Q. For Small Government Adherents

[Wry Catcher]

How would YOU shrink the Federal Government. Since you believe it will be a good thing, I must suppose you have thought of the cost-benefits and cost-deficits. Please include them with any cut you propose.

Thanks in advance for your thoughtful explanation.

Getting rid of the Income Tax would be a good start.

Even without the Income Tax, Federal revenue would be be about equivalent to 1997 levels, which was around 1.27 Trillion. I think a federal budget on just above a trillion dollars isn't radical. America seemed to be getting by fine in 1997, I think we could manage and this would be a good starting point. It isn't as though there was anarchy and poverty in the streets in the mid 90s.
It would be close to the same revenue PolitiFact

Perfect. Make all taxes regressive.

Why don't we just write the rich a check and send them the deeds to our homes? It would be a quicker path to the same place.

You understand that Democrat policies to reverse Bush's have resulted in higher gaps between rich and poor, not lower, right?
Insanity is....

- First of all, I don't know what policies you're talking about, so there's no way to establish if that's true or not.

Second, what makes you assume that I give a flying shit about any particular politician's or party's policies?

It will help you understand my words better if you do not project your partisan adulation onto me.

If you do not know what policies Democrats enacted in Obama's first two years then maybe you are too ill informed to engage in meaningful discussion. actually I think I've found the problem.

Obama signed the,
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009

and the The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), commonly called the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or "ObamaCare", is a United States federal statute signed into law by PresidentBarack Obama on March 23, 2010. Together with the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act amendment, it represents the most significant regulatory overhaul of the U.S. healthcare system since the passage of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965.

 

[Pksimon2007]

- The income tax is the only progressive tax we have.

So you mentioned getting rid of the only progressive tax, and claimed that the revenue from all the regressive taxes would be "sufficient".

So yes, when you mentioned $1.6 trillion in revenues, those were ALL from regressive taxes.

That is simply incorrect in your claim. Both the Capital Gains and Inheritance Tax come to mind for taxes that aren't regressive.

You are being dishonest in your use of language. I don't support making all taxes regressive, or instituting a regressive tax in place of the income tax. I want no replacement. I just support removing the income tax, which is progressive. These are two different things.

- Capital gains taxes are barely progressive at all, and account for a small amount of the $1.6 trillion you mention - most of which are very much regressive, such as FICA.

It isn't "barely progressive". It is either progressive and rates are based on income like the income tax. Also, you characterization of me "making all taxes regressive" is not only false, but it is dishonest. It implies I am imposing more taxes on those with less income, or imposing a tax on them in place of the income tax, when I am reducing the tax burden on all.

- The top rate is 28%, and is achieved at a low bracket. FICA is flat, with a cap - clearly regressive.

You are absolutely imposing more taxes on those with less income, and advocating a regressive tax regime.

If you disagree, then propose how you would restore the progressivity to the taxes which you removed by removing the income tax.

We both know you won't do that, so let's be frank: it is not me being dishonest here. The lady is protesting too much over there - trying to slide your proposals within the Overton Window so they don't seem as savage as they are.

I don't think you understand what progressive means. The capital gains tax is progressive because it increases based on income level. Just because you don't like the top tax rate doesn't mean it isn't progressive.

But now, you are getting off track. We aren't talking about FICA. No one contended that it wasn't a regressive form of taxation.

I have not advocated adding a single tax on those with less income, or anyone for that matter. I have advocated removing the income tax, which reduces the burden of low income and high income individuals alike.

As I said before, learn to read what I actually write and stop engaging in shrill liberal hyperbole.

- You advocated leaving FICA in place, because you claimed $1.6 trillion in revenue, a majority of which would have to be FICA.

FICA is a regressive tax, so yes, you proposed regressive taxation.

You have not yet answered my question: how would you restore the progressivity you have removed?

As I suggested, we both know the answer: you wouldn't, but want to pretend that you don't want to make taxes regressive, so you evade answering.

 

[Pksimon2007]

- The income tax is the only progressive tax we have.

So you mentioned getting rid of the only progressive tax, and claimed that the revenue from all the regressive taxes would be "sufficient".

So yes, when you mentioned $1.6 trillion in revenues, those were ALL from regressive taxes.

That is simply incorrect in your claim. Both the Capital Gains and Inheritance Tax come to mind for taxes that aren't regressive.

You are being dishonest in your use of language. I don't support making all taxes regressive, or instituting a regressive tax in place of the income tax. I want no replacement. I just support removing the income tax, which is progressive. These are two different things.

- Capital gains taxes are barely progressive at all, and account for a small amount of the $1.6 trillion you mention - most of which are very much regressive, such as FICA.

It isn't "barely progressive". It is either progressive and rates are based on income like the income tax. Also, you characterization of me "making all taxes regressive" is not only false, but it is dishonest. It implies I am imposing more taxes on those with less income, or imposing a tax on them in place of the income tax, when I am reducing the tax burden on all.

- The top rate is 28%, and is achieved at a low bracket. FICA is flat, with a cap - clearly regressive.

You are absolutely imposing more taxes on those with less income, and advocating a regressive tax regime.

If you disagree, then propose how you would restore the progressivity to the taxes which you removed by removing the income tax.

We both know you won't do that, so let's be frank: it is not me being dishonest here. The lady is protesting too much over there - trying to slide your proposals within the Overton Window so they don't seem as savage as they are.

