Rand Paul Proposes $500 billion in budget cuts for 2011

Adoucette,

Here from the report

Which is exactly what I have been saying.

Ok, so you don't want to call it an increase in the tax rate (income only), but for the top earners it is. The income rate may be lower but the overall rate including capital gains etc is higher. So their tax rate overall is higher.

You can expect those who want to maintain the status quo to bring out the raising capital gains is bad boogeyman.

I am very busy right now but will continue to delve deeper into so that I can better understand all of the proposals.

The point to my prior question is valid. In order to pay down the debt we need to increase what we bring in and spend less.

We can call it whatever you want but that is the needed medicine.

Unfortunately if the past is of evidence of what will happen next, nothing will change or at least nothing significant. I really hope that I am wrong, but I don't believe we have the leadership nor have the current generations of Americans shown themselves to be willing to make the needed sacrifice.

The Concord Coalition was formed in 1990 and were making many of the same suggestions, 21 years later nothing has changed through both Rep and Dem adms and congresses.

http://www.concordcoalition.org/issue-page/tax-policy

http://www.concordcoalition.org/

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No that is NOT what you have been saying, you said:

But words are important things

NO, the Tax Rates are LOWER.

The type of income that is taxed changes and the deductions change and that is what determines the impact and so the total amount of taxes paid may or may not be higher as that would depend on the source of their income and their deductions.

For instance people who are just starting to make a lot of money, but are getting most of it as income would not likely see an increase in their taxes while someone with a lot of accumulated wealth, like Bill Gates who gets little to no ordinary income anymore but most of his income from dividends and investments, would see a rise in their taxes.

Thus doing it this way, by lowering rates but changing what is taxed, doesn't penalize those who are trying to accumuate wealth (the new entreprenuers) and gets a much larger share from those with a lot of accumulated wealth.

Which is why it is important to make the distinction about the tax changes NOT being about just RAISING RATES.

Arthur

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And rich people make most of their money from capital gains and dividends, currently taxed at 15%.

That's going to be a significant tax rate hike for them, and you favor it - right?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Adoucette,

Understood. But in the end, if we don't bring in more money from taxation and reduce spending we aren't going to reduce the debt.

Lower the income rate, raise the capital rate to more than offset the income reduction is fine, good idea IMO.

Let's see if it will fly.

Which get's back to my earlier statements about those who have great influence over this debate. They are the ones who stand to pay a much greater amount in tax because of where they make most of their money.

Yes it is. Here from my post 192.

"The bottom line here is that the wealthiest of us 1-20% are best able to pay this down, that doesn't mean they alone have to make any sacrifice, it means that the wealthiest actually have the ability to pay far more than they are now to resolve the issue, and have been the greatest benefactor of the wealth distribution over the last 30 years by far"

and

"We also need to cut spending at the same time, but typically that will impact those who have the least political clout to fight against such cuts and we have to be careful not to create even more instability in that process. Because that is bad for everyone, the rich included. "

and here from the report: which is what I listed in my post # 201 and what I was referring to when I said, "this is exactly what I have been saying"

As far as the tax rates, I didn't specify income or capital gains at all. I said tax rates.

You answered no, which was comical to me because if they don't go up then they are not paying more, and they need to.

You just separated it out, fine and fair enough. I don't have a problem with that and thanks for the clarification. I just look at it as a misunderstanding between us, no big deal.

Essentially you and I agree that the overall rate needs to go up, but you prefer the income rate go down (I agree) as long as the capital gains goes up enough so the total is more (I agree).

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Not really.

Ideally the the best way is to reduce unemployment and increase productivity and at the same time reduce energy per $ of GDP.

There are many other factors to consider.

Be an OPTIMIST, it is far better way to live your life then all the doom and gloom friggin PESSIMISTS I run into.

Arthur

 

Yes, well I am for the most part. There are some things I am very optimistic about and some not so much. I agree that there are many other factors, including many that we can not foresee at this time, technological advances etc that could change things. Especially in the area of energy use, consumption.

I am far less optimistic about the political environment, getting real leaders elected and the willingness of Americans to focus on future generations and to be make sacrifices now so they will be in a better place, this I feel should be the goal of the current generation, and so on and so on.

Our debt is just way to high not to initially resolve or turn it around by placing some needed parameters on what we spend and how much we bring in with taxation. This IMO just has to be done and the longer we wait the worse it will be.

