The Magnitude Of The Problem

[Jccarlton]

There simply isn't enough money in the country to pay for a balanced Obama budget:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/ ... nding.html
Anybody who would suggest even more spending has to face this reality. There simply isn't enough money to pay for what we are already spending, let alone any additional spending. The amounts required will, in no budget cuts occur, require massive compromises on the standard of living of everybody who currently has a job and make the creation of new ones impossible. How much "sacrifice" are we supposed to endure to continue to fund the Progessive welfare state and it's extravegances.

[MSimon]

You might appreciate some of my points here:

viewtopic.php?p=97783#97783

We get the welfare state in part because we take so many men out of the market with prohibition. And prohibition itself is a dead weight loss. And it gives us single mothers. Who support socialism.

Obama is a self inflicted wound. Originally the causes were inflicted by the left. After the left has abandoned them the right comes in to support them as "tradition".

You can't fool mother nature. Even with religion.

[palladin9479]

It's not "Obama's Budget" it's every budget passed by Congress since Reagan, probably before. Clinton was the only one who was remotely successful.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Unit ... ral_budget

Pretty specific numbers, the biggest by far is the Defense Budget. Social Security looks big until you realize it's paying for itself (for now) via the SS tax. After that is Medicare which unless your willing to kill off half the Republican voting base, you don't touch.

Total Republican proposed 2012 budget: $3529 billion
Evil Omaba 2012 Budget: $3795.547 billion
Income Receipts: $2,469 billion

Your not "cutting" 1.3 trillion+ period.

Also the budget is divided into two sections. Mandatory and Discretionary. Mandatory is money you must spend as you've already promised it. Many programs and funding sources are multiple year purchases with the money being spent over the course of four to ten years. Discretionary is the money that departments use to actually do things, its much smaller then Mandatory spending.

But hey don't let financial reality get in the way of a good hate session. Spread around the hateraid and get properly riled up. Put on some Fox news while your at it.

[JLawson]

It's not "Obama's Budget" it's every budget passed by Congress since Reagan, probably before. Clinton was the only one who was remotely successful.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Unit ... ral_budget

Pretty specific numbers, the biggest by far is the Defense Budget. Social Security looks big until you realize it's paying for itself (for now) via the SS tax. After that is Medicare which unless your willing to kill off half the Republican voting base, you don't touch.

Total Republican proposed 2012 budget: $3529 billion
Evil Omaba 2012 Budget: $3795.547 billion
Income Receipts: $2,469 billion

Your not "cutting" 1.3 trillion+ period.

Also the budget is divided into two sections. Mandatory and Discretionary. Mandatory is money you must spend as you've already promised it. Many programs and funding sources are multiple year purchases with the money being spent over the course of four to ten years. Discretionary is the money that departments use to actually do things, its much smaller then Mandatory spending.

But hey don't let financial reality get in the way of a good hate session. Spread around the hateraid and get properly riled up. Put on some Fox news while your at it.

I wonder if folks ever get tired of tossing the 'Fox News' insult around.

What's the problem - you upset because they've got the timid temerity on occasion to go "Ya know - we're really spending way too much"? They can barely get out the concept before people start yelling "Racist! You want to starve everyone who's getting some form of government assistance!" So people go quiet on the subject - never mind the background muttering that 2+2 still equals 4, and we're spending a trillion or more than we're bringing in.

Just toss some accounting tricks in the air, while singing "Bush did it too!" and everyone's dazzled enough that they won't care that the way Obama's deficits are going he's well under way to more than double the national debt he inherited.

Then you've got idiots like Peolsi saying we don't have a spending problem - of course, when she could she acted like a blasted queen insisting on private AF transportation to and from California. No, we don't have a spending problem - we can still write checks!

And then there's Reid - who's announced basically that there won't be any budget passed while he's in charge of the Senate. I suppose if you don't have a budget then technically you're not overspending, right? So what if you're only taking in $2 tril, and spending $3 trillion? What you lose each year you'll make up in volume.

We're in deep trouble, and the clowns in Washington know it. They're just trying to keep things going as long as possible, so THEY won't be in office when it smashes down. (And honestly, I'm surprised that Reid and Pelosi haven't long since left. Usually a con man knows when the scam's about to collapse, and has a plan to get out before it does. But Pelosi and Reid seem to think they can manage to squeeze out just a few more bucks from us poor saps... and in the mean time the perqs we're giving them are pretty darn sweet!)

