Nation's Long Term Debt

[CrimsonCream]

Nice job, Obama.

New Report Offers Grim or Grimmer Picture of Nation's Long-Term Debt

Published June 22, 2011

Reuters

As negotiators look to gimmicks and changing assumptions to reach a deal on raising the debt ceiling, a new report by congressional budgeters out Wednesday is offering a grim outlook and ugly alternatives for dealing with increasing debt.

The report by the Congressional Budget Office says that the debt will eat up the government’s spending ability, and offers two scenarios -- both potential trajectories -- that they say by 2035 will push the debt either to most of the annual gross domestic product or to nearly twice the economic power of the U.S.

Already, the CBO says, the debt has spiraled out of control in just three years.

"At the end of 2008, that debt equaled 40 percent of the nation's annual economic output (a little above the 40-year average of 37 percent). Since then, the figure has shot upward: By the end of this year, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects, federal debt will reach roughly 70 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) -- the highest percentage since shortly after World War II," reads the report.According to CBO, the government has two paths it can take -- an extended baseline scenario, better known as the course the government is currently on; or an alternative fiscal scenario, which would entail lawmakers torquing the system.

By CBO's account, neither scenario sounds promising, and neither addresses potential changes to Social Security or Medicare outside the coming health care law.

Under the first scenario, the federal government would need to accumulate 23percent of GDP by 2035 in order to limit the federal debt to the equivalent of 84 percent of GDP.

To do would mean letting the Bush-era tax cuts expire, extending the alternative minimum tax to lower income levels, reducing payments to doctors under Medicare as scheduled and bringing in taxes as envisioned by the new health care law.

"That significant increase in revenues and decrease in the relative magnitude of other spending would offset much -- though not all -- of the rise in spending on health care programs and Social Security," the report reads. "With both debt and interest rates rising over time, interest payments, which absorb federal resources that could otherwise be used to pay for government services, would climb to 4 percent of GDP (or one-sixth of federal revenues) by 2035, compared with about 1 percent now."

The alternative plan is much "bleaker," say CBO budgeters, because it assumes the government will keep revenues "near their historical average of 18 percent of GDP." That would come with extending Bush-era rates, an AMT fix and tweaks to tax law.

It also assumes that changes in the health care law intended "to restrain growth in federal health care spending will not continue in effect after 2021," and it assumes lawmakers will not decrease discretionary spending as much as is needed.

"With significantly lower revenues and higher outlays, debt held by the public would exceed 100 percent of GDP by 2021. After that, the growing imbalance between revenues and spending, combined with spiraling interest payments, would swiftly push debt to higher and higher levels. Debt as a share of GDP would exceed its historical peak of 109 percent by 2023 and would approach 190 percent in 2035," the report reads.

To CBO, the alternative fiscal scenario "presents a more realistic picture" of what's to come and "underscores the need for large and rapid policy changes to put the nation on a sustainable
fiscal course."

"To keep deficits and debt from climbing to unsustainable levels, policymakers will need to increase revenues substantially as a percentage of GDP, decrease spending significantly from projected levels, or adopt some combination of those two approaches," CBO concluded

In both scenarios, Congress does not address changes to entitlement programs outside the health care law that passed last year.

The new numbers come as negotiators in Washington look to for a budget deal to satisfy lawmakers reluctant to raise the debt limit without spending reforms. Vice President Joe Biden has been leading the negotiations, but ideological differences have left negotiators with few areas of agreement.

In all, the hope is to cut deficits by about $4 trillion to $5 trillion in the long-term with $1 trillion to $2 trillion right away. But with an impasse resistant to compromise, Washington may turn to the usual shell games -- possibly inflating savings from troop drawdowns in Iraq and Afghanistan and stretching the budget savings over 12 years rather than the traditional 10 used by congressional budgeters to project future funding.

"I think it's the triumph of hope over experience," Sen. John Thune, R-S.C., said of the discussions. "We're all hopeful they're going to yield a result. I think that it's going to be a very heavy lift probably to get the types of things that many of us would like to see come out of this."

Thune said Republicans could accept "something on spending in the near term" as well as longer-term caps on spending "in the out years" and some entitlement reform. He added that the budget could be dialed back to 2008 levels, a spending year that was in deficit even before the massive add-ons by the Obama administration.

"If you look at how much spending has gone up just in the last couple of years, it went up 24 percent in the last two years, at a time when inflation was 2 percent," he said. "So, if you go back to that level, you can achieve a lot of savings in the near term. But, in order to get, you know, to really solve the country's fiscal problems, you have got to take on entitlements, and the president's acknowledged that. He just hasn't been willing to put anything on the table today."

But Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said on the Senate floor Wednesday that balance is required to reduce deficits, and that includes raising taxes. Harkin said that opponents of tax increases assume that the country is broke and industry and wealthy Americans can't afford to pay more to keep government operating at its current projections.

"I reject that. We are not broke, we are not poor. The United States of America is the richest nation in the history of mankind," he said. "So if we're so rich, why are we so broke, why are we so poor?

"And the answer is because the system is broke," Harkin said, attributing the meltdown to "massive tax cuts" under the Bush administration.

By all accounts, something needs to be done. A Bloomberg national poll out Tuesday found that fewer than a quarter of respondents see signs of improvement in the economy, while 66 percent say the country is on the wrong track.

The poll conducted June 17-20 also found that by a 44 percent to 34 percent margin, Americans say they are worse off than when President Obama took office in January 2009. And a majority expect their children to have a tougher time than they did.

"That, plus two unpaid-for wars, an unpaid for Medicare benefit put us into the hole, put us into the greatest deficit and the biggest debt we've ever had in the nation," Harkin said.

CBO warned that any actions in the short term to reduce the debt are likely to hurt economic recovery but "the sooner they are carried out once the economy recovers, the smaller will be the damage to the economy from growing federal debt."

Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., the retiring chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said the CBO report shows that the debt negotiators cannot limit their choices to spending cuts alone, and cited suggestions from President Obama's fiscal commission whose recommendations last year couldn't even reach the threshold for approval by a supermajority of the panel's 18 members.

"The fiscal commission plan took a balanced approach, with discretionary spending cuts, including defense; entitlement changes; and tax reform that raises revenue. Both Democrats and Republicans had to move off of their fixed positions and make concessions in order to reach an agreement. That is what is needed to truly put the country back on a sound fiscal course," he said.

[The Profit]

We can solve the problem by cutting military spending in half, ending tax breaks for corporations (across the board), and raising taxes on those making more than $250,000.00 per year.

[CrimsonCream]

Don't disagree, Profit.

I'm not sure about the military though. Someone has to keep these radicals in check although I'm not too keen about being the world's policeman.

The subsidies and tax loop holes need to go to. If something needs to be subsidized then maybe we don't really need it.

[bigfatjerk]

What will happen is the ultra rich will put all the money in bond accounts that won't go into the governments pockets so they will never really get that money. The debt will just get higher.

If you raised taxes on everyone making 250k or more you get roughly 1 trillion that's without counting any money that goes into bonds and any money that goes overseas. So it probably ends up around 600 million dollars instead of about 1 trillion if you tax them 100%. Taxes won't matter if we keep spending so much. I agree cutting military spending would help. But we have to cut entitlement spending too to make up the money. Taxes don't matter because we spend too much at the government level.

[bigfatjerk]

Oh and no democrat outside of maybe Bernie Sanders is talking about raising taxes 100% it's about 4-5% which will raise virtually no tax revenue

[soonercruiser]

We can solve the problem by cutting military spending in half, ending tax breaks for corporations (across the board), and raising taxes on those making more than $250,000.00 per year.

We can solve the problem by reasonable defense spending changes; cutting government period; and cutting the unreasonable Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security entitlements!

[KABOOKIE]

We can solve the problem by cutting military spending in half, ending tax breaks for corporations (across the board), and raising taxes on those making more than $250,000.00 per year.

You would be counting unemployment in the tens of millions. Brilliant.

[stoopified]

We can solve the problem by cutting military spending in half, ending tax breaks for corporations (across the board), and raising taxes on those making more than $250,000.00 per year.How about deep sixing Obama care?

[The Profit]

We can solve the problem by reasonable defense spending changes; cutting government period; and cutting the unreasonable Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security entitlements!




How about reducing military retirement benefits. You seem to have left that one out.

[KABOOKIE]

How about reducing military retirement benefits. You seem to have left that one out.

Maybe that's what he meant by reasonable defense spending cuts?

[The Profit]

Don't disagree, Profit.

I'm not sure about the military though. Someone has to keep these radicals in check although I'm not too keen about being the world's policeman.

The subsidies and tax loop holes need to go to. If something needs to be subsidized then maybe we don't really need it.




Crimson, we definitely don't need to be the world's policeman. We create more problems doing that than we solve.

I completely agree with what you are saying about subsides and tax loopholes. Why in the world are we giving subsidies to oil companies? Why did we ever give subsidies to tobacco farmers (maybe we still are).

Personally, I would be for a 20 percent flat tax on everyone with absolutely zero deductions, including exemptions for children, etc. I would also support an additional tax on luxury items (perhaps as much as 20 percent) like yachts, airplanes, expensive foreign-made automobiles, etc.

[JohnnyMack]

The Military Industrilal Complex is in fact a giant tumor on the spine of this nation. It's so big, so entrenched and responsible for so many jobs (both directly and indirectly) that serious cuts to its size won't be happening any time soon. Hopefully those clamoring for smaller government realize this.

[NormanPride]

We should just cut all entitlements and jobs. If everyone just stopped doing stuff we wouldn't have this problem.

[87sooner]

You would be counting unemployment in the tens of millions. Brilliant.

this is the problem no one wants to talk about...
it's a vicious circle....
you keep borrowing/spending.....the country goes broke..
you cut govt. spending.....millions lose jobs and go broke...
it will end badly regardless which option is chosen...

[bigfatjerk]

The democrats and republicans both rely too much on the military for it to be cut unless libertarians take over one or both parties. I don't really see that happening. The democrats used to be anti war the last couple of decades. But not since the 90s maybe. Obama's extended more and got us more involved in the middle east than Bush did which says a lot. Now we are in Pakistan pretty deep, Have 100k strong in Afghanistan, still 60k in Iraq, Lybia, we funnel money to all these countries that are falling apart right now like Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, etc. We are getting deeper and deeper in the middle east stuff. And there's no stopping it under a democrat regime. Probably not a republican regime either unless it's Ron Paul or Gary Johnson.

[The Profit]

Maybe that's what he meant by reasonable defense spending cuts?



No, I just mentioned it because Cruiser will never receive Social Security, thus he has no problem reducing the benefits. He will, instead, receive military retirement benefits from his years of dentistry in the service. He doesn't want anyone touching those benefits.

Personally, I believe service personnel, who are placed into harm's way (not necessarily Air Force dentists), deserve every penny of benefits and even more.

[CrimsonCream]

Personally, I would be for a 20 percent flat tax on everyone with absolutely zero deductions, including exemptions for children, etc. I would also support an additional tax on luxury items (perhaps as much as 20 percent) like yachts, airplanes, expensive foreign-made automobiles, etc.

I would agree again but it would never pass because of all the lobbyists and special interests.

H*ll, look at our President. That guy is as corrupt as they come with all the lies, kick backs, payoffs and bribes.

[CrimsonCream]

The Military Industrilal Complex is in fact a giant tumor on the spine of this nation.

Eisenhower addressed that very thing in his outgoing speech.

[SCOUT]

What timeframe is every thinking of when suggesting solutions to our debt woes? I think many of the ideas suggested are possible if they were implemented over an extended period of time. There isn't a magic bullet but I think small steps to responsible government could actually work, given enough time.

I recognize this is pretty much pie in sky like a magic bullet, especially considering the politicians desire to use "incentives" to get re-elected.

[CrimsonCream]

I recognize this is pretty much pie in sky like a magic bullet, especially considering the politicians desire to use "incentives" to get re-elected.

Yes. Everybody wants something for nothing and that is the root of the problem.

More and more people want everything handed to them whereas you Dad told you that if you worked hard you'd get ahead.

The Government handouts are narcotic. It takes more and more and more to maintain the high.

[JohnnyMack]

The Government handouts are narcotic. It takes more and more and more to maintain the high.

Are you talking about defense contracts or welfare checks?

[BU BEAR]

Things will begin to get better after Obama is fired by the American people.

[NormanPride]

Things will begin to get better after Obama is fired by the American people.
Only if the person who is hired will actually break the cycle. Simply ousting one puppet for another does nothing.

[CrimsonCream]

Are you talking about defense contracts or welfare checks?

Both.

[BU BEAR]

Only if the person who is hired will actually break the cycle. Simply ousting one puppet for another does nothing.

I honestly do not see how another person could be as antagonistic to business and commerce. Sure, such a person could exist; but that person has not entered the primary yet.

[BU BEAR]

Anyone who talks about fixing our problems without discussion meaningful reform to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid simply is not serious about stopping the bleeding.

[REDREX]

I think we should have a 95% tax on artificial sports surfaces----They are a luxury we can live without

[CrimsonCream]

Only if the person who is hired will actually break the cycle. Simply ousting one puppet for another does nothing.

Yes.

Like the housing mess. Owing a Home is not a right but rather the American Dream. Then the do-gooders begining with Clinton changed the ownership requirements. Again, something for nothing or very little.

[saucysoonergal]

I hate all this negativity. You guys should start your own board and have a great time patting each other on the back. I think CrimsonCream is a troll of cruisers anyway.

[StoopTroup]

For every dollar over what is currently spent Congress should lose $10,000 in salary and if they end up oweing us their Benefits get cut until they pay up. They shouldn't be allowed to declare bankruptcy On it either. If they haven't paid it all by the time their time as public servant is over they should be put in jail in Guantanamo as traitors to America.

[CrimsonCream]

I hate all this negativity.

Okay, saucy. What do you think are the positives and high points of the Obama Administration?

[87sooner]

Only if the person who is hired will actually break the cycle. Simply ousting one puppet for another does nothing.

i'm 46....has there been a "non-puppet" in my lifetime? i don't think so...
and i don't expect that to change no matter how long i live...
corruption is a world wide plague...

[87sooner]

For every dollar over what is currently spent Congress should lose $10,000 in salary and if they end up oweing us their Benefits get cut until they pay up. They shouldn't be allowed to declare bankruptcy On it either. If they haven't paid it all by the time their time as public servant is over they should be put in jail in Guantanamo as traitors to America.

why not just cut their balls off if they don't balance the budget?

