POL: Tax rates and Buffett
 

Last week, Buffett made a statement that rich weren't taxed enough and the statement he made over the summer:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/19483842/site/14081545/
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle1996735.ece

Now, fellow billionaires are taking charge at him:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/21708265


I think his statements are misleading:

For example, we have two seperate two federal tax rates, one for income (which tops out at 35%) and capital gains (flat 15% for all assets held for at least a year).

His secretary may pay more because Warren only made $100,000 (give or take) in salary in his job last year. That is taxed as income.

Now, the rest of his $46 million-some income is either tax-free (bonds and such) or taxed as capital gains. Now, the capital gains is taxed at 15% (no matter the level of income or gains; this is flat for all Americans).

I agree with the rate for capital gains tax, because capital gains are investments and provide incentives for investors, entreprenuers, and such.

Instead of POL we need a Poll.

That is his point. That the capital gains tax rate is unfair because it allow the wealthy to be taxed at a rate much lower than the average taxpayer (especially when payroll taxes are considered, which are a negligible tax to the wealthy, but a significant tax on the poor and middle class). The wealthy earn most of their income from capital gains - the middle class doesn't because they don't have the money to invest on that scale to begin with. And I agree with him. There's no reason that income earned basically by sitting around on your ass should be taxed at a lower rate than income earned by actually working for it. The stock market is going to appreciate at healthy rate even if capital gains are taxed as ordinary income. That was another of Buffett's points.

Yep... and I agree with him. Capital gains should be taxed more. After all, it IS income, even if it comes from investments.

Tax capital gains more, and the rich will simply invest less. It's not really a desirable trade-off.

I'm guessing that the reduction in investment would not be all the much. Of course there would be, but I don't think to the level to you think.

Then why in the world would you advocate reductions in investments? Do you think the federal govt does not have enough money?

I don't necessarily disagree here, but, let me ask this. If the goal of the rich it to make more money by investing, where would they put that money if capital gains were taxed on a sliding scale rather than fixed rate? Would they decide not to invest and just put it into a low-yielding savings account?

Enough for what? Can you tell me what is enough?

It would make it easier to have tax cuts based on income for middle and low income households.

They are not going to invest less, and to the extent they do, the reduction in investment by the wealthy could be offset by tax cuts and investment and savings incentives for the middle class and poor.

In fact, I think it would not be a terrible idea to lower the capital gains tax for the first $25K or $50K earned, and then tax anything above that at the regular income tax rate.

They'd still invest some, of course, but a higher tax rate would of course, change the potential yield of any investment. You're simply going to take less risks when there's less to gain. When business ventures are more expensive, there's going to be less business ventures that succeed.

It's a classic debate, obviously. Does our society benefit more by having a hypothetical $1,000,000 with the government, or with the private economy? I strongly believe it's the latter.

Or does society benefit more by having a hypothetical $1Mil with the rich or $1Mil in tax benefits for the poor and middle ;).

And also it depends on what the government is doing with the $1Mil. If its for paying down the debt or national health care, I'd give it to the government.

Mighty big of you to be so giving with other people's money.

Indeed... someone needs to give the money of these freeloaders for all the benefits they recieve from crony capitalism system we have currently that they don't pay for. :p

With the rich.

I do like the first part of this proposal even if the rate of taxation for >$50k capital gains seems a little over the top.

Society benefit more? Are we in the Soviet Union? The lower the taxes the better! Rich or poor! If it's for national health care I'd give tax cuts to the people to make their own decisions! To pay down the debt, I'd tell the big spenders in Congress to stop the socialist programs and the neo-con President to stop the foreign intervention and you can pay down the debt without raising taxes! I can't believe people think that the government has to take care of them from cradle to grave. They're ecstatic to just hand over their money and say, "Solve all of my problems!" And that's what's wrong with this country.

"Government is good at one thing: It knows how to break your legs, hand you a crutch, and say, "See, if it weren't for the government, you wouldn't be able to walk." -Harry Browne

Agreed.

This is similar the the gay discrimination discussion in that I feel like people try to boil the argument down into into simple terms, and frame the opposite view as something horrible. In this case, that simplistic view is "Poor and Middle Class need money more than rich people." Well, no shit (and no one disagrees with that, despite the implication of how the discussion is framed). That's not where the disagreement lies.

Wait... so only in the Soviet Union they cared about society benefiting more?! Are you on something? I guess the Founders of the US were Soviets... after all they believed that American society would benefit more as an independant republic.

If we shouldn't care about benefits to society why have a government at all?

The poor and middle class have a much higher marginal propensity to consume. I'd imagine an extra $1Mil in tax cuts would do better for the economy, in increased consumption, than the $1Mil in investments.

Wow. You obviously have no understanding of the beginning of this country. I guess the founders never stood up against an oppressive government and taxes like the Stamp Act. The Boston Tea Party never happened! They ousted the British and installed another opressive government! The founders were socialists? LOL! There should be a limited federal government and stronger state governments like the founders envisioned and like the Constitution tells us! Read the Constitution and some of the founders writings for more info!

