Democratic Candidates drinking the Republican Kool Aid

[darkwing_duck1]

Sorry, but it simply can't be done in this universe.

Then the US is doomed either to default or to hyperinflation. Either we pay our way, don't pay at all, or ruin what value the dollar has left. Those are our ONLY choices.

Exactly. We can't pay our way through taxation because significantly (or even slightly) increasing the tax rates will decrease government revenue, making the problem worse.

Bullshit.

One good example. Eliminate the FICA tax cap. Instead of a billionaire paying the same amount of FICA as the $150,000/year middle manager, make him pay FICA on the full billion. He's not going to miss it, it's not even going to put a dent in his lifestyle (unless he's like Donald Trump and just can't manage his books). Uncapping FICA would go a good way towards restoring at least SOME stability to SS over the near/intermediate term.

Another thing we desperately need is to close all the damn loopholes that allow US corporations to work out of tax havens like Puerto Rico and avoid paying their just due.

But, ultimately, taxes must rise.

Option 2 is to default on our debts, which is horrifyingly bad.

Option 3 is to let hyper-inflation eat up the value of the debt, which is horrifyingly bad.

Doesn't have to be done if we raise revenues to the level needed to put us back in solvency.

Option 4 is to slash out of control government spending. So far only two groups of people haven't been hurt by the economic downturn, government employees and senior citizens, whose incomes continue to rise.

And burn the elderly whose incomes AREN'T going up, the disabled, and everyone else along the way?

Indeed. Every time we turn around the government is wanting to give another trillion dollar bailout package to the ultra-rich Wallstreet folks. A trillion here and a trillion there and pretty soon you're looking at a meltdown due to unsustainable debt loads.

This is a "partial agree" statement with me. Though the bank rescue WAS needed to fend off a total finacial system collapse, much of the rest of it was overdone and poorly thought out.

Not really. Our current unemployment rate is normal for Europe, and their economic performance is why the term "Eurosclerosis" was coined.

Being unemployed in Europe has a far different connotation than it does here. WIth the extensive safety net, one can still survive without a job. Not so in the US.

Further, Spain and Greece are near default, Sweden just voted in a right-wing government for the first time since prior to WW-I, on the issue that the social safety net is obsolete and unsustainable, and Germany refused to go along with Obama's massive bailout programs, which still payed elite European banks fifty or a hundred billion dollars in US taxpayer money.

1) Because they followed the American model of not paying as they went with appropriate tax levels for the spending they voted to do.

2) Germany DID go along with the bailout of other Eurozone countries, contributing greatly to the rescue of the Euro itself. In fact, German capital made the rescue package possible.

Sounds like you already have your preferred solution: bankruptcy or hyperinflation.

It's not a solution, it's an inevitability - if we don't cut spending.

Apparently you missed the part of the article I linked to that showed that 60+% of the budget is mandated payments. If the government spent NOTHING except on interest, SS, and Medicare, we would at best be balanced for ONE year.

That means NOTHING ELSE, lock the doors, turn the lights off, fire everybody working for the government, stop all foodstamps and welfare checks, ripping the last shreds of life and dignity from tens of millions of people, leaving them LITERALLY on the streets with maybe the clothes on their backs.

But we were paying SS/Medicare benefits long, long before the debt exploded with trillion dollar annual deficits.

Irrelevant, as we had annual surpluses in FICA revenues. Which we promptly converted to IOUs and spent as general revenue so we could continue to cut taxes cut taxes cut taxes.

So we can keep part of those, but lots and lots of other programs are going to have to be cut, either by choice or by having the currency collapse because we refused to make a choice.

And what will the people that depend on those programs do? Just crawl off into the bushes and die?

 

[darkwing_duck1]

I suggest that Darkwing Duck run for President, and declare loud and proud how he will raise taxes as much as he can to us all, and not back down from it... I'm sure that then the truly great thinkers of men among us will flock en masse to the polls to rush him into office.

Sometimes truth is painful.

Would you rather wake up one morning to discover that it will take your entire day's pay just to buy a loaf of bread? IF you have a job at all?

 

[RandyS]

People want a government that does everything but they don't want to pay for it. This is not new.

Um, the government is made up of the rich. They should pay for everything, 'cause, you know, they're the ones with all the money.

 

[BolianAuthor]

I suggest that Darkwing Duck run for President, and declare loud and proud how he will raise taxes as much as he can to us all, and not back down from it... I'm sure that then the truly great thinkers of men among us will flock en masse to the polls to rush him into office.

