Repeal the 16th Amendment? (income tax)

[Blue Dog]

This post is equivalent to "tax the poor", "increase prices on lotto tickets", "tax the poor some more".

The Fair Tax idea includes compensating poor people thru prebates to offset some of that tax burden.

 

[Jryan]

The Fair Tax idea includes compensating poor people thru prebates to offset some of that tax burden.

Hmmm, I don't know if I can agree with this because poor people can't wait until the end of the year to be subsidized.

 

[cpwill]

bingo. the Fair Tax is actually more progressive for the poor than our current tax structure.

 

[cpwill]

Hmmm, I don't know if I can agree with this because poor people can't wait until the end of the year to be subsidized.

check mailed monthly it's a prebate, not a rebate.

 

[Jryan]

check mailed monthly it's a prebate, not a rebate.

Ah, okay, then I don't know if I have an opinion on this subject then. Thank you for clarifying.

Edit: and I'm not just gonna go watch MSNBC until they feed me the rebuttle. I shal continue reading this thread for the truth!!!

 

[longview]

My issue with the Fair Tax, is the Government still needs to know what everyone makes.
If you want to shrink the size of Government, you need to limit their tasks.

 

[Centinel]

My issue with the Fair Tax, is the Government still needs to know what everyone makes.
If you want to shrink the size of Government, you need to limit their tasks.

Totally agree. The federal government are doing too much and spending too much of our money. How they collect that money is secondary to the fact that they are simply out of control and interfering too much in American society (and the rest of the world.)

Until the the federal government are brought back under control, the spending and taxes will continue to rise. Tinkering with the tax system is simply re-arranging the deck chairs on the titanic.

 

[cpwill]

....under the Fair Tax the government collects no income data, unless you count that which is utilized for SS benefit calculation (which will likely be changing soon anyway). The Prebate goes to all.

 

[Jryan]

Totally agree. The federal government are doing too much and spending too much of our money. How they collect that money is secondary to the fact that they are simply out of control and interfering too much in American society (and the rest of the world.)

Until the the federal government are brought back under control, the spending and taxes will continue to rise. Tinkering with the tax system is simply re-arranging the deck chairs on the titanic.

I don't think they "interfere too much", I think the problem is they don't interfere enough. IE the services we pay for aren't seen by most people unless you are a terrorist in Guantanamo bay.

 

[cpwill]

Until the the federal government are brought back under control, the spending and taxes will continue to rise. Tinkering with the tax system is simply re-arranging the deck chairs on the titanic.

I don't know. There is no plausible escape from our current predicament without accelerated growth, and no long-term solution without increased private savings.

 

[Centinel]

I don't think they "interfere too much", I think the problem is they don't interfere enough.

Interesting. How else would you like for those who are the government to violently interfere with society?

 

[Centinel]

I don't know. There is no plausible escape from our current predicament without accelerated growth.

Even with increased production, we are still living under the laws of mathematics, especially exponents. If economic growth is, say, X%, there is no sustainable way for the growth in government spending to be any number higher than X%.

 

[cpwill]

which is where you run into plausible. Good luck passing the kinds of measures that would balance the budget (say) within five years under current growth projections. Accelerated growth increases revenues enough to allow us to reduce expenditures at a palatable rate and still survive - thus avoiding fiscal trainwreck.

 

[Jryan]

Interesting. How else would you like for those who are the government to violently interfere with society?

I'm just saying, we pay this high cost but don't reap any of the benefits.
I think it is important to look at what our money is spent on:

22% on health: I shal address this first I guess. This encompasses, at our current state, Medicaid/Medicare, which I believe is a necessary cost because we can't deny people healthcare nor can we deny the hospitals their rightful earnings.
24% on Defense: I think it is interesting that this has been labeled "defense". When was the last time the US "defended" itself? I think this is a problem that we fight wars for corporations, IE we are in the middle east for oil and they say it is to protect our freedoms. When have my freedoms been in jeopardy? Why aren't we at war with Iran who is developing nuclear weapons? Why aren't we fighting to protect Africans, who are constantly in a state of emergency. We allow these pointless wars to be payed for when in fact we should be spending that money elsewhere or, at the very least, not spending it at all...
25% on "remainder": err what is this?????????
12% on Welfare: Also another necessary cost. We can't allow people to starve if we are going to fight to give other countries food. That would just seem hypocritical.
22% on Pensions: We already give those out and we can't say, "Thanks for serving our country, enjoy your reduced pension."

So, I think the room for change is in beuracrats, IE we have to much management, and to stop fighting wars that cost us trillions of dollars, and like I said, what part of this government effects our day to day life. Also, I have no idea what this remainder thing is so I'm not going to even address that. If anyone knows what that is, feel free to post my blatant stupidity on that subject.

 

[Centinel]

which is where you run into plausible. Good luck passing the kinds of measures that would balance the budget (say) within five years under current growth projections. Accelerated growth increases revenues enough to allow us to reduce expenditures at a palatable rate and still survive - thus avoiding fiscal trainwreck.

I agree that accelerated growth might help, but then of course, the federal government always seems to choose the most anti-growth policies possible. It's almost as if they are following a script for destroying a society.

 

[cpwill]

A good way of visualizing and playing with the budget.

