*
Things have been pretty quiet here the last week or so …..
The big political fight seeems to be the tax cut, and the Dem’s are showinbgf their as…. er, ah,,,, well, they’re complaining but don’t say “increase taxes.
The question I have: why a 10 year tax plan/cut. Why was Bush pushing for 10 years? What kind of insanity is/was that? One year predictions of reveues are pretty shakey, no one pays any attention to 10 year projections.
10 years ago the deficit was growing (thanks, Ronny & George I) with no end in sight. If someone had predicated record budget surpluses at the turn of the century, s/he’d been wrapped in the white looney tunes outfit and trundled off to the home for the menatlly bemused.
So, why 10 years?
Replies
*
He's already working on the "legacy" thing. The Republican machine suspects and fears that Junior will only get one term.
*The current government in Canada discovered this trick some time back. They found that announcing a planned benefit some time down the road gave them almost as much mileage with the voters as actually executing the benefit as it was announced but didn't cost anything from the revenue stream. When the benefit actually cut in, another round of PR usually accompanied it, giving almost double the bonus points for the single cost of the program.
*Actually, Clinton and the Dems were planning a 10 year future when Clinton got re-elected. Every since then, BOTH parties have been using the 10 year projections and predictions. Who knows what they were thinking. It must be the chic thing to do in Washington now. Of course, average households in America do kinda the same thing, with some projecting income and payouts for up to 30 years. They do this with mortgages, car loans, retirement, etc... They look at current and future income, and how much they can afford to pay. Who knows what NEXT year will bring, but they plan it out anyway. I've seen a lot of otherwise intelligent people lose thier homes, their vehicles, and their land when the bottom fell out. They had planned on long term high income, but it didn't happen.The average politician ain't the sharpest pencil in the pack, so why would they come up with a plan that would actually work?Just a thought...James DuHamel
*Good points!I wasn't trying to pin that sort of stupidity solely on the Rep's: after all, the Dems didn't exactly stand up and ask "What kind oif madness is this 10 year plan.
*I don't see anything wrong with planning ahead. Governments in general aren't known for it. What they probably did is get a statistician to consider things like birth and death rates, retirement rates, number of people entering the workforce, etc. Doesn't sound that difficult to me, and would probably yield some useful information. Of course - Then you take the information and try to write a plan to put the best spin on it and make yourself look good. What else would you expect them to do?But I don't see anything wrong with planning.
*Bob , just remember that when Ronnie and George were in office the demicrats were in controll of congress . The blame has to be placed on the politions ,every damd one of em. My opinion is that there never was a surplus . It was a political smoke screen that you bought into . If you have a debt of over a trillion dollars,and your "budget" shows a "surplus" you JUST have a Payment on your debt. Now the good part of my opinion is that all congressonal pay should be used to pay down the debt. That includes all perks pentions whatever . It should include all members active and retired, they caused the debt, they should make good. It is time for this counrty to make the pollitition responsable for his actions. And raiseing taxes to pay down debt is not the answer.the budget should not be more than 1/3 the GDP of this nation . It should include the debt,atleased 1/4 of the debt should be paid in each budget.Also any one who voted to use SS monies for anything other than SS should be thrown in jail. SS monies should not be comingled with the general funds used for government.
*Boss:"Doesn't sound that difficult to me, and would probably yield some useful information."If it was easy, why do they always get it wrong?Planning ahead is fine, tying your hands when you know that those plans are based on flimsy assumptions is bizarre!
*BRAVO!Also the debt incurred under Reagan financed the demise of the USSR and the fall of the Berlin wall. Under Bush SR., desert storm-if we didn't pay for it then, we'd be paying for it now with extorted oil prices. Wouldn't it be nice if our "public servants" were really serving the public good? Maybe we should implement a salary cap, and submit politicians at every level to yearly audits for income from PACs-which we would of course make illegal. I doubt it would ever happen, the powerful protect each other.
*> If it was easy, why do they always get it wrong?Who says they do ? We live in the best country in the world, with a thriving economy. As for "plans based on flimsy assumptions" - The assumptions probably aren't what's wrong. The info coming from a statistician may be correct and good. But it doesn't guarantee they'll do the right thing with it.
