Interestring scenario of how tax cuts really work

[IamOld]

I'm sorry Chris, but I disagree - we cannot simply worship at the altar of "free markets" - that's like a football game without a referee - there are NO free markets, only those that gov'ts allow to happen. I always think that we are misplacing our anger, when we - the working classes - direct it against the "poor" and surely many of us here are also poor. THere is VERY real poverty in America today, and it is getting worse. If we didn't have what is let of the "welfare" system, we could have massive social unrest, starvation, etc. And, frankly, I'd much rather have my tax money spent on someone who is poor or working class than anyone else.

Regarding foreign aid - it's $16billion/year...of an over $three TRILLION budget.

Finally, as I think many of us here know - people are unemployed because there are no jobs. And yes, I am a bleeding heart...I drive to/from an urban center to work...sometimes (depending on my route) I have beggars come up to my car asking for money. WHEN I have some - mostly I don't - I give a dollar or some coins - I know...but I just feel there is something (I hope) out there that looks out for us fools... :-)

Remember - we're all in this together!

I agree, that is why we need to dedicate the revenue from the motor vehicle fuels tax to pay for roads. That way those who use the roads the most pay the most. That is the exact result
that would be the best economically as it would not create market distortions. If you drive more, you should pay more, otherwise we subsidize driving and encourage too much of it.

Great idea.

As for welfare, we are subsidizing poverty, therefore we encourage more of it. And lets face it, if I showed a picture of a family in poverty in the US today to someone in poverty in Africa, they would think the person is wealthy. If I showed the picture of someone in poverty in America today, to someone who was wealthy 200 years ago, they probably would also not equate the situation with poverty. Why in the world would we ever want to pay someone NOT to work (this included those horrible farm subsidies and certain corporate tax credits). We lose the value of their labor and we have to take money from someone who is productive to do so. It makes no economic sense to take from those who make money to give to those who do not, and even less sense to take my money and give it to wealthy bankers and finaciers through oppressive regulation and bailouts, and really makes me mad when they take my money and give it to other countries in the form of foreign aid! I don't care how little of the budget it is, I want to decide how to spend my money, perhaps on private charity, maybe on a hawaii vacation, maybe just for an extra 6 pack of beer. but I should get to drink the beer, not some foreign dictator, welfare pig, or wall street banker.

We have too much government, not too little tax revenue.

[chrisdfw]

1. I'm sorry Chris, but I disagree - we cannot simply worship at the altar of "free markets" - that's like a football game without a referee - there are NO free markets, only those that gov'ts allow to happen. ...

2. Regarding foreign aid - it's $16billion/year...of an over $three TRILLION budget.

3. I give a dollar or some coins - I know...but I just feel there is something (I hope) out there that looks out for us fools... :-)

4. Remember - we're all in this together!

1. There were markets before governments. Reasonable regulation encourages markets, unreasonable regulations interfere in irresponsible ways in attempts to determine winners and losers, and society loses as a result.

2. the principle of foreign aid bothers me, not the amount. I don't like to be robbed or raped... not even a little.

3. I salute you for your voluntary charity, that is what it should be, you should have the choice to give the dollar. When the government uses their guns to take it, its no longer voluntary. If I don't pay they will come to my house and do violence to me, so that some poor person gets my money.

4. We are not in it together, those that take from me to feed their families at my expense are not in it with me. They are determining that they would rather have have the government take from me to satisfy their selfish needs.

I appreciate your viewpoint, I just have a different one. I want a vibrant economy and based on my understanding of human nature and economics I don't think we can get one by taking from some to give to others (whether those others are poor street beggars or rich wall street bankers). but mostly we are taking from future citizens to give to those who do not produce. Eventually everyone will decide to be on the government dole if we make it attractive enough, then who will be left to produce? Nobody, and there will only be the rich and the poor, not because of de-regulation, but because of the WRONG regulations and spending policies.

Sadly, I suspect we are all doomed. Its reached a tipping point where too many people eat at the welfare trough on the backs of those who produce. Maybe I am just a pessimist.