[badger]

I am interested in the California plan of not allowing legislators to collect their pay (about $100k annually) if they don't get a budget finalized. They are currently in no-pay mode (the governor vetoed their budget) and there is much howling at the comptroller for withholding pay :D

I am also interested in the California (forced by Supreme Court) plan to evict thousands of prisoners due to inhumane overcrowding.

[Fraggle145]

It seems pretty obvious to me the defense budget and medicare spend the most and hence need the most cuts. Social Security reform needs to be fit in there too.

http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive/phd041410s.gif
(from 2010)

[CrimsonCream]

why not just cut their balls off if they don't balance the budget?

What about the others?

[NormanPride]

What if we just mandated that the government operate on five year cycles fiscally? And that every five year cycle must operate at a net positive. Then at the end of five five year cycles that money is reinvested in the country.

[CrimsonCream]

It seems pretty obvious to me the defense budget and medicare spend the most and hence need the most cuts. Social Security reform needs to be fit in there too.

Won't ever happen unless the Lefties quit trying to scare the American People by equating Medicare cuts to pushing Granny over the cliff in her wheel chair. Or equating Social security cuts to Gramps starving to death.

[Jammin']

Won't ever happen unless the Lefties quit trying to scare the American People by equating Medicare cuts to pushing Granny over the cliff in her wheel chair. Or equating Social security cuts to Gramps starving to death.

Im pretty far left but I don't have any issue with starving gramps or pushing granny to get the budget balanced.


(I reserve the right to change my opinion based solely upon my age)

[Fraggle145]

Im pretty far left but I don't have any issue with starving gramps or pushing granny to get the budget balanced.

(I reserve the right to change my opinion based solely upon my age)

I approve of this statement.

[Fraggle145]

Won't ever happen unless the Lefties quit trying to scare the American People by equating Medicare cuts to pushing Granny over the cliff in her wheel chair. Or equating Social security cuts to Gramps starving to death.

Also dont act like the right doesnt do the same thing when it serves them *cough* death panels *cough*. Or when anyone talks about cutting defense.

Just sayin'.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

We can solve the problem by cutting military spending in half, ending tax breaks for corporations (across the board), and raising taxes on those making more than $250,000.00 per year.

I'm fine with this, but it still doesn't address the long-term problems in Medicare and Social Security.

[The Profit]

I'm fine with this, but it still doesn't address the long-term problems in Medicare and Social Security.



If they would end the cap on Social Security wages, the program would be solvent for the rest of time. I reach the cap midway through the year, and it wouldn't bother me if the withdrawals continued through the year.

Medicare is a different matter. If we eventually opt for 100 percent single payer healthcare, medicare will not be necessary.

[bigfatjerk]

If we opt for single payer. I will make sure and never go to a doctor again because our health care system will be a nightmare.

[badger]

They can't cut medicare or social security. Old people are the only reliable voting base. As in, when they tell you that they are going to cast their vote and they are going to hold you hostage with their AARP voting base if you don't give into their demands, they MEAN in.

Teens can threaten to vote you out if you don't college tuition or raise military benefits, but nobody believes that they even know when the polls open or close (it's SEVEN, btw. SEVEN in the A.M. or SEVEN in the P.M. The AM is the opening, the PM is the closing!)

20-somethings can threaten to vote you out if you don't repair their roads or cut their taxes, but they only vote in presidential elections, and odds are half-and-half that you're in a midterm or a weird election year.

30-50 somethings can threaten to vote you out if you don't raise their public education value, repair their roads, cut their taxes and stop wasting their tax money on crap, but you've seen registration numbers. They probably are registered back in their last home state still, or aren't registered at all.

Retirement age equals voting age. They'll even show up to those crappy school elections that draw less than 1 percent of registered voters that aren't even that widely advertised. They vote. They vote en masse.

Fear the elderly. They elect everyone.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Are you talking about defense contracts, welfare checks, QE1, QE2, Ag Subsidies, targeted tax breaks?

Yes!

[The Profit]

If we opt for single payer. I will make sure and never go to a doctor again because our health care system will be a nightmare.



Germany and France have outstanding healthcare (much better than ours), and they have single payer. Doctors can learn to live on $400K per year instead of $1 million plus per year. It won't hurt them.

[bigfatjerk]

I've read about both. Both countries are real low on doctors and have long waits to get health care. Sometimes decades just to get small things done. And both countries have a 5th of the population of the USA. All the problems they have will be 5 times worse in America. People that visit these countries get better health care than those that actually live there if something happens to them. The people that live there don't get care on a bunch of things.

[The Profit]

I've read about both. Both countries are real low on doctors and have long waits to get health care. Sometimes decades just to get small things done. And both countries have a 5th of the population of the USA. All the problems they have will be 5 times worse in America. People that visit these countries get better health care than those that actually live there if something happens to them. The people that live there don't get care on a bunch of things.




Healthcare in both France and Germany are rated higher than the US.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Single payer is great until you've found out that the bureacrats have decided they are only paying for 500 open heart surgeries this year and you're the 501st person to apply. Of course, these arbitrary limitations never apply to the elite.

[bigfatjerk]

Single payer is great until you've found out that the bureacrats have decided they are only paying for 500 open heart surgeries this year and you're the 501st person to apply. Of course, these arbitrary limitations never apply to the elite.

^This

Bureaucrats deciding things always ends bad. Especially in massive populations.

I don't care what someone ranks our health care, because that's based to arbitrarily and not based on what they actually do. They are usually based on how socialized they are not on any results.

[CrimsonCream]

Of course, these arbitrary limitations never apply to the elite.

And the politicians.

[pphilfran]

According to Obama's budget forecasts if we toss out all spending other than Human Resource spending (Medicare, Medicaid, SS, education, and veteran related spending) we are still in red in 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012...

2013 we would have 500 billion left over for all other spending
2014 550 billion
2015 770 billion
2016 820 billion

But...

Interest on the debt grows significantly during those "surplus" years...

2013 320 billion
2014 417 billion
2015 494 billion
2016 562 billion

Without cuts in the social services or dramatic increases in taxation we will have a whopping 250 billion a year to spend on the military and all other areas of spending...

The data for 2015 and 2016 are based on pulling in 19.1 and 19.3% of GDP...a rate that has been hit a total of 8 years since 1930...

Ladies and gentlemen our lives are going to be turned upside down...to make this work EVERYBODY is going to pay higher taxes....EVERYBODY is going to have benefits cut...

A couple of posters are mostly correct, Profit and Johnny Mack come to mind...military spending must be cut...probably in half over then next 20 years...2% a year in cuts will be needed...go over 3% a year (and 2 might be too high) and we risk overloading the job market with laid off military personnel and defense contractors...

SS must have the age limit raised...the salary limit must also be raised to the 130 and 140k range with those two changes we can look at 100 bill a year reduction in the yearly deficit due to additional revenue/spending cuts...

I don't know what to do with Medicare/health care costs...I do know I would stop allowing advertising on prescription drugs....

[Bourbon St Sooner]

^This

Bureaucrats deciding things always ends bad. Especially in massive populations.

I don't care what someone ranks our health care, because that's based to arbitrarily and not based on what they actually do. They are usually based on how socialized they are not on any results.


Health care studies are based on results, which tend to say more about the habits of the populations than the actual health care system. Euros have healthier diets and healthier lifestyles and, thus, produce better results. We have too many fat people, too many crack babies and other social issues that affect these "rankings".

[pphilfran]

Healthcare in both France and Germany are rated higher than the US.

I think it is the Swiss system that mandates a basic program that must not be profitable...profits are made on the extras that the wealthy would choose..private room coverage and other bells and whistles...I could live with that system...

[pphilfran]

Health care studies are based on results, which tend to say more about the habits of the populations than the actual health care system. Euros have healthier diets and healthier lifestyles and, thus, produce better results. We have too many fat people, too many crack babies and other social issues that affect these "rankings".

There are studies that show the longer you live the more in overall costs...you die in your 70's and you don't have mac degen, dementia, or altz to deal with...and those puppies are expensive as hell...I am paying 50k a year in expenses for my Dad that has altz...

[The Profit]

I think it is the Swiss system that mandates a basic program that must not be profitable...profits are made on the extras that the wealthy would choose..private room coverage and other bells and whistles...I could live with that system...




Sounds fair to me. It is certainly better than the corrupt and inadequate insurance program that we have here.

[soonercoop1]

Sounds fair to me. It is certainly better than the corrupt and inadequate insurance program that we have here.

The easier way would have been to start slow and see what works so now the repeal of Obamacare is imminent...tort reform and buy across state lines first and then work on the other problems...very little the federal government undertakes is successful...

[NormanPride]

Heh. The idea that we can cut benefits to old people is funny.

[Fraggle145]

The easier way would have been to start slow and see what works so now the repeal of Obamacare is imminent...tort reform and buy across state lines first and then work on the other problems...very little the federal government undertakes is successful...

How is the repeal of Obamacare imminent? :confused:

Maybe I just dont see it.

[pphilfran]

Heh. The idea that we can cut benefits to old people is funny.

No need to cut benefits to those already drawing some bucks....raise the SS limit 3 month a year for the next 10 years...folks that were going to be able to draw full benefits next Jan would have to wait until April...the following year they would go from Jan to July...

It is doable...

[NormanPride]

See, that would require a steady leadership hand over the next 20 years. I would love it, but it will never happen.

[The Profit]

No need to cut benefits to those already drawing some bucks....raise the SS limit 3 month a year for the next 10 years...folks that were going to be able to draw full benefits next Jan would have to wait until April...the following year they would go from Jan to July...

It is doable...



Why not just do away with the cap on social security earnings. The program would be immediately solvent for the next 100 years.

[pphilfran]

Why not just do away with the cap on social security earnings. The program would be immediately solvent for the next 100 years.

I think that is going too far...it is basically a defined benefit plan...everybody pays in x amount and then based on what they contribute they get y in return...

To have someone making a million a year pay 130k each and every year for a yearly benefit of 20 or 30k is bordering on criminal...

I wouldn't like it but I would rather see a means test for benefits...

[pphilfran]

See, that would require a steady leadership hand over the next 20 years. I would love it, but it will never happen.

Then throw in the towel and expect to see a dramatic decrease in our overall standard of living...

[REDREX]

Why not just do away with the cap on social security earnings. The program would be immediately solvent for the next 100 years.---And would also be the largest tax increase in US history---Are you going to have employers keep paying also?

[pphilfran]

Profit...they got the f'n money...give em more and they will just spend more...

Taxation is the smallest part of the problem...spending is the main culprit...

[pphilfran]

---And would also be the largest tax increase in US history---Are you going to have employers keep paying also?

Nice point on the employer portion, Red...

I wish I had a street named after me...

[REDREX]

Nice point on the employer portion, Red...

I wish I had a street named after me...---been done---at least for my Grandfather

[pphilfran]

We also act like the Trust Funds are an asset...they are actually a liability since we will have to issue new bonds to pay for the special issue bonds when we start cashing them in...

[pphilfran]

---been done---at least for my Grandfather

I know...I took a pic for ya...not much of a street...but still a street...lol...

[pphilfran]

If we were to raise taxes on corps does anyone think that the companies will just absorb the increased costs? Or do you think those increased costs will be passed on to the consumer...

[SpankyNek]

If we were to raise taxes on corps does anyone think that the companies will just absorb the increased costs? Or do you think those increased costs will be passed on to the consumer...

Wouldn't that be the most palateable way to do this thing, though?

It would essentially finally result in consumption taxation, which many of the Fair Taxers want anyway.

[sappstuf]

If we were to raise taxes on corps does anyone think that the companies will just absorb the increased costs? Or do you think those increased costs will be passed on to the consumer...

Obama knows the answer of what happens when you increase the price of doing business...

HlTxGHn4sH4

[Sooner5030]

raising taxes and/or cutting spending will be a net negative on GDP growth (ceteres paribus). I am fine with that but someone needs to explain to the mob that fixing things requires GDP to decrease y/o/y and will result in a calculated recession.

you can't close a $1.6 trillion deficit when annual nominal GDP growth is less than the deficit itself....without causing a recession. It's just the other end of stimulus. Borrowed growth has to be paid back with contraction.

we're f'd. Buy arable land, learn to make your own everything, trade with some friends and DO NOT live in a densely population area for the next 5 years.

now....back to my bunker

[pphilfran]

Obama has spending budgeted at 22.5% of GDP through 2016...

That is too f'n much...to give up that much of the nations wealth to our leadership group is foolish...

The Buck ($) stops here and now....it HAS to.;...

[SpankyNek]

Obama has spending budgeted at 22.5% of GDP through 2016...

That is too f'n much...to give up that much of the nations wealth to our leadership group is foolish...

The Buck ($) stops here and now....it HAS to.;...

Isn't that (In general) The tax rate?

[pphilfran]

Wouldn't that be the most palateable way to do this thing, though?

It would essentially finally result in consumption taxation, which many of the Fair Taxers want anyway.

They want to currently spend 22.5% of GDP...TWENTY TWO POINT FIVE PERCENT...

That is what is unethical, if not criminal...

[sappstuf]

Obama has spending budgeted at 22.5% of GDP through 2016...

That is too f'n much...to give up that much of the nations wealth to our leadership group is foolish...

The Buck ($) stops here and now....it HAS to.;...

And what have we pulled in year to year regardless of the tax policy? 18-19%?

[bigfatjerk]

Taxes really aren't going to be raised enough to make a dent in anything. If taxes are raised it'll net 1-2% even if it's 5-6% on the rich. If you want more federal tax dollars to the government you need to make sure everyone is paying taxes.

[87sooner]

raising taxes and/or cutting spending will be a net negative on GDP growth (ceteres paribus). I am fine with that but someone needs to explain to the mob that fixing things requires GDP to decrease y/o/y and will result in a calculated recession.

you can't close a $1.6 trillion deficit when annual nominal GDP growth is less than the deficit itself....without causing a recession. It's just the other end of stimulus. Borrowed growth has to be paid back with contraction.

we're f'd. Buy arable land, learn to make your own everything, trade with some friends and DO NOT live in a densely population area for the next 5 years.

now....back to my bunker


yup...
also...buy ammo/canned goods

[pphilfran]

Isn't that (In general) The tax rate?

The best we have ever done is 20.6% of GDP...

We have only been above 20% that one f'n time in history...the long term norm is about 18.5%...

So we need a overall revenue increase of about 20% to break even on a yearly basis...and breaking even ain't going to cut it with the debt servicing that is about the destroy us...

Debt servicing in 2005 was 7% of GDP...160 billion..

2016 it grows to 12.6% if GDP...687 billion...

And if interest rates climb more than the administration projects...and you know they are low balling the numbers, they have always under budgeted, those numbers will grow significantly....

