SHOCKER! Democrats push tax hikes first in deficit talks

The real issue is that the us tax code is riddled with loopholes.

 

Dump the cable TV, get rid of the iPhones with data plans, plenty of other luxury cuts can be made. Wal-Mart sneakers instead of Nike's. You used a family income as an example, what taxes can they raise on anyone? Rob banks maybe? I made those changes myself. Out with the Droid phone, in with a regular cell phone. Out went the cable, in with the TV Antennae on the roof and bulk shopping at Costco saved me enough to buy major medical coverage with a big deductible. I bought a really good used car in 2001 and I'm still driving it. $450 a month car payments are $5400 a year. I put a rebuilt motor in my car for $3000, good for a lot more miles. Is it a sharp snazzy ride, no it's a 1992 Honda but I'm not paying $450 a month either.

 

One has to remember that GDP includes government spending. Government spending has continued to go up as percentage of GDP. It is now around 24% of GDP. Of course revenue can't keep up with GDP growth if the largest portion of that growth is government spending.

Yep, Bush sucked, Obama sucks more, at least on spending and deficit side of things. Too bad all we ever get are big spenders, would be lovely to get someone who would cut the debt each year. Just so we could see a real change for once.

 

You are completely correct. There should be no talk about tax increases or tax cuts until we create a completely fair tax code. I recently learned that my great-grandfather was an accountant that attended some meeting to discuss the formation of the original tax code involving income taxes. He actually walked out on the meeting because they were creating a tax code that would involve numerous loopholes, expenditures, and other inefficiencies. According to my father's accounts, he was in favor of a simplified tax code with no exceptions and a flat income tax.

 

Well i think a flat tax is a bad idea, it either would't bring in enough revenue or the middle class and poor would have a crushing tax burden on they shoulders. I'm in favor of a progressive tax system without loopholes, because those with the ability to pay should pay more than the poor and middle class who are already having a hard time paying they bills.

 

To me that means government is too big and costs more than it should.

 

Or it means the middle class are not getting paid enough.

 

After this fiscal year, we will have a better idea of how much revenue we must take in and how much government spending we should cut to eliminate the deficit and start paying down the debt. Based upon FY2010, we had an 8.9% difference between revenues and government spending as percentage of GDP. Therefore, we should aim to cut 4.5% of our government spending, and increase revenue by 4.5%, both as percentage of GDP.

 

I can relate to certain aspects of govt. being too big... but the mantra you're sharing above, isn't enough to explain the solutions we need.

 

We should pay a door greeter at Walmart the same as a mechanical engineer?

I don't see how liberals think that government is going to weigh all the variables in a vast competitive market like ours and adjust everyone's income by taking from one person and giving it to someone else.

 

Good for them. Push tax increases first. Push tax increases last.

They only call it class warfare when the lower and middle-class fights back.

 

Simply taxing the rich more is not the solution either.

 

One of the very most flippant and ridiculous statements I've ever seen on this site. What a waste of space. In addition, it conveys complete contempt for the value, virtue, and satisfaction of working and earning a paycheck.

 

Why do we have to wait till after this fiscal year? Why can't we just decide government won't take in more then it spends every year. Or in other words have a balanced budget? The longer we play these games the more trouble we will be in. The fastest growing section of the budget is interest on the debt, which will soon be close to half a trillion dollars a year. In other words about the same as we spend on defense sans Iraq and Afghanistan.

As for revenue and spending cuts as the same percentage, I call BS. The feds cannot guarantee how much revenue they get each year, they can only control how much they spend. They can try and get more money, say for example they increase income tax 10% across the board, they wont bring in 10% more income tax revenue and anyone who is honest will agree with that statement. The fact is the 60 year historical avg of revenue to GDP is 18%; no matter what the rates, loopholes etc. Right now we are somewhere just below 15% I believe, and this has a lot to do with the recession and the number of unemployed. The highest percent was under Clinton during the tech bubble of 21%, and was mainly due to the tech boom economy, something that did eventually burst and is unsustainable. We can't expect to continually spend 20%+ as percentage of GDP and get away with not having a debt increase.

I'm not against getting more revenue, I am against the ways in which the current crop of politicians try it, just a income rate increase. They won't dare talk about real changes because the current incarnation of the income tax gives politicians lots of control and plenty of ways to hide favors to donors.

 

$60 to $90 billion in Medicare Fraud every year. $3.2 Billion in waste, fraud and abuse in the NSF.

Once they stop the garbage above, then we can see where we are and talk about taxes. NO tax hikes till it stops.

 

What is the middle class fighting for, no one is raising their taxes and they don't pay their share of taxes anyway.

 

So should you be able to walk into your neighbors house and start eating his food because you think it needs to be redistributed to you?

 

Leftists are cowards....they elect government middlemen to do their thieving.

 

There was no surplus. It was nothing but an accounting gimmick.

 

Wow this is a clueless response Phoebe. If you are suggesting that we're out here not working for money, which in turn buys food, I'm really done trying to talk to you.

 

Agreed. They should focus on fraud and abuse. Start with the Pentagon. Work our way down.


Pentagon pays $720M in late fees for storage containers
Release: Pentagon Bought Billions in Unneeded Spare Parts
$1 Trillion Missing : Military waste under fire

 

The military does waste a lot of money.

And if we are going to clean up waste in other departments then we have to go after military spending also.

But libs have such a burning hatred of the military that they might use this an excuse to conduct a witch hunt so they will have to be on their best behavior at all times.

 

It would certainly be more efficient for Phoebe to just go next door and take their food rather than having government tax the money, send it to Washington and then redistribute it back down to her.

 

And below....

 

Maybe she can be appointed block commissar after Obama becomes Dear Leader for life.

Then she will be the one handing out the food and she can get her share off the top.