The Real Problem Behind the Budget

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sure, you can blame inept politicians, lobbyists, the wealthy, etc. You want to know the real problem behind the budget? The public.

According to a poll highlighted in this article, here are things that people were against cutting in any way:

- Medicare
- Medicaid
- The defense budget

Also, people were against small tax increases coupled with small cuts to those programs.

So, Americans want to keep the 3 largest areas where the government spends the most to be untouched. And they don't want taxes raised at all to cover the costs. Wonderful. I'd like a unicorn ranch too, while we're asking for impossible things.
 
J

Jiarn

The public also made Survivor and Who Wants to Be a Millionaire top shows for years. How would this surprise anyone?
 
Due to deductions and other tax reductions, nearly half of the us don't pay any taxes at all.

Let's just hit the reset button. Everyone pays 35% of their income, no deductions or other tax reductions. Congress prioritizes all expenses, and pays only the ones that can be covered by taxes, after at least 35% of tax income goes to debt. Anything that isn't covered can either die out, go dormant, or convert into a non profit and pound the pavement to cover their costs. If they truly provide a service the public wants, they'll find a way to pay for it. If the income exceeds the expenses, reduce the taxes by percentage points, in the same way the fed adjusts the interest rates.

Hahaha, right.
 
Sure, you can blame inept politicians, lobbyists, the wealthy, etc. You want to know the real problem behind the budget? The public.

According to a poll highlighted in this article, here are things that people were against cutting in any way:

- Medicare
- Medicaid
- The defense budget

Also, people were against small tax increases coupled with small cuts to those programs.

So, Americans want to keep the 3 largest areas where the government spends the most to be untouched. And they don't want taxes raised at all to cover the costs. Wonderful. I'd like a unicorn ranch too, while we're asking for impossible things.

The American public collectively has an IQ of just above Forrest Gump. News at 11...
 

Dave

Staff member
At the very least they need to raise the age limit for Medicare and Social Security. We are living better and longer and 65 is no longer near death as it used to be.
 
The flat tax is a terrible idea and only really championed by people that don't understand economics
Hahaha, you lampoon the idea and the people who consider it in one sentence without describing a single negative aspect of it. Kudos!

well your logic and explanation has thoroughly convinced me.
The most frequent argument against the flat tax, and one has to be dealt with in most practical tax systems (ie, it's not exclusive to a flat tax system), is described succinctly by wikipedia:

Critics of the flat tax argue that the marginal dollar to the low income is vastly more vital than that of the high income earner, especially around the poverty level. In their view this justifies a progressive taxation system as the added income gained from a flat tax rate to the rich would not be spent on vital goods and services for survival as they might at the poverty level with reduced taxation. However, true Flat tax proponents necessarily contest the concept of the diminishing marginal utility of money and that a marginal dollar should be taxed differently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax#cite_note-2
In short, those with lower income would have a more difficult time paying for housing and vital goods and services since living costs are not flexible below a certain point. Assuming a 30% flat tax, and cheap housing, food, transportation, etc costs $1,000 per month, anyone who makes less than about $1,500 per month would have to choose between paying taxes and paying for vital goods and services.

This has a lot of complex effects on the economy - for instance our taxes don't account for the cost of living, so you can find areas where you can't get vital goods a services for under $2k/month, and you can find areas where you only need $500 per month. Due to this, such a system would naturally tend to push low wage earners into the low cost of living areas, exacerbating existing class differences.

A good flat tax has ways to answer these and other issues, of course, but generally opponents of flat taxes like to assume the extreme absolute flat tax for the purposes of FUD.

What's interesting is that many states and many countries already use a flat tax for income taxes, and most states and countries use flat taxes for a variety of things including sales tax, sin taxes (alcohol, tobacco, etc), fuel taxes, etc. Why aren't critics of the flat tax demanding that all taxes become progressive? Surely the poor would be better off if their gas was $0.30 cheaper per gallon than the rich who don't have problems buying enough fuel each week to get to their job. The usual response is "complexity would be too difficult" but in an age of credit cards, electronic transactions, and federal welfare electronic payment systems this is easy to deal with. The reality is that flat taxes, when properly implemented, work very well.

stienman why do you hate poor people?
As we all know, there is absolutely no way to enact a flat tax without hating on the poor. :facepalm:
 
If we can find a flat tax that doesn't make living impossible for the poor, I'd be for it. I just more often hear people say those people should work harder instead of finding a real solution to that particular problem.