And that was the combined sound of the wheels falling off the track on this thread as well as the whoosing noise made when one completely misses a point flying well over one's head (about the deeper issue of the limits of a social contract)...

SI

So none of that was for the benefit of American society?

I am highly, highly amused by this idea that if the founders were interested in improving their own society they've formed some form of oppressive, socialist government. That's... like completely insane.

Or as sterlingice alluded to... WHOOOOOSH!

I thought we were talking about the federal income tax. Taking something someone has worked for and giving it to someone else. The founders obviously didn't believe this was the job of the federal government so I don't see what your point is. I said that they envisioned a limited federal government with certain powers included in the Constitution. When you were talking about benefiting society, you were talking the federal income tax. If you want to say that they the Revolution was to benefit society and the individual colonists, fine, I agree with you. But that isn't what we're talking about here. They believed in a national defense and army, so yes this benefits society. That doesn't make them socialist does it? I fail to see how they are socialists like you say they were. That's...like completely insane.

Or as sterlingrice alluded to... WHOOOOOSH!

Considering how your "Soviet" response was to a post that was asking about whether society benefits more with a certain amount of money with the rich or rather with the poor though tax cuts (sorry, both wasn't an option here... pay attention), I'm not sure how you could have possibly come to conclusion that you did.

Benefitting society by taxes doesn't equal the Soviet Union. It never has and never will. How exactly do you think the early federal government paid for its expenses? You realize that tariffs are taxes, right? Or read up on the Whiskey Rebellion. So the question becomes is it better to take more of that tax revenue from the rich or from the poor. I'm not exactly sure how that makes one a "Soviet".

And, after all, the chant was "taxation without representation", not "taxation" ;).

The point of a capital gains tax is to encourage investment and entreprenuers (risk-takers of the highest order) who will create new products/services, advances in our civilization and new jobs and tax revenue.

However, what stops a middle class person from taking advantage of the capital gains tax and the tax-free incentives?

Our tax system is the one of the best in the world, and a major key to our success. In a global society, investors have the entire globe to look at. Tax rates are going to be more important. Look at Europe and Asia-Pacific. London is driving the growth of the UK due to tax system for wealthy foreigners. Monaco, Dubai, Switzerland and Singapore are making themselves more attractive to lure those foreign citizens with the bank accounts and businesses. What's to stop the wealthy people here from moving to other countries that offer more favorable tax rates? The reality is we can tax the rich people to death (which means you tax foreign companies and investors from investing in our country), but we will reduce foreign investment and American wealth in our country (and going out).

Why should a rich person, who took risks and created jobs, products/services, new tax revenue, be taxed more than a regular person working a regular job? If so, we need to adapt a "fairer" tax system that is fair to all classes (rich, poor, middle class). Either a flat or fair system could work. Under a flat tax, say it was at 20% on all income (regardless of type), everyone pays the same amount. The rich would still pay a higher amount of money.

It's not as if we leave poor people hanging out in the cold. We have plenty of social programs and services to assist them in education, health care, low-income housing and assistance).

The problem Buffett exposed is that right now, in addition to having an economic system that overwhelmingly favors the wealthy, we also have a tax system that gives preferential treatment to the wealthy. And it's not that hard to see how the tax system we have has created the situation where the middle class and poor have received very little of the economic gains over the past 25 years.

And as I said - it's not that the middle class can't take advantage of some of that, but rather the scale that the middle class is capable of doing so is so much smaller than the scale that the wealthy is able to do so that the effect on a middle class family's tax rate is negligible.

Buffett doesn't buy the "disincentive" factor, and he's probably the successful individual investor in the world. And I don't either. And I don't see why "risk" should mean a smaller tax rate on the reward when losses can be written off or offset with gains. That factor is already built into the income equation.

Ding ding ding. We have a winner.

And I don't really expect to stop resenting the hell out of every dime I'm taxed until we get to that point.

And for nearly the one-hundredth time I have to point out that if you take all forms of taxation we are very close to a flat percentage rate already. A flat federal income tax will end up meaning a highly regressive total tax burden.

Galaxy: A 20% flat tax wouldn't come close to balancing the books. Even if you favor the concept of a flat tax you should realize that the rate would need to be near 30% to make it revenue neutral.

One thing to consider, you can do a tax distribution change without changing spending (in theory anyway), instead of raising taxes and raising spending, we could change distribution of that tax and fix (or even decrease spending).

As one of the articles states, the top 1% end up paying 50% of all taxes. Say the average rate comes out to 20% for each guy. Say everyone else splits the rest currently.

The simplest thing to consider, bump their taxes to 40% each. 100% of all taxes we currently collect now would be paid. This means that the other 99% of Americans could simply stop paying taxes at all, and if spending was fixed the budget balances out.