[pphilfran]

And what have we pulled in year to year regardless of the tax policy? 18-19%?

Yes, those are reasonable numbers...

[87sooner]

The best we have ever done is 20.6% of GDP...

We have only been above 20% that one f'n time in history...the long term norm is about 18.5%...

So we need a overall revenue increase of about 20% to break even on a yearly basis...and breaking even ain't going to cut it with the debt servicing that is about the destroy us...

Debt servicing in 2005 was 7% of GDP...160 billion..

2016 it grows to 12.6% if GDP...687 billion...

And if interest rates climb more than the administration projects...and you know they are low balling the numbers, they have always under budgeted, those numbers will grow significantly....


yup...
and since we know NOTHING will actually get fixed...
what will this country look like when the music stops?

[pphilfran]

raising taxes and/or cutting spending will be a net negative on GDP growth (ceteres paribus). I am fine with that but someone needs to explain to the mob that fixing things requires GDP to decrease y/o/y and will result in a calculated recession.

you can't close a $1.6 trillion deficit when annual nominal GDP growth is less than the deficit itself....without causing a recession. It's just the other end of stimulus. Borrowed growth has to be paid back with contraction.

we're f'd. Buy arable land, learn to make your own everything, trade with some friends and DO NOT live in a densely population area for the next 5 years.

now....back to my bunker

Where the hell did you come from...

Please do not go back to the bunker...

[SpankyNek]

yup...
and since we know NOTHING will actually get fixed...
what will this country look like when the music stops?

Maybe the same, except we go ahead and sell Hawaii or Alaska.

If Mexico could afford it, I would sell them New Mexico for 1.5 times the debt.

[pphilfran]

Come on all of you spend freaks...where are you now?

Come on back and show me your numbers and projections....

[bigfatjerk]

Maybe the same, except we go ahead and sell Hawaii or Alaska.

If Mexico could afford it, I would sell them New Mexico for 1.5 times the debt.
Or we can start privatizing lands our government is holding on to for almost no reason. Especially in the west. You can give them provisions to do certain things, but that would bring in a lot of money. How about we do the same with some of the entitlement programs?

[SpankyNek]

Or we can start privatizing lands our government is holding on to for almost no reason. Especially in the west. You can give them provisions to do certain things, but that would bring in a lot of money. How about we do the same with some of the entitlement programs?

I would be fine with the Government selling any of its holdings (I am looking at you Alaska)

[bigfatjerk]

Alaska's different because we should just use the natural resources we can get from there and use them. Government is far to inefficient to do something smart though.

[87sooner]

Alaska's different because we should just use the natural resources we can get from there and use them. Government is far to crooked to do something smart though.

fify

[pphilfran]

Maybe the same, except we go ahead and sell Hawaii or Alaska.

If Mexico could afford it, I would sell them New Mexico for 1.5 times the debt.

New Mexico has 78 million acres...current debt is 14.5 trillion...

At 1.5 times debt we would ask 275k per acre...we might get it counting buildings....

[soonercruiser]

Why not just do away with the cap on social security earnings. The program would be immediately solvent for the next 100 years.

I do agree with this!
Can't see any good reason why it's not being discussed!

[soonercruiser]

I would be fine with the Government selling any of its holdings (I am looking at you Alaska)

I am looking at the National Parks and federal protected lands!
U.S. govment has ruined Niagra Falls!

[soonercruiser]

I've read about both. Both countries are real low on doctors and have long waits to get health care. Sometimes decades just to get small things done. And both countries have a 5th of the population of the USA. All the problems they have will be 5 times worse in America. People that visit these countries get better health care than those that actually live there if something happens to them. The people that live there don't get care on a bunch of things.

You big jerk!
Don't water down Profit's "great idea" with the consequences it would entail!
The jury is already in on the negatives of a single payer system.
It would destroy American healthcare.

Who the he11 wants to be like pantywaist Europe anyway, ceptin' Profit?
I'll help you pack your bags Profit!
:D

[pphilfran]

I do agree with this!
Can't see any good reason why it's not being discussed!

About 20 million people make over 100k...to pull in an 800 billion to balance the budget they would each need to pay in an additional 40,000....

And that just to break even...debt would continue to climb...

It is not about taxes...it is about spending...

[soonercruiser]

Maybe that's what he meant by reasonable defense spending cuts?

Yup!
In my newsletter this evening.....
Senate voted to increse TRICARE enrolement fees.
Military and military retirees are always the first to get shot in the pants!

GOD forbid the Senate would vote to cut back on it's perks like health clubs and restaurants. :(

[soonercruiser]

The Military Industrilal Complex is in fact a giant tumor on the spine of this nation. It's so big, so entrenched and responsible for so many jobs (both directly and indirectly) that serious cuts to its size won't be happening any time soon. Hopefully those clamoring for smaller government realize this.

Duh!
Please at least be reasonable JM.
The biggest cancer in the country is the entitlement mentality of the non-contributing citizens, and the politicians who reward them!

[badger]

About 20 million people make over 100k...to pull in an 800 billion to balance the budget they would each need to pay in an additional 40,000....

Not among them.... but those that are probably don't consider themselves wealthy by any means. Even millionaires probably think of themselves as middle class compared with the Bill Gates and Warren Buffetts out there :rolleyes:

Point being that it's hard to draw the line in whom its fair to tax based on income. $100k might be a lot in Oklahoma, but it wouldn't be in Cal or NYC.

As for where to draw the line in spending? I wish it would be about where revenue was. No more Chinese money, just spend what you have.

[Breadburner]

Time to turn off the spigot to all the ****s that drain the system.....

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

If we were to raise taxes on corps does anyone think that the companies will just absorb the increased costs? Or do you think those increased costs will be passed on to the consumer...

Outside of a few companies like Costco, raising corporate taxes will net less revenue to the federal government because it will push up the payback for more companies to go multi-national and double dutch it.

At this point, we need to bite the bullet and gut the regulatory agencies. As much as I don't want cletus dropping PCB's in my drinking water, its the only way we are going to spur enough economic growth to get out of this. Assuming this is accurate, http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/06/17/want-fewer-jobs-just-create-more-regulation/

As for the social security cap increase, while I don't have a problem with it per se, I don't think it would keep SS above water. Most people just don't realize how little wealthy people make in common earnings compared to an average worker (which normally borders on 100% of their above the table earnings). Whether it be capital gains/municipals, etc they do anything to keep from having to pay payroll/income taxes on their earnings.

To me, municipal bonds should be target #1. Making it more difficult to get money through the muni market would cut local/state largess in a hurry. Maybe applying a 1/2% surcharge to Muni Income for Social Security.

Second, would be doing the same on capital gains (IE leaving LTCG at 15% and adding a 5% SS tax on it).

[SpankyNek]

Time to turn off the spigot to all the ****s that drain the system.....

Like who?



80%+ of unemployment payments are funded by employees paying premiums (vicariously through their employers)

76% of all food stamp recipient households have minors in the home.

100% of all welfare and Medicaid households have minors in the home.

Social Security is paid for by workers, and would be solvent if the overages had been protected.

So which children and disabled are the ones that deserve to starve, or die from the flu?

[pphilfran]

Outside of a few companies like Costco, raising corporate taxes will net less revenue to the federal government because it will push up the payback for more companies to go multi-national and double dutch it.

At this point, we need to bite the bullet and gut the regulatory agencies. As much as I don't want cletus dropping PCB's in my drinking water, its the only way we are going to spur enough economic growth to get out of this. Assuming this is accurate, http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/06/17/want-fewer-jobs-just-create-more-regulation/

As for the social security cap increase, while I don't have a problem with it per se, I don't think it would keep SS above water. Most people just don't realize how little wealthy people make in common earnings compared to an average worker (which normally borders on 100% of their above the table earnings). Whether it be capital gains/municipals, etc they do anything to keep from having to pay payroll/income taxes on their earnings.

To me, municipal bonds should be target #1. Making it more difficult to get money through the muni market would cut local/state largess in a hurry. Maybe applying a 1/2% surcharge to Muni Income for Social Security.

Second, would be doing the same on capital gains (IE leaving LTCG at 15% and adding a 5% SS tax on it).

Good stuff....

[pphilfran]

One other thing...I would drop the deduction for dependents...

[The Profit]

---And would also be the largest tax increase in US history---Are you going to have employers keep paying also?



No, they wouldn't need to.

[REDREX]

The US is on the Path to become Greece----We need to stop spending ---We cannot tax our way out of this mess

[SpankyNek]

The US is on the Path to become Greece----We need to stop spending ---We cannot tax our way out of this mess

On the other hand, if default is inevitable, we might as well spend as much as we can...especially on education and infrastructure.

[The Profit]

I believe we could close at least half of the US and foreign military bases without really affecting our security.

[soonercruiser]

About 20 million people make over 100k...to pull in an 800 billion to balance the budget they would each need to pay in an additional 40,000....

And that just to break even...debt would continue to climb...

It is not about taxes...it is about spending...

I'm not talking a big fix here Phil.
That suggestion being just one more little piece of the big SS puzzle.
Many changes need made in the system.

[soonercruiser]

I believe we could close at least half of the US and foreign military bases without really affecting our security.

Good to know that you are willing to volunteer military cuts Profit, considering you have no military leadership training or experience!
(But, maybe 1/3 of overseas...)

Matter of fact....
You are just as experienced as the boy who would be King!

[Chuck Bao]

I can't disagree with any of you, but at the same time I don't think we can solve the problem in this thread. I am not at all hopeful that as a nation we can either.

The basis of the argument seems to be about security - security from loss of wealth, unemployment, high taxes, poverty, hunger, crime, etc. For each of us, our priorities are different.

I do think that we were sold a bad bill of goods with the "War on Terrorism". But that did play so well at the time with the American public after 9/11.

Second, I would not hesitate to resort to crime if my children were hungry or needed urgent medical care. You may judge me for that and say that I should have just worked harder. Go right ahead. Regardless, our lives will be changed over the next 10 years.

[Jammin']

I'm sure that since we have helped so many countries through tough times in the past that if/when we have issues the world will be there for us.


right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right?

[CrimsonCream]

The US is on the Path to become Greece----We need to stop spending ---We cannot tax our way out of this mess

Pretty damn simple, isn't it?

Yet, there has been no real effort to do so. Instead it seems like everyday the Lefties have new ways to spend more money.

It is beyond comprehension that some of the fringe Loon Left want to increase the Debt Ceiling (why call it that anymore?) without equal spending cuts. It is as if they do want to bankrupt this Country.

"The trouble with Socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money."

---Margaret Thatcher

[The Profit]

Pretty damn simple, isn't it?

Yet, there has been no real effort to do so. Instead it seems like everyday the Lefties have new ways to spend more money.

It is beyond comprehension that some of the fringe Loon Left want to increase the Debt Ceiling (why call it that anymore?) without equal spending cuts. It is as if they do want to bankrupt this Country.

"The trouble with Socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money."

---Margaret Thatcher




Crimson, we have been agreeing lately. Let's try to keep it that way. It is not only the lefties, who have spent money. Look what we are spending everyday in Afghanistan, and Inhofe (republican), and nearly all of the Oklahoma congressional delegation (all republican with one DINO) would like to stay another 20 years. That's $2 million per day x 365 days x 20 years.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Wouldn't that be the most palateable way to do this thing, though?

It would essentially finally result in consumption taxation, which many of the Fair Taxers want anyway.

You mean make it more expensive to hire workers? That should do a lot to solve our unemployment problem.

[The Profit]

Good to know that you are willing to volunteer military cuts Profit, considering you have no military leadership training or experience!
(But, maybe 1/3 of overseas...)

Matter of fact....
You are just as experienced as the boy who would be King!




Since you were only a dentist in the military, I have much more military experience than you. My father was in the military, both of my brothers were in the military. I grew up in the military and lived with other kids, who had military families. My relatives dealt with foxholes, not tooth holes.

We are no longer fighting the cold war. We do not need a cold war sized military. It should be cut in half immediately, and eventually brought to a pre-WWII size. Half of the expensive bases and posts in this country should be closed and sold to their neighboring communities.

[87sooner]

Since you were only a dentist in the military, I have much more military experience than you. My father was in the military, both of my brothers were in the military. I grew up in the military and lived with other kids, who had military families. My relatives dealt with foxholes, not tooth holes.

We are no longer fighting the cold war. We do not need a cold war sized military. It should be cut in half immediately, and eventually brought to a pre-WWII size. Half of the expensive bases and posts in this country should be closed and sold to their neighboring communities.

and what do you propose we do with the millions that depend on that military spending?
walmart only needs a limited number of greeters...

billions and trillions of spending didn't fix the economy..
what do you think billions of cuts will do to it?

there will be a long and painful recession/depression to get out of this mess....the only question is when...

[The Profit]

and what do you propose we do with the millions that depend on that military spending?
walmart only needs a limited number of greeters...

billions and trillions of spending didn't fix the economy..
what do you think billions of cuts will do to it?

there will be a long and painful recession/depression to get out of this mess....the only question is when...




That is a great question. I believe that the only way the military industrial complex goes away is if we find another revenue source for it to gobble up. For the past 50-60 years, we have created and sustained this monster with trillions of dollars to build weapons that we haven't used, weapons that we have sold to warring nations (both sides sometimes), unnecessary military bases, etc.

These companies (GE, Bechtel, Boeing, General Dynamics, Northrup, Grumman, etc.) can be sustained by contracts that allow them to rebuild this nation's collapsing infrastructure. I would much rather take half of the money we are spending on the military and put it toward new highways, a new rail system (high speed between many US major cities), new power grids, etc. These kind of endeavors will employ millions of Americans with good paying middle class jobs.

Military spending has brought this nation to its knees. It is time to let it go. The Russians are no longer coming.

[87sooner]

That is a great question. I believe that the only way the military industrial complex goes away is if we find another revenue source for it to gobble up. For the past 50-60 years, we have created and sustained this monster with trillions of dollars to build weapons that we haven't used, weapons that we have sold to warring nations (both sides sometimes), unnecessary military bases, etc.

These companies (GE, Bechtel, Boeing, General Dynamics, Northrup, Grumman, etc.) can be sustained by contracts that allow them to rebuild this nation's collapsing infrastructure. I would much rather take half of the money we are spending on the military and put it toward new highways, a new rail system (high speed between many US major cities), new power grids, etc. These kind of endeavors will employ millions of Americans with good paying middle class jobs.

Military spending has brought this nation to its knees. It is time to let it go. The Russians are no longer coming.

ok....so your plan is to shift the spending.....with no net savings....
so we are still in deep ****....but we have better roads....

