[quote]vroom wrote:
On taxes, I don’t think anyone can avoid raises taxes, at least not if a balanced budget is the goal. You simply can’t pay of the huge freaking debt without doing so… it’s not ideological, it’s just logical.
[/quote]
Sure you can. Cut the hell out of spending.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Sure you can. Cut the hell out of spending. [/quote]
While the world is teetering on the edge of financial collapse?
Unfortunately, this would have been a great idea over the last several terms. I don’t know if the option will really be available during the next term.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Sure you can. Cut the hell out of spending.
While the world is teetering on the edge of financial collapse?
Unfortunately, this would have been a great idea over the last several terms. I don’t know if the option will really be available during the next term.[/quote]
It’ll have to be. Go ahead and try to raise taxes while we’re teetering on the edge of a financial collapse.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Another masterful piece by Mr. Sowell…>>>[/quote]
As usual.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
It’ll have to be. Go ahead and try to raise taxes while we’re teetering on the edge of a financial collapse.[/quote]
I don’t know. I think the time frame is hopeless, but I do believe that if more citizens were converted from net recipients of government money to people with good careers, or at least income earners, it would be good in an economic sense.
Each person shifted from sucking up money to paying taxes represents a “double” benefit. Once when they stop costing everyone money, and twice when they too start paying their share of the tax burden. There may be additional benefits via reduced crime, policing and incarceration costs.
Anyway, back to the issue at hand…
I think raising taxes, within reason, may have less of an impact than cutting spending. Why? Because poorer people, those more likely to receive government spending, generally put their money back into the economy** immediately.
Those that would see higher taxes due to the proposed increase, as much as they hate it, are already successful in the economy and would likely continue to be.
I know there are plenty of ideological issues surrounding it… but economically there may be differences. We might find out – depending on who wins.
** Putting money into the hands of local businesses.
By the time we’re done with these bailouts, Obama’s deficit spending (his tax plan doesn’t come close to covering his proposals), and boomers jumping onto entitlement roles, you can’t raise taxes enough to cover it all without smothering our economy to death.
So, where’s the money going to come from? The middle class ought to be prepared for higher taxes. Or, we could start returning our government to it’s original and highly limited role.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
By the time we’re done with these bailouts, Obama’s deficit spending (his tax plan doesn’t come close to covering his proposals), and boomers jumping onto entitlement roles, you can’t raise taxes enough to cover it all without smothering our economy to death.
So, where’s the money going to come from? The middle class ought to be prepared for higher taxes. Or, we could start returning our government to it’s original and highly limited role.[/quote]
I think this is why some republicans have been so frustrated with the recent deficits… prior to the recent economic turmoil. They see the writing on the wall and know that we need to be preparing for it.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Sloth wrote:
It’ll have to be. Go ahead and try to raise taxes while we’re teetering on the edge of a financial collapse.
I don’t know. I think the time frame is hopeless, but I do believe that if more citizens were converted from net recipients of government money to people with good careers, or at least income earners, it would be good in an economic sense.
Each person shifted from sucking up money to paying taxes represents a “double” benefit. Once when they stop costing everyone money, and twice when they too start paying their share of the tax burden. There may be additional benefits via reduced crime, policing and incarceration costs.
Anyway, back to the issue at hand…
I think raising taxes, within reason, may have less of an impact than cutting spending. Why? Because poorer people, those more likely to receive government spending, generally put their money back into the economy** immediately.
Those that would see higher taxes due to the proposed increase, as much as they hate it, are already successful in the economy and would likely continue to be.
I know there are plenty of ideological issues surrounding it… but economically there may be differences. We might find out – depending on who wins.
** Putting money into the hands of local businesses.[/quote]
You are a fucking canadian. Why are you trying to tell us how to do shit?
I swear - stop acting like you are a real citizen. You are not. You have no fucking clue about what should or should not work in our country.
Fuck - at least orion gets this very simple concept. You think you have something that needs to be heard. You don’t.
Crawl back into your fucking hole.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Fuck - at least orion gets this very simple concept. You think you have something that needs to be heard. You don’t.
[/quote]
No, I actually don´t.
I wholeheartedly believe that Americans are not special enough to alter the laws of the universe and therefore must obey them as everyone else has to.
