As we head into what is clearly the most important election in most of our lifetimes, possibly as some have said, the most important election since 1860, the biggest question in my mind is, how do we restart the engine of capitalism? I believe the presidential candidate that best articulates the answer to that question will win hands down.
My personal feeling is that three of the most critical things that have to happen are (1) a national energy plan that promotes both energy independence and abundant, economical energy; (2) revamping our tax structure to make it simpler, broader based, more equitable and, most important, predictable over a reasonably lengthy period of time; and (3) revamp government regulations from top to bottom. In a sentence, we need to get away from a system that penalizes success and rewards failure to one that does the exactly the opposite.
All comments are welcome, but please folks, try to engage in at least a modicum of critical thinking. This is an opportunity for our resident Liberals to tell us what you would do to get our economy moving in the right direction again. Any posts that simply advocate making the wealthy pay more will be deleted. Surely at least some of our more intellectual Progressives can come up with Liberal ideas that have worked in the past or maybe even some new ideas that have never been tried before. Everything is on the table except wealth redistribution — oh, heck, even that’s on the table if you can make a convincing case for where it has worked in the past.
Blogs For Victory 
For any of the aforementioned things to take place the donkRAT party has to throw off the shackles of marxist communism that has infiltrated them from top to bottom.
All have to “pay their fair share” INCLUDING the 47% who pay no federal income tax. A fair or national sales tax would be the way to go.
The FULL dismantling and full elimination of the IRS, ATF, DOE, dept of education, OSHA, EPA and many more.
TERM LIMITS, TERM LIMITS, TERM LIMITS.
and a balanced budget amendment.
just a FEW for starters.
(firing squads for politicians to follow) 🙂
sarcasm for you dumbed down drones, and 3rd rate jr college “teachers”
a comment from another site but very good IMHO
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 6:38pm
1. Term Limits. 12 years only, one of the possible options below..
A. Two Six-year Senate terms
B. Six Two-year House terms
C. One Six-year Senate term and three Two-Year House terms
2. No Tenure / No Pension.
A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.
3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.
All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people.
4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.
5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.
7. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.
8. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/11.
The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career.
The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work
.
If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will only take three days for most people (in the U.S. ) to receive the message.
neo
see you’re talking to yourself again
please keep up the good work
and seriously? have a happy new year
::))
nanu nanu dork
well apparently im talking to YOU since you replied, which is not me, myself, or I
any way have a happy and safe New Year.
ps wish me luck, Im trying to get a new (used)
space shipHarley dyno low rider to start the year out .trying to work a trade for some work, millionairs are hard to deal with.
So, Bagni, have you got anything to offer WRT the topic of the thread? Neo offered a number of ideas.
I thought neo’s post was very good and quite relevant.
I thought your post, bags was typical of what we have come to expect of you—inane, utterly silly and vapid, and an unwelcome peek into a very juvenile mind.
spook, this seems like a reasonable list, but it is short on specifics. Take, for example, “revamping our tax structure to make it simpler, broader based, more equitable.” Sounds reasonable, but what is equitable to one person is not to another. The Republican presidential candidates have offered up all manner of tax reforms, but virtually all of them are deeply flawed. Do you have a specific revamping in mind?
Or take “revamp government regulations from top to bottom.” What kind of regulations, if any, do you think are appropriate for the financial and banking industry? Did the financial collapse of 2008 make you think more or less regulation is required?
waspstooge
lets start with the coal industry and the commie
spook, this seems like a reasonable list, but it is short on specifics.
Watson, I was sort of hoping, against hope, as it appears, that commenters (like you) would provide some specifics. How about it? Why don’t you try answering your own questions instead of simply complaining?
The Republican presidential candidates have offered up all manner of tax reforms, but virtually all of them are deeply flawed. Do you have a specific revamping in mind?
Watson, I don’t know if you’re old enough to remember the 17% flat tax proposal that Jack Kemp came up with back in the mid-90’s. That would be a great start. It exempted the first $36,000 of adjusted gross income for a family of 4, could be filed in about 2 minutes on a post-card size form, and, because of the generous up-front exemption, it was significantly progressive all the way up to around $750,000. I still personally like the idea of the Fair Tax, because it taxes the underground economy and it does away with the IRS, but, since that would require a Constitutional amendment, I’m not sure we can ever get there. Kemp’s flat tax would be a great start.
I was a Reagan Democrat in the 80’s. Conservatives like to remember Reagan for the stepped cuts in the tax rate that brought the top marginal rate down from 70% in 1981 to 28% in 1986. Liberals like to remember that Reagan also compromised with a Democrat-controlled Congress to tighten the tax code and eliminate a number of long-time deductions and loop holes. Almost everyone forgets that the biggest tax cut during Reagan’s 2 terms was when the price of oil plummeted from over $40.00 a barrel to around $10.00. The lower class and working poor were the biggest beneficiaries of the resulting drop in fuel prices because they paid a disproportionately high percentage of their income for fuel. Other than the Savings and Loan debacle, Reagan was the beneficiary of a nearly perfect storm of prosperity generating events, and nearly 2 decades of almost uninterrupted economic growth was the result. The dynamics WRT oil have changed since then, but I don’t think there’s any question that a drop to $40 or $50/barrel would be a major factor in lighting a fire under the economy. Obama campaigned the first time around on an energy policy that would make energy costs “skyrocket”. I think that is, perhaps, his single biggest area of vulnerability, even greater than ObamaCare.
Just my 2 cents.
more exposure of this cretin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbK9k1aIurA
watstooge
but virtually all of them are deeply flawed. Do you have a specific revamping in mind?
ummmmmm
like THIS……….
NOW
Ochimpy wants to ADD ONE TRILLION of ADDITIONAL DEBT NEXT WEEK………..INSANITY!!!!!!
Neocon, don’t you find it a little coincidental that the national average for unleaded regular has managed to stay just below that magic $3.50/gal. level for much of the 12 months since this video was made? And yet we’ve been above $3.00/gal. for longer than ever before. If I were a major candidate for President, one of my top campaign pledges would be to do everything in my power to create an environment whereby we’d get back to the $1.85 level that existed on Obama’s inauguration day. You talk about an issue that would appeal to much of the working class Democratic base; that would be it.
Spook, I think you have hit upon the least-discussed aspect of the tax debate: “revamping our tax structure to make it simpler, broader based, more equitable and, most important, predictable over a reasonably lengthy period of time”
People unfamiliar with job creation simply do not understand the importance of consistency and predictability in taxation. Fluctuations based on political considerations instead of economic reality make it difficult, if not impossible, to do the long-term planning necessary to put together a new business or expand an existing one.
Amazona,
The common meme from the Left is that Conservatives don’t want to pay ANY taxes. I have to confess, I don’t want to pay more than is absolutely necessary to fund the things that government is constitutionally responsible for doing, but I do recognize that taxation is a necessary evil of a capitalistic society. Still, I think the debate this election year will, or at least SHOULD be about the role and level of government that Americans are willing to fund. It’s pretty clear that we can’t continue to borrow $.42 of every dollar indefinitely. I think even most Liberals agree with that.
One of our regular posters, either JS02 or Tiredoflibs, I think, suggested a while back that each of us keep a journal for a year detailing all the taxes each of us pays. I’m thinking seriously about taking that challenge in 2012.
RS & Ama,
I did that (keep a journal of taxes paid) back in my first go-round at college in the late 70’s ~ early 80’s and I would want you to make sure you have a strong constitution before attempting. Make sure you capture all of the taxes you can because a great deal are hidden which is just one of many reasons I am against a VAT-style tax. In the end, you will find your rate is easily 15 ~ 20% above even what you thought. As a very poor college student I was paying nearly 50% of my earned income in the form of taxation–never wanted to repeat that experiment again.
As to the thread, I read it this morning and decided to wait rather than post a wish list of what I would do if given the “power” to change things in an instant. As a previous business owner (2 of them) and apparently bordering on insanity for thinking about starting another one to the point of outlining a business plan–one word kept reoccurring as a constant theme–consistency. There is no possible way to project short, mid, or long term goals and expectations in the current environment.
Two of the “minor” factors being taxation (rates that is) and regulations being highly unstable at his point in time. In my case, two of the “major” factors in my decision are if Obama-care is struck down by the Supreme Court and President Obama is a job-seeker like he has helped millions before him after this term–that would go a long way in self-correction.Health care costs and regulation of everything from dust blowing off my property to cow farts will not truly effect me on start up but makes long range impossible. Add in a book smart but no real experience Commander-in-Chief plus his cronies wipes out any short and mid range planning.
American business-folks and entrepreneurs are resilient and can tolerate almost anything but this is almost like when I was completing my last Masters degree where I had more knowledge and experience than a majority of my instructors. Actually I am surprised that I passed a few of the classes because I would explain to much younger students what they book learned was nothing like the real world that awaited them.
As a final note–do not forget to include wonderful items in your ledger like here in NC that the cost per gallon of gasoline is going up by $0.085 cents a gallon because of~hmmm, never really mentioned exactly why. Would catapult us to one of the highest rates in the nation and we have such lovely, pot-holed, crappy roads to drive on right after I pay the taxes on my truck tires because of…
As a very poor college student I was paying nearly 50% of my earned income in the form of taxation–never wanted to repeat that experiment again.
DB, that’s sort of what I’m afraid of. Just the taxes on my bundled communications (satellite, internet and land-line phone + cell phone) are around 25% or about $35/month. Indiana has an 18% (I think) state excise tax on gasoline plus 7% sales tax (one of only a handful of states that charges sales tax on gas) on the base cost of the gas (not counting state and federal excise taxes). So right now, at $3.49/gal for unleaded regular, the sales tax is about the same as the excise tax. Those are just two routine things that involve a substantial amount of tax that most people pay without even thinking about it.
Well, since I am about 1/2 mile outside the city limits–the city charges me more than my actual water and waste bills to pump water and waste the 1/2 mile. On an average $20 water bill–I am charged $27 to pump it and this is outside of the taxes and fees. Same goes to pumping out the waste.
I am still fighting with the county and city to let me drill a well & change over to Geo-thermal style of HVAC system on my property–four years and counting.
Revamping our our tax structure probably will accomplish nothing. Until the time Congress does not have the constitutional authority to dip thier hands into the taxpayers wallets I do not see anything changing.
Too many of those among the donky party and an ever increasing number among the repub party have a vested intrest in keeping the status quo. We the people have given the federal government the unchecked power to tax and regulate.
Is it time now to repeal the 16th amendment?
I seldom visit conservative blogs. In fact the only reason I ever came here was that I heard my old buddy Bodie was giving you right-wingers grief a while back. Either he gave up or has been banned — wouldn’t be the first time for either. Anyway, I’m a pretty liberal guy with a Libertarian streak which I guess comes from being part of the San Francisco area culture for most of my adult life. While I’ll never be a conservative, I’m seriously beginning to have second thoughts about Obama, as are a number of my friends. I don’t know enough about economics to outline what I think might work to get us out of this mess, but it’s becoming pretty obvious what’s not working. And it’s becoming equally obvious that Obama and those who advise him either haven’t got a clue or they’re just really stupid.
Rafe
Rafe, if you are serious about what you wrote and not just pulling the blog PL trick of starting off sounding rational to set the stage for what is later claimed to be a conservative attacking conservatives, I suggest that you start by examining your own definition of “conservative”.
In its most basic form, it is nothing more than a belief that our country is best governed by the Constitutional model of government, which is extremely limited federal government, restrained in both size and scope, as laid out in our Constitution, with most of the power vested in state and local government. That is the political model of conservatism, and it is possible to believe in, support and promote this while being very liberal (“liberal” in the true meaning of the word, not the political) in your personal views. It is a kissin’ cousin of Libertarianism, just accepting a little more government than Libertarians do.
