VAT Tax

[Magox]

If you're in debt personally, what's the FIRST thing you should do? Should you run out and find a higher-paying job? or should you cut your expenditures? That's right, class, you cut your expenditures as radically as is necessary to make your pay last longer and to make real strides at getting out of the hole. Ergo, when it comes to your plan of raising taxes without radical austerity, I'm calling......

 

bull ****. What you're asking for is nothing less than a RADICAL increase in taxes without the austerity measures required to REDUCE spending. You will not functionally affect the debt without eliminating deficit spending. The only, ONLY way to do that is to cut out all that is not needed post-haste. The government wastes FAR too much money on things that are not its domain.

 

Moderation is what has us in this mess. Half-hearted measures, lip-service and pandering to the middle is what has ruined this country. Decades ago, there was a movement underfoot to MANDATE balanced budgets with a constitutional amendment. It failed because the crooks who run this country in Congress couldn'tbear the thought of sacrificing their golden calves and pet projects.

 

We have what we deserve as a country because we're more concerned about "feel-good" measures than we are about fiscal responsibility.

 

 

 

There will be pain. We can either precipitate it or have it forced upon us by our debt-holders. Which do you prefer?

 

bull ****. What you're asking for is nothing less than a RADICAL increase in taxes without the austerity measures required to REDUCE spending. You will not functionally affect the debt without eliminating deficit spending. The only, ONLY way to do that is to cut out all that is not needed post-haste. The government wastes FAR too much money on things that are not its domain.

 

What are you a hard head? I said we need to cut spending you dimwit, you just hear what you want to hear, and your telling me going back to the pre-bush tax era is "radical" Yeah, I can tell you this right now, you aren't a fiscal conservative.

 

It's ok in your view to slash the entire Department of Education, 25% reduction of DOD and other nonsensical draconian measures yet you don't want to address the Bush Tax cuts which adds more to the national debt then either one of those two things. I can also tell you that as a result of cutting these programs the way you suggest, it would seriously impare our tax receipts, and when you couple that with this weak economy, we would go through the greatest depression this country has ever gone through, and the national debt would explode to well over $2 Trillion a year, we would immediately lose our AAA bond rating, the dollar would collapse and meanwhile our education would go further down the tubes and millions of more people would be left uninsured, while people in their 50's and 60's would have little to look forward to, because they would have to wait until they are 75 to receive S.S

 

Great Job Joe, you just turned us into the banana republic

 

 

No, and it's not moderation that got us into this fiscal mess, it was mainly reckless spending, two wars, failed regulation and unnecessary tax cuts provided by the last administration.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

What are you a hard head? I said we need to cut spending you dimwit, you just hear what you want to hear, and your telling me going back to the pre-bush tax era is "radical" Yeah, I can tell you this right now, you aren't a fiscal conservative.

 

Fiscal conservatism != advocating for higher taxes.

 

It's ok in your view to slash the entire Department of Education, 25% reduction of DOD and other nonsensical draconian measures yet you don't want to address the Bush Tax cuts which adds more to the national debt then either one of those two things. I can also tell you that as a result of cutting these programs the way you suggest, it would seriously impare our tax receipts, and when you couple that with this weak economy, we would go through the greatest depression this country has ever gone through, and the national debt would explode to well over $2 Trillion a year, we would immediately lose our AAA bond rating, the dollar would collapse and meanwhile our education would go further down the tubes and millions of more people would be left uninsured, while people in their 50's and 60's would have little to look forward to, because they would have to wait until they are 75 to receive S.S

 

Great Job Joe, you just turned us into the banana republic

 

If you cut spending enough, the loss of tax receipts will be more than offset. The only thing that will be a long-term and sustainable solution is a radical reduction in the size and scope of Federal government.

 

News flash: we already ARE a banana republic. I'm not opposed to letting the Bush tax cuts expire. But I am DEFINITELY opposed to raising income taxes while simultaneously adding VAT on top of raised taxes. The LAST thing we need to do is hand over MORE income to the Feds.