That is a bit extreme of course, but some other numbers:
Go from 20% to 30% on the top 1%: Other 99% cut their taxes in half.
Go from 20% to 25% on the top 1%: Other 99% pay one quarter less in taxes.

If you crunch your own tax numbers you are probably paying at least 30%. Would your life change dramatically from having 15% of your income or 8% returned to you?

For me personally, that would be the difference between entering that 'investor/entrepeneur' class in 5 years instead of 10 years.

Last year I was a WalMart wage slave on the verge of complete breakdown. This year I have my first patent on the way and I was involved in the most successful release my company has ever had. Big capital will always have an incentive to play the game, whether you change their marginal tax rate by 1% or 10%, they are not leaving the table (and as it is I don't see why they haven't bailed the country already if they are looking for tax havens, already they out compete us in rates so they will probably move no matter what we do...)

A change in tax distribution will either lead to a consumption boom (if you assume all the lower and middle class people are just mindless consumers) or it will free up inventive/ambitious minds to get out of the economic dead zone faster and become the leaders who will generate new industries that give people jobs. Big capital will win out by having more quality investments available to put their money behind. Everyone wins.

I was just using 20% as an example. Of course, if we reform a lot of our programs and cut spending, we could fix a lot of things.

What's to stop them now? Already there are plenty of Carribean tax havens that offer little to no taxes.


First thing, just because the rich person took the risks, doesn't mean his or her kids did.

Secondly, the system that is in place has allowed the person to make their fabulous wealth. Without such a pro-corporate system, it is unlikely that so many would be able to do so well (for comparison see the almost anarchical systems in certain countries in sub-saharan Africa). So why should they? Because they've benefited from the system that's been set up and won't exactly feel much hardship if their taxes are raised a small percentage... allowing for a better way of life for the less fortunate and a more stable society (plenty of the rich are well aware that if the disparity between rich and poor grows too much, the seeds of revolution are planted).

So wealthy people are heirs? A lot of the wealth is new money. Plus, the estate tax wacks them hard (another issue).

I guess it comes down to how we view "fairness" in our country and how we view the role of the government and it citizens.

Actually, in regards to tax havens, we are the only country that taxes all of it citizens, regardless of residency. I think the only way to get around is by gaining citizenship of another country.

IMO a lower capital gains rate only makes sense with an estate tax. That way the investment income is eventually taxed and it discourages huge accumulations of wealth that create a defacto aristocracy. I think there's a decent argument for a cut in capital gains rate so long as the estate tax balances things in the end.

For me, though, none of this is as important as an overall simplification of the tax code. I'd be in favor of cutting most deductions and credits, but I'm also cognizant enough to know that isn't going to happen.

There are plenty of wealthy people who are heirs. I mean that money has to go somewhere ;). Estate tax doesn't take all of it.

Yes, in the end, it may just be a base philosophical difference. Though, contrary to most instances, it appears you and I can discuss it rationally which appears to be a rare commodity these days :D.

I believe some European countries also taxes citizens regardless of where they may live (with offsets, of course), but for people with a lot of money, being a citizen of, say, Jamaica is no big deal. Easy enough to get a long term visa.

It's wrong to look at this as a society benefits vs. rich dudes benefit issue because society actually benefits more if the rich dudes benefit in many cases. Tax rates, and capital gains rates in particular, can't be looked at as though government tax revenue simply increases with an increase in the tax rate. A low capital gains rate encourages investment and with more investment that 15% is a piece of a much larger pie. Tax at 50% and government revenues will probably decrease because many investments are no longer worth the time, energy, or risk associated with the decreased returns. Government revenues increased with the Reagan tax cuts for just this reason, incentivizing investment and activity through lower tax rates can drive government tax revenues higher and higher.

But it's obviously very difficult to peg the perfect rate to maximize tax revenues, and there may be a strong argument that it could use a little bump. My major objection to what's being said would be that money is flowing from, in the case of Buffett, an intelligent, efficient, and generous man capable of driving social change through business investment or charity and into the hands of the inefficient, ineffective, and politically motivated bunch of morons in our government. I'd rather he just continue to do the good work he's doing with his money through the Gates Foundation and others than watch it flow to idiotic earmarks and bureaucratic waste.

+1

But there are those still advocating giving even more more money to the federal govt in the delusional hope that, somehow, they would learn to do better despite the monumental amount of evidence to the contrary.

The evidence that a revenue-neutral reapportionment of tax rates so the rich aren't getting the huge windfall they're getting in the form of lower taxes relative to the rest of us is zero. A tax hike on capital gains combined with a middle class tax cut will help the middle class and have no significant impact on the lifestyles of the wealthy.

I agree with that. More than anything else, tax changes do affect behavior and that's where a lot of people trip up (in assuming that an increase in taxation = increase in revenues with all else being equal). I want less revenues coming into Washington and definitely want less expenditures coming out. However that happens (i.e., in adjusting the tax code) are just details. But it is funny that "tax cuts for the middle class" is now an established mantra whereas in the past (among Big Govt types), any kind of tax cuts are evil.

