Taxes, the Deficit/Debt, and the Fiscal Cliff

[TreeA10]

I guess it depends on how you define the budget and requirements to get the dollars to fund it. Do you set a tax rate and spend what you collect or do you you set a spending level and tax at a rate to get it? The latter reeks of the Soviet 5 year plan which certainly was not based on a rational understanding of human nature and failed miserably. The former requires the ability of our Government to adjust spending to live within our means as the economy fluctuates. The lack of the ability to live within our means is also going to cause miserable failure.

[nsplayr]

It will likely go nowhere because Obama is ignoring all the advice of his own commission.

Since this plan is new and pretty much a straight middle compromise between what the President and GOP are currently proposing I think it deserves fresh attention.

I guess it depends on how you define the budget and requirements to get the dollars to fund it.

It absolutely depends on how you look at it. Here's my question put in military terms: do you start with the threat and design a system to counter it or do you start with the system you want to build then only fly against the threats that system is designed to handle? I know what I think the real-world answer is.

As a nation, there are things we need to do, thing we want to do, and things that will be nice to do most of the time. While we know the outlines of those things, they A) change over time, and B) are unpredictable (surprise, 9/11! Hurricane Katrina! Housing collapse!) and those purposeful changes and uncontrollable fluctuations should be and can be anticipated in broad terms. I.E. don't design a system to meet your min known requirements and put it into play. If you "starve the beast" enough that the government remains limited by strict statute and is only physically able to do X, Y, and Z that you think are the core functions, how do you deal with changing attitudes and pop-up costs that, at the time, will be expensive and urgent fires you need to put out.

I'm just not on board at all with any kind of tax scheme that bakes austerity into the system or that funds all of government around one single (major) source of revenues. As a wise man once said, "You gotta diversify your bonds n***a." Ignoring the fact that I also believe a consumption-based economy can't last forever, I also don't want our leaders to be hamstrung that in a crisis or even just a future different from the one we've imagined, they are unable to act because the system-designed money spout is switched to the OFF position. Even if you don't trust our elected leaders specifically or in general, let's not f-them over before they even get into office with a system that so limits future choices should a dip in consumption happen.

Long story short I agree that while the Fair Tax sounds simple it's actually not complex enough to deal with the complexities of running a national-level government of a world superpower. Our tax system now is absolutely too complicated and could be made much simpler for the vast majority of tax filers but let's not let the pendulum swing too far in the opposite direction.

If you put all your eggs into a 23% (or whatever) consumption tax and then consumer consumption takes a sh*t like it did recently, then what? You've mandated severe austerity which IMHO doesn't work in the first place in terms of fixing deficits and also endangers our legitimate national interests.

I do give Fair Tax proponents credit for having a solution on the table and for being intellectually honest that they think it's the silver bullet fix to otherwise complex tax reform, I just disagree with their conclusions.

Edited February 21, 2013 by nsplayr

[Vetter]

Things are only complicated and complex when politicians, lawyers, and weapons officers make them that way.

[Buddy Spike]

Things are only complicated and complex when politicians, lawyers, and weapons officers make them that way.

It depends.

[TreeA10]

I'm just not on board at all with any kind of tax scheme that bakes austerity into the system or that funds all of government around one single (major) source of revenues. As a wise man once said, "You gotta diversify your bonds n***a." Ignoring the fact that I also believe a consumption-based economy can't last forever, I also don't want our leaders to be hamstrung that in a crisis or even just a future different from the one we've imagined, they are unable to act because the system-designed money spout is switched to the OFF position. Even if you don't trust our elected leaders specifically or in general, let's not f-them over before they even get into office with a system that so limits future choices should a dip in consumption happen.

Long story short I agree that while the Fair Tax sounds simple it's actually not complex enough to deal with the complexities of running a national-level government of a world superpower. Our tax system now is absolutely too complicated and could be made much simpler for the vast majority of tax filers but let's not let the pendulum swing too far in the opposite direction.

Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is normally used to define insanity. And most people have apparently lost their minds. Up to this point, please name any and all restrictions, limitations, etc. on Government spending. I agree the Government needs flexibility but Gumby could not compete with the "flexibility" in spending to date.