I don't think you understand what progressive means. The capital gains tax is progressive because it increases based on income level. Just because you don't like the top tax rate doesn't mean it isn't progressive.

But now, you are getting off track. We aren't talking about FICA. No one contended that it wasn't a regressive form of taxation.

I have not advocated adding a single tax on those with less income, or anyone for that matter. I have advocated removing the income tax, which reduces the burden of low income and high income individuals alike.

As I said before, learn to read what I actually write and stop engaging in shrill liberal hyperbole.

- Now if you want to backtrack and claim you would get rid of FICA as well, then you have to abandon your claim of sufficiency in revenues, and we have a very different problem evident in your proposal.

 

[hortysir]

It isn't "barely progressive". It is either progressive and rates are based on income like the income tax. Also, you characterization of me "making all taxes regressive" is not only false, but it is dishonest. It implies I am imposing more taxes on those with less income, or imposing a tax on them in place of the income tax, when I am reducing the tax burden on all.

- The top rate is 28%, and is achieved at a low bracket. FICA is flat, with a cap - clearly regressive.

You are absolutely imposing more taxes on those with less income, and advocating a regressive tax regime.

If you disagree, then propose how you would restore the progressivity to the taxes which you removed by removing the income tax.

We both know you won't do that, so let's be frank: it is not me being dishonest here. The lady is protesting too much over there - trying to slide your proposals within the Overton Window so they don't seem as savage as they are.

You understand the bottom 47% of wage earners not only pay no income taxes, they actually get back more than they paid in. So your regressive argument is wrong because it fails to consider refundable tax credits.

- They pay no federal income taxes now - but they do pay other taxes, including FICA, for a total of 16% of their income, total, in taxes.

The rich, who spend lower portions of their income, pay less - largely because, as your mongoloid buddy Rabbi pointed out, you get to choose when to realize a capital gain, so as not to have to pay income taxes on your income until such time as you choose to.

Now Steinlight proposes removing the burden on the rich by removing income taxes, which is no tax break at all for half of Americans - and, while doing this, he whines that doesn't make taxes less progressive.

You all can't help but trip over yourselves as you spin around chasing your tails.

You want to claim that income taxes arent progressive enough and when I point out that the bottom of wage earners pay no income taxes you deflect to FICA. Which higher income people also pay.
You have lost this argument. Bye.

- Oh, my, look who got emotional.

Yes, the lowest end pays a very flat 16% in taxes. That takes a lot of progressivity out of the system. But I know that's a mathematical fact, and ou don't do well with those.

Facts like FICA is more of an insurance payment, which the employer matches, rather than an actual tax?
Those kind of facts?

 

[Pksimon2007]

- The top rate is 28%, and is achieved at a low bracket. FICA is flat, with a cap - clearly regressive.

You are absolutely imposing more taxes on those with less income, and advocating a regressive tax regime.

If you disagree, then propose how you would restore the progressivity to the taxes which you removed by removing the income tax.

We both know you won't do that, so let's be frank: it is not me being dishonest here. The lady is protesting too much over there - trying to slide your proposals within the Overton Window so they don't seem as savage as they are.

You understand the bottom 47% of wage earners not only pay no income taxes, they actually get back more than they paid in. So your regressive argument is wrong because it fails to consider refundable tax credits.

- They pay no federal income taxes now - but they do pay other taxes, including FICA, for a total of 16% of their income, total, in taxes.

The rich, who spend lower portions of their income, pay less - largely because, as your mongoloid buddy Rabbi pointed out, you get to choose when to realize a capital gain, so as not to have to pay income taxes on your income until such time as you choose to.

Now Steinlight proposes removing the burden on the rich by removing income taxes, which is no tax break at all for half of Americans - and, while doing this, he whines that doesn't make taxes less progressive.

You all can't help but trip over yourselves as you spin around chasing your tails.

You want to claim that income taxes arent progressive enough and when I point out that the bottom of wage earners pay no income taxes you deflect to FICA. Which higher income people also pay.
You have lost this argument. Bye.

- Oh, my, look who got emotional.

Yes, the lowest end pays a very flat 16% in taxes. That takes a lot of progressivity out of the system. But I know that's a mathematical fact, and ou don't do well with those.

Facts like FICA is more of an insurance payment, which the employer matches, rather than an actual tax?
Those kind of facts?

- FICA is an actual tax. You can argue that all you want, but Steinlight is lumping it together with taxes when he includes it as revenue in his tax plan, so you need to bring the issue up with him.

 

[Steinlight]

That is simply incorrect in your claim. Both the Capital Gains and Inheritance Tax come to mind for taxes that aren't regressive.

You are being dishonest in your use of language. I don't support making all taxes regressive, or instituting a regressive tax in place of the income tax. I want no replacement. I just support removing the income tax, which is progressive. These are two different things.

- Capital gains taxes are barely progressive at all, and account for a small amount of the $1.6 trillion you mention - most of which are very much regressive, such as FICA.

It isn't "barely progressive". It is either progressive and rates are based on income like the income tax. Also, you characterization of me "making all taxes regressive" is not only false, but it is dishonest. It implies I am imposing more taxes on those with less income, or imposing a tax on them in place of the income tax, when I am reducing the tax burden on all.

- The top rate is 28%, and is achieved at a low bracket. FICA is flat, with a cap - clearly regressive.

You are absolutely imposing more taxes on those with less income, and advocating a regressive tax regime.

