Raise Taxes or Cut Waste?

[Dad2three]

Raise taxes on the rich, tax college savings, raise gasoline taxes, and cut social programs? Or, cut the enormous waste that we all know should be cut? Or, should we do a combination of both? If your answer is to cut waste, what are the most obvious areas of waste that you would cut? If your answer is to raise taxes, what taxes would you increase? Or, what new taxes would you add? If your answer is to raise taxes, where would you use the new revenue? If your answer is to cut waste, where would you use the savings?

As painful as it will be, I think we should raise taxes first. But we have to do it across the board, so everyone feels the pain. And we need to keep raising them until the budget is balanced. Then there will be no need to convince people we need to cut spending. They'll be howling for it.

We already know what economic policies work best for our country. Clinton knew that we had to cut spending and increase revenues. We had revenues of 20.6% of GDP and a surplus in 2000. Then something terrible happened, the Republicans gained complete control in 2001 and instead of sticking with what was working they decided that their ideology was more important. The debt has gone up $12+ trillion since then, AS DUBYA/GOP gutted federal revenues to less than 15% of GDP, Korean war levels

 

[Siete]

all these marvelous ideas to pay down the debt are nothing but pipe dreams. We couldn't even pay off the damn interest on the debt. By all means continue.

Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding

 

[Dad2three]

Government has spent over $30 trillion dollars in the last 10 years alone, that's over $100,000 for every man, woman, and child in the country, maxing out credit cards pushing the debt to over $18 trillion with no plan to pay it off. So you libs are saying the answer is to give them even more money?

The money that needs to be given is enough to pay the bills and start paying on the debt. That makes sense eh? About an extra one trillion in raises taxes will do that. 500 billion of that you could get from the DOD, if you wanted to that is.

Ah the rich just have to shit an extra trillion dollars a year out their ass? What would be the impact of confiscating a trillion dollars a year from the 'rich'?

YOU MEAN THE TOP 10% WILL HAVE TO LOSE 25% OF THEIR PIECE OF THE PIE, OR AS THE POSIT WAS, JUST 12.5% IF WE TOOK HALF FROM DOD?

INSTEAD OF 68%+ OF THE PIE FOR THE TOP 10% THEY'D HAVE TO SURVIVE ON 56%???


Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation



WAIT, THAT SOUNDS FAMILIAR, THE 50%+ PART:

In 1980 the top 1% earned 8.5% of total income. In 2007 they earned 23%.

In 1980 the bottom 90% earned 68% of total income. In 2007 they earned 53%.

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation

GOV'T POLICY MATTERS !!!


LOL

 

[Dad2three]

all these marvelous ideas to pay down the debt are nothing but pipe dreams. We couldn't even pay off the damn interest on the debt. By all means continue.

Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding

Debts been paid off once. It's no bid deal. It's a big deal relative to the size of the economy. Conservative policy made sure to hurt US for their ideological goals of shrinking Gov't!!!!

 

[Dad2three]

Raise taxes on the rich, tax college savings, raise gasoline taxes, and cut social programs? Or, cut the enormous waste that we all know should be cut? Or, should we do a combination of both? If your answer is to cut waste, what are the most obvious areas of waste that you would cut? If your answer is to raise taxes, what taxes would you increase? Or, what new taxes would you add? If your answer is to raise taxes, where would you use the new revenue? If your answer is to cut waste, where would you use the savings?

Come on...This one is easy. Americans ( the producers) have been demanding of government, fiscal responsibility

lol

Sure, THAT'S why they support the GOP...

 

[SwimExpert]

Probably a combination of both raising taxes and cutting spending given the level of debt we've accumulated. And why just raise taxes on the rich? It should be on everyone. Everyone is responsible for our debt so everyone should feel the consequences for their voting choices.

No, income taxes should be eliminated on the vast majority of people.

Income tax should be eliminated for EVERYONE !!!

I'm not talking about ideals, I'm talking about real, actionable solutions. We could eliminate income taxes on the bottom 95% of earners, and then cut almost all big pricetag areas of government spending by 50%, and end up with a sizable budgetary surplus that would allow us to start paying down the debt. This would put more money in people's paychecks with which to take care of their own selves, significantly reduce the number of people who need to rely on government assistance to get by, while also maintaining a reasonable social safety net.

