut in half over night.
Of course this would never work cause the bottom 45% dont pay any federal income taxes, but it is just a hypothetical, if we had a flat tax or something then it would work.