Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: We have a spending problem

Posted 2 years ago on April 25, 2012, 12:49 p.m. EST by DanielBarton (1345)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Taxes revenues are higher than before but so is the deficit. We as a people need to tell them that we want them to stop. This problem is only getting worse everyday. Its a time we put a stop to this madness in government. Our country has reach a point where we can not reach any higher due to the shackles we have put on ourselves. All spending must be reduced in all sectors of the government.

some videos that are related

http://www.learnliberty.org/videos/what-if-national-debt-were-your-debt

http://www.learnliberty.org/videos/does-government-have-revenue-or-spending-problem

http://www.learnliberty.org/classroom-resources/economics-curriculum

98 Comments

98 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Taxes aren't higher than before. Before what?

When you get the Defense budget down to say, twice as large as our largest imaginary, possible, enemy, (who would you say that is, by the way?) then we can talk.

When Simpson Bowles came ourt I went through the exercize of balancing the budget, (in the future). It wasn't that difficult. The hard part was doing it with the Koch brother's gun to my head.

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

I agree we have a spending problem. Too much money is spent on buying politicians!

[-] 2 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

Yeah to much money for certain products

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Politicians don't come cheap. Some of them need to be able to afford to keep Tiffany's in business.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

hahah yeah you got that right.

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Now that you see I have a sense of humor. I wonder about your own senses. Why do you point out that cutting government spending across the board is the solution and ignore the facts of where the debt came from. We have a tax evasion/rigging problem, funding needless wars problem, and a recklessly deregulated wall street problem. Where do you think all this massive debt came from, subsidizing food stamps. Oh, the madness of government. You can't be serious.

Look a little deeper. Study the facts. You will see at the core of all our problems, what we really have is a trickle down problem. If you get my drift.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

Deregulation of wall street didn't do this debt. The adding of unneeded services did the wars are included in this. Everything added to the mess to pin point it to one location would be impossible.

We feed other countries every day we give them subsidies to get back on track. This is very humane thing but we cant afford to feed our own kids.

I looked at the fact the problem is were are giving to many subsidies to businesses and politicians. Our government has gotten to quick to reach for the check book.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Slow economy means less people working and less taxes being collected. How anyone can not see that the deregulation which led to the loss of millions of jobs is a factor is beyond me. Which services are unneeded? The problem is we don't want to pay for them, instead we want to pitch the blame on the poor - well, for being poor. Our good man Ryan will use his catholic teachings to take away their food stamps and get rid of those unneeded services.

Can't you see this is the republican strategy. To get people to blame the powerless and shift the blame from the rich, who they protect. I used to think just like you. But all this madness has caused me to widen my perspective.

Dig into the facts of Ryan's budget and compare it with the budget released by the Congressional Progressive budget. Look at the numbers and forget what your party tells you to think. Then get back to me and tell me which policies make more fiscal sense.

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=70

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

You are correct

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

We need many more people like you in the world willing to take the time to look at the actual policies with an open mind.

[-] 2 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

We do but that also swings both ways. The fact that we can only view one side as wrong is not a good thing we need to open up like you said our minds to the idea of getting valid points from all sides.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Will do, but you will never convince me to eat beets. Yuck! Lol.

[-] 2 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

no worries i respect the views of others.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Barton, it seems you are a rare breed these days. Nice talking with you.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

Hey i know that i have more conservative ideas than others. But it doesnt mean either of us are wrong it just means i like to base my ideas on different ideas

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

did you make that song

[-] 1 points by tomdavid55 (93) 2 years ago

Yes.

