It's OK to Burden Our Children With an Enormous Debt

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Investor class blah blah blah.

Then why do they complain about paying taxes and then never pay them?

How much was GM paying in taxes?

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Brainster

The irony, of course, is that the people who will pay the lion's share of that debt (or at least the interest on it), are the same people who pay the lion's share of the taxes today, that evil top 5% of income earners who about 60% of the income taxes in this country. So to put it another way, it's okay to burden the children of the very rich (and the children who will become very rich in future generations) with that enormous debt. Who feels sorry for rich kids?

So what is the proportion of INCOME to TAXES, oh YOU make 60% of the income so you PAY about 60% of the TAXES, except they don't, they pay less proportionaly than the rest of us.

So what was the complaint?

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

First of all, I thought the "we're putting future generations in debt" is just evil republican lies.

Second, you're right about WWII: yes, clearly, supporting whatever cool policies the Obama administration feels will promote social justice, brotherly love, and sunshine and happiness are just as good a reason to put the country into near-bankruptcy as a world war against the bloodiest tyrant in history and his helpers.

Third, I thought the point of the $1T "stimulus" debt was to, at least, actually do some good economically now -- not merely to put future generations in debt under the breezy assumption that hey, it's Okay, things will work out and turn around somehow, due to the forces of history. Well, how is the stimulus working out?

Funny thing, why aren't you discussing who accumulated this debt, Regan, BushI and Bush II, but sure blame the guy who holds the bag now, that makes sense.

Justify a war that BushII lied about to start and then bungled from beginning to almost the end.

Ignore what started the great depression and why we aren't having one yet.

Sheesh.

For my sanity I shall leave the thread for the nonce.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

You are aware of his philanthropy, right?

But he claims he would prefer to give that money to the government rather than his charity/cause of choice. So what's stopping him?

Quote:

And no, I don't agree that he should pay more taxes than the law says he has to pay.

Of course he doesn't have to. But he certainly could, and if he actually did he would actually appear to be putting his money where his mouth is.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Then why do they complain about paying taxes and then never pay them?

How much was GM paying in taxes?

That was parody DD. Ever read one of lefty's rants?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

No, he can't pay more taxes then he is required to pay.

Sure he can, everyone can. The IRS likely wouldn't return it unless you amend the return reflecting the overpayment asking them to. And there's no chance of them returning the extra taxes you pay by not claiming deductions, exemptions, credits, things you didn't itemize, etc etc.

Quote:

He can give large amounts of his money away, which he does.

But he claims he'd rather give it to the government. What's stopping him?

Quote:

Also Bill Gates, as I recall, said that he didn't need or want the Bush tax break, and is the biggest philanthropist in the history of the world. "Grandstanding jackass drama queen" that he is.

Billy boy is also free to give his money to the government. Funny, he prefers not to. In fact, he sets up non-profit charitable organizations specifically to avoid paying taxes to the government. It's well within his rights to simply give the money away and not deduct it from his taxes, for some reason he isn't doing that. Hmmmm....

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Cain

Bill Gates' father has worked on getting back the estate tax, the least painful tax, one that breaks up large inheritances. Of course, like "Death Panels" the "Death Tax" has been an incredibly powerful, useful lie.

There are too many dumb Americans proud to live in a country that can "blow **** up at will" and has a bunch of 10,000+ sq foot homes while children lack health insurance.

Have you seen Gates' home? $147 million, and just a bit over 10,000 sq ft... http://news.cnet.com/Photo-gallery-B...3-5421164.html

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

So what is the proportion of INCOME to TAXES, oh YOU make 60% of the income so you PAY about 60% of the TAXES, except they don't, they pay less proportionaly than the rest of us.

Good point. The super-rich actually pay at a lower rate than the rest opf us do because capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than wages, which is just plain stupid.

Get a clue, righties. If you are earning at a higher rate than the rest of us, it is because you are recieving a greater benefit from the infrastructure that we have all built and thus OWE a higher rate of taxes.

The more you earn, the more government services you use. Pay your utility bills and stop snivelling.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by WildCat

But he claims he would prefer to give that money to the government rather than his charity/cause of choice. So what's stopping him?


Of course he doesn't have to. But he certainly could, and if he actually did he would actually appear to be putting his money where his mouth is.

What's your point? I've already rebutted this red herring.

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Yeah, but this whole line of argument is a red herring. For one thing, he's giving his money to charity. For another, just because you favor a certain general policy doesn't mean you should volunteer to individually pay higher taxes that would result from said policy. Do people who support wars of choice like Iraq donate extra money to the DOD? Do you think they should "lead by example"?
Of course not, it's just a cheap way to say look at you, you won't put your money where your mouth is. I'm happy to pay taxes for things I support which have a public benefit, but I'm not going to do it all by myself.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

What's your point? I've already rebutted this red herring.