[palladin9479]

@JL

We need to reduce spending and raise actual revenue (not a fictional percentage rate). Large corporations and financial folks get taxed at a fraction of their rate due to various loopholes and accounting tricks they perform to hide their actual income. This forces the tax burden onto the middle class, the poor don't have money anyway. Most US companies aren't even US companies, they have their headquarters incorporated in some tax haven country and funnel their profits through various countries while utilizing exemptions by stating their income was made out of the country. How dumb do you gotta be to accept that an iPhone sold to a US citizen in California is treated as external revenue due to it being funneled through Ireland.

Now I dare you to actually do some research and outline 1.3 TRILLION that you would personally cut. Since you claim it's only a "spending problem" you shouldn't easily be able to reduce expenditures right.

The reason I rail against Fox News is that it's a pile of BS, mostly due to News Corp being 100% under the control of one of the Republican Parties biggest leaders. Their not "taking stand" their feeding BS propaganda to their faithful. Liberal news sites aren't much better but you expect that.

Unlike you I've actually taken a long hard look at our current budget and there is no way possible to get it remotely balanced without two things happening.

#1 Slash defense to 1/4 or less of it's current amount. Bad f*cking idea, we'll end up spending more in the long run cleaning up Europe's next Alexander the Great wannabee, or we'll be fighting the Chinese off of Hawaii.

#2, Reduce Medicare to social services to zero. This would barely balance the budget, of course it would cause the Civil War II as the have nots vastly outnumber the haves. Used to be that the rich (relatively speaking) and affluent could hide their prosperity by only associating with others of their ilk. The poor knew they were being bilked but didn't know by exactly how much. In today's modern connected world the poor know exactly how much money is being taken from them via powerful politically connected individuals gaming the system. All those various tax loopholes didn't mysteriously show up one day, they were carefully placed by politicians in exchange for money and support. Now the public poor can see all the Trumps go around spending money like water. Your not going to tell these people "shut up and just due, the country needs to reduce spending and you need to cough up more" without them rioting in the streets and burning your home down.

So tell me JL, are you volunteering to be the first home to be burned? Cause I think you just volunteered.

[JLawson]

@JL

We need to reduce spending and raise actual revenue (not a fictional percentage rate).

I agree. The question is how.

'Corporations and financial folks' are using the current tax loopholes that the folks in Washington have carefully written into regulatory legislation. The more regulations that come out of Washington, the more loopholes and exemptions have to be created to mollify the business class - to at least keep an illusion that the folks currently in charge WANT businesses to succeed. But the more regulation, the LESS friendly it is to the small-business climate - to the businesses that DON'T give a whole lot of campaign contributions.

So you've got an interesting environment. On the one hand, DC has to put the screws to the big guys to convince folks (possibly like you) that they're doing their part to regulate things. You're conditioned to think that the Corps and Banks are Evil. So you'll accept more regulation to stifle their evilness.

On the other hand, they know if they REALLY push things, grab all the revenue they can - the big ones will go "You know, it's been fun - but we're going to move on." So they have loads of exemptions written in, favoring the big companies that can afford to parse things out - and then 'fight it out' in court with expensive lawyers. Takes years, but in the meantime they're making money and the relative pittance paid to the shysters is likely deductible also. Not quite a win-win, but not a win-lose.

Except for the small businesses. They can't afford to fight the system, so they're stuck... and don't prosper.

Why? Well, the folks in Washington will tell you - Big Business is EVIL, and must be chained down even more so the small guys can grow...

Congrats. You've been scammed.

Most US companies aren't even US companies, they have their headquarters incorporated in some tax haven country and funnel their profits through various countries while utilizing exemptions by stating their income was made out of the country. How dumb do you gotta be to accept that an iPhone sold to a US citizen in California is treated as external revenue due to it being funneled through Ireland.

Again - isn't it funny how the tax code is so convoluted that such a thing is legal? Do you think it started out that way? Or was it a 'scratch my back and I'll scratch yours' situation that got out of hand in DC?

Now I dare you to actually do some research and outline 1.3 TRILLION that you would personally cut. Since you claim it's only a "spending problem" you shouldn't easily be able to reduce expenditures right.

Oh, I'm sorry. Did I give you the impression that there's actually things that could be cut? I didn't mean to.

Nothing can be cut. Anywhere. At any time. In fact, even a 10% programmed annual increase that's cut back to only 5% is totally unthinkable. Cut one dollar from any government program, anywhere, and you'll have widows and orphans starving in the street. If there's two programs duplicating a function, both are vitally necessary and they can't be merged or one eliminated. Ever. And if a program isn't showing any good result? It can't be eliminated or cut back.