If you can arrive at an understanding of this system, and of the true ideology of the Leftist system, you can make some pretty good decisions without much of an understanding of pure economics.
Amazona,
I’m probably not going give you the response that you’re looking for, but, truth be known, I grew up in a liberal Democrat family where my parents drummed it into my head that conservatives were a bunch of religious zelots who wanted to force their religious views on everyone else, and the Republican Party was the party of the rich while the Democratic Party was the party of the working man. My dad was a union transit worker in the bay area, if that will tell you anything. One of my problems is where I live, and who I associate with. There is simply no room for dissent, so it’s easier to go along to get along, especially where I work, but also with my circle of friends and my own family. However, as I said before, Obama has revealed some real chinks in the armor of liberal orthodoxy, particularly as relates to the economy. I think you’d be surprised how many previously unexamined liberals are beginning to question what they believe, especially as pertains to fiscal matters.
And FYI, I was taught at virtually every level of education, up through a BA. that the Constitution was a living document. Perhaps if I stick around here long enough, you might persuade me otherwise. I’ll try to keep an open mind.
Rafe
Have to disagree with you that the Constitution is a living document within the way I believe you to mean it but the actual constitution itself has remedies in the form of amendments.
Other than that, you may want to look at the difference between Liberal and Progressive because I put folks like our current President, Sec. of State Clinton and many of Obama’s friends and cronies in the Progressive camp. They are not anywhere near true Liberals like I also grew up with.
Rafe, let me ask you a few questions, with credit to Spook for asking them first.
1. What do you think the term “a living document” means?
2. Would you play high-stakes poker with me if the rules were defined as “a living document”? How much money would you risk in a game where the rules could change?
3. Would you buy a house from me if our contract was a “living document”?
4. Do you think an infinitely redefinable rule of law, subject to fleeting and ever-changing cultural and economic conditions, is adequate for the governing of a country?
5. What about the original Constitution would you change, if you could transform it into a “living document” Why?
6. Do you feel the nation advanced, economically and in terms of individual liberty, more or less in its first 150 years or the last 85?
BTW, Bodie “gave us grief” in pretty much the same way an annoying mosquito “gives grief”. He was just a blog vandal, without the slightest concept of politics.
The other part of my discussion with myself today found me spending entirely too much time wondering if we are already past the tipping point. The jury is still out on this one. Will let you know as soon as I reach a consensus with all of the voices in my head. 🙂
dbschmidt,
As you may or may not know, I lost both my full and part-time jobs (a small bank and Border’s Book Store) within a couple weeks of each other early last summer. Let me tell you, no one, and I MEAN NO ONE, wants to hire an overweight, balding guy in his mid 50’s, or at least that’s what I thought as I sat around most of the summer feeling sorry for myself. I looked into several business opportunities, but, as you say, regulations and start-up costs scared me off.
As my savings dwindled, I started mowing lawns in August, after the kids all went back to school. Immediately I started getting comments to the effect that I was much more conscientious, did a better job and cleaned up after myself better than most of the high school and college kids — that I didn’t (are you ready for this?) have the entitlement mentality prevalent in so many of the kids. Then one day a lady asked me if I would trim her shrubs. Another guy asked if I would thin out some of his perennials, and another guy asked if I knew how to lay a brick walk (I didn’t, but I do now). After Labor Day I started getting requests to till gardens. I started asking people if they wanted to have something done instead of waiting for them to ask me. One thing led to another, from getting firewood for people (I have a 4 x 4 pick-up truck) to setting up snow plowing contracts. My pick-up now has a blade, which was paid for during the first snow storm. I’m steering clear of doing lawn care, as use of chemicals starts getting you into all kinds of regulation, permits and expensive equipment.
I’m still not making as much as I did in my old jobs, but I’ve lost 30 lbs, from all the physical labor, which my wife is loving, and I’m exponentially happier than I’ve been in a long time. Almost all the work I’m currently doing utilizes equipment I already had except the snow plow blade, although, the next step is to get a ZTR mower and a power sidewalk edger. The jury is still out on whether or not I want to hire employees as that is a whole other can of worms.
Leonard, none of the wealthy and successful people I know ever spent a moment of their young lives dreaming of owning an HVAC company or a gravel pit, or of cleaning out feed lots and composting the material and selling it to landscape companies. Or of other unglamorous jobs which pay well.
But they kind of stumbled into unmet needs, they saw the opportunity inherent in meeting those needs, and found themselves running very profitable businesses.
The problem with today’s business environment is that the government is making it harder and harder to do this.
The problem with today’s business environment is that the government is making it harder and harder to do this.
Amazona,
So far I’m discovering that the more you stay under the government’s radar, the easier it is.
But they kind of stumbled into unmet needs, they saw the opportunity inherent in meeting those needs, and found themselves running very profitable businesses.
Amazona, the ability to see opportunity is something that I don’t believe can be learned, at least not through a formal education. Just as most people I know that are really into photography have an eye for subject matter that doesn’t even register with me, I think there must be an entrepreneur gene that gives some people a 6th sense when it comes to business opportunity. One of the wealthiest men in our area owns, among other things, a scrap yard.
Spook, I was once hired as a consultant regarding a very expensive horse, and when the couple came to my ranch the woman headed for the barn and the man for my compost piles.
I had been to their summer place, a gorgeous ranch near Gunnison, and knew they had two other big homes and a private jet. What I learned that day was that the husband, a high school dropout, had contracted to clean manure from cattle feedlots—obviously considered to be very low-class work.
He turned this service, which no one else wanted to do, into a huge landscape supply company, based on the rich compost he generated from this cow manure.
He saw opportunity where others only saw hard work of low status, and it made him quite wealthy.
Leonard L’Farte,
Spoken like a true entrepreneur that relies on themselves rather than handouts. I also noted like here in NC there is a “dividing line” between groundskeeper and landscaper which means that I get to pay over $500 (someday) for a registered, regulated and taxed individual to help me because, like Spook and photography, I “know” what I want it to look like as far as curb appeal goes but I just do not have the eye for it.
Now, this would have been a free arrangement back in Florida where you did not require all of the licenses, etc. and businesses lived or died by word of mouth more often than not. Nevertheless, I guess it is the absolute duty of government to regulate and legislate everything from birth through death.
We all realize this is because me being a selfish butthead on my part and hiring someone that hasn’t handed over enough money to the government could have caused–I don’t know–children passing in front of my house with my piss poor lawn and lack of curb appeal to become manic-depressives or something.
DB,
I hope we’re not (past the tipping point) because that would have some ramifications that I’d just as soon not think about.
Sorry Spook, and I really mean when I wish you a happy new year but I am sure we are dancing on the head of a pin. Hope a few of them thousand angels are still with us.
we got a look at the deep down spiritual beliefs obama has in jeremiah wright…we need not try to fool ourselves to think that he sat in those pews for 20 years….and didnt share the same belief system that made america puke over wright….
zebra’s dont change thier stripes…nor leapords thier spots…the sun will always shine and the the night will forever be dark…and obama will always be black liberation socialist seeking to achieve those goals using any means he can…he lied about his CPUSA involvement…he lied about his qualifications to be POTUS…he lied when he hyped hope n change to the poor…
belive him now at your own peril
I am all for revamping our tax code. Try being a single woman making a comfortable wage without any tax exemptions except me, or for that matter a single retired woman with a pension and SS and only me as an exemption. The PAIN!
Anyway, there is NO reason our tax code should be over a thousand pages. Let’s simplify it with a good old flat tax.
put income tax back to the way it was represented when they introduced the income tax amendment in 1911…
only the wealthy pay income tax…only those who make 7x the average annual income need to file returns…the government should NEVER take taxes out of the paychecks of single parent households or poor widows making just enough to live on…this nation can survive without the money they take out of the paychecks of people making 25k per year that need to pay rent and feed thier children…
then they can eliminate every exemption…every loophole…every deduction…and base taxes on NET INCOME for corporations as well as individuals…and then we should expect the Federal Government to live on what they collect…period…
that would fix the whole mess
JS,
That’s basically what Kemp’s original 17% flat tax with an up-front exemption ($36,000 for a family of 4) does.
Now, just to throw a little sand in the gears; should the tax code reflect varying costs across the country to produce the same amount of income, or will the market even things out if everyone is treated the same?
up front taxes always take the money out of the mouths of hungry children…
we dont need up front taxation…we need to collect only taxes that should be collected…what kemp wanted was for everyone to file a return…that is a bureaucratic nightmare…
we already got that…its inefficient…and still ends up taking money out of peoples checks that should be going to pay for rent and food…we dont need to do that for poor people…we dont need to do that for folks that are barely getting by…its nothing more than taking food off thier table…the fact that they normally get it back next april does nothing for those who need it to put shoes on thier kids feet…today
To be honest, I didn’t expect to get a lot of Liberals contributing anything meaningful to this thread, but I didn’t expect zero either. Either all of our Lefties are out celebrating the New Year early or there just aren’t a lot of good ideas on the left side of the aisle.
Liberals are trying to restart the engine of Democracy, and we’re not getting any help from conservatives.
So we just have to laugh at the stupid bait you’ve throw out. “Come on, tell us your idea so we can shoot it down with fact-free hyperbole and personal insults.” What’s the point?
Maybe Fox News can contribute something liberally meaningful to this thread:
Five Medical Advances for 2012
Notice how number 5 is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act when it’s a positive thing for all America citizens. It’s Obamacare everywhere else.
And how number 4 is a super great NEW regulation for our lungs and the environment (already shot down by the energy lobby here in California).
And especially how number one is ALL publicly funded cancer research entities. No Big Pharma anywhere. It’s public universities and the NCI, not Bayer and Pfizer. There’s no money in the cure. Capitalists want your money or for you to die quickly. And you want to restart that engine.
Bozo,
Why don’t you just shoot yourself in the head and get it over with?
Going by the picture, he already did—with a shotgun.
That would explain the lack of intelligence in his posts, too. For example, he claims that the Fox article says Obamacare is “a positive thing for all America (sic) citizens”.
Yeah, except it doesn’t. It refers to one single, small, isolated part of this bloated disaster of government takeover—A provision in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that takes effect in 2012 aims to make understanding and comparing insurance coverage easier. As of March 23, group health plans nationwide must provide a uniform summary explanation of benefits and coverage. The standardized summary must be provided to people when they apply for coverage, and to policyholders when health insurance policies are issued.
Yep, a provision which refers only to providing a uniform summary explanation of benefits and coverage. It took 2000 pages to come up with one benefit?
Nice of the freakzo to finally start to share his political philosophy, though. “Capitalists want your money or for you to die quickly” probably sums up his political beliefs. How too too CPUSA.
I LOVE it when I say “jump” and then you do. Like puppies that slobber when I ring the bell.
I know. You can’t help it.
PS: Thanks for reminding me that the Typo Nazi never sleeps.
I’m curious about something. Are there any Liberals on this blog that have ever started, owned or run a business?
spook, while it could be that there aren’t any good ideas on the left side of the aisle, another possibility for why you have received so little input from so-called liberals is that you all have done a good job of persuading them to no longer post here. Personally, I think this blog would be much more valuable if it welcomed dissenting opinions, and I commend you for at least expressing a willingness to tolerate them in this thread. That’s not typically the case.
As far as meaningful ideas in this thread, there hasn’t been much from the conservative side, either. Your own ideas, expressed in the original post, are mere generalities. Anyone can say they want to revamp the tax structure, but without specifics we are unable to evaluate its potential effects on the economy. Did you have something in mind? You emphasize that the tax structure should be predictable. How would you go about ensuring that? To simplest thing to do to ensure predictability would be to freeze the current tax structure as-is, but you evidently don’t want to do that. How would you ensure that, after you revamp it, it wouldn’t be “revamped” again in a few years?