Rearrange the tax rates with a few percentage point bump on the rich and a 10% drop for everyone else, keep revenue neutral.

Then tell the top 1% they can get a tax cut if the government reduces spending. Give the whole difference to them, I wouldn't care, I'll be happy with my 10% reduction off the top.

They've got the political muscle and lobbying, if they have an increased stake in the marginal rate of spending of the government I'll bet you they'll lobby like hell to get it reduced.

A 5% increase in capital gains is not going to push investors into the red. Especially if there is a consumer spending boom associated with 200 million plus people becoming 10% richer, stocks would probably jump for all we know.

The issue I have with Capital Gains and the estate tax, for that matter, is the stifling affect on middle class folks who have invested wisely or have built up a bit of personal wealth. My parents bought a building in the 60s. They ran a furniture store and rented offices out of that building for thirty years. They are now at a point where they want to sell their building, and completely retire. They have invested their life in that building, and to think that capital gains taxes could take a relatively huge portion of it, doesn't strike a positive chord with me. The same for people who stretched to buy a second home as an investment. To think that they might lose half or more of their investment income to a tax just doesn't seem right. I feel the same way about the estate tax. Having the government take a big chunk of taxes out of property and assets that have been taxed while they were originally earned or purchased, doesn't make much sense to me.

So while I agree that folks like Buffett and those a lot less wealthy than him could stand to pay more in taxes without any significant impact on their lives, I do have a problem with the level that many folks are willing to set that minimum income that triggers a higher rate.

But much of their earned appreciation hasn't ever been taxed. To say that an estate tax is double taxation isn't accurate. If they invested 100k and sell for 1mil there should be a tax on that 900k profit.

The same goes for the estate tax. It's designed to eliminate huge accumulations of wealth from generation to generation. I'm fine with bumping the cap to say 5mil so that it won't effect those families that are just becoming wealthy, but doing away with it ends up further entrenching wealth in the hands of a smaller and smaller number of families.

i don't mind taxes - advanced civilizations don't run on hopes and dreams, they're fueled by dollars and cents. i do, however, i mind where my tax dollars go. i wish we could simply designate what our tax dollars pay for. i don't want my tax dollars going towards the military. it costs too much to be world police. i would rather designate my tax dollars towards education and paying for law enforcement. another person could maybe earmark his tax dollars towards improving roads and healthcare. i think that's the best way to determine how big of a role we play in the world. i think people in the Middle East should rot in a slow death - insurgents, women and children alike. that entire region is a plague on humanity. i don't like knowing my tax dollars are funding this war, i would feel better being taxed knowing i could dictate exactly where my money went to. that would also prevent us from living under the monarchy we live in now (yes, this is a monarchy. "president", "king" - it's all the same). the will of the people is not heard, we have no way of influencing how our country is run. we don't even directly vote for our president.

Who's going to pay for judicial salaries and pot hole repairs?

Problem is, cutting income taxes on the middle class and such is only a short-term boost. What do the majority of Middle-to-lower Americans do with tax refunds? Spend it. Which is good for the economy, but explains why Americans in general have little to no savings and debt. You need someone to push the carts.

You make money in life, maybe not a Bills Gate or worth hundreds of millions of dollars, but you can do regardless if your middle class, poor, and wealthy. You just need to make wise decisions as to what you want to do in life (getting married and having children, starting a decision, going to college, what you buy and what you save/invest). I just don't why wealthy people are punished for making decisions that requires to put a lot on the line and a long pay-off.

I hope we move towards a more, fairer tax reform (a Fair Tax system is what I want, but that's for another debate). However, any tax reform is useless without getting change in Washington on spending.

And watch the wealthy flee.

To mean, an estate tax is basically a government holding a gun to your head and saying, "Give me half!". No one sold those assets.

I know this was probably a flippant post but I'll answer. Simplistically put, the majority of govt services should be handled by the local jurisdiction. Therefore, that's where majority of the tax dollars should go. There are many services that should be handled by the state and that's where the next sizable portion of the dollars should go. What's left is not a whole lot, as per the Constitution, and therefore the smallest percentage of our dollars should go to the feds.

You might counter that there would be some poor areas thus, poor local services. Well, despite all of the powers we have allowed the feds (not to mention the tax revenues), we still have poor areas with poor local services.

What probably makes me more angry than any other issue relating to federal powers is how they extort and blackmail the states because they have the expenditures to dole out to them. It should not be that way. We, as citizens, can have more control and accountability if our dollars are kept more locally.

Galaxy: You're right, but I believe it is in society's best interest to limit how much wealth gets accumulated in a few hands. The estate tax effects very few people and is designed to put a small brake on the development of a de facto aristocracy.