If you disagree, then propose how you would restore the progressivity to the taxes which you removed by removing the income tax.

We both know you won't do that, so let's be frank: it is not me being dishonest here. The lady is protesting too much over there - trying to slide your proposals within the Overton Window so they don't seem as savage as they are.

I don't think you understand what progressive means. The capital gains tax is progressive because it increases based on income level. Just because you don't like the top tax rate doesn't mean it isn't progressive.

But now, you are getting off track. We aren't talking about FICA. No one contended that it wasn't a regressive form of taxation.

I have not advocated adding a single tax on those with less income, or anyone for that matter. I have advocated removing the income tax, which reduces the burden of low income and high income individuals alike.

As I said before, learn to read what I actually write and stop engaging in shrill liberal hyperbole.

- Now if you want to backtrack and claim you would get rid of FICA as well, then you have to abandon your claim of sufficiency in revenues, and we have a very different problem evident in your proposal.

I never talked about FICA, stop changing the issue.

The issues here are your claim that the income tax is the only progressive tax and that I want to impose more regressive taxes on the poor. You are wrong on both counts.

Look, if you disagree with getting rid of the income tax, that's fine, we can have an argument on the merits of the position. But to keep lying and saying I want to add more taxes on the poor when I clearly state I want to remove the income tax and replace it with nothing is dishonest and I won't have it. That is not a debate.

To debate, you have to counter the argument of your opponent, not ignore his argument and create your own strawman.

 

[Pksimon2007]

- Capital gains taxes are barely progressive at all, and account for a small amount of the $1.6 trillion you mention - most of which are very much regressive, such as FICA.

It isn't "barely progressive". It is either progressive and rates are based on income like the income tax. Also, you characterization of me "making all taxes regressive" is not only false, but it is dishonest. It implies I am imposing more taxes on those with less income, or imposing a tax on them in place of the income tax, when I am reducing the tax burden on all.

- The top rate is 28%, and is achieved at a low bracket. FICA is flat, with a cap - clearly regressive.

You are absolutely imposing more taxes on those with less income, and advocating a regressive tax regime.

If you disagree, then propose how you would restore the progressivity to the taxes which you removed by removing the income tax.

We both know you won't do that, so let's be frank: it is not me being dishonest here. The lady is protesting too much over there - trying to slide your proposals within the Overton Window so they don't seem as savage as they are.

I don't think you understand what progressive means. The capital gains tax is progressive because it increases based on income level. Just because you don't like the top tax rate doesn't mean it isn't progressive.

But now, you are getting off track. We aren't talking about FICA. No one contended that it wasn't a regressive form of taxation.

I have not advocated adding a single tax on those with less income, or anyone for that matter. I have advocated removing the income tax, which reduces the burden of low income and high income individuals alike.

As I said before, learn to read what I actually write and stop engaging in shrill liberal hyperbole.

- Now if you want to backtrack and claim you would get rid of FICA as well, then you have to abandon your claim of sufficiency in revenues, and we have a very different problem evident in your proposal.

I never talked about FICA, stop changing the issue.

The issues here are your claim that the income tax is the only progressive tax and that I want to impose more regressive taxes on the poor. You are wrong on both counts.

Look, if you disagree with getting rid of the income tax, that's fine, we can have an argument on the merits of the position. But to keep lying and saying I want to add more taxes on the poor when I clearly state I want to remove the income tax and replace it with nothing is dishonest and I won't have it. That is not a debate.

To debate, you have to counter the argument of your opponent, not ignore his argument and create your own strawman.

You talked about FICA the moment you claimed $1.6 trillion in revenues. FICA has to be a part of that for your argument to be right.

You agreed that FICA is regressive, and your plan makes it the majority of federal revenues.

You either have to accept my characterization or give something else up. You're trying to spin it so you do not have to face the consequences of one of your positions.

You still have not explained any way in which you would restore the progressivity to the tax system which it are taking away.

And your buddy helpfully pointed out that 47% do not pay federal income taxes (but do pay FICA).

So you may be able to make a technical argument that you don't want to increase the burden on lower income families, but you appear to have no interest in relieving it, even by one penny.

Your plan is exclusively a tax break for high income Americans, and nobody else.

 

[Pksimon2007]

- Capital gains taxes are barely progressive at all, and account for a small amount of the $1.6 trillion you mention - most of which are very much regressive, such as FICA.

It isn't "barely progressive". It is either progressive and rates are based on income like the income tax. Also, you characterization of me "making all taxes regressive" is not only false, but it is dishonest. It implies I am imposing more taxes on those with less income, or imposing a tax on them in place of the income tax, when I am reducing the tax burden on all.

- The top rate is 28%, and is achieved at a low bracket. FICA is flat, with a cap - clearly regressive.

You are absolutely imposing more taxes on those with less income, and advocating a regressive tax regime.

If you disagree, then propose how you would restore the progressivity to the taxes which you removed by removing the income tax.

We both know you won't do that, so let's be frank: it is not me being dishonest here. The lady is protesting too much over there - trying to slide your proposals within the Overton Window so they don't seem as savage as they are.

I don't think you understand what progressive means. The capital gains tax is progressive because it increases based on income level. Just because you don't like the top tax rate doesn't mean it isn't progressive.

But now, you are getting off track. We aren't talking about FICA. No one contended that it wasn't a regressive form of taxation.

I have not advocated adding a single tax on those with less income, or anyone for that matter. I have advocated removing the income tax, which reduces the burden of low income and high income individuals alike.