It's not at all a red herring. Many Iraq war supporters did donate to the cause, buying and sending Oakley sunglasss (they offer protection from debris in explosions) to the troops for example.

Buffet and Gates say they want to give more money to the government, yet they give it to their own favorite charities (and take a tax deduction for it) instead. It's hypocritical in every way. Do they think they're the only rich guys donating to charities?

eta: Why is Buffet giving his money to the Gates Foundation if he thinks the government would do a better job with it? And if he doesn't think the government will manage his money better why claim he wants to pay more in taxes? Buffet could will it all to the government if he wanted.

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by WildCat

It's not at all a red herring. Many Iraq war supporters did donate to the cause, buying and sending Oakley sunglasss (they offer protection from debris in explosions) to the troops for example.

And Al Franken helped pay for helmet liners to reduce brain trauma because the Shrub and Rummy were too stupid to insist that the troops get those liners.

Buffet was probably smarter giving money to causes that he thought would do some good rather than to turn it over to a bunch of lunatics who would waste it on things like protecting oil fields from their rightful owners until our companies could come in and pump them dry.

Quote:

Buffet and Gates say they want to give more money to the government, yet they give it to their own favorite charities (and take a tax deduction for it) instead.

And they thus make up for some of the things that Republicans have refused to address. In the case of Gates and Buffet, yes, they do know better than the government (or at least government as the Reaganites would frame it) what to do with their money. They actually give back to the infrastructure and do something to preserve and protect the human and natural resources from which they derive their income. You give the more typical entrepreneuriial lout a tax cut, and he just goes and builds another factory in Lower Slobovia and screws over the American working class.

Quote:

It's hypocritical in every way. Do they think they're the only rich guys donating to charities?

To that level, yes. And it is obviously at a rate higher, in proportion, to their own wealth. And I have to wonder whether some of those "charities" that other wealthy people support are really all that good for the world.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Buffet was probably smarter giving money to causes that he thought would do some good rather than to turn it over to a bunch of lunatics who would waste it on things like protecting oil fields from their rightful owners until our companies could come in and pump them dry.



And they thus make up for some of the things that Republicans have refused to address. In the case of Gates and Buffet, yes, they do know better than the government (or at least government as the Reaganites would frame it) what to do with their money.

Which is exactly my point. If the government took more of their money they'd have less of it to give to their favorite causes. Nobody, after all, can take it with them when they die.

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by WildCat

If the government took more of their money they'd have less of it to give to their favorite causes.

If government woul;d collect adequate taxes to do what needed to be done, there would be less need for the services that Buffet and Gates, through their voluntarily donations, provide.

Quote:

Nobody, after all, can take it with them when they die.

Actually, some slime ball plastic-cup mogul who has moved his legal presence to a mailbox in Bermuda or some such place, thinks he has figured out how to do that by being cryogenicly preserved until there is a cure for what killed him. He thinks that should spare his assets the tax axe.

Sorry, but when brain function stops, you're dead, sucker.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by WildCat

It's not at all a red herring.

Do you think something needs to be done to reduce the deficit, yes or no?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Do you think something needs to be done to reduce the deficit, yes or no?

Absolutely. But I won't be looking to grandstanding hypocritical jackasses for advice on how to do that.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Absolutely.

Are what are you personally doing to reduce the federal deficit?

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Do you think something needs to be done to reduce the deficit, yes or no?

Actually, I think Obama hinted at one step in his speech. He blames a lot of it on the big tax cuts. They expire next year.

Do not look for him to sign any bill extending them.

[DDWW]

I don’t care anymore what the national debt is or what the deficit is. Run them both up. I want free health care, a free house, free automobile…this will all be for my “general welfare of my nation.”

BTW: I have no children and about 20 more years to live. You yutts can figure it all out after that.


DD (Thanks!!!)WW

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Are what are you personally doing to reduce the federal deficit?

I vote for candidates who lose mostly.

I'm not against raising taxes necessarily, but I'd like to see serious efforts made to reduce waste and inefficiency in government. Didn't Obama say just yesterday that (I'm paraphrasing) health care cost reduction is deficit reduction? Certainly there's some low-hanging fruit there. Why do we have multiple federal agencies (Medicare, Medicaid, VA, SCHIP, there's even one for Indian health care) doing basically the same thing but for different groups? Those could be consolidated and streamlined. You could intrroduce real competition to health care delivery by gettiong away from employer-based health insurance in favor of individuals buying it themselves, this would be as simple as taxing health insurance benefits and allowing deductions for private purchases (subsidizing those who can't afford it). And allowing insurance to be bought across state lines. Rank hospitals (and make this public)according to cost and results, and discourage/prohibit public moneys from being spent on low ranking ones. Reform the patent system so drug companies can't get patents for superficial changes to existing drugs.