Buc: I was responding to HA. If we all get to choose where our tax dollars go the unsexy, but absolutely necessary things wouldn't get paid for. Nobody is going to check "national debt service" on their tax form.

There are already tax havens out there that easily beat the rates we have right now in the United States. What is to stop the wealthy to outsource themselves to another country to avoid costs like they have done in just about every other facet of the economy so far?

If there is some reason they are still here, would another small bump suddenly cause them to flee where they have not before?

Even under the 'fair tax' idea being floated around, the wealth will end up paying more than they do now. With the under 90K taxes factored in, or without, your average middle class American is handing over a third in taxes, while your average 'investor' class American is handing over about a sixth. If we go to a flat rate with no change in spending the middle class will pay less, and the investor class will pay more, perhaps comparable to the same percentage hike that I have been spouting already.

If you chop 10% off middle class and add 5% to the investor class we both end up with about a 20 - 25% rate.

If that scares off the investor class, as you purport a 5% increase would do, then the 'fair tax' that the rest of us will have to pay, assuming spending is constant, starts to skyrocket (instead of a third we would all being paying half our money in taxes).

Sadly, we will never be able to compete with a small island that has no infrastructure/army/real economy to support. They will gladly slash their taxes to a 10% or a 5% or even a 1% rate because it would exist to merely get a percentage of that massive fortune for their country which has no budget. Why hasn't it already come to pass?

If there is a barrier preventing people to migrate away from the U.S., take advantage of it and raise the capital gains rate a couple percentages points. It is not going to make investments suddenly become impossible... there is only a tax on gains and if you look at any calculation method I know of for evaluating an investment, the costs associated with a 1% increase in the tax is ludicrously small. Any investment you would turn down because of that increase you probably should not be making in the first place.

I'm just tired of the scare tactics and false economics quotes I keep hearing from the other side on this. If migration to non-tax countries is going to happen, there is pretty much nothing we can do about it no matter what tax rate we set. Just as with outsourcing, we cannot compete at all. And this disincentive people are talking about just doesn't make sense, just think of a very basic investment scenario and calculate just how big a tax increase it would take to make the investment not worth the risk. Crunch some numbers or reference an economics book written sometime after the 1800's and point to the crippling shutdown of the economy a capital gains tax hike would create.

Remeber, they really can't flee without paying US federal taxes for at least a few years (where they can't get citizenship).

It seems to me that there are some elasticity factors here that are being overlooked. If you raise taxes on the top 1% by 1% they aren't all going to flee to Switzerland or the Cayman Islands; there are other factors involved in their moving besides the tax rate. You might lose a few corporations but it's likely a majority of the businesses will stay. It seems that there should be a level of tax increase where these ultra rich taxpayers will be relatively location inelastic and will just gut it out and give the government more money with relatively few losses to other nations. There aren't exactly a lot of other countries with our economic model of largely free market capitalism, reasonable tax rates and easy access to a giant consumer base.

And this is just talking from a revenue neutral standpoint...it's really easy for a conversation like this to get mired down in two issues, tax distribution and overall government spending. Although I don't trust most wealthy individuals to spend their money for the public good anymore than the government does; Bill Gates and Warren Buffet seem to be the exception, not the rule. And if they aren't, heck, they can deduct half their taxable income via charitable contributions anyway. If they're truly altruistic then it shouldn't matter as much.

That's a silly thing to say unless all you watch is Entertainment Tonight. Nearly all medium to large corporations donate a percentage of their profits to local, regional and national charities.

Living in the Cayman Islands sounds like a nice dream, taxes or no taxes. :)

Yeah, it's a bit silly saying "watch the wealthy flee" when their tax rate under a few percentage point bump is still probably lower than any other major Western country. Federal rates going to even 40% (from, IIRC, 30%) is not going to make them leave. If the wealthy didn't flee when the top tax rate was 90%, why would they now?

As for saying the estate tax is government holding a gun to your head and saying "give me half", that's just a difference in political philsophies. I see it more as the government saying, now give us our fair share for creating the situation where you were allowed to accumulate your wealth.

I'm not saying that it will happen. But it will give them more incentive. The UK is getting a lot of heat from businesses and individuals threating to move out of the UK.

Aren't federal rates at 35%? The 90% tax rate was a long time. Different environment and results now.

As for the estate tax, I guess it comes down to a difference in philsophies. To mean, I think you do your fair share in paying higher taxes, creating jobs, a big part of the tax revenue (directly and non-directly through your employees taxed income and other taxes), and new products and services that benefit our society.

Good grief. It is astonishing to me that we are sitting here saying that we should basically increase the tax rates on the wealthy because they won't leave if we do.

The reason why the rich were willing to stay in the US when the tax rate was 90% was that we were much more advanced than other parts of the world and we were a much larger part of the total global economy. As time goes on, we are going to be a smaller part of the whole pie, and as other areas catch up to us, it is easier for them to justify leaving.