I do respect everyone who disagrees, but I have trouble getting past the fact that so many people think it is ok to take money out of my wallet to give to someone else using the force of government. I try to understand it as some kind of sense of compassion that I must lack, but I always come back to the fact that I am forced to pay to feed people who do not work. (I don't blame those people, perhaps I would not work if someone would give me enough free stuff and I didn't have a problem where it came from, I blame the people who vote for the politicians who promise to rape my paycheck to pay for it).

I can't get past being forced to give my earnings to rich bankers and those on welfare, seems like I am getting it from both ends.

[jacko]

The crust of it. When you discharge debt in a BK, you are taking from others!

1. There were markets before governments. Reasonable regulation encourages markets, unreasonable regulations interfere in irresponsible ways in attempts to determine winners and losers, and society loses as a result.

2. the principle of foreign aid bothers me, not the amount. I don't like to be robbed or raped... not even a little.

3. I salute you for your voluntary charity, that is what it should be, you should have the choice to give the dollar. When the government uses their guns to take it, its no longer voluntary. If I don't pay they will come to my house and do violence to me, so that some poor person gets my money.

4. We are not in it together, those that take from me to feed their families at my expense are not in it with me. They are determining that they would rather have have the government take from me to satisfy their selfish needs.

I appreciate your viewpoint, I just have a different one. I want a vibrant economy and based on my understanding of human nature and economics I don't think we can get one by taking from some to give to others (whether those others are poor street beggars or rich wall street bankers). but mostly we are taking from future citizens to give to those who do not produce. Eventually everyone will decide to be on the government dole if we make it attractive enough, then who will be left to produce? Nobody, and there will only be the rich and the poor, not because of de-regulation, but because of the WRONG regulations and spending policies.

Sadly, I suspect we are all doomed. Its reached a tipping point where too many people eat at the welfare trough on the backs of those who produce. Maybe I am just a pessimist.

I do respect everyone who disagrees, but I have trouble getting past the fact that so many people think it is ok to take money out of my wallet to give to someone else using the force of government. I try to understand it as some kind of sense of compassion that I must lack, but I always come back to the fact that I am forced to pay to feed people who do not work. (I don't blame those people, perhaps I would not work if someone would give me enough free stuff and I didn't have a problem where it came from, I blame the people who vote for the politicians who promise to rape my paycheck to pay for it).

I can't get past being forced to give my earnings to rich bankers and those on welfare, seems like I am getting it from both ends.

[shark66]

If we didn't have what is let of the "welfare" system, we could have massive social unrest, starvation, etc.

The aforementioned scenario would at least give us some hope of finally getting rid of the deadly combination corruption and tyranny in Washington...

Good luck to us all.

[msm859]

........ I want a vibrant economy and based on my understanding of human nature and economics I don't think we can get one by taking from some to give to others (whether those others are poor street beggars or rich wall street bankers). but mostly we are taking from future citizens to give to those who do not produce. Eventually everyone will decide to be on the government dole if we make it attractive enough, then who will be left to produce? Nobody, and there will only be the rich and the poor, not because of de-regulation, but because of the WRONG regulations and spending policies.

Sadly, I suspect we are all doomed. Its reached a tipping point where too many people eat at the welfare trough on the backs of those who produce. Maybe I am just a pessimist.

Let me give a stab at it from a logical economic viewpoint. In the year 2000 we had a budget surplus that was projected to continue far in the future and we would in fact be paying off the debt. Fast forward 11 years and we are awash in red ink at far as we can see with a mounting debt that will in fact reach critical mass and cause serious problems. What has changed? It was not an increase in welfare.
1. We cut taxes that were at a well balanced rate -- high enough to bring in sufficient revenue and low enough to maintain a vibrant economy.
2. We repealed Glass-Steagall (deregulation) such that the the greed of Wall Street would ultimately lead to the economic meltdown.
3. We started 2 unnecessary wars with no increase in revenue to pay for them.
4. We gave 100's of billions away to the Pharmaceuticals.