As I said before, learn to read what I actually write and stop engaging in shrill liberal hyperbole.

- Now if you want to backtrack and claim you would get rid of FICA as well, then you have to abandon your claim of sufficiency in revenues, and we have a very different problem evident in your proposal.

I never talked about FICA, stop changing the issue.

The issues here are your claim that the income tax is the only progressive tax and that I want to impose more regressive taxes on the poor. You are wrong on both counts.

Look, if you disagree with getting rid of the income tax, that's fine, we can have an argument on the merits of the position. But to keep lying and saying I want to add more taxes on the poor when I clearly state I want to remove the income tax and replace it with nothing is dishonest and I won't have it. That is not a debate.

To debate, you have to counter the argument of your opponent, not ignore his argument and create your own strawman.

There's another aspect that you haven't considered (I find it amazingly rare that anyone does).

Think about the effects of systems of taxation not in relation to each other, but in relation to the null hypothesis - no tax at all.

In such a scenario there is some basic income required for bare survival. Assuming similarity in location, age, and medical condition, that income required is the same or every one.

Let's call that mandatory income, all of which must be spent for the person's survival.

Let's call the remainder of one's income discretionary income (because there is no tax, disposable income is meaningless). This income can be spent, saved, or invested in any way one likes.

It represents your economic freedom.

It also represents the o my income which can be taxed, because taxation of mandatory income result, in extremis, in your death.

So what constitutes "fair"? If we tax 10% of everyone's income, what is the impact?

If your income is the mandatory income, we are literally taxing you to death.

If your income is 10% above the mandatory income, we are taxing 100% of your economic freedom.

If your income is 11 times the mandatory income, we are taxing 19% of your economic freedom.

A flat tax, then, has a disparate income on the liberty of the people it taxes, leaving more liberty to those who earn more, taxing all liberty from those of modest means, and barely impacting tehe liberty of the wealthy.

If you disagree that taxes impact liberty, then the argument of taxation becomes purely utilitarian, and the rhetoric of libertarians and the Tea Party become meaningless sophistry.

The only way to create a system which impacts the liberty which all have earned in equal measure is to Prevatte the bottom so that mandatory income is not taxed at all, and to impose highly progressive income taxes on everyone else.

 

[Steinlight]

It isn't "barely progressive". It is either progressive and rates are based on income like the income tax. Also, you characterization of me "making all taxes regressive" is not only false, but it is dishonest. It implies I am imposing more taxes on those with less income, or imposing a tax on them in place of the income tax, when I am reducing the tax burden on all.

- The top rate is 28%, and is achieved at a low bracket. FICA is flat, with a cap - clearly regressive.

You are absolutely imposing more taxes on those with less income, and advocating a regressive tax regime.

If you disagree, then propose how you would restore the progressivity to the taxes which you removed by removing the income tax.

We both know you won't do that, so let's be frank: it is not me being dishonest here. The lady is protesting too much over there - trying to slide your proposals within the Overton Window so they don't seem as savage as they are.

I don't think you understand what progressive means. The capital gains tax is progressive because it increases based on income level. Just because you don't like the top tax rate doesn't mean it isn't progressive.

But now, you are getting off track. We aren't talking about FICA. No one contended that it wasn't a regressive form of taxation.

I have not advocated adding a single tax on those with less income, or anyone for that matter. I have advocated removing the income tax, which reduces the burden of low income and high income individuals alike.

As I said before, learn to read what I actually write and stop engaging in shrill liberal hyperbole.

- Now if you want to backtrack and claim you would get rid of FICA as well, then you have to abandon your claim of sufficiency in revenues, and we have a very different problem evident in your proposal.

I never talked about FICA, stop changing the issue.

The issues here are your claim that the income tax is the only progressive tax and that I want to impose more regressive taxes on the poor. You are wrong on both counts.

Look, if you disagree with getting rid of the income tax, that's fine, we can have an argument on the merits of the position. But to keep lying and saying I want to add more taxes on the poor when I clearly state I want to remove the income tax and replace it with nothing is dishonest and I won't have it. That is not a debate.

To debate, you have to counter the argument of your opponent, not ignore his argument and create your own strawman.

You talked about FICA the moment you claimed $1.6 trillion in revenues. FICA has to be a part of that for your argument to be right.

You agreed that FICA is regressive, and your plan makes it the majority of federal revenues.

You either have to accept my characterization or give something else up. You're trying to spin it so you do not have to face the consequences of one of your positions.

You still have not explained any way in which you would restore the progressivity to the tax system which it are taking away.

And your buddy helpfully pointed out that 47% do not pay federal income taxes (but do pay FICA).

So you may be able to make a technical argument that you don't want to increase the burden on lower income families, but you appear to have no interest in relieving it, even by one penny.

Your plan is exclusively a tax break for high income Americans, and nobody else.

You are really good at being wrong, but not very good at posting. You yourself say you have spent a good deal of years posting online. Don't you have something better to do?

Comparing Income Tax and FICA is like comparing Apples and Oranges. Income Tax doesn't pay for Social Security and Medicare, and FICA is mandated by law to go towards Social Security and Medicare, and nothing else.

I don't have to accept your characterization because it is simply wrong. The Income Tax isn't the only progressive tax, and I have not advocated imposing a tax, regressive or progressive for that matter, in place of the Income Tax. You claimed in previous posts I am advocating adding taxes on people, when I am talking about removing a tax that 53% of people of people pay, you are living in a bizarro world quite frankly.

