Now that health care will be extended in a more equitable and civilized manner, I too would like to move toward reducing the budget. Besides attempting to cut spending, and my goal here would be to get out of Afghanistan and Iraq as quickly as possible, I would also turn loose lots of federal employees and pay commission on uncovering medicare, welfare and social security fraud.
But my real focus would be on raising taxes. That's right, the most hated and politically courageous solution. Let's write tax legislation to destroy the bonus payment structure for financial institutions and other institutions which has placed thousands of nouveau riche into the lap of luxury. Let's sharply increase the percentage of taxes paid on high annual incomes, with, for example, dollars over 1 million 'earned' taxed at at least 50-60%. Beyond that I can support a progressive tax up to 90%. Let's sharply increase estate taxes, not for those passing on the family farm or business, but those for those who have amassed huge piles of cash and securities. Ask Warren Buffet and Bill Gates to design the model. I'm not talking about 'taking everything away from those who worked so hard for it', but I believe our nation is corrupted by, and will eventually be destroyed from within if we continue to allow a privileged elite to contribute nothing more than another larger generation of elite living off of great-grandpa's fortune.
OK, so I'm not making many friends here, but for the long term benefit of our nation, temporary, targeted increases in the tax structure is a big part of the answer.

Originally Posted by cashman

I have it.

Cut spending across the board and take the lumps.

Do the math, Cashman.

To create a balanced budget would require the elimination of ALL discretionary government spending and about 2/3 of the defense budget. Not possible, agreed?

If we cut "discretionary" spending by 30%, then we would have to cut entitlement payments--Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid--by 35%.

Are you on board for these kinds of cuts? The alternative, of course, is somewhat lesser spending cuts and increased taxes. Pick your poison.

Frankly folks, in my opinion, with the passing of the TOTAL MESS of a healthcare bill, we have lost any chance of doing anything about anything for many years.

First of all, this bill is such a mess and so politically put together that our future congress's will be spending pretty much all of their time discussing required legislation that this bill calls for ! So much of this bill calls for the increase in many taxes not to happen until 2018. Now think about it....the congress of that year has to vote in these new taxes...one is the cadillac tax. So lets assume that politicians will find a way NOT to add those taxes, thus the CBO report is smoke and mirrors, and the cadillac tax was/is important in the

Remember that the CBO when they announced to the glee of the Democrats that this would reduce the deficit, they said a lot of IFS.

Also in this bill, a 3.9 percent medicaire tax on investments and capital gains...anyone think tihs will deflate our economy and growth...think another bailout of some kind. This should totally stunt growth and wages.

The states are getting beat to death with this boondoogle of a bill and will need help quickly.

And insurance premiums are going to skyrocket, and you MUST buy insurance, or get penalized...think government help in that area.

This bill will NOT reduce the deficit...because all the IF's in the CBO report are not going to happen.

Our congress and future congress's are going to spend all their time on THIS ONE SINGLE STUPID POLITICAL MESS and are not going to be able to address all the things you folks are talking about !

Now that health care will be extended in a more equitable and civilized manner, I too would like to move toward reducing the budget. Besides attempting to cut spending, and my goal here would be to get out of Afghanistan and Iraq as quickly as possible, I would also turn loose lots of federal employees and pay commission on uncovering medicare, welfare and social security fraud.
But my real focus would be on raising taxes. That's right, the most hated and politically courageous solution. Let's write tax legislation to destroy the bonus payment structure for financial institutions and other institutions which has placed thousands of nouveau riche into the lap of luxury. Let's sharply increase the percentage of taxes paid on high annual incomes, with, for example, dollars over 1 million 'earned' taxed at at least 50-60%. Beyond that I can support a progressive tax up to 90%. Let's sharply increase estate taxes, not for those passing on the family farm or business, but those for those who have amassed huge piles of cash and securities. Ask Warren Buffet and Bill Gates to design the model. I'm not talking about 'taking everything away from those who worked so hard for it', but I believe our nation is corrupted by, and will eventually be destroyed from within if we continue to allow a privileged elite to contribute nothing more than another larger generation of elite living off of great-grandpa's fortune.
OK, so I'm not making many friends here, but for the long term benefit of our nation, temporary, targeted increases in the tax structure is a big part of the answer.

