How likely are you to watch the CNN/You Tube debates tonight?

[shanbaum]

Shanbaum, if you want to insist that the "rich" take in 25% of the wealth and pay 25% of the government's income, that's fine by me (and no, I don't think they should be responsible for 27%, 30% or even 26%). The point being made was, the rich were not the sole beneficiaries of the recent (temporary) tax cuts.

I know. You think you were a beneficiary, and I keep trying to show you how you weren't. But - I've failed.

[Pete Hanlin]

I know. You think you were a beneficiary, and I keep trying to show you how you weren't. But - I've failed.
Sorry to be such a poor student... I guess I'm just too simple-minded to look past the fact that- since the tax cuts- the average amount of taxes I've paid to the federal government has dropped about $1,800/year (while my average annual income has steadily increased).

[Steve Machol]

Good for you! That way the money you have saved will be added to your children's debt and they will be the ones to pay it off along with all the consequences such a massive debt will have on their future. I have different hopes for my children and grandchildren and am willing to pay more if neeeded to protect their futures, but to each his own.

[Sorry or the sarcasm Pete. I know you are a really decent guy and really don't mean to pick on you specifically. However often the constant drumbeat for 'LOWER TAXES, LOWER TAXES' is done out of pure selfishness and without any thought to future generations and the consequences it holds for them. And this is something that troubles me greatly.]

Personally I'm paying more taxes now but being self-employed is probably the major reason for that.

[1968]

However often the constant drumbeat for 'LOWER TAXES, LOWER TAXES' is done out of pure selfishness and without any thought to future generations and the consequences it holds for them.

Has that been the case in this thread?

[Steve Machol]

I don't believe I ever said it was. However anyone who pays attention knows that this is a constant mantra among a significant segment of the population, and it is those people I'm referring to.

Personally I'm getting awfully tired of hearing some people whine about their taxes who at the same time do and say absolutely nothing about deficit spending, except for the occasional lip-service. They are perfectly happy to keep demanding their tax cuts knowing full well that it's future generations that will have to pay for our excesses. In fact several people have said in this thread how happy they are for their tax cuts (which I never saw by the way, but then again I wasn't demanding any), and who know full well that this was done at the expense of future generations. This doesn't bother them at all - or at least not enough to demand their government actually fix this mess. As long as someone promises to cut their taxes or at least not raise them, they are perfectly happy to continue voting for them, regardless of the effect on our children and the future of this Country. In my opinion this is selfissh and immoral.

Unfortunately I believe it may already be too late for our children and certainly our grandchildren. They will not only have to pay off this massive debt we have burdened them with, but their standard of living and our Country's place in the world will be lower than ours because of what we have done.

I hope this is my last post on this subject. It is something I feel strongly about yet for some reason I'm the one that gets criticized for wanting not to burden our children with our debt and placing this at a higher priority than cutting taxes. Go figure.

[Judy Canty]

Steve, I could not agree with you more.

[1968]

I don't believe I ever said it was.

Hold that thought… contradiction coming soon.

However anyone who pays attention knows that this is a constant mantra among a significant segment of the population, and it is those people I'm referring to.

Personally I'm getting awfully tired of hearing some people whine about their taxes who at the same time do and say absolutely nothing about deficit spending, except for the occasional lip-service. They are perfectly happy to keep demanding their tax cuts knowing full well that it's future generations that will have to pay for our excesses. In fact several people have said in this thread how happy they are for their tax cuts (which I never saw by the way, but then again I wasn't demanding any), and who know full well that this was done at the expense of future generations. This doesn't bother them at all - or at least not enough to demand their government actually fix this mess. As long as someone promises to cut their taxes or at least not raise them, they are perfectly happy to continue voting for them, regardless of the effect on our children and the future of this Country. In my opinion this is selfissh and immoral.

In other words, you DO believe it to be the case in this thread that “the constant drumbeat for ‘LOWER TAXES, LOWER TAXES’ is done out of pure selfishness and without any thought to future generations and the consequence it holds for them”.

I’ve reviewed the entire thread and cannot verify as fact that “several people have said in this thread how happy they are for their tax cuts”. One could infer from Pete’s comments that that might be true for him, but I think it’s a bit hasty to conclude from that that the presence of a large national debt does not bother him hence he is selfish and immoral. Maybe it bothers him but he feels that he is already carrying a disproportionate share of the burden so the responsibility lays with those who he feels are not. Maybe it bothers him but he feels that many of today’s expenses are for the benefit of future generations so it is OK to let them assist in financing them. Maybe you're right and it doesn’t bother him at all. *shrugs*

Unfortunately I believe it may already be too late for our children and certainly our grandchildren. They will not only have to pay off this massive debt we have burdened them with, but their standard of living and our Country's place in the world will be lower than ours because of what we have done.

