Should employee benefits be tax exempt?

[g5000]

Notice the dip during the Clinton years:

 

[Andylusion]

Economic policy of the Bill Clinton administration - Wikipedia

The ratio of debt held by the public to GDP, a primary measure of U.S. federal debt, fell from 47.8% in 1993 to 33.6% by 2000. Debt held by the public was actually paid down by $453 billion over the 1998-2001 periods, the only time this happened between 1970 and 2018.

First off, it was not the economic policies of Bill Clinton. Not even close. If you look at the budgets before 1995... not one of them showed any attempt to contain costs, or reduce government spending. Not one. I would challenge you to go look at the budgets Bill Clinton passed BEFORE 1995, and show me ONE where they planned to have a balanced budget.

Doesn't exist.

It was the Republicans that gained control over Congress in 1994, that had the contract with America, that pushed to reduce spending. It was Congress that under-cut the President's budget year over year until 2000.

That said.....

The claim that the debt went down, is merely cooking numbers. If you doubt that, let me help you....

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2018

Direct the from Treasury department of the US government....


09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32

Is that clear enough for you? There is not one single year, in which the debt owed by the US government, went down.

THERE IS NOT ONE YEAR WHERE THE US DEBT WENT DOWN.

This ridiculous myth has been debunked a billion times.

Comprehension fail.

"The ratio of debt held by the public to GDP, a primary measure of U.S. federal debt..."

Irrelevant to my comment.

Back to my original comment that spawned this discussion within the thread.... I was saying that giving more money to government, simply results in government spending more money.

To back this statement, I pointed to the mythical surplus, that was then spent. It was not used to pay down debt.

To prove that claim, I pointed to the fact, that not a single year did the debt ever go down, even though there was supposedly a surplus.

Regardless, I disagree with the concept that reducing debt as a percent of GDP matters much.

Because debt, is debt, no matter what percent of GDP it is. You don't know how the economy will fair tomorrow. The economy could explode drastically, and our debt will be reduced relative to GDP. But the economy could also implode drastically, and then magically it is massive relative to GDP.

Again... did we learn nothing from Greece? Their economy imploded, and then they couldn't pay their debts.... then economy imploded even more because of the debt.

So while it may seem sustainable now, you don't know what will happen tomorrow.

The only sure way to actually avoid the debt becoming too much for us to handle because of an economic implosion...... is to not have the debt. Or at least significantly reduce it. Plus I think a ton of people, don't even really know how badly we are in debt. You are looking at just one specific type of debt. In reality, we're way over our heads.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Tax expenditures (exemptions, credits, deductions) are a massive government social welfare program. It is deliberate interference which grossly distorts the free market.

No right-minded conservative would EVER support this huge $1.4 trillion annual expense which drives up tax rates and government borrowing.

How is it that keeping your own money is a social welfare program?

Oh, wait! I forgot you are a libtard and do not understand freedom.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Choose one. If you feel like it, explain your answer.

I would like to see public worker pensions taxed to lower deficits

You do realize that most public workers contribute to their own pensions, right?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Thread: Should government approved employee benefits be tax exempt? Why or why not?

Government employee benefits should be taxed the same as non-government employees. The government was never intended to be a Cinderella story for its employees, but a way for people who serve Americans can be same as average Americans are. No better, no worse. I don't see a lot of Americans with 30 days of holidays nor month-long furloughs for their first 20 years of employment.

Who gets 30 days of holidays?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Tax expenditures are a classic example of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Tax expenditures pay for the fire department, a government service you don't need until you really do. And they show-up 24 hours per day, 365 days per year!

Uh...you don't know what tax expenditures are, clearly.

A fire department doesn't derive public tax monies allocated through tax money expenditures?

My fire department does not.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Tax expenditures are a classic example of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Tax expenditures pay for the fire department, a government service you don't need until you really do. And they show-up 24 hours per day, 365 days per year!

Uh...you don't know what tax expenditures are, clearly.

A fire department doesn't derive public tax monies allocated through tax money expenditures?

A fire department is not paid for with tax deductions, credits, or exemptions.

That's what tax expenditures are.

Fire departments are not funded with federal income tax revenues either, dumbass!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Notice the dip during the Clinton years:

Yes, and I also see the dip who doesn't understand what he is looking st!