*"Maybe ... submit politicians at every level to yearly audits for income from PACs-which we would of course make illegal. I doubt it would ever happen, the powerful protect each other."I tend to agree. Of course, that pesky presidential candidate who beat out McCain has also been a firm supporter of campaign finance reform. Must be why he's so popular. Oh, wait a minute, I'm thinking of someone else!)(That is not to say the democrats don't also bear a large responsibility for the slimy state of campaign financing.)So long as we accept the Supreme Court's interpretation that $ spent on campaigns is a form of speech and is thus protected under the 1st Amendment (which was a decision by a liberal S Ct.) we're going to have widespread corruption and influence peddling.
*Don:"My opinion is that there never was a surplus . It was a political smoke screen that you bought into . If you have a debt of over a trillion dollars,and your "budget" shows a "surplus" you JUST have a Payment on your debt. "I think you are mistaking current income and liabilities (i.e, stuff coming in and going out this year) with long term liabilities (e.g., the public debt, which is primarily medium and long term debt.)If my annual income exceeds my annual expenses, I have a budget surplus. Just because I can't pay my long term mortgage off in full doesn't change the fact I have a budget surplus.Personally, I think at least some of the Fedearal surplus should have directed to paying down the long term debt.The politicians (led by Bush) went for the easy, vote getting chant of "tax reduction, Tax Reduction, TAX REDUCTION!"
*I'll answer my own question.The Republicans snookered the Democrats big time. (As a general rule, the Republicans out politic the Democrats at just about every turn. That's not a compliment)For 20 years one of the Republicans' basic goals has been to eviserate the Federal government.The 10 year tax plan means that when revenues decline, either taxes have to be raised or additional government services have to be cut.Given the political compilications for any politician to advocate tax increases ("read my lips ...) the BushII 10 year plan locks in a high likelihood of continued gutting of the government for another 9 years.I disagree with much of what the current Republican party advocates, but my hat's off to them, they are superb politicians!
*Mike,"the debt incurred under Reagan financed the demise of the USSR and the fall of the Berlin wall."It ceratinly appears as if the massive federal defense spending helped achieve that goal (although causes and effects in geo-politics can get pretty complex.)However, it was not the massive increase in debt that did it. We had a choice of paying then or, because of tax reductions, paying later.We chose to pay later, and thus, the massive increase in the Federal debt.Let's not forget, Reagan argued that with the tax cuts and "trickle down economics", (aka "voodoo economics" in the delicious words of that notorious fiscal liberal, George Herbert Walker Bush) there would not be an increase in the public debt and we could pay for the enoromous defense spending that is now claimed to be responsibile for ending the evil empire. Reagan's trickle down economics were going to so stimulate the economy that we would be awash in tax revenues.Opps. Guess he was a little off on that one.
*Mike "Under Bush SR., desert storm-if we didn't pay for it then, we'd be paying for it now with extorted oil prices."Check this link, US paid only 7 billion of 61 billion total cost of that operation.http://comp9.psych.cornell.edu/Horan/gulf/GW_cost/GW_payments.html
*Speaking of long term, some Japanese companies have five hundred year plans. This is a brilliant idea, as the makers of such plans won't be around for the consequences.-- J.S.
*Here is why the R party will deficit spend: As Ronnie knew well, you can only deficit spend so far. Then people get worried. But if you go deep enough in the hole, you hamstring the opposing party if they win the next election, because they have no money and are forced to raise taxes or to cut programs. It is cynical but it kept Bill and Hillary out of greater spending. And the military build up didn't kill Russia, it simply speeded up the decline. I've been there and seen the place. Hard to believe they didn't implode a decade or two earlier.
*If that's the strategy then you'ld better be very sure the opposing party is going to win the next election!
*QUOTEAs Ronnie knew well, you can only deficit spend so far. Then people get worried.ENDQUOTEI dunno. Ronnie took the national debt far beyond (5 times?) anything we had ever seen, and there are still people who worship him!
*Well, sure, but to say NOTHING resulted from the spending, and incurred debt, is wrong. Which is what I was addressing.Incedently "trickle-down eco." is really Supply-side eco., and IS an accepted theory. Unfortunately it seldom works as well as intended due IMHO largely to corporate greed.The idea is like the parable "give a man a fish and you'll feed him for a day, teach him to fish and you'll feed him for a lifetime". Give people a tax break and they'll spend it(fast, short term economic benefit), give the corporations a tax break and they'll be able to keep more people working(slow, long term economic benefit). In theory, it great! In practice, that extra couple of mil goes into execs' bonuses and perks, and like the airlines now, they keep crying poverty.Mike
*i I'll answer my own questionWOW!!! You gave me a whole 10 MINUTES!!!! And then tried to hold my lack of response against me??????!!!!!!!So sorry. Better luck next time.