Originally Posted by djplong

I honestly think part of our problem is our overall method of taxation...I pay tazes to so many different jurisdictions, it's laughable. I pay more KINDS of taxes than I can shake a stick at. Each one of these agencies and jurisdictions have their own set of rules, their own legions of employees and their own bank of lawyers....I pay Federal income, FICA and Medicare taxes. Then there's state income tax, property tax, sales (when I'm in MA) and meals taxes. Excise taxes, registration fees, gas taxes, tolls, innumerable taxes piled on my electric and phone bills, travel taxes piled on my airline tickets for my daughter to visit me, hotel taxes, car rental taxes, "user fees", "imputed income" taxes on my life insurance premiums. If I save money I may have capital gains taxes. If I sell my house or buy one I have transfer taxes, municipal and state fees, recording fees. Unless they're included in my property taxes I may have taxes on my water and sewer bills (though in my town they're not). IN NH they just passed (and are about to repeal) a tax on campground sites, similar to the hotel rooms tax. If I ran a business here in NH, I might be subject to the Business Profits Tax. If I did exporting or importing, I'd have various treaties and tariffs that I'd have to abide by. In MA and other states, I can be taxed just on the things I OWN - "personal property tax", so that I keep paying and paying taxes on stuff I already bought....We need top-to-bottom, coast-to-coast, manufacturer-to-retail TAX REFORM. We need to streamline the number and types of taxes and the methodology for collecting them...How many people are in favor of the Flat Tax?...

I'd be onboard for the Flat Tax. I'm less enamored with the Fair Tax. Instead of that, the idea I like best is the Value-Added Tax (VAT). That's the tax system most common in Europe. It's simply a tax levied at every level of the economy based on the value added at the time of sale of goods. Suppliers of raw materials would collect a tax from, say a distributor of those materials. The distributor would collect a tax when the material was sold to the manufacturer. The manufacturer would collect a tax when he sold his manufactured item to a wholesaler. The wholesaler to the retail re-seller, then again when it was sold to the consumer. The tax rate itself is quite small, but in total enough to pay for the desired level of government-provided services. Read more about it at...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_added_tax

But the problem with any single overall scheme of taxation is how do the tax revenues get split up between the various levels of government providing services...township, town, county, state, school district, fire district, park district, federal, etc. Wow! What a negotiation that might be.

Originally Posted by Bucco

Frankly folks, in my opinion, with the passing of the TOTAL MESS of a healthcare bill, we have lost any chance of doing anything about anything for many years.

First of all, this bill is such a mess and so politically put together that our future congress's will be spending pretty much all of their time discussing required legislation that this bill calls for ! So much of this bill calls for the increase in many taxes not to happen until 2018. Now think about it....the congress of that year has to vote in these new taxes...one is the cadillac tax. So lets assume that politicians will find a way NOT to add those taxes, thus the CBO report is smoke and mirrors, and the cadillac tax was/is important in the

Remember that the CBO when they announced to the glee of the Democrats that this would reduce the deficit, they said a lot of IFS.

Also in this bill, a 3.9 percent medicaire tax on investments and capital gains...anyone think tihs will deflate our economy and growth...think another bailout of some kind. This should totally stunt growth and wages.

The states are getting beat to death with this boondoogle of a bill and will need help quickly.

And insurance premiums are going to skyrocket, and you MUST buy insurance, or get penalized...think government help in that area.

This bill will NOT reduce the deficit...because all the IF's in the CBO report are not going to happen.

Our congress and future congress's are going to spend all their time on THIS ONE SINGLE STUPID POLITICAL MESS and are not going to be able to address all the things you folks are talking about !

You are absolutely right. This boondoogle of a bill will be the straw that broke the camel's back. After November and the Republican takeover of congress, the first duty will be to repeal this BOGUS bill and try to do something to stimulate the economy. We need to put the 20% of people that are unemployed back to work. This will be one of many years of more money leaving social security then coming in if unemployment stays at this huge rate.
Remember. vote them all out. (except Scott Brown)

ijusluvit: You *do* realize that it was getting RID of the 90% tax brackets that contributed to the greatest economic expansion thic country ever saw, yes? When you make it so that dollar earned has the government taking MORE THAN HALF, you have provided two major disincentives - One, the disincentive for making it (why bother if the government is going to take half?). Two - drive the economy underground so as to evade taxation.