 

[OnePercenter]

Tax expenditures are a classic example of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Tax expenditures pay for the fire department, a government service you don't need until you really do. And they show-up 24 hours per day, 365 days per year!

Uh...you don't know what tax expenditures are, clearly.

A fire department doesn't derive public tax monies allocated through tax money expenditures?

My fire department does not.

What city do you live?

 

[Kondor3]

MISSING OPTION:

* No. I'm a slightly-left-of-center Democrat / Cafeteria Centrist

--------

Working Americans are already being taxed heavily enough; let's not add to their (our) burden, eh?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Tax expenditures are a classic example of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Tax expenditures pay for the fire department, a government service you don't need until you really do. And they show-up 24 hours per day, 365 days per year!

Uh...you don't know what tax expenditures are, clearly.

A fire department doesn't derive public tax monies allocated through tax money expenditures?

My fire department does not.

What city do you live?

Try that again in English, and I will still not answer. You don't need to know.

 

[bendog]

I told ya this thread was gonna go to the dogs, oh wait. Nevermind. LOL

 

[dblack]

I don't think income should be taxed at all, but as long as it is we shouldn't allow government to use it as a tool to manipulate society.

 

[HappyJoy]

Well, some benefits are, like portions of health benefits that taken out before taxes are. Generally though, benefits are gained as a part of employment, so no they should not be exempt.

Why health insurance? Is that the only benefit that should be tax exempt?

That was going to be my question. What benefits does the OP refer to?

But in general I'd say no. But then imo everyone should be covered by HC insurance. The devil of course is in the details.

Not everyone needs health insurance. When I was a young man I didn't have any and didn't need anything. My grandfather didn't go to a doctor one time for 60 years he didn't need it either. In addition, a lot of people prefer to go to naturopaths and homeopaths and other alternative health providers who are not part of the medical insurance panels.

Homeopathy is bunk.

I can appreciate that's your opinion, and I'm somewhat inclined to agree. However, a lot of people think otherwise, and I'm not sure that legislating this kind of thing is really what we want to do.

I think Republicans should totally run on ending tax exemptions for healthcare and getting rid of the mortgage interest deduction.

In reality what should be done is healthcare premiums should be tax deductable and as someone pointed out not those high end cadillac plans. Mortgage interest deductions for first homes only, not home equity loans.

 

[Polishprince]

Why health insurance? Is that the only benefit that should be tax exempt?

That was going to be my question. What benefits does the OP refer to?

But in general I'd say no. But then imo everyone should be covered by HC insurance. The devil of course is in the details.

Not everyone needs health insurance. When I was a young man I didn't have any and didn't need anything. My grandfather didn't go to a doctor one time for 60 years he didn't need it either. In addition, a lot of people prefer to go to naturopaths and homeopaths and other alternative health providers who are not part of the medical insurance panels.

Homeopathy is bunk.

I can appreciate that's your opinion, and I'm somewhat inclined to agree. However, a lot of people think otherwise, and I'm not sure that legislating this kind of thing is really what we want to do.

I think Republicans should totally run on ending tax exemptions for healthcare and getting rid of the mortgage interest deduction.

In reality what should be done is healthcare premiums should be tax deductable and as someone pointed out not those high end cadillac plans. Mortgage interest deductions for first homes only, not home equity loans.

If its a good idea, why don't the Democrat Party run on it?

Why would President Trump listen to what adversaries think should be his platform? They aren't going to vote for him anyhow.

 

[HappyJoy]

That was going to be my question. What benefits does the OP refer to?

But in general I'd say no. But then imo everyone should be covered by HC insurance. The devil of course is in the details.

Not everyone needs health insurance. When I was a young man I didn't have any and didn't need anything. My grandfather didn't go to a doctor one time for 60 years he didn't need it either. In addition, a lot of people prefer to go to naturopaths and homeopaths and other alternative health providers who are not part of the medical insurance panels.

Homeopathy is bunk.

I can appreciate that's your opinion, and I'm somewhat inclined to agree. However, a lot of people think otherwise, and I'm not sure that legislating this kind of thing is really what we want to do.

I think Republicans should totally run on ending tax exemptions for healthcare and getting rid of the mortgage interest deduction.

In reality what should be done is healthcare premiums should be tax deductable and as someone pointed out not those high end cadillac plans. Mortgage interest deductions for first homes only, not home equity loans.

If its a good idea, why don't the Democrat Party run on it?