 

[Dad2three]

The fortunate 400

400 tax returns reporting the highest incomes in 2009.

Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each.


another 110 families paid 15 percent or less in federal income taxes.
The fortunate 400 David Cay Johnston Reuters

The 400 richest Americans used to pay 30% of their income on the average to Uncle Sam(but 55% in 1955).

Overall, the top 400 paid an average income tax rate of 19.9 percent, the same rate paid by a single worker who made $110,000 in 2009. The top 400 earned five times that much every day.

Just 82 of the top 400 were taxed in accord with the Buffett rule, which proposes a minimum tax of 30 percent on annual incomes greater than $1 million.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Raise taxes on the rich, tax college savings, raise gasoline taxes, and cut social programs? Or, cut the enormous waste that we all know should be cut? Or, should we do a combination of both? If your answer is to cut waste, what are the most obvious areas of waste that you would cut? If your answer is to raise taxes, what taxes would you increase? Or, what new taxes would you add? If your answer is to raise taxes, where would you use the new revenue? If your answer is to cut waste, where would you use the savings?

As painful as it will be, I think we should raise taxes first. But we have to do it across the board, so everyone feels the pain. And we need to keep raising them until the budget is balanced. Then there will be no need to convince people we need to cut spending. They'll be howling for it.

I see it as cutting waste first to see if we even need to raise taxes. There is a lot of waste and fraud associated with government spending.

Right. But the problem is, most people don't care. They don't see the damage it does, and they're not paying the bill. If you want to get their attention, if you want to build real consensus on cutting government spending and waste, send them the bill.

Or, educate the voters as to the economically damaging results of their votes. A responsible government, by the people and for the people, wouldn't be a problem in the first place. But, voters continually vote the crooks into office, then face such consequences as higher taxes or decreased service, or both. We're a self-punishing society, inflicting our own socioeconomic pain. Each election cycle we do the exact same thing, yet expect a different result. Then, we face tax increases, more government waste and corruption, and a lower standard of living. Go figure.

 

[Flopper]

Raise taxes on the rich, tax college savings, raise gasoline taxes, and cut social programs? Or, cut the enormous waste that we all know should be cut? Or, should we do a combination of both? If your answer is to cut waste, what are the most obvious areas of waste that you would cut? If your answer is to raise taxes, what taxes would you increase? Or, what new taxes would you add? If your answer is to raise taxes, where would you use the new revenue? If your answer is to cut waste, where would you use the savings?

As painful as it will be, I think we should raise taxes first. But we have to do it across the board, so everyone feels the pain. And we need to keep raising them until the budget is balanced. Then there will be no need to convince people we need to cut spending. They'll be howling for it.

I see it as cutting waste first to see if we even need to raise taxes. There is a lot of waste and fraud associated with government spending.

A huge portion of what you pay in taxes goes to prevent fraud and to insure that money is spent as congress intended. The amount of money spent on documentation and duplication of work is almost beyond belief. This is one of the reasons government is so costly. It can't operate like the private sector. In the federal government you can't buy from a merchant just because you know he has the best price and quality. There must exist some documented basis for the decision such as a bid. A social worker can't give food to hungry children just because they're hungry. Documentation must be collected on earnings and assets of the parents. There has to be validation and periodic reviews. In short government is expensive because it must operate under a ridge set of rules and laws. If those regulations and laws are responsible for the waste employees can't just ignore them and it's extremely difficult to get them changed.

I think one thing that can save an awfully lot of money is do more contracting to the private sector while reserving functions for government that really should be done by government. Another thing is expand the GAO cost reduction and effectiveness program. If government is to be made efficient, it has to come from within the executive branch, not just from congress.

 

[Dad2three]

 

[dblack]

A huge portion of what you pay in taxes goes to prevent fraud and to insure that money is spent as congress intended. The amount of money spent on documentation and duplication of work is almost beyond belief. This is one of the reasons government is so costly. It can't operate like the private sector. In the federal government you can't buy from a merchant just because you know he has the best price and quality. There must exist some documented basis for the decision such as a bid. A social worker can't give food to hungry children just because they're hungry. Documentation must be collected on earnings and assets of the parents. There has to be validation and periodic reviews. In short government is expensive because it must operate under a ridge set of rules and laws. If those regulations and laws are responsible for the waste employees can't just ignore them and it's extremely difficult to get them changed.

