Repeal the 16th Amendment? (income tax)

[iguanaman]

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.

The decsions the Ryan plan forces on seniors are whether to eat or pay the $8000+ more a year that their coverage will cost by 2030. By throwing seniors to the insurer wolves, it ends the Medicare garantee and the same goes for Social Security.

 

[Jryan]

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.

Meh, I guess I would be fine with either. At least we can agree that either of the two options needs to happen lol.

 

[cpwill]

The decsions the Ryan plan forces on seniors are whether to eat or pay the $8000+ more a year that their coverage will cost by 2030. By throwing seniors to the insurer wolves, it ends the Medicare garantee and the same goes for Social Security.

the Obama plan cuts the same exact amount of money out of Medicare. what the Ryan plan does is ensure that those cuts are most heavily placed upon our wealthier seniors in order to protect our poorer seniors. the Obama plan is to cut evenly, which means heavier cuts to our poorer seniors, who are the ones more likely to make those kinds of decisions.

if you want to take care of our seniors and keep them from having to decide whether ot eat or purchase healthcare, it seems you should be most upset about the President's plan, and pushing the Ryan plan


which, btw, does not alter social security whatsoever. man, reality is tough some times, eh?

 

[iguanaman]

the Obama plan cuts the same exact amount of money out of Medicare. what the Ryan plan does is ensure that those cuts are most heavily placed upon our wealthier seniors in order to protect our poorer seniors. the Obama plan is to cut evenly, which means heavier cuts to our poorer seniors, who are the ones more likely to make those kinds of decisions.

if you want to take care of our seniors and keep them from having to decide whether ot eat or purchase healthcare, it seems you should be most upset about the President's plan, and pushing the Ryan plan


which, btw, does not alter social security whatsoever. man, reality is tough some times, eh?

•Congressman Ryan’s budget attacks Social Security on numerous levels.
•It is based completely on misinformation that enemies of Social Security have been pushing for years. Contrary to what people like Representative Paul Ryan say, Social Security is not broken, and it is fully sustainable. When people like Paul Ryan say otherwise, it is not only factually wrong – it is damaging, irresponsible, and a disservice to all Americans who have paid into this program through a lifetime of hard work. We do not need to cut benefits to make sure that Social Security will be there for future generations – and it would be wrong to do so when there are better, more popular options.
•Congressman Ryan wants to cut the Social Security benefits that the American people have earned – and he is trying to hide it. His budget endorses the cuts, though not the revenue increases, included in the proposal of the co-chairs of the Bowles-Simpson commission – but fails to mention that they proposed cutting the Cost of Living Adjustment of all current beneficiaries, raising the retirement age of people born after 1960 and slashing the benefits of younger working and middle class families earning $38,000 or more.
•Congressman Ryan wants to use an unaccountable fast-track process to make those cuts. Fast-track processes, secret negotiations, and unaccountable commissions are the wrong way to make changes to Social Security. These processes just make it easier for politicians to cut benefits and use Social Security as an ATM for deficit reduction without having to face the citizens who have earned these benefits.
•The Ryan Budget also makes totally irresponsible cuts to funding for the Social Security Administration – cuts which would make it hard for Americans to access the benefits they have earned and the services they have paid for. The funding for the Social Security Administration comes out of the contributions that hard-working Americans have already made to Social Security – and it is wrong to deprive them of the services they have already paid for. This is just another attempt to undermine the program

Quick Facts about Congressman Ryan

The onl reality I see is that the Ryan plan calls for trillions in tax cuts for upper income earners while making the poorest of us pay for them with cuts in services and raises in copays. It will never fly and it is the best way to be sure Republicans will never regain the Whitehouse. so I guess it isn't ALL bad.

 

[iguanaman]

you seem to think keeping what you own is the same as being given the property of others. I realize that is consistent with the socialist premise that all wealth belongs to the state but those of us who reject that idiocy don't buy that argument.


affirmative confiscation of property is very different than leaving people alone. its that non coercion thing the left hates

Spoken like a true Tory.....don't you know you lost that war over 200 years ago

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is
to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the
higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they
rise." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785.

 

[cpwill]

Quick Facts about Congressman Ryan

The onl reality I see is that the Ryan plan calls for trillions in tax cuts for upper income earners while making the poorest of us pay for them with cuts in services and raises in copays. It will never fly and it is the best way to be sure Republicans will never regain the Whitehouse. so I guess it isn't ALL bad.