[-] 2 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

good song

[-] 2 points by gforz (-43) 2 years ago

Daniel, you won't get much traction with these folks. They don't care what the numbers are. They just want the money. You can tell them just some basic facts and they will dissemble, deflect, or change the subject. Facts like we spend $3.6 trillion a year, we take in $2.3 trillion a year. The military budget is roughly $700 billion of the total spending, the rest is mostly entitlements and poverty programs of some kind, along with interest on the debt, along with budgets for all the departments and agencies we've created over the years. Facts like $9.5 trillion out of the $13.3 trillion in individual income is made by people making between $32,000 and $343,000 (percentages 2-49 of the top 50 percent). Corporate tax is approximately $180 billion. You could double it and it wouldn't make a significant dent in the deficit or debt. There isn't enough income at the top to make any dent almost at al in the debt, and certainly not enough to get from the bottom 50%. Of COURSE it's a spending problem. But no, you will just see diaries casting about other ways, ANY way, to keep spending the same or greater, from wealth taxes to taxing 401k's to just outright "taking" the wealth of individuals or corporations, and of course, eliminating the military. I think I am a reasonable person, and can at least see the symbolic value of passing something like a Buffett rule, even though I don't think it will raise any additional revenue, as people will shift asset classes, or borrow against existing assets to write off the interest against the income on other assets, move it offshore, or whatever. I am not against letting ALL of the Bush tax cuts expire, as I don't think anyone was hysterically railing about taxes back in the late 1990's (mostly because a lot of people were making at least paper profits on dot com investments). I can see cutting the military by some amount or at least demanding that other countries pay for us to help protect them. Seems like common sense to me. I also don't see why we can't protect the borders and fine companies who employ illegal aliens heavily. We should regulate higher education costs as it is wildly out of control. You should see the student commons that look like mini-malls and student housing that resemble hotel resorts (I know, I have two daughters in college as we type), the cost of which (if you want to live anywhere within walking or biking of campus) resembles the mortgage payment of most Americans. It is insane. We need to give as much incentive as possible for companies to make their products in America, whatever it takes. At the same time, get spending on a downward track immediately. If you want to put additional taxes on luxury goods such as boats, planes, to raise a bit of extra revenue, fine. Raise short term capital gains taxes, fine. Incentivize making longer term investments by reducing taxes the longer you hold them. This leads to less speculating and turmoil in the market overall. But realize that we need to cut something close to $700 or $800 billion out of the budget (over time), while we can raise revenue to something around $2.6 or $2.7 trillion, which would come close to balancing the budget. Everyone is going to need to buy in to doing it together. No one will leave unscathed. We have to stop with the "well, let's start with the other guy's stuff first" attitude.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

yes we do great read that was. Most people would agree living in a state that requires us to pay almost all of our taxes for no gains

I know your pain of college expenses i am in college now and it is insane how much everything cost. Im just happy i will have a good job security after i get out.

You brought up points i wanted to in your comment thank you

[-] 1 points by gforz (-43) 2 years ago

As a prime example, go to the Daily Kos website right now and scroll through the diaries and you'll see one by Sen. Bernie Sanders. In it, you can click on his "progressive agenda" to see how to deal with the deficit (sorry, it doesn't even begin to deal with the debt). Grant him every last revenue raised or cost savings he mentions (sorry, only cost saving he mentions is military plus small one for negotiating drug prices) and you'll come up with total additional annual revenue of about $389 billion, and annual cost savings of $135 billion, plus a weird one time savings of $39 billion for the extra spare parts our military has that they don't need. Do the math on that, and we're still about $800 billion in the hole ANNUALLY after you've doubled corporate taxes, increased taxes on the wealthy, and cut the military by 17% or so. There are references to additional savings by bring the troops home, and additional revenues by spending a lot more government money to create "millions of new jobs" building roads, etc.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

hmm so what do you think should be done.

[-] -2 points by gforz (-43) 2 years ago

I think I'm painting a very obvious picture. There are only so many places to go for the money.That's why the Simpson-Bowles committee was so unpopular, because they were providing hard truths, on a bipartisan basis, to the people. The people, and especially their representatives (who don't want to be vilified) don't want to hear it. A massive amount of the bureaucratic structure is going to have to be dismantled, many departments like Commerce, Education, Interior, etc. cut drastically. I could get behind some of the savings, like the military, and as I said, I think if you lowered rates, got rid of all the loopholes, that you would have a much broader base of taxpaying entities who didn't spend enormous sums of money wasting time and effort to avoid these taxes. Reduce or eliminate "barriers to entry" that keep some businesses from opening to start with (licenses, fees, and associated regulations). Raise the retirement age incrementally over time, open up healthcare to true competition (a public option would be fine) and incentivize the wise use of medical dollars by making everyone have at least some skin in the game ( I came to this conclusion by seeing what my experience was in renting a house I owned out. I tried it one way where I basically covered anything that broke in the house even though I didn't have control over how the tenant treated the house and its equipment. Then I tried it another way where the tenant paid the first $50 of any repair that was needed and I would pay anything above that amount. Guess which one resulted in the property being better used and maintained? Even though a nominal amount, just the fact that they had some skin in the game caused them to not abuse the equipment. It would be the same way with healthcare.) The greatest thing possible would be to reduce the level of poverty and get more people off of these programs, which would both reduce the cost of the programs and raise additional revenue. In my mind, you don't do this by giving more money to these programs. You spend short term money in training people with no education and low skills to at least another, higher level skill and marry that training up with industries who are expecting to need employees, whether it be in the healthcare industry, or training people to work in the oil and gas fields or in specialized manufacturing operations where a particular skill is needed. I don't have every answer, but I do have common sense and can do math. I don't believe in generalizations or in most charts and graphs (I'm in an industry, real estate, where charts and graphs are used to sell things), but in what you can see on the ground. I know that in today's job marketplace, to actually make money, more often than not, you will need one of two things, the ability to have specific knowledge and skill in a particular field that distinguishes you from others, or you need to be able to sell something effectively, which a company values above all else and will pay accordingly.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