I'm also for the budget pendulum swinging but it appears to have been propped up, nailed, glued, bolted and chained to the "on" position regarding spending. I'd like to try something different. Anything different. You know, just get crazy, and decrease the rate of programmed increases, i.e. baseline budgeting but, from the sounds coming from Congress, this would entail the sacrifice of the first born, stopping the rotation of the earth, and other bibilical doom and gloom implications. Everything we spend money on is "must have" or planes will fall from the sky, millions of children will starve to death, and old people will die and be eaten by dogs according to The One. Okay, I embellished that last comment but not by much.

[nsplayr]

Up to this point, please name any and all restrictions, limitations, etc. on Government spending.

Congress.

We're about to see what happens when Congress does not authorize the spending of money with both sequestration and a potential government shutdown if they don't pass a new bill to fund the government at the end of March.

[Vetter]

Shut it down. Make people figure out they will survive without the federal government. Here's a hint...they will survive and likely prosper.

[pawnman]

Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is normally used to define insanity. And most people have apparently lost their minds. Up to this point, please name any and all restrictions, limitations, etc. on Government spending. I agree the Government needs flexibility but Gumby could not compete with the "flexibility" in spending to date.

I'm also for the budget pendulum swinging but it appears to have been propped up, nailed, glued, bolted and chained to the "on" position regarding spending. I'd like to try something different. Anything different. You know, just get crazy, and decrease the rate of programmed increases, i.e. baseline budgeting but, from the sounds coming from Congress, this would entail the sacrifice of the first born, stopping the rotation of the earth, and other bibilical doom and gloom implications. Everything we spend money on is "must have" or planes will fall from the sky, millions of children will starve to death, and old people will die and be eaten by dogs according to The One. Okay, I embellished that last comment but not by much.

Well, step one would be a budget, period.

Yeah, got it. I understand people are going to still buy necessities like gas, toilet paper...I'll even throw beer in that category. These necessities (minus the beer) are supposedly prebated up to a point based on your income. Do you really think people buy enough, even at a 23% tax rate, to generate and sustain the required revenue to run this country? That is a lot of shit paper. That is my point. We would be banking the revenue for the entire budget of the federal government on toilet paper, gas, and beer....an exaggeration I know, but in a down economy people aren't necessarily buying expensive things...certainly not enough to generate $4T in revenue. We aren't even talking state taxes yet. Consumption tax as a single source of revenue is a terrible idea....the people pushing this aren't thinking it through. Again...caveman here, but I'm open to learning something new.

Yeah, I do, because even in a down economy, people will still have to move for a job, and buy a house. People will still buy cars, and TVs, and videogames...just less of them.

How is the reduced revenue from consumption that different from the reduced revenue when a bunch of tax payers lose their jobs and stop paying income taxes?

[Vetter]

More importantly, why does it take $4T to run the government?

[SocialD]

This is a good article about the budgetary push and pull you get from competing generations (graying baby-boomers vs the kids of today).

In a Pew Research Center survey this spring, just 23 percent of white seniors said they preferred a larger government that offers more services; 61 percent preferred a smaller government that offers fewer services. Among minorities, the attitude was essentially reversed: 62 percent preferred a larger government and 28 percent a smaller one.

Hmm...I wonder why?

[Guest]

Didn't see a post on this, but I'm also not reading 20+ pages of the thread.

Panetta announces some info on civilian furloughs.

Air Force clarifies and gives specifics on furloughs and some scare-tactic-like warnings. However these warning likely aren't too far from the truth.

[Duck]

That statistic is racist!