This is a fine argument for why we should assign societal services to the government only when truly necessary. When it's really worth the extra cost.

I think one thing that can save an awfully lot of money is do more contracting to the private sector while reserving functions for government that really should be done by government.

You don't need to "contract" to the private sector. This is a truly horrible trend. It's essentially the Republican version of "privatization" and results primarily in corporate welfare. It's what has created insanity like privatized prisons and ACA. If we want to avoid the additional expense of government involvement in a public service, all we need to do is get government out of it altogether.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[BluesLegend]

Government has spent over $30 trillion dollars in the last 10 years alone, that's over $100,000 for every man, woman, and child in the country, maxing out credit cards pushing the debt to over $18 trillion with no plan to pay it off. So you libs are saying the answer is to give them even more money?

The money that needs to be given is enough to pay the bills and start paying on the debt. That makes sense eh? About an extra one trillion in raises taxes will do that. 500 billion of that you could get from the DOD, if you wanted to that is.

Ah the rich just have to shit an extra trillion dollars a year out their ass? What would be the impact of confiscating a trillion dollars a year from the 'rich'?

YOU MEAN THE TOP 10% WILL HAVE TO LOSE 25% OF THEIR PIECE OF THE PIE, OR AS THE POSIT WAS, JUST 12.5% IF WE TOOK HALF FROM DOD?

INSTEAD OF 68%+ OF THE PIE FOR THE TOP 10% THEY'D HAVE TO SURVIVE ON 56%???


Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation



WAIT, THAT SOUNDS FAMILIAR, THE 50%+ PART:

In 1980 the top 1% earned 8.5% of total income. In 2007 they earned 23%.

In 1980 the bottom 90% earned 68% of total income. In 2007 they earned 53%.

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation

GOV'T POLICY MATTERS !!!


LOL

Contain your irrational hatred of the 'rich' lib.

 

[Dad2three]

Government has spent over $30 trillion dollars in the last 10 years alone, that's over $100,000 for every man, woman, and child in the country, maxing out credit cards pushing the debt to over $18 trillion with no plan to pay it off. So you libs are saying the answer is to give them even more money?

The money that needs to be given is enough to pay the bills and start paying on the debt. That makes sense eh? About an extra one trillion in raises taxes will do that. 500 billion of that you could get from the DOD, if you wanted to that is.

Ah the rich just have to shit an extra trillion dollars a year out their ass? What would be the impact of confiscating a trillion dollars a year from the 'rich'?

YOU MEAN THE TOP 10% WILL HAVE TO LOSE 25% OF THEIR PIECE OF THE PIE, OR AS THE POSIT WAS, JUST 12.5% IF WE TOOK HALF FROM DOD?

INSTEAD OF 68%+ OF THE PIE FOR THE TOP 10% THEY'D HAVE TO SURVIVE ON 56%???


Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation



WAIT, THAT SOUNDS FAMILIAR, THE 50%+ PART:

In 1980 the top 1% earned 8.5% of total income. In 2007 they earned 23%.

In 1980 the bottom 90% earned 68% of total income. In 2007 they earned 53%.

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation

GOV'T POLICY MATTERS !!!


LOL

Contain your irrational hatred of the 'rich' lib.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Raise taxes on the rich, tax college savings, raise gasoline taxes, and cut social programs? Or, cut the enormous waste that we all know should be cut? Or, should we do a combination of both? If your answer is to cut waste, what are the most obvious areas of waste that you would cut? If your answer is to raise taxes, what taxes would you increase? Or, what new taxes would you add? If your answer is to raise taxes, where would you use the new revenue? If your answer is to cut waste, where would you use the savings?

As painful as it will be, I think we should raise taxes first. But we have to do it across the board, so everyone feels the pain. And we need to keep raising them until the budget is balanced. Then there will be no need to convince people we need to cut spending. They'll be howling for it.