That includes that people will hate you when you have killed enough of their relatives and some will find a way to get even.
It also includes that you will go broke if you consistently spend more than you produce.
You also will not make socialism work, be it in the form of socialiced health care or public schools.
And, and that is the real punch line, thinking you are so extra special that it could not happen to you, only makes you more like us.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
don’t think you quite understand Friedman’s intent. He admits that many of his suggestions are not the best solutions, but merely a compromise of what would work and what a large enough population would find acceptable.
Most people don’t have the economic sense or vision to agree to cutting of welfare programs all together. He is offering solution that are better than what we have, not solutions that he believes are the best solutions.
I do like the reverse tax solution. It eliminates so many inefficient programs. It does not create winners and losers. It encourages families to stay together. It encourages pooling of resources.
It fixes almost all the problems with our current social programs, but it is still a social program.
An even simpler solution is the one detailed in “In Our Hands” by Charles Murray. He started with Friedman’s program and simplified it even more.[/quote]
I think I do understand Freedman’s intent, buy I clearly don’t accept it completely. My views on universal health care should make that clear. Freedman also proposed that we tax consumption, by basing tax on earnings - savings. (so basically, all savings gets treated like a 401k)
I can’t see any reason why that would not work. We certainly need to encourage more savings and discourage consumption, so this seems like a reasonable proposal.
Somehow, there must be some way to combine a ‘hard headed progressive’ with a ‘compassionate conservative’. The reverse/negative tax solution seems like like a solution that might actually work at addressing human needs without encouraging more bureaucracy.
I’m glad that it has appeal to you as well, since it seems like a pragmatic synthesis of conservative economics with a liberal’s urge to help those in need.
I think that the biggest mistake of modern liberalism has been to divide the country into special interest groups. Talk a gay rights is destructive when we should be discussing human rights regardless of sexual orientation.
Freedman’s negative tax proposal fits into this pattern, it is the same for every: effectively a stipend for everyone and a constant tax rate for every dollar earned.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
You are a fucking canadian. Why are you trying to tell us how to do shit?
I swear - stop acting like you are a real citizen. You are not. You have no fucking clue about what should or should not work in our country.
Fuck - at least orion gets this very simple concept. You think you have something that needs to be heard. You don’t.
Crawl back into your fucking hole.
[/quote]
What the hell drugs are you on these days?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Sloth wrote:
It’ll have to be. Go ahead and try to raise taxes while we’re teetering on the edge of a financial collapse.
I don’t know. I think the time frame is hopeless, but I do believe that if more citizens were converted from net recipients of government money to people with good careers, or at least income earners, it would be good in an economic sense.
Each person shifted from sucking up money to paying taxes represents a “double” benefit. Once when they stop costing everyone money, and twice when they too start paying their share of the tax burden. There may be additional benefits via reduced crime, policing and incarceration costs.
Anyway, back to the issue at hand…
I think raising taxes, within reason, may have less of an impact than cutting spending. Why? Because poorer people, those more likely to receive government spending, generally put their money back into the economy** immediately.
Those that would see higher taxes due to the proposed increase, as much as they hate it, are already successful in the economy and would likely continue to be.
I know there are plenty of ideological issues surrounding it… but economically there may be differences. We might find out – depending on who wins.
** Putting money into the hands of local businesses.[/quote]
In order for this to work, you must have people who are currently poor suddenly become productive members of society. The only way this will happen, in my head, is that those people will be cut off from any aid.
If they are forced to fend for themselves, they will become self sufficient. If you coddle them, they will have no iniative.
Right?
[quote]Journeyman wrote:
dhickey wrote:
don’t think you quite understand Friedman’s intent. He admits that many of his suggestions are not the best solutions, but merely a compromise of what would work and what a large enough population would find acceptable.
Most people don’t have the economic sense or vision to agree to cutting of welfare programs all together. He is offering solution that are better than what we have, not solutions that he believes are the best solutions.
I do like the reverse tax solution. It eliminates so many inefficient programs. It does not create winners and losers. It encourages families to stay together. It encourages pooling of resources. It fixes almost all the problems with our current social programs, but it is still a social program.
An even simpler solution is the one detailed in “In Our Hands” by Charles Murray. He started with Friedman’s program and simplified it even more.