If we can manage to do that the stability that is created will allow the country to flourish and compete and I am confident that the American people are capable of competing. We may just need to take a few nose punches to get enough interested in making the necessary changes.

We will see. I agree that you can't fight the fight if you've already defeated yourself. One can be realistic without being pessimistic.

Good day Arthur. Let's hope the future is bright.

 

Comedy at its best!!

 

Simplicity and execution.

You cannot reduce debt by raising income taxes. Because there is only so much income you can tax.

You can reduce debt by keeping or lower tax rates to allow more money in market to collect more consumer taxes to help reduce debt. This doesn't work individually, but it does as a collective nation.

These are simple concepts. But I realize that ambulance chasers and marxists both feel the need to complicate things so as to woo the idiots of our nation, some of them are shouting loudly among us here.

Here's winking at you: joe, apple, and ice.

 

Ahh hell, couldn't we all just be middle class!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

words cannot describe just how wrong you are. tax cuts don't reduce the debt they increase it. your mistaking your political ideology for fantasy.

 

Nor can they describe the imbecility you call political thought.

That said, I should've included cutting spending as well.

To the socialist, spending never stops! All you need to do is keep raising taxes until everyone is making the same amount of money: zero. Which to the socialist is okay, because now you have true equality. Everyone is equally miserable, and the power elites have total control.

In short, you are engaging in class warfare. Shocking coming from a socialist!

More simplicity.

The more money you earn and keep. The more money you spend, which in turn creates more revenue for the government. The other domino effect is that the more money earned and kept, and spent. The more money to be earned and kept, which in turn creates more money being spent and so forth.

Another dirty little secret about that plan is that it reduces the power of the government and places more power into the hands of the people. But I know that is anathema to your marxist world view. But I of course understand that the power doesn't matter to you, only the money. And the more you can take from others, because afterall they didn't earn it like you should sitting on your ass in your mother's basement. so the more you can elect someone to to steal money from others the better off you are!

 

yawn the same base insults because I don't accept your cult.

cutting spending is all well and good but not if the net effect reduces revenue by more.

more slurs and lies.

No that would be the rich fats cats you support

I am not a socialist I have asked you in the past to please quit calling me that.

based on bad math.

So why does private spending create more than public??? why does taking money out of the hands of people spending it and into those that aren't increase spending. more fantasy rather than fact.

no it doesn't it puts power into the hands of the wealthy.

please quit projecting the beliefs and defintions of your cult onto me.

money is power. I want to stop all power from being able to harm unlike you.

you sure your not a buffloroam sock?

more personal attacks when your delusions are called out.


tax cuts don't work. its a mathematic impossibility. you can't spend more than 100% of the money you have. the government spends 100% of what it takes in how can private people spend more than 100%. take your cult beliefs and personal attacks via your deluded labels and shove them. I'm tired of people like you harming this country.

 

Dudley you are a socialist you have admitted it in other posts. Seriously, you live in a vacuum. If you are not what you have claimed to be in other posts, then what are you now?

You are tool for sure.

Examples:

"cutting spending reduces revenue" Wow. dudley this surpasses imbecility. I mean I always knew you to be lacking in politcal understanding, but I didn't think your deficit was that large! I will give you a pass and say that you really didn't think about making that statement before you wrote it.

But then you add this beauty; "So why does private spending create more than public???" Maybe I am giving you too much credit. Oh wait, you don't understand that either because you added this jewel: "you can't spend more than 100% of the money you have. the government spends 100% of what it takes in how can private people spend more than 100%."

I had better stop while I am ahead. I will get banned, and the humor here is too good to not be allowed to add commentary.

Wow, Dudley. Just wow!

 

Comedy GOLD

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deficit_spending

Arthur

 

Don't be too hard on dud. He is providing comic relief.

 

True

 

I'm talking about money one has access to not total in pocket money.

 

please stop the personal attacks. if you want to have an adult conversation with facts I'm all for it but I will not tolerate being attacked for stating facts.

please show mathematicaly how say 1000 dollars( giving you the benefit of the doubt even though you haven't earned at making your assumtion that the government and private sectors will spend money to the same percent) spent by private citizens is better than 1000 dollars spent by government

 

Stop it dudley, just stop.

 

I didn't attack you. I gave you a pass. But then I couldn't help but add more of what you were saying when I did give you a pass. That is why I stopped.

You are too much.