I don't consider the top 53% to be "high income". I would be curious to see what your metric is for establishing someone is "high income". That metric is unconventional to put it nicely.

 

[Steinlight]

It isn't "barely progressive". It is either progressive and rates are based on income like the income tax. Also, you characterization of me "making all taxes regressive" is not only false, but it is dishonest. It implies I am imposing more taxes on those with less income, or imposing a tax on them in place of the income tax, when I am reducing the tax burden on all.

- The top rate is 28%, and is achieved at a low bracket. FICA is flat, with a cap - clearly regressive.

You are absolutely imposing more taxes on those with less income, and advocating a regressive tax regime.

If you disagree, then propose how you would restore the progressivity to the taxes which you removed by removing the income tax.

We both know you won't do that, so let's be frank: it is not me being dishonest here. The lady is protesting too much over there - trying to slide your proposals within the Overton Window so they don't seem as savage as they are.

I don't think you understand what progressive means. The capital gains tax is progressive because it increases based on income level. Just because you don't like the top tax rate doesn't mean it isn't progressive.

But now, you are getting off track. We aren't talking about FICA. No one contended that it wasn't a regressive form of taxation.

I have not advocated adding a single tax on those with less income, or anyone for that matter. I have advocated removing the income tax, which reduces the burden of low income and high income individuals alike.

As I said before, learn to read what I actually write and stop engaging in shrill liberal hyperbole.

- Now if you want to backtrack and claim you would get rid of FICA as well, then you have to abandon your claim of sufficiency in revenues, and we have a very different problem evident in your proposal.

I never talked about FICA, stop changing the issue.

The issues here are your claim that the income tax is the only progressive tax and that I want to impose more regressive taxes on the poor. You are wrong on both counts.

Look, if you disagree with getting rid of the income tax, that's fine, we can have an argument on the merits of the position. But to keep lying and saying I want to add more taxes on the poor when I clearly state I want to remove the income tax and replace it with nothing is dishonest and I won't have it. That is not a debate.

To debate, you have to counter the argument of your opponent, not ignore his argument and create your own strawman.

There's another aspect that you haven't considered (I find it amazingly rare that anyone does).

Think about the effects of systems of taxation not in relation to each other, but in relation to the null hypothesis - no tax at all.

In such a scenario there is some basic income required for bare survival. Assuming similarity in location, age, and medical condition, that income required is the same or every one.

Let's call that mandatory income, all of which must be spent for the person's survival.

Let's call the remainder of one's income discretionary income (because there is no tax, disposable income is meaningless). This income can be spent, saved, or invested in any way one likes.

It represents your economic freedom.

It also represents the o my income which can be taxed, because taxation of mandatory income result, in extremis, in your death.

So what constitutes "fair"? If we tax 10% of everyone's income, what is the impact?

If your income is the mandatory income, we are literally taxing you to death.

If your income is 10% above the mandatory income, we are taxing 100% of your economic freedom.

If your income is 11 times the mandatory income, we are taxing 19% of your economic freedom.

A flat tax, then, has a disparate income on the liberty of the people it taxes, leaving more liberty to those who earn more, taxing all liberty from those of modest means, and barely impacting tehe liberty of the wealthy.

If you disagree that taxes impact liberty, then the argument of taxation becomes purely utilitarian, and the rhetoric of libertarians and the Tea Party become meaningless sophistry.

The only way to create a system which impacts the liberty which all have earned in equal measure is to Prevatte the bottom so that mandatory income is not taxed at all, and to impose highly progressive income taxes on everyone else.

I don't advocate a flat tax to replace the income tax, I advocate not a Fair Tax or a Flat Tax, but no tax.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Start with a balanced budget amendment.

- The OP asked for a cost benefit analysis. That seems to be missing.

If asked, I can articulate very clearly the costs of a balanced budget amendment, and explain logically how destructive it would be.

Is there any argument FOR a balanced budget amendment that is based on anything other than emotion?

Balancing the budget is simple, as any common man has learned to live within his means. That, or spend recklessly and end up broken and on the streets. It's not emotional, it's realistic. How else do you address the spending?

So, perhaps you are familiar with this paper

"Analyzing the Case for a Balanced Budget Amendment"

In it, the economists argue the benefits and drawbacks of a balanced budget amendment. Two of the main benefits of such an amendment are these:

1) A balanced budget amendment likely would inspire the government to increase savings to hedge against future problems in the broader economy.

2) An elimination of the deficit also would reduce the millions of dollars in interest that the government pays on its debt when it runs a deficit.

http://static1.squarespace.com/stat...4aeb9e4e4b088b975e88a0a/1420736996813/bbr.pdf

There are always drawbacks, (tax volatility, crisis management, social services, etc) as you are so easily given to, but you ignore the benefits. The price of success is failure. But you can't keep failing on purpose and hope to succeed.

 

[Votto]

How would YOU shrink the Federal Government. Since you believe it will be a good thing, I must suppose you have thought of the cost-benefits and cost-deficits. Please include them with any cut you propose.

Thanks in advance for your thoughtful explanation.

First I would find some Congressmen who would actually try to balance a budget................scratch that, I would crack a smile if they just passed a budget.

Instead, they would rather talk about gay sex.