:lamo you do realize that all that that says is that the budget activates the portion of the SS law which states that if the SSA Trustees state that the program is no longer sustainable (which they do), that the President should present a plan for fixing it to the Congress?

I like the use of weasel words like "wants" and "endorses", instead of any kind of actual... you know... numbers.

 

[TurtleDude]

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.

it punishes saving and thrift and worst of all, it encourages the many to demand too much government spending since they are not given proper feedback as to the cost of government

 

[jet57]

Depends on ones definition of reasonable. Elaborating on your point, if the national government is forced to cut its size and budgets because less revenue may or may not come in I would call that a step in the right direction.

Yes, I'm very much inclined to agree with you. I don't think that there's anyone who would not agree that our federal and state rescources could use a good accounting and readjustment. The trouble is; where to readjust? The trouble is; politicalisation of the process. The trouble is; there are unreasonable people deciding the reason for government.

 

[jet57]

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 find this flaw with your idea: something like medicare is a variable that is too close to people's well being to be treated as the numbers game. Costs for living haver very quickly outpaced the fixed income. Babyboomers are the most numerous generation retiring at the same time in the history of this country and with them goes a lot of our financial resources: people are demanding more, and as Americans I think we deserve more . . .

Things like defense are much easier to play around with becasue the variables don't hit so close to home. State department, civil defense, labor: we just don't need a laor department that big; (we need unions to take care of labor). Homeland security is another alabtross we can do without: "state security force", now, where've heard that before?

You get my point. Health and welfare; or Mantainance of Benefits, are items that do not need scraping: they need saving.

 

[cpwill]

Well the trick with Defense is this: our economy is utterly dependent upon global trade. Global trade is utterly dependent upon the US Navy and, to a lesser extent, the other branches as well. American acceptance of the negative externalities of enforcing a free trade global order has proven a great boon to the international and American economies. Not only can you not get enough money by cutting Defense, when you start to deeply cut defense, you produce negative returns, as you lower revenue when the economy falls as a result of restriction of international trade.

It's sort of like store owners getting together and agreeing that they can lower their tax bill if they only stop paying for a police force. You only save money in the very short term.

As for Medicare, there isn't enough money. There will not be enough money. That is why both the Obama and Ryan plans cut the exact same amount from Medicare - because it is better if Medicare survives with less, than if it collapses and dies in a decade or so. So the question is, who should be in control of allocating those resources, and should we tilt those resources to our poorer seniors, who need them more? The Obama plan is to put 15 Washington bureaucrats in charge of allocating those resources, and cutting from the poor equally as from the rich. The Ryan plan is to put seniors in charge of allocating those resources, and cutting more from the wealthy in order to provide more support for the poor.

I'd say that choice is pretty close to home.

 

[Blue Dog]

Going back to why consumption taxes might be better. Any mechanism that allows people to maximize their take home pay should be taken into consideration. The government should get paid last(consumption) not first(income). I trust myself over Washington with regards to money ,the less they may get the better.

 

[jet57]

Well the trick with Defense is this: our economy is utterly dependent upon global trade. Global trade is utterly dependent upon the US Navy and, to a lesser extent, the other branches as well. American acceptance of the negative externalities of enforcing a free trade global order has proven a great boon to the international and American economies. Not only can you not get enough money by cutting Defense, when you start to deeply cut defense, you produce negative returns, as you lower revenue when the economy falls as a result of restriction of international trade.

It's sort of like store owners getting together and agreeing that they can lower their tax bill if they only stop paying for a police force. You only save money in the very short term.

As for Medicare, there isn't enough money. There will not be enough money. That is why both the Obama and Ryan plans cut the exact same amount from Medicare - because it is better if Medicare survives with less, than if it collapses and dies in a decade or so. So the question is, who should be in control of allocating those resources, and should we tilt those resources to our poorer seniors, who need them more? The Obama plan is to put 15 Washington bureaucrats in charge of allocating those resources, and cutting from the poor equally as from the rich. The Ryan plan is to put seniors in charge of allocating those resources, and cutting more from the wealthy in order to provide more support for the poor.

I'd say that choice is pretty close to home.