[Finance_Guy]

I swear to god if I get the furlough and lose a month's worth of pay, there will be no end to me sharing examples of stupid spending to various congressional members, media included. One such stupid measure is how we try to "take care of the troops" and pay for their HHGs storage when they deploy. Dammit, they receive BAH to pay for a "place for their stuff". Commanders should never approve using taxpayer dollars (their unit funds) to supplement the intended purpose of BAH. Yes, I know it's in the JFTR AF Supp that says they can, but that doesn't mean it makes sense. People are also to utilize gov't quarters and mess to the maximum extent possible too, but do we ever see that...well, maybe 1% of the time, but mostly it is all about "how much can I get from the government". How about try claiming only 2 missed meals each day versus scamming for all 3. These are hard times I know and if a furlough is in order, then so be it, I'll contribute my part, but I can assure you there are many others who could change their ways to save some bucks. Come on 5 O'clock news.

End my FG rant!

[Blue]

Air Force clarifies and gives specifics on furloughs and some scare-tactic-like warnings. However these warning likely aren't too far from the truth.

Furlough talk blows my mind.

If they're serious about cutting costs associated with federal employees, then they need to start having some damn layoffs. The DoD has always had a bloated civilian workforce, and 10+ years of GWOT money has made it much worse. I realize there will always be ineffiencies and waste in a large organization, but at this point, it's out of control. There are entirely too many people with nothing to do but sit in a cubicle and "manage" some small potion of a program.

Edited February 22, 2013 by Blue

[HU&W]

Perhaps congress should start by releasing some of their stranglehold on 'protected' pork barrel defense spending. At some point, the basic defense of our nation should take precedence over funneling money to congressional districts.

[Buddy Spike]

I swear to god if I get the furlough and lose a month's worth of pay, there will be no end to me sharing examples of stupid spending to various congressional members, media included. One such stupid measure is how we try to "take care of the troops" and pay for their HHGs storage when they deploy. Dammit, they receive BAH to pay for a "place for their stuff". Commanders should never approve using taxpayer dollars (their unit funds) to supplement the intended purpose of BAH. Yes, I know it's in the JFTR AF Supp that says they can, but that doesn't mean it makes sense. People are also to utilize gov't quarters and mess to the maximum extent possible too, but do we ever see that...well, maybe 1% of the time, but mostly it is all about "how much can I get from the government". How about try claiming only 2 missed meals each day versus scamming for all 3. These are hard times I know and if a furlough is in order, then so be it, I'll contribute my part, but I can assure you there are many others who could change their ways to save some bucks. Come on 5 O'clock news.

End my FG rant!

Why do you want to screw over the working man? Sure there's plenty of waste to go around, but there are much worse examples in contracting and the general budget (use or lose).

[nsplayr]

Yes, I know it's in the JFTR AF Supp that says they can, but that doesn't mean it makes sense.

If it's authorized in the regs you don't have much of a leg to stand on...don't hate the player, hate the game. BAH is authorized too, do you hate on people who accept all of it even if their rent is less than what's authorized?

How about try claiming only 2 missed meals each day versus scamming for all 3.

What's a missed meal?

[afnav]

My fed civ branch chief actually tried to talk me out of leaving my GS-nothing job to go to a contractor position that is immune to political whims and pays more than double my current salary. Too bad, dude. You'll have to come up with your 'bright ideas' on your own now.

Fortunately, the active duty colonel was much more realistic. "Hey, sounds like a good deal to me!"

I've bitten my tongue more times than I can count on the football dog pile on govt civilians. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I've decided to remove myself from the argument.

[Tonka]

If it's authorized in the regs you don't have much of a leg to stand on...don't hate the player, hate the game. BAH is authorized too, do you hate on people who accept all of it even if their rent is less than what's authorized?

I'll have to side with FG on this, the regs are broad enough in some cases to allow rationale thought for flexibility...but the more they are abused the more likely the flexibility will be taken away.

Yes it is a small amount, but it is a cultural, mental shift that is important...

https://www.businessinsider.com/ashton-carter-sequestration-defense-pentagon-cuts-employee-2013-2

You can't talk about who needs to make cuts without finding ways for yourself to make cuts.

[BitteEinBit]

If it's authorized in the regs you don't have much of a leg to stand on...don't hate the player, hate the game. BAH is authorized too, do you hate on people who accept all of it even if their rent is less than what's authorized?