Speaking of gay sex, is everyone enjoying taking it up the ass every year the middle class loses ground as they slowly disappear?

 

[Pksimon2007]

- The top rate is 28%, and is achieved at a low bracket. FICA is flat, with a cap - clearly regressive.

You are absolutely imposing more taxes on those with less income, and advocating a regressive tax regime.

If you disagree, then propose how you would restore the progressivity to the taxes which you removed by removing the income tax.

We both know you won't do that, so let's be frank: it is not me being dishonest here. The lady is protesting too much over there - trying to slide your proposals within the Overton Window so they don't seem as savage as they are.

I don't think you understand what progressive means. The capital gains tax is progressive because it increases based on income level. Just because you don't like the top tax rate doesn't mean it isn't progressive.

But now, you are getting off track. We aren't talking about FICA. No one contended that it wasn't a regressive form of taxation.

I have not advocated adding a single tax on those with less income, or anyone for that matter. I have advocated removing the income tax, which reduces the burden of low income and high income individuals alike.

As I said before, learn to read what I actually write and stop engaging in shrill liberal hyperbole.

- Now if you want to backtrack and claim you would get rid of FICA as well, then you have to abandon your claim of sufficiency in revenues, and we have a very different problem evident in your proposal.

I never talked about FICA, stop changing the issue.

The issues here are your claim that the income tax is the only progressive tax and that I want to impose more regressive taxes on the poor. You are wrong on both counts.

Look, if you disagree with getting rid of the income tax, that's fine, we can have an argument on the merits of the position. But to keep lying and saying I want to add more taxes on the poor when I clearly state I want to remove the income tax and replace it with nothing is dishonest and I won't have it. That is not a debate.

To debate, you have to counter the argument of your opponent, not ignore his argument and create your own strawman.

You talked about FICA the moment you claimed $1.6 trillion in revenues. FICA has to be a part of that for your argument to be right.

You agreed that FICA is regressive, and your plan makes it the majority of federal revenues.

You either have to accept my characterization or give something else up. You're trying to spin it so you do not have to face the consequences of one of your positions.

You still have not explained any way in which you would restore the progressivity to the tax system which it are taking away.

And your buddy helpfully pointed out that 47% do not pay federal income taxes (but do pay FICA).

So you may be able to make a technical argument that you don't want to increase the burden on lower income families, but you appear to have no interest in relieving it, even by one penny.

Your plan is exclusively a tax break for high income Americans, and nobody else.

You are really good at being wrong, but not very good at posting. You yourself say you have spent a good deal of years posting online. Don't you have something better to do?

Comparing Income Tax and FICA is like comparing Apples and Oranges. Income Tax doesn't pay for Social Security and Medicare, and FICA is mandated by law to go towards Social Security and Medicare, and nothing else.

I don't have to accept your characterization because it is simply wrong. The Income Tax isn't the only progressive tax, and I have not advocated imposing a tax, regressive or progressive for that matter, in place of the Income Tax. You claimed in previous posts I am advocating adding taxes on people, when I am talking about removing a tax that 53% of people of people pay, you are living in a bizarro world quite frankly.

I don't consider the top 53% to be "high income". I would be curious to see what your metric is for establishing someone is "high income". That metric is unconventional to put it nicely.

- Did you or did you not claim your tax plan would leave $1.6 trillion in revenue?

Yes or no?

 

[Pksimon2007]

- The top rate is 28%, and is achieved at a low bracket. FICA is flat, with a cap - clearly regressive.

You are absolutely imposing more taxes on those with less income, and advocating a regressive tax regime.

If you disagree, then propose how you would restore the progressivity to the taxes which you removed by removing the income tax.

We both know you won't do that, so let's be frank: it is not me being dishonest here. The lady is protesting too much over there - trying to slide your proposals within the Overton Window so they don't seem as savage as they are.

I don't think you understand what progressive means. The capital gains tax is progressive because it increases based on income level. Just because you don't like the top tax rate doesn't mean it isn't progressive.

But now, you are getting off track. We aren't talking about FICA. No one contended that it wasn't a regressive form of taxation.

I have not advocated adding a single tax on those with less income, or anyone for that matter. I have advocated removing the income tax, which reduces the burden of low income and high income individuals alike.

As I said before, learn to read what I actually write and stop engaging in shrill liberal hyperbole.

- Now if you want to backtrack and claim you would get rid of FICA as well, then you have to abandon your claim of sufficiency in revenues, and we have a very different problem evident in your proposal.

I never talked about FICA, stop changing the issue.

The issues here are your claim that the income tax is the only progressive tax and that I want to impose more regressive taxes on the poor. You are wrong on both counts.

Look, if you disagree with getting rid of the income tax, that's fine, we can have an argument on the merits of the position. But to keep lying and saying I want to add more taxes on the poor when I clearly state I want to remove the income tax and replace it with nothing is dishonest and I won't have it. That is not a debate.

To debate, you have to counter the argument of your opponent, not ignore his argument and create your own strawman.

There's another aspect that you haven't considered (I find it amazingly rare that anyone does).

Think about the effects of systems of taxation not in relation to each other, but in relation to the null hypothesis - no tax at all.

In such a scenario there is some basic income required for bare survival. Assuming similarity in location, age, and medical condition, that income required is the same or every one.

Let's call that mandatory income, all of which must be spent for the person's survival.

Let's call the remainder of one's income discretionary income (because there is no tax, disposable income is meaningless). This income can be spent, saved, or invested in any way one likes.