Why do we think that our government can cure our ills? What government service operates as we think it should with no problems? I can think of one area, and that has a relatively low amount of bureaucracy, that is the military. I guess you could throw the Post Office in there if you want, but I have issues with them as well.

I have problems with unequal enforcement of the police, I have issues with the quality of education that many people get from public schools, I have issues with the upkeep of our road system, etc. Why should I give more money to a government that is not concerned about those issues? Judging from the distributions in the government's budget, I should be more concerned with the government taking my earnings and giving it to others based upon factors such as age or income level. I earned that money and am absolutely fed up with the government taking it and putting it towards things that I don't agree with.

So you believe it's right that Warren Buffett's effective tax rate is about half of what his secretary's effective tax rate is? Because that's the issue here. It's not whether the government should increase revenues. It's about the fraud being perpetrated by conservatives that the wealthy are being overtaxed, when in fact, they are being undertaxed compared the rest of us.

even if we get to designate what portion of our taxes go to defense would be an improvement. see, there's a difference between paying for our defense, and paying for our military to act like Team America in other countries and worrying about their problems. our country acts the way it does because government will take huge scoops out of our budget for military endeavors, which is not necessary. when 25% of our homeless are retired vets, yet our defense budget is more than the GNP of some countries - something is wrong. i would like the world to know the difference when the people of America want to go to war and when a war-monger administration wants to go to war. if our presence in other countries was dictated by how much/little was in our military budget, you'd find we wouldn't be so involved in other country's affairs after all. if Iran wants to annihilate Israel - let Israel worry about it. i want American kids to have access to higher quality education. i want improved roads where i live. i want a way to help the homeless in America. these are the things i want my taxed going towards. not what benefits the security of Iraq. that area is hell on earth and we're pissing away money on a lost cause. when something wrong goes on in the world and other countries look for us to get involved, i want us to be able to say "um, sorry, not in our budget this year. maybe the American people will allot more funds to the military next year". obviously i'm not saying the military should go unfunded, i'm saying they should be given a base portion of the budget, akin to what is needed in peacetime, with the people decided how much more they'd want to designate their taxes towards the military. we should have enough in our budget for our defense, nothing more.

exactly, that's what i'm saying. i want to be able to influence where my tax dollars go.

We have a system in place for that. It's called elections.

not for president. ask Gore in 2000.

Hasn't really worked the last decade or two. Both like pork, waste, and spending (if they raise taxes or via debt).

I'm a big states-right fan. I would like to see tax rates, spending, and programs cut at the federal level. Give the the control and spending on domestic issues back to the states.

Agreed, elections haven't worked. Who was the last person you saw win who promised to cut spending across the board and actually did it?

Just because the results aren't what you would like to see doesn't mean elections don't work. Probably the reason you don't see that promise made and kept is that the majority doesn't want it to happen once specifics are discussed. Everybody's got their spending preferences, and what ends up getting spent is likely pretty damn close to being representative of the actual public priorities.

Yeah, the majority of the Americans want to stay in Iraq and continue to spend billions of dollars rebuilding their country.

Bingo! Everyone is for cutting spending and less federal control UNTIL it impacts the projects they think are great. IIRC, Michael Moore (who have many issues with, btw) went to Newt Gingrich's home district and started railing about government spending, and everyone was cheering him on as he talked about cutting pork. But then Moore went into specifics, saying funding should be cut from X road project and Y project and the crowd went silent as the people there obviously didn't want THAT cut.

So it's a bit of a hypothetically, they are for cutting government. When it comes to specifics? Not a chance. How many Congressmen campaign on bringing money back to X state? A ton of them. It's like how people view Congress. Everyone hates Congressmen and think they are all corrupt, EXCEPT for theirs.

Why should the federal govt be funding local X road project and Y project? To me, it's not that such projects should not be funding but in what the federal govt demands of the states and localities in return for funding. It would be less of a problem if 80% of a road project came from the state instead of the feds.

Most of the pork in our district goes to military. One could argue that is one of the few specific fundings allowed by the Constitution for the federal govt. But they have been trying to cut back and save, as in the huge savings promised when they consolidated the Space Command (e.g., putting NORAD on standby). Squiddy, your post is offensive to me in saying that I don't think when it comes to specifics. All Congressmen are corrupt, including ours and I don't care what they promise or able to bring money back. It is the system that is corrupt and I am an advocate for fundamental changes.

Because obviously all voters are like you in being against most funding projects :p.

A couple of years ago, we (the city) got a $1.25m grant from DHS to do something with. We wasted in conducting an emergency drill that no one learned anything from (because we already have something like it in place). But they dictated that we had to spend it and put on a show in order to say that we are prepared. Then came along other strings attached (e..g, in wanting our geographic data for free in the name security), which we have refused. They stopped sending us money.