Why would President Trump listen to what adversaries think should be his platform? They aren't going to vote for him anyhow.

I wasn't asking Trump to run on it, I'm saying it's an unpopular idea.

 

[Polishprince]

Not everyone needs health insurance. When I was a young man I didn't have any and didn't need anything. My grandfather didn't go to a doctor one time for 60 years he didn't need it either. In addition, a lot of people prefer to go to naturopaths and homeopaths and other alternative health providers who are not part of the medical insurance panels.

Homeopathy is bunk.

I can appreciate that's your opinion, and I'm somewhat inclined to agree. However, a lot of people think otherwise, and I'm not sure that legislating this kind of thing is really what we want to do.

I think Republicans should totally run on ending tax exemptions for healthcare and getting rid of the mortgage interest deduction.

In reality what should be done is healthcare premiums should be tax deductable and as someone pointed out not those high end cadillac plans. Mortgage interest deductions for first homes only, not home equity loans.

If its a good idea, why don't the Democrat Party run on it?

Why would President Trump listen to what adversaries think should be his platform? They aren't going to vote for him anyhow.

I wasn't asking Trump to run on it, I'm saying it's an unpopular idea.

You did say you thought that the Republicans should "totally run" on the idea.

 

[HappyJoy]

Homeopathy is bunk.

I can appreciate that's your opinion, and I'm somewhat inclined to agree. However, a lot of people think otherwise, and I'm not sure that legislating this kind of thing is really what we want to do.

I think Republicans should totally run on ending tax exemptions for healthcare and getting rid of the mortgage interest deduction.

In reality what should be done is healthcare premiums should be tax deductable and as someone pointed out not those high end cadillac plans. Mortgage interest deductions for first homes only, not home equity loans.

If its a good idea, why don't the Democrat Party run on it?

Why would President Trump listen to what adversaries think should be his platform? They aren't going to vote for him anyhow.

I wasn't asking Trump to run on it, I'm saying it's an unpopular idea.

You did say you thought that the Republicans should "totally run" on the idea.

Yes, it's called sarcasm, because it's not an electable position to take.

 

[g5000]

Tax expenditures (exemptions, credits, deductions) are a massive government social welfare program. It is deliberate interference which grossly distorts the free market.

No right-minded conservative would EVER support this huge $1.4 trillion annual expense which drives up tax rates and government borrowing.

How is it that keeping your own money is a social welfare program?

Oh, wait! I forgot you are a libtard and do not understand freedom.

I will use small words, just for you.

If the government needs ten dollars from me and you, it would charge us each five dollars.

If the government then gave me back two dollars for breeding children (classic Skinnerism), it will have to get that two dollars it gave back to me out of your hide, or it will have to borrow it.

The way the government would get that extra two dollars from you is by raising the tax rate.

So I would be paying three dollars, and you would be paying seven.

From my perspective, I could say, "Woo hoo! I got to keep MY money." But from where you are sitting, I stole two dollars from you.

And that is exactly what our government does. Tax expenditures are pure theft, pure wealth redistribution, pure government behavioral control, picking winners and losers. No right minded conservative would EVER support that bullshit.

So every tax deduction, exemption and credit is paid for by higher tax rates on everyone, and borrowing the rest.

You have been brainwashed into believing that tax deduction is YOUR money, but it is actually money that was stolen from other people or borrowed.

 

[Polishprince]

Tax expenditures (exemptions, credits, deductions) are a massive government social welfare program. It is deliberate interference which grossly distorts the free market.

No right-minded conservative would EVER support this huge $1.4 trillion annual expense which drives up tax rates and government borrowing.

How is it that keeping your own money is a social welfare program?

Oh, wait! I forgot you are a libtard and do not understand freedom.

I will use small words, just for you.

If the government needs ten dollars from me and you, it would charge us each five dollars.

If the government then gave me back two dollars for breeding children, it will have to get that two dollars it gave back to me out of your hide, or it will have to borrow it.

The way the government would get that extra two dollars from you is by raising the tax rate.

And that is exactly what it does.

So every tax deduction, exemption and credit is paid for by higher tax rates on everyone, and borrowing the rest.

You have been brainwashed into believing that tax deduction is YOUR money, but it is actually money that was stolen from other people or borrowed.

The government wants to encourage people to "breed children" as Children are our future, and the government is an ongoing enterprise.