It represents your economic freedom.

It also represents the o my income which can be taxed, because taxation of mandatory income result, in extremis, in your death.

So what constitutes "fair"? If we tax 10% of everyone's income, what is the impact?

If your income is the mandatory income, we are literally taxing you to death.

If your income is 10% above the mandatory income, we are taxing 100% of your economic freedom.

If your income is 11 times the mandatory income, we are taxing 19% of your economic freedom.

A flat tax, then, has a disparate income on the liberty of the people it taxes, leaving more liberty to those who earn more, taxing all liberty from those of modest means, and barely impacting tehe liberty of the wealthy.

If you disagree that taxes impact liberty, then the argument of taxation becomes purely utilitarian, and the rhetoric of libertarians and the Tea Party become meaningless sophistry.

The only way to create a system which impacts the liberty which all have earned in equal measure is to Prevatte the bottom so that mandatory income is not taxed at all, and to impose highly progressive income taxes on everyone else.

I don't advocate a flat tax to replace the income tax, I advocate not a Fair Tax or a Flat Tax, but no tax.

- If there's no tax, then how do you claim $1.6 trillion in tax revenue?

 

[Votto]

I kinda like Ben Carsons idea. Have every federal agency cut about 5 to 10% of their expenses.

That way opponents can't cry about one part of the federal government being picked on instead of others, nor can the cry that they are being done away with.


Shrug, times are tough, everyone should be cutting back.

 

[Steinlight]

I don't think you understand what progressive means. The capital gains tax is progressive because it increases based on income level. Just because you don't like the top tax rate doesn't mean it isn't progressive.

But now, you are getting off track. We aren't talking about FICA. No one contended that it wasn't a regressive form of taxation.

I have not advocated adding a single tax on those with less income, or anyone for that matter. I have advocated removing the income tax, which reduces the burden of low income and high income individuals alike.

As I said before, learn to read what I actually write and stop engaging in shrill liberal hyperbole.

- Now if you want to backtrack and claim you would get rid of FICA as well, then you have to abandon your claim of sufficiency in revenues, and we have a very different problem evident in your proposal.

I never talked about FICA, stop changing the issue.

The issues here are your claim that the income tax is the only progressive tax and that I want to impose more regressive taxes on the poor. You are wrong on both counts.

Look, if you disagree with getting rid of the income tax, that's fine, we can have an argument on the merits of the position. But to keep lying and saying I want to add more taxes on the poor when I clearly state I want to remove the income tax and replace it with nothing is dishonest and I won't have it. That is not a debate.

To debate, you have to counter the argument of your opponent, not ignore his argument and create your own strawman.

You talked about FICA the moment you claimed $1.6 trillion in revenues. FICA has to be a part of that for your argument to be right.

You agreed that FICA is regressive, and your plan makes it the majority of federal revenues.

You either have to accept my characterization or give something else up. You're trying to spin it so you do not have to face the consequences of one of your positions.

You still have not explained any way in which you would restore the progressivity to the tax system which it are taking away.

And your buddy helpfully pointed out that 47% do not pay federal income taxes (but do pay FICA).

So you may be able to make a technical argument that you don't want to increase the burden on lower income families, but you appear to have no interest in relieving it, even by one penny.

Your plan is exclusively a tax break for high income Americans, and nobody else.

You are really good at being wrong, but not very good at posting. You yourself say you have spent a good deal of years posting online. Don't you have something better to do?

Comparing Income Tax and FICA is like comparing Apples and Oranges. Income Tax doesn't pay for Social Security and Medicare, and FICA is mandated by law to go towards Social Security and Medicare, and nothing else.

I don't have to accept your characterization because it is simply wrong. The Income Tax isn't the only progressive tax, and I have not advocated imposing a tax, regressive or progressive for that matter, in place of the Income Tax. You claimed in previous posts I am advocating adding taxes on people, when I am talking about removing a tax that 53% of people of people pay, you are living in a bizarro world quite frankly.

I don't consider the top 53% to be "high income". I would be curious to see what your metric is for establishing someone is "high income". That metric is unconventional to put it nicely.

- Did you or did you not claim your tax plan would leave $1.6 trillion in revenue?

Yes or no?

Yes. And this doesn't change the fact that you claimed the Income Tax is the only progressive tax and that I wanted to add more regressive taxes on the poor. You still haven't admitted you are wrong on both these counts.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I don't believe that this question can be answered without knowing all of the functions of the federal government and being aware of the implications of losing functions. I seriously doubt anyone on here (including myself) can make an informed opinion on such a huge budgetary issue.

- I think it can be evaluated from a macro perspective. There are costs and benefits to individual programs, but there are also costs and benefits to federal spending, taxing, surpluses, and deficits.

From the longest view, federal deficits are private sector surpluses. Deficits and surpluses are flows of money, so the sum of all flows of money must equal zero.

Conservatives forget this, and don't comprehend what their calls for a balanced budget amendment mean, from a macro perspective.

One macro perspective I find particularly useful is called the sectoral balances approach, which looks at the economy being divided, monetarily, into three sectors: the federal government, which is the monopoly issuer of the currency, the private sector, which produces real wealth and private credit/debt and uses the government currency, and the foreign sector with which the private sector trades.

The conservative approach is to argue that responsibility demands that the private sector and government sector must both either balance their budgets or run surpluses.