Squiddy, I have listened to you over the years and this latest (political) change has led to me believe that you have some vested interest in ensuring expansive federal powers. Should everyone continue to believe that it's all about 'what's in it for them' and therefore, make any arguments to the contrary irrelevant? There must be some out there that wouldn't be that hypocritical - complaining about the fed's role in X but don't want anything tangible done.

Here's another good example - the latest flap about the veterans funding bill. Congress automatically starts attaching numerous riders to the bill that have dealyed its passage. The reason they give? It's always been done like this.

So, is anyone out there truly wish for change (to scale back federal powers, to bring more accountability local, to eliminate the deficit) or do you wish for business as usual?

I don't believe those two things are entirely exclusive to each other. Or mutually exclusive. Or whatever the proper phrasing would be.

What I'm getting at is this.

-- I'm not particularly wrapped up in the notion of scaling back federal powers at this point.
-- I certainly have no desire to see more control shifted to local, as I've found an even higher concentration of braindead morons in smaller governmental units than exists in larger/broader governmental units.
-- I can't say that I've ever lost a single night's sleep worrying about the deficit.

On the other hand, however, I don't believe that's entirely the same as advocating "business as usual" since funding sources and spending priorities and spending procedures are all part of the current mode of doing business where I would like to see adjustments made.

You really need a third category or option or something in there, because I believe I'm part of what would at least constitute a significant minority (if not a majority).

I am. I agree with Bucc and War Hammer. One area that could be changed somewhat quickly is foreign policy. No nation building, don't police the world! We can't afford it. The dollar is crashing, we're borrowing billions of dollars from the Chinese to pay for the Iraq war, and we're going to owe a lot of money to the baby boomers in entitlements. You can't just shut these programs down overnight because people have grown to depend on them. But you can change the foreign policy and save a lot of money there. We shouldn't be the world's police force. Over 60% of Americans want the Iraq war ended so that is a spending project that the people want cut! Not to mention leaving people alone would help prevent more September 11ths from happening. Saves lives, makes us safer, and saves money that can be spent on Americans! This is one area where the President can have a big impact without Congress because he is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces.

Americans should realize this when primary elections start in 2 months if they really want a change. Then we can work on cutting federal government spending here at home and letting people opt out of these entitlement programs. More power should then be returned to the state and local governments regarding social and economic issues.

What a load of horseshit.

Better to keep your mouth shut & let people think you a fool than to grab your keyboard and prove it.

No, it's not a load of horeshit. Believe it or not, people don't like it when we occupy their holy lands and bomb their countries!

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/...uer-1156277744

Interview with Michael Sheruer(CIA Agent and former chief of Bin Laden Unit).

"In the long run, we're not safer because we're still operating on the assumption that we're hated because of our freedoms, when in fact we're hated because of our actions in the Islamic world. There's our military presence in Islamic countries, the perception that we control the Muslim world's oil production, our support for Israel and for countries that oppress Muslims such as China, Russia, and India, and our own support for Arab tyrannies."

Ever read Bin Laden's fatwa? Search for it on the internet. He gives the same 3 reasons as Scheuer. It's a lot easier for them to recruit people to commit suicide to attack us when we've been involved in their homelands and killing their families. They would not be able to recruit anybody if we left them alone and let them live their lives. They do NOT attack us for our freedoms! That's something the neo-cons want you to believe, but it's a LIE!

Also, if we aren't invading other countries and involved in these nation building projects, we can spend money on defending this country and defending our borders with improved border security of this country and not middle eastern countries. Enforcing immigration laws would also help as the 9/11 hijackers were here on expired visas.

Now it's time for your rebuttal on why they attack us for our freedoms.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ohz0omUjIE

More from Scheuer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7aFXRAW7mg

David Cross makes fun of people who think they attack us because of our freedoms.

exactly. there is no way to spin it - we're hated for our involvement/occupation in the Middle East, not because we allow our women to wear thongs on the beach and let them vote. we'll never leave the region, but in a perfect world where the will of the people is heard and followed we'd leave the Middle East, tend to our own affairs and reap the benefits of our tax dollars. it's a vicious cycle we started ourselves. we need a big budget for defense to keep us safe from terrorism, we have terrorism because we are meddling in other country's business, we are meddling so as to keep the fight on other country's soil, we fight on other country's soil to keep us safe here in America.

Jon is so extreme and narrow in his views that i'm sure he'd feel right at home amongst Islamic radicals.

Nope, because you haven't heard me say that, now have you?
Again, nope, because that's not my approach.

They attack us because they're one of the embodiments of evil on the planet.
And the error that's been made is not recognizing that & acting accordingly.

Regardless of whether we're there, here, or living under the sea in Atlantis with utter & complete isolation, they'll still act the same way.

They're no better than rabid animals -- either actively rabid or a latent carrier -- and frankly anyone who refuses to recognize that is simply too blind or too stupid to be of any practical use.