*Dick, thanks for the link!! I had no idea we actually spent so little.Not that 7b is a drop in the bucket, but I thought much higher.Mike
*Just so that you know... I am an equal opportunity political kind of guy. I despise ALL politicians equally. I hate Republicans as much as Democrats and Independents. Now...I constantly see people bashing Presidents from the past based on spending habits and debt. The President alone cannot take the blame, nor can he take the credit. We have a SYSTEM in place that decides when, and how much and money is spent. The President can only toss out ideas and plans. It is up to Congress to decide whether or not to go with it. That is a LOT of people that have the power to make these decisions. Of course, a President can really put the pressure on the Congress to get their projects and plans passed, but then I blame the Congressmen and women for caving in to this pressure. This is the main reason I feel that a Congress whose majority members are the opposite party from the President is a good thing. It makes it harder for the President and his party to pressure the members.I blame all members of Congress, AND the President for the financial situation our country faces. Sometimes, wars and catastrophes put a tremendous burden on our finances, but that is rare. Usually, just plain greed and stupidity does it well enough. I still believe, with all my heart, that economic good times, and economic bad times are products of past strategies and policies. Nothing in the world economic picture happens instantly. Also, world economics has a lot to do with our country's financial well being as much as anything, or anybody. Good times and bad times cannot be blamed, or credited to any one thing or person. The Gramm-Rudman bill was a way to stop some of this madness. It works well when used, and has curtailed a lot of unnecessary spending. We need more bills just like it. Nobody wants to make the important spending cuts decisions. You always seem to piss off a large number of voters when that happens. Point of the whole matter is, somewhere, somehow, the U.S. has got to stop spending so much money on programs and projects that are at the bottom of the "important" list. Just a thought...James DuHamel
*"Incedently "trickle-down eco." is really Supply-side eco., and IS an accepted theory"My understanding is that supply side considers tax reductions to be effective when there is also a decrease in gov spending. That was not Reagan's "trickle down."The advocates of Reagan's trickle down were not considered as main stream advocates. So far as I know, none of them published in perr-review economic journals or existed within academia or business.Reagsn's budget director admitted in writing that it was a bunch of smoke and mirrors.See, e.g., http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/23More.htm
*James,To some extent, I think the current fashion of despising politicians is just that, a fashion.Somethimnes I think the Republican's ratched up attack politics" in the 70's and 80's (remember Lee Atwater?) sometimes I think it is a mechanism by party leaders on both sides of the isle to get people to stop paying attention to what they are doing. I also try to remember that there's nothing new about dirt in politics. (OTOH, it seemed to me growing up in the 50's that there wasn't the level of personal and party vituperativeness that exists today, and there was a degree of respect no longer evident.)"Point of the whole matter is, somewhere, somehow, the U.S. has got to stop spending so much money on programs and projects that are at the bottom of the "important" list."Exactly. I'll make up that list myself!
*"I blame all members of Congress, AND the President for the financial situation our country faces." James, take the blame one step further. We as voters buy into the stories the pols tell us when even a minimum of thought can show the promises are either not possible or not beneficial in the long term. What seems to be most important to us as voters is that our comfort increases, that we have more and better. As long as we are willing to accept that as an adequate recompense, we will never force accountability and will never truly control the government regardless of which party rules the roost.
*James, Bob, Dick. You ALL couldn't be more right.IMO, our gov't is so far away from what was intended constitutionally. The trouble is I think, that they have enough power to squelch any reformist policies, look at campaign finance reform for example. Bills that have to get passed to save face and voters get passed through congress, but they attach so much pork or other ammendments, they know it'll never pass the senate, or will get vetoed. Other bills get squashed under miles of red tape and commitees. And the partisan posturing is absolutely nothing but self promotion. How can ANY of these self-absorbed assholes vote against a good bill just because it was initiated by "the other guys". They're (almost)all to focussed on a win for "us" instead of a win for the US.Partisanship really burns me up.Mike
*Good points, I hadn't coupled the overall spending in with it. I was just thinking about the result of SSE on the economy with a fixed spending rate, not an increased one.Put SSE, increased spending, and corporate looting in the same boat, it's gonna sink.I gotta admit, you got me thinking here.:)
*On my way out the door, but I'm a bit concerned: 3 different threads and Mike and I are seeing some common ground! Can the end be far?