[The Profit]

ok....so your plan is to shift the spending.....with no net savings....
so we are still in deep ****....but we have better roads....




No,there has to be net savings. I am just saying that you cannot completely remove the weapons manufacturers from the government teat. They won't have it. They will start wars somewhere else.

There has to be a three-pronged attack to the reduce and ultimately retire the national debt. We have to reduce spending on military and social programs. We have to completely eliminate subsidies for farms, crops, oil, ethanol, etc., and we have to raise taxes on those making more than $250,000.00 per year. I am not saying that we have to raise the top tax rates to where they were under the Republican Dwight Eisenhower (90%), but they need to be raised significantly. Without an increase in taxes, the debt cannot go away by spending cuts alone.

So, I have agreed that spending should be drastically cut. Will Republicans agree that taxes should be raised? It takes two to compromise.

[bigfatjerk]

I don't know if taxes will need to be raised if spending is cut enough. Sounds like you don't really want to cut spending that much. But democrats are talking about raising taxes about a net 4% total. I don't think that's really worth anything. It won't bring in near enough revenue. I'm not to adverse to raising the tax on the rich as long as we cut taxes on business. You are basically making many of these companies pay twice the tax because of that. But raising the tax will probably bring in next to no revenue because most of the money won't go to the federal government.

[87sooner]

No,there has to be net savings. I am just saying that you cannot completely remove the weapons manufacturers from the government teat. They won't have it. They will start wars somewhere else.

There has to be a three-pronged attack to the reduce and ultimately retire the national debt. We have to reduce spending on military and social programs. We have to completely eliminate subsidies for farms, crops, oil, ethanol, etc., and we have to raise taxes on those making more than $250,000.00 per year. I am not saying that we have to raise the top tax rates to where they were under the Republican Dwight Eisenhower (90%), but they need to be raised significantly. Without an increase in taxes, the debt cannot go away by spending cuts alone.

So, I have agreed that spending should be drastically cut. Will Republicans agree that taxes should be raised? It takes two to compromise.


both sides must agree we can't borrow/tax to maintain our standard of living in this country...
what our politicians have done the past decade or two is complete insanity...

[The Profit]

I don't know if taxes will need to be raised if spending is cut enough. Sounds like you don't really want to cut spending that much. But democrats are talking about raising taxes about a net 4% total. I don't think that's really worth anything. It won't bring in near enough revenue. I'm not to adverse to raising the tax on the rich as long as we cut taxes on business. You are basically making many of these companies pay twice the tax because of that. But raising the tax will probably bring in next to no revenue because most of the money won't go to the federal government.



I never said anything about a meager 4 percent. I just said that I didn't think the tax needed to be raised to the Republican Eisenhower's level of 90 percent. I would like to see the top rate go to 45-50 percent. That sounds fair enough.

Hey, I have said, in a previous post, that I wouldn't be opposed to a flat tax of 20-25 percent with no exemptions, no deductions (none). That means everyone would be taxed (no exceptions) and enough revenue would be created to solve the debt problem.

[bigfatjerk]

If you see a flat rate it'll be less than 20% because 20% for the poor is way too high. So the poor would basically be exempt. A completely flat tax will probably realistically be around 10-15%. I think that would actually bring in more revenue than our current tax system does.

[The Profit]

If you see a flat rate it'll be less than 20% because 20% for the poor is way too high. So the poor would basically be exempt. A completely flat tax will probably realistically be around 10-15%. I think that would actually bring in more revenue than our current tax system does.




10-15 percent might be okay once the debt is at zero, but until then, we could exempt the poor to a degree (everyone should pay something) and set the tax at 20 percent. If we are really serious about eliminating the debt, we are going to have to bite the bullet.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Pretty damn simple, isn't it?

Yet, there has been no real effort to do so. Instead it seems like everyday the Lefties have new ways to spend more money.

It is beyond comprehension that some of the fringe Loon Left want to increase the Debt Ceiling (why call it that anymore?) without equal spending cuts. It is as if they do want to bankrupt this Country.

"The trouble with Socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money."

---Margaret Thatcher

Although defense is going to have to take a cut to get us out of this, the biggest problem child wasn't the wars - it was unemployment insurance. Last year we almost spent as much on unemployment as we did on social security.

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r55/TomThe/Misc%20for%20Blog/FederalBudgetFY_2010.jpg

gah -> http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r55/TomThe/Misc%20for%20Blog/FederalBudgetFY_2010.jpg

Now unemployment is a sticky subject because there are people I know who would have been ruined financially without it. However, for those 5 there were 15 I knew that just quit their jobs (all in their 20's btw) and milked unemployment while going fishing/hunting. One cousin managed a 157 weeks on unemployment before they finally kicked him off a couple of months ago.

And this tends to be true of any government problem - 10-20% of it gets bled off by fraud/waste etc. We need to start dismantling a lot of the functions and privatizing them with the government playing the role of watchdog (which even that they don't do well). Doing that would probably save 25-30 cents on the dollar.

[badger]

On the other hand, if default is inevitable, we might as well spend as much as we can...especially on education and infrastructure.

Heh, that's why our young scholars can't default on college loans anymore --- because that's what grads used to do back in the 70s and 80s and even up till the cutoff in 1998. Now, someone can be going blind from diabetes and not be able to default on college loans, thanks to our lucky Gen X-Yers who enjoyed a housing boom, income boom, booming everything, and the ability to go to college and never have to pay back their government loans through a technicality, hehe.

Seeing the outcome of what default has done for rising college costs and mounting student debt, I'd rather never rely on that as a backup plan ever again :(

[SpankyNek]

You mean make it more expensive to hire workers? That should do a lot to solve our unemployment problem.

Which is it?
Raise the price of goods and services, or raise the price of hiring?

Make up your mind as to what the "negative consequences" would be, and we can then do a cba to see what is better.

[soonercruiser]

Since you were only a dentist in the military, I have much more military experience than you. My father was in the military, both of my brothers were in the military. I grew up in the military and lived with other kids, who had military families. My relatives dealt with foxholes, not tooth holes.

We are no longer fighting the cold war. We do not need a cold war sized military. It should be cut in half immediately, and eventually brought to a pre-WWII size. Half of the expensive bases and posts in this country should be closed and sold to their neighboring communities.

Fiffy! But dumb!
(Yes, I know that you stayed in a Holiday Inn Express at some time.)

I was a weapons controller (8 years) before I became a dentist!
Was in Nam during that time!
I was a "Commander" at 3 bases...including Hospital Commander in a war zone.
Go back playing with your toy guns Profit!

[soonercruiser]

I can't disagree with any of you, but at the same time I don't think we can solve the problem in this thread. I am not at all hopeful that as a nation we can either.

Second, I would not hesitate to resort to crime if my children were hungry or needed urgent medical care. You may judge me for that and say that I should have just worked harder. Go right ahead. Regardless, our lives will be changed over the next 10 years.

Somehow that fits the drift of most of your LW posts Chucky!
But, I must admit....if I had exhausted all other options....I really don't know what I'd do. I think that there are just too many better options to begin giving up ahead of time.

But, I do know that coming out and thinking about it is the first step towards doing it - and "it" is anarchy!
(Thou shalt not steal!)

[sappstuf]

How about reducing military retirement benefits. You seem to have left that one out.

What do you propose?

Redux was introduced in 1986 and reduced military retirement to 40%, 15 years later it was increased back up to 50% because of moral and retention problems..

In 18 years, I have moved 10 times. That doesn't include deployments...

My career field stays about 65% manned because we cannot get enough qualified applicants and then once we do, many pay back the minimum amount of years and then get out at their first opportunity because even in this economy they can get a job in the civilian sector that pays pretty well with the training they received.

If you were me, how would you convince a young Sailor that he should reenlist and think about a career when he can make more money in the civilian sector, no deployments and can go home to the family every night? Talking about retirement benefits is one of the few tools I have... What would you do?

[Jammin']

What do you propose?

Redux was introduced in 1986 and reduced military retirement to 40%, 15 years later it was increased back up to 50% because of moral and retention problems..

In 18 years, I have moved 10 times. That doesn't include deployments...

My career field stays about 65% manned because we cannot get enough qualified applicants and then once we do, many pay back the minimum amount of years and then get out at their first opportunity because even in this economy they can get a job in the civilian sector that pays pretty well with the training they received.

If you were me, how would you convince a young Sailor that he should reenlist and think about a career when he can make more money in the civilian sector, no deployments and can go home to the family every night? Talking about retirement benefits is one of the few tools I have... What would you do?

I think this goes back to cutting military in half. I don't want to convince a young sailor to make a career in the military. I want him to go private and get off the gov't teet.

[StoopTroup]

I think this goes back to cutting military in half. I don't want to convince a young sailor to make a career in the military. I want him to go private and get off the gov't teet.

Who will run the Military?

[Jammin']

Who will run the Military?

I figured Dean wasn't busy.

[sappstuf]

I think this goes back to cutting military in half. I don't want to convince a young sailor to make a career in the military. I want him to go private and get off the gov't teet.

I dont' consider anyone serving in the military as being on "the gov't teet" especially now with the deployment rate so high. The Navy has downsized a lot in my time. And anyone who is not pulling their weight will not be allowed to reenlist, that goes all the way to the top. We don't try to reenlist everyone anymore like we used to, only the best. But to retain the best, you must have something on the back end to reward them, because if they are the best in the military then they will probably be the best in the civilian sector as well. It is a direct competition and the military will always be at a disadvantage in that competition. At least when people start families..

When I came in around 1993, the Navy end strength was 510K. Now it is 329K. So we have already cut a large percentage of personnel. We do everything we did back then, plus a large amount of deployments in support of the Army all around the world.

And honestly we cannot cut much more personnel unless we first cut our capability, i.e. ships. Because otherwise you will so overdeploy your personnel that they will get out no matter what. Cutting capability comes at a real world expense. That goes with bases as well. BRAC has already cut the fat. Here is a listing of Naval Bases closed since 1988.

Naval Station Galveston
Naval Station Lake Charles
Naval Station New York
Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, Warminster, PA
NAV ElecSysEngrCtr
Naval Station Long Beach
Naval Station Philadelphia
Naval Station Puget Sound
Philadelphia Naval Complex
Presidio of Monterey
Naval Air Rework Facility (NARF), Alameda
Naval Air Station Agana
Naval Air Station Barbers Point
Naval Air Station Dallas
Naval Air Station Glenview
Naval Air Station Alameda
Naval Aviation Depot Alameda
Naval Aviation Depot Norfolk
Naval Aviation Depot Pensacola
Naval Hospital Charleston
Naval Hospital Oakland aka Oak Knoll Naval Hospital, Oakland, CA
Naval Hospital Orlando
Naval Station Charleston
Naval Station Mobile
Naval Station Staten Island
Naval Station Treasure Island
Naval Supply Center Oakland, Oakland Naval Supply Center
Naval Training Center Orlando
Naval Training Center San Diego
Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, Indianapolis
Naval Shipyard, Long Beach
Naval Supply Center, Oakland, Oakland Naval Supply Center
NAWC, Aircraft Div., Warminster
NAWC, Crane Division Detachment
NSWC, Dahlgren Division Detachment
Naval Air Station Brunswick, Maine
Willow Grove Naval Air Station/Joint Reserve Base, Pennsylvania
Naval Station Ingleside, Texas
Navy Supply Corps School

That is 39 bases in 23 years.... That is a lot of cutting. There are about 78 left around the world and off the top of my head, I would say that 12-15 of those are overseas. I'm not saying that some of those couldn't be closed, but to say there are still half that could be closed just isn't realistic if we are to maintain our position in the world.

[Jammin']

I dont' consider anyone serving in the military as being on "the gov't teet" especially now with the deployment rate so high. The Navy has downsized a lot in my time. And anyone who is not pulling their weight will not be allowed to reenlist, that goes all the way to the top. We don't try to reenlist everyone anymore like we used to, only the best. But to retain the best, you must have something on the back end to reward them, because if they are the best in the military then they will probably be the best in the civilian sector as well. It is a direct competition and the military will always be at a disadvantage in that competition. At least when people start families..

When I came in around 1993, the Navy end strength was 510K. Now it is 329K. So we have already cut a large percentage of personnel. We do everything we did back then, plus a large amount of deployments in support of the Army all around the world.

And honestly we cannot cut much more personnel unless we first cut our capability, i.e. ships. Because otherwise you will so overdeploy your personnel that they will get out no matter what. Cutting capability comes at a real world expense. That goes with bases as well. BRAC has already cut the fat. Here is a listing of Naval Bases closed since 1988.

Naval Station Galveston
Naval Station Lake Charles
Naval Station New York
Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, Warminster, PA
NAV ElecSysEngrCtr
Naval Station Long Beach
Naval Station Philadelphia
Naval Station Puget Sound
Philadelphia Naval Complex
Presidio of Monterey
Naval Air Rework Facility (NARF), Alameda
Naval Air Station Agana
Naval Air Station Barbers Point
Naval Air Station Dallas
Naval Air Station Glenview
Naval Air Station Alameda
Naval Aviation Depot Alameda
Naval Aviation Depot Norfolk
Naval Aviation Depot Pensacola
Naval Hospital Charleston
Naval Hospital Oakland aka Oak Knoll Naval Hospital, Oakland, CA
Naval Hospital Orlando
Naval Station Charleston
Naval Station Mobile
Naval Station Staten Island
Naval Station Treasure Island
Naval Supply Center Oakland, Oakland Naval Supply Center
Naval Training Center Orlando
Naval Training Center San Diego
Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, Indianapolis
Naval Shipyard, Long Beach
Naval Supply Center, Oakland, Oakland Naval Supply Center
NAWC, Aircraft Div., Warminster
NAWC, Crane Division Detachment
NSWC, Dahlgren Division Detachment
Naval Air Station Brunswick, Maine
Willow Grove Naval Air Station/Joint Reserve Base, Pennsylvania
Naval Station Ingleside, Texas
Navy Supply Corps School

That is 39 bases in 23 years.... That is a lot of cutting. There are about 78 left around the world and off the top of my head, I would say that 12-15 of those are overseas. I'm not saying that some of those couldn't be closed, but to say there are still half that could be closed just isn't realistic if we are to maintain our position in the world.

I believe the point is many don't want us to maintain our position in the world at the current cost to our economy. I agree I misused teh "off the gov't teet", just trying to cut to the chase and not have a long *** post.

[jkjsooner]

Yes.

Like the housing mess. Owing a Home is not a right but rather the American Dream. Then the do-gooders begining with Clinton changed the ownership requirements. Again, something for nothing or very little.