Because you'd be firing government workers and that is the ultimate BAD. (I'd have that red and flashing if I could, it's so bad.)

Okay - here's what I'd start with.

1. An immediate roll-back of regulatory requirements to 1998 on banks and business activities. Things were reasonably good during the Clinton era - Dot.Com bubble notwithstanding - so it's fair to say that the regulatory environment was about optimum. I'd even be willing to cut things back to a 2005 level - deficit was trending down hard, and if it hadn't been for the Democratic takeover in '06, we'd have been in green levels by 2008 even with the war going on.

2. An immediate cessation of all alternative energy subsidies. Corn for ethanol, solar power plants, wind farms - cut them all. If too much screaming ensues, take the money, funnel it into thorium reactor research on a Manhattan Project scale and timeline. (Show serious progress in 3 years, or your project is toast.)

2a. Streamline the regulatory environment for building new reactors. This ain't the days of TMI and 'The China Syndrome', we know how to build them. Do as the French did, mandate that engineering best practices be used on a certain design, then build mass quantities of that design to get the cost per unit down. This will decrease energy costs here in the US, giving a boost to businesses... and business revenue.

2a(1). Fund Polywell research as well as, say, cellulosic ethanol - if progress to date has proven promising. If it's proven VERY promising - raise funding to ITER levels.

2b. Streamline the regulatory environment for drilling for gas and oil. We need fossil fuels, it's stupid to pretend we can get by on renewables - and the cost of energy is something that businesses have to deal with. The more they've got to pay, the more their products cost. So become an 'energy friendly' country. Mandate best practices for new drilling, approve the Keystone pipeline, and get out of the way of the oil industry. They want to dig? Let 'em - and fine the hell out of 'em for any leaks.

2b(1). Federal lands that have recently (within the last 4 years) been placed off-limits to oil exploration would be reopened.

2b(2). Drilling in Gulf waters would be welcomed again. Just make sure the blowout preventers actually DO function, 'k?

2c. Expedite environmental lawsuits - especially those aimed at delaying or blocking new construction for reactors, pipelines, power plants and refineries. Institute a 'loser pays' system for all court costs. Court systems are expensive - there's not going to be any more 'Yeah, we lost, but we managed to delay them 15 years and cost them billions!' crap. You've got 3 months to prove your case, and the meter's running. If you're going to delay but figure you're going to lose anyway - better be prepared to shell out bigtime.

3. Remove all air conditioning systems in the Capitol building and all support buildings for the legislators.. Yes, DC sucks in the summer. And in the winter. We can't afford a full-time legislative body, the jerks feel they've got to justify their jobs by constantly passing legislation - and we're feeling the pinch of it. The least they can do is be uncomfortable along with us. If this means they limit themselves to a 30 day session in spring and fall when the weather's nice, then we'll just have to get by without them 'helping' us quite so much.

3a. Impose the same restrictions on age limits for the House and Senate that the airlines do. Mandatory retirement at age 60.

3b. Deduct $10,000 from Congressmen's salaries per year the budget doesn't balance. If their losing money doesn't get their attention, I don't know what will. We elect them to make the hard choices - time for them to earn their keep.

3b(1) Add $10,000 to their salaries each year there is a surplus in the budget of $100 billion or more - said surplus to immediately go against retiring national debt. Again, dangle a dollar bill in front of them, and you've got a good chance of getting the result you want.

4. Announce a 1 year Income Tax holiday, across the board. (Not unprecedented - this was somewhat done in WW2, switching over to payroll deductions as a means of paying income tax.)

4a. And switch over to the Fair Tax. You want companies to come back from overseas and prosper? Take away the legislation and taxation that's driven them off. After implementing the Fair Tax, abolish the insane tax structure that's grown around favoritism and loopholes.

4b. Announce that any overseas company that would like to relocate to the US would be quite welcome, and they'd be subject to the same tax environment.

The above steps, I believe, would significantly boost the economy - and increase revenue to that cesspit on the Potomac. With a better economy, fewer services would be needed... and we could start shrinking THOSE to get to a point where we could balance the books.

But only if we can get them to stop 'helping' us in Washington.

The reason I rail against Fox News is that it's a pile of BS, mostly due to News Corp being 100% under the control of one of the Republican Parties biggest leaders. Their not "taking stand" their feeding BS propaganda to their faithful. Liberal news sites aren't much better but you expect that.

No, I don't. They're supposed to be REPORTING the news, not making it, not guiding public opinion, not shielding the officials they like and putting a spotlight on those they don't. That's not reporting - that's advocacy... as well as treating the viewer like they're a shapeless blob of clay that can have their opinion formed to proper specifications.

