Taxes, the Deficit/Debt, and the Fiscal Cliff

[Guest one]

I see how I was wrong.

I meant the House of Representatives is much more dysfunctional than the Senate IMO. The Senate normally has a much better approval rating and has been more reasonable in the last ten years.

It looks like McConnell's approval rating just went completely to shit.

https://www.publicpol...e_KY_121112.pdf

Edited December 12, 2012 by one

[TreeA10]

You mean the Democrat controlled Senate that hasn't passed a budget in 3 years? That Senate?

[Guest one]

I am not defending the democrats but lets not forget there have been a lot of filibusters in the Senate by the Republicans. The Senate is not perfect but it is a lot better than the House. I am sure there are Senators that you can point out that really suck but you get what I am trying to say.

Guys like McCain and Lieberman are willing to work with each other. They are much less extreme. In the House you see extremes to the left and right which stop anything from being done.

Edited December 12, 2012 by one

[Guest]

Al Franken. He rocks.

[Guest one]

I think Sherrod Brown is much worse. He would vote liberal no matter what the circumstance was.

Tom Coburn is just as bad but on the opposite side of the spectrum. He would vote conservative no matter what the circumstance was.

[Guest]

Double everyone's taxes.

[matmacwc]

You mean the Democrat controlled Senate that hasn't passed a budget in 3 years? That Senate?

NSPlayer, what do you have to say about this? The ® controlled house has passed multiple budgets but the (D) Senate hasn't. Even Obamas budget failed in the Senate. It isn't the Republicans blocking shit, if you listen to MSNBC they are, but in reality, it's the senate. This is getting tiresome.

If you reply with talking points, I'm going to post pics of your wife with the midgets.

Edited December 13, 2012 by matmacwc

[Butters]

I'm going to post pics of your wife with the midgets.

Which ones?

[Jughead]

I do have multiple wives AND multiple midgets, so this is gonna get really complicated...

Yeah, but, are any of the wives midgets themselves...?

[Smokin]

Complicated or interesting? I think the latter.

The real issue here is that the federal government spending has grown so much that any reasonable tax rate increase still won't cover the expenses. They seem incapable of passing and adhering to a budget.

Consider this example; your friend told you that he makes 50K a year and spends 90K a year. He realizes he can't pay his credit card debt and asks you for advice. How many of you are really going to tell him that it's not his spending that's the problem, it's the fact that he only makes 50K a year and he should go find a job that pays 100K a year, then he'd have 10K extra to spend. You make a budget to match your income, not the other way around. Once they can pass and stick to a budget, then they can talk income but to talk about raising revenue by X% while the deficit is 10 times X% is absurd.

For sidebar consideration: the protests that started the American Revolution used the phrase 'no taxation with out representation'. In my opinion, the reverse should also be true. If you don't pay federal income tax, you don't get a say in what those tax rates are and you don't get a say in what the government does with those taxes. Same for state taxes.

[matmacwc]

I think he said something worthwhile, I have to think about it. Midget pictures might still be forthcoming.

[Guest]

I think the Democrats should have passed a budget resolution with as many votes as they could get when the new Congress takes office in Jan. It would serve as a symbolic, political purpose to end the GOP's talking point you bring up, plus it would be a chance to showcase the values and policy choices of the Senate Democratic caucus in a similar way that the President's budget proposal reflects his values and choices. Even if neither become law it's good to get that out there.

I wish they would pass a budget because it is their job and that's what I'm paying them to do.

Not for a symbolic political purpose but because it is important and it is what I want and they are supposed to be representing me.

They need to cease fucking up.

[Vertigo]

The ® controlled house has passed multiple budgets but the (D) Senate hasn't.

That's because the Senate is defaulting to the Budget Control Act to set spending levels and appropriations.

Even Obamas budget failed in the Senate.

No it didn't. That was a satirical take on what the Republicans believed Obama's budget was. The president's budget was thousands of pages, the budget submitted was only a couple of pages long. It was a stunt to get slag in the news cycle and to get people like you to swallow it up.

[Guest]

In fact, we should go a step farther and say the more taxes you pay, the more of a say you get. So if you're super rich and pay like $10 million in taxes, your vote counts like 10000x as much as some guy who paid about $1k.

Never fear, that has been said around here somewhere before.

Some would argue that the $10 myn the guy paid in taxes did ultimatelyrepresent 100k votes in the form of Obama phones. The $10 myn taxpayer might not have wanted the votes to go the way they did but at least he money got spent to "enhance" the electoral process.