And anyone can say they want to revamp government regulation, but this thread has failed to offer even a single regulation that should either be done away with or revamped. I’m sure they exist, but on the other hand, not all regulation is bad. I personally like the idea that a certain amount of regulation exists regarding the food I eat so that the chances of me and my family dying from E. coli are reduced.
But since apparently the best we can do here is offer generalities, I’ll add to them: I think the tax code should be revamped; it could be much simpler. We need to emphasize education in order to compete in the 21st century global economy.
Anyone can say they want to revamp the tax structure, but without specifics we are unable to evaluate its potential effects on the economy. Did you have something in mind?
I favor the Fair Tax, but I agree with Leonard that the most doable reform would be going to a flat tax with a generous up-front exemption. When Russia went to a flat tax a few years back, their compliance rate skyrocketed, as did revenue. If you could re-write the tax code, what changes would you make? Should the tax code be for the purpose of raising the revenue necessary to fund the activities that government is constitutionally tasked with, or should it be used as a social engineering tool?
You emphasize that the tax structure should be predictable. How would you go about ensuring that? To simplest thing to do to ensure predictability would be to freeze the current tax structure as-is, but you evidently don’t want to do that. How would you ensure that, after you revamp it, it wouldn’t be “revamped” again in a few years?
Either the Fair Tax or a flat tax would be substantially more predictable than the current tax code, because the only thing that could be changed would be the rate. And I’d make it extremely hard for Congress to raise the rate except in the case of a national emergency.
And anyone can say they want to revamp government regulation, but this thread has failed to offer even a single regulation that should either be done away with or revamped.
I’m in a business where regulation is almost non-existent. It’s why I asked if any of our resident Liberals had ever started, owned or run a business. My personal feeling is that many regulations, at all levels of government, but especially at the state and local level, exist almost solely for the purpose of supporting a bloated, over-paid bureaucracy. At the federal level, the Obama administration has added thousands of pages of regulations with tens of billions of dollars in compliance costs. Do you have a greater sense of economic freedom because of them?
But since apparently the best we can do here is offer generalities, I’ll add to them: I think the tax code should be revamped; it could be much simpler.
What a disappointing, but not unsurprising answer.
Sorry to be so disappointing, spook. But I didn’t start this thread by offering nothing but generalities. Unlike you, I don’t claim to have all the answers.
Yes, I have started and run a business. It was very easy. I guess like you, I found the regulations were almost non-existent. You said you would “revamp government regulations from top to bottom.” And yet, you admit that it is merely your “personal feeling” that “many regulations, at all levels of government, but especially at the state and local level, exist almost solely for the purpose of supporting a bloated, over-paid bureaucracy” Look, I’m not trying to give you a hard time, but let’s have some specifics.
A smooth-running, efficient government without special perks which create a ruling elite will result in a country which is more conducive to the creation and expansion of business.
But there will always be the intellectual lightweights whose simple-minded concept of political dialogue is nothing more than looking for and trying to make a big deal out of ‘gotchas’ like pretending that ideas for improving government can’t be considered as ways of helping economic growth because of the semantics involved.
It’s a juvenile game of ‘gotcha’ which they substitute for substantive political discourse.
waspstooge
Yes, I have started and run a business. It was very easy.
spoken like a lightweight BS er
Since spook credited Neo with “a number of ideas” regarding restarting the engine of capitalism, let’s look at them.
1. Term Limits.
How would term limits restart the engine of capitalism?
2. No Tenure / No Pension.
I guess this means no pension for Congressmen. Fine, but how would the help restart the engine of capitalism?
3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.
Absolutely agree. But again, how would the help restart the engine of capitalism?
4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.
Absolutely agree. But again, how would the help restart the engine of capitalism?
5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
How would the help restart the engine of capitalism?
6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.
Absolutely agree. But again, how would the help restart the engine of capitalism?
7. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.
Absolutely agree. But again, how would the help restart the engine of capitalism?
8. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/11.
Not sure what you mean here. Do you mean Gingrich’s Contract with America? Do you mean signing pledges to Grover Norquist? Give an example.
waspstooge
the things you listed were not my ideas a I clearly stated, they were good ideas I re posted.
seems you forgot two of MY main ideas………..
All have to “pay their fair share” INCLUDING the 47% who pay no federal income tax. A fair or national sales tax would be the way to go.
The FULL dismantling and full elimination of the IRS, ATF, DOE, dept of education, OSHA, EPA and many more.
though nobody has ever accused you of being the brightest bulb in the box.
Yes, you’re right, I missed that post. Okay, give me specifics. What constitutes paying “their fair share”? How much should a family of four making $30,000 pay in taxes? You appear to advocate a national sales tax. In addition to an income tax? What would you propose the national sales tax to be? And how do you envision this restarting the engine of capitalism?
As for the full elimination of the IRS, ATF, DOE, dept of education, OSHA, EPA, how would that restart the engine of capitalism? Give us some concrete specifics. What are they doing now that is impeding the engine of capitalism? I don’t doubt that there are things, but you are the one advocating for their elimination, so you need to bring some specifics to the table.
And you left out “TERM LIMITS, TERM LIMITS, TERM LIMITS.” Again, I ask, how would term limits restart the engine of capitalism.
Finally, I was polite and refrained from calling you names. Obviously, you can’t help yourself.
First, I believe the poster meant 01/01/2012 (Happy New Year) on response number 8; nevertheless, breaking the bridge between government and business (all other questions including term limits) would make a great deal of folks sit up and take notice if not start re-investing again immediately. Crony capitalism is one of the worst to date–let us start there. Answer your questions?
Leonard L’Farte said, “I don’t know if you’re old enough to remember the 17% flat tax proposal that Jack Kemp came up with back in the mid-90′s. That would be a great start. It exempted the first $36,000 of adjusted gross income for a family of 4, could be filed in about 2 minutes on a post-card size form, and, because of the generous up-front exemption, it was significantly progressive all the way up to around $750,000.”
Okay, here’s a specific, concrete proposal. I disagree that it is “significantly progressive” up to around $750,000. It is progressive under $100,000, and very slightly progressive after that. The tax burden for a family of four making $50,000 would 4.76%; $100,000 would be nearly 11%. After that, it creeps up to just over 16% for someone making $750K a year.
But before we go further with the analysis, I must ask: Is the payroll deduction considered part of the 17% or in addition to the 17%? In a recent thread, it was argued that the payroll deduction is not a tax at all. It’s hard to evaluate your 17% flat tax proposal without understanding that.
Okay, here’s a specific, concrete proposal. I disagree that it is “significantly progressive” up to around $750,000. It is progressive under $100,000, and very slightly progressive after that. The tax burden for a family of four making $50,000 would 4.76%; $100,000 would be nearly 11%. After that, it creeps up to just over 16% for someone making $750K a year.
Watson, how did you come up with your numbers? Did you use adjusted gross income and a standard deduction? Did you use the tax table numbers from 1995 when Kemp originally proposed the idea? Back in the mid 90’s I had 2 documents taped to the front of my refrigerator: The Contract with America and Kemp’s flat-tax post card form. I don’t have the numbers anymore, but I recall comparing incomes up to at least $500,000 and coming up with about the same tax liabilities with the flat tax as with the tax code at that time.
Leonard, I made a simple spreadsheet with columns for gross income, taxes paid, and the percent of income that was paid in taxes. Since the Kemp flat tax is so simple, the formula is:
taxes paid = (income – 36000) * 0.17
Taxes on income of 50,000 = (50000 – 36000) * 0.17 = 2380, or 4.76%
Taxes on income of 100,000 = (100000 – 36000) * 0.17 = 10880, or 10.88%
Taxes on income of 200,000 = (200000 – 36000) * 0.17 = 27880, or 13.94%
A progressive tax would be one in which the tax rate increases as the amount of income increases. You can see that rom $100K on up, it increases only slightly. I don’t think most people would consider this to be a progressive tax structure.
It may be that the Kemp plan would result in folks making up to $500K paying the same as they do under the current tax structure, but that wouldn’t make it progressive. In fact, I think if we run the numbers we would find it to be regressive.
Also Leonard, is the payroll tax in addition to the 17%? Once we know that we could start to evaluate how the Kemp flat tax compares to current tax code. (I actually don’t know, but I’m curious to run the numbers if you are.)
wattle, you are dumping a lot of data here, but you are not tying it in to anything. Do you think taxes should go up? Why? Why not? How much in either direction?
What do you think are legitimate uses for federal tax revenue? Why?
Do you think “the rich” have a moral duty to pay higher taxes? Why?
Do you agree or disagree with the statement that raising taxes hurts the economy?
Do you agree or disagree with the statement that lower tax rates contribute to a more robust economy?
Do you agree or disagree with the statement that a smaller percentage of a large and expanding pie is better for all than a larger percentage of a small and static pie?
http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm
neo, from your link: note that the rich still paid more in 2003, and everybody else paid less, than was the case in 1992.
I disagree somewhat – the lowest percentage ANY bracket should pay is 1%- there should be NO free rides. If you make ANY income, something should be paid.
dbschmidt said, “As a very poor college student I was paying nearly 50% of my earned income in the form of taxation–never wanted to repeat that experiment again.”
And this is why the claim that 50% pay no taxes is a simple lie. Thanks for clearing that up for us, db.
waspstooge
And this is why the claim that 50% pay no taxes is a simple lie
47% pay NO federal income TAXES, then add the EITC you get back 2-5K above that you never paid…so the lie in on you moron.
reading comprehension 101
In taxes, fees, and fines–not individual income taxes.
Leonard wrote an inspiring post about how he recovered from the the disastrous loss of both of his jobs by starting a yard care business. If only we were all as industrious and entrepreneurial, maybe we would jumpstart the engine of capitalism ourselves. So how can we inspire and nurture more entrepreneurialism?
Leonard also said, “I looked into several business opportunities, but, as you say, regulations and start-up costs scared me off.”
Can you give us some example of regulations that scared you off, or made it difficult, if not impossible to start the businesses you had in mind?
waspstooge
Can you give us some example of regulations that scared you off, or made it difficult, if not impossible to start the businesses you had in mind?
you are one stupid dumbed down drone.
TRY using YOUR head ONCE in a while.
ONE more time for the dumb and dumber
Professor Mark J. Perry’s Blog for Economics and Finance
Update: The chart above is from the Joint Economic Committe (based on 2006 IRS data), showing the percentages of federal personal income tax paid by different groups of taxpayers:
The top 1% of taxpayers pay about 40% of all income taxes,
the top 10% pay 71%,
and the top 50% pay 97% of all taxes.
The bottom 50% pays less than 3% of all income taxes paid.
Finally, I was polite and refrained from calling you names. Obviously, you can’t help yourself.
I find you to be condescending and purposefully stupid, you are sounding much like catspuke with the dog chasing it’s tail circular stupid questions.
If we have to explain every nuance of every post to you, then you are too Fn dumb to own a computer.
go play in your mamas basement Moron.
Can you give us some example of regulations that scared you off, or made it difficult, if not impossible to start the businesses you had in mind?
I actually can. I would have loved to have gotten into the woodworking and custom furniture business, as it’s been a hobby of mine for a long time. The regulations regarding different types of wood, especially rare woods used for inlays (think Gibson Guitar) are off the charts. Add to that regulations for different types of finishes, and I’d have to have an office manager and/or an accountant with some legal background. To get the kind of equipment I would need to make it more than just a hobby, I was looking at around $200,000. Want to take a guess on how many banks and finance companies were beating down my door to loan me that much?
Watson, now I think it’s your turn to contribute something to this discussion besides being, as Amazona is so fond of saying, a speed bump.
Thanks for that reply, Leonard.