This is such a line of B.S. The housing bubble was not created by the government's pro-ownership policies.

The housing bubble started when the interest rates were dropped to almost zero, investors flocked to mortgage backed securities for a decent and "guaranteed" return, and the nation collectively lost its mind.

Simply put, there was too much money chasing housing and little to no regulation on the industry.

[CrimsonCream]

(everyone should pay something)

Yes.

[CrimsonCream]

In 18 years, I have moved 10 times. That doesn't include deployments...

Can't do enough for the Military.

Always interesting that in times of peace and tranquility that the Military is looked down upon. But..let the Country get its nuts in a vise and there's a 180 degree shift.

[sappstuf]

I believe the point is many don't want us to maintain our position in the world at the current cost to our economy. I agree I misused teh "off the gov't teet", just trying to cut to the chase and not have a long *** post.

Then you need to define what capabilities that you want us to have. You cannot just say cut 50% and whatever we have, we have.

For the life of me, I cannot remember what the military is supposed to be able to respond to, but I believe it is one global conflict and 2 regional at the same time(I could certainly be wrong and I can't find anything).. What would you like us to be able to respond to after downsizing?

[CrimsonCream]

This is such a line of B.S. The housing bubble was not created by the government's pro-ownership policies.

The housing bubble started when the interest rates were dropped to almost zero, investors flocked to mortgage backed securities for a decent and "guaranteed" return, and the nation collectively lost its mind.

Simply put, there was too much money chasing housing and little to no regulation on the industry.

Are you serious? Gee.

And who dropped the interest rates and overlooked substandard Credit reports? At the direction of who?

Who caused the housing mess?

There is very little doubt that the underlying cause of the current credit crisis was a housing bubble. But the collapse of the bubble would not have led to a worldwide recession and credit crisis if almost 40% of all U.S. mortgages—25 million loans—were not of the low quality known as subprime or Alt-A.

These loans were made to borrowers with blemished credit, or involved low or no down payments, negative amortization and limited documentation of income. The loans' unprecedentedly high rates of default are what is driving down housing prices and weakening the financial system.

The low interest rates of the early 2000s may explain the growth of the housing bubble, but they don't explain the poor quality of these mortgages.

For that we have to look to the government's distortion of the mortgage finance system through the Community Reinvestment Act and the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. ...

Long-term pressure from [Barney] Frank and his colleagues to expand home ownership connects government housing policies to both the housing bubble and the poor quality of the mortgages on which it is based.

In 1992, Congress gave a new affordable housing "mission" to Fannie and Freddie, and authorized the Department of Housing and Urban Development to define its scope through regulations.

Shortly thereafter, Fannie Mae, under Chairman Jim Johnson, made its first "trillion-dollar commitment" to increase financing for affordable housing. What this meant for the quality of the mortgages that Fannie—and later Freddie—would buy has not become clear until now.

On a parallel track was the Community Reinvestment Act.

New CRA regulations in 1995 required banks to demonstrate that they were making mortgage loans to underserved communities, which inevitably included borrowers whose credit standing did not qualify them for a conventional mortgage loan.

[Jammin']

Then you need to define what capabilities that you want us to have. You cannot just say cut 50% and whatever we have, we have.

For the life of me, I cannot remember what the military is supposed to be able to respond to, but I believe it is one global conflict and 2 regional at the same time(I could certainly be wrong and I can't find anything).. What would you like us to be able to respond to after downsizing?

Not much. I don't think our place is to police the world. I think it causes as much problems as it does good. We should be able to defend ourselves, that might mean occasionally going into other countries, but for the most part we need to get out of other countries. If that means people die in those countries, okay. (yeah, I know, but it's my opinion our people are more important than their people)


see: canada

[Chuck Bao]

Somehow that fits the drift of most of your LW posts Chucky!
But, I must admit....if I had exhausted all other options....I really don't know what I'd do. I think that there are just too many better options to begin giving up ahead of time.

But, I do know that coming out and thinking about it is the first step towards doing it - and "it" is anarchy!
(Thou shalt not steal!)

Well, you better start thinking about it because that is exactly what will happen if we slash social spending to the degree that some people here seem to be suggesting. What percentage of children in the US today are without health insurance?

I am not at all optimistic about the economy or employment in the near future and I think that it will get worse before better. Face it. Our labor has been discounted.

The way this debate seems to be setting up, I am inclined to think that it will further aggravate the problem and further delay the recovery part.

Yeah, I think that we need to take care of our own people first.

You can just ignore this and you can say that this way of thinking is not productive and LW bull crap.

[champions77]

We can solve the problem by cutting military spending in half, ending tax breaks for corporations (across the board), and raising taxes on those making more than $250,000.00 per year.

But nothing about government waste, fraud and abuse that exists across the board in EVERYTHING the feds do? Has there EVER been a federal program that came in 1)Under budget and 2) Accomplished the mission it was supossed to? And let's quit rewarding folks with a government check and all they have to do is go to the mailbox. This all knowing government has created generations of dependent folks that have not been given any incentive to get out and make something of themselves. It's all become so "natural" to feed at the government trough, because afterall....they are "entitled" to these freebies for some reason.

Damn LBJ and his "Great Society" that has done more to destroy the very virtues that made this country great in the first place, personal responsibility, self-reliance and the self esteem you gain by working hard and making something of yourself.

I love the dems, they are mostly responsible for this overbearing, bureaucratic, spend happy, bloated federal government we have today, and all most of them can do is scream out incessantly about making the successful ones pay more.

I hope the next President is a President for ALL Americans instead of one that continually vilifys certain segments of the population with tired "class warfare" diatribes.

[badger]

I love the dems, they are mostly responsible for this overbearing, bureaucratic, spend happy, bloated federal government we have today, and all most of them can do is scream out incessantly about making the successful ones pay more.

As much as I look up to those who came from nothing, worked their butts off and are self-made, they often produce trust fund babies and do-nothing inheritors who did nothing to earn that money other than be born into it.

Perhaps the answer isn't to tax those that are wealthy on their own merit. Perhaps the answer is tax the Waltons to the point that no future generations will be among the top ten wealthiest in the world.

This isn't my low income arse being jealous, this is exactly what Warren Buffett, Bill Gates and other self-made wealthy Americans want too (well, cept for the Forbes family, heh).

[SCOUT]

I hear what you are saying badger, but I still cringe a little bit. If someone wants to work their arse off in order to provide a luxurious life for their children, I am not sure we should punish them for accomplishing it.

[OutlandTrophy]

I hear what you are saying badger, but I still cringe a little bit. If someone wants to work their arse off in order to provide a luxurious life for their children, I am not sure we should punish them for accomplishing it.

yup

[badger]

I hear what you are saying badger, but I still cringe a little bit. If someone wants to work their arse off in order to provide a luxurious life for their children, I am not sure we should punish them for accomplishing it.

There's providing financial security, and then there's enabling a lifestyle that benefits nobody, including the heirs.

Since I mentioned the Walmart heirs earlier, this is what being heirs to more money than you can spend leads to:


The University of Southern California said in a statement that Elizabeth Paige Laurie, 23, "voluntarily has surrendered her degree and returned her diploma to the university. She is not a graduate of USC."

The statement, dated September 30, said the university had ended its review of the allegations concerning Laurie.

Laurie's roommate, Elena Martinez, told a television show last year that she was paid $20,000 to write term papers and complete other assignments for the granddaughter of Wal-Mart co-founder Bud Walton. Wal-Mart is the world's biggest retailer. The family could not be reached for comment.

Following the allegations, the University of Missouri renamed its basketball arena, which had been paid for in part by a $425 million donation from the Lauries and was to have been called "Paige Sports Arena."

Yes, the parents of this heiress, themselves heirs to the Walmart throne, paid $425 million to Mizzou to name their sports complex after their cheating daughter Paige... the "Paige Sports Arena." Yikes. I mean, what a lovely dollhouse you've purchased your daughter there :rolleyes:

[Mississippi Sooner]

Huh. I used to write papers for people for a little weed. Guess I should have shopped around for better clients.

[OutlandTrophy]

There's providing financial security, and then there's enabling a lifestyle that benefits nobody, including the heirs.

Since I mentioned the Walmart heirs earlier, this is what being heirs to more money than you can spend leads to:



Yes, the parents of this heiress, themselves heirs to the Walmart throne, paid $425 million to Mizzou to name their sports complex after their cheating daughter Paige... the "Paige Sports Arena." Yikes. I mean, what a lovely dollhouse you've purchased your daughter there :rolleyes:


not trying to be a jerk here but why is it any of your business who or how much Sam Walton left his fortune to?

What if someone else thinks that your brother shouldn't get your dad's shotgun that was his dad's? There is no difference in a dad handing down a family shotgun and a dad handing down a family fortune.

[sappstuf]

There's providing financial security, and then there's enabling a lifestyle that benefits nobody, including the heirs.

Since I mentioned the Walmart heirs earlier, this is what being heirs to more money than you can spend leads to:

Yes, the parents of this heiress, themselves heirs to the Walmart throne, paid $425 million to Mizzou to name their sports complex after their cheating daughter Paige... the "Paige Sports Arena." Yikes. I mean, what a lovely dollhouse you've purchased your daughter there :rolleyes:

Sounds like she put $20K into the economy that otherwise would not have been there... Their wealth clearly benefited the roommate

I like how you can write off a $425 million dollar donation as "enabling a lifestyle that benefits nobody" when your own post shows the exact opposite.

[badger]

LOL... i know you all think I'm some communist now or something since I support an estate tax on extreme wealth. :D

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Sounds like she put $20K into the economy that otherwise would not have been there... Their wealth clearly benefited the roommate

I like how you can write off a $425 million dollar donation as "enabling a lifestyle that benefits nobody" when your own post shows the exact opposite.

Here is the problem I have. That 425 Million will at least partially be netted against their tax burden (depending on concessions for tickets and the charity phase out if it was after-tax money). Why should I as a taxpayer have extra burden because Missouri needed a new basketball arena. As much as I love college sports, the system needs to be pushed into the for-profit arena and taxed just like a business. Not to even mention all of those endowments that pay for palatial new buildings while they fleece students/taxpayers for operating income.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

But nothing about government waste, fraud and abuse that exists across the board in EVERYTHING the feds do? Has there EVER been a federal program that came in 1)Under budget and 2) Accomplished the mission it was supossed to? And let's quit rewarding folks with a government check and all they have to do is go to the mailbox. This all knowing government has created generations of dependent folks that have not been given any incentive to get out and make something of themselves. It's all become so "natural" to feed at the government trough, because afterall....they are "entitled" to these freebies for some reason.

Damn LBJ and his "Great Society" that has done more to destroy the very virtues that made this country great in the first place, personal responsibility, self-reliance and the self esteem you gain by working hard and making something of yourself.

I love the dems, they are mostly responsible for this overbearing, bureaucratic, spend happy, bloated federal government we have today, and all most of them can do is scream out incessantly about making the successful ones pay more.

I hope the next President is a President for ALL Americans instead of one that continually vilifys certain segments of the population with tired "class warfare" diatribes.

While the war on poverty is currently whipping us worse than the war on drugs, I think the bigger issue is the personalities.

For the Dems, you have Pelosi/Reid/Frank calling the shots. Do you for one second even think they CARE about the debt? Seriously, Pelosi racked up over a 100k worth of in-flight meals on Air Force jets last year.

For the Repubs, do you think that Boehner/Canter/whatever actually CARE about the debt? It is a means to power for them. In the first round of cuts, Boehner didn't even entertain discussions about dropping that over-budget new fighter because it was being made in his district.

One of the more interesting things that I've gotten out of following things on OpenCongress is the lemming mentality that has begun to plague the parties. Basically, they vote as a block for whatever pet project that someone has to ensure that the others vote as a block for theirs. Seriously, you've got 1/2 the people in congress with over 90% vote with party. I sincerely doubt I could agree with myself that often.

And, in my opinion, the reason we have this lemming mentality is the money that we've allowed to be put into political campaigns. They owe so many people "favors" for their $100 handshakes that they have no voice of their own.

[cccasooner2]

Here is the problem I have. That 425 Million will at least partially be netted against their tax burden (depending on concessions for tickets and the charity phase out if it was after-tax money). Why should I as a taxpayer have extra burden because Missouri needed a new basketball arena. As much as I love college sports, the system needs to be pushed into the for-profit arena and taxed just like a business. Not to even mention all of those endowments that pay for palatial new buildings while they fleece students/taxpayers for operating income.

Exactly, why should I as a taxpayer have the extra burden of paying for the business lunch and drinks for some a-hole and his cronies, pay for someone elses home, pay for someone elses box seats at the racetrack/football/baseball stadium? The list goes on and on. :mad:

[SpankyNek]

If we demonize folks that get public entitlements, we should also vilify those that receive them in the private sector. All inheritances should at least be taxed as capital gains...it's exactly what they are.

Society suffers the most from holders of wealth that deprive the economy and everyone else from obtaining it.

If we hadn't been printing money like crazy the last decade, we would ALL have figured this out already.

[soonercoop1]

I am looking at the National Parks and federal protected lands!
U.S. govment has ruined Niagra Falls!

National Parks are about the only thing the government has done right...

[soonercoop1]

No,there has to be net savings. I am just saying that you cannot completely remove the weapons manufacturers from the government teat. They won't have it. They will start wars somewhere else.

There has to be a three-pronged attack to the reduce and ultimately retire the national debt. We have to reduce spending on military and social programs. We have to completely eliminate subsidies for farms, crops, oil, ethanol, etc., and we have to raise taxes on those making more than $250,000.00 per year. I am not saying that we have to raise the top tax rates to where they were under the Republican Dwight Eisenhower (90%), but they need to be raised significantly. Without an increase in taxes, the debt cannot go away by spending cuts alone.

So, I have agreed that spending should be drastically cut. Will Republicans agree that taxes should be raised? It takes two to compromise.

I have agreed time after time on higher taxes but not until the federal government and entitlements are drastically reduced/made solvent and congress if forced to balance the budget by amendment...after that is accomplished we can talk about taxes...you just don't give a raging alcoholic more alcohol...have zero trust in congress to do the right thing so they will be hand-cuffed by the amendment...

[StoopTroup]

I don't want to raise taxes until after I spend all this damn lotto money

[sappstuf]

Here is the problem I have. That 425 Million will at least partially be netted against their tax burden (depending on concessions for tickets and the charity phase out if it was after-tax money). Why should I as a taxpayer have extra burden because Missouri needed a new basketball arena. As much as I love college sports, the system needs to be pushed into the for-profit arena and taxed just like a business. Not to even mention all of those endowments that pay for palatial new buildings while they fleece students/taxpayers for operating income.