Sometimes truth is painful.

Would you rather wake up one morning to discover that it will take your entire day's pay just to buy a loaf of bread? IF you have a job at all?

No. Which is why I'll never vote Democrat.

 

[Teelie]

I'll never vote Republican for the same reason. Democrat, Republican, they're politicians and I distrust their word and their actions as being anything other than selfish and solely for their own benefit regardless of the cost to everyone else.

 

[gturner]

Then the US is doomed either to default or to hyperinflation. Either we pay our way, don't pay at all, or ruin what value the dollar has left. Those are our ONLY choices.

Exactly. We can't pay our way through taxation because significantly (or even slightly) increasing the tax rates will decrease government revenue, making the problem worse.

Bullshit.

One good example. Eliminate the FICA tax cap. Instead of a billionaire paying the same amount of FICA as the $150,000/year middle manager, make him pay FICA on the full billion. He's not going to miss it, it's not even going to put a dent in his lifestyle (unless he's like Donald Trump and just can't manage his books). Uncapping FICA would go a good way towards restoring at least SOME stability to SS over the near/intermediate term.

Go for it. The first thing you'll find out is that an average billionaire doesn't make a billion a year. The next thing you'll find out is that they don't actually get paid much in wages, thus leaving little or nothing to tax via FICA. The third thing you'll find out is that they have the flexibility and power to restructure their compensation so they don't make anything in taxable wages.

Another thing we desperately need is to close all the damn loopholes that allow US corporations to work out of tax havens like Puerto Rico and avoid paying their just due.

But Puerto Rico is a tax haven because we're trying to help Puerto Ricans get their incomes up to the levels in the rest of the United States. Punishing the poor, especially minority poor, to provide more hundreds of billions to elite Wall Street financial houses isn't going to go over very well.

So we can keep part of those, but lots and lots of other programs are going to have to be cut, either by choice or by having the currency collapse because we refused to make a choice.

And what will the people that depend on those programs do? Just crawl off into the bushes and die?

No. Once union pensions are threatened, there will arise some wacko socialist party whose slogan is "Death to the useless eaters." It's happened before.

 

[sidious618]

I'll never vote Republican for the same reason. Democrat, Republican, they're politicians and I distrust their word and their actions as being anything other than selfish and solely for their own benefit regardless of the cost to everyone else.

I'm with you, Teelie. I always vote Democrat because of the two major parties they're the closest to my point of view. However, if there was a socialist party I'd vote for them in a second provided they were progressive on social issues, too. I don't proudly identify as a Democrat because of all the bullshit that goes on with them.

 

[Hoser]

Would you rather wake up one morning to discover that it will take your entire day's pay just to buy a loaf of bread? IF you have a job at all?

A world where bakers could become kings, the stuff of dreams.

 

[gturner]

Would you rather wake up one morning to discover that it will take your entire day's pay just to buy a loaf of bread? IF you have a job at all?

A world where bakers could become kings, the stuff of dreams.

Only if they can buy flour.

In the Soviet Union a guy stood in line for hours before getting to the counter, where he asked for a loaf of bread. The clerk looked at him like he was crazy, rolled his eyes, and said, "Sir, this is a fish store. We don't have any fish. The store without any bread is across the street."

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Exactly. We can't pay our way through taxation because significantly (or even slightly) increasing the tax rates will decrease government revenue, making the problem worse.

Bullshit.

One good example. Eliminate the FICA tax cap. Instead of a billionaire paying the same amount of FICA as the $150,000/year middle manager, make him pay FICA on the full billion. He's not going to miss it, it's not even going to put a dent in his lifestyle (unless he's like Donald Trump and just can't manage his books). Uncapping FICA would go a good way towards restoring at least SOME stability to SS over the near/intermediate term.

Go for it. The first thing you'll find out is that an average billionaire doesn't make a billion a year. The next thing you'll find out is that they don't actually get paid much in wages, thus leaving little or nothing to tax via FICA. The third thing you'll find out is that they have the flexibility and power to restructure their compensation so they don't make anything in taxable wages.

Then we put in NEW tax catagories to capture the value of that income as well.

The point is that if your compensation/income package equals X number of dollars per year, then you should pay full tax ON X number of dollars, regardless of where the income came from.

But Puerto Rico is a tax haven because we're trying to help Puerto Ricans get their incomes up to the levels in the rest of the United States. Punishing the poor, especially minority poor, to provide more hundreds of billions to elite Wall Street financial houses isn't going to go over very well.