I hope this is my last post on this subject. It is something I feel strongly about yet for some reason I'm the one that gets criticized for wanting not to burden our children with our debt and placing this at a higher priority than cutting taxes. Go figure.

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t see that you’ve been criticized for those beliefs in this thread.

[Steve Machol]

I typed out a point by point reply, but what's the point. You seem to have an issue with me personally and will continue with this as long as I keep responding to it. And I have no time to be bothered with this personal feud of yours.

Therefore to make you happy, you must be right and I must be wrong. Peace. :)

[1968]

I typed out a point by point reply, but what's the point. You seem to have an issue with me personally and will continue with this as long as I keep responding to it. And I have no time to be bothered with this personal feud of yours.

Therefore to make you happy, you must be right and I must be wrong. Peace. :)

There is no personal feud here, Steve. I agree with you that an increasing national debt is likely to affect our children negatively and that we should be concerned about reducing it; however, I do not agree with the premise that we can easily judge the hearts and minds of people based on what aspects of tax policy they may favor or oppose.

[For-Life]

Increasing the debt hurts you NOW!

All the tax dollars that are paying interest could go either toward social programs or back in your pockets.

[Pete Hanlin]

The only thing I've advocated is keeping taxes where they are RIGHT NOW. I don't believe I've said anything to indicate that taxes should be reduced. As it stands, taxes are slated to go up in a few years...

Just to make this really clear-
1.) I think deficit spending is one of the most serious problems our country faces.
2.) My solution is to spend less money.
3.) My sarcasm is directed towards people who think raising tax rates is the solution to our overspending.

I can understand how someone could disagree with me, but I'm at a total loss in understanding how someone could misinterpret my comments so as to conclude that I am unconcerned with our national debt.

We need to cut spending- period. Steve, you state this cutting needs to occur in places beyond social programs- and I couldn't agree more (as I've repeatedly stated). We need to cut military spending, special interest spending, yes- social spending, spending on subsidies... basically we need serious cuts across the board.

You're sick of hearing about tax cuts... I get that. I'm sick of hearing people ask for more and more and MORE programs that my children will have to pay for (be they military, social, or otherwise)! We need legislation that REQUIRES a balanced budget. I don't care what we have to cut- but this country needs to start living within its means. The kinds of cuts we need will never occur in the present environment, because lobbyists- be it corporate, environmental, unions, etc.- will hold campaign money over their heads, and people will keep voting for representatives who "bring home the bacon."

Seeing that we need to cut, I kinda get really peeved when I see someone suggesting we need to spend more money on this or that program. NO! Stop the dang spending- because you're already taking enough of my money. I look at what I make, and add up what I pay in federal, property, sales, and other taxes and I think "there is something wrong if the government can't live on the money we provide."

So, we agree- our kids are going to be stuck with a huge bill. Your solution seems to be to raise taxes till we can pay it off. My solution is to stop spending so much money (and my solution is based on the fact that the best way to get more tax revenue is to have a strong economy- and raising taxes usually has negative effects on the economy).

Fixing the problem is really quite simple- re-enact Graham-Rudman (with no loopholes) and make our representatives earn their pay.

[Steve Machol]

Your solution seems to be to raise taxes till we can pay it off.

That's not what I said at all:

IMO the first fiscal priority of this government should be to pay for what it spends. If this means cutting costs - great. If it means that in some instances we would also need to raise revenue or taxes - so be it. Either way we should pay our own way. We owe that much to future generations.

My first priority is and always has been cutting spending, which is why I put that first over increasing revenue.

We're not as far apart as you think. However there are some things I believe Government should do much less of and some things I believe they should do more of - and we probably differ in which programs and services we would support, which is what I mentioned earlier. Therefore the dilemma is - who decides?

Unfortunately in our system it's money that decides and that money comes from special interests - some good, some not so good, and some in-between. And because of this, spending keeps growing and has no real chance of truly being cut in any meaningful way.

This is why I no longer believe that we should allow unlimited spending on campaigns and elections. The argument has always been that to limit campaign spending is equivalent to limiting free speech. And I actually bought into that for most of my libertarian life.

However if you believe that, then you have to accept the idea that money is speech and that people with more money have more 'speech'. After all money is necessary to get their message out and the more money you have, the more 'speech' you have. I really don't think anything will change until campaigns are all publicly financed with real spending limits and people can compete on their ideas and merits rather than the amount of money they can raise.

[Interestingly, but not surprisingly, the Democrats who used to be all for such an idea have backed off of this now that they are out-raising the Republicans in donations. I don't like hypocrisy no matter which side of the politicial spectrum it comes from.]

Back to taxes, one of the most interesting ideas I ever heard was to allow people to designate what percentage of their taxes go into which programs or departments. They've even polled people on this idea. I believe they are called 'Penny Polls. Try a Google search. The results are far different than what our government really spends our money on.