How does their donation force you to have an extra tax burden?

[Chuck Bao]

I am very much opposed to inheritance taxes. My family, like many Oklahoma families, is land rich and cash poor. It would break my heart to have to sell part of the land that my grandfather and father spent their entire lives building up just to pay the taxes.

Besides, I am sure that the super rich would be afforded some loophole where they could transfer shares and wealth without paying taxes. Again, it would be the middle class who gets screwed.

[StoopTroup]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RxFQjvHVky4/TWBAIUZ52OI/AAAAAAAAAOU/i4O5qvJs_A0/s1600/FL%2525252BOBAMA%2525252BCartoon.jpg

[badger]

I am very much opposed to inheritance taxes. My family, like many Oklahoma families, is land rich and cash poor. It would break my heart to have to sell part of the land that my grandfather and father spent their entire lives building up just to pay the taxes.

Besides, I am sure that the super rich would be afforded some loophole where they could transfer shares and wealth without paying taxes. Again, it would be the middle class who gets screwed.

I hear ya - my best friend back home lives and works on a family farm and unless the estate tax is increased, there'll likely be some issues there.

So how bout this --- raise the estate tax threshold from $5 million up to... say... $50 million? Small business, family land and small fortunes would thus likely be exempt.

And yeah, I fully expect there to be loopholes, but it must have some of them worried, because there sure seems to be big pushes to get the Bush tax cuts extended before 2011. Hmmm...

[Chuck Bao]

I hear ya - my best friend back home lives and works on a family farm and unless the estate tax is increased, there'll likely be some issues there.

So how bout this --- raise the estate tax threshold from $5 million up to... say... $50 million? Small business, family land and small fortunes would thus likely be exempt.

And yeah, I fully expect there to be loopholes, but it must have some of them worried, because there sure seems to be big pushes to get the Bush tax cuts extended before 2011. Hmmm...

I agree 100%, Badj.

The laws are so confusing and getting a lawyer to explain it all just makes me want to bang my head against a wall, any wall. My dad died unexpectedly. He had a will, but for some reason the will was all wrong and all his property went by default to my mom. My mom insisted that we get this all settled like he wanted, so she had to deal with gift taxes rather than inheritance taxes and I am going to bang my head against the wall a few more times to try to forget all of that...mess.

We are just simple Oklahoma farmers. All that legal and tax stuff is just so nutso to me.

[SCOUT]

Apparently that was just capital gains, Chuck.

[Chuck Bao]

Apparently that was just capital gains, Chuck.

You are gonna make me bang my head against the wall a few more times there, SCOUT. The lawyer said that there is a gift tax and a certain gift tax allowance and maybe it needs to be divided up in years as long as my mom lives. I lost consciousness after that.

Exactly what value would you put on property that has been in my family for almost a hundred years? No, I am against that capital gains idea.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

How does their donation force you to have an extra tax burden?

Because like it or not, the government is going to have to raise taxes. The fact that them giving 425 Million reduces the net income taxes that they would pay by 200-300 million (like I said it depends on some things in there) over up to the next 3 years. That pushes $1 of their tax burden on to everyone else for the deficit for a basketball stadium.

They aren't the only ones who are doing this either - Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, etc consume a ton of wealth and then hide it from the taxman. Then, they go out and say "WOE ARE THE IMPOVERISHED!! government do something about it!!!"

[bigfatjerk]

Because like it or not, the government is going to have to raise taxes. The fact that them giving 425 Million reduces the net income taxes that they would pay by 200-300 million (like I said it depends on some things in there) over up to the next 3 years. That pushes $1 of their tax burden on to everyone else for the deficit for a basketball stadium.

They aren't the only ones who are doing this either - Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, etc consume a ton of wealth and then hide it from the taxman. Then, they go out and say "WOE ARE THE IMPOVERISHED!! government do something about it!!!"
The problem is that half the people aren't even paying federal taxes.

[SCOUT]

You are gonna make me bang my head against the wall a few more times there, SCOUT. The lawyer said that there is a gift tax and a certain gift tax allowance and maybe it needs to be divided up in years as long as my mom lives. I lost consciousness after that.

Exactly what value would you put on property that has been in my family for almost a hundred years? No, I am against that capital gains idea.

I am against it as well.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

The problem is that half the people aren't even paying federal taxes.

I agree that's a problem.

That would be 50% + 1 now ;)

[sappstuf]

Because like it or not, the government is going to have to raise taxes. The fact that them giving 425 Million reduces the net income taxes that they would pay by 200-300 million (like I said it depends on some things in there) over up to the next 3 years. That pushes $1 of their tax burden on to everyone else for the deficit for a basketball stadium.

They aren't the only ones who are doing this either - Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, etc consume a ton of wealth and then hide it from the taxman. Then, they go out and say "WOE ARE THE IMPOVERISHED!! government do something about it!!!"

They could have just sat on the $450 million and not paid anything to anyone because the rich can do that... They gave $450 million to a public institution and you are complaining... It makes no sense.

[bigfatjerk]

I agree that's a problem.

That would be 50% + 1 now ;)
I think lowering tax especially on the middle and lower classes keeping it about the same on the rich or maybe a little higher by like 5% but basically the same rate would probably end up solving this problem. Have no deductions in taxes also. Lower corporation taxes if you want to raise individual taxes. Because basically some of these rich people are getting double taxes so they find ways to not pay as much taxes.

[CrimsonCream]

Maybe the solution is to quit spending what we don't have.

It is totally beyond me why the Lefties insist on spending what we don't have. Can anyone explain this? You don't do it in your lives.

[87sooner]

Maybe the solution is to quit spending what we don't have.

It is totally beyond me why the Lefties insist on spending what we don't have. Can anyone explain this? You don't do it in your lives.

don't blame it on the "lefties"....
the republicans do it too....

[pphilfran]

Maybe the solution is to quit spending what we don't have.

It is totally beyond me why the Lefties insist on spending what we don't have. Can anyone explain this? You don't do it in your lives.

Probably because at current levels you cannot cut spending enough to balance the budget...

How big an across the board cut would it require to balance the budget?

2010 37.4%
2011 43.1%
2012 29.5%
2013 20.4%
2014 16.2%
2015 14.5%
2016 14.5%

Do you actually believe those type cuts are feasible?

I have said it many, many, times...taxes (loopholes/deductions) must be raised and spending must be cut....

[SpankyNek]

Maybe the solution is to quit spending what we don't have.

It is totally beyond me why the Lefties insist on spending what we don't have. Can anyone explain this? You don't do it in your lives.

Actually, our dwindling economy REQUIRES that we spend what we don't have (personally) While we all fantasize about a cash-only world, it would have crippled us long ago if we weren't giving college kids $2k limits to go blow on Pizza Shuttle, etc., or letting folks buy wheels and tires on credit (Not to mention the big elephant that is the Mortgage machine).

All economic areas were definitive in their belief of exponential growth, but the only sector growing in similar rate since my grandparents were born are people below the poverty line.

[OutlandTrophy]

[QUOTE=SpankyNek;3270990]Actually, our dwindling economy REQUIRES that we spend what we don't have (personally) QUOTE]


What? That's crazy talk.

[SpankyNek]

Actually, our dwindling economy REQUIRES that we spend what we don't have (personally)


What? That's crazy talk.

What would we (economically) have looked like today if credit lines were illegal? This was my point. If you think our current situation is bad, think of what it would be like if everyone's credit balances were subtracted from their assets immediately, and everyone was forced to save money for large purchases. About 3/4 of all American business would die.

We depend on Joe Poor spending his check at Mickey D's, Rent-A-Center, and used car lots...this is why we don't tax them as heavily(if at all). If we did tax them at, say, 20% (along with eliminating credit) it would do irreversible harm to our economy.

If a crash is inevitable, however, maybe the class warfare is only going to get worse...the problem is numbers, and that half that don't pay taxes have already got them sewn up.

[OutlandTrophy]

I'm not smart enough to follow you.

It appears that you are justifying and promoting our unsustainable borrowing at the federal level.

Who is saying that credit lines should be illegal?

You said, "Actually, our dwindling economy REQUIRES that we spend what we don't have (personally)."

I think that is a silly statement.

[SpankyNek]

I'm not smart enough to follow you.

It appears that you are justifying and promoting our unsustainable borrowing at the federal level.

Who is saying that credit lines should be illegal?

You said, "Actually, our dwindling economy REQUIRES that we spend what we don't have (personally)."

I think that is a silly statement.
What I was trying to say is that while we don't need to go beyond our means in government, we economically NEED our citizens to do so in their private lives (This is why I put the personally in parentheses, not because it is my personal belief, but we require personal debt in order to function globally).

Since the fed is an extension of the people, it's not surprising that it, too, has an embarrassing credit card bill that could lead to bankruptcy due to poor planning and blind optimism.

[OutlandTrophy]

What I was trying to say is that while we don't need to go beyond our means in government, we economically NEED our citizens to do so in their private lives (This is why I put the personally in parentheses, not because it is my personal belief, but we require personal debt in order to function globally).

Since the fed is an extension of the people, it's not surprising that it, too, has an embarrassing credit card bill that could lead to bankruptcy due to poor planning and blind optimism.

I reject the notion that a person must go into debt to spend money.

That is silly.

[SpankyNek]

I reject the notion that a person must go into debt to spend money.

That is silly.

Never financed a car or a house, eh?

Never had a credit card, borrowed money from parents, etc?

Are you an Orthodox Jew (They are forbidden to receive or charge interest)?

Our economy is BASED upon debt...plain and simple.

[GKeeper316]

I reject the notion that a person must go into debt to spend money.

That is silly.

if there wasn't any debt, there wouldn't be any money.

[SpankyNek]

if there wasn't any debt, there wouldn't be any money.

Succinct and correct.

The whole purpose of currency (as it is clearly stated upon our own) is payment for debts, public and private.

[OutlandTrophy]

Never financed a car or a house, eh?

Never had a credit card, borrowed money from parents, etc?

Are you an Orthodox Jew (They are forbidden to receive or charge interest)?

Our economy is BASED upon debt...plain and simple.


I think you are getting confused. Our economy is based upon people spending money, not borrowing money to spend.

[OutlandTrophy]

if there wasn't any debt, there wouldn't be any money.

what? Please explain that one. That makes no sense at all.

[XingTheRubicon]

I think you are getting confused. Our economy is based upon people spending money, not borrowing money to spend.

I hate to agree with them, but they're right Outland.

repaying borrowed money is what builds the skyscrapers

[SpankyNek]

I think you are getting confused. Our economy is based upon people spending money, not borrowing money to spend.
If you really think this, you are sorely mistaken. Our economy is only as good as it is right now because of extension of credit lines (lending and borrowing). If assets had to equal purchases in every instance, our economy would be a 3rd (if that) of what it currently is.

BTW, did you know that over 50% of our national debt is housed in the US itself, debt to the FED, US banks, private entities, etc....what happens when we default to ourselves?

I don't know how to look it up, but I would be curious to see how private debt ranks against the GDP...I am sure the numbers would speak for themselves.

[OutlandTrophy]

I guess you guys are right.

[The Profit]

Can everyone agree that we need to do two things to reduce the debt and eliminate the deficit--cut spending and raise taxes? A compromise on these two items would be a necessary starting point.

[SpankyNek]

Can everyone agree that we need to do two things to reduce the debt and eliminate the deficit--cut spending and raise taxes? A compromise on these two items would be a necessary starting point.

Yes. Where we start getting into problems is where to cut and who to tax.

[saucysoonergal]

[Frank Zappa]Tax the Churches![/Frank Zappa]

[REDREX]

Can everyone agree that we need to do two things to reduce the debt and eliminate the deficit--cut spending and raise taxes? A compromise on these two items would be a necessary starting point.---I still want a 95% tax on artificial sports surfaces

[The Profit]

---I still want a 95% tax on artificial sports surfaces




It is taxed at a much higher rate than the deadly pesticides, herbicides and fertilizer that are used on so-called natural grass fields.

[REDREX]

It is taxed at a much higher rate than the deadly pesticides, herbicides and fertilizer that are used on so-called natural grass fields.---SO-----Since when did Federal Tax Policy make sense

[The Profit]

---SO-----Since when did Federal Tax Policy make sense



Part of the reason that taxes are high on synthetic turf is that some of the components come from Europe and tariffs are involved. Add to that the low US dollar, and installing a new field is not an inexpensive proposition.

[REDREX]

Part of the reason that taxes are high on synthetic turf is that some of the components come from Europe and tariffs are involved. Add to that the low US dollar, and installing a new field is not an inexpensive proposition.---So--- The bottom line is you don't want your taxes raised---What a shock

[pphilfran]

Part of the reason that taxes are high on synthetic turf is that some of the components come from Europe and tariffs are involved. Add to that the low US dollar, and installing a new field is not an inexpensive proposition.

A lot more to it than just rolling out some carpet...I never realized it was so complicated until you took me to the Cache field under construction...

[TitoMorelli]

Did I read that Duncan is considering artificial turf for its FB field? Or does it have it already?

[CrimsonCream]

don't blame it on the "lefties"....
the republicans do it too....

Yes, you're right.

I guess I was specifically thinking about the "Gang of Six" and Biden.

It is incomprehensible to me that a group of people cannot get together and do the right thing for Country.

Obama is a non-factor. He is nothing more that a ceremonial President that likes to hear himself talk and have people kiss his @ss.

[sappstuf]

Can everyone agree that we need to do two things to reduce the debt and eliminate the deficit--cut spending and raise revenues? A compromise on these two items would be a necessary starting point.

Fixed, and I agree.

[badger]

Ja.

I think the big holdup at the fed level at this point is that both sides are adamant in their unwillingness to compromise (it's almost an election year, after all). Absolutely no tax increase will be tolerated by Republicans (possibly out of tea party fear, possibly to please campaign contributors), while spending cuts are off the table without tax increases by Democrats (possibly out of union fear, possibly to please campaign contributors).

I think that's why Coburn quit the Gang --- he was willing to go with a tax increase in return for expenditure decrease. Then he realized that Dems had no intention of cutting expenditures as much as they needed to, but rather, were going to jack up taxes :eek:

[The Profit]

---So--- The bottom line is you don't want your taxes raised---What a shock



I have no problem with my personal taxes being raised to the level they were when Clinton was president, and before Bush wrecked the economy. Quit making assumptions. I never said that I opposed my taxes being raised. We need to cut spending and increase revenue.

[pphilfran]

Ja.