What are you a repugnant talking head?

Your a spokesman for the rich. We had the Repug plan already, we tried, many against our will, it failed miserably and just about plunged the entire country into a depression. Remember? Or did you forget already?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

i agree and thought about many of those issues in the exact same way. Its good to know someone thinks like me

[-] 2 points by gforz (-43) 2 years ago

It's good to see there a youngster out there that hasn't spent his time frying his brain in college like some of these folks. Common sense. Spread the word about using it. And don't give in to the emotional appeals of the far left. It's all they have. They're like a chick you take home from a club at 2 in the morning. Looks good at the time, then you wake up from your stupor and go "Oh, shit".

[-] 2 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

hahah yeah i can relate to that example

I'm studying to be an engineer so i have to take logic over emotion every time. Its they way i was programmed to think. I had a project where i had only 10K to spend if i went over i failed. It simple principles of doing what you can with the money your given.

[-] 1 points by gforz (-43) 2 years ago

Good luck to you. Engineers will always be in demand. I see you're one we don't have to worry about. You are so right about the money you're given. Liberals just want to see to it that you are given more, not spending less. And not given more by them, trust me, it's always someone else's money they're talking about.

[-] 2 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

I know in that project teaching people to honor not spending more than what was given to them was the hardest part.

yeah i like to think im on the right track good conversation

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

there is still a spending problem our budget is to big for a country of our size

yes the taxes need to be fixed loopholes filled.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

We are only spending 3 and a half trillion this year, whats your problem :)

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

Only the stupid spending. If you want a good watch the video is a good one. I know they are more libertarian ideals but some of them are pretty good.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

Get out of Afghanistan NOW and Cut the military budget in half.

Then expire the Bush Tax Cuts for the RICH NOW.

And LEAVE Social Security ALONE!!! It did NOT cause the deficit. Bush did with his Errant Wars that were not funded. They went straight to the deficit. Trillions of dollars.

Your idea to cut all programs across the board is a hatchet job. Brutal, bloody, with consequences that would cause suffering up to and including death. Feeding starving children who can be kept alive for mere pennies a day is beyond the pale to cut off. Why the hell would you cut them off while we spend a billion dollars a day with these ill-gotten Wars. WHY?

The Puzzler

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

to much anger puzzle

We are in a true problem the spending in all sectors has gotten out of hand. This was not just cause from bush this goes all the way back to FDR. Yes our military budget is too high and should be lowered. But this alone will not save our country from defaulting. So project our government has forced it self to do has gotten out of hand. We can no longer afford to feed everyone outside of the USA. programs like this may have to be cut so that the starving children here can grow up fine.

Taxes must not be raised on anyone but the loopholes removed with this placed people will begin to have to pay the correct amount of taxes. Revenues will go up automatically

I for one am not banking on Social Security i never have, my parents aren't even trying to get on that. So even at my young age i have invested money i have earned into saving account for my own private social security.

This problem has been set long ago by forces we could not control. We didn't start this and we are paying the price. I for one don't want anyone else down the line to pay the price even if that means less things for me and my family.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

Anytime I see an article, book, site, etc with a name like "learnliberty," I immediately become suspicious.

I believe an old saying applies to all the numbers that get thrown around by both left and right wing extremists: "figures don't lie; but liars sure figure."

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

its a site that has ideas in it check it out and see what they have. If you dont like it take it how it is and dont go back.

i would say its more of a middle ground site Its economics made simple for everyday folk

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Which doesn't apply to how federal budgets really work in the context of a fiat currency.

A balanced budget would represent zero private sector savings.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

ok and how does that relate

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Your first video refers to 'what if the national debt was your debt?'

Thats the first fallacy. Family budgets, city, county, and state budgets have to seriously control spending and balance their budgets.