Our economy is sunk because of global trade. When we decided that there was more money to be made off shore, we sealed our own fate: it’s the ant and the grasshopper story all over again. Our navy is not the hired security force; it’s the US navy and is supposed to “defend our safety” not banking interests . . . We don’t need the latest doodads aircraft that cost too much to build, let alone buy. We don’t need bases on almost every square inch of soil on the planet; (an exaggeration, but you get the point): we don’t need too big to fail. We need to feed and water our own grass for a while. Your “police force” argument is a nonsequitur.

As for Medicare; there is enough money, it’s not being dispersed properly; like our schools: there is enough money, but education is not a priority in this country. 15 Washington bureaucrats vs what seniors, the heads of corporate boards? If you are under the illusion that the Ryan plan is somehow going to create a nonpartisan mixed aged group of seniors to act as trustees to some sort of business alliance; you’re dreamin’.

Look, retirement and health care should be in the “benefits of citizenship” category. For those who want this – go that way. For those who want that – go this way; and everybody lives their lives.

I think it’s time that the right got off the partisan market train and came to Jesus by realizing that a healthy person is the best profit margin you can have.

 

[Michael Johnson]

Going back to why consumption taxes might be better. Any mechanism that allows people to maximize their take home pay should be taken into consideration. The government should get paid last(consumption) not first(income). I trust myself over Washington with regards to money ,the less they may get the better.

I agree with this. We have allowed those fat seat fillers spend enough of our money to suit their agendas. The buck stops here.

 

[American]

Well it was your party - the Republicans - who gave us those demonized 47% so you are ranting at the wrong person Turtle.

Since you disagree with the Republican policy, you won't fight us when we try to reduce that 47%.

 

[Deuce]

Going back to why consumption taxes might be better. Any mechanism that allows people to maximize their take home pay should be taken into consideration. The government should get paid last(consumption) not first(income). I trust myself over Washington with regards to money ,the less they may get the better.

Except consumption taxes (as a sole source of tax income) inherently end up being regressive. A poor person spends the vast majority of their income on basic subsistence.

 

[Blue Dog]

Except consumption taxes (as a sole source of tax income) inherently end up being regressive. A poor person spends the vast majority of their income on basic subsistence.

Agreed. Thats why the prebate has to be included with Fair Tax.

 

[Bigfoot 88]

Agreed. Thats why the prebate has to be included with Fair Tax.

I don't agree with the prebate part. That is a whole new safety net. It would be much better to simply exempt things such as food and medicine.

 

[TurtleDude]

Except consumption taxes (as a sole source of tax income) inherently end up being regressive. A poor person spends the vast majority of their income on basic subsistence.

Life is regressive if you don't have the skills to earn a good salary. too bad. progressive taxes lead to too much government because those who don't pay enough demand more and more from those who do

 

[Michael Johnson]

Life is regressive if you don't have the skills to earn a good salary. too bad. progressive taxes lead to too much government because those who don't pay enough demand more and more from those who do

This government has spent way too much of taxpayer's money anyway. I'm sure they can last a couple years on a sole consumption tax. Make those in office actually work for their check just like the little guys below them.

 

[Blue Dog]

I don't agree with the prebate part. That is a whole new safety net. It would be much better to simply exempt things such as food and medicine.

Your suggestion is not a bad alternative. As long as the gross and net paychecks match, why not.

 

[Wiggen]

This country was founded by people who believed as I do fighting people who believed as you do. Why should I leave when we drove the big government big tax tories out?

Yes, and the last time you tried that fight, you lost. Mr. Lincoln freed the slaves and put the rebellious states back in the union. I'm OK with the first half of that.

 

[TurtleDude]

Yes, and the last time you tried that fight, you lost. Mr. Lincoln freed the slaves and put the rebellious states back in the union. I'm OK with the first half of that.

the post contains the usual idiocy from the left. Its people like you who want to keep others enslaved.

 

[Deuce]

Life is regressive if you don't have the skills to earn a good salary. too bad. progressive taxes lead to too much government because those who don't pay enough demand more and more from those who do

So it's ok to tax poor people at a higher rate than rich people... because?

 

[TurtleDude]

So it's ok to tax poor people at a higher rate than rich people... because?

several reasons

1) rich people pay far more actual tax dollars for the same citizenship benefits

2) rich people generally understand the cost of government

3) its poor and middle class people who are seduced by government spending into voting for big spending politicians. The only way to stop that is to make it cost them more and more money when the government spends more

4) and by the way my earlier posts did not suggest higher rates. merely flat rates.

 

[haymarket]

Turtle - you are a smart and educated man. You know darn well there is no cost of citizenship or its benefits.