And I think Covar was making a joke.
 
No, just the other day Adam was going on and on about how much he hates poor people. It's true. It was in a blog.
 
Oh great. Now I have to make a whole new totally secret poor hating blog.

*sigh*

I bet it was a poor person that tipped you off.

:awesome:
 
I'm a public school teacher currently looking for work. You can't get any more poor than that! I win!

Oh, wait... :(
 
When I was young I would sit for as long as my mom put up with me and watch her throw cups, bowls, pots and such on the wheel. I still have a few pieces of hers that I treasure. She still has the wheel, and I think they wired the kiln up at her new place ages ago, but I don't think she does much with it anymore. I was always amazed at how the final works looked, given that the glazes going into the kiln looked nothing like the final colors that came out.

It's mesmerizing watching someone work the clay with the distinctive smell of wet clay and dry dusty clay hanging around.
 


Just saying.
Added at: 23:35
When ONE SINGLE country takes half of the world's Military expenditure and can't get a simple thing like medicare right I feel bad for those who aren't born with money.
I would venture to say that the reason almost half that pie belongs to the U.S. is because the U.S. tries to pay it's soldiers competitive wages. Most the the countries that contribute to the other half of the pie have a mandatory service commitment and don't really have to compete with the private sectors to bring in people to serve. Just an observation.
 
C

Chibibar

I know the basic idea of progressive tax and tax exemption (deduction etc etc etc)
The rich suppose to pay higher tax (higher tax bracket) but they found many loopholes to avoid paying taxes LEGALLY. Of course one argue the rich suppose to reinvest the money to the pool to create more jobs (hence when Obama said the private sector suppose to help revitalize economy)

I guess the only "flat" tax would be "Progressive Flat Tax" i.e. you are tax at the rate of your income WITH NO DEDUCTION. Of course that will never fly :)
 
Flat tax, but you don't pay ANY taxes on whatever is considered below the poverty line. So say $25k (or whatever), and that amount goes up with inflation and/or cost of living. So below that, 0%, above that, all pay 35% (or whatever). No exemptions, nothing. Make it absolutely as simple as possible, while keeping the idea that "we're not taxing you to live... at least on income tax." Other taxes are a whole other can of worms.

How many people in Canada/USA/1st world would not be paying ANY income taxes? Would be interesting.
 
I would venture to say that the reason almost half that pie belongs to the U.S. is because the U.S. tries to pay it's soldiers competitive wages. Most the the countries that contribute to the other half of the pie have a mandatory service commitment and don't really have to compete with the private sectors to bring in people to serve. Just an observation.
I think that's great, and I wouldn't want soldier pay to be touched at all during spending cuts. I just want someone to take a hatchet to the amount we spend on defense contractors and weapons development.
 
I think that's great, and I wouldn't want soldier pay to be touched at all during spending cuts. I just want someone to take a hatchet to the amount we spend on defense contractors and weapons development.
stop using defense contractors for jobs that simply replace an existing MOS would be a great start.
 
stop using defense contractors for jobs that simply replace an existing MOS would be a great start.
Honestly, there is really only one reason to use contractors: If a contractor dies, no one gives a fuck. It's not on the news, it's not in the papers. In every other way they are simply too inefficient.
 
I would venture to say that the reason almost half that pie belongs to the U.S. is because the U.S. tries to pay it's soldiers competitive wages. Most the the countries that contribute to the other half of the pie have a mandatory service commitment and don't really have to compete with the private sectors to bring in people to serve. Just an observation.
I'd venture a guess that this is completely wrong. It's probably due to insane R&D costs for ludicrous new bombs for the huge atomic war that will never happen.
 
I forgot, you have intimate knowledge of the military payroll. While R&D does eat up a large chunk of the U.S. DoD budget, I costs more to feed, cloth, shelter, and pay the employees to conduct the research and use it in combat, There are approx 1million active duty, lets say they get payed what I get payed (keep in mind Generals/Admirals make up to 14k a month without their bonus pay) so $5000 Gross income a month x 1 million = $5,000,000,000.00.

That doesn't even include specialty pay for doctors, the construction and expansion of new bases, the cost of closing down a base and it certainly doesn't cover DoD civilian pay. So While building bombs is expensive, it is just as expensive to pay the people who do it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top