Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
$800/mo in present money for bare survival, if you will review my original.
I am not remotely suggesting that someone attempting to live on that amount should be charged more tax. We were, if you recall, discussing tax rate for much more fortunate people.
I've continued to reply to you because I've assumed your misconstructions of my meaning were inadvertent lapses of comprehension, rather than intentionally jesuitical rhetorical tactics. By this latest post of yours, I begin to suspect you are arguing in bad faith. You may be a happy Texan, but you are not a gentlemanly one. I won't be paying attention to you in future.
$800/month won't even give you bare survival.
I just posted that $9600 would be wiped out with 2 payments..property tax and homeowner insurance.
We're talking assets worth a million used to generate income in retirement.
You think they should pay more because of their asset valuation.
EG, I mean the same thing you mean: what we've had--a growing government continuing to grow, this chapter via the ACA. Last chapter was Medicare Part D, Bush's unfunded big-government initiative.
Hence I asked another...
Should we slash federal health care spending that covers elderly, disabled and children to only what is received via Medicare taxes? That will be $650 billion a year in savings.
Should we slash defense spending to 3.6% of the GDP as was the case in FY2001? That will be about $350 billion a year in savings.
And there, you have a trillion dollar deficit reduction right there. The rest can come from here and there. Now, go ahead and force your congressmen/women to push that as a budget proposal. After all, the only implication you can think of would be that those who can’t afford it, would learn to, and it would save the nation.
BTW, the ACA issue is that it doesn’t go far enough. Lest you forgot, health care costs have been a disaster for this country and no, sticking your head back in the sand won’t help overcome it.
That is not my fault or the responsibility of the government.
It became the responsibility of the government when the Great Depression brought out the realities. But, of course, some were born to dismiss history much less to learn from it.
It is your fault, however, that you've chosen to live in a society that won't abide by your personal rules.
Yes, in principle I think you're right. But as the more fervid contributors to this thread will no doubt scream at you, quite a few people in that category - earning 200-250K and net wealth hovering over a million - aren't "extremely" wealthy, probably don't derive a really large portion of their income from capital appreciation, and can't take advantage of the really clever tax dodges.
I don't know anything about Romney's gardeners, but I'd suggest he move to Oregon - good public health programs to make him feel at home and he wouldn't have to pump his own gas!
Reading and applying the tax code is not "dodging". A US taxpayer is not obligated to pay one cent more than is legally owed. Sheltering or directing income to lower your tax burden is wise, not evil.
Since we have a military that acts like it is ruling an Empire it should be self supporting. Why are we paying for Iraqi oil anyway? We should just be taking it. Same applies to any mineral wealth in Afghanistan. We have an army there so let it steal its cost. Don't these people know what armies are for? The Romans and the Brits certainly did.
If we don’t want to openly loot the world then we do not need an army that big. Want to cut spending? Try cutting the military budget by over 50%.
Should we slash federal health care spending that covers elderly, disabled and children to only what is received via Medicare taxes? That will be $650 billion a year in savings.
Should we slash defense spending to 3.6% of the GDP as was the case in FY2001? That will be about $350 billion a year in savings.
And there, you have a trillion dollar deficit reduction right there. The rest can come from here and there. Now, go ahead and force your congressmen/women to push that as a budget proposal. After all, the only implication you can think of would be that those who can’t afford it, would learn to, and it would save the nation.
BTW, the ACA issue is that it doesn’t go far enough. Lest you forgot, health care costs have been a disaster for this country and no, sticking your head back in the sand won’t help overcome it.
Hey, EG, I've become a health care radical. Credible studies done over the past couple of decades show beyond a shadow of a doubt that prostate and breast cancer screening have done NOTHING for our overall health and longevity--the harm from treatment equals or outweighs the benefits of treatment, in both cases, on a societal basis. And studies also show that pharmaceuticals can deliver the same outcomes as open heart surgery is a surprisingly large fraction of cases.
As long as medicine offers us some new version of the fountain of youth, the promise of years added to our lives, we'll spend every nickel we can beg or borrow for it. Human nature.
So if we truly had a national health system that was willing to stop the nonsense, then we would put HALF of current total government and private health care outlays back in our pockets. ACA doesn't go far enough, and whatever you are contemplating doesn't go far enough either. The mortality rate is 100%, and we will need death panels to wring the rational cost savings out of the system.
As for defense, the military-industrial complex IS soaking up hundreds of billions not needed to provide for the national defense. With you all the way, baby. More money in our pockets, not building stuff we do not need. But then you have to allow the American energy revolution to proceed with all due speed, so we can demilitarize the Middle East.
