My Taxes are too low!

Originally posted by whodey
I have, and the consensus is that until reform takes place increasing taxes is a nonsequitor.

But how do you propose that this "reform" takes place? Does anyone agree on a specific "reform" plan? Or is "reform" little more than just a lot of people sitting around waiting for the Mighty Quinn to get here.

In the meantime, the healthcare costs continue to grow and the budget picture worsens.

Originally posted by sh76
I don't feel guilty about making too much. With what I make it's still not easy paying my normal expenses. I don't live extravagantly; I assure you, but I live in a fairly expensive region and get zapped by mortgage interest and property taxes (2 big deductions! yay!). I don't either feel guilty about not paying enough taxes. The system is what it is.

The on ...[text shortened]... o want to spend, spend, spend; but don't have the guts to tax their citizens to pay for it.

Yeah, cost of living can really hammer you with federal taxes. They don't scale them for region. I suppose you get a bit larger deduction for state and local taxes, but it surely can't make up for living in a place like NY, Cambridge, Northern VA, or the Bay Area of California for instance.

For example, according to the Bankrate.com cost of living calculator, a person making 150K in Salina, KA would have to make almost 290K to get an equivalent income in San Francisco. That should correspond to higher taxes due to bracket creep and deduction phase outs.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
But how do you propose that this "reform" takes place? Does anyone agree on a specific "reform" plan? Or is "reform" little more than just a lot of people sitting around waiting for the Mighty Quinn to get here.

In the meantime, the healthcare costs continue to grow and the budget picture worsens.

The spending aspect has to be addressed before the tax aspect. In fact, you could double the taxes and triple the spending you will be in worse shape than you are today.

Of course, the biggest offenders in terms of spending are Medicare, Social Security, Defense, and interest on the debt. In terms of interest on the debt, nothing can be done except lowering the debt. In terms of the other three, perhaps the Dems can do something about defense spending reform and the Republicans can do something about the entitltment spending. In the interim, however, something needs to be done about earmarks and pork. Of coures, you could do the unthinkable and reduce the size of government such as the departement of education, the department of transportation, the department of dandruff control etc, which extract trillions of dollars in revenue and let the states run themsevles. Another good start might be to do away with Freddie and Fannie which are bleeding us dry. The FDR vision of housing entitlements is dead, or at least, should be dead.

Originally posted by whodey
The spending aspect has to be addressed before the tax aspect. In fact, you could double the taxes and triple the spending you will be in worse shape than you are today.

Of course, the biggest offenders in terms of spending are Medicare, Social Security, Defense, and interest on the debt. In terms of interest on the debt, nothing can be done except lower ...[text shortened]... e bleeding us dry. The FDR vision of housing entitlements is dead, or at least, should be dead.

I don't know where I sit when it comes to states rights at least at the margin. Should the federal govt have a little more power or a little less? I'm not sure, though I suspect the answer is both if you breakdown issues individually.

While I don't have a strong conviction about the status quo, I do want to encourage caution about the idea that states should a LOT more independent both in terms of legal fiscal budgets. There are several good reasons for pooling and redistributing resources from the states through the federal government. First, interstate activity has steadily increased over the country's history. Although rules can be easily made within the confines of a state, restricting human activities to state lines is far more difficult. Whether it be law concerning purchases of firearms or firecrackers, prostitution, tobacco, abortion, marriage licenses, or farm produce, there are often spillover effects from one state to another. For instance if one state, outlaws cocaine use in an effort to reduce the social burden of drug addiction, but the neoghboring state legalizes it, then it stands to reason that the first state will suffer the costs of drug addiction despite its efforts to prevent drug abuse.
To the extent that each state cannot completely secure its borders there will be need for some sort of larger regulator, and thus for financing for that regulator.

Second, as US citizens we may all have a interest in the conditions of states other than our state of residency. Care for national lands, military bases, roads and airports, or even schools and universities affect all of us to some degree. Although these interests are fairly well spread across states, revenue is not. States like CA, NY, FL, and TX will have far greater means than places like WY, ND, and WV. Poorer states would struggle
to maintain their responsibilities to the nation and still focus on their primary task: the welfare of their residents. When I'm back in ID and I hear people fuss about how they wish big government would leave ID alone, if I feel especially snarky I point out that ID takes far more in federal money than it pays out in federal taxes. They may want more independence but I'm not sure that they are willing to pay for it.