 

No, and it's not moderation that got us into this fiscal mess, it was mainly reckless spending, two wars, failed regulation and unnecessary tax cuts provided by the last administration.

 

Uh, no. We were in this mess as soon as the Ponzi scheme that Social Security is was signed into law. It was never going to be sustainable. Then LBJ took it another step further and sunk us into the tar pit that is Medicare/Medicaid.

[Rob's House]

No, it's not enough! You guys don't realize how deep in debt we are and the ramifications of what that debt can cause. Maybe if we weren't in such deep **** then we could just point to spending but that's not where we are. Spending is the main problem no rational person disputes that but our taxing policy doesn't hurt, the Bush Tax Cuts fall on the wrong side of the Laffer Curve. What part of adding $4 Trillion to the National debt over a 10 year period do you not understand?

 

You guys take your cues from the talkingpoint spin doctors. Enough of the simpleton talk.

 

The funny thing is that ROB provided a link about a month ago regarding the Laffer Curve and it was suppose to back up his argument in which it didn't, it actually went against what he was trying to prove. Then he links this garbage of an article regarding "Hauser's law" that totally dismisses the Laffer Curve . Jesus Rob, do you actually think for yourself? Which is it, do you believe in the Laffer Curve or not?

 

Also, this article presumes that you add a VAT tax on top of existing taxing policy, no one here is suggesting such a thing.

 

 

Now Give me specifics of $1.4 Trillion a year in where you can cut spending. SPecifics. I want to hear from you two geniuses.

 

 

$1.4 trillions worth

Actually I linked the Laffer curve to support your argument, not refute it, which I clarified in a later post when you brought it up again. I didn't agree with your decision to raise taxes, but I agreed with your reasoning.

 

Hauser's law doesn't necessarily discount the general theory behind Laffer curve outright, but rather sheds a little more light on the theory. Keep in mind, Laffer curve is not a precise measurement but rather an abstract theory. I also tend not to discount evidence just because it may require modification of a belief I hold. That's how the scientific method works.

 

My biggest gripe with you isn't your desire to raise taxes (I understand your argument in it's entirity, I just don't share your opinion of the solution), but rather your willingness to wipe your ass with the basic freedoms of others in the name of pragmatism. That's a slippery slope (save me the commentary on your theory of slippery slopes, Jonah Goldberg did it better than you can hope to, and he didn't win me on that one so I doubt you will) that can and has lead to all manner of abuses that were not foreseen by their originators when implemented.

[jjamie12]

There will be pain. We can either precipitate it or have it forced upon us by our debt-holders. Which do you prefer?

Specifically, what does this mean? Have you thought about this?

 

I would like you to articulate, specifically, what the 'pain' would be. I'm not being a wise-ass, I want to talk about this.

Edited October 17, 2010 by jjamie12

[Rob's House]

Specifically, what does this mean? Have you thought about this?

 

I would like you to articulate, specifically, what the 'pain' would be. I'm not being a wise-ass, I want to talk about this.

If I may be so bold as to speculate as to Joe's meaning (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) it means that one way or another the rubber's going to meet the road, and we have two options. 1. We take the necessary measures (i.e. cut spending) and deal with the correction now on our terms, or 2. We keep postponing the correction with monetary expansion until the bottom falls out, possibly when our creditors (i.e. China) decide to pull the rug out from under us, and therefore deal with the correction on their terms.

Edited October 17, 2010 by Rob's House

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

If I may be so bold as to speculate as to Joe's meaning (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) it means that one way or another the rubber's going to meet the road, and we have two options. 1. We take the necessary measures (i.e. cut spending) and deal with the correction now on our terms, or 2. We keep postponing the correction with monetary expansion until the bottom falls out, possibly when our creditors (i.e. China) decide to pull the rug out from under us, and therefore deal with the correction on their terms.

 

This is what I mean. We can either take the harsh measures necessary just to BEGIN digging out of this hole, and take a known risk, or we can wait for the Chinese to call due the debt and face a much harsher reality.