Thanks for that reply, Leonard.
BUMP
waspstooge
try this…….then get back with YOUR thoughts….
http://www.sam-hane.com/sass/oshacowb.htm
That’s an amusing cartoon, Neo, but are you saying we should base fundamental policy changes on cartoons?
Neo said, “I find you to be condescending and purposefully stupid, you are sounding much like catspuke with the dog chasing it’s tail circular stupid questions.” Fine. Then ignore me. I wish you would.
waspstooge
it is hard to ignore stupidity so proudly worn in one’s face
BUMP
, but are you saying we should base fundamental policy changes on cartoons?
BUMP
As usual, wattle has it backwards…the cartoon is pointing out the stupidity of certain policies.
If it is indicating that change is necessary (which I didn’t get out of it, just seeing some poking of fun at bureaucratic nannyism) the change would certainly not be based on a cartoon, but on the poor policies pointed out by the cartoon.
And BTW, I used to have the OSHA cowboy cartoon on my refrigerator door.
And after all, since Barry and the Boyz hit the Big Show, we’ve has fundamental policy changes based on fantasy and wishful thinking, as well as on a political model which has never, in its history, brought about economic prosperity or an increase in personal liberty. At this point, basing changes on a cartoon might be a step in the right direction.
Watson,
One of a few I looked into would be a complete change of pace for me but as the old saying goes “if you love your work–you will never work a day in your life.” My first serious look was into being sort of a middle man in the Bar-B-Que business. Basically getting the entire cow & pig, cutting it up and cooking it southern style and repackaging it for resale in supermarket chains or local restaurants that do not have the time to spend (up to 16 hours per piece) to make real BBQ.
BTW, two things I have learned here in NC is to never bring up BBQ which is completely different than grilling or hot sauce–they both start arguments as fast as politics and religion.
Anyway, in order to even think about this prospect–I would have needed to lease or purchase the place of business, deal with both State and Federal folks from 6 different departments, obtain permits from all of these plus the standard documents / permits for any business, have the inspections and send anyone (including myself) to a class or two. This is all before I could unlock the doors or order my first piece of meat and they will all change after midnight tonight because of the 71 pieces of tax code that expire tonight plus the State level ones . I quit researching how the regulations are going to change because with just these barriers I could not afford to do it on my own money and the local banks are shut tighter than a frog’s ass.
If I decided to go forth I still had the issues of outsourcing the final product to get the positioning or if I wanted to tackle that aspect myself. Supply chain management is a specialty in itself these days as is getting product placement.
Leonard L’Farte,
That (Custom Woodworking) was another prospect I was looking into when I hit the same walls you did. Also one of the major reason I surrendered my Class III firearms license (Dealer) because it has now given the Federal government the absolute right to search & seize anything and everything they desire without warrants or cause. So next time someone asks what rights have you lost? My fourth amendment rights is a good start.
Hell, even in my current field of electronics and computer systems there are new regs every day about proper disposal which I have always followed but the unintended consequence of making it very profitable rules out this line of work as well unless I never remove old equipment leaving this burden on the current owners or charge them out the wazoo. Not the way to start off a relationship.
My brothers and I just started a new business, and we could not have done it if my brothers did not already have extensive experience in fields relating to this new business, and familiarity with the regulations. Some of it is excavation, some is trucking, and some is oilfield supply. All aspects of the business are so top-heavy with regulations it takes a full-time employee to keep up with the various regulations we, a company with only 6 employees, have to deal with.
If we proceed with plans to add a gravel pit, so we don’t have to pay retail for material, we will be adding MSHA to our list of regulatory agencies.
Banking was essentially shut down. A dozen or so banks said our business plan was outstanding, and that three or four years ago they could have loaned us money based on the plan and the fact that they had clients in the same business making lots of money—but now, in this lending climate, no. I was lucky in that I had real estate I could put up as collateral, and after a year in business we can refi as a business loan, but there was no money for startups. None.
We borrowed $2M. Six months after we first broke ground we have billed a little more than $1.5M and are ahead of the second-year predictions in the business plan, and the only bank that would work with us absolutely loves us, takes us to Bronco games and out to lunch and can hardly wait to loan us more money—but they also admit that regulations made it impossible to loan us money as a start-up. Without the ability to collateralize real estate, we would not have our business and look forward to doubling our employee numbers, at the very least, by this time next year.
I had planned to start a grass-fed beef business in Wyoming, selling boutique beef over the Internet.
Old, new and threatened regulations and other nonsense, like the effort to tax cow farts, made me decide to take my profits in the price increase in my land, so I sold out and moved.
Jobs lost: 2 in cattle handling, 2 in slaughtering and packaging, 1 to 2 in sales, marketing and shipping. Not to mention income lost for veterinarians, local feed and equipment suppliers, summer help during hay season, income to the fertilizer and fence people, etc. No new processing and packaging plant, no new buildings for other purposes, no additional sales taxes in the community.
you all have done a good job of persuading (Libs) to no longer post here.
Awww……I’m sure that the fact that the Libs were unable to post anything but hyperemotional fact-deficient attacks on a nonexistent (except in the feverswamp of uber-Left hostile fantasy) Right had nothing to do with their lack of welcome here.
Poor babies.
You know, we really looked forward to real discussions on real political ideology, but found the Psuedo-Lib trolls who came here to be uninterested in anything but personality, identity, events, scandals, and personal attacks.
wastooge/catspuke
“The circular argument uses its own conclusion as one of its stated or unstated premises. Instead of offering proof, it simply asserts the conclusion in another form, thereby inviting the listener to accept it as settled when, in fact, it has not been settled. Because the premise is no different from and therefore as questionable as its conclusion, a circular argument violates the criterion of acceptability.”
(T. Edward Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning. Wadsworth, 2001)
db
our friend opened up a beauty salon,
they had to install special traps in the plumbing, had to install special filtration in the air conditioning, had to dig up the floor re locate toilets and enlarge the bathrooms to be ADA compliant.
They had to install bigger doors in the entrance to accept wheel chairs again ADA,
there was a lot more but these changes alone cost almost a $100K
THE flying monkey show of FORKERS flap in
A friend had a charming little restaurant in Denver and had to install not just a wheelchair ramp but a special bathroom, wider doors, etc. His cost was more than $100,000 and he had to shut down till it was done.
Ama & Neocon,
I am sure you are just like the rest of us that would be more than happy to make accommodations for the special needs folks in addition to the general population if it would allow us to conduct more business but I am getting to the point that each of these regulations and requires thrust upon us is nothing more than appeasement to a special little group for votes without consideration how it would impact the average small business owner.
In one place I worked–I got permission and poured the ramp for the wheelchair of a new employee because the government mandated ones were too far to be anything other than BS~uhmmm, I meant meeting requirements. Great guy and I hope he is doing well as we closed after the dot.com bust but I will never forget a man who helped others more than himself. Login name was: IronSides
requires should be requirements
“IronnSides was a man looking to better himself I met on the bus one morning and he convinced me in our 15 minute adventure that I should be the one to hire him.
Neo,
Describes many of our Lefties to a T. I used the same quote with Cory a while back, but it also applies to Watson. He still has yet to come up with any ideas or “details” of his own WRT this subject. Perhaps he’s simply not interested in a robust American economy.
Amy said, “wattle, you are dumping a lot of data here, but you are not tying it in to anything. Do you think taxes should go up? Why? Why not? How much in either direction?”
Sorry if I rely on data. Maybe I do so because in my line of work we rely on data and facts rather than simple suppositions and opinion. So if the proposal is a 17% flat tax, I want to know how it affects taxpayers of various incomes, whether it increases or decreases federal tax revenue, and what would be cut if federal revenue is reduced. If you believe that an overall tax reduction will lead to increased government revenue because it spurred a more robust economy, then cite evidence that supports that supposition. I’m reminded of letter to President Obama that read, “I don’t want government-run health care. I don’t want socialized medicine. And don’t touch my Medicare.” That’s what happens when the facts are ignored.
I don’t think that federal tax policy is the only contributor to the robustness of the economy. It is a matter of fact the federal revenues are at their lowest level in 60 years right now. If tax policy was the primary or only contributor, then the economy would be going like gangbusters right now. It’s not. Not only that, we had tax cuts during the Bush years that led to anemic growth and an economic collapse. Do you think reducing taxes caused the collapse? Do you think those tax cuts were the reason banks weren’t lending money to you and Leonard?
I think it is fair for the highest earners in this country to pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes than the lowest earners. I don’t have a problem with that at all, and most Americans don’t, either. Even the Kemp flat tax builds in at least some progressiveness. And I don’t have a problem with the highest earners, myself included, paying what they paid during the Clinton administration. I think it would have a negligible affect on the economy.
I ran a business in the past and had no problems with government regulations at all, as evidently was the case with Spook, as well. So when I ask for specifics, I am genuinely trying to understand what regulations have been impediments to you, and then consider the purpose of those regulations and if they are reasonable. And it would be better to go beyond anecdotal evidence, because I can cite anecdotal evidence that contradicts some of the statements in this thread. For example, a close relative has run a carpentry business for years and never suffered from onerous regulation. The guy who did my kitchen cabinets and other cabinetry in my house last year had no problem with regulations at all. So not all woodworkers are prevented from working due to government regulation.
Anyway, I have simply asked you all to provide specifics, not generalities. Thanks to those who did. You never know, you might actually change some minds. I thought that was the purpose of this blog. But when you provide a proposal, it should be analyzed. It should be backed by data. It should be subjected to scrutiny. I don’t see anything wrong with that.
See, wattle, you start off sounding fairly rational and then you suddenly veer off the rails with nonsense like this: we had tax cuts during the Bush years that led to anemic growth and an economic collapse.
We are so tired of going through this, and as facts don’t seem to matter to you anyway, there is no reason to go through it again. Suffice it to say, we had tax RATE cuts in the Bush years that led to substantial economic growth and record-setting tax revenues.
Do you think reducing taxes caused the collapse?
Of course not. What an utterly stupid thing to say. Only a moron could think that. And taxes were not reduced. Taxes went up. The RATE was reduced, after which revenues went up.
Do you think those tax cuts were the reason banks weren’t lending money to you and Leonard?
1. There were no tax CUTS—just tax RATE cuts.
2. Do you truly not know the difference between a tax rate cut and a regulation? (Hint: When reading, one has an “x” in it.) Let’s try this again: My bankers “…admit that regulations made it impossible to loan us money as a start-up. ” Jes’ look at that—–nary an “x” in “regulations”.
Here’s a question for you: Do you think the housing boom and mortgage/foreclosure problems would have been the same if bankers had been allowed to stick with historic banking practices, such as only loaning money to people with jobs, who could repay the loans?
You don’t really believe in that apocryphal “letter” do you?
Are you really claiming that you had conversations with your cabinet guy and/or your relative about the impact of regulations on their businesses?
Really?
You do realize, don’t you, that no one has said “.. all woodworkers are prevented from workingdue to government regulation.”
Yes, I know it is easier for you to argue when you make up the other side, but you should realize that it is pretty obvious when you make a point against something that was never said.
Not sure how the time stamp on these posts is determined, but it’s still hours till New Year’s here—off to celebrate a new beginning with my nearest and dearest.
Happy New Year, all…..
Fine. Tax rate cuts. You know what I meant. And the facts are that in terms of GDP growth by president, Bush didn’t fare well, averaging 2.09% GDP growth per year, as compared to 3.88% during the Clinton years. In fact, growth during the GWB years was lower than every president in the post-World War II era. And to top it off, we wound up in economic collapse in the end. So there is no way to that the Bush tax rate cuts lead to great prosperity, nor even substantial economic growth–it was worse than average.