Here's a great link to tables showing federal money received vs federal taxes paid by state from 1981-2005. The biggest taker has been NM. The smallest ones tend to be in the Northeast. Thanks, New Jersey. 🙂

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html

Originally posted by whodey
The spending aspect has to be addressed before the tax aspect. In fact, you could double the taxes and triple the spending you will be in worse shape than you are today.

Of course, the biggest offenders in terms of spending are Medicare, Social Security, Defense, and interest on the debt. In terms of interest on the debt, nothing can be done except lower ...[text shortened]... e bleeding us dry. The FDR vision of housing entitlements is dead, or at least, should be dead.

It'll do no good to speak in general terms about "reducing entitlements" or "shifting everything back to the states". It won't even do much good to rail against "earmarks".

If you want real reform, groups like the Tea Party are going to have to make specific proposals.

Maybe we can start with housing. I whole-heartedly agree with the idea that the government needs to stop favoring homeowners at the expense of people who rent. This means eliminating or greatly reducing programs like Fannie and Freddie that artiticially prop up the housing market. It means phasing out tax benefits that favor those with mortgages, and replacing it with a system that treats homeowners and renters equally.

Your challenge is to come up with a plan that the Tea Party Movement would overwhelmingly endorse. Being that a certain percentage of them are homeowners or hope to become one, this might be a hard sell. But without a clear plan with clear public support, the status quo will remain in place, no matter how many pitchforks or torches you hand out.

Do you have any idea of a way to get this done?

Originally posted by Melanerpes
It'll do no good to speak in general terms about "reducing entitlements" or "shifting everything back to the states". It won't even do much good to rail against "earmarks".

If you want real reform, groups like the Tea Party are going to have to make specific proposals.

Maybe we can start with housing. I whole-heartedly agree with the idea that the ...[text shortened]... y pitchforks or torches you hand out.

Do you have any idea of a way to get this done?

I agree with everything you say that we but if you want a starting point I think we could start by not expanding entitlements and government expendentures. We could decide that people who do not have health care from their job or from an existing program do not get health care. We could decide that when the CPI decreases we will not increase people's Social Security anyway. The problem with the status quo is not just that we may be spending too much, but that we continually decide to spend more (everything is an unanticipated situation: 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan, auto motive companies, banks, AIG, Katrina, N1H1, stimulus packages). I understand we need to fund some things but what is next? state bail outs? credit cards? Iran war? more banks? airlines? new companies? pensions?
When the income tax was created the top rate was 7%. I believe people are frustrated with the idea that every issue seems to lead to more government and more taxes. There has to be a point (and many believe we have already reached it) where the government is just crowding out everyone else trying to perform all functions.

Originally posted by sh76
Dear Mike,

Why did you have to run for Senate in 2006? You ran a great campaign and could have won if it hadn't been such a lousy GOP year. Please, run again this year or at least against Cardin again in 2012. If you could come within a few points in 2006, you could win in 2010 or 2012. And, then you'd have something constructive to do with your time; servin ...[text shortened]... enate... Oh, wait... Well, at least it would make for an exciting race.

Sincerely,

sh76

and, once you're in .... you're IN!

Originally posted by sh76
First, I didn't become KN all of a sudden. I'm not start going to demand 70% tax rates, or whatever KN is up to these days. 😉

That having been said, I spent a lot of the day yesterday preparing my 2009 income tax return. I'm not done yet, but I've covered enough ground to know that federal income tax is a joke. Yes, payroll tax is a beeeotch, but, at least ...[text shortened]...
* "Big Federal Deficit (reducer)" Get your minds out of the gutter, people! 😠

isn't there a line where you can donate to the US govt?

Originally posted by quackquack
I agree with everything you say that we but if you want a starting point I think we could start by not expanding entitlements and government expendentures. We could decide that people who do not have health care from their job or from an existing program do not get health care. We could decide that when the CPI decreases we will not increase people's So ...[text shortened]... ed it) where the government is just crowding out everyone else trying to perform all functions.

We could decide that people who do not have health care from their job or from an existing program do not get health care.

yes, we could decide that.

Would the Tea Party be willing to take a position as stark as this? What percentage of the US population would support this?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
It has?

Isn't that called communism? The government announces it owns everything in the country and we will give you what you 'need'.....

Originally posted by Melanerpes
It'll do no good to speak in general terms about "reducing entitlements" or "shifting everything back to the states". It won't even do much good to rail against "earmarks".

If you want real reform, groups like the Tea Party are going to have to make specific proposals.

Maybe we can start with housing. I whole-heartedly agree with the idea that the ...[text shortened]... y pitchforks or torches you hand out.

Do you have any idea of a way to get this done?