I think I do understand Freedman’s intent, buy I clearly don’t accept it completely. My views on universal health care should make that clear. Freedman also proposed that we tax consumption, by basing tax on earnings - savings. (so basically, all savings gets treated like a 401k)
I can’t see any reason why that would not work. We certainly need to encourage more savings and discourage consumption, so this seems like a reasonable proposal.
Somehow, there must be some way to combine a ‘hard headed progressive’ with a ‘compassionate conservative’. The reverse/negative tax solution seems like like a solution that might actually work at addressing human needs without encouraging more bureaucracy.
I’m glad that it has appeal to you as well, since it seems like a pragmatic synthesis of conservative economics with a liberal’s urge to help those in need.
I think that the biggest mistake of modern liberalism has been to divide the country into special interest groups. Talk a gay rights is destructive when we should be discussing human rights regardless of sexual orientation.
Freedman’s negative tax proposal fits into this pattern, it is the same for every: effectively a stipend for everyone and a constant tax rate for every dollar earned.
[/quote]
You should read the Charles Murray book I suggested. I can almost guarentee you will want to read more of him. “What it Means to be a Libertarian” should be next on your list. This book pissed off some hard core Libertarians.
[quote]RebornTN wrote:
In order for this to work, you must have people who are currently poor suddenly become productive members of society. The only way this will happen, in my head, is that those people will be cut off from any aid. If they are forced to fend for themselves, they will become self sufficient. If you coddle them, they will have no iniative.
Right?[/quote]
Well, I don’t think it’s so cut and dried.
I’m sure there are lazy bastards out there only too happy to live off of public money. However, at the same time, there are those that aren’t lazy but don’t have the education or skills to make much of a contribution to the economy.
Personally, though I don’t expect to see it, I’m in favor of workfare for something less than minimum wage – no incentive for lazy bastards. Short of that, we have to make it possible for people to move to the point where they can pay decent taxes.
I don’t know if there is an instant way to do this, but something like making education more available to people might be a way to encourage it… but it would take a fair amount of time while younger generations took advantage of it.
Beyond that we have to consider soft issues such as expectations and so forth. I have to say though, the fact that Obama has gotten this far sends a serious message to some members of minority groups that they should get off their ass, because there is nothing standing in their way anymore.
[quote]vroom wrote:
I don’t know if there is an instant way to do this, but something like making education more available to people might be a way to encourage it… but it would take a fair amount of time while younger generations took advantage of it.
[/quote]
I would have to say that education is quite available. The only thing that is holding you back is yourself. If you really want to improve your lot in life, take the initiative…if that means getting up the 3 hours earlier and studying instead of playing games, so be it.
Republicans are fittin to get they ass handed to them tuesday… how’s that feel suckas… we tried yo shit and it didn’t work, now get out the way and let the smart people clean up yo mess…
let the glorious socialist revolution begin
[quote]Black Greg wrote:
Republicans are fittin to get they ass handed to them tuesday… how’s that feel suckas… we tried yo shit and it didn’t work, now get out the way and let the smart people clean up yo mess…
let the glorious socialist revolution begin[/quote]
are you serious? Guys, is he serious?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Actually, the supreme court is pretty balanced at the moment, with the more liberal justices on the verge of leaving via retirement or death.
…
[/quote]
Balanced? Nearly half of them have no respect for the Constitution, specifically the second amendment. That is not balance.
[quote]Black Greg wrote:
Republicans are fittin to get they ass handed to them tuesday… how’s that feel suckas… we tried yo shit and it didn’t work, now get out the way and let the smart people clean up yo mess…
let the glorious socialist revolution begin[/quote]
The country went to shit in the last two years when the Dems took control of Congress.
[quote]vroom wrote:
rainjack wrote:
You are a fucking canadian. Why are you trying to tell us how to do shit?
I swear - stop acting like you are a real citizen. You are not. You have no fucking clue about what should or should not work in our country.
Fuck - at least orion gets this very simple concept. You think you have something that needs to be heard. You don’t.
Crawl back into your fucking hole.
What the hell drugs are you on these days?[/quote]
That’s funny. I was wondering if he had stopped taking his medication. I guess it could go either way.