You claim the Bush tax cuts led to record-setting tax revenues. And yet, federal revenue fell in 2001, 2002 and 2003, and did not get back to the 2000 level until 2005. Worse, revenue as a percent of GDP was lower in each and every year of the Bush presidency than it was in 2000. Furthermore, while the revenues in actual dollars did rise to “record levels” in 2007 and 2008, when adjusted for inflation, revenues failed to keep up and failed to match the 2000 level. That’s not a record that would lead one to believe that the Bush tax rate cuts were beneficial to the economy.
GDP under recent presidents:
1948-1952 (Harry S. Truman, Democrat), +4.82%
1953-1960 (Dwight D. Eisenhower, Republican), +3%
1961-1964 (John F. Kennedy / Lyndon B. Johnson, Democrat), +4.65%
1965-1968 (Lyndon B. Johnson, Democrat), +5.05%
1969-1972 (Richard Nixon, Republican), +3%
1973-1976 (Richard Nixon / Gerald Ford, Republican), +2.6%
1977-1980 (Jimmy Carter, Democrat), +3.25%
1981-1988 (Ronald Reagan, Republican), 3.4%
1989-1992 (George H. W. Bush, Republican), 2.17%
1993-2000 (Bill Clinton, Democrat), 3.88%
2001-2008 (George W. Bush, Republican), +2.09%
Federal revenues under President Bush:
2000, $2.025B, 20.6% of GDP
2001, $1.991B, 19.5% of GDP
2002, $1.853B, 17.6% of GDP
2003, $1.782B, 16.2% of GDP
2004, $1.880B, 16.1% of GDP
2005, $2.153B, 17.3% of GDP
2006, $2.406B, 18.2% of GDP
2007, $2.568B, 18.5% of GDP
2008, $2.524B, 17.5% of GDP
Watson,
I can buy as many cabinets and lumber for Home Depot , Lowes, a stockyard, or the local hardware store and do anything I like with them including installation. Custom work involves a great deal more than that and that is where the regulations come into play. Read up on the raids on Gibson for a start.
Yeah, watty leaves out a lot. Such as 9/11 and the ensuing economic damage to the country.
Gotta love it, though, how he is so stunningly blind to the meaning of a tax RATE cut. He seems focused on the amount of taxes collected related to GDP, but the idea is that the ratio IS smaller but the volume is bigger.
That’s the point.
Off to celebrate the end of Obama next to last year with friends. Great discussion everyone.
Happy New Year.
In regards to going to a flat tax or fair tax. How do you propose to handle just the mortgage exemption in the tax code. The resistance that will be met to end just this one exemption, I believe ,will be overwhelming.
You leave one exemption in the code it just gets easier to leave another then another then, it just goes on and on.
How do you get congress to go along with any of this?
I would be willing to end my “abuse” of the mortgage exemption in order to get either the flat or fair tax in place.
Watson,
Maybe I will respond tomorrow or not but you are leaving out a great deal like the dot.com bust and the recession that followed in your calculations.
To all, I wish you a prosperous New Year.
But any tax code can be changed or manipulated. You can’t be paralyzed by fear of “what if”—all you can do is write the best code you can, make it as tightly written as you can, and hope that future citizens and legislators won’t screw it up.
After all, our Constitution was pretty tightly written, even summarized in a concise Amendment, the 10th, yet it has been twisted, ignored, bastardized, attacked and “interpreted” to allow things it was clearly written to make impossible. But we got a good run of about 150 years out of it and now, when some thought (or hoped!) it was down for the count, there is a growing movement to understand, respect and follow it.
In my main post I said: This is an opportunity for our resident Liberals to tell us what you would do to get our economy moving in the right direction again.” I said EVERYTHING was on the table — even wealth redistribution, if a case could be made for it.
So, what did we get from our resident Liberals? ZIP, ZERO, NADA! OK, you’re saying, what about Watson? Watson claims he’s not a Liberal. However, he still had an opportunity to offer some ideas — ZIP, ZERO, NADA! He wrote lots of words, mostly critical of what others were saying; asked for details from others while offering virtually none himself (with the exception of his economic growth numbers under different Presidents).
Just once, I’d love to see one of our Lefties (or “non-Liberals” like Watson who come here to bash the Conservatives) post some original ideas about how to best address the country’s problems, how best to get back on the road to prosperity, and how best to expand individual freedom instead of curtail it. Even the Forker brigade, in their linked article to my post over at the “Fork” actually came up with some concrete ideas:
Perhaps Watson would like to weigh in on “the details” of their post.
spook
waspstooge is far too busy owning and running his “easy: business,
though selling newspapers on the corner does not take a lot of knowledge.
Neo,
It would have been nice if Watson had shared his business experiences, if, indeed, he really has any. I’m sure everyone on this blog, regardless of political persuasion, would love some insight about a profitable business with little or no regulation.
My main intent for the post was not to throw out a bunch of details, but to present what I feel are the main things that have to happen to get us back on the right track and let the readers fill in the details and ideas for the means of getting there. Everyone responded as I had generally hoped they would except Watson. But, then again, that’s what we’ve come to expect from the Watsons of this world.
I agree, it’s nice to see a Lib offer up an idea, for a change. But this quoted post illustrates why they prefer not to: Their ‘ideas’ tend to be one-dimensional, without any understanding or appreciation for the associated problems or consequences.
One example: There is a wish for more emphasis on “wood and metal’ and later a desire for more “..more regulation in ….. the environment ..”
Well, the timber and mining industries are already so over-regulated they are being systematically throttled, by the same self-styled “environmentalists” who want even more regulation.
Just look at the objections to cutting roads into National Forests, when in fact the National Forest system was created for the specific purpose of providing an ongoing source of timber.
The piece reflects the underlying anti-petroleum bias of the far Left, and an unrealistic view of a nation where petroleum and its byproducts have been replaced by “green”er-sounding alternatives, with no thought to the cost of those alternatives. The strident opposition to efforts to harvest timber, even the dead trees which died because of opposition to thinning diseased forests, is a great example.
And there is no consideration given to the economy-stalling effect of overtaxing productivity. “Problem solved”???? Only if you define the problem as “some people just have too much money”.
I’m curious about what additional “regulations” ought to be applied to “health care” for example. Are they talking about regulating actual health care? How? Or about regulating the ways it is paid for? How?
“More regulation” in “myriad other places”? Wow. In a nation struggling under the burden of over-regulation in so many areas, the idea of expanding regulation in “myriad other places” sounds pretty ominous. Just what parts of “the environment” need MORE regulation, for example?
Ama
waspstooges simplistic “undersatnding” of business is stupefying.
lets take the guy who screws cabinets on to the wall.
No govt regulation? Hmmmmmm
number one he needs a license insurance, license plates, and a fully functioning legal vehicle just to pull out of his driveway.
He needa a business license, (possibly) a contractors license, business insurance, he has to have a place of business with all of the governments required posters placed in plain view of all employees.
He is required to carry workers compensation, he is required to provide safety glasses, hearing protection, GFI cords,he is required to have a safety program in place even though he is the only worker.
He has to have and maintain corporate or individual books, he is required to maintain all records including E mails for seven years.
He has to be careful that the walls he is screwing into do not contain lead paint or the drywall has no asbestos.
He has to be sure the cabinets he is hanging and providing does not contain any lead or other potentially poisonous elements in the finish or that there is no formaldehyde in the press board.
This is just a very limited and simplistic example for simpletons like watty.
My business is 1000 times more complicated.
PS
the work has to be permitted and inspected.
As far as forestry goes, Weyerhauser has US sales of $8.75 billion in 2008 [latest data available. Plum creek had sales of $1.19 billion. Boise cascade saw sales of $ 516 million.
In mining, Freeport McMoran has profits of $ 4.36 billion. Newmont Mining saw a 75% increase in profits to $ 2.27 billion.
Should We discuss steel as well?
In Mr Pryor’s post the vast majority of workers would receive a significant reduction in their payroll taxes. Only those earning over $ $ 750,000 per year would see their payroll tax increase from 35% to 45%. Hardly a hardship. They have had a lower tax rate for 11 years and where are the jobs Amazona?
moredumbo pain
In Mr Pryor’s post
WHO gives a flying F**K what some nitwit from a fantasy island the fork says?
So neocon are you saying you would prefer for the tax rates of people making $749,999 and less be increased??? What exactly is the problem you have with the tax schedule as proposed by Mr Pryor?
moredumbo pain
READ the article…….
neocon1 January 1, 2012 at 1:59 pm #
a very good article……..
A: Under a flat tax, the rich do pay more than the poor.
A wealthy taxpayer with 100 times more taxable income than his neighbor will pay 100 times more in taxes. However, a flat tax does not impose special penalties on those who contribute the most to the nation’s prosperity by subjecting them to punitive and discriminatory tax rates. For those who think the “rich” should pay a higher percentage of their income
, the generous family allowance effectively creates a modest level of “progressivity.” For instance, a family with an annual income of $20,000 faces a tax rate of zero. Wealthy taxpayers also benefit from the family allowance, but the effective tax rate on an income of $1 million will be only a tiny fraction below the statutory tax rate.
As usual, the major pain’s screed is heavy on irrelevancies.
What, precisely, do the sales figures of Weyerhauser have to do with the additional burdens of additional regulation on future timber industries? (Hint: none.)
The pain promotes additional, albeit vague, regulations on “the environment”. Many restrictions “on the environment” have limited and hindered logging operations in the past, and continue to do so. Bleating about the fact that a very few well-established companies manage to have significant gross sales does nothing to address the difficulties of starting out in the business now, or the efforts to hinder logging based on claims of “protecting the environment”. It does not address the cost of being able to produce those gross sales, or the inroads into the net profit that will result from additional regulation. It does not address the fact that wood prices have risen significantly, due in part to increased cost of acquisition and the resulting decrease in availability and in part due to inflation, which is another consequence of Leftist economic policy.
(BTW, those of us in the West live daily with the results of some of these efforts, living among millions of square miles of dead pine trees and with the extreme pollution, not to mention danger, of the inevitable fires roaring through these massive stands of dry, dead, timber.)
Any comment on sales of steel would have to include the huge hike in steel prices, caused by the combination of competition from China for the purchase of steel and the cost of mining the raw minerals. Are you ready to discuss the damage to the bottom line of steel companies that can result from more “regulations on the environment”?
This sick obsession with how much money other people make lies at the heart of Leftism, and is its fatal flaw.
I notice that the “we” of the major pain is now a “We”.
No wonder the rabidly radical Left has no room for another divinity.
Way back when I was still on active duty with the Marines and stationed at 29 Stumps (29 Palms, Ca.) we were called to help fight a fire just at the edge of the base. After days on the side of a mountain trying to help as much as possible as the fire was so out of control it became an effort in controlled burning–we were told the “reason” behind the size and scope of the fire. A kangaroo rat.
Okay, the rat did not start the actual fire, lightning did, but because several years prior the local environmentalist group forced (court ordered) the locals and the military from cutting the fire breaks, other roads, selective timber cutting, and controlled burnings in that patch of woods it insured that the next fire would be difficult to get to and would have plenty of kindling to get it roaring.
With all of the trees and underbrush now gone due to an uncontrollable fire–it also made things wonderful as the seasons changed from fire season to mud slide season.
I thought you libs were all about “fairness”
What Is a Flat Tax?
Unlike the current system, a flat tax is simple, fair, and good for growth. Instead of the 893 forms required by the current system,[4] a flat tax would use only two postcard-sized forms: one for labor income and the other for business and capital income. Unlike the current system, which discriminates based on the source, use, and level of income,
a flat tax treats all taxpayers equally, fulfilling the “equal justice under law” principle etched above the main entrance to the U.S. Supreme Court building. And unlike the current system, which punishes people for contributing to the nation’s wealth, a flat tax would lower marginal tax rates and eliminate the tax bias against saving and investment, thus ensuring better economic performance in a competitive global economy.
a very good article……..