1) It has noting to do with Wall Street financial houses and everything to do with keeping income flowing to poor seniors, the disabled, poor children and the others who depend on said federal dollars to put food on the table and a roof over their heads.

2) Why should NON Puerto Rican poor suffer to enrich Puerto Rican poor? They're part of the US, they get the same rights as anyone else, but NO MORE.

And what will the people that depend on those programs do? Just crawl off into the bushes and die?

No. Once union pensions are threatened, there will arise some wacko socialist party whose slogan is "Death to the useless eaters." It's happened before.

And that is socially acceptable to you? When we can stop it from happening by doing the right fiscal thing NOW by increasing the Federal revenue to the level required to provide the services agreed to.

 

[gturner]

Go for it. The first thing you'll find out is that an average billionaire doesn't make a billion a year. The next thing you'll find out is that they don't actually get paid much in wages, thus leaving little or nothing to tax via FICA. The third thing you'll find out is that they have the flexibility and power to restructure their compensation so they don't make anything in taxable wages.

Then we put in NEW tax catagories to capture the value of that income as well.

The point is that if your compensation/income package equals X number of dollars per year, then you should pay full tax ON X number of dollars, regardless of where the income came from.

Then they'll retire to their houseboat and take up charity work as a hobby, leaving you no income at all to tax. You could try hiking the taxes on their investment income, but with the economy in the toilet everybody is showing a loss there, too.

Heed the wisdom from the Advice to Kings. If you over tax the farmers, they quit farming, and the king can't feed his army.

Or as Ronald Reagan so eloquently put it, "Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."

1) It has noting to do with Wall Street financial houses and everything to do with keeping income flowing to poor seniors, the disabled, poor children and the others who depend on said federal dollars to put food on the table and a roof over their heads.

No, that's not where all the hundreds and hundreds of billions in extra spending have been going, unless Social Security tripled their payments when I wasn't looking. It's all gone to financial firms, highway contractors, unions, and anyone who moves a windmill plant to China.

No. Once union pensions are threatened, there will arise some wacko socialist party whose slogan is "Death to the useless eaters." It's happened before.

And that is socially acceptable to you? When we can stop it from happening by doing the right fiscal thing NOW by increasing the Federal revenue to the level required to provide the services agreed to.

As I've been pointing out, there's no way to massively increase federal revenue. You can try the tax hike route, but what you'll get is 30% unemployment, the same as Herbert Hoover got from his tax hikes.

To once again quote Reagan, "We don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much."

 

[Guartho]

Go for it. The first thing you'll find out is that an average billionaire doesn't make a billion a year.

Very true, but they should be making a minimum of $100,000,000 a year unless they're utterly incompetent. Of course, if they were utterly incompetent they probably wouldn't be a billionaire.

The next thing you'll find out is that they don't actually get paid much in wages, thus leaving little or nothing to tax via FICA.

Gee, maybe that's why the very next thing he says is to close tax loopholes for corporations and the wealthy.

The third thing you'll find out is that they have the flexibility and power to restructure their compensation so they don't make anything in taxable wages.

Gee, maybe that's why the very next thing he says is to close tax loopholes for corporations and the wealthy.

 

[gturner]

If you up the tax on corporations, they pass it on directly to their poor consumers in the form of higher prices, while slashing jobs to cover their reduced sales. Then they get pushed out of the market by the Chinese.

If you up the taxes on the rich they end up paying less, because with a reduced reward for working they actually work less, retire early, and quit creating jobs and innovative products.

The Laffer curve exists because of people's behavior. The rich are not magically immune to the effect, nor is their financial behavior somehow the opposite of everyone else's. If people were immune, content to take home less and less money for the same amount of work without ever reconsidering how they spend their time, then the Laffer curve would show government revenues being maximized at 100% tax rates, but in reality a 100% tax rate produces virtually no revenue at all.

It doesn't matter how clever you are at collecting the taxes, or how many loopholes you close, because the Laffer curve doesn't care about the method of tax collection, only the percentages being taken and the net revenue that results. Once past the peak, higher rates result in less revenue, from you, from me, from the rich, and from corporations.

Further, having the government and its few remaining supporters talking like robber barons, acting as if they have the right to take anything they want, squeezing every last farthing out of the peasantry and the local gentry, will cause massive resentment, mistrust, and eventually rebellion. We're not living in the Middle Ages and people won't willingly be treated as slaves of the crown. Yet if we don't control spending our children will be born into a life of ruinous debt, chained at birth to a grindstone to keep up the interest payments to the Chinese.