*Yeah....things look pretty bad for him at the moment......good, nonbiased observation! Jeff
*Thanks, Jeff. I reread it, and it IS, absolutely, non-biased. Good observation.
*LOL!!IMHO, life is a never ending process of learning, adapting, and accepting the fact that we(I) might be off base.Now, I've got to go accept the fact that my rottie Jasmine is just about the most pathetic example of a guard dog right now.(she was sick 2 weeks ago and is still kinda under the weather AND she was spayed yesterday!) I brought her to work so I could keep an eye on her and her stitches.
*Ditto on the non-bias. Although I think Jr's performance the last 4 months has done wonders for his future, time will tell. I've heard some noise lately that Al Bore may run again...It'll be a rematch!! hehehe Mike(an independant who hates the GOP slightly less than he hates the DNC)
*>"Point of the whole matter is, somewhere, somehow, the U.S. has got to stop spending so much money on programs and projects that are at the bottom of the "important" list." >Exactly. I'll make up that list myself! Reminds me of an idea I had for how to solve the whole government spending and taxation mess:First, repeal all taxes except for one. It would be a successor to the federal income tax, with the rates increased to make up for the repeal of all state and local taxes. Because there's only one, we'll just call it "The Tax".Second, remove all budgetary power from all politicians. They don't get to decide how much to spend on anything. What they do get to do is decide what programs, agencies, and projects will exist. Congress will make up its list, sort of a blank chart of accounts. So will all the state and local governments. Third, when your turn comes to pay The Tax, you don't make your check out to the IRS (unless you want to). Instead, you choose from all the items on all the lists submitted by federal, state, and local governments, and make your check payable to what you want it to go to. All the various bits and pieces of government get whatever the people decide that they ought to get, and when that's gone, their checks bounce. Kinda like private enterprise.Fourth, to even things out we eliminate the April 15 deadline, and each taxpayer gets assigned their own deadline date, the business day closest to 180 days after their birthday. That way budgeting by the people is continuous and ongoing, not a one-time event like an election. When special events such as 9-11 require a reorientation of priorities, we're not stuck waiting until next April.-- J.S.
*i you choose from all the items on all the lists submitted by federal, state, and local governments, and make your check payable to what you want it to go toJohn! I have wanted that since I've had to pay taxes! What is wrong w/that idea? If we, as taxpayers, decide to pay too much for, say, defense, then won't we "vote" differently w/our tax monies next time? There is a learning curve, after all.Will someone tell me why this won't work? (I like your other ideas, too.)Vote xJohn Sprung for something!
*"What is wrong w/that idea? "Well, September 11 gives a good example: people have donated over 1 billion to the variuous "9/11" funds and the other charities are going begging.Impulse shopping as a national strategy? Kind of scary, IMHO!
*Kai,I personally think important programs that people now take for granted would get the least amount of funding. People would tend to think that things were ok, and this particular program didn't need any money right now, so they'd pay to another program instead.Road repair funds come to mind in this category. While the roads may look good in your area, what about the roads 20 miles away? And what about your roads in 6 months? These types of repairs are ongoing, and need lots of money to keep from getting behind. After they get in bad shape, it costs a LOT more money to fix them. This would not be considered an important program in most areas unitl it was too late. In the meantime, homeless shelters in your area may get MILLIONS because people in your area may really feel generous and sympathetic at the time. Homeless people in these shelters would be living like kings while average citizens drive on dangerous roads. Average tax payers would have a hard time agreeing on the most important programs to support. Too many important programs would not get much funding. Add to that the fact that a program I consider important may not rank very high on your list, while high ranking programs on your list are low on mine. Who decides what IMPORTANT programs become obsolete due to lack of funding? Just a thought...James DuHamel
*Good points all.i Who decides what IMPORTANT programs become obsolete due to lack of funding? A body of citizens b elected by the people, for the people to represent all of us fairly, which is what we have now. Or at least it's supposed to be until it grows too large and powerful to be effectively controlled unless you have deeeeeeep pockets.Y'know what might work? We'd need technology to get a little better, and americans to get a lot more aware of what's going on in washington, but if the people actually got to vote on new bills/laws.Or at least break to down into town halls if not individuals. Maybe with a point-value system similar to the electoral college so nobody got overlooked.Maybe I'm just nuts.