On another note, this thread gives me hope that there are plenty of ready and willing volunteers to help run the GOP even farther into the ground.

That's interesting that you find hope because it seems more obvious that there appear to be plenty of ready and willing volunteers (on both sides) to help run the country into the ground.

[338skybolt]

I support tax increases on all tax payers under the right conditions.

I support more tax payers.

[Guest one]

Did any of you read this thought experiment in college? It is interesting.

Quoted from https://www.impel.com...ib/NNLFAQ.html

Suppose that one man takes your car from you at gunpoint. Is this right or wrong? Most people would say that the man who does this is a thief who is violating your property rights.

Okay, now let's suppose that it's a gang of FIVE men that forcibly takes your car from you. Still wrong? Still stealing? Yup.

Now suppose that it's ten men that stop you at gunpoint, and before anything else they take a vote. You vote *against* them taking your car, but the ten of them vote for it and you are outvoted, ten to one. They take the car. Still stealing?

Let's add specialization of labor. Suppose it's twenty men and one acts as negotiator for the group, one takes the vote, one oversees the vote, two hold the guns, one drives. Does that make it okay? Is it still stealing?

Suppose it's one hundred men and after forcibly taking your car they give you back a bicycle. That is, they do something nice for you. Is it still stealing?

Suppose the gang is two hundred strong and they not only give you back a bicycle but they buy a bicycle for a poor person as well. Is it still wrong? Is it still stealing?

How about if the gang has a thousand people? ten thousand? A million?

How big does this gang have to be before it becomes okay for them to vote to forcibly take your property away without your consent? When, exactly, does the immorality of theft become the alleged morality of taxation?

Edited December 13, 2012 by one

[Fuzz]

Since I'm assuming you want the Senate budget to actually take affect rather than to "pass" it's initial vote and then sit idle, you obviously also want the Senate GOP to get on board and the House to sit down with the Senate in a conference and work out an agreeable budget that can pass both chambers, right? I mean, that's what we're paying them for too.

The reason I don't really get bent out of shape about there not being a Senate budget is because without cooperation with the House or even the minority party, it won't mean jack or squat. I'd want my party to pass a budget they like and then force that conference with the House but apparently the Majority Leader doesn't think that's worth it.

The bigger picture is that people should be upset about a lack of cooperation and it seems like we maybe getting there, finally.

I want the senate dems to pass a budget to see what they actually want (put it in writing) instead of incessantly spewing talking points and rhetoric. At least we have seen the bill the republican house wants to pass (whether you like it or not).

[Butters]

Saw a great comment on another site:

Romney lost the election because of one issue. He said "I will put America back to work!"

51% of Americans said “Fuck that!” and voted for Obama.

[Prozac]

Did any of you read this thought experiment in college? It is interesting.

Quoted from https://www.impel.com...ib/NNLFAQ.html

Suppose that one man takes your car from you at gunpoint. Is this right or wrong? Most people would say that the man who does this is a thief who is violating your property rights.

Okay, now let's suppose that it's a gang of FIVE men that forcibly takes your car from you. Still wrong? Still stealing? Yup.

Now suppose that it's ten men that stop you at gunpoint, and before anything else they take a vote. You vote *against* them taking your car, but the ten of them vote for it and you are outvoted, ten to one. They take the car. Still stealing?

Let's add specialization of labor. Suppose it's twenty men and one acts as negotiator for the group, one takes the vote, one oversees the vote, two hold the guns, one drives. Does that make it okay? Is it still stealing?

Suppose it's one hundred men and after forcibly taking your car they give you back a bicycle. That is, they do something nice for you. Is it still stealing?

Suppose the gang is two hundred strong and they not only give you back a bicycle but they buy a bicycle for a poor person as well. Is it still wrong? Is it still stealing?

How about if the gang has a thousand people? ten thousand? A million?

How big does this gang have to be before it becomes okay for them to vote to forcibly take your property away without your consent? When, exactly, does the immorality of theft become the alleged morality of taxation?

What happens to your paycheck when the American people decide taxes are immoral?

[lloyd christmas]

Did any of you read this thought experiment in college? It is interesting.

This ain't college.

[Smokin]

Balanced Budget Amendment would solve this to a degree although you don't want to outlaw all deficit spending because things come up that you as a country will want to do now and pay for later (wars, etc.).

What if that person could loosely control how much money he made? Would he choose to make $50K and spend $50K throughout the year or would he choose $100K, $200K as his earning/spending level? I'm in the camp (and it's a minority, don't get me wrong) that's willing to pay more for better government services, so I support tax increases on all tax payers under the right conditions.