So far every suggestion to increase taxes has also been a great way to drastically reduce US competitiveness, eliminate economic growth and replace it with a staggering depression. That is turning a circle jerk into a cluster fuck.

 

[Davros]

Increasing the taxes 3% on 2% of the population is not going to have this massive job killing effect you guys seem to think it will. It's not like those guys are creating any jobs with that 3% more income as it is. What we need to do is pull out of those foolish free trade deals and quit expecting the American worker to compete with third world slave wages.

 

[Guartho]

If you up the taxes on the rich they end up paying less, because with a reduced reward for working they actually work less, retire early, and quit creating jobs and innovative products.

80% of this country's millionaire's are first-generation rich. I don't think they got that way by quitting when things got a little bit tougher then they were last year.

The Laffer curve exists because of people's behavior. The rich are not magically immune to the effect, nor is their financial behavior somehow the opposite of everyone else's.

Their financial and political behavior is indeed quite a bit different than everyone else's. We, who pay a much higher percentage of our disposable income in taxes don't have much choice. If we want to eat we keep working, earning, and paying.

If people were immune, content to take home less and less money for the same amount of work without ever reconsidering how they spend their time, then the Laffer curve would show government revenues being maximized at 100% tax rates, but in reality a 100% tax rate produces virtually no revenue at all.

You're the only one talking about a 100% tax rate. The rest of us are talking about marginal increases. Oh, I get it. You can't really make an argument against that, so you're pretending we're making another one that you can argue against. Clever.

It doesn't matter how clever you are at collecting the taxes, or how many loopholes you close, because the Laffer curve doesn't care about the method of tax collection, only the percentages being taken and the net revenue that results. Once past the peak, higher rates result in less revenue, from you, from me, from the rich, and from corporations.

I don't think anyone is really contending this point, yet you insist on making it over and over again. What is under contention is where our current rates are in relation to that peak. Try to stay on topic.

Further, having the government and its few remaining supporters talking like robber barons, acting as if they have the right to take anything they want, squeezing every last farthing out of the peasantry and the local gentry, will cause massive resentment, mistrust, and eventually rebellion. We're not living in the Middle Ages

then perhaps you should stop using phrases like peasantry and local gentry

and people won't willingly be treated as slaves of the crown.

Sure they do, the crown just isn't worn by the government. It's worn by the CEO with the golden parachute who's laying them off to increase profits while blaming the recession right before he rants and raves about how the government has no right to take a greater percentage of what he's "earned."

Yet if we don't control spending our children will be born into a life of ruinous debt, chained at birth to a grindstone to keep up the interest payments to the Chinese.

Spending control is also being discussed in this very thread. You know we can attack problems from multiple sides right? The government doesn't have a multiple-choice governing dialog box that says:

We've got huge deficits. Choose one option
[] Lower taxes
[] Raise taxes
[] Cut spending
[] Increase spending
[] Do nothing and blame the other party

So far every suggestion to increase taxes has also been a great way to drastically reduce US competitiveness, eliminate economic growth and replace it with a staggering depression. That is turning a circle jerk into a cluster fuck.

Oh now come on... where do you get that from? How do the suggestions to curtail outsourcing for instance limit US competitiveness? I'd say US dollars going overseas to not only employ foreign labor, but also train it is probably at least a bit more harmful to US competitiveness.

 

[gturner]

Increasing the taxes 3% on 2% of the population is not going to have this massive job killing effect you guys seem to think it will. It's not like those guys are creating any jobs with that 3% more income as it is. What we need to do is pull out of those foolish free trade deals and quit expecting the American worker to compete with third world slave wages.

Yes, let's re-enact the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, to go along with Obama/Hoover's tax hikes, to exactly replicate the cause of the Great Depression.

 

[gturner]

If you up the taxes on the rich they end up paying less, because with a reduced reward for working they actually work less, retire early, and quit creating jobs and innovative products.

80% of this country's millionaire's are first-generation rich. I don't think they got that way by quitting when things got a little bit tougher then they were last year.

Exactly. They got rich when taxes were low. Try finding a rich family from prior to Reagan's tax cuts, when rates were 70% and the economy was in the toilet.

The Laffer curve exists because of people's behavior. The rich are not magically immune to the effect, nor is their financial behavior somehow the opposite of everyone else's.