 

The "pain" of which I speak is the fact that structurally we face a serious problem: our entitlement programs are due to pay out more than we can bring in. People in MY generation are facing a truly unpalatable situation: we're losing a significant chunk of our incomes to support a Social Security system that will likely pay us NO benefit. None. If that isn't undemocratic, I don't know what is. Not only that, social security represents 20% of the budget. Medicare/medicaid another 20% and the DoD another 20%. If you want to truly make an impact on deficit spending, you have to address those three areas.

 

The future of this country can,as I see it, take one of two paths. First, we can continue as usual and default on our debt and face a future akin to that of Greece or Argentina. Or we can make the choices now, and face short-term economic issues associated with those choices.

 

What consequences? Well, like Magox said, some elderly and poor will lose health coverage. We will have to trim back our foreign military presence radically, including leaving Iraq and Afghanistan as well as Europe and South Korea. And, additionally, people expecting to receive SS benefits TODAY will have to be forced to wait another decade. That is the consequence of yesterday's generation (the boomers) running our country into the crapper. It's MY generation's responsibility to fix it and only solutions like these will work. You will not functionally affect the deficit OR debt by way of mild spending cuts and radical tax increases.

 

The only way I would support the tax raises magox is espousing is if it is legally mandated that for every dollar of tax increase there is a corresponding $2 cut in spending. NO WAY will I entrust the government with even MORE tax dollars.

Edited October 17, 2010 by joesixpack

[jjamie12]

What consequences? Well, like Magox said, some elderly and poor will lose health coverage.

Will we still treat the elderly and the poor, or will we let them die outside of the hospital as we lock the doors on the emergency room? Honestly, just want to know. (I don't think we necessarily have a moral obligation to treat people if they can't pay)

 

We will have to trim back our foreign military presence radically, including leaving Iraq and Afghanistan as well as Europe and South Korea.

What are the economic consequences of leaving the Korean peninsula and Europe? About how much money do you think it will save, and about how much money do you think we'll 'lose' because of the necessarily de-stabilizing effect this would have?

 

Edit: This is an unfair question, and I didn't mean it to be. How about: What are the strategic implications to these decisions, and will those strategic implications actually cost more in the long run than what we'd save by staying?

 

And, additionally, people expecting to receive SS benefits TODAY will have to be forced to wait another decade.

No thought to means-testing SS? Raising the cap on salary subject to SS taxes?

 

Anything specific on cutting the Department of Education? The 50% cuts to every department in the federal government?

Edited October 17, 2010 by jjamie12

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Will we still treat the elderly and the poor, or will we let them die outside of the hospital as we lock the doors on the emergency room? Honestly, just want to know. (I don't think we necessarily have a moral obligation to treat people if they can't pay)

 

If someone is below the FPL, then they should be allowed access to Medicare and Medicaid. Those above the FPL should be forced to pay increasing cost-sharing as income increases.

 

What are the economic consequences of leaving the Korean peninsula and Europe? About how much money do you think it will save, and about how much money do you think we'll 'lose' because of the necessarily de-stabilizing effect this would have?

 

For us, or for them? For 50+ years, we've been providing for their defense while they have chipped away at our economy and been uncooperative in the realm of foreign policy. For us, it will be a boon economically. For them, now THEY will have to provide for their own defense.

 

And to answer your edit, I think they'll do just fine without us.

 

No thought to means-testing SS? Raising the cap on salary subject to SS taxes?

 

Note, I didn't call for 100% abolishment of SS. But I think if you're bringing in a decent enough retirement without SS, you should be made to wait. Now, JoeBaggaDonuts who brings in $800 from SS alone, no, we can't leave him to rot. But SusieSmartSaver who's already bringing in $3-4K a month from other retirement means canbe made to wait.

 

Anything specific on cutting the Department of Education? The 50% cuts to every department in the federal government?

 

I stand by my statement that the DofEd can be eliminated.

[Rob's House]

A few thoughts on ssn, health care and means testing:

 

*SSN was never meant to be a retirement plan, but rather an insurance policy for people that outlived their resources. Raising the ssn age to 70 would do wonders. Nowhere in the constitution is anyone granted a state funded vacation for the last 20 yrs of life.