I get your point, but the government can only control its income to a certain extent. If the tax rates are all doubled, the total revenue will not double because people will make and spend less, the economy will slow down, and the national taxable income will decrease. Quadruple taxes and you will have either a revolution, a completely failed economy, or both. So, if you attack my simplification, don't over simplify in your counter-argument.

Have you considered the implications of your idea?

So do you get less of a vote for those months you were deployed and not being taxed on that income? I was gone during 6 months of the last year, I guess I only get 1/2 a vote next election. If you do a 365 do you just have to skip the next election entirely? Do Senators and Representatives have to somehow adjust their voting power based on what percentage of residents in their district or state are paying federal income tax? It's completely unworkable.

On top of being unworkable, the idea is completely wrong, it punishes people who are following the law and takes away what I consider their most fundamental right as a citizen, the right to vote. Almost every single person who isn't paying federal income tax is doing so completely legally. If you don't like government policies that significantly cut federal incomes taxes on the unemployed, the working poor and the elderly, great, encourage your representatives to author different policies, but you can't turn that dislike of current law into mass voter disenfranchisement.

Apparently my idea of a general principle in civil government participation was taken alternately as a 'this is a law we should pass' and a "softball" approach. I said nothing about combat zone tax exclusions; obviously if you are risking your life for your country, you should have a say in how the country is run. But contrary to Joe's swing and a miss at my softball pitch, I also never said anything about amount of taxes paid other than zero or greater than zero. It just pisses me off that we currently have people in this country who are physically and mentally capable of work yet chose to instead live off the the government. If unemployment went back to how it started under King FDR where people who wanted an unemployment check were put to work building roads and such, I bet we wouldn't have to extend unemployment benefits to TWO YEARS. You want a check? Here's a shovel, get to work. Strange, unemployment claims just dropped by 90%.

All I'm saying is that people should contribute to the governance of their country before they're able to vote themselves more benefits at someone else's expense. If you break into your rich neighbor's house and steal his wallet, you're a criminal. But vote for a politician who does the same thing with taxes simply because the rich guy is successful and works harder and it is perfectly fine.

[pawnman]

Does it matter that almost everyone in America pays some form of taxes? A majority of those not paying federal income taxes do pay payroll taxes. Of those who may neither federal income taxes or payroll taxes, everyone pays sales taxes, gasoline taxes, many pay local property taxes, etc. How do you view those contributions to the governance of their country?

Well, sales taxes, gasoline taxes, and local property taxes aren't exactly helping to balance the federal budget, are they?

[Fuzz]

f we're really talking about closing the federal budget deficit though, you're not gonna do it with some perfunctory minimum tax on poor people just like you're not gonna do it with a small increase in rates on the top 2% of earners.

Then why the fuck are the democrats so keen on raising the tax rate for the top 2%? Everybody and their brother knows that isn't going to do jack to close the deficit or reduce debt. The only explanation that makes sense is idealogical need to fix income inequality (aka "redistribute wealth").

[pawnman]

Yes, you're right that those taxes I mentioned that damn near everyone pays don't directly affect the federal budget, but they do give people the joy of "having skin in the game" in terms of funding their government. Wasn't that the point...that people don't really know the hit-you-in-the-wallet burden of being a citizen if they're not paying federal income taxes or something like that? Unless someone wants to establish that we can raise a whole lot of revenue by increasing taxes on the poor, the elderly, the unemployed, etc. I think we're talking small, symbolic gestures here. If we're really talking about closing the federal budget deficit though, you're not gonna do it with some perfunctory minimum tax on poor people just like you're not gonna do it with a small increase in rates on the top 2% of earners.

If you want to do that, A) foster economic growth (multiple theories on how to skin that cat), and B) consider some kind of balanced budget amendment or tie appropriations to an economic measure (and get rid of the debt ceiling as a bonus) so Congress can't appropriate more money than it allows Treasury to borrow.

It doesn't give anyone "skin in the game" if they are paying these local taxes using money they got from the federal government in the first place.

[Fuzz]

You want to talk "ideological need"?

I think a better question is, why does the GOP consider this such a sacred cow that they're willing to go over the fiscal cliff just to keep taxes from being raised on the top 2%? Even if that meant that taxes would be raised on everybody? I don't think Democrats seriously expect to achieve any of this without spending cuts, but even Mitt Romney himself said that he would refuse to accept even $1 of new taxes if it meant $10 of spending cuts.

The party that wants to let people keep their money because its not going make a bit of difference is the one that's wrong? Oh yeah I forgot democrats feel entitled to everyone's money.