[Pete Hanlin]

Well, I'm glad to hear we're not at polar opposites- because experience has shown you are usually somewhere around the middle (aka "reasonable" on issues). That's usually where I try to end up, so I was a bit surprised that we seemed to be at odds on this point.

So, if I understand correctly- we agree we need to cut spending. We both (probably correctly) are assuming we would cut in different areas (although I suspect you might be surprised at some of the cuts I would be willing to make- and I suspect the opposite is true as well). For example, with things like medicaid, although the overall spending needs to be cut, I think we need to give more money to fewer people. As a bumper sticker I once saw on a contractor's truck read: "Make food stamps as hard to get as a building permit!" With the military, I think we need to get rid of a lot of the duplication of forces between the services. For sure, we do not need 3 different versions of every new jet fighter!

If the government really did a good job of cutting spending first- and then we discovered we still needed more money- I might be willing to part with more of my money. Till I see the government being more responsible with its spending, however, I don't like the idea of throwing more of my money into the black hole of federal spending.

[Steve Machol]

One of the major wastes of money (among many) is the user of no-bid contractors which has sky-rocketed under the Bush Administration and is a major consumer of tax dollars in Iraq. For instance private contract truck drivers doing the same job as our soldiers can get up to 4-8 times the amount we pay our troops. It's not only an insult to our troops (how come the alleged 'Support Our Troops' people make an issue of this along with the cuts in the VA and other services for our soldiers?) but this 'privatization' of military services is a phony 'free market' cause celebe and is nothing more than pure graft.

And hoenstly the money being wasted on that alone dwarfs any misuse of food stamps and welfare funds.

Here's an idea that won't happen. Make Social Security 'needs' based. My Grandparents collected Social Secirity for 35 years (grandpa) and 44 years (grandma) and they didn't need one cent of it. They were wealthy.

It all comes down to the special interests (AARP, Defense Contractors, etc.) and as long as election campaigns are privately financed these interests will have undue influnce over how our money is spent and there will be no meaningful change.

[Pete Hanlin]

Totally agree on the non-contested bid issue you raise.

Couldn't be more horrified at the idea of using Social Security to redistribute wealth in an even more blatant manner.

So, the folks who responsibly set aside 401k funds each year and build a nest-egg for themselves should just consider the 15%+ of their income that went into the SS system a donation to those who either failed to save or couldn't work for some reason or other?

I appreciate where you are coming from- it would be great to care for those who can't care for themselves (often due to legitimate reasons). But I simply can't buy into the "from each according to his ability to each according to his need" mentality. For starters, it isn't "fair." Of course, it can be argued that it also isn't "fair" that some people can't find jobs and therefore can't save for their retirement, yada, yada, yada. However, just because a person has money doesn't mean they have a social obligation to give it to those who do not (there are religious obligations to do so, but- as is so enthusiastically pointed out here and elsewhere- we do not live in a theocratic society, but a secular one).

It comes down to the highway/driveway/tollway argument all over again. I have no problem paying taxes for a highway (even if I'll never personally use it) because it benefits all of society by allowing for commerce (in which I do participate). I have a major problem paying for someone's driveway- because its their responsibility. Finally, there are some roads/programs that have to be tollways where one pays for usage.

Retirement is a driveway issue. You've got 60 years to build your driveway, and if you don't feel the need to work on it I'll be darned if I'll build it for you. I have a relative who used a loophole to exempt himself from paying into SS. Now, he's retiring and will really miss having a SS check. Considering he never paid into the system, however, I don't think he should get a dime out of it.

Finally, redistribution of wealth on a large scale doesn't work. Human motivation being what it is, if you know others will support you even if you don't, there is a tendancy to work less- not more. If my parents (who happened to plan well for retirement, but still lost a significant chunk in the stock market) were ever in need, they'd be welcome to move in (same goes for my in-laws). I do not expect any of y'all to help out with your tax dollars, however.

So, if we can save money by cutting the sweet deals being handed out by the administration- go for it. Fixing SS, however, should never involve increased redistribution of wealth.

[optical24/7]

.

Fixing SS, however, should never involve increased redistribution of wealth.

How about eliminating the $97,500. cap on earnings that pay into the system?

[Steve Machol]

How about eliminating the $97,500. cap on earnings that pay into the system?

That would be my suggestion. As it is now it's a regressive tax that hurts affects the poor and middle-class disportionately more than the rich (as shanbaum repeatedly and correctly points out.)

If someone truly wanted to get rid of the inequities in the tax system that they believe are unfair to the rich, then this is something they should support.

So, the folks who responsibly set aside 401k funds each year and build a nest-egg for themselves should just consider the 15%+ of their income that went into the SS system a donation to those who either failed to save or couldn't work for some reason or other?