Since the Federal government is the sole issuer of currency, it is not constrained by the same rules. It can never go bankrupt, become insolvent. The macroeconomics is not the same. And since we have a flexible currency, not one that is tied to a commodity, the rules are very different.

The second fallacy with your second video 'does government have a revenue or spending problem'. Taxes do not finance spending in our system. They did under a commodity based monetary system, but not our current system. Taxes control the flow of money, savings, from the private sector to the public. They are useful to regulate behavior.

And your third video bears nothing to the reality we live under. Try this: http://pragcap.com/understand-the-modern-monetary-system/understanding-modern-monetary-system

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Not surprisingly this site is the product of a decidedly libe(R)tarian think tank. It's in effect astro turf. Backers include the Koch Foundation.

This economic model is almost pure Austrian.

Try a little MMT. For another look at it.

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/

http://pragcap.com/understand-the-modern-monetary-system/understanding-modern-monetary-system

[-] 2 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

they call them selves classic liberals so take it how it is

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I did and so should you.

You should learn about astro turfing and its applications.

If I called myself a druid? Would you believe me, if I had a nice web site?

This is the Neolibertarianism, I've been talking about.

It's the Koch's dream to mainstream it.

The economic model is the neoliberal/austrian school.

That's why I gave you links to MMT.

[-] 2 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

well i like libertarian values i dont think all of them should be implemented but i agree with alot of them

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I agree with their basic "social" values.

It's their economics and corporatism, I strongly disagree with.

I also strongly disagree with their views on the role of the federal government.

Instead of viewing it though it's tenets, you need to look at who funds it, and what the activities are, as well as the results of those activities.

See any thread on the activities ALEC for prime examples.

Remember this too. The Kochs founded CATO and the the modern libe(R)tarian party, and now they want it back.

This isn't the Libertarianism you believe in. It's Neolibe(R)tarianinsm

[-] 2 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

maybe i'll look into and decide from there

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

Yes. Way too much military spending. Too many pork projects. Not enough people at the top paying a fair share of taxes thanks to 1000s of pages of loopholes to exploit.

[-] 3 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

its not only military its everything. Even if people were paying the taxes we would be still going into debt. Our government needs to learn to watch the check book.

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

Yeah there are lots of places in the tax code and budget that could use improvement.

[-] 4 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

o yeah no doubt in that. loopholes need to be filled but spending needs to go down too

[-] -1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Dishonest.

As a percentage of GDP, revenues are low, and have not been lower since 1950.

Tax evasion is at the highest and so are Corporate Welfare, public incarceration, offshoring, unemployment, war, healthcare, and school loans. Just to name a few of the costs you, gdorz, Heritage Foundation, ALEC and Republicons frequently omit. The Rich and Corporate are making record profits, to the detriment of the rest of the country. They are hoarding our wealth and stifling employment, deliberately.

What we have is a Greed Run Amuck and Righties Hate Obama & democracy PROBLEM.

[-] 2 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

no GDP is the highest it ever been with calculating inflation in it. Yes the tax system is broken but so is the spending problem. This isn't a party issue this is a national issue

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Denying that this is a party problem when the laissez faire policies Republicons pushed through got us in this mess, and putting the blame on "spending," is most certainly a Republicon tactic "issue."

GDP is not the problem, the problem is the lopsided redistribution of national wealth to the top 1%, the record low tax revenues from them (tax evasion), the record high unemployment (no job, no taxes), and the massive debts run up by government-hating Republicons (with unfunded bogus wars, deregulation and corporate welfare) enriching their fat cat employers and bankrupting the country.

As FDR proved in similar circumstances, spending (investing) is the only thing that will help us (the 99%, the country). Today, our top 1% are doing better than ever, while the rest of us struggle for scraps.

The tax system (this economy) is not broken, IT'S FIXED!

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

alright

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6468) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

we have a taxing problem, no it's a spending problem, taste great, less filling...

We have a problem in that we do not levy tax sufficient to cover what we authorize in payments. There is no way to have one without the other.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (23979) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Well that is what is likely to happen if you let your children loose with a charge card.

People we need to do a real job of parenting our government. Don't let them run with scissors either.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6468) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I thought my comment was kind of clever, yet nobody likes it...boohoo

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (23979) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I did. taxing as in vexing, clever use of wider meaning. As well as the Beer commercial reference/analogy.

[-] 2 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

revenue wont get any higher so we must cut to fit inside that revenue. It can be managed and it should be managed like how any of us manage it.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (23979) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Living with-in means.