This is why Reagan's tax cuts provided such a jolt.

And as far as the problems you have with 'the bonus structure', let me tell you something. You may have an argument with 'the fatcats', but speaking as one of the lower-level employees of Fidelity Investments in the 1990s, I can tell you that a lot of middle class people DEPENDED on those bonuses. At least at Fidelity, they were paid out in early December. If you were really good, you could get as much as a month's pay in one lump sum. Let me tell you, that made Christmas shopping a lot easier I certainly was NO millionaire - I didn't even make $50,000 back then, and had a wife and two kids that I was supporting.

VK: I've heard of the VAT and although I'm not fond of it, I'm certainly willing to listen. One of the knocks against it (again, from what I've heard) is that the government can bury tax hikes, hiding them, in effect.

Originally Posted by Donna2

You are absolutely right. This boondoogle of a bill will be the straw that broke the camel's back. After November and the Republican takeover of congress, the first duty will be to repeal this BOGUS bill and try to do something to stimulate the economy. We need to put the 20% of people that are unemployed back to work. This will be one of many years of more money leaving social security then coming in if unemployment stays at this huge rate.
Remember. vote them all out. (except Scott Brown)

In my opinion, even if the Republicans do not take over congress, future bodies are going to spend so much time "fixing" this total disaster of a bill, and I cannot wait until the groups come in that HAVE TO mandate tax increases.

This bill is such a political hodgepodge, soon everyone will forget that it was supposed to be for the uninsured. When you HAVE to buy it, and it is expensive for on thing.

I posted my thoughts here because those posting about deficits and balancing are all going on the assumption that the CBO number floated around was 100% correct...that ALL the maybes come true, which even the Democrats admit wont. They are discussing this as if this bill is paid for....my oh my, there is a long road ahead to pay for this bill !

When you backload something because you want to try and difuse the political fireworks, you just ask for trouble and this bill will haunt us for quite sometime.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

I'd be onboard for the Flat Tax. I'm less enamored with the Fair Tax. Instead of that, the idea I like best is the Value-Added Tax (VAT). That's the tax system most common in Europe. It's simply a tax levied at every level of the economy based on the value added at the time of sale of goods. Suppliers of raw materials would collect a tax from, say a distributor of those materials. The distributor would collect a tax when the material was sold to the manufacturer. The manufacturer would collect a tax when he sold his manufactured item to a wholesaler. The wholesaler to the retail re-seller, then again when it was sold to the consumer. The tax rate itself is quite small, but in total enough to pay for the desired level of government-provided services. Read more about it at...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_added_tax

But the problem with any single overall scheme of taxation is how do the tax revenues get split up between the various levels of government providing services...township, town, county, state, school district, fire district, park district, federal, etc. Wow! What a negotiation that might be.

Don't know if this is the kind of taxes to which you refer (VAT), but I once worked for a wholesale liquor distributor. He had a sign in his office that read:

"We collect taxes: State, county, and federal. Sideline: We also sell whiskey."

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Do the math, Cashman.

To create a balanced budget would require the elimination of ALL discretionary government spending and about 2/3 of the defense budget. Not possible, agreed?

If we cut "discretionary" spending by 30%, then we would have to cut entitlement payments--Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid--by 35%.

Are you on board for these kinds of cuts? The alternative, of course, is somewhat lesser spending cuts and increased taxes. Pick your poison.

What is it that you do not get in the following statement:

Yes we need more revenue from federal taxes which we get by decreasing rates. Increasing rates reduces revenues. if you disagree with these facts say so and get this debate over with.