I think the big holdup at the fed level at this point is that both sides are adamant in their unwillingness to compromise (it's almost an election year, after all). Absolutely no tax increase will be tolerated by Republicans (possibly out of tea party fear, possibly to please campaign contributors), while spending cuts are off the table without tax increases by Democrats (possibly out of union fear, possibly to please campaign contributors).

I think that's why Coburn quit the Gang --- he was willing to go with a tax increase in return for expenditure decrease. Then he realized that Dems had no intention of cutting expenditures as much as they needed to, but rather, were going to jack up taxes :eek:

Ding, ding, ding.....

[pphilfran]

I have no problem with my personal taxes being raised to the level they were when Clinton was president, and before Bush wrecked the economy. Quit making assumptions. I never said that I opposed my taxes being raised. We need to cut spending and increase revenue.

Ding, ding, ding...

[bigfatjerk]

Probably because at current levels you cannot cut spending enough to balance the budget...

How big an across the board cut would it require to balance the budget?

2010 37.4%
2011 43.1%
2012 29.5%
2013 20.4%
2014 16.2%
2015 14.5%
2016 14.5%

Do you actually believe those type cuts are feasible?

I have said it many, many, times...taxes (loopholes/deductions) must be raised and spending must be cut....


You may not even have to raise taxes on most Americans. But you have to get it to where more people are paying taxes. And I don't think the left will because the welfare state is too entrenched in their voting. And I don't know if the right really gets it right now outside of a few. If you just have a flat or fair tax I think that would actually be lowering taxes on most Americans outside of the poor.

[bigfatjerk]

Ding, ding, ding...

Clinton had a lot of trouble early on because there were areas that weren't lowered. He was just lucky to face a complete moderate in Bob Dole that didn't offer any real solutions. When the republicans took the house and senate there were areas like Cap Gains Tax other middle class taxes that were lowered. That's when revenues started going up in the federal government. I think we need to get more people paying taxes. Raising taxes outright isn't going to do that. You need a low flat rate for the poor and the middle class. And probably a little higher rate for the rich that they won't just pay in bonds like they do now. Which basically never goes to the federal government. And we need to find ways to make taxes on businesses fairly low because if you think about it the rich are being double taxed because of this tax system. So I don't know if taxes really need to be raised that much but we need to make sure deductions are out of the equation and we need make sure that all the revenue is going to the federal government.

[badger]

You may not even have to raise taxes on most Americans. But you have to get it to where more people are paying taxes. And I don't think the left will because the welfare state is too entrenched in their voting. And I don't know if the right really get sit right now outside of a few. If you just have a flat or fair tax I think that would actually be lowering taxes on most Americans outside of the poor.

I know it's a regressive tax, but it might be time to have an across-the-board, every-state-participates sales tax. Tax everything on the Internet (sorry Amazon), tax everything in stores.

Some states like Delaware don't have sales tax (lucky relatives live there), some states have lower sales tax and higher property and income taxes (like Wisconsin, unlucky relatives there), some people circumvent sales tax by purchasing online. Some people circumvent paying income taxes, property taxes, etc. Not just illegals, but tax protesters or people that get paid in cash.

Nobody can avoid buying stuff, regardless of their immigration status, income status, state of residency, but people can control how much stuff they buy.

[bigfatjerk]

If we get rid of income tax and have about a 20% tax on all goods that would probably do it. You can still have some sort of welfare system where the poor can get their food stamps and not pay the 20% tax on groceries. I can understand that sentiment. But this would only be for groceries. You would still have to pay a the tax on all other goods. This would be the best solution IMO. As you said you can't keep people from buying stuff. You would have to split this sales tax between the federal and state government. But it would be great if everyone got to keep all their income and basically used it on consumption.

[SpankyNek]

You may not even have to raise taxes on most Americans. But you have to get it to where more people are paying taxes. And I don't think the left will because the welfare state is too entrenched in their voting. And I don't know if the right really gets it right now outside of a few. If you just have a flat or fair tax I think that would actually be lowering taxes on most Americans outside of the poor.

If it's true taht half of America pays no tax, then this is unlikely to ever happen.

[pphilfran]

If it's true taht half of America pays no tax, then this is unlikely to ever happen.

They pay no income tax...payroll tax (ss.med) is paid by most all workers...

[bigfatjerk]

If it's true taht half of America pays no tax, then this is unlikely to ever happen.
They pay virtually no federal tax. They may pay some sort of state tax but half of Americans now don't contribute to federal revenues. There's been several reports out the last few years that the government is getting all of it's revenue from around 47-53% of Americans. That's depending on the year you find. I think this year it was 51% but I could be wrong.

[SpankyNek]

They pay virtually no federal tax. They may pay some sort of state tax but half of Americans now don't contribute to federal revenues. There's been several reports out the last few years that the government is getting all of it's revenue from around 47-53% of Americans. That's depending on the year you find. I think this year it was 51% but I could be wrong.

I would be fine with a flat tax that exempted groceries.

Would services have to be taxed as well (Haircuts, etc?)

[The Profit]

I would be fine with a flat tax that exempted groceries.

Would services have to be taxed as well (Haircuts, etc?)





If there was a national sales tax, groceries would need to be taxed as well. There might not be a tax on labor or services, but nothing would be out of the question.

I think a real flat tax of 20% on gross income over $30,000.00 (no exemptions and no deductions) makes more sense.

[pphilfran]

If there was a national sales tax, groceries would need to be taxed as well. There might not be a tax on labor or services, but nothing would be out of the question.

I think a real flat tax of 20% on gross income over $30,000.00 (no exemptions and no deductions) makes more sense.

I don't know if the revenue numbers would work out at those rates but I could buy into something similar...

[pphilfran]

Though I wouldn't tax groceries...

[sappstuf]

If there was a national sales tax, groceries would need to be taxed as well. There might not be a tax on labor or services, but nothing would be out of the question.

I think a real flat tax of 20% on gross income over $30,000.00 (no exemptions and no deductions) makes more sense.

Profit, I can't believe you are coming around on the flat tax...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_N0vBuKsUTiQ/TUcStrMduPI/AAAAAAAAAxI/q04w9K8YdLM/s1600/miracles-do+happen.jpg

[JohnnyMack]

(no exemptions and no deductions)

This is a small snapshot of the larger problem our nation faces. The Federal Government has become so complex and so engrained in our psyche that it's like a cancer, or the Borg if you'd prefere a nerd reference. The way everything from taxes, campaigns, the military, you name it, has become a giant, self-aware blob that we're not going to be able to crawl out from underneath.

[bigfatjerk]

Though I wouldn't tax groceries...

I can understand that but I think taxing groceries in turn for not taxing most services would be better. I'm guessing some services would have taxes involved. Especially those where you have to actually have things installed or you have to buy something to fix something. Back to groceries, I can understand not taxing them, but I think allowing for food stamps, or whatever you want to call them, for the poor. Maybe you can have a lower tax on grocery than everything else.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

They could have just sat on the $450 million and not paid anything to anyone because the rich can do that... They gave $450 million to a public institution and you are complaining... It makes no sense.

You are totally missing the point. The problem with our tax system is that their are loopholes that can only be exploited by the rich - IE every major international corporation + individuals that have their wealth tied up in assets.

The problem is when you step back and look at them, the transactions make no sense that they should be tax deductible. Did Mizzou need a new basketball stadium? No. So why should that transaction be tax deductible? What if the transaction had been for a fleet of Ferraris? Still tax deductible (even moreso more likely).

As for Gates and Buffett - Does it not bother you that they have either or are about to sidestep 40 BILLION dollars worth of taxes on their holdings by "granting them to charity" before they've ever been taxed. Does it not bother you that Gates is actively campaigning other billionaires to do the same? By the time he dies, he may have gotten over 100 Billion out of Government's Coffers (+ inheritance taxes).

Right now, most of the top 30 richest companies pay no taxes or get tax credits from the US. Some of the wealthy are bypassing taxes on their wealth giving it directly to charity (because stock gifts aren't subject to the phase out). 50% or so of the population pays no federal income taxes -> 20% of these actually get money back from the gov't through the EIC.

This is what we'd call in a business a cash flow problem.

[pphilfran]

You are totally missing the point. The problem with our tax system is that their are loopholes that can only be exploited by the rich - IE every major international corporation + individuals that have their wealth tied up in assets.

The problem is when you step back and look at them, the transactions make no sense that they should be tax deductible. Did Mizzou need a new basketball stadium? No. So why should that transaction be tax deductible? What if the transaction had been for a fleet of Ferraris? Still tax deductible (even moreso more likely).

As for Gates and Buffett - Does it not bother you that they have either or are about to sidestep 40 BILLION dollars worth of taxes on their holdings by "granting them to charity" before they've ever been taxed. Does it not bother you that Gates is actively campaigning other billionaires to do the same? By the time he dies, he may have gotten over 100 Billion out of Government's Coffers (+ inheritance taxes).

Right now, most of the top 30 richest companies pay no taxes or get tax credits from the US. Some of the wealthy are bypassing taxes on their wealth giving it directly to charity (because stock gifts aren't subject to the phase out). 50% or so of the population pays no federal income taxes -> 20% of these actually get money back from the gov't through the EIC.

This is what we'd call in a business a cash flow problem.

I am still in favor of deductions for charitable giving....but with a little nudging from you I could probably be swayed to your side....

You make a lot of sense...

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

If there was a national sales tax, groceries would need to be taxed as well. There might not be a tax on labor or services, but nothing would be out of the question.

I think a real flat tax of 20% on gross income over $30,000.00 (no exemptions and no deductions) makes more sense.

You'd kill small businesses. There is no way that a sole proprieter running on a 6% margin could afford this.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

I am still in favor of deductions for charitable giving....but with a little nudging from you I could probably be swayed to your side....

You make a lot of sense...

Yeah, I'm not against charitable giving, but I think we need to split Not for Profits into 4 categories. 1 - Education, 2 - Sports Related, 3 - Charities, 4 - Religious.

3 & 4 would for the most part be deductible (including mileage and everything that goes with it now). The only exception would be that pre-tax earnings can never be deductible. So for example, if you have 10 million shares of MSFT that has never had taxes paid on them, you can't kick them over to a charity without first paying taxes on them.

1 & 2 would have different rules and be considered semi for profit. Meaning that the foundation would be liable for taxes on money that didn't meet certain rules if it was given to a general pool. So for example, you'd have categories like Scholarships, Salaries, Buildings, Research, etc.

Within each one of those, if the gift was given to a specific category it would be deductible (Scholarships) or 50% deductible (Salaries/Research) or not deductible (Buildings). The entity would be responsible for taxes on anything that was allocated in general that they then allocate to a non-deductible area OR if the salary is totally out of bounds with the national median income.

For example, lets take OU Athletics. You give money for Season Tickets (50% deductible as is now). OU then decides to use that money to pay for Stoops Salary. They would then pay 0% or whatever the tax rate would be in taxes for it going to Stoops for the first $42,000. For ever dollar after that, they would pay 25% in taxes for every dollar that they give him.

This would be the same with buildings and Research giving Colleges etc an incentive to give the money in Scholarships (or pay the government for making up the difference).

[pphilfran]

Yeah, I'm not against charitable giving, but I think we need to split Not for Profits into 4 categories. 1 - Education, 2 - Sports Related, 3 - Charities, 4 - Religious.

3 & 4 would for the most part be deductible (including mileage and everything that goes with it now). The only exception would be that pre-tax earnings can never be deductible. So for example, if you have 10 million shares of MSFT that has never had taxes paid on them, you can't kick them over to a charity without first paying taxes on them.

1 & 2 would have different rules and be considered semi for profit. Meaning that the foundation would be liable for taxes on money that didn't meet certain rules if it was given to a general pool. So for example, you'd have categories like Scholarships, Salaries, Buildings, Research, etc.

Within each one of those, if the gift was given to a specific category it would be deductible (Scholarships) or 50% deductible (Salaries/Research) or not deductible (Buildings). The entity would be responsible for taxes on anything that was allocated in general that they then allocate to a non-deductible area OR if the salary is totally out of bounds with the national median income.

For example, lets take OU Athletics. You give money for Season Tickets (50% deductible as is now). OU then decides to use that money to pay for Stoops Salary. They would then pay 0% or whatever the tax rate would be in taxes for it going to Stoops for the first $42,000. For ever dollar after that, they would pay 25% in taxes for every dollar that they give him.

This would be the same with buildings and Research giving Colleges etc an incentive to give the money in Scholarships (or pay the government for making up the difference).

Not bad...

I only get a deduction for my donation to keep my seats...and if I am not mistaken I get a deduction of 80% of what I donate....

[sappstuf]

You are totally missing the point. The problem with our tax system is that their are loopholes that can only be exploited by the rich - IE every major international corporation + individuals that have their wealth tied up in assets.

The problem is when you step back and look at them, the transactions make no sense that they should be tax deductible. Did Mizzou need a new basketball stadium? No. So why should that transaction be tax deductible? What if the transaction had been for a fleet of Ferraris? Still tax deductible (even moreso more likely).

As for Gates and Buffett - Does it not bother you that they have either or are about to sidestep 40 BILLION dollars worth of taxes on their holdings by "granting them to charity" before they've ever been taxed. Does it not bother you that Gates is actively campaigning other billionaires to do the same? By the time he dies, he may have gotten over 100 Billion out of Government's Coffers (+ inheritance taxes).

Right now, most of the top 30 richest companies pay no taxes or get tax credits from the US. Some of the wealthy are bypassing taxes on their wealth giving it directly to charity (because stock gifts aren't subject to the phase out). 50% or so of the population pays no federal income taxes -> 20% of these actually get money back from the gov't through the EIC.

This is what we'd call in a business a cash flow problem.

Then support a flat tax. Period. End of story. The 30 richest companies can afford the 3000 best tax people and they will either find or lobby to create the loopholes. The small businesses can't do that and take it in the shorts. You will not stop that. Flat tax..

By the way, you sure like to switch from companies to people very quickly and it is two different issues. Although they could both be solved at once.... Flat tax.

Buffett is worth about $50 billion. I doubt he has $40 BILLION in taxes coming due....

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Then support a flat tax. Period. End of story. The 30 richest companies can afford the 3000 best tax people and they will either find or lobby to create the loopholes. The small businesses can't do that and take it in the shorts. You will not stop that. Flat tax..

By the way, you sure like to switch from companies to people very quickly and it is two different issues. Although they could both be solved at once.... Flat tax.

Buffett is worth about $50 billion. I doubt he has $40 BILLION in taxes coming due....

Buffett and Gates were worth 130 billion together. Gates has already shifted over 50 billion to the Gates foundation.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Then support a flat tax. Period. End of story. The 30 richest companies can afford the 3000 best tax people and they will either find or lobby to create the loopholes. The small businesses can't do that and take it in the shorts. You will not stop that. Flat tax..