*> Well, September 11 gives a good example: people have donated over 1 billion to the variuous "9/11" funds and the other charities are going begging. > Impulse shopping as a national strategy? Kind of scary, IMHO! That's one reason why the plan eliminates the April 15 deadline and spreads the taxpayers out evenly over the year. On any one day less than half a percent of the people are paying their taxes and making their decisions.For the monarchists, dumping King George III and going with this untested notion of democracy was kind of scary. -- J.S.
*> I personally think important programs that people now take for granted would get the least amount of funding. People would tend to think that things were ok, and this particular program didn't need any money right now, so they'd pay to another program instead.I'm sure that the news would report every day what programs were getting the big bucks and which were losing out, and some taxpayers whose deadlines fall in the next few days would change their decisions. The idea that nobody would ever write a check for road repair doesn't fly, because you're there to write that check. Personally, I'd probably choose some LA city infrastructure project, too. If the homeless shelters start buying caviar, the news will take care of the discrepancy. Of course there'd be a few little bumps like that starting out. It would be a learning curve for the taxpayers, but it would be a good thing if we learned a little more about what government actually does with our money.> Average tax payers would have a hard time agreeing on the most important programs to support. Ah, but they don't have to agree. You may absolutely hate the idea of the Leaping Lesbian Follies (that actually was a federally funded government program), so you write your check for road repair. You just have to let somebody else write a check to the LLF if they want to.> Too many important programs would not get much funding. No, if they're important and underfunded, the news will report it and the taxpayers will learn what it takes to keep these important programs going, and provide the funds.If something is really needed, people will pay for it. If absolutely nobody wants to pay for it, who needs it? The politicians may eventually drop things from the chart of accounts if they never get any funding.-- J.S.
*> No, if they're important and underfunded, the news will report it and the taxpayers will learn what it takes to keep these important programs going, and provide the funds.This is assuming an informed population of taxpayers. Shoot, seems like a large percentage of voters are often ignorant of a lot. Yes, the news would report what is being funded, but would the taxpayers be listening?This scheme would be very good for the large media corps. All of those commercials to get you to fund this program or that program. Do you get tired of political ads during campaign season? This scheme's season is 365 days a year. The ads would never end.Rich Beckman
*> Do you get tired of political ads during campaign season? This scheme's season is 365 days a year. The ads would never end. Yes, just as the ads for all the goods and services provided by the private sector never end. That's a good point, we'd also have to prohibit the government entities from using any of their tax money to fund ads. The ads would all be run by private advocacy groups. That should limit their proportion of total advertising to a reasonable amount.-- J.S.
*I gotta go search for the LLF now.....
*As long as we can keep them from being paid off. Which they would.
*You are relying on the press to actually report, and do it accurately. They may not bother with the information at all UNTIL a program has been so underfunded that it is going to be dissolved for lack of participation. And yeah, people DO have to agree on which programs to support. If enough people DON'T agree, then enough people will not fund it. People may not realize that road repairs are expensive, and ongoing, and will pass on that program until the roads get really bad. Then it will cost SO much more to fix, and there won't be enough money.Sounds a lot like Congress right now. They seem to have a hard time agreeing on what programs are really important, and which ones aren't. If they stopped wasting so much money at the government level, they would have more money than they knew what to do with. EVERY program could be completely funded, with no increase in taxes, and still have a surplus.James DuHamel
*i a program I consider important may not rank very high on your listJames, I think this is a major advantage. Someone can fund a wetland restoration and someone else a missile. Now, that doesn't imply that a vote = a vote. We're talkin' cash money here. If I make a million and spend my tax on wetlands, that entire project probably won't even make a dent in the contribution others give to missiles, e.g. Seems like it would be a good way to engender a politics is local type of mentality, while, post 911, contributing to a national set of priorities.This reminds me, didn't "no taxation w/out representation" used to mean you couldn't be taxed unless you could vote?
*philosophically this returns us to the debate of :does an elected representative serve by polling ..or using his best judgement of what is right?.. i've always been of the opinion that he/she was elected to serve by doing what they thoght was best... and the public be damned...if they couldn't survive re-election , too bad... but everyone should give their best shot... not what they think will get them re-elected.. now ... the problem is this: a politician's 1st responsibility is to get elected.. because if you can't get elected.. you can't do anything.. so.. where does that leave us ?.. probably term limits..since we are not a democracy.. but a republic.. then this fantasy of letting the great unwashed decide how to allocate the govt. budget would only work out worse than our present system of self-serving career pols...everything would devolve into NIMBY mentality,.... and a return to pre-civil war states rights...with sectionalism ruling the dayb but hey, whadda i no ?