I agree with that to a point. However I've been paying into SS for more thn 30 years during which most of the time I have realized that I will not get any meaningful return on this and may in fact not get anything back at all because of government mismanagement.

However, points to be considered are: a) not everyone has a job that offers a 401k, and b) even if they do, many do not make enough money to afford to set aside a meaningful part of their income build up their nest egg.

There really is a working poor class in America. The rich will tell that that this is just 'class warfare' talk (mostly because they don't really want an honest discussion of what is going on), but the fact is there is economic war being waged against the poor and middle class. Usually subtle to be sure, but warfare nonetheless.

Look at what Enron did to not only the people that invested in them, but to the consumers in California. They purposely and willfully messed with the energy grid to extract as much profit as they could, without any regard to the people going without power and paying for the higher prices. This is just one example of many.

Nonethless I agree the SS is a mess. That's why I agree that we should eliminate the cap on earnings to make it more fair for now untill we come up with something better.

I also believe it's time to re-evaluate the entire income tax system. Perhaps a VAT is the way to go, i.e., tax consumption, not income. I'm not married to the idea but I do believe the currrent systm is unfair (to many) and unsustainable for the long term economic viability of this country.

[Pete Hanlin]

How about eliminating the $97,500 cap on earnings that pay into the system?
Cap goes up every year (went up $3,300 last year)...

There's also a cap on what the system will pay out (currently I believe the cap on benefits is $35,544/year), would elimination of the earning cap mean the payout cap is removed as well?

[Pete Hanlin]

I've been paying into SS for more than 30 years during which most of the time I have realized that I will not get any meaningful return on this and may in fact not get anything back at all because of government mismanagement... ...I agree the SS is a mess. That's why I agree that we should eliminate the cap on earnings to make it more fair for now until we come up with something better...
We both agree the system is screwed up- I'm not planning on getting my money back out of the system either (I've only been donating money to this scheme for 23 years). Your solution is to dump even more of our money into this losing proposition? The government has mishandled the money I've already given them- why would I want to give them even more?

...I also believe it's time to re-evaluate the entire income tax system. Perhaps a VAT is the way to go, i.e., tax consumption, not income. I'm not married to the idea but I do believe the currrent systm is unfair (to many) and unsustainable for the long term economic viability of this country.
On one of the other forums I frequent (a car site), there are a lot of Brits. One of the things they more or less constantly complain about is the VAT. Those poor fellows pay a tax on virtually everything (including a tax that's dependent upon the size of your automobile engine).

As we've discussed, I don't believe the current system is necessarily unfair. The rich pay 35% on income- plus other taxes on investment income. Proportionally, they pay a percentage of the total taxes that is equal to- or greater- than the percentage of income they make.

[Steve Machol]

There's also a cap on what the system will pay out (currently I believe the cap on benefits is $35,544/year), would elimination of the earning cap mean the payout cap is removed as well?

I don't see why not. You pay more into the system, then you should get more from it.

[Steve Machol]

Your solution is to dump even more of our money into this losing proposition? The government has mishandled the money I've already given them- why would I want to give them even more?

As I said, this is a regressive tax that unfairly affects the poor and middle class. Unless the whole system is changed, then it should be applied equally and fairly to all. I'd also force Congress to pay into it as well.

On one of the other forums I frequent (a car site), there are a lot of Brits. One of the things they more or less constantly complain about is the VAT.

Most of the people I work with our British. There isn't a single one I know of that would trade their tax system and health care system for ours.

The rich pay 35% on income- plus other taxes on investment income. Proportionally, they pay a percentage of the total taxes that is equal to- or greater- than the percentage of income they make.

Remove the cap on SS to make that more fair, then we can look at the rest of the tax code.

However what we really need is not more tweaking of he current system, but a new one built from the ground up.

It's all moot anyway. As long as campaigns and elections are decided by special interest money, there will not be any meaningful change to this or to spending.

[1968]

For those who missed the debate last night, my favorite moment occurred when Hillary brushed-off the question asking how electing her would constitute a change in the Washington status quo. She proceeded to set-up a Democratic lovefest (i.e. “Any one of us would be a better president than our current president or the future Republican nominee.”) that Mike Gravel angrily shoved back in her face: “The Democratic Party used to stand for the ordinary working man. But the Clintons and the DLC sold out the Democratic Party to Wall Street. Look at where all the money is being raised right now, for Hillary, Obama and Edwards. It's the hedge funds, it's Wall Street bankers, it's the people who brought you what you have today. Please wake up. Just look at the New York Times of the 17th of July that analyzes where the money's coming from.”

Here’s the transcript:

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldtmuZHVUWY
Transcript: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/...nscript.part2/

If I said anything nice about Mike Gravel, I take it back. This evening Gravel gloated about sticking credit card companies with $90,000 of his debt, then had the gall to refer to his other Democratic contenders as "the greediest people in the world".

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...s-charge-this/