You want a vibrant economy -- First, undo ALL of the above. Also, we are in fact going to have to deal with the debt. I would disagree with you that we are not in this together -- we are -- like it or not. However, with your understanding of human nature you are probably aware that human greed is powerful. The concentration of wealth in a few is not good for society. We need a strong middle class. To get that, we do need disincentives to curb greed. I would suggest higher marginal tax rates at extreme incomes along with higher inheritance tax at extreme rates. Limitations on compensation for publically traded companies.
These would be good starts.

[chrisdfw]

The crust of it. When you discharge debt in a BK, you are taking from others!

Others who were a party to the contract and explicitly agreed to accept the risks and rewards of loaning money.

You do raise an interesting point about the changing of bankrupty laws after someone takes on a debt or loans money. For instance the government prohibited the discharge of private student loans, which to me is changing the deal after the fact, those rules should apply only to new student loans. No party should be disadvantaged or have the deal changed after the fact where there was a contract signed under a certain legal regime.

If I loan money I accept the risk and reward. When a criminal breaks into my house, there is no reward, it is theft, there is a difference in my opinion.

Even if bankrupty was theft, do we want all theives justifying their actions because there is other theft. Its ok to steal becuase others do?

[chrisdfw]

Let me give a stab at it from a logical economic viewpoint. In the year 2000 we had a budget surplus that was projected to continue far in the future and we would in fact be paying off the debt. Fast forward 11 years and we are awash in red ink at far as we can see with a mounting debt that will in fact reach critical mass and cause serious problems. What has changed? It was not an increase in welfare.
1. We cut taxes that were at a well balanced rate -- high enough to bring in sufficient revenue and low enough to maintain a vibrant economy.
2. We repealed Glass-Steagall (deregulation) such that the the greed of Wall Street would ultimately lead to the economic meltdown.
3. We started 2 unnecessary wars with no increase in revenue to pay for them.
4. We gave 100's of billions away to the Pharmaceuticals.

You want a vibrant economy -- First, undo ALL of the above. Also, we are in fact going to have to deal with the debt. I would disagree with you that we are not in this together -- we are -- like it or not. However, with your understanding of human nature you are probably aware that human greed is powerful. The concentration of wealth in a few is not good for society. We need a strong middle class. To get that, we do need disincentives to curb greed. I would suggest higher marginal tax rates at extreme incomes along with higher inheritance tax at extreme rates. Limitations on compensation for publically traded companies.
These would be good starts.

Welfare is not to blame for the economic mess, not directly, but if we had more people working and producing it would be better.

So..
1. the tax cuts were improper without cutting services, that is all I am saying, I want spending cuts. Until the spending is cut, tax cuts are crazy. Never said otherwise, but the government deficit is a spending problem, mainly on social security, medicare, medicaid, and defense.
2. Glass steagal repeal was not the start, it was the end, the problems with banking started 80 years before. I would rather have seen glass steagal have never been necessary. It wouldn't if the government had not made banks get so large through FDIC and meddlesome regulation.
3. Agreed, I think we should just blast our enemies into the stone age and save a lot of money. We nuked Japan twice and they haven't bothered us since.
4. I am not sure what you mean by that. But yes, the medicare prescription drug plan is a horrible giveaway. Just an example of giving some people benefits that others have to pay for.

You can't curb greed by taking money away from one person and giving it to another? I would suggest that greed is a powerful motivator. If I want more money, I need to do something for someone that will pay me for it. That is how it should work. But the government solution is to take away money from me and give it others that have done nothing for me.

I have more a problem with what the money is spent on than the actual tax rates. If we want higher tax rates to pay for highways, infrastructure, defense (too high already but a legitimate government function) of things other than transferring wealth, that is one thing. But mostly people want to take it and give it away via medicare, medicaid, social security, welfare, seciton 8, etc.

I do favor limits on compensation for publically traded companies. They are stealing from the shareholders the same way the government is stealing from taxpayers. My problem isn't the compensation, but the fact the money doesn't belong to them and they approve their own ridiculous pay (like congress)