Nothing against you personally NS, but this way of thinking is exactly what is wrong with our system. Someone just says "It is authorized in reg, so lets just keep wasting money" instead of saying "It is authorized in the reg, but it is a waste of resources...let's change the reg" There are way too many examples like this..yes, including BAH, GTC spending requirements, transportation requirements, etc. Can't tell you how many times I found airline tickets WAY cheaper than what TMO quotes, yet, we go with the more expensive ticket because "thats what the reg says." The problem is no one wants to change the reg because 1) They get extra money and 2) It requires some work. Until we change that way of thinking, we'll continue to waste dollars and then wonder why we have to furlough people, cut programs, and reduce flying hours. Really, none of this should be a surprise to anyone.

[nsplayr]

Nothing against you personally NS, but this way of thinking is exactly what is wrong with our system. Someone just says "It is authorized in reg, so lets just keep wasting money" instead of saying "It is authorized in the reg, but it is a waste of resources...let's change the reg"

There's a subtle difference here. If someone wants to work to change the reg, great, in this case it sounds like it would make sense, go for it!

But to say "Commanders should never approve this for their people" because it's waste, that's where I disagree. If it's an authorized benefit why should a Commander decide it shouldn't be available to his people because he considers it waste? Stick to what the regs say unless there's a good reason to deviate (and denying HHG storage isn't gonna exactly solve our budget woes) and work to change the system which may actual have a measurable effect rather than a drop in the bucket when one SQ/CC turns off some money to his troops in his little corner of the AF.

Little things add up is true in many regards but I just don't see any reason to deny some benefit for your troops that is legitimately and explicitly authorized just because you don't agree with it. If your case is really so strong that it's waste then working to get the system changed should be that much easier.

Can't tell you how many times I found airline tickets WAY cheaper than what TMO quotes, yet, we go with the more expensive ticket because "thats what the reg says."

I completely agree...airline tickets is one of the most asinine areas I've seen money wasted because I can find litereally the same tickets, Y-coded and everything, on kayak for 25-50% cheaper on a consistent basis. We're paying the premium to Winggate for their "customer service" which it's laughable to even call it that. /rant off

Edited February 23, 2013 by nsplayr

[brickhistory]

My fed civ branch chief actually tried to talk me out of leaving my GS-nothing job to go to a contractor position that is immune to political whims and pays more than double my current salary. Too bad, dude. You'll have to come up with your 'bright ideas' on your own now.

Fortunately, the active duty colonel was much more realistic. "Hey, sounds like a good deal to me!"

I've bitten my tongue more times than I can count on the football dog pile on govt civilians. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I've decided to remove myself from the argument.

I don't fault you one bit for seeking better, BUT that "convenience to the government" clause in every contract makes an immediate and tempting target when it gets down to shutting money off.

[matmacwc]

I got word that sequestration is "gaining traction", from a pretty good source. O signed it into law, he had to see it as a possibility of happening and being OK with the outcome. Buddy of mine is getting off AD and hired into a ART billet, he's being told his job is in jeopardy, he already has a separation date. What do you tell people like that?

[RASH]

It takes two to tango. 174/242 House GOP, 28/47 Senate GOP voted for the sequester. For them, saving tax cuts for the wealthy were a higher priority than defense.

Look on the bright side, the lack of a safe government job gives your buddy the perfect chance to go test out his true potential as a Randian capitalist!

If you think all of the Republicans that voted for sequester did so solely to save tax cuts for the wealthy, you're smoking dope.

[nsplayr]

If you think all of the Republicans that voted for sequester did so solely to save tax cuts for the wealthy, you're smoking dope.

The same dope anyone is smoking if they believe any Democrats, including the President, want these cuts to happen.

Almost no one (except a contingent on the right wing of the GOP/libertarian spectrum that is well represented on BO.net) actually wants to see the sequester happen. Now that it's imminent most of the mainstream politicians are all trying to dodge the blame for their own stupidity.

The entire point was the the sequester was supposed to be so ill-conceived it would force Congress to work together and pass something better. Guess everyone who signed on to it underestimated just how stupid Congress could actually be.

Edited February 24, 2013 by nsplayr