If taxes must be increased do it in a way that doesn't discourage economic growth. You may hate your boss, but if he doesn't have a job neither do you.

Eliminate the cap on Social Security contributions, and penalize those able-bodied persons who retire early in an amount large enough to make up for their lost Social Security and Medicare contributions. And yes, means test retirees so the wealthy don't draw from those systems. We can't afford that any more.

Just a few ideas off the top of my head, is that a good enough start?

[GreNME]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Just a few ideas off the top of my head, is that a good enough start?

That all sounds like Socialism to me.

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Why do we have multiple federal agencies (Medicare, Medicaid, VA, SCHIP, there's even one for Indian health care) doing basically the same thing but for different groups?

Because they were brought into exostance to address specific issues. Medicare was just a logical extension of Social Security. It is there for people who have paid into it and are no longer employed. I have to admit that I do not fully understand why Medicaid should exist under different rules. SCHIP is just a stop-gap to make sure that children do not suffer for their parent's inability to insure them. UHC would, of course, reduce or eliminate the need for Medicaid and SCHIP.

The VA was the firsat of all of these established and for good reason. You take several years out of a man's life, you owe him something for the harm he suffers. It should be funded fully, regardless of cost, because it is part of the bargain we make with soldiers in exchange for the risks they take on our behalf. Further, consolidating the veterans in one system, separate from the general population actually enhances the ability of the government and veteran's support groups to track health issues peculiar to veterans and identify clusters of a particular ailment and perhaps identify the source. There is also a social elemnt that is important to the recovery process for long-term treatment, in that a group of veterans will be more likely to understand each other and form a therapeutic community. (I am speaking here from personal experience, having had easily several hundred thousand dollars worth of benefit from the system over a period of about 30 years.

Quote:

Those could be consolidated and streamlined.

Only partly. VA should NEVER be subject to an enrolment fee or premiums of any kind. Medicaid and SCHIP would simply be unneeded under the Obama plans.

Quote:

You could intrroduce real competition to health care delivery by gettiong away from employer-based health insurance in favor of individuals buying it themselves, this would be as simple as taxing health insurance benefits and allowing deductions for private purchases (subsidizing those who can't afford it).

Sounded to me like that was already in the Obama plan.

Quote:

And allowing insurance to be bought across state lines.

Why, if all insurers are held to the same standards? Some states can offer cheaper health insurance because they also allow worse pay for the lower-ranking bean counters. Don't feed the slave drivers, please.

Quote:

Rank hospitals (and make this public)according to cost and results, and discourage/prohibit public moneys from being spent on low ranking ones.

Which just encourages the privatization of more public hospitals (if we have and left at all nowadays.) That is part of the source of the problem.

Quote:

Reform the patent system so drug companies can't get patents for superficial changes to existing drugs.

That's actually the only thing you have said here that makes sense.

Quote:

If taxes must be increased do it in a way that doesn't discourage economic growth. You may hate your boss, but if he doesn't have a job neither do you.

More snivelling. How typical.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by WildCat

I vote for candidates who lose mostly.

I'm not against raising taxes necessarily

And yet you feel the need to call people who favor raising taxes hypocrites if they only pay the minimum.

Quote:

but I'd like to see serious efforts made to reduce waste and inefficiency in government. Didn't Obama say just yesterday that (I'm paraphrasing) health care cost reduction is deficit reduction? Certainly there's some low-hanging fruit there.

They're at least trying.

Quote:

If taxes must be increased do it in a way that doesn't discourage economic growth. You may hate your boss, but if he doesn't have a job neither do you.

Eliminate the cap on Social Security contributions, and penalize those able-bodied persons who retire early in an amount large enough to make up for their lost Social Security and Medicare contributions. And yes, means test retirees so the wealthy don't draw from those systems. We can't afford that any more.

Just a few ideas off the top of my head, is that a good enough start?

This is all very reasonable, but I have to ask, would any of those changes affect you personally? Because by your criteria you are a "hypocritical grandstanding jackass" if you think taxes should be raised but only pay the minimum that you are legally required, would you really personally pay more into the social security system than you are legally required to or forgo payments you are legally entitled to collect if the changes you propose are not made?