I see it as cutting waste first to see if we even need to raise taxes. There is a lot of waste and fraud associated with government spending.

A huge portion of what you pay in taxes goes to prevent fraud and to insure that money is spent as congress intended. The amount of money spent on documentation and duplication of work is almost beyond belief. This is one of the reasons government is so costly. It can't operate like the private sector. In the federal government you can't buy from a merchant just because you know he has the best price and quality. There must exist some documented basis for the decision such as a bid. A social worker can't give food to hungry children just because they're hungry. Documentation must be collected on earnings and assets of the parents. There has to be validation and periodic reviews. In short government is expensive because it must operate under a ridge set of rules and laws. If those regulations and laws are responsible for the waste employees can't just ignore them and it's extremely difficult to get them changed.

I think one thing that can save an awfully lot of money is do more contracting to the private sector while reserving functions for government that really should be done by government. Another thing is expand the GAO cost reduction and effectiveness program. If government is to be made efficient, it has to come from within the executive branch, not just from congress.

I understand what you're saying here, and I agree concerning documentation, rules, and regulations. But, lets look at what doesn't require rules, regulations, nor documentation. (1) Building mosques on foreign soil. (2) Supplying weapons to drug lords and terrorists. (3) The care and support of illegal immigrants. (4) Paying bribes to North Korea and Iran. (5) Building the useless stupid fence along our southern border. (6) The excessive number of military bases on foreign soil. (7) Exploring the far reaches of the universe. (8) Report 65 Secret Service Agents on Hand for Hillary Clinton s Paid Speech in Canada The Weekly Standard (9) Our luxury prisons. (10) Excessive government travel. (11) Improper use of government credit cards ( gambling in Vegas trips ). (12) Lavish White House parties. (13) Mr. and Mrs. Obama's lavish vacations ( the last one was 17 days in Hawaii ) (14) Ridiculous perks, benefits, and retirement for members of Congress. (15) Subsidies for Brazilian corn crops. (16) Three senseless deadly costly wars ( Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan ). (17) pork spending. (18) Bailouts ( GM, AIG, Wall Street ). (19) No-bid government contracts ( Halliburton ). (20) Planes and ships the Pentagon doesn't need nor want. (21) The multi-$Billion Medicare and Medicaid fraud scams. (22) Subsidies paid to big oil and rich farmers. (23) Supplying local police across the country with Military vehicles, weapons, and gear. (24) most foreign aid ( Africa, Afghanistan ). (25) etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

How many hundreds of $Billions did I just list? Have any idea? Could it be $Trillions?

 

[Rozman]

Government has spent over $30 trillion dollars in the last 10 years alone, that's over $100,000 for every man, woman, and child in the country, maxing out credit cards pushing the debt to over $18 trillion with no plan to pay it off. So you libs are saying the answer is to give them even more money?

The money that needs to be given is enough to pay the bills and start paying on the debt. That makes sense eh? About an extra one trillion in raises taxes will do that. 500 billion of that you could get from the DOD, if you wanted to that is.

Ah the rich just have to shit an extra trillion dollars a year out their ass? What would be the impact of confiscating a trillion dollars a year from the 'rich'?

YOU MEAN THE TOP 10% WILL HAVE TO LOSE 25% OF THEIR PIECE OF THE PIE, OR AS THE POSIT WAS, JUST 12.5% IF WE TOOK HALF FROM DOD?

INSTEAD OF 68%+ OF THE PIE FOR THE TOP 10% THEY'D HAVE TO SURVIVE ON 56%???


Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation



WAIT, THAT SOUNDS FAMILIAR, THE 50%+ PART:

In 1980 the top 1% earned 8.5% of total income. In 2007 they earned 23%.

In 1980 the bottom 90% earned 68% of total income. In 2007 they earned 53%.

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation

GOV'T POLICY MATTERS !!!


LOL

Contain your irrational hatred of the 'rich' lib.

If you punish people for investing like the left wants to do all the time by raising the tax on capital gains
those that have money will not invest....

 

[PratchettFan]

Why not both? Would we even have our wars on Crime, Drugs, Poverty, and Terror, if the wealthiest had to pay wartime tax rates for them.