Unlike you I've actually taken a long hard look at our current budget and there is no way possible to get it remotely balanced without two things happening.

#1 Slash defense to 1/4 or less of it's current amount. Bad f*cking idea, we'll end up spending more in the long run cleaning up Europe's next Alexander the Great wannabee, or we'll be fighting the Chinese off of Hawaii.

I won't disagree with you there - it's a bad idea. We're already falling down on the job, I think - but that's a problem with the attitudes of the folks in Washington and not necessarily one of funding. So we need to raise revenue. I've given my thoughts on how to do that above.

#2, Reduce Medicare to social services to zero. This would barely balance the budget, of course it would cause the Civil War II as the have nots vastly outnumber the haves. Used to be that the rich (relatively speaking) and affluent could hide their prosperity by only associating with others of their ilk. The poor knew they were being bilked but didn't know by exactly how much. In today's modern connected world the poor know exactly how much money is being taken from them via powerful politically connected individuals gaming the system. All those various tax loopholes didn't mysteriously show up one day, they were carefully placed by politicians in exchange for money and support. Now the public poor can see all the Trumps go around spending money like water. Your not going to tell these people "shut up and just due, the country needs to reduce spending and you need to cough up more" without them rioting in the streets and burning your home down.

Or the Kardashians. We've elevated idiot celebrities to near-godlike status, and drool (at least some folks do) over their consumption. And here I thought we didn't agree on things... ;-)

So tell me JL, are you volunteering to be the first home to be burned? Cause I think you just volunteered.

I've outlined what I think above. We ARE spending too much - but we're spending too much because there's too much stuff that's been put in the 'Must Have' category, regardless of whether we actually need it. (Like Obamacare. OMG. Talk about a ticking financial bomb. Gotta admit I think at times that it was a poison pill manuver by the Dems - lose the 2012 election and have it repealed and it'd be campaign fodder for DECADES - but Obama won, and we're going to have to deal with all the consequences of that messy pile of legislation. I've seen costs of $20k/family for the 'free' health care that was promised. Bad move on someone's part...)

But also... I don't think you're past the 'blame the rich for being rich' mindset.

You see someone like Trump using a solid gold toilet, and go "That's so unfair!" You don't want to admit the work, the wheeling and dealing, the failed business ventures and the like that the man went through to get to the point he could afford one - you apparently just don't want him to have it. (Me, I think it's tacky - gold is much more useful in electronic uses, and gold-plate is shiny enough if that's what you're wanting...)

But I don't begrudge the man his eccentricities - or him spending his money how he wants.

I think - and I could be wrong - that you see the "rich-poor" thing, perhaps the economy itself, as a zero-sum game. For any stupid extravagance by the 'rich', the 'poor' take it in the shorts.

I don't see it that way. Bill Gates, for example, founded Microsoft. Who has he stolen from to amass his billions? Or did he get people to voluntarily pay money for software which THEY think has made their lives easier? (Having been a Microsoft user since Dos 1.0, he's pulled some boners at times - but I never would have imagined 30 years back we'd have the software and hardware we've got today.)

Anyhow. It's too late here, and morning's coming too early.

I leave you with two videos. You may know Bill Whittle - I'd ask you to watch and listen to them carefully, and think about the concepts in them seriously.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ

http://youtu.be/KkXI-MNSb8Q

Goodnight!

[palladin9479]

You've made some VERY horrible assumptions, and you didn't do the numbers at all. Have you even seen the outlays on spending?

The things you mentioned wouldn't do jack sh!t. Your talking a few million here or there, maybe a billion if you get lucky. The deficient is 1,300+ billion.

Then you go and decide to remove the income tax, and like a good little fox puppet you never bothered to check it first.

Individual income tax was responsible for $1,165 billion of the $2,469 income for 2012. Congrats you turned a 1.3 TN deficit into a 2.4 tn deficit. How Democrat of you.

Here's the kicker, Corporate income tax was only $237 billion, mostly due to them off-shoring their profits. You talk about big business "running away", they've ALREADY run away. The only way to fix it is to do what every other modern country has done, enforce stupidly high taxes on any profit generated "overseas". They rapidly move their headquarters back to the USA and actually pay taxes for a change. Close the corporate welfare loophole that is Irish profits. The USA is the single largest set of consumers in the world, business's will not "just go elsewhere", they want the profits from the US citizens.

But also... I don't think you're past the 'blame the rich for being rich' mindset.