The services provided by government are not the sort that are especially attractive for philanthropy (who wants to donate to a prison or a bridge or an aircraft carrier?). And yes, there is waste. But it's not hypocritical to have the position that taxes should be raised if you only pay the minimum.

[Skeptic]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

The stimulus? Since we don't know what the counterfactual is (counterfactuals are), we can't be sure how well it is working or whether it was worth it. This if for economists to argue about and it's doubtful that they will ever arrive at a consensus. They're still arguing about the Great Depression and the New Deal. So you may as well ask whether the New Deal worked or was worth it. We'll never know for sure.

So essentially, Obama has blown a trillion on something whose effect is not measurable and whether it did, or did not, do anything is impossible to know?

Somehow I don't think you really think this. I think you're in such a philosophical mood -- "how can we tell if something works or not"? -- because every reasonable indicator (from US unemployment rate to compating US growth rate to that of other, non-stimulated countries, or whatever) shows the stimulus had little or no effect, certainly not an effect worth a trillion.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Yeah, but this whole line of argument is a red herring. For one thing, he's giving his money to charity.

Exactly: he thinks he knows how that money should be spent better than a bureaucrat in Washington, so he spends it through channels he has some control over. But he doesn't believe other people know how to spend their money better than a bureaucrat in Washington. As Wildcat said, it's hypocrisy.

Quote:

For another, just because you favor a certain general policy doesn't mean you should volunteer to individually pay higher taxes that would result from said policy.

Translation: he's willing to be taxed more in order to tax other people more. Sure, that's a logical position, but it makes him a hypocrite and a liar, because he claims that he's not being taxed enough. He can remedy that situation without involvement from anyone else, but he does not. He doesn't think he's not being taxed enough, he thinks other people aren't being taxed enough, but is unwilling to say it so plainly.

Quote:

Do people who support wars of choice like Iraq donate extra money to the DOD? Do you think they should "lead by example"?

That's simply not an equivalent comparison. We're talking about the levying of taxes, not how those taxes are spent. If a war supporter claimed that we should all pay more in taxes to support the war, but wasn't contributing more himself, that might be equivalent, but I can't recall that ever happening.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Do you think something needs to be done to reduce the deficit, yes or no?

Yes. Recession over first. Cuts across the board for all general revenue programs, flat income tax, no deductions/no EIC and social secuirity unraided.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Now, if he really thinks that no law prevents him from paying more.

Similarly there is no law preventing you from paying more, so my question still stands, why haven’t you volunteered to step in and fill the gap?

[dudalb]

I am not against raising taxes for the higher income brackets, I am just afraid it won't stop there.
Americans will not tolerate a European level of taxation for the average income. They just won't.

[oldhat]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

So essentially, Obama has blown a trillion on something whose effect is not measurable and whether it did, or did not, do anything is impossible to know?

Somehow I don't think you really think this. I think you're in such a philosophical mood -- "how can we tell if something works or not"? -- because every reasonable indicator (from US unemployment rate to compating US growth rate to that of other, non-stimulated countries, or whatever) shows the stimulus had little or no effect, certainly not an effect worth a trillion.

Care to back up those eye-popping hitherto-unknown-to-reality claims with some evidence or are you in a Glenn Beck kinda mood?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Because they were brought into exostance to address specific issues. Medicare was just a logical extension of Social Security. It is there for people who have paid into it and are no longer employed. I have to admit that I do not fully understand why Medicaid should exist under different rules. SCHIP is just a stop-gap to make sure that children do not suffer for their parent's inability to insure them. UHC would, of course, reduce or eliminate the need for Medicaid and SCHIP.

The VA was the firsat of all of these established and for good reason. You take several years out of a man's life, you owe him something for the harm he suffers. It should be funded fully, regardless of cost, because it is part of the bargain we make with soldiers in exchange for the risks they take on our behalf. Further, consolidating the veterans in one system, separate from the general population actually enhances the ability of the government and veteran's support groups to track health issues peculiar to veterans and identify clusters of a particular ailment and perhaps identify the source. There is also a social elemnt that is important to the recovery process for long-term treatment, in that a group of veterans will be more likely to understand each other and form a therapeutic community. (I am speaking here from personal experience, having had easily several hundred thousand dollars worth of benefit from the system over a period of about 30 years.



Only partly. VA should NEVER be subject to an enrolment fee or premiums of any kind. Medicaid and SCHIP would simply be unneeded under the Obama plans.

No reason that veterans simply couldn't get 100% subsidized, is there? Why have an entirely different bureaucracy just for them?

Quote:

Sounded to me like that was already in the Obama plan.

Yep.

Quote:

Why, if all insurers are held to the same standards?