Yes, we would still have them. Taxes doesn't stop alcoholics, drug addicts, criminals, terrorists, poverty, nor homelessness. Our laws, policies, and actions by those we entrust with our security and economic well-being, can stop those things. But, greed, power, self-service, and egos prevent all of the above from being corrected. Also, time is a big factor. None of it can be corrected over-night. It takes determination, will, resources, and everyone being on the same page of the playbook for it to happen.

The only way for everyone to be on the same page of the playbook is to kill every human being until you are down to one.

Really? What a thought. I don't suppose that the socioeconomic survival of this once great nation would bring a few together to solve some of our problems. Nah, never happen, right? So, we just stand-by and together watch the collapse take place? What an interesting thought. I'll have to ponder that for a bit.

No. It wouldn't. It never has in the past and I see no reason to think it will happen in the future.

Which is why your idea of being on the same page is pointless. You have 300 million people, each with their own ideas on what that page is and probably almost as many playbooks. How do you go about getting a far left socialist to get on the same page with a free market libertarian? How do you get them to agree on what needs to be done to resolve the problem? You want to cut foreign aid, I see that as a monumental mistake. You think prisons are too cushy, I think they are too brutal. Which page are we going to be on - yours or mine?

Any solution which does not take into account we are human beings, with all of the baggage that entails, is doomed to failure.

You could be absolutely correct. But, when you back an animal into a corner, they'll usually try to fight their way out. If and when we reach the proverbial "rock bottom", my guess is that somehow, some way, many will try to climb up and out of oppression, slavery, excessive taxation, and attack a corrupt and self-serving government. First, many have to feel the same pain, suffer the same hunger and misery, then we might see a light come on and people wake up. At this point, it's anyone's guess, and none of us has a crystal ball.

I agree. If you look at history you will see multiple cases of the populace rising up against its government. I think if you examine that you will see the populace then creates yet another government, made up of the same type of people if not the same people, and continues to do what was being done before. Often even worse.

I doubt we will see such a thing in our society since our taxation is not excessive, nor is there oppression or slavery and the degree of actual corruption in government is quite small. IMO, the real problem lies in how we choose our leaders. There is a saying that anyone who desires power is precisely the type of person who should not be given power. In our system, someone who becomes a leader has to jump through an incredible number of hoops. So only those who really want power are willing to go through what it takes to achieve it. So those who do become our leaders spend their time in maintaining their position, because that is the type of person we choose. Thus, rather than coming together with other leaders to arrive at solutions, they concentrate on pleasing the electorate.

If we actually want to have solutions, then we need people who will consider their job to be finding solutions. Not just getting elected. So long as we select leaders via a popularity contest, nothing will change.

 

[BluesLegend]

Government has spent over $30 trillion dollars in the last 10 years alone, that's over $100,000 for every man, woman, and child in the country, maxing out credit cards pushing the debt to over $18 trillion with no plan to pay it off. So you libs are saying the answer is to give them even more money?

The money that needs to be given is enough to pay the bills and start paying on the debt. That makes sense eh? About an extra one trillion in raises taxes will do that. 500 billion of that you could get from the DOD, if you wanted to that is.

Ah the rich just have to shit an extra trillion dollars a year out their ass? What would be the impact of confiscating a trillion dollars a year from the 'rich'?

YOU MEAN THE TOP 10% WILL HAVE TO LOSE 25% OF THEIR PIECE OF THE PIE, OR AS THE POSIT WAS, JUST 12.5% IF WE TOOK HALF FROM DOD?

INSTEAD OF 68%+ OF THE PIE FOR THE TOP 10% THEY'D HAVE TO SURVIVE ON 56%???


Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation



WAIT, THAT SOUNDS FAMILIAR, THE 50%+ PART:

In 1980 the top 1% earned 8.5% of total income. In 2007 they earned 23%.

In 1980 the bottom 90% earned 68% of total income. In 2007 they earned 53%.

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation

GOV'T POLICY MATTERS !!!


LOL

Contain your irrational hatred of the 'rich' lib.

Shouldn't you be working on your next Bush hate manifesto post?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[TyroneSlothrop]