What they forget is that surpluses and deficits (like profits and losses) are flows, and cannot simultaneously exist among all sectors. For one sector to have a surplus (and a profit would be a surplus), then another sector must run a deficit.

For both the government and private sector to be net positive, the only way that can happen is for the US to be a net exporting country, with net flows of money incoming from other countries in exchange for real wealth which we produce. The only way that can happen is for US workers to allow wages to fall, and to forego the enjoyment of real wealth so that it can be shipped to other countries in order to produce a financial profit for the private sector (which would have to be realized, necessarily, outside of wages) and for the government.

This is why they have to advocate a race to the bottom for US workers. They don't understand their own logic, but at some intuitive level they know that people must be forced to suffer to produce the financial surpluses they feel government must run.

They simultaneously forget that government is the monopoly issuer of its own currency, so there is no reason it should run a financial surplus. To government, which creates money at will ("printing" it), money is free. Governments which produce their own currency are not constrained from producing more - their constraint is on their ability to buy real resources with that money, which means inflation, in a practical sense is their limiting constraint on spending.

So yes, even though we cannot evaluate individual programs this way, it is very clear that we can evaluate a macroeconomic effect which tells us whether government should have a deficit, surplus, or balanced budget. The answer will be different, depending on the behavior of the private and foreign sectors. Government exists to serve the private sector (us), and its budgetary position should be tailored to support our objectives.

If our objectives are to employ our labor and other real resources in order to create wealth and to provide savings for ourselves, that is only possible if we have government run deficits or if we run trade surpluses.

This is also my answer to the OP, and includes my cost-benefit analysis at a macroeconomic level.

I also gather that you are prone to overanalysis. Government can't serve anyone or anything when it can't pay for any of the services it provides. If it can't pay for these essential services, people suffer. So, taxes are increased to continue paying for these programs while borrowing more money. Running surpluses means you don't have to levy so many taxes to pay for borrowing, it would thusly be able to pay for the services government provides to the public without again raising taxes. The individual, microeconomic impact is obvious. As is the macroeconomic impact.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Perfect. Make all taxes regressive.

Why don't we just write the rich a check and send them the deeds to our homes? It would be a quicker path to the same place.

Perfect, resort to argument ad absurdum. Rather than address the policy you attack it.

- I did both.

Or, all you did was belittle anyone who held an opposing view. I'm currently reading your posts right now.

 

[Pksimon2007]

Start with a balanced budget amendment.

- The OP asked for a cost benefit analysis. That seems to be missing.

If asked, I can articulate very clearly the costs of a balanced budget amendment, and explain logically how destructive it would be.

Is there any argument FOR a balanced budget amendment that is based on anything other than emotion?

Balancing the budget is simple, as any common man has learned to live within his means. That, or spend recklessly and end up broken and on the streets. It's not emotional, it's realistic. How else do you address the spending?

So, perhaps you are familiar with this paper

"Analyzing the Case for a Balanced Budget Amendment"

In it, the economists argue the benefits and drawbacks of a balanced budget amendment. Two of the main benefits of such an amendment are these:

1) A balanced budget amendment likely would inspire the government to increase savings to hedge against future problems in the broader economy.

2) An elimination of the deficit also would reduce the millions of dollars in interest that the government pays on its debt when it runs a deficit.

http://static1.squarespace.com/stat...4aeb9e4e4b088b975e88a0a/1420736996813/bbr.pdf

There are always drawbacks, (tax volatility, crisis management, social services, etc) as you are so easily given to, but you ignore the benefits. The price of success is failure. But you can't keep failing on purpose and hope to succeed.

- I explained in detail in an early post how a balance budget could be achieved, and the damage that would do.

Did you read that post? I have already answered the argument.

You may not be aware of some of the arguments going on among economists now in terms of government budgets (I don't mean that as an insult, it's just that the press and most public representations of ongoing economic arguments are very narrow, and [insultingly, I think], tailored to what writers think the public can understand).

The government is not a household. Period. Arguing that a business can balance its budget, or a household, holds no water - it depends on them being the same sorts of entities to have any logical validity, and they are not.

Let's begin with the basic proposition that a monetarily sovereign government issues its own currency, which the private sector uses.

It issues that currency as a flow of money from itself to the private sector, which is defined as a deficit. That deficit is defined as a private sector surplus. All deficits must be matched by surpluses somewhere.

To argue for a balanced budget is, ultimately, to argue that the private sector should never have a financial surplus - that is, that it should never be able to save without reducing income, that it should never be able to grow, and that it should become a zero-sum game in which the profit of one agent is the loss of another.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Perfect. Make all taxes regressive.

Why don't we just write the rich a check and send them the deeds to our homes? It would be a quicker path to the same place.

Perfect, resort to argument ad absurdum. Rather than address the policy you attack it.

- I'm just curious why you're jumping in here. Do you have an argument? Or do you do this sort of personal thing where you make others the argument?

Maybe it's time for a long, hard look in the mirror.

If you have an economic argument, make it.

You aren't making one. You are resorting to using rhetoric, which isn't an argument. If you can't make solid points, then you make yourself the target of criticism. When you get into petty fights with others, like Rabbi, you make yourself the target of criticism. And I will jump in to whatever arguments I see fit to. You post here, your posts are fair game.

I will have to peruse the annals of this thread to read up on your argument. Be patient.

Start with page one.

Actually, I started at the page where you first entered the discussion, which wasn't page one. Try not to be sarcastic.