They're not. Every state has different regulations. Why not a single federal agency regulating them? It would free the states to put their money elsewhere.

Quote:

Some states can offer cheaper health insurance because they also allow worse pay for the lower-ranking bean counters. Don't feed the slave drivers, please.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

Quote:

Which just encourages the privatization of more public hospitals (if we have and left at all nowadays.) That is part of the source of the problem.

Why would we need public hospitals if everyone has quality health insurance? And wouldn't such a ranking system encourage non-profit and low-cost hospitals over shareholder-owned "health care as a business" for-profit hospitals?

And btw, we have one of the largest public hospitals in the country here in Cook County. It's named after a guy whose own family wouldn't send him there after he had a stroke a few years ago. It's run as a patronage jobs machine for connected political hacks and their relatives, a complete mess. It sucks up gobs of taxpayer dollars and is the main reason we in Chicago have the highest sales tax in the nation which is driving all our retail stores to nearby counties. I wouldn't shed a tear to see it go private.

Quote:

More snivelling. How typical.

So you'd be happy if your boss went out of business? You must love this current recession!

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Americans will not tolerate a European level of taxation for the average income. They just won't.

That’s because they’ve been fed a pipe dream that spending on programs they support have nothing to do with the taxes they need to pay. Realistically the US faces the choice between raising taxes or cutting spending on the big ticket budget items, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and Defense. The Party most adamant about not raising taxes is equally adamant about not cutting those programs.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

And yet you feel the need to call people who favor raising taxes hypocrites if they only pay the minimum. They're at least trying.

It's like a morbidly obese guy telling you you need to lose 15 lbs. while he's gorging himself on fried chicken and ice cream. It may well be a good idea, but how can you take him seriously?

Quote:

This is all very reasonable, but I have to ask, would any of those changes affect you personally? Because by your criteria you are a "hypocritical grandstanding jackass" if you think taxes should be raised but only pay the minimum that you are legally required, would you really personally pay more into the social security system than you are legally required to or forgo payments you are legally entitled to collect if the changes you propose are not made?

It's not at all the same. Personally I'd be better off if I got to keep the money I pay for SS. But since I don't see any way to abolish that monster this would at least mitigate the effects and perhaps keep it solvent. In case you don't knoew, I'm not a billionaire or even a millionaire. I'm barely a thousandaire.

Quote:

The services provided by government are not the sort that are especially attractive for philanthropy (who wants to donate to a prison or a bridge or an aircraft carrier?). And yes, there is waste. But it's not hypocritical to have the position that taxes should be raised if you only pay the minimum.

Oh please. Buffet said what he said in order to grandstand and draw attention to himself. The problems with the deficit are far more complex than a simple "raise taxes on capital gains". If Buffet actually comes up with a well thought-out multi-tired approach to the deficit I'll have a lot more respect for him. But from where I sit he's more into self-promotion than anything else. I'm surprised he doesn't do a Donald Trump-style reality show.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by lomiller

Similarly there is no law preventing you from paying more, so my question still stands, why haven’t you volunteered to step in and fill the gap?

I'm not going to the media lamenting that I'm not paying enough taxes, am I?

[lomiller]

Nope, you prefer to have the US government borrow from China then actually help pay for anything yourself.

[Towlie]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Americans will not tolerate a European level of taxation for the average income. They just won't.

Eventually, the folks abroad who lend us all that money are going to reach their tolerance limit as well. Then what are we going to do?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by lomiller

Nope, you prefer to have the US government borrow from China then actually help pay for anything yourself.

I really don't care who we borrow money from. I'd prefer we not borrow so much in the first place.

Perhaps you missed my other posts in this thread?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Towlie

Eventually, the folks abroad who lend us all that money are going to reach their tolerance limit as well. Then what are we going to do?

Sell them your children.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by dudalb

I am not against raising taxes for the higher income brackets, I am just afraid it won't stop there.
Americans will not tolerate a European level of taxation for the average income. They just won't.

The tax rates in Europe vary from a hell of lot less than the USA to a hell of lot more.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by Darat

Sell them your children.

Ummm...

Not sure how to put this but they didn't want them...

they said they wanted...

Yours.

[Darat]

Mine have been mortgaged for decades, and I am looking at getting a PS3 later this year so I'll also be mortgaging my great-great-grandchildren.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Perhaps you missed my other posts in this thread?

I have, they are seriously lacking.

Why don’t you take this opportunity to spell out:

a) What specific programs you think there would be popular support for cutting, and how much you think will be saved.

b) Who should have their taxes raised and by how much.

If you really don’t support borrowing a + b should be sufficient to balance the US budget, if not their your pretty much full of it.