*Kai,"No taxation without representation" was meant to stop individuals from taxing citizens without having some form of representation to take up for them. Taxes were to be voted on by a governing body (Congress nowadays). This prevented the King, or a President from simply taxing citizens just because he wanted to, or wanted some cash. Now, they have to convince a governing body that the taxes are needed, and then the governing body has to decide whether or not to levy the tax. They gotta answer to the very citizens they represent, so the idea was that if the governing body actually passed a tax, it was very much needed. They were risking their careers by doing so. James DuHamel
*Thanks, James. Is it true that a baby's income (whatever that is) can be taxed? If not, why do babies need SS numbers? TIA for your patience w/me.
*> why do babies need SS numbers?Because they are claimed as dependents on someone's tax return. By requiring an SS number, the IRS can make sure the kid is only being claimed once.I am only guessing, but I believe an infant can be taxed if his or her income is high enoughRich Beckman
*i I am only guessing, but I believe an infant can be taxed if his or her income is high enough That was my hunch, too.
*Kai,SS numbering system, and the reasons it was created get kinda complex, but here is a BRIEF, and simple explanation of how it is used today, and why infants are required to have a number.SS numbers nowadays are used to identify, and basically record a person's existence. Babies do not have incomes, but if they did, they are allowed a certain amount before a tax can be levied against their income. What the number is used for now is to make sure that the child actually exists, is registered, and is documented. Then, when mommy or daddy (or both) declare the child as a dependent for tax purposes, the IRS can determine if the child really exists. It used to be quite easy to beat the system. I have seen cases where people got SS numbers for their pets, for dead infants, and for inanimate objects. The IRS is stretched too thin too check on every claim, so a lot of these fraud cases went unnoticed for many years. Our system is kinda like padlocks - It only keeps honest people honest. James DuHamel
*I think the things that our tax money is going to such the national endowment of the arts and researching the sexual tendancies of the guamanian bullfrog should be seriously looked at. Our we really getting our bang for the buck that were spending. Im sure there are some artistic endeavors which do need govt assistance but Ive heard of some rediculous, stupid things also. Has anyone studied to see if the govt subsidies for mid-night basket ball are working. If not then why are we wasting our bucks on it. if its not then give the money back to me or put it on a program that is working.
*Those are almost benign when compared to the outright fraud, money laundering and sale of official powers going on every day that cost us far more. And in more than just money. At least that stuff is expanding science or culture(at least some of it).
*Thanks, James. Can't parent give only a certain amt of $ gifts to children before it must be taxed?
*> Can't parent give only a certain amt of $ gifts to children before it must be taxed?I believe the amount is $10,000.Rich Beckman
*per parent per child.
*Thanks Rich and Jim. So, potentially $20k/yr until he starts earning his own $. Not bad.
*Oh so I cant give my 8 y.o. a new beemer this year and write it off bummer....
*Don't get me started, Ron.....
*the $10K a year is not a deduction for the giver... it just does not count as income for the receiver
*Kai,The best one to talk to about that particular question is a tax consultant/CPA. There are numerous ways around that rule, and many people take it. I do not have children, so I do not keep tabs on dollar amounts for gifts to children. James DuHamel
*i I do not have children, so I do not keep tabs on dollar amounts for gifts to children.Yeah, me neither, James. It's just curious. I deliberately didn't have kids because I didn't think I could afford them. But, e.g., at work, parents get far more breaks than those w/out kids.
*Kai,You can gift up to $11,000 per year to a child without triggering gift taxes, so mom and dad could give $22,000 combined.You can spend an unlimited amount for the health, maintenance, welfare and education of your children. Scott
*Scott, has that changed recently? The rules for a non-family gift were always 10000. Is it now 11?Jim
*The main problem with John's proposal is how would anyone ensure everybody paid their taxes at all? We already have a massive problem with tax cheats and that's with a system that punishes heavily for not paying your taxes. Who's gonna know who paid and who didn't and what is going to keep people honest under his system? His proposal amounts to anarchy and anarchy always devolves into chaotic violence where the strongest arm wins and the rest are subjected to his whims. I like our system a lot better than that.Mary
*Mary, the way it is now, the richest wins and the rest are subject to his/her/it's (in the case of corporations) whims.