You know people the stuff they keep telling us to do. Tighten up that old belt-strap. Stuff economists used to teach.

Old material that still applies in today's modern world.

[-] 2 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

yes how i was taught how to live

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (23979) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Cash and Carry is what it used to be called.

Worst thing that ever happened was the approval of credit cards - really allowed things to get ugly fast. The real 1st open door to the road to ruin in my opinion.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

yeah that and a few other things. The doors opened to wide for who could get "free" money. i stay away from things like that i dont want to be trapped under a bankers foot

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (23979) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

People have a hard time understanding that there is no "FREE" there is always a catch. But when people are living in desperation and poverty they are not always thinking clearly - they are looking, hoping, praying for a way out - for something a bit better. These people are vulnerable and easily manipulated. This is where our current culture of being OK with rampant greed has gotten us. Hell on earth for many.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

i know if only people didn't fall into the trap

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (23979) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Problem is no one is educating about the trap. It was simple/basic economics taught to every one when I was growing up part of the education about the Great Depression and lessons learned. But that has been another area of successful attack on the educational system attack on society - Hey guys business would like to produce more revenue. You will not see it spoken against on MSM as that is the corporate propaganda machine and they are currently happy with how things are.

[-] 2 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

i was taught in econ in high school so i'm assuming most people were taught that in my generation at least

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (23979) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

But look at truth in lending and advertizing practice. You know as well as I - that if you do not use something on a regular basis you get rusty - like critical thinking or reading or writing - then if you are constantly bombarded with messages to do what you know you should not - what happens? Often times nothing - not at 1st - but get caught in a weak moment and you might find yourself saying OH WHAT THE HELL - just this once I deserve it.

If you combine this type of thing with the fact that many kids in school do not realize the benefit of what they are studying ( oh why do I need to learn this? I will never use it ) And they see all of the pretty colors and shiny objects and.......................................sorry...........where was I?...........who are you again?

It is an insidious attack on the subconscious and it is being allowed. There are very few naturally aware people.

[-] 2 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

yes very valid points

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (23979) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Thank you. It is the duty of those who are aware to try to make others aware.

[-] 2 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

i know this and i do

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (23979) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Then you are living well.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6468) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

oh I can think of a few ways to make revenue higher, think outside the box my man, a lot of us don't trun down overtime when we got bills to pay, time to start working overtime instead of part time I say

[-] 3 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

Ok but most people do pay there taxes fully. This isnt a tax issue this is a spending issue. watch the video he is a much smarter man than i am and explains what im trying to get across.

i do agree taxes need to be paid but spending needs to go down in all sectors

http://www.learnliberty.org/videos/does-government-have-revenue-or-spending-problem

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6468) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

If there is a TARP, there is a tax, and so forth.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6468) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

What I'm saying is simple enough we should not let them spend money they don't have, if they vote to go to war, then the tax should be right there penny by penny, if it cost more the tax goes right up, then maybe we start to pay attention to what they spend,.

If there was no mismatch there would be no mismatch.

[-] 4 points by DKAtoday (23979) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Better yet - instead of the public ( middle class and Working class and goods taxes like food & utilities ) going up - Only the wealthy's tax should increase for the duration, the wealthy individuals and Corporations/Businesses - No profit what so ever for the duration - no layoffs we need those workers and their money circulating in the economy - you wealthy (?) fend for yourselves - you do have savings - Right? Pump all of the revenue beyond payroll needs and operation costs straight into the government.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6468) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Details can be worked out, but I would say you set a budget, then if during the year you have to spend more than you thought you would, or if revenues dip below what you thought say at the quarters, and at the start of each quarter is when the "flex tax" would come into play, starts at $250,000 taxable and is the amount needed to cover the difference from previous quarter plus expected, anybody making that kind of money has accountant do taxes so no problem, they could handle it easy.

[-] 2 points by engineer4 (352) 2 years ago

Adjustable taxation would not work. The lead and lag indicators would never keep up. People and business need stability to plan ahead and that would be impossible if there is unknown tax levels every quarter. The economy would never be stable and would fluctuate wildly. Also, Stability and some predictability is a fundamental requirement to lower unemployment levels.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6468) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Lead, lag is easy to take care of it's done all the time you should know this. If unempolyment goes up we just cut everybody a government check, the 1% can figure out how to not make that happen or they will have a big flex tax bill.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6468) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

This would be very good reasons for them to stay within budget and to write a real one up front the problem is they do what they want with no consequences, yes there would be some that’s the point. But it would work fine, accountants would figure it out easy and everybody has bills that vary this would not be a business killer, and the vast majority of business don’t net $250,000 anyway and would not be affected.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (352) 2 years ago

Business needs to plan use of capital, hiring, etc. this takes time, it is not instant. When you hire, there is training etc. you need some certainty, otherwise companies would not attempt expansion or other growth. This has nothing to do with the 1%, but all business models.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6468) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

My God!!! The damage we must do every time we cut taxes, why do we only hear about the need for stability when we are talking about possible tax increases, don't tax cuts disrupt things too?