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2005/07/a-brief-guide-to-the-flat-tax
Neocon one of the many things We see wrong with the Flat tax vice the Pryor plan is that for a single individual making $49,000 per year they pay $8,330 in payroll taxes under a Flat Tax while an individual making the same money under the Pryor plan would pay $ 4,900. It seems that the goal of this plan vice the Pryor plan is to target families or those thinking of starting families while the Pryor plan would mandate every worker file separately for the maximum Middle Class tax relief in an effort to do away with the marriage penalty.
So neocon are you saying you would prefer
“The circular argument uses its own conclusion as one of its stated or unstated premises. Instead of offering proof, it simply asserts the conclusion in another form, thereby inviting the listener to accept it as settled when, in fact, it has not been settled. Because the premise is no different from and therefore as questionable as its conclusion, a circular argument violates the criterion of acceptability.”
(T. Edward Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning. Wadsworth, 2001)
We do not feel this was a circular argument. Under the Pryor plan a woman earning $750,000 per year would still have $ 9 375 before FICA is removed. per week. If that woman is married and her husband earns $175 000 per year his rate of tax is not affected because they are each taxed as individuals.. He pays $841 per week vice his current $ 942 per week tax bill. Is this more clear?
And happy new year to you, too, spook.
One of the main suggestions here is revamping the tax code. The Kemp 17% flat tax was presented as an option. Fair enough. It was suggested that the Kemp flat tax is progressive. I showed that it is not.
Amazona said “we had tax RATE cuts in the Bush years that led to substantial economic growth and record-setting tax revenues.” No, it did not. The data shows that the rate cuts led to worse than average growth and less tax revenues than before the cuts were enacted. Those are the facts, regardless of what Amazona says.
You all generally argue that lowering taxes will “restart the engine of capitalism,” but when confronted with the facts that lowering taxes did no such thing, you fall back to the fact that there were other circumstances that contributed to the poor economic performance in the Bush years. Agreed. That’s my point. And yet revamping the tax code is one of your major areas of focus.
I said that I think it’s fair for the highest earners in this country to pay more in taxes. In other words, I favor a progressive tax code with brackets. I said I favor simplification, as do you.
I asked how ideas like term limits would “restart the engine of capitalism.” Nothing.
I asked for specific regulations that could be repealed. I think the closest we came is regulations related to the use of exotic woods.
I pointed out that not all carpenters have been put out of business because of onerous government regulation. You deride them as brainless nitwits who screw ready made cabinets into walls.
I pointed out that I ran a business for a period of time and I did not feel impeded by government regulation. You derided it. And yet, even you, Spook, said, “I’m in a business where regulation is almost non-existent.” Since you are a B4V political commentator, I suggest that it is you who should provide some insight about a profitable business with little or no regulation.
I think an educated and skilled workforce is going to be hugely important to the United States going forward. We are competing with emerging nations that are becoming much more highly educated and skilled themselves. How are we going to do that?
1. Revise our visa and immigration policy to attract the world’s best talent to to American universities businesses. I want them here, working for us, instead of another nation.
2. When I was in school, the classes were set up so that the fast learners could go as fast as they could, rather than being held back by the rest of the group. This seems to no longer be the case, I guess because of the idea that we have to be fair to all. I think we’d be better off going back to something like that. Let’s not penalize the fastest and brightest or hold them back. We need them to go as far as they can in order to not only remain competitive on a global basis, but to be a leader.
3. Provide more vocational training. I have a relative who runs a manufacturing business. He has a difficult time finding skilled workers. No workers eventually means no manufacturing business. We need to provide opportunities to train those workers. Not everyone needs a college education or should go to college. When I was in school, both my junior high and high schools had shop programs. Today, the local schools in my area do not. It makes it hard for young people to even be exposed to the possibility that there are trades and crafts that can provide them with a living.
4. Revise the federal student loan program. It was well intended to help students without financial means obtain a college education, but it has saddled many students with enormous debt and little means to repay it. Further, the program has been distorted by lower quality educational institutions whose sole objective is to get their hands on government money. The program, in its present form, is doing more harm than good.
I have to say, for me, the economy has been booming. There is opportunity everywhere. Obviously, that’s not the experience of everyone. But there is opportunity for those who are equipped to seize it. Good luck in 2012.
Spook’s business does not involve manufacturing, or the acquisition or sale of raw materials for manufacturing. What percentage of American commerce do you think can be devoted to organizing already-manufactured products into industry-specific categories and then optimizing the sale and shipment of those products? (Sorry if I did a poor job of defining your business, Spook.)
But the companies who make the products Spook sells are burdened with ever-increasing regulations, and even Spook’s business would have more problems if he had not set it up as a one-man operation.
Amazona,
No, you did an excellent job of defining my business. I’ve never made it a secret about what I do. I rep for about a half dozen or so companies in the document & media packaging, laminating and index tab industries. My customers include commercial printers, several large multi-national corporations with in-house print facilities, law firms, accounting firms, public relations firms and advertising agencies. I don’t run afoul of many government regulations because I don’t deal in products that are hazardous in nature, and my business is not big or complex enough to be subject to onerous financial regulations.
Amy asks, “What percentage of American commerce do you think can be devoted to organizing already-manufactured products into industry-specific categories and then optimizing the sale and shipment of those products?” You should look it up and tell us. Add some facts to the discussion.
As for “one-man operations,” according to the 2010 census, approximately 72% of US businesses are organized as sole proprietorships. I don’t know if that’s how spook’s is set up, but they do fit the definition of a “one-man operation.” So the vast majority of businesses are one-man operations. And while I don’t know this for a fact, I would say that most of these one-man businesses are not big or complex enough to be subject to onerous financial regulations, just like spook’s. Do you disagree?
It should also be point out that according to the Kauffman Index of Entrepreneurial Activity, more small business were started in 2009 and 2010 than in any year since 1996, which is as far back as their chart goes. If regulations are as onerous as has been suggested here, then one would think it would have a dampening effect on the number of new businesses created. But just the opposite has happened. Why is that?
Spook says that one reason his business is not subjected to regulation is because he doesn’t deal with hazardous materials. Does this mean that you think that there should be regulations regarding the handling and use of hazardous materials? I do.
It should also be point out that according to the Kauffman Index of Entrepreneurial Activity, more small business were started in 2009 and 2010 than in any year since 1996, which is as far back as their chart goes. If regulations are as onerous as has been suggested here, then one would think it would have a dampening effect on the number of new businesses created. But just the opposite has happened. Why is that?
This is only an educated guess, but I’d say that much of the increase could be attributed to people who lost their jobs, couldn’t find another, and finally decided to go into business for themselves, particularly if the 72% figure for new businesses being sole proprietorships is accurate. BTW, I founded my business in 1990 as a sole proprietorship and changed to a Sub-S in 1992.
I do think, based on the anecdotal comments in this thread, if nothing else, that onerous regulations do tend to stifle the creation of complex businesses, which is probably why so many new businesses are 1-man operations. I hear complaints all the time from customers, particularly commercial printers, about the compliance costs of government regulations, and most of my commercial printer customers have pretty sizable operations.
Just out of curiosity, Watson, were all the figures in your post from 12:39AM this morning adjusted for inflation?
Spook, I would also guess that lack of employment options has tended to drive more people to start their own businesses, just as Leonard described in this thread. But we have to acknowledge that there are a lot of people starting businesses, and that would not tend to support the notion that regulation is overbearing.
And the fact that business owners complain about regulation does not, in and of itself, mean those regulations are truly overbearing or should be eliminated. Does that mean there are no regulations that should be rescinded? Of course not. But my point is that it is simplistic to merely blame over-regulation. That’s why I am so insistent on more than anecdotal evidence.
The same for tax cuts. It’s easy to simply assert that tax cuts produce more revenue and cause economic growth. But don’t you agree that it is appropriate to look at the results and determine if it is true? Simply asserting things without backing them up does not help anyone. It’s what politicians tend to do. 🙂
Regarding my post of 12:39 a.m., those were the actual figures. They should be the same as the Tax Policy Center chart. In that post I said, “while the revenues in actual dollars did rise to ‘record levels’ in 2007 and 2008, when adjusted for inflation, revenues failed to keep up and failed to match the 2000 level. That’s not a record that would lead one to believe that the Bush tax rate cuts were beneficial to the economy.” Also, I would point out that the first Bush tax cut was enacted in 2001 by the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001.
You ask, “And your suggestion that the economic growth rate during Bush’s 8 years was tied primarily to his tax rate cuts and not a host of other factors is something I’d like to see some proof on.”
That’s not my suggestion. My point is that I can’t find the evidence that suggests that the Bush tax cuts themselves were beneficial to the economy. Of course there were a host of other factors. Personally, I think the tax cuts had little overall effect other than to produce higher federal deficits, but that’s my opinion. Since you identified revamping the tax code as one of your three fundamental ways of restarting the engine, doesn’t it seem fair that the discussion start there?
One thing that I don’t think anyone has brought up is whether there is anything to be learned from the financial crisis beginning with the US subprime mortgage crisis in 2007, the effects of which we are still suffering. That to me has been far more damaging and long lasting than anything else discussed here. According to Wikipedia, the U.S. Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported its findings in January 2011. It concluded that “the crisis was avoidable and was caused by: Widespread failures in financial regulation, including the Federal Reserve’s failure to stem the tide of toxic mortgages; Dramatic breakdowns in corporate governance including too many financial firms acting recklessly and taking on too much risk; An explosive mix of excessive borrowing and risk by households and Wall Street that put the financial system on a collision course with crisis; Key policy makers ill prepared for the crisis, lacking a full understanding of the financial system they oversaw; and systemic breaches in accountability and ethics at all levels.“
Seems to me there is a lot to chew on in that conclusion.
An explosive mix of excessive borrowing and risk by households and Wall Street that put the financial system on a collision course with crisis; Key policy makers ill prepared for the crisis, lacking a full understanding of the financial system they oversaw; and systemic breaches in accountability and ethics at all levels.“
And that brief description barely scratches the surface. I would agree — that sounds like material for a new thread.
Seems to me that a lot was left out of this “Financial Crisis Inquiry”. How can they report on the causes of a financial crisis by starting in the middle, or the “… failure to stem the tide of toxic mortgages;..” …….”….too many financial firms acting recklessly and taking on too much risk”…..”(a)n explosive mix of excessive borrowing and risk by households and Wall Street that put the financial system on a collision course with crisis”.
The “report” works very hard to avoid putting blame where it belongs, which is Big Government interference in the market by legislating a social engineering experiment.
Without the legal requirements upon lending institutions to loan money to unqualified borrowers, none of the “reasons” this committee came up with would have existed.
The “…tide of toxic mortgages” is directly related to the “tide” of loans mandated by the federal government in pursuit of a social agenda. Financial firms were FORCED to “…(act) recklessly and (take) on too much risk..” by the lethal combination of federal legislation and “community organizers” such as ACORN which used anti-discrimination lawsuits to either hamper normal business activities or to threaten to do so.
The “.. explosive mix of excessive borrowing and risk..” was the result of forcing lenders to loan money to unqualified borrowers, with some participation by legitimate borrowers who counted on the values of their homes either remaining stable or increasing.
It is an odd “report” which works so hard to avoid putting responsibility where it belongs—in this case, tracing the complicated chain of events to the single originating act—that of federal legislation forcing lending institutions to ignore sound lending criteria and loan money to unqualified people, to advance a political and social agenda.
Without this federal intervention in the market, none of the subsequent events would have taken place, or even been possible.
As for “Key policy makers ill prepared for the crisis, lacking a full understanding of the financial system they oversaw; and systemic breaches in accountability and ethics at all levels. “ I agree, but note the failure to name names, such as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and the SEC.