Incorrect I'm not a liberal, do not mistake me for one.

The economically successful are that way because they worked and learned how to game every system to get ahead. Hard workers do not become rich they just work for the rich and become the middle class. To get ahead of everyone else requires you to think "outside the box" and be creative with your accounting, or get obscenely lucky. I do not begrudge them their success, it's a very important form of Darwinian economics.

The economically successful will always want economically successful and to do this they will deploy every tactic and method at their disposal. Including rigging the game such that they always win, casino's have made much money from this mentality.

Why do people like you always think people like me are against small business? I don't like overly complicated regulations nor a bazillion loopholes. I actually like small business's, unfortunately due to the big guys gaming the system and paying the politicians the small guys are stuck paying 30% corporate tax while Apple pays something like 2~5%, has a 137+ billion USD cash reserve, and makes 13+ bn USD in profits every quarter. Seems an amazing amount of money for an Irish company.

Big business needs reigned in just as much as hedge fund managers. Tax's need to actually go down on the middle class and small business. I always though a 20% tax rate cap was a good idea, but make it unavoidable to all corporations or other entities that make 1+ million USD a year (only on net profits for a business). Would reduce taxes on the middle class / small business while raising revenue.

The people in the USA who take home the lions share of money are the economically successful (aka rich) and the big corporations. Those entities then completely dodge their tax obligations and it falls to the middle class and working poor to make up the difference. What JL and his ilk don't seem to understand is that the economically successful have been waging a class war on the middle class / working poor for decades now, it's just been covert and kept hidden. Now with social media everyone can see exactly how big that gap's become. They can also see the methods being used and realize how much they've gamed the system.

Now what the Dems in Washington are doing is offering a very small olive branch to the middle class / working poor in an attempt to prevent the rioting I mentioned above. As long as the middle class / working poor are kept entertained and capable of living something that resembles a modern live then they won't go looking into how much has been taken. You pull that rug out from under them and the very first question their going to ask is "why". When their told they need to "pay their due" cause the nation is hurting for money (reduction in social programs is just another way to tax the lower class) the very next thing is they look at the economically successful and ask "WHY". The standard Republican answer about the "1%" and "jobs growth" isn't going to go over and *poof* instant concoction for mass destruction.

Now the Dems know this, in fact just like cannabis prohibition their betting on it. You think the Dems are a bunch of brain dead idiots who just happen to get elected? Far from the truth, they've been biding their time and playing the long game. Their waiting for a Republican President to be elected. Soon the economic situation will get to a tipping point, the Republicans will get to pull the social welfare rug away, the Dems will put up token resistance, even fight it for a bit. Ultimately there will be slashing and burn cuts to social programs that the Republican base has wanted. There will be resulting riots and a huge class war will take place, Republicans will be booted out of power en-mass. Dems start winning election left and right, all they need to run on is "we promise not to do what they just did" and the middle class (now joining the ranks of the working poor) will vote for them. And then you get a socialist government, which sucks hard core.

That whole process will take another 20~30 years, but it will happen. The Republicans simply don't exist as a political party anymore. Their just the front men for corporate entities who wish to keep making money hand over fight. The only problem is this strategy is incredibly short sighted and won't work forever, eventually you piss enough people off that they'll vote for anyone not you. Just look long and hard at last election's numbers. More liberals then conservatives in this country and their ranks are growing every day, yours are shrinking.

[palladin9479]

Now as for the evil "government spending" sh!t that Fox is shoveling.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... nominal%29

Of the other top 20 world nations the US spends less per person ($11,041 per citizen) then 13 with the following 6 spending even less then the USA.

South Korea ($4,557)
Brazil ($2,813)
Russia ($2,458)
China ($1,010)
India ($226)

So per-person we're perfectly fine.

As a percentage of GDP, we're also right along with the rest of the modern world.

So while we spend more then I'm comfortable with, it's not a big issue when seen from a world view. Another case of Fox misrepresenting the truth. It's what we spend things on that is the problem, typically you want to spend government money in area's that will have the money recirculate back into the economy. The welfare money paid to the single mother of two children is used to purchase consumer goods that then go into profits for those companies creating those goods. Those companies then pay their workers and both the profits and worker pay are taxed and some of that money goes right back to the government.

Problem with the USA is that we've allowed special interest groups that represent big business's and the economically successful to rig the system so that their money doesn't get recirculated. Now the profits from those consumer goods are not being taxed and those companies are not paying their workers more. Instead the profits are being off shored into tax havens for both business's and the financially successful. This results in a constant drain of money from the pockets of the middle class and working poor. Over decades of time that constant drain displaced / redistributed much of the accumulated wealth of the middle class and all of the wealth of the working poor. We are just now beginning to see the results of it, middle class is shrinking and they can no longer generate enough money to pay the government and to subsidize the success of the economically successful. Maximum resources have already been extracted.