Originally Posted by ijusluvit

Now that health care will be extended in a more equitable and civilized manner, I too would like to move toward reducing the budget. Besides attempting to cut spending, and my goal here would be to get out of Afghanistan and Iraq as quickly as possible, I would also turn loose lots of federal employees and pay commission on uncovering medicare, welfare and social security fraud.
But my real focus would be on raising taxes. That's right, the most hated and politically courageous solution. Let's write tax legislation to destroy the bonus payment structure for financial institutions and other institutions which has placed thousands of nouveau riche into the lap of luxury. Let's sharply increase the percentage of taxes paid on high annual incomes, with, for example, dollars over 1 million 'earned' taxed at at least 50-60%. Beyond that I can support a progressive tax up to 90%. Let's sharply increase estate taxes, not for those passing on the family farm or business, but those for those who have amassed huge piles of cash and securities. Ask Warren Buffet and Bill Gates to design the model. I'm not talking about 'taking everything away from those who worked so hard for it', but I believe our nation is corrupted by, and will eventually be destroyed from within if we continue to allow a privileged elite to contribute nothing more than another larger generation of elite living off of great-grandpa's fortune.
OK, so I'm not making many friends here, but for the long term benefit of our nation, temporary, targeted increases in the tax structure is a big part of the answer.

This would be a giant step to make the USA closer to Cuba. Why not just nationalize everything take 100% of profits and try communism for awhile. It has never worked anywhere else but what the heck we are only talking about America here.

ijusluvit, I can't figure out who you are opposed to having money.

Is it the "lots of federal employees" that you want to "loose;" or the new money rich or "nouveau riche," as you call them; or people who work and receive bonus payments; or is it the financial institutions or any "other institutions which has placed thousands of nouveau riche into the lap of luxury."

You go on to indicate you are against "those who have amassed huge piles of cash and securities," and the "elite living off of great-grandpa's fortune."

Maybe if you tell me who you AREN'T against having money and pocessions, then I can understand where you are coming from with your philosophy. Family farms and family businesses, who by the way are passed down to another generation - and God forbid they are profitable by your standards, right? Seriously, I would like to know who you would allow to have their own money.

Originally Posted by bkcunningham1

ijusluvit, I can't figure out who you are opposed to having money.

Is it the "lots of federal employees" that you want to "loose;" or the new money rich or "nouveau riche," as you call them; or people who work and receive bonus payments; or is it the financial institutions or any "other institutions which has placed thousands of nouveau riche into the lap of luxury."

You go on to indicate you are against "those who have amassed huge piles of cash and securities," and the "elite living off of great-grandpa's fortune."

Maybe if you tell me who you AREN'T against having money and pocessions, then I can understand where you are coming from with your philosophy. Family farms and family businesses, who by the way are passed down to another generation - and God forbid they are profitable by your standards, right? Seriously, I would like to know who you would allow to have their own money and who you would let keep what they earn.

The politics of envy. It is as old as the hills.
" Envy is blind and knows nothing except to depreciate the excellence of others."

"Envy provides the mud that failure throws at success."

Class warfare and race baiting is the bread and butter of the democratic party.

Originally Posted by cashman

What is it that you do not get in the following statement:

Yes we need more revenue from federal taxes which we get by decreasing rates. Increasing rates reduces revenues. if you disagree with these facts say so and get this debate over with.

I absolutely and definitively disagree with your theory. This isn't even a debate, Cashman. In order to have a debate, you have to present some facts to support your argument.

Even the non-partisan Government Accounting Office estimated that in order for the federal budget to reach "no deficit" status, growth of our GDP would have to be greater than 10% for 75 years. The U.S. has not had year-over-year GDP growth exceeding 10% since 1976-77, and then only for one year.

Reducing tax rates absolutely will not have sufficient impact to create the kind of growth in GDP needed to increase tax revenues and balance the budget.

Why do you refuse to either study the numbers, or at least come up with some viable reference or thesis by someone more experienced and notable than yourself to support your theories? The old "cut taxes and everything will trickle down and fix the problem" hasn't worked for decades, and certainly can't work to resolve the amount of debt that we've accumulated--particularly "mandatory" debt payments.

Geez, do the numbers, wil you. And stop just repeating the economic theories presented by the least knowledgeable of the TV political entertainers.

The only way to do it is to cut the massive payroll that is the government. That and the massive pension funds. If the private sector has been reduced say 20% we should double that and immediately reduce the government employees by 40% at the very least.
Government has been top heavy for too long. Privatizing the educational system would also be necessary. Total waste.