Seems to me there is a lot of significant information missing in that conclusion.
wattles has actually, FINALLY, made some sense. I guess the constant nagging to produce ideas instead of insults has finally started to pay off. I wonder if he realizes the disconnect between his good ideas and Leftist ideology?
1. Revise our visa and immigration policy to attract the world’s best talent to to American universities businesses. I want them here, working for us, instead of another nation.
Add strong border control and a system in which seasonal laborers could spend only a few months a year here, and we might be on the way to a rational immigration policy.
2. When I was in school, the classes were set up so that the fast learners could go as fast as they could, rather than being held back by the rest of the group. This seems to no longer be the case, I guess because of the idea that we have to be fair to all. I think we’d be better off going back to something like that. Let’s not penalize the fastest and brightest or hold them back. We need them to go as far as they can in order to not only remain competitive on a global basis, but to be a leader.
This is not only smart, it flies in the face of collectivist goals of “equalizing” everything. I am completely in favor of a meritocracy starting in the schools.
3. Provide more vocational training. I have a relative who runs a manufacturing business. He has a difficult time finding skilled workers. No workers eventually means no manufacturing business. We need to provide opportunities to train those workers. Not everyone needs a college education or should go to college. When I was in school, both my junior high and high schools had shop programs. Today, the local schools in my area do not. It makes it hard for young people to even be exposed to the possibility that there are trades and crafts that can provide them with a living.
I could not agree more. There has been a movement which has said that everyone should go to college, but this has been muddled up with the assumption that a college education ought to be preparation for a career. There was a time when higher education meant exposure to the great ideas and concepts of civilization, and training in critical thinking—both of which would benefit welders and auto mechanics as well as doctors and teachers. When “higher” education stopped teaching languages, cultures, history, and the ideas of the great thinkers of the world, and devolved into political and politically-motivated indoctrination, the whole concept fell apart.
4. Revise the federal student loan program. It was well intended to help students without financial means obtain a college education, but it has saddled many students with enormous debt and little means to repay it. Further, the program has been distorted by lower quality educational institutions whose sole objective is to get their hands on government money. The program, in its present form, is doing more harm than good.
I disagree a little here, but just to the passive voice that students “have been saddled” with huge debts—-they did make the decisions to indebt themselves for huge sums to get degrees in nonsense “studies” areas, etc. But overall, I agree. I’m just not sure if the student loan program is where to start, but then I don’t know the best starting point for addressing this problem.
Amy, two comments. One, I have never claimed to be an adherent of “Leftist ideology.” That is your characterization, not mine.
Regarding the federal student loan program, I am not suggesting that the students themselves are not ultimately primarily responsible for their own debut. They are, however, being sold on a false premise, in my opinion. I would suggest that as young people just reaching adulthood, they don’t have the wisdom gained from experience that would allow them to better evaluate what is ultimately a sales pitch.
But my primary point is that the student loan program is being misused by supposed higher education institutions simply to create profits for themselves. Many of these institutions are providing little in the way of valuable education and have dubious accreditations at best. Their purpose is simply to reap profits, and they have found the federal student loan program to be an excellent means of doing so. That’s the main reason I think it needs serious reform.
I agree with you on the student loan program.
As for my perception of your Leftist leanings, it falls into the “walks like a duck, quacks like a duck” methodology of trying to figure out where people stand when they refuse to identify their political philosophy.
If you tend to agreement with solid Constitutional principles but just get a kick out of attacking them, and their proponents when they are discussed, well, that’s just something I can’t explain.
And your passionate and determined insistence on what appeared to be a defense of the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause, regarding the effort to use them to justify parts of Obamacare certainly contributed to the impression of you as a Leftist.
If this is not accurate, feel free to correct it.
And, just to clarify things, I merely pointed out that your ideas are not consistent with Leftist ideology, which is hardly the same as claiming you are “…an adherent of “Leftist ideology.” ‘ You assert that I characterized you as “..an adherent of “Leftist ideology.” when I did not say any such thing.
I agree that it’s nice that Watson finally decided to join the discussion in a productive way, and I share Amazona’s reaction to his suggestions.
I do have some disagreement with some of Watson’s assertions, however.
One of the main suggestions here is revamping the tax code. The Kemp 17% flat tax was presented as an option. Fair enough. It was suggested that the Kemp flat tax is progressive. I showed that it is not.
No, you asserted that it would not be as progressive as our present tax structure. That’s sort of akin to Obama telling Charlie Gibson in 2008 that he didn’t care if raising the capital gains tax resulted in lower revenue; he was only interested in fairness.
Amazona said “we had tax RATE cuts in the Bush years that led to substantial economic growth and record-setting tax revenues.” No, it did not. The data shows that the rate cuts led to worse than average growth and less tax revenues than before the cuts were enacted. Those are the facts, regardless of what Amazona says.
Those ARE NOT THE FACTS, and THE DATA tells us no such thing. The tax rate cut on upper incomes didn’t happen until toward the end of Bush’s third year in office in 2003. By 2005 tax revenues had rebounded to almost where they were when he took office in 2001, and in 2006, 2007 and 2008 revenues set successive records. And your suggestion that the economic growth rate during Bush’s 8 years was tied primarily to his tax rate cuts and not a host of other factors is something I’d like to see some proof on.
Other than those two things, I don’t have much disagreement with what you wrote, Watson. Thanks for finally joining us.
Sorry, I misread the chart. Federal revenues in 2008 were 1.5% less than in 2007.
spook said that I asserted that the Kemp flat tax would not be as progressive as our present tax structure. Actually, I was responding to Leonard, who said the Kemp flat tax was “significantly progressive all the way up to around $750,000.” I demonstrated that the facts show the the Kemp plan is not as Leonard characterized it. Or do you agree with Leonard’s statement about the Kemp flat tax?
Regarding the Tax Policy Center data, it is the same data that I used. What you are ignoring is the effect of inflation. The total receipts for the year 2000–the year before the Bush tax cuts–was $2.025B. If total receipts remained $2.025B each year thereafter, then the federal receipts would actually fall in terms of spending power each year, even though in actual dollars they would be the same.
So, let’s take inflation into account. If we start with $2.025B and increase it by the actual annual inflation rate of each year–which varied from 1.59% to 3.85%, well within historical norms–then this is what you get:
2000: $2.025B
2001: $2.093B
2002: $2.153B
2003: $2.187B
2004: $2.237B
2005: $2.297B
2006: $2.374B
2007: $2.521B
2008: $2.618B
The Tax Policy Center chart shows that not in any year did the actual receipts equal the pre-Bush tax rate cuts receipt when adjusted for inflation. It gets even worse if we consider the post-Bush years when the tax rate cuts were still in place.
So when Amy says that the Bush tax rate cuts produced record revenue, it’s not true unless you disregard inflation. And I would submit that that would be dishonest. I mean, if you really want to ignore inflation to prove a point, then every president produced record revenue, and that would also render the Bush tax cuts as a meaningless part of the equation.
waspstooge
Kemp is DEAD and so is his so called tax plan.
you are beating a dead horse and is getting quite annoying.
How about discussing some of today’s relevant flat/sales/fair tax proposals.
Amazona,
Save your excellent comment from 1:09PM on 1/2/12 for future discussions on this topic.
Spook, ran across this article on Google news tonight:
http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stories/ci_19656382
Several business owners are quoted about their experience, including of all things, a carpenter. 🙂 It’s worth a quick read and could provide fodder for a new topic.
I suggest that the bursting of the housing bubble and all of the aftereffects have had a much greater effect on the “engine of capitalism” than tax policy or regulations. (None of the business owners cited regulations as the cause of their problems.) So a reasonable couple of questions would be 1) To what extent, if any, was the federal government responsible for the bubble and the crisis that followed? 2) Does the federal government have a role in preventing or regulating the kind of behavior that led to the bubble?
I suggest that the bursting of the housing bubble and all of the aftereffects have had a much greater effect on the “engine of capitalism” than tax policy or regulations.
You may very well be right, Watson, although the engine of capitalism and the real estate market, while intertwined, are not one and the same. You’ve obviously already done much of the research. If you’d like to do a main blog piece on this, I’ll see that it gets published and give you credit for it. BTW, I really do welcome your participation. Why was it so hard to get you going?
BTW, I just heard on the news this last week that 2011 was the worst year for the new house market in 50 years. So the housing bubble not only had a horrific effect on our economy, it continues to do so, and it’s not getting better.
True. But capitalism requires capital. When people feel like they have capital–even if only on paper via the value of their homes–they are willing spend. When they don’t, they don’t. The bursting of the bubble dramatically reduced both people’s ability and willingness to spend money. That seems like a much bigger deal than whether some millionaires pay 3% more in income tax.
You ask, why was it so hard to get you going? The honest answer is that it is easier to critique someone else’s proposal than it is to put forth your own. Second, if I’m going to put forth my own, I’m going to think about it before doing so. It takes time to write something that I think makes sense and can be defended. Even then, it’s obvious that when I think I’m being clear, sometimes I’m not. Third, this isn’t always the most welcoming place for an opposing point of view; you have to wade through a lot name calling and hostility, so my tendency is to just give it back in kind. But to be fair, there are other political blogs that brook no dissent whatsoever, so I have to give Matt and Mark and you credit for that. I think this place is far more interesting when there is respectful debate instead of everyone nodding along in unison and ganging up on the dissenters. You don’t learn anything from the latter.
Amy asked what my ideology is. I guess I’m a bit of a free agent right now, although I’m sure I’m to the left of most people here. I’m looking at a lot of different places for information and opinion. I’m sort of like Rafael earlier in the thread, except he comes from a left-leaning background whereas I come from a right-leaning background. I gave up being a Republican four years ago, as I have stated previously. I am not affiliated with any political party, nor would I consider myself affiliated with a particular ideology. I’ve never belonged to a union. I’ve never worked for the government. I’ve never received a check from the government other than a tax refund. Good ol’ capitalism has done very well by me.
I don’t know that it’s a good idea for me to write a post here. A few heads might explode. 🙂 But let me think about it. Maybe I’ll come up with something that I think is worthwhile.
I am not affiliated with any political party, nor would I consider myself affiliated with a particular ideology.
I’m always suspect whenever anyone says they aren’t affiliated with a particular ideology, because it usually means they’re a moral relativist. I won’t rush to judge in your case, because I’m not sure exactly what you meant by your statement. It would help in future discussions if we at least knew what principles guide your thinking. And I wouldn’t worry about heads exploding if you write an original post. We’re all big boys and girls — well, with the exception of Bagni, that is.
The only way we ever continue to learn (and I think it’s important to never stop learning) is by constantly challenging our own beliefs. In my experience, not too many people voluntarily challenge their own beliefs, so the next best thing is to read, watch and listen to people who disagree with us, and then do a little research to find out who is right. To me that’s what this blog should be all about.
In addition to the housing bubble, it sounds to me like we could also do a thread on the effects of government regulation. I should have done more research on that subject before I wrote this post.
watson, it is not only possible to form a political ideology without being affiliated with a particular political identity, I suggest that it is better to start with a personal concept of your own idea of the best blueprint for governing the country, without allegiance to any party.
I think too many of us get hung up on the identity thing, on specific events that offend us or on specific people we do or don’t like, and find ourselves accepting information because we like the source, or don’t like the subject of the info.
It’s very very hard to step back from identity and focus solely on ideas. But I believe this is not only what has allowed this country to get in such bad shape, it is what has allowed our politicians to manipulate us by pulling strings that are more closely tied to our emotions than to our brains.