Now if I have to chose between the middle class / working poor and the subsidization of the wealthy, it's gonna be the wealthy that take the financial hit to the wallet.

[JLawson]

I don't watch Fox. I get the 'Evil Corporations' and 'Evil Wealthy' stuff from progressives, from liberals.

Little hint... if you don't want to be mistaken for one, then maybe you shouldn't sound like one.

Anyhow - you wanted my thoughts on the fiscal problems facing us and how to get out of them, you got 'em. Want to increase revenue? You aren't going to get it by taxing the wealthy into oblivion. (That first Youtube link I left you would show why.) You'll get it by making the environment favorable for small business. If that means that big business gets to make money also, then so what? Money made goes to the people in that company and the shareholders - who will spend it on making their lives better... which will improve the economy and provide more revenue.

The end goal is to improve the economy. Revenue will follow from that. But more regulation's not going to do it, neither will higher taxes on whatever class is the designated evil of the day. Neither will a political 'elite' who think overspending by trillions is a perfectly sustainable way to do things.

Actually - it is. Until it isn't. And that brick wall's looking mighty close and we're approaching it real fast.

So anyhow - those are my opinions. Using them as a springboard for your own rant is fine - but I'm pretty much done with this conversation.

[palladin9479]

Little hint... if you don't want to be mistaken for one, then maybe you shouldn't sound like one.

And that my friend is the problem with the current conservative base. Anyone who doesn't sound like a conservative is labeled "the enemy". Liberals call me conservative and lots of nasty names because I support some conservative positions on many things.

I'm against over regulation, regulation can suck and create bloat and inefficiencies in markets. On the other hand, without some form of control all companies will seek maximum profits regardless of the effect. Bigger companies will seek to establish monopolies to protect themselves from competition and thus artificially inflate profits. Instead of state run institutions you get state sponsored corporatism, same result just different way to get there. Thus regulations should exist to protect the market from abuse, keep to fair and open and not allow any one entity to artificially manipulate the market. Regulations should NOT be used to coerce people or to favor one entity / market over another, ie government subsidies need to die in a fire.

What I just stated above will have conservatives call be "progressive / liberal" because I proposed some regulation, progressives / liberals will call me "conservative" because I'm against subsidies and again too much regulation. That is what a moderate position is, agreeing with parts of both sides while disagreeing with the extreme views of both.

I'm not against big business nor do I believe corporations are evil, I happen to work for a very large one. Neither will I accept that corporations are out for the good of anyone except themselves, a "eat or be eaten" position. Thus I do not trust corporations one iota, they can and will work to the detriment of the public good if they believe it'll lead to enhanced profits.

Anyhow onto the tax system. I've already nailed a solid & fair tax system that is neither repressive nor does it push the burden onto one singular class. I'm actually for lower taxes in general, taxes represent a government overhead on the cost of living. It's no coincidence that places with high taxes also have sky high costs of living. Besides being for lower taxes I'm for FAIR taxes, no more welfare for corporations and financially successful individuals.

First and foremost a cap of 25% income tax on "disposable income" for $250,000+ individuals. It can scale down under that but if your making a combined (salary and ALL compensation) quarter million a year of disposable income then 25% is not much to ask. Notice I use disposable and not gross, gross is a very dumb way to tax people as certain occupations and areas have higher costs of living then other occupations and areas. To determine the disposable component it simple.

#1 Add together the monetary value of all employee compensation packages (salary + health + stock / bonus's / ect..) also add any extracted profit from investments (cash earned from stock selling / ect..)
#2 Deduct from this all money paid on first home (second if filing separately), one car per dependent, utility bills, education expenses (kids tuition / schools / ect..)
#3 Deduct a set per-person cost of living amount (we call this a tax credit now), this is set by the area your residing in. The start department calculates these numbers for federal employees, it's easy to get a hold of.
#4 Deduct any money spent on investments (big one for wealthy individuals)
#5 Knock a final $2,400 off ($200 a month personal spending money)

If final number is under $5,000 (or some defined minimum) then just throw the whole thing out and set tax rate at 0%. Their simply too poor to be bothered with.