Tell me how do they keep it from getting warm outside so the electric bill doesn't change?

This is a bunch of bullshit, costs change all the time.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (352) 2 years ago

You are not understanding how the business world plans. Even tax cuts are planned in advance, they do not just happen. Cost change, yes, but we all have seen first hand when they change suddenly. Wild fluctuations and uncertainty prevails, and with that, people and businesses hold back hiring, spending, etc. Any growth period I. The economy was aided by some "certainty" and stability. If you do not comprehend this, I suggest you do some reading or take some basic economics classes.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6468) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

you make a good case for them to not go "off budget" to fund things, I am liking this ideal more and more, after all the goal is to rein in congress in ameanful way make them pay a price for going to war and such

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (352) 2 years ago

The spending priorities should be better evaluated, but no matter what, the total spending needs to be slowed down to gain ground on the deficit growth. The only thing I believe that should be "off budget" are things like emergency disaster funds and special national security needs ( but war spending would not be in this category).

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6468) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

before that big tax cut in 2001 we were on track to pay this thing off, now 9/11 might have delayed it, but without that tax cut we would be fine so it seems pretty easy to see where the problem is, let it expire, of course we set ourselves back about 20 years letting Bush get in

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (23979) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I don't know in this day and age of smoke and mirrors when say like the pentagon can loose (?) (did I hear correctly) over a trillion dollars (?) and have no clue (?). Well obviously some house cleaning is in order.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6468) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I don't try to write law here, but this is just one of many ways to make it work. The thing I like about this is when somebody shouts "It's for the troops!" somebody else will say what about the flex tax! and when the people who have to pay it, the ones over $250,000 start calling they listen. We would never go to war again.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (23979) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I believe it could work as a system precautionary measure a governor on an engine so to speak. I mean if the wealthy living and non are aware that all of their profits are going to be siphoned off to support/pay for an effort - People living and non would be more careful and considerate of what they were walking us all into. Today many look forward to conflicts as a proper opening to profiteering. There should not be reward - "monetary" reward in engaging in conflict.

[-] 2 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

No reason to have taxes fluxing every year instead we should have a normal tax system that is the same every year. This way small businesses dont have to worry about taxes changing on the,

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6468) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

no need not to maybe they'd think twice before spending if they knew taxes wre going right up with it

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

Yeah then goes the business small business have a hard enough time as it is

[-] -3 points by factsrfun (6468) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

BTW we got here when we pasted the Bush tax cuts.

[-] 0 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

And the Repugs want sorely to make those tax cuts permanent. They whine and cry over the deficit but it was run up on their watch and no one said anything then. As soon as Obama was elected they began whining, complaining, smearing, having Tea Parties, making people fearful, and generally characterizing everything that Obama does as weak, bad, and wrong for the country. They still want to believe he's not really a REAL American. The Repugs depend on people being ignorant of the evident truth. This is their game plan. Take the money from the rich, smear their opponents , and win re-election. Money WINS!

The Puzzler

[-] 1 points by Shule (2239) 2 years ago

Your heard of the golden rule?. That is he who has the gold, makes the rule!

[+] -4 points by bobgnote (-55) 2 years ago

Now then. How much of that overspending is related to the 1882 invasion of Palestine, by zionist oppressors, aiming to ethnically cleanse the area, in the same way, by the sword, as described in The Bible? War started right back up in apartheid South Africa, and by 1886, reactionary Islamists revolted in Egypt, as the Mahdi Army. Charlton Heston had his head cut off, in the related movie, KHARTOUM. The US fell in behind the Balfour Declaration, with the charter of Israel, 1948. Before that, the US refused to allow Jewish refugees fair access, to immigration, see Voyage of the Damned. We still have a long way to go, but I recommend ending support for zionism, as soon as any of the 450,000 elected representatives grow a brain enough, to take the little blue Israel-mobiles out of their fannies, RIP, Ryan Dunn.