I didn’t make a decision to study politics—-I just fell in love with, and married, a man who was a passionate amateur historian. He focused on historical events, but as I got dragged along in his wake, reading books, meeting authors, talking with historians, going to museums, etc. I found my own focus shifting away from “what” to “why”.
As the core “why” of the Civil War was states’ rights and the enumerated powers of the Constitution, as the core “why” of WW II was the battle for control by a collectivist political model, I found my interest in “whys” forming a new body of knowledge.
I had the advantage of being apolitical at the time, totally disinterested in politics, so I was not distracted by allegiance to Republicans or Democrats. I was vaguely liberal, in a squishy, uneducated, unexamined way, but not enough to get defensive when I learned something unpleasant about the Left.
I know it was easier for me, as I had no dog in the hunt and was just trying to learn the “whys” of events long past. But what I learned was, surprisingly to me, extremely relevant to the present, and even more important, to the future.
I came to the independent decision that the Left represents a malignant form of government, cloaked in bogus claims of “fairness” and “equality”. Coming at this from the past, from study of Leftist governments in history and their actions and the results of the philosophy, was easier for me because I didn’t have to overcome bias in favor of the Left, and because in the early days I did not realize the link between the Hard Left of history and the Soft Left of the United States in the 1980’s. Even now, the vast majority of those who support the U.S. Left do so with the best of intentions, unaware of the path of Leftism that is around the corner.
On a parallel course, I was independently developing a deep and profound respect for the Constitution of the United States, and the amazing effect this singular document had had on the history of the world and on this new, brash, somewhat chaotic young nation that was able to leapfrog mature and established nations to a pinnacle of economic prosperity and personal liberty unequaled throughout history,
When the two intellectual exercises came together, and I linked them to contemporary politics in the U.S., suddenly I was political.
It was like looking through a political kaleidoscope—-all I saw was random unrelated bits of information and then with another turn it all clicked into a coherent pattern.
I know it was easier for me, but I also know that if someone cares enough to find a blog like this and post on it he probably has the ability to do it the harder way, hampered by prior allegiances and biases.
I suggest that the beginning should be to strip away existing biases—I know, harder than it sounds. Strip away identity, peel away events that now seem so significant, keep peeling the onion till you get to the very central core. At that core lies the essential philosophy, which will either be small central government, severely restricted as to size, scope and power, or large central government with unrestricted (or nearly so) size, scope and power.
The degree and nature of personal liberty will be directly related to these two basic choices.
From the core kernels of political philosophy you can start to build your own, rounding it out till you get to the Identity Level. Here is where you run into political reality, and have to pick the political party that you think either fits the philosophy you have established or, in the case of conservatives, the one you are more likely to be able to beat, bludgeon, nag, bully, thump and drag into the closest possible compliance with that philosophy.
spook
you article is 100% on,
dont forget it was this regulation that gave us the Fanni-Freddi collapse and of course the domino fall of the economy.
Being in the Mechanical contracting business I see the INSANITY of government intrusion and regulation daily.
sorry but wattystooge doesnt have a freeking clue outside of a couple of articles and a newspaper route. 🙂
watson, here is an example: The “bursting of the bubble” regarding housing was an event. Go back a level: The bubble itself was an event. Back another step: The lending practices that created the bubble by dumping millions of new buyers into the market. Back another step: The pressure on lenders to loan money to unqualified borrowers. Another step: The legislation to change lending criteria. Back again: The intervention of a big-government mentality into the market to use legislative power to achieve social goals.
And there we are, at the crossroads of Big Government vs Small Government. of Local Power vs Central Control.
Yes, I know, it was not an orderly linear progression. There were tentacles of other legislation along the way, there were manipulations of the system, there were acts of predation and of stupidity. But the main thoroughfare is the one I outlined, and without it none of the other events would have been possible.
waspstooge
I suggest that the bursting of the housing bubble and all of the aftereffects have had a much greater effect on the “engine of capitalism” than tax policy or regulations. (None of the business owners cited regulations as the cause of their problems.) So a reasonable couple of questions would be 1)
what you “SUGGEST” is BS from a man with NO real business knowledge.
go READ up some more then come back with your so called PROOF from some article.
Those of us who DO, know, and your little articles and cartoonish business “knowledge” is fure entertainment.
If you arent a flaming leftist you should consider it.
watstooge
True. But capitalism requires capital. (No Shiite)
When people feel like they have capital–even if only on paper via the value of their homes–they are willing spend.
Yeah, I have seen those TV adds also.
quite amusing.
Red Tape Rising: A 2011 Mid-Year Report
By James Gattuso and Diane Katz
July 25, 2011
Abstract: Following a record year of rulemaking, the Obama Administration is continuing to unleash more costly red tape. In the first six months of the 2011 fiscal year, 15 major regulations were issued, with annual costs exceeding $5.8 billion and one-time implementation costs approaching $6.5 billion. No major rulemaking actions were taken to reduce regulatory burdens during this period. Overall, the Obama Administration imposed 75 new major regulations from January 2009 to mid-FY 2011, with annual costs of $38 billion. There were only six major deregulatory actions during that time, with reported savings of just $1.5 billion. This flood of red tape will undoubtedly persist, as hundreds of new regulations stemming from the vast Dodd–Frank financial regulation law, Obamacare, and the EPA’s global warming crusade advance through the regulatory pipeline—all of which further weakens an anemic economy and job creation, while undermining Americans’ fundamental freedoms. Action by Congress as well as the President to stem this regulatory surge is essential.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/red-tape-rising-a-2011-mid-year-report
Small Businesses and the cost of Government Regulation
Federal regulations cost businesses $1.75 trillion
http://jan.ocregister.com/2010/09/24/federal-rules-cost-u-s-firms-1-75-trillion/45704/
The Hidden Cost of Regulation
http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/jhammerton/the-hidden-cost-of-regulation
Regulation Nation: Drowning in Rules, Businesses Brace for Cost and Time for Compliance
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/12/regulation-nation-drowning-in-rules-businesses-brace-for-cost-and-time-for/#ixzz1iJklX7do
1) To what extent, if any, was the federal government responsible for the bubble and the crisis that followed?
I have already answered this question, in my account of the cascade of events following and precipitated by the original legislation to interfere in the market by forcing lenders to engage in practices contradictory to sound lending principles.
2) Does the federal government have a role in preventing or regulating the kind of behavior that led to the bubble?
Well, the obvious first answer is to not interfere in the first place. The role of the federal government is not one of social engineering.
I have a feeling that the phrase “..the kind of behavior that led to the bubble…” is based on a belief that “the kind of behavior that led to the bubble” was greed and dishonesty, when in fact those components, while existing, were not the main problem, and were made possible only by the original error.
Presumably you’re talking about things like the Community Reinvestment Act. I think there are a couple of problems with your conclusions.
1. The real estate bubble was global. Are you saying that the run-up in real estate prices was caused by the CRA in the US, but by different factors in the rest of the world? What about countries that did not have CRA, did not have the mortgage deduction, did not have government-sponsored enterprises? That doesn’t make sense.
2. If the CRA was to blame, you would expect the housing boom to occur in areas of lower income, and the defaults would be higher in those area. The opposite occurred. The suburbs boomed and busted in much great numbers than low income areas.
3. The vast majority of subprime loans were underwritten by unregulated private firms while the share of loans underwritten by Fannie Mae and Fannie Mac dropped significantly as the bubble developed.
Looks like more research is in order.
I believe you’re correct in that Fannie and Freddie never held a substantial amount of subprime loans, but the SEC claims that it’s 5 times what was stated and is preparing to prosecute two executives for fraud.
IIRC, the issue was that Fannie & Freddie were backing those other toxic loans and then buying the prepackaged crap at an alarming rate while, like Frank & Dodd, saying “Everything is ok. Nothing to see here. Move along” until it blew up in their collective faces.
db
BINGO
” disputing the idea that Carter’s Community Reinvestment Act caused the housing crisis. They prefer to blame it one the usual liberal bugbear of “corporate greed.”
I had the chance last week to interview a former bank exec with 29 years in the loan industry. He detailed how the boom (and thence the bust) came about.
The CRA was created to force banks to loan money on the basis of population representation, not credit history. Bank regulators used the last census for demographic information in each bank’s immediate drawing area. The loans the bank granted were supposed to be representative of the population in the last reported census, no matter if credit ratings varied between sub-populations or not.
As you know, census data is only updated every 10 years. Therefore, it was possible for Federal regulators to be working with social and economic data that was as old as 9 years. In the meantime, the area’s economic stats may have drastically declined.
The problem was that banks were forced to loan to many residents with little or no down payment, and/or were not creditworthy. This made the regulations extremely hard to comply with. Banks had to take inordinate risks to make the federally-mandated loans. After all, non-performing loans would destroy the banks’ balance sheets.
Previously, Fannie and Freddie had very strict guidelines about which loans they would buy. They would not buy loans without any down payments.
Loosening of these standards at Fannie and Freddie allowed banks to get the riskiest loans off their books. Banks were allowed to offload loans that should not have been made anyway to quasi-government agencies. And offload them they did.
Banks were then freed from the risk mandated by the CRA. Suddenly, originating risky loans became profitable, as they could readily be sold to Fannie and Freddie, and did not threaten bank balance sheets.
Freed from the constraints of a down payment, con artists were able to put up “front men” (most often of politically favored populations) arranging for them to pay inflated prices for houses. Appraisers were often the enablers in such rackets. The banks would approve such loans, knowing they could offload them onto quasi-government agencies.
And I think you know the rest of the story!
Conclusion: The housing boom and bust was a totally government-created phenomenon, via the Community Relations Act, and quasi-government agencies agreeing to drop the loan quality purchased.”
Uh HUH!!
watsum
The housing bubble, similar to the War on Poverty, was wholly the creation of Democrats. President Carter created the Community Reinvestment Act in 1977 with little ill effect. The CRA required that lending institutions had to provide loans to qualified borrowers, with an emphasis on qualified. President Clinton adopted the FRB Boston “Closing the Gap” policy, which officially required lending institutions to give mortgage loans to borrowers who were patently unqualified and unable to repay them, in 1998.
This was government policy when Bush became president, but Bush soon realized that the whole mortgage structure was a house of cards. From 2003 on, Bush, Senators McCain and Hagel, and all the Republicans on the Senate Banking Committee tried to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, only to be voted down in the Banking Committee by party-line Democrats. The rest is history: a huge Dow collapse and an even larger worldwide markets collapse, complete with destruction of the nation’s wealth and citizens’ retirement accounts.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/where_debt_is_due.html
spook
a good read
watty
instead of asking questions, why dont you provide facts and figures which would provide answers to those very questions you propose?
the which came first the chicken or the egg circular questions makes us conservatives suspicious of your intentions.
🙂
OOPS
spook
a good read
http://world-crisis.net/realestate-crisis.html
Neo,
Excellent article; one of the most comprehensive I’ve seen on the entire real estate collapse.
Especially this part:
“On September 10, 2003, U.S. Congressman Ron Paul gave a speech to Congress where he said that the then current government policies encouraged lending to people who couldn’t afford to pay the money back, and he predicted that this would lead to a bailout, and he introduced a bill to abolish these policies.”
Sheesh. What a lunatic.
I think freakzo thinks he is being witty, but in fact he is merely adding to the volume of proof that he is profoundly stupid.
I think everyone here, and certainly every conservative talking head I have heard, has agreed that Dr. Paul’s take on the economy is quite accurate.
It is his loony-tunes idea of Iran settling down to peaceful coexistence with infidels once they have the security of nuclear weapons that makes him a lunatic—in that area.
Naturally, any kind or degree of nuance will go right over freakzo’s freakish little head.
Ditto for truth and accuracy.
But thanks,freaky,for the addition to the already overwhelming body of evidence of your abject ignorance, passion for being inanely snotty, and complete lack of respect for the truth.