I think it is good to highlight the core issues in terms of our spending woes. After all, the road to recovery must begin with first admitting that the US has a spending problem.

As far as solucitons go, I think that the housing issue as well as social security should be addressed first. I think Fannie and Freddie reaquire about another $6 trillion dollars for the US to be rid of them, and at that point should be abolished entirely. Of course, this is one of the sacred cows within the progressive movement and will be like pulling teeth to rid ourselves of them. Then we must deal with social security. Personally, I think that all tax revenue going to social security should go to medicare and do away with the entitlement altogether. After all, people can find housing and shelfter in various ways, but in terms of health care they are dependent on health care providers. In addition, Medicare in itself is a type of retirement plan, is it not? This would double the money flowing into Medicare which is really the only entitlement I favor. We should then find ways to reduce medical costs with such things as tort reform. The bottom line is that famlies will have to revert back to the old way of doing things which is sticking together as a unit for survivial. The family unit should then be the focus which should reduce the mearsure of disinfranchisment we see today in modern society. Of course, there will always be those who fall through the cracks, and there will be ways to address this issue without entitlements rearing its ugly head.

Of course, you also know how I feel about the energy policy of the US. In the short term, we should be looking at converting to natural gas which is abundant in the US and costs around $1.20 a gallon to fuel your car. In the interim, we should begin to convert to nuclear power. This would avoid the cap and trade way of producing the biggest regressive tax in US history and, at the same time, turn the EPA into a KGB like machine monitorying your every move in terms of energy consumption. It would also reduce the need for the US to be in the Middle East which is robbing the country blind and produce much needed jobs at home. It is, in short, a no brainer. It is not a question of if this will happen, but when.

I think the bottom line is that FDR's vision of a progressive utopia must be looked at anew. I know that progressives view themselves as cutting edge visionaries, but to be honest, they should not live on the views constructed over half a century ago. Its time to stop living in the past and begin a new.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Isn't that called communism? The government announces it owns everything in the country and we will give you what you 'need'.....

Yeah, but no one tried that.

Originally posted by whodey
I think it is good to highlight the core issues in terms of our spending woes. After all, the road to recovery must begin with first admitting that the US has a spending problem.

As far as solucitons go, I think that the housing issue as well as social security should be addressed first. I think Fannie and Freddie reaquire about another $6 trillion dolla ...[text shortened]... iews constructed over half a century ago. Its time to stop living in the past and begin a new.

Don't assume that all progressives want to maximize the supply of single-family housing.

A lot of progressives dislike the rampant growth of suburban sprawl that is due in part to so many people buying single-family homes with large lawns all around them. Other progressives want to preserve open spaces and protect the environment from excessive development - and these goals would both be much easier to reach if the government ended all the programs that artificially increase the number of houses being built.

Originally posted by whodey
I think it is good to highlight the core issues in terms of our spending woes. After all, the road to recovery must begin with first admitting that the US has a spending problem.

As far as solucitons go, I think that the housing issue as well as social security should be addressed first. I think Fannie and Freddie reaquire about another $6 trillion dolla iews constructed over half a century ago. Its time to stop living in the past and begin a new.

The idea of taking a large portion of the money being spent on Social Security and devoting it to Medicare is very interesting.

One of the big problems in the healthcare debate is what to do about people under 65 who are chronically ill and can't get private insurance to cover their expensive healthcare needs. The easiest thing would be to expand Medicare to cover this population. The money to fund this could come from reducing the amount of money Social Security pays by say 50%, which would produce an extra $300Bill per year.

Social Security could then become what it was supposed to be - an INSURANCE program - where it would make payments to seniors who would otherwise have nothing. Everyone else should be able to get by on their pension plans or private savings accounts.

We would still need to do something to contain the skyrocketing healthcare costs - so we would probably need to make all Medicare recipients who aren't poor pay for more of their costs out of pocket or via private coverage.

And of course, we'd need to find a way to get the Tea Party and other reform groups to accept radical changes to Social Security and Medicare.

Originally posted by sh76
First, I didn't become KN all of a sudden. I'm not start going to demand 70% tax rates, or whatever KN is up to these days. 😉

That having been said, I spent a lot of the day yesterday preparing my 2009 income tax return. I'm not done yet, but I've covered enough ground to know that federal income tax is a joke. Yes, payroll tax is a beeeotch, but, at least ...[text shortened]...
* "Big Federal Deficit (reducer)" Get your minds out of the gutter, people! 😠

And yet, I'm willing to bet the majority of tea-baggers pay as much or less than you.

Nothing that says Boston Tea Party like paying low taxes with representation.