You put your finger on the problem: what congressperson is going to propose these things in a fashion that can succeed in the legislature?
The Washington Post editorializes that the opening bids of President Obama and John Boehner have one thing in common: they are both too small. Neither gets us where we need to be in terms of long-term deficit and debt management.
That set me to thinking: if the Obama society is so wonderful and deserving of funding, shouldn't more of us be paying for it? Can't the family making $225k or $175k dish up a few more tax dollars, too? When we are all whining about the need for a civil society to protect and care for the downtrodden, how can we permit households making $100k to get off easy? We use the examples of the disabled veterans and the struggling poor and dilapidated inner-city schools to justify higher taxes on the 2%. Don't those same examples apply to the family making $175k or $225k?
To their credit, a left-leaning assortment came up with a grand bargain plan that would increase taxes modestly on incomes of $100-$500k, and have those over $500k paying about 5% more. They recognized that if we want a big government, more of us need to pay for it. But this is a dirty secret as far as Barack "Free Lunch" Obama is concerned.
The problem for this country is not tax. We are already overly taxed. Don't give me the crap that in the 40s and 50s tax was 90%. When the income tax was sold to the public, Wilson said only apply to people making $25,000/year (or about 2,000,000 in today's day) at 1% with a maximum of 3% for the very top earners. Of course, this last for just 1 year and then go up from there and then FDR put it at 91%.
The problem with this country is 2 folds:
1) Spending. When you spending is always 2 to 1 on tax collection, then there is a problem. In a layman term, if you make only $100,000 a year, but you spend $200,000 a year, how long can you last? Do you see a problem?
2) The government don't promote people to work. They promote people to be lazy. Stay on welfare. Why you might as? Because it is all about vote and power. If you promote people free lunch, they will vote for you. And of course, the people who is working on serve this group of people has JOBS, which will continue voting for you.
That should have been the idea in 2001, when surplus was used as an excuse to implement tax cuts. We had debt then, which rose rapidly in the 1980s and again in the 2000s. And yet, THAT government was apparently being "wise". So, let me ask you this... should a wise government...
- Cut health care spending on the elderly and children to a level it collects in taxes for health care? That will be a "savings" of about $650B.
- Trim defense spending to a level seen in FY2001 (last budget under Clinton), which was 3.6% of the GDP. We will be looking at $350 billion or so in savings from that (defense budget down from $850 billion to $500 billion).
That's a trillion dollar in deficit reduction right there. Wise, or unwise? That would leave only $200B or so, to cut for a balanced budget, next year. Now, let us see "fiscal conservatives" put THIS budget on the table.
Don't YOU find it a bit odd this is where this administration or any other would start. How about aid to illegals or those capable of working for a living, not just popping out babies. Foreign affairs would also be a good start......money given to those who cause chaos in Arab countries should receive nothing.........why their being given money to begin with is another thread.
Hey, EG, I've become a health care radical. Credible studies done over the past couple of decades show beyond a shadow of a doubt that prostate and breast cancer screening have done NOTHING for our overall health and longevity--the harm from treatment equals or outweighs the benefits of treatment, in both cases, on a societal basis. And studies also show that pharmaceuticals can deliver the same outcomes as open heart surgery is a surprisingly large fraction of cases.
As long as medicine offers us some new version of the fountain of youth, the promise of years added to our lives, we'll spend every nickel we can beg or borrow for it. Human nature.
So if we truly had a national health system that was willing to stop the nonsense, then we would put HALF of current total government and private health care outlays back in our pockets. ACA doesn't go far enough, and whatever you are contemplating doesn't go far enough either. The mortality rate is 100%, and we will need death panels to wring the rational cost savings out of the system.
As for defense, the military-industrial complex IS soaking up hundreds of billions not needed to provide for the national defense. With you all the way, baby. More money in our pockets, not building stuff we do not need. But then you have to allow the American energy revolution to proceed with all due speed, so we can demilitarize the Middle East.
You put your finger on the problem: what congressperson is going to propose these things in a fashion that can succeed in the legislature?
For more than one reason, though. We will agree on that one reason. I'm more interested in the others, if we actually have a proper understanding of the implications and especially with health care spending.
Now you say what I am contemplating doesn't go far enough. Could I challenge here to elaborate on what that contemplation of mine is?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
another source of income
How about aid to illegals or those capable of working for a living, not just popping out babies. Foreign affairs would also be a good start......money given to those who cause chaos in Arab countries should receive nothing.........why their being given money to begin with is another thread.