By the way, you sure like to switch from companies to people very quickly and it is two different issues. Although they could both be solved at once.... Flat tax.

Buffett is worth about $50 billion. I doubt he has $40 BILLION in taxes coming due....

A Flat Tax isn't going to solve the problem with Unrealized Gains. It also will destroy the Municipal markets (which while I think they need to be limited for the next decade, I do think they should exist). I'm for simplifying our tax codes, but a flat tax oversimplifies some significant issues that we see in the economy now around how the rich hide their money.

Also Flat tax isn't going to solve the corporate problem. There are 2 significant issues to taxing multi-nationals these days -> Free Trade Agreements and how we calculate the value of goods made overseas and shipped into the US. Right now, Multi-Nationals use this to their advantage to syphon profits off from the US into their overseas subsidiaries.

A flat tax isn't going to be able to bypass this unless its off of sales in the US. However, since every business segment has a different Gross Margin, a flat tax would wipe some industries off the map (like grocery stores). Washington uses a Flat Tax (1.5% of gross sales) and it is considered one of the most unfriendly small business climates in the US. Mainly because if you lose money one year you still owe money on sales which means a net loss = bankruptcy.

[tommieharris91]

A Flat Tax isn't going to solve the problem with Unrealized Gains. It also will destroy the Municipal markets (which while I think they need to be limited for the next decade, I do think they should exist). I'm for simplifying our tax codes, but a flat tax oversimplifies some significant issues that we see in the economy now around how the rich hide their money.

Also Flat tax isn't going to solve the corporate problem. There are 2 significant issues to taxing multi-nationals these days -> Free Trade Agreements and how we calculate the value of goods made overseas and shipped into the US. Right now, Multi-Nationals use this to their advantage to syphon profits off from the US into their overseas subsidiaries.

A flat tax isn't going to be able to bypass this unless its off of sales in the US. However, since every business segment has a different Gross Margin, a flat tax would wipe some industries off the map (like grocery stores). Washington uses a Flat Tax (1.5% of gross sales) and it is considered one of the most unfriendly small business climates in the US. Mainly because if you lose money one year you still owe money on sales which means a net loss = bankruptcy.

Would this type of tax even be constitutional? At that point, revenues would be taxed, not incomes.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

I thought there was a difference between "flat" tax and"fair" tax.

Taxing sales sounds more like what's been coined as a "fair" tax.

[bigfatjerk]

I thought there was a difference between "flat" tax and"fair" tax.

Taxing sales sounds more like what's been coined as a "fair" tax.

Yep people are confusing the terms.

Flat tax is just that a flat overall tax.

A fair tax is a national sales tax.

[The Profit]

Profit, I can't believe you are coming around on the flat tax...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_N0vBuKsUTiQ/TUcStrMduPI/AAAAAAAAAxI/q04w9K8YdLM/s1600/miracles-do+happen.jpg




Hey, as I said, I am ready to compromise.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

I thought there was a difference between "flat" tax and"fair" tax.

Taxing sales sounds more like what's been coined as a "fair" tax.

If you don't allow business deductions for a flat tax you are taxing sales. If you allow deductions then what is the difference with our current tax policies? All in one bracket?

Whatever we do, we have to fix some problems in the business tax code while ducking and weaving against the free trade treaties.

1. Patents/Copyrights being transferred to foreign subsidiaries and then leased back to the US. This is the big tech company gimmick that allows them to duck US taxes. It has a more ruthless diversification strategy to it as well, if the US economy tanks they can just move their workforce to that lower tax country and reap even bigger profits.

2. Utilizing Foreign Labor to make complete items and then selling them back to their US subsidiary at near what they sell them for. This is the real reason why outsourcing is cheaper, but it took some juggling to make it work.

Examples:

Scenario A

Lets say that you do a job for $100k a year. They outsource this job to India where 2 people making 20k a year are now doing your job poorly.

US Subsidiary shows 60k cost reduction, pays 40% on that for 24k loss

The Company would net savings of 36K (100k - 40k - (60K*40% tax rate)).

Scenario B

The Indian Subsidiary now charges the US subsidiary 90k for the work being performed. The net result is this:

The Company would net savings of 48k (100k - 40k - (50k *15% Tax Rate) - (10k * 40% Tax Rate).

Scenario C

The Indian Subsidiary now charges the US subsidiary 110k for the work being performed. The net result is this:

The Company would net savings of 55.5k (100k - 40k - (70k *15% Tax Rate) - (-10k * 40% Tax Rate).

Notice that they basically shifted 10k worth of profit from the US to the foreign subsidiary reducing their effective tax rate by 25%. And they have started doing this with widgets as well as with services.

[StoopTroup]

I like Flat tacks.

http://www.noahsboatbuilding.com/mmNOAHUSA/Images/COPPERCUTTACK.jpg

[Fraggle145]

[Frank Zappa]Tax the Churches![/Frank Zappa]

This. I was about to say when can we start taxing churches? Especially the "non-profit" megachurches. "Non-profit" my ***.

But I am in on the whole raise taxes cut spending thing.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

This. I was about to say when can we start taxing churches? Especially the "non-profit" megachurches. "Non-profit" my ***.

But I am in on the whole raise taxes cut spending thing.

I think that taxing funds used to build buildings, excessive pay, television operations etc is fine. Now if they use that mega-church money to feed the poor, I don't think that should be taxable.

[Fraggle145]

I think that taxing funds used to build buildings, excessive pay, television operations etc is fine. Now if they use that mega-church money to feed the poor, I don't think that should be taxable.

Sure I am fine with that.

Of all the money those churches make how much actually goes to good deeds? (I dont know I am asking)

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Sure I am fine with that.

Of all the money those churches make how much actually goes to good deeds? (I dont know I am asking)

no telling, most likely it would look like a cross-section of most charities -> a few good ones, most middling, and a few bad ones.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Sure I am fine with that.

Of all the money those churches make how much actually goes to good deeds? (I dont know I am asking)

A perfect example of the problem we have with 501's is ole Newt's operations. He was using his charity as a conduit to move funds over to both his for-profit orgs as well as his political orgs. Now, I'm not saying he is the only one as there are plenty of other orgs that do the same thing (most notably the big union shops like SEIU), but the fact that it is profitable enough that a single not in office politician would go through the risk of doing it says lots about our non-profit laws and how they need to be revamped.

[GKeeper316]

proponents of a national flat tax don't know the first thing about economics.

i actually love it when someone opens his mouth and starts screaming flat tax... its the quickest way to know said person is a complete and utter fool, who's opinion on any other matter is easily and immediately discredited.

[MR2-Sooner86]

They shouldn't raise taxes one cent until they learn to spend the money they have now wisely (http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=155341).

[soonercruiser]

This. I was about to say when can we start taxing churches? Especially the "non-profit" megachurches. "Non-profit" my ***.

But I am in on the whole raise taxes cut spending thing.

Personally, I am all for eliminating non-profit exemptions; even churches....along with a new tax system.
From my perspective, I see ministers and priests afraid to say anything remotely political, as it might affect their tax status. They are effectively neutered! (no pun intended)
Although, it is interesting how it never seems to affect black social justice churches ranst for Demoncratic cxandidates!

[cccasooner2]

This. I was about to say when can we start taxing churches? Especially the "non-profit" megachurches. "Non-profit" my ***.

But I am in on the whole raise taxes cut spending thing.


Agree, if people can't get to heaven without a tax deduction, they don't deserve to go there anyway. :)

[Chuck Bao]

Well, I know that my old Baptist Church in Bangkok used to do a very good job in helping out Americans. Yeah, these people largely got into financial and other trouble for doing some really despicable stuff. It was largely Americans of current or previous Christian faith that sought out help with this Baptist Church. I heard the deacons talk about that and how they really had to fight to be compassionate instead of judgmental. The church does very good work, in my opinion, especially with the refugee Burmese Christian community which is very sizable. Most of this is funded by local tithes and not US donations. Still, I would be very opposed to taxing churches.

If anyone wants to make corrupt TV evangelists or excessively large and grand cathedral to be a reason not to go to church or give tithes then more power to you.

My old Baptist church in Bangkok didn't actually have air-con until the mid-90s. My old boss occasionally preaches at a church in an old converted movie house. Also, those cowboy churches held in a barn seem to be springing up all over Oklahoma based on this very idea.

In short, I would be very, very opposed to taxing churches. It is just so stupid to generalize about a few televangelists and it is wrong. It is just like the urban legend of the huge, huge hoard of welfare queens as one single case of some woman in Detroit emailed to everyone in the US and many around the world as proof that so many people are jacking the system that it is okay not to feel any compassion.

If that works for you, then it is your business. For me, I choose to give my spare change to the beggars on the street and not really think about the beggar mafia controlling them.

[bigfatjerk]

Taxing churches again goes against the separation of church and state thing. To me if you don't want kids praying in school which most on the left agree with, I don't really care one way or another, then why do you think taxing church is a good idea? I know the real answer it's about getting more money. The best way around this? Find more ways to tax more individuals(consumption tax), and you get more taxes from those that go to church or those that don't.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Taxing churches again goes against the separation of church and state thing. To me if you don't want kids praying in school which most on the left agree with, I don't really care one way or another, then why do you think taxing church is a good idea? I know the real answer it's about getting more money. The best way around this? Find more ways to tax more individuals(consumption tax), and you get more taxes from those that go to church or those that don't.

I think its more about largess (IE palatial buildings, Bob Stoops like salaries, luxurious trips, private jets, etc). My view is that you set certain thresholds based on median US numbers and then tax the largess.

This is also why I'm for breaking up types of Non-Profits and having different rules for them and most importantly making all political contributions non-tax deductible.

I can't find the link, but I was reading an article on PAC setups by both parties. Companies put 10-11 PACs between them and the final PAC that puts up the attack ad. They can do this because all the transactions are tax free. If they got nailed for taxes on it, then all of a sudden you'll know who is behind the ad.

[87sooner]

You are totally missing the point. The problem with our tax system is that their are loopholes that can only be exploited by the rich - IE every major international corporation + individuals that have their wealth tied up in assets.

The problem is when you step back and look at them, the transactions make no sense that they should be tax deductible. Did Mizzou need a new basketball stadium? No. So why should that transaction be tax deductible? What if the transaction had been for a fleet of Ferraris? Still tax deductible (even moreso more likely).

As for Gates and Buffett - Does it not bother you that they have either or are about to sidestep 40 BILLION dollars worth of taxes on their holdings by "granting them to charity" before they've ever been taxed. Does it not bother you that Gates is actively campaigning other billionaires to do the same? By the time he dies, he may have gotten over 100 Billion out of Government's Coffers (+ inheritance taxes).

Right now, most of the top 30 richest companies pay no taxes or get tax credits from the US. Some of the wealthy are bypassing taxes on their wealth giving it directly to charity (because stock gifts aren't subject to the phase out). 50% or so of the population pays no federal income taxes -> 20% of these actually get money back from the gov't through the EIC.

This is what we'd call in a business a cash flow problem.

how many times do you want to tax the same dollar?
the govt will still get its cut..
mizzou didn't sit on the donation....they built a basketball arena...the money was still taxed in the end but lots of people benefited in the form of wages and company profits....

we are fools for taxing ourselves to death..
i pay income tax/self imployment taxes on my earnings...
then i buy a piece of farm equipment and i pay property tax on it as long as i own it...
then if i sell it after the 7 year depreciation period...it now becomes income and i pay taxes on it..

not long ago if you bought a tv/refrigerator/household item...you paid sales tax on it...then you paid property tax on it EVERY year....

let's just give all our money to the govt and let them give us back what we need...
now that would be a great system...

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

how many times do you want to tax the same dollar?
the govt will still get its cut..
mizzou didn't sit on the donation....they built a basketball arena...the money was still taxed in the end but lots of people benefited in the form of wages and company profits....

we are fools for taxing ourselves to death..
i pay income tax/self imployment taxes on my earnings...
then i buy a piece of farm equipment and i pay property tax on it as long as i own it...
then if i sell it after the 7 year depreciation period...it now becomes income and i pay taxes on it..

not long ago if you bought a tv/refrigerator/household item...you paid sales tax on it...then you paid property tax on it EVERY year....

let's just give all our money to the govt and let them give us back what we need...
now that would be a great system...

I think you are missing the point. That money has never been taxed any way it got there unless it went through probate when walton died.

If it was shifted into a trust and then the walmart stock was shunted to the university (who then sold it) it would have never been taxed as a charitable gift of stock is a straight transfer (this is how Gates bypassed the taxman with his stuff). Or they'd paid taxes on it and then donate it so that they can write that money off against other earnings net moving the money to untaxed.

[pphilfran]

There are so many intricate areas in a tax code it boggles the mind...

You could get gains in one area but lose an near equal amount in another...

But we have to simplify the code...

Vat/Flat/Fair...I don't know the current path...

An entire multi billion dollar industry has built up to service not only the most difficult returns but also the most simplest of tax forms ...

I was rummaging around in the IRS website and found they want 13.3 billion ..about an 8% increase...this is the line that gets me...

"The FY 2012 budget includes $339 million in new IRS enforcement initiatives, which raise $1.3 billion in revenue annually at full performance. This is a return on investment (ROI) of 4.5 to 1 when new hires reach full potential in FY 2014.

Prior investments in IRS enforcement programs have yielded significant increases in enforcement revenue. In FY 2010, enforcement revenue reached nearly $58 billion, exceeding the previous year by 18 percent. "

Yes they have devised the most convoluted, confusing, loaded with loopholes, and expensive that was possible....

But that give em an opening to expand the investigative arm...

It is collusion, I'll tell ya..Conspiracy Theory...

[87sooner]

I think you are missing the point. That money has never been taxed any way it got there unless it went through probate when walton died.

If it was shifted into a trust and then the walmart stock was shunted to the university (who then sold it) it would have never been taxed as a charitable gift of stock is a straight transfer (this is how Gates bypassed the taxman with his stuff). Or they'd paid taxes on it and then donate it so that they can write that money off against other earnings net moving the money to untaxed.


it's amazing that you act like it's a sin/crime if something isn't taxed...

if that money were taxed...the gift may have never been given...and many would not have benefited...

[Blue]

it's amazing that you act like it's a sin/crime if something isn't taxed...

if that money were taxed...the gift may have never been given...and many would not have benefited...

Exactly.

And it got taxed when the person giving it got their paycheck.

I hate Taxtards. You get enough. Maybe stop spending money on bull**** like lighting up the Empire state Building in Rainbow colors?