|
|
Post by prince2250 on Feb 21, 2019 11:59:26 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by corkscrew on Feb 21, 2019 13:51:31 GMT -8
So the question isn't who is in favor of socialism or who isn't. The question is how do we pay for these new programs when we can't pay for the programs already in existence. In a democratic society, we decide what kind of society we want to be, then we provide the resources to implement our decision. We must first define our values and priorities then act according to these values and priorities. Over the past 4 decades, we have set our priorities to a huge military, drastically reducing taxes on the wealthy, accumulating enormous deficits, limiting help to the poor and the weak as much as can be tolerated, and incarcerating a vast number of our youth for non-violent crimes rather than invest in making them contributing members of society. Prior to the past 4 decades, starting with the post-1929 crash until the Carter administration, we implemented a society with a huge military that was able to win WWII and the Cold War, while also implementing a number of socialistic programs to help the poor and the weak, and we financed it all with higher taxes. Both periods led to excesses because our system is designed to implement change very, very slowly. When welfare programs were poorly implemented and taxes were too high and unreasonably applied, the system was not designed to facilitate tweaks and improvements, it remained rigid until it broke, which led to a reactionary response and extreme remedies that led to the present period. Now the present period is breaking, and God only knows where the reactionary response will take us. But one thing is for sure, it is not sustainable in its present form. So to the question “How do we pay for it?”: We decide who we are first, then we set our tax and spend policies, not the other way around. |
|
|
|
Post by clippers1121 on Feb 21, 2019 15:23:39 GMT -8
A guy was just on CNBC saying the top 1% of wage earners in California pay 50% of the state income tax. So the rich, at least in California, are already paying way more than their share of taxes. Tax them any more and they will move to a different state where there are no state income taxes. And in WWII we sold bonds to pay for the war. In the first Gulf War we got a coalition of countries to pay for the war. Under Clinton we were having budget surpluses. Things really went to hell under the second Bush. And have been going to hell ever since.
Who we are as a people is the same as its always been. With cavemen you compete for food and mates and the losers die. I don't think we have evolved much since then. Compete for food, mates, shelter and to hell with the losers. And damn them if they try and take what you fought so hard for. Most people are greedy because most people enjoy consuming stuff. Our government now is run by somebody who is the epitome of who we are as a people. And that is why he got elected. I think he loses next time around not because he is a racist and a liar. But because the bulk of the people he promised stuff to he wasn't able to deliver on those promises. Like affordable health care for instance. Or better paying jobs.
If the bulk of the people were not greedy selfish pricks there would be a lot more electric vehicles on the road and a lot less SUVs and trucks. Big fossil fuel consumption which many of the owners don't even need. Especially all those Ford 150s that are being sold.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2019 16:59:02 GMT -8
For the statheads, here are the CBO's 10 year budget projections: www.cbo.gov/about/products/budget-economic-data#3Some highlights: % of 2018 revenue: 76% - Entitlements 19% - Defense 10% - Interest on debt 19% - Other 123% - Total expenditures $15.8TN - 2018 public debt (78% of GDP) $27.3TN - 2028 public debt (92% of GDP) |
|
|
|
Post by corkscrew on Feb 21, 2019 18:40:44 GMT -8
Who we are as a people is the same as its always been. With cavemen you compete for food and mates and the losers die. I don't think we have evolved much since then. Seriously? Cavemen? Civilization has no role to play? If you’re going to take such a bleak view of humanity, then you need to explain why it isn’t that way in Canada. Europe? Australia? New Zealand? Explain the difference between Germany before the war and after the war. Explain the difference between Japan before the war and after the war. |
|
|
|
Post by clippers1121 on Feb 22, 2019 9:29:43 GMT -8
If we have evolved as a civilization then why did we elect Donald Trump to be president. Much like before WWII a bunch of racists and Xenophobes elected him. And who did the tax breaks go to. The rich people. These countries you mentioned are pushing back against increased immigration and turning towards self interest and not helping the displaced. We are getting a rise of populism around the world that is undeniable. German people don't want more immigrants. They want their country's wealth for themselves. And of course there is Brexit. Another move towards nationalism. Japan got beaten in a major war so they had to change. Just like the South when they lost the Civil War. Its not like those people wanted to change.
So no I don't believe we have evolved much as a species. People care about taking care of themselves and their families first. And they like to ignore the homeless, the starving people in the Sudan, and all the displaced people in Yemen and Syria.
And people like you who advocate expansion of socialist programs do not even have a clue how to pay for the programs that already exist. It is always the same bullshit. Tax the fat cats on wall street and use the money to take care of all the people who don't have any money. That's great. Just figure out how to do it. I suggested in my earlier post to reverse the Trump Tax cut and raise the capital gains tax back up to 25%. That would be an excellent start to get some money to fund these programs. I am just disappointed that the American electorate would never elect anybody who actually wanted to do it.
|
|
|
|
Post by mistwell on Feb 22, 2019 13:41:05 GMT -8
I wish we could just move to a flat sales/service tax with exemptions for certain necessary goods like some food and clothing and housing and medical care. Make sure you cover the import and export customs and duty taxes to prevent subversion of the system by spending overseas; be done with the income and capital and business and estate taxes altogether (aside from state taxes of course). Just tax people on what they consume, and you will naturally capture tons of money from the wealthy and stop tons of tax avoidance and capture taxes on criminals as well.
But that makes taxation as social engineering (for both parties) more difficult, so they'd never support it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2019 14:15:01 GMT -8
I wish we could just move to a flat sales/service tax with exemptions for certain necessary goods like some food and clothing and housing and medical care. Make sure you cover the import and export customs and duty taxes to prevent subversion of the system by spending overseas; be done with the income and capital and business and estate taxes altogether (aside from state taxes of course). Just tax people on what they consume, and you will naturally capture tons of money from the wealthy and stop tons of tax avoidance and capture taxes on criminals as well. But that makes taxation as social engineering (for both parties) more difficult, so they'd never support it. GDP is basically a measure of consumption and investment. We can look at government revenues divided by GDP to test your theory. In 2018, federal government revenue was $3.3 trillion and GDP was $20.2 trillion for an effective tax rate of 16.4%. The total public debt was $15.8 trillion, or 77.8% of GDP. It would take 4.7 years of government revenue just to pay off the existing debt. The federal government is clearly spending well beyond the tax revenue it brings in. So what to do? Raise taxes or cut spending? Or keep kicking the can down the street because politicians want to get reelected? |
|
|
|
Post by clippers1121 on Feb 22, 2019 16:22:53 GMT -8
If Jeff Bezos sells Amazon stock without a capital gains tax put on that sale and buys the Washington Post (which he already owns) for 10 billion are you saying he has to pay a consumption tax on the purchase of the Post to capture those taxes? Which might be 3 billion or something. There is about 100% chance he figures out some loophole in the consumption tax and winds up paying nothing. And that is the kind of stuff rich people buy. If you are talking about buying a new Mercedes or something you will be hurting moderate income people and killing the economy because less cars will be sold.
|
|