Their financial and political behavior is indeed quite a bit different than everyone else's. We, who pay a much higher percentage of our disposable income in taxes don't have much choice. If we want to eat we keep working, earning, and paying. You're the only one talking about a 100% tax rate. The rest of us are talking about marginal increases. Oh, I get it. You can't really make an argument against that, so you're pretending we're making another one that you can argue against. Clever.

Have you read this thread? The original poster argued that we must double tax rates, but the top rate to the 60% range.

then perhaps you should stop using phrases like peasantry and local gentry Sure they do, the crown just isn't worn by the government. It's worn by the CEO with the golden parachute who's laying them off to increase profits while blaming the recession right before he rants and raves about how the government has no right to take a greater percentage of what he's "earned."

Yeah, those massive corporate profits are why everyone is jumping into bonds and gold. The economy is frakkin' boomin'.

 

[STR]

If you up the tax on corporations, they pass it on directly to their poor consumers in the form of higher prices, while slashing jobs to cover their reduced sales. Then they get pushed out of the market by the Chinese.
...
So far every suggestion to increase taxes has also been a great way to drastically reduce US competitiveness, eliminate economic growth and replace it with a staggering depression. That is turning a circle jerk into a cluster fuck.

Cut taxes on corporations (since corporate earnings are double-taxed, once when the company earns it, second when it's sent out as dividends or capital gains) while making up for it (and then some) by taxing individuals at higher income brackets.. And for God sakes, bring back the estate tax. You don't deserve a billion dollars because of who you're related to. The Ivy League's preference for "legacies" causes enough inbreeding and nepotism in the upper class by itself.

Corporations are what drive the bulk of earning in this country. Not some mythical individual, or cadre of billionaires. Bill Gates never owned more than 1/3 of Microsoft, and that's pretty high for a single person. Sergey Brin and Larry Page each own about 15.6% of Google. If you increase the tax on Mr. Gates, that will not directly affect the capital outlays of Microsoft. It will not hurt their R&D, nor will it hurt their acquisitions.

Really, given that 90% of the investment money in this world is institutional in nature (pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, bank holdings, private equity) the value of the individual in promoting supply-side growth is dubious, an antiquated idea from a less organized era. Sure, there would be some loss, since individuals do contribute a little to stock offerings and debt sales, but they're small fish in a large ocean with enormous whales that have millions of stakeholders powering them. The Waltons combined are nothing compared to CalPERS.

Exactly. They got rich when taxes were low. Try finding a rich family from prior to Reagan's tax cuts, when rates were 70% and the economy was in the toilet.

No, they got rich when a new technology (computers and networking) was able to drive a massive increase in productivity, which did two things: 1) It allowed a few individuals to accrue massive fortunes. 2) the masses got massive increase in buying power, in other words, things (computers) got drastically cheaper. Their 10% wage raise was able to get them better engineered products and new classes of consumer devices. That vastly multiplies that 10% increase.

Neither Ronald Regan, nor Bill Clinton had anything to do with the economic boom of the 90's.

 

[gturner]

Corporations are what drive the bulk of earning in this country. Not some mythical individual, or cadre of billionaires. Bill Gates never owned more than 1/3 of Microsoft, and that's pretty high for a single person. Sergey Brin and Larry Page each own about 15.6% of Google. If you increase the tax on Mr. Gates, that will not directly affect the capital outlays of Microsoft. It will not hurt their R&D, nor will it hurt their acquisitions.

You could take every penny of Bill Gates' net worth, triple it, double it again, and it still wouldn't get this year's deficit back to Bush era levels. It would make a huge dent in charitable activity, though.

Neither Ronald Regan, nor Bill Clinton had anything to do with the economic boom of the 90's.

Reagan's boom was in the 80's. It was a huge one, especially compared to the anemic growth of the 70's.

 

[STR]

I never said my suggestion, alone, was going to fix this country's finances. It's patently obvious to anyone not on kool-aid (or not lying to you) that it's going to take a tax hike AND a cut in services to bring things in-line.

My point was actually a criticism of supply-side economics: it's a crock. It's based on an outdated assumption of how the world works. If anything, I'd argue the expansion of the 80's, and 2000's was more cyclical than anything else. Taxes might have helped a little bit, while loose monetary policy might have made our recent recession slightly worse. However, the economy is far larger than the government, as such the government (so long as we exclude highly irrational polices like tariff wars) is at the mercy of the economy. A large chunk of our current deficit is due to the recession cutting income sources, just as the .com boom almost (Sorry Bill, but having Social Security fill the hole doesn't count as a surplus, no matter what the talking heads say) balanced the budget.