Administration's current budget (only items above $10 Bn):

$921.6 Bn - Health and Human Services (mostly Medicare/Medicaid)
$885.3 Bn - Social Security
$620.3 Bn - Defense
$519.5 Bn - Treasury (for example: Interest on the Debt)
$154.7 Bn - Agriculture
$137.4 Bn - Veterans Affairs
$94.9 Bn - Personnel Management
$89 Bn - Labor
$74.3 Bn - Transportation
$57.4 Bn - Civil Defense Programs
$55.7 Bn - Education
$45.1 Bn - Homeland Security
$44 Bn - Housing
$37.4 Bn - International
$32.3 Bn - Energy
$31.6 Bn - State
$30 Bn - Justice
$17.7 Bn - NASA
$11.4 Bn - Interior






Going forward, however, the real driver of the spending and debt is Medicare. Everyone from Bill Clinton to President Obama to the CBO to the IMF to Bowles-Simpson to Paul Rayn agree that Medicare is the main problem, and there is no way to afford it as currently strutured.

 

[cpwill]

I agree that accelerated growth might help, but then of course, the federal government always seems to choose the most anti-growth policies possible. It's almost as if they are following a script for destroying a society.

well, a FairTax wouldn't exactly be anti-growth. quite the opposite.

 

[TurtleDude]

I suspect our list of what that constitutes would be very very different.

I am sure


I despise the stuff that violates the intent of the founders and introduces, supports or encourages the creeping crud of welfare socialism, government subsidized sloth and the narcotic of dependency

 

[Centinel]

well, a FairTax wouldn't exactly be anti-growth. quite the opposite.

...which is why it will never be chosen.

Sheesh, I am very pessimistic today.

 

[cpwill]

...which is why it will never be chosen.

Sheesh, I am very pessimistic today.

nah. the reduction in congressional power is why it will never be chosen they couldn't really care about the effect on growth one way or the other.





see your cynicism and raise you one

 

[Jryan]

A good way of visualizing and playing with the budget.

Administration's current budget (only items above $10 Bn):

$921.6 Bn - Health and Human Services (mostly Medicare/Medicaid)
$885.3 Bn - Social Security
$620.3 Bn - Defense
$519.5 Bn - Treasury (for example: Interest on the Debt)
$154.7 Bn - Agriculture
$137.4 Bn - Veterans Affairs
$94.9 Bn - Personnel Management
$89 Bn - Labor
$74.3 Bn - Transportation
$57.4 Bn - Civil Defense Programs
$55.7 Bn - Education
$45.1 Bn - Homeland Security
$44 Bn - Housing
$37.4 Bn - International
$32.3 Bn - Energy
$31.6 Bn - State
$30 Bn - Justice
$17.7 Bn - NASA
$11.4 Bn - Interior






Going forward, however, the real driver of the spending and debt is Medicare. Everyone from Bill Clinton to President Obama to the CBO to the IMF to Bowles-Simpson to Paul Rayn agree that Medicare is the main problem, and there is no way to afford it as currently strutured.

So how do we fix medicare/medicaid? A lot of citizens depend on healthcare services provided by their government. And don't say higher someone who knows the answer because you've just stated the exact reason why this isn't working.

 

[cpwill]

So how do we fix medicare/medicaid? A lot of citizens depend on healthcare services provided by their government. And don't say higher someone who knows the answer because you've just stated the exact reason why this isn't working.

you have to cap the growth in spending. there are two basic ways to do this - top down or bottom up decision making.

for example, both the Ryan Plan and the Obama Budget call for the exact same amount of Medicare spending in the future - which is to cap it's growth at GDP growth + .05%. But the Obama budget puts the IPAB in charge of making one-size-fits-all top-down decisions on what to cut, while the Ryan Plan puts individual seniors in charge of what to cut from their plans, with the added caveat that more will be cut from the wealthier seniors in order to provide a larger benefit to poorer seniors.

Personally, I prefer the Ryan Plan as the one most likely to produce the most and highest quality healthcare at the price given - in addition, I like the idea of means-testing to ensure that we are taking extra care of our lower-income retirees. It's also worth noting that this imports the structure of Medicare Part D, which has demonstrated an amazing ability to push healthcare inflation downward for the rest of the market. The President's plan reduces available resources more, and has at best a neutral effect on the rest of the healthcare market, while the Ryan Plan reduces available resources less and at best has a very positive effect on the rest of the healthcare market.

 

[Jryan]

you have to cap the growth in spending. there are two basic ways to do this - top down or bottom up decision making.

for example, both the Ryan Plan and the Obama Budget call for the exact same amount of Medicare spending in the future - which is to cap it's growth at GDP growth + .05%. But the Obama budget puts the IPAB in charge of making one-size-fits-all top-down decisions on what to cut, while the Ryan Plan puts individual seniors in charge of what to cut from their plans, with the added caveat that more will be cut from the wealthier seniors in order to provide a larger benefit to poorer seniors.

Personally, I prefer the Ryan Plan as the one most likely to produce the most and highest quality healthcare at the price given - in addition, I like the idea of means-testing to ensure that we are taking extra care of our lower-income retirees. It's also worth noting that this imports the structure of Medicare Part D, which has demonstrated an amazing ability to push healthcare inflation downward for the rest of the market. The President's plan reduces available resources more, and has at best a neutral effect on the rest of the healthcare market, while the Ryan Plan reduces available resources less and at best has a very positive effect on the rest of the healthcare market.

I guess I see your point but Ryan's plan makes it harder on the individual person IMHO.

 

[cpwill]

I guess I see your point but Ryan's plan makes it harder on the individual person IMHO.

It forces them to make their own decisions, that is true; but at the same time, gives them greater freedom, protects our poor, and maintains greater access to actual healthcare. I'll take that swap.

 

[iguanaman]

In a consumer economy like ours, ANY tax that penalizes spending would weaken growth and raise unemployment. The beauty of the progressive tax is that it taxes income NOT spent, allowing faster growth and lowering unemployment.