Whatever is left is your disposable income and gets taxed with a maximum rate of 25% for $250,000 disposable. Obviously after all those expenses poor people won't have much and thus not taxed. Middle class gets taxed on whatever is left after college / kids / home / car. Wealthy get taxed at the same rate as the middle class not the stupid progressive BS. Obviously the wealthy will have more expensive homes, cars and education expenses, and it's perfectly fine for them to claim those as dedications. Also abolish the inheritance tax, when cash pass's from parent to child it's treated the same as any other form of income. Inherited property is not taxed at all unless it's transferred into cash via selling.

This must be coupled with elimination of loop holes and the ability for them to hide income in overseas bank accounts. I'm not talking money already in a savings / investment account, that money is being used. I'm talking *new* money as their personal income. This treats people the same as companies which brings me to the next part.

Lower the business profit tax to 25% from it's current 30%. Eliminate the irish + dutch loophole that allows companies to remove nearly all tax obligation on profit. Eliminate the various other loopholes that clever accountants have been using. 25% on net profit is not too much to ask. Money being reinvested into the business isn't being taxed, this will not limit expansion nor hinder productivity. If anything it'll encourage it as companies have an incentive to reinvest their profit back into the business as expansion.

Finally turn the full force of the IRS into investigating money laundering and off-shoring. Any amount discovered to have been obfuscated is taxed @75 ~ 90% depending on the level of obfuscation. Heavy negative penalties need to be enforced, make it a bad financial decision to attempt obfuscation over just paying the 25% net profit tax.

The whole purpose of this is to stem the flow of equity being extracted from the working Americans into offshore bank accounts. Money needs to flow in a circle for an economy to be healthy, breaking that circle and siphoning off cash will eventually cause the whole thing to break down. There is nothing wrong with being successful, nothing wrong with building a big global business. I like those things as they empower all our lives. What I don't like is those same people then rigging the whole thing after their successful to prevent anyone else from being successful and then getting greedy and siphoning money off.

Under no system should Warren Buffet be taxed at a lower effective rate then his junior managers.

[Jccarlton]

The thing is that we also have a demographic collapse to deal with as well:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... urden.html

[palladin9479]

Ohh don't get me wrong. The retirement of the baby boomer generation is going to hurt and hurt lots. Things are going to get pretty rough for the 20 some odd years it takes most of them to die. The healthcare industry is already smacking it's lips in anticipation of the potential profits it can make.

Those health costs are actually a big reason I absolutely hate the Republican party right now. They've sheltered and sponsored the creation of this monster healthcare industry that should never of existed in the first place. Mind as well make a company who's business plan revolved around charging people to breath. If someone doesn't pay then you cut off their oxygen supply until they pay or it no longer matters. Would have sky high profits, a veritable money making machine. Whomever found a way to get congress to back the law requiring you to pay for your oxygen would be instantly powerful. That's a debate for a different day.

Suffice to say, once that generation has died off the country will finally be able to return to prosperity.

[Jccarlton]

You know I've been watching politics a long time now and it seems the if you want to pick a party thats been interfering with the health system since I've been alive, that party has by and large been the Democrats. Now as to how the system costs as much as it does, you can look at things like the horrendous lawsuit abuse and the connected high malpractice insurance rates, the high rate of defensive medicine and the requirement that emergency rooms foot the bill for all patients without regard to scofflaws. All policies, like so many others enacted by Democrats over the years. If you actually look at finacial statements by and large medical insurance companies don't make a lot of money as compared to say the big law practices of the ambulance chasers.
As for creating companies around chargine people to breathe, well how about the carbon credit exchanges and the phony stuff surrounding the AGW scams. Frankly, looking at history, historically it's the Democrats who have been the party of the rent seeker in all it's forms.

Ohh don't get me wrong. The retirement of the baby boomer generation is going to hurt and hurt lots. Things are going to get pretty rough for the 20 some odd years it takes most of them to die. The healthcare industry is already smacking it's lips in anticipation of the potential profits it can make.

Those health costs are actually a big reason I absolutely hate the Republican party right now. They've sheltered and sponsored the creation of this monster healthcare industry that should never of existed in the first place. Mind as well make a company who's business plan revolved around charging people to breath. If someone doesn't pay then you cut off their oxygen supply until they pay or it no longer matters. Would have sky high profits, a veritable money making machine. Whomever found a way to get congress to back the law requiring you to pay for your oxygen would be instantly powerful. That's a debate for a different day.

Suffice to say, once that generation has died off the country will finally be able to return to prosperity.