*> The main problem with John's proposal is how would anyone ensure everybody paid their taxes at all? We already have a massive problem with tax cheats No, we'd still have the same IRS. You're worried about tax cheats? Just write your check to the IRS.-- J.S.
*Jim,That changed on 1/1/2002. After I posted that it had gone up to 11,000 and you asked about it I realized that I didn't have a written source, so here is one.http://www.hersheytrust.com/uploaded_files/fepnOctober%202001.pdfHope this helps.Scott
*So far nobody has tumbled to what would really happen if my tax and spend plan were adopted. Basically, all government programs would see a substantial increase in funding except one. Road construction and repair would probably get so much money that they could afford custom made Rolls Royce pickup trucks. The one and only thing that would lose billions is the thing that currently consumes over half of all government money: welfare.-- J.S.
*Thanks Scott. I'm relieved to know that my info wasn't too outdated. If you had told me 1989, I woulda been bummed. Now if you could just email the new info to my mom.... Ha ha ha
*> The one and only thing that would lose billions is the thing that currently consumes over half of all government money: welfare.Half??!!Rich Beckman
*rich.. if you include welfare for the wealthy & corps... i guess he's right ... hah, hah, hah... half .....which budget was dat ?
*Defense is by far the largest item in the Federal budget. All "welfare" programs including social security and medicare lumped together do not amount to as much as defense does, altho it is a substantial portion of the budget. The payment of the interest on the national debt is sizable portion. That doesn't count the corporate welfare that is hidden under numerous agency budgets.xJohn blithely responded to my query of how anyone would be made to pay their taxes at all by saying I could pay the IRS if I wanted to. However, my individual taxes would not fund a single government function, no matter how small it is. His proposal specifically eliminates the IRS. By having people directly pay the agencies, how would anyone be able to keep track of whether any individual paid at all or what they are required to pay? That is the function of the IRS. His plan is completely unworkable unless somehow, miraculously, everyone suddenly was completely honest and truly wanted to pay taxes. Not gonna happen in this life or on this earth. People have always had to be compelled to pay taxes and they always will be. If it were completely voluntary, the government would be completely unfunded and we would have chaos.Mary
*Bill Gates would pay all of his taxes to fund the Justice Department.Tyson Farms and Archer (or employees thereof) would pay their taxes to fund the Dept of Agriculture.Dupont and DOW (or employees thereof) would fund the EPA.MobilExxon the Dept of Energy.unless...........they didn't get the treatment they expected, in which case they would find someone else to pay their taxes to. Department budgets would rise and fall so fast as to make your head spin. It would be impossible to plan and impossible to staff. The conflicts of interest would be off the charts. This would become a system of legalized bribes, which would entrench more power than ever in those with money. It would make our current campaign finance rules look absolutely enlightened. It would eventually concentrate money and power in the wealthiest few, and we'd become an oligarchy. Other than that, it'd be fine.
*Cloud makes an excellent point.Rich Beckman
*assuming of course, that they would pay any taxes at all. Before the alternative minimum tax, lots of corporations paid no tax at all.Doesn't Mexico have a tax system similar to this? Rife with bribery and corruption?Mary
*Mary,Defense is not the largest item in the federal budget, Human services is, which includes SS and Medicare. FYI the 2002 budget for defense & Human Services is as follows (these numbers are in millions of dollars):Defense 319,193Human Svcs 1,290,418Of the Human services budget:Medicare 229,903SS 455,119Income Sec. 275,675Health 201,501Education 76,602Vet Benefits 51,582Also, Interest 206,369As you can see Defense is not the largest item, its #2, well behind Social Security and less than half of Medicare and Social Security combined, not more as you contend.For 2002, defense will take up about 16.3% of the budget and that is project to decline to 15.9% of the budget in 2006. Human services take up 65.8% of the budget in 2002 and that is projected to grow to 71.1% in 2006.For some historical perspective, Defense spending, as a percent of the total budget, ranged between 51.8 and 69.5% of the budget in the 50's, 44.9 to 52.2 in the 60's, 22.8 to 37.5% in the 70's, 22.7 to 28.1% in the 80's and and 16.1 to 23.9% in the 90's.If your contention is that we spent to much on defense and not enough elsewhere in the budget, my question to you is how much less should we spend on defense? Should we have a military at all? Source,http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/index.htmlScott
*I couldn't find the numbers and was relying on memory. Sometimes it depends on how they slice the pie as to how they report the proportions - I stand corrected. SS doesn't really come out of the regular budget - those funds are supposed to be separate, but we all know they often cheat. I made no comment on how I thought the money should be spent - you are projecting. I also have a hard time believing there could be any truth to the projected defense estimates declining after 9/11. They have to go up. We've already spent billions on Afghanistan. At the very least they have to replace the munitions used. And as they tell us daily, the war isn't over, it's just beginning.Mary
*> His proposal specifically eliminates the IRSNo, it doesn't. You make your check payable to what you want, but you still have to send your return to the IRS. They check it as they do now, and at the end of the day they forward the checks to wherever the taxpayers wanted them to go.-- J.S.