 

*The whole concept of "he who can't pay dies" violates the sensibilities of many, but it's an unavoidable truth of life. You can administer basic medical services to indigents without being counter productive. There is, however, a point at which this becomes counterproductive and you do more harm than good. It's not possible to provide every person living within U.S. borders unlimited access to the most highly advanced medical technology known to man. There are other factors to health and happiness outside of the medical industry that will suffer when x amt of resources are diverted to that field.

 

*Means testing presents a dilemma, and I don't claim to have a solution so some level of means testing would be helpful. The problem is that the reliance on public assistance has to be less desirable than the consequence of providing for one's self. Otherwise you create an incentive to be reliant on government coffers (i.e. the confiscated production of your fellow Americans).

 

*I also agree 100% that the Dept of Ed should be eliminated. It's unnecessary at best and dangerous at worst. It's not hard to see the conflict of interest and potential for tyranical dictatorship over the course of a generation or two if the federal government gets to set the curriculum that will educate the electorate on the role of government in society.

Edited October 17, 2010 by Rob's House

[Magox]

All I can tell you is that if we went along the lines of what Joe is proposing we would have unemployment reach close to 20% with the Federal debt exploding through the roof simply because tax receipts would plummet and the dollar would no longer be the reserve currency of the world. And we are NOT A BANANA REPUBLIC!! We definitely aren't moving in the right direction that is for sure, but we are the most powerful country in the world who has more access to funds than any other country in the world.

 

We definitely need austerity, I am a huge advocate for these measures, this is something that I have been saying this for quite some time. HOWEVER, if you truly are a fiscal conservative, which largely means that you are someone who is conscience of the national debt, then you would be true to that concern and realize that the Bush Tax Cuts fall on the wrong side of the Laffer Curve, and that it does indeed add trillions of dollars to the national debt, this isn't something that is debatable, it is fact, it is something that has already been easily determined by the Tax Policy Center and CBO... This isn't a projection, this is something that has already happened and it's a reckless tax cut. Now maybe if our country already had our spending under control and we had a thriving country where tax receipts were plentiful then maybe it is something that could be considered.

 

But the reality is that we are not there on both counts, not by a long shot.

 

In order to tackle the national debt it is a two step strategy, one is to cut spending and two grow the country rapid enough to generate revenues. If you cut too much, then the economy falls back into a downturn, if you cut excessively then the downturn can be much worse. Considering that we are already in a downturn, with many structural problems and on fragile ground, the options really aren't that great. Just like Greenspan said, the options are from "bad to worse". Meaning that the "bad" decision would be to let the Bush tax cuts expire, (because he realizes that it will affect growth) but the "worse" decision would be to extend the Bush Tax Cuts.

 

You have to be very careful about our cuts, they can't be too sudden, our country is like a patient that is still in intensive care, if you take off the drugs too soon we will go into cardiac arrest. So you have to gradually move away so that you don't cause a violent reaction.

 

In regards to the VAT tax, no one is proposing adding a tax without other offsets. I like the idea because it would include a restructuring of the entire tax code.

 

The problem we have right now is that we really are on dangerous ground regarding the national debt, all it takes in my view is another dip into recession to possibly trigger a debt crisis. I can assure you the draconian measures you are proposing would easily send us back not only into another recession but an extended depression with long term consequences...

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

with long term consequences...

 

Which are?

 

This conversation is moot, anyway, it's not like the dimwits in DC are going to to anything that resembles the steps necessary.

[Magox]

Which are?

 

This conversation is moot, anyway, it's not like the dimwits in DC are going to to anything that resembles the steps necessary.

Losing the dollar as the world's reserve currency would be the main one.

 

 

Regarding politicians and doing what is right to get our fiscal house in order, I agree with you. The only sliver of hope is that I am beginning to hear some of the newer crop of conservative candidates that are mentioning reform in S.S and Medicare. That would be a good structural first step towards our long-term viability.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Losing the dollar as the world's reserve currency would be the main one.

 

Not trying to be snarky, but that affects me how?

 

I appreciate the answers, because I want to understand this.