[Jccarlton]

If anybody sees a great big pile of cash that can be extracted from the current mess I wouled like to know:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-02-1 ... er-america

[palladin9479]

You know I've been watching politics a long time now and it seems the if you want to pick a party thats been interfering with the health system since I've been alive, that party has by and large been the Democrats. Now as to how the system costs as much as it does, you can look at things like the horrendous lawsuit abuse and the connected high malpractice insurance rates, the high rate of defensive medicine and the requirement that emergency rooms foot the bill for all patients without regard to scofflaws. All policies, like so many others enacted by Democrats over the years. If you actually look at finacial statements by and large medical insurance companies don't make a lot of money as compared to say the big law practices of the ambulance chasers.

Your making too many assumptions. You want to see me as a Democrat and thus the "bad guy" because I don't support your positions. You put blinders on yourself so as to not see where I loath the liberals and their intense desire to correct perceived social injustices. Just like the conservatives do have some things right so to do the liberals, not all their ideas are evil, their not bad people, just extremely misguided. In fact I can say with confidence that both political parties are just fronts for various corporate and financial interests, they manipulate people on both sides into fighting over an imaginary line while ensuring that their backers have their pockets lined with money.

I already stated I don't like intrusive regulations, much of the malpractice BS needs to go. Yes hospitals don't make much money, but their not the ones breaking the system, neither are doctors. Insurance companies and pharmaceuticals are the current bad guys, though their not evil. Instead their doing exactly what companies are designed to do, extract maximum revenue from profit streams. This is what companies do naturally and is where government needs to keep an eyeball on to ensure no foul play happens.

Insurance companies are nothing but middle men, they do not insure you against anything, if you get too sick and are no longer profitable they'll just drop you for "preexisting conditions" or a host of other fabricated reasons. Do not attempt to deny this as I've seen it first hand, having a mother who works in healthcare kinda opens your eyes a bit. Insurance companies exist to get you to pay them money under the false promise that in the future they'll cover your medical expenses, yet in order for them to be profitable they must provide less services then their being paid for. If you pay your insurance company $1000 per year, they must only provide you with $500 or less to be profitable. If their providing you with more health services then your paying for then their operating at a loss and won't be in business for long. They provide no valued added service and thus represent an inefficiency and should be removed entirely. Everyone would be better off if they negotiated with their employer not to provide insurance and instead have that cash (employers part too) put into a tax free medical savings account (HSA now). When (not if) you do get sick you have a pile of tax-free cash you can use to pay. And here is a secret that people don't talk about, paying cash up front can reduce your medical bills by 20~50% off the "insurance" rates. Medication is probably the only thing you can't get cheap, but that's leading into my next point.

Biopharms are milking the US population for stupid ridiculous amounts of cash. Medical R&D has expensive upfront costs but the product itself is crazy cheap to make. This favors a system of mass production at literally 1,000 ~ 5,000% profit. No I didn't get the order of magnitudes wrong they are making that much. The millions of USD in research is nothing compared to the billions in income these guys get. Most of that income is from the USA due to laws of supply & demand. They control the supply of the magic pill that represents your "health", how much money would you pay for your own health? My comparison to buying air was directed at the biopharms because that's literally what people are doing. $50 USD for a pill that costs a penny or less to make. The R&D costs get spread out amongst every single pill song, so the longer they sell it the more profitable it becomes. The R&D costs were sunk long before the pill was fabricated and thus aren't subject to current inflation so increasing the price of the pill is largely a direct increase in profit.

Health care is one of the very few places I tend to agree with the liberals on. Though "single payer" is absolutely NOT the best idea, the US Government should not be providing this service. The most I can go with is a low-cost program to assist in health costs for the working poor and only at a reduced rate. Keeping your working poor healthy is more profitable then general sickness preventing them from working in the first place. My belief (and this is a belief) is that the government should ensure that most (not all) health care is available at an affordable price, and unfortunately that means pulling a page from the socialist play book. Government set price controls of common medication and treatments with input from industrial & medical representatives.

As much as conservatives cringe at that idea it beats both alternatives, single payer and explosive medical costs bankrupting people. As I happen to live / work in a place that exercises this system I can testify to how well it works. It really does keep general health costs affordable. The only negative (not really a negative) is that there it places pressure on doctors wanting lots of money into becoming cosmetic surgeons (cosmetic surgery is not covered). There is a booming cosmetic surgery industry in ROK now, everything from double eyelid to breasts to cheek / femur / arm surgery.

As for your global warming point. You may not remember but I'm an incredibly vocal and avid supporter of actual science involving the scientific method and not religious belief turned pseudo for-profit science. This puts me at odds with pretty much every liberal and gets me called nasty names by them to an including "denier".