*> Bill Gates would pay all of his taxes to fund the Justice Department. ....The error here is thinking that there are a huge number of very rich people paying a huge portion of all taxes. In fact, you could take everybody who makes $100k or more per year, kill them all and take everything they have, and the resulting addition to the tax take would be in the low single digit percentages. The real money comes from us, the middle class.> Tyson Farms and Archer ....OK, if you want, we could eliminate corporate influence by eliminating corporate taxes. Instead, let the corporations pay their employees more, so the government can tax those employees more, thereby getting the same amount of money. That would put the decision making into the hands of ordinary people.> Department budgets would rise and fall so fast as to make your head spin. It would be impossible to plan and impossible to staff.Just like in the private sector, poor darlings. They'd have to get used to producing results. Failure would mean less money next year rather than more money next year.> The conflicts of interest would be off the charts. Really? How so? You pay for the services you want, I pay for the services I want. Where's the conflict?> This would become a system of legalized bribes, What? How is individual citizens deciding how to spend their own money a system of bribes? Sorry, but nonsense.-- J.S.
*>The error here is thinking that there are a huge number of very rich peopleNot making that presumption at all. Not concerned with the numbers of them. Even one has the power to affect the funding of a function of government, and to then expect something specific in return. Quid pro quo. And they have the power to withhold funding from that department if they don't get what they want. That's a power that no individual and no corp currently has (campaign contribs are the closest we get). And it absolutely meets the definition of a bribe. Are you seriously suggesting that the X0,000 employees of AOL/TimeWarner wouldn't band together to provide a significant part of the funding of the FCC? (Or the AFL-CIO to fund the Commerce Dept to control trade policy?) And what sorts of rulings would they then expect in return? And what would those employees do if they saw unfavorable rulings? And the FCC's operations should be subject to the funding whims of employees of the companies they're supposed to regulate? And you don't see the conflict of interest? I've got whiplash from shaking my head in amazement.
*> Even one has the power to affect the funding of a function of government, and to then expect something specific in return. Quid pro quo.One taxpayer out of 100,000,000? Realistically, the government agency would tell that person to take their money elsewhere. What agency would even notice my measly $50k? The agencies would simply look for funding from people who agree with what they're already doing. > Are you seriously suggesting that the X0,000 employees of AOL/TimeWarner wouldn't band together to provide a significant part of the funding of the FCC? Yes. The vast majority of people who work for corporations are not robots. They have a variety of interests outside of work, and most of them would put their tax money in things unrelated to their jobs. Like the secret ballot, we'd also have to make your tax choice secret so no pressure could be put on employees by the companies. The customers of these companies hugely outnumber the employees, by hundreds or thousands to one. Everybody gets to vote with their tax dollars in favor of their interests, just as now they vote for politicians based on their own interests. Your other example of the AFL-CIO is large enough to actually have a detectable effect. But then again, they have that same clout at the ballot box the way things are now. So there's really no change.Sorry, but I still see no problem. It's not bribery, it's an improved form of democracy.-- J.S.
*
Things have been pretty quiet here the last week or so .....
The big political fight seeems to be the tax cut, and the Dem's are showinbgf their as.... er, ah,,,, well, they're complaining but don't say "increase taxes.
The question I have: why a 10 year tax plan/cut. Why was Bush pushing for 10 years? What kind of insanity is/was that? One year predictions of reveues are pretty shakey, no one pays any attention to 10 year projections.
10 years ago the deficit was growing (thanks, Ronny & George I) with no end in sight. If someone had predicated record budget surpluses at the turn of the century, s/he'd been wrapped in the white looney tunes outfit and trundled off to the home for the menatlly bemused.
So, why 10 years?