Yep. I think he's the one who got upset when the Georgia court let the kid that got the blowjob out after 2 years in prison. So he's basically a lost cause when it comes to common sense. Unfortunately he makes up a good % of Americans who still think Iraq had something to do with 9/11 and are still being duped by the neo-cons. Don't fall for it again with Iran!

LOL at Jon's rebuttal: They're evil. :rolleyes:

This went off track.

Oy veh... all these people saying "I am!!". Please... it is time to realize you occupy a distinct minority. Or else you'd have different politicians in office. Simple as that. An old saying (paraphrased) that works here is that the people deserve the government they vote for.

Have I, Bucc, SkyDog or anyone else on this board who promotes libertarian ideas ever claim not to be in the minority? You act like you are telling us something we don't already know.

When I tried to point out to Bucc that he was a minority by saying "because all voters are like you...", Jas_lov jumped up and said "I am". Like him being like Bucc invalidated the pointed.

I said I am, not the majority of America is. Of course the majority of Americans are like you and want the government to take care of them from cradle to grave and that's what's wrong with this country. I said something like this towards the beginning of this thread.

So... what's the point in jumping up and saying "I am" when I'm trying to make a point that a vast majority of voters like the idea of cutting spending until it directly impacts them? Hence backing the point made that elections DO work. Just because they don't back your point of view doesn't mean that they don't.

Oh, and I could point out the "want the government to take care of them from cradle to grave" is as useless a political rallying cry as "you are either with us (ie, the Bush Administration) or for the terrorists", but I won't.

I heartily disagree. I cannot remember the last time a state or national election here had a third party candidate that was able to get their message out in the media. Sure, we've had some socialist and libertarian whack-jobs on the ballot, but none of the third parties have ever put up a serious candidate to threaten either of the two main parties.

The problem with the main parties is that there is too much power in the parties. You have these political machines with lifelong politicians who wait for their turn to go up to Washington and line their pockets. My choices are a) vote for a third party that isn't serious about the election, b) vote for the lesser of two evils among the main parties, or c) not vote. I'd rather hold my nose and do b, rather than a or c.

One more thing, the third parties need to stop worrying about trying to get the presidency and should focus more on winning Congressional elections. They have a bigger role to play there, and that is a realistic goal to pick up say 10 or 15 seats.

Because you made a blanket statement that all people who say they are for cutting government spending don't really mean it.

Jon, I'm going to make an attempt here to not just dismiss you as batshit crazy and try to get at where you could possibly be coming from with this extremely judgmental line of thinking.

Why exactly do you think that these people are "embodiments of evil" and are (presumably given your judgmental categorization of them) different from 'us'? Religion? Culture? And if so, why are 'we' in some way 'superior' to them, i.e. not "embodiments of evil"?

And here is the crux of the issue. It isn't necessarily that the big two parties are sooo entrenched (though with a first past the post system you usually have a "big 2"), but that third parties are really focusing on the wrong things. You realize (I'm sure you do, but I'm talking of the general "you") that 10 to 15 seats in the House would make a third party a HUGE power player as both main parties try to court them.


And generally that's the case. Hence the political system we have now.

That's exactly it though, the party would have a huge amount of power, and 10-15 seats is not unrealistic if they ever got serious about it.

Enough? Hardly, given that it's spending way beyond what it is taking in. When was the last time the US government had two consecutive balanced budgets?

I think '99 and '00, it may have been '00 and '01.

oh snap.

Over half of all tax paid is made by the top 5% of earners. The top 1% pays nearly 33% of all tax revenues. The bottom 40% doesn't pay anything at all.

I'm not a conservative, but I think this notion that the rich are somehow getting off scott-free is ridiculous. The rich pay almost all the taxes in this country. The poor don't pay anything (and use more government expenses than the rich). While there are problems with the current tax code, I don't think the issue is the rich being undertaxed. This society shouldn't be punishing people for being innovative and succesful.

That's very misleading. Sure the rich pay the majority of taxes, but they also control the bulk of wealth in the country.

Also, you're only considering the federal income tax. When you add all taxes paid we're close to a flat tax now. Consider just the SS/medicare tax. It cuts off at around 90k. It's a highly regressive tax that costs most taxpayers more than the federal income tax, but most arguments about the fairness of the tax code conveniently ignore this tax.

Life isn't an episode of 24 where you have good and bad guys. There are people with different ideas and beliefs. People with different financial and spiritual motivators. They don't commit terrorist attacks because it is programmed in their DNA and they got bored one day, they have reasons for it. Just as we have reasons for installing leaders in countries, rigging elections, or just bombing the shit out of a lot of people.

People in the Middle East hate us for a lot of reasons, many of it justified. First, Western society stormed through the Middle East hundreds of years ago, burned down cities, killed millions, and "colonized" it for their own profits. They enslaved them and exploited them for financial and in some cases spiritual reasons. From then on, the Middle East and particularly Muslims have always felt some form of enslavement by Western culture and rightfully so. Think of the Native Americans in what we now call the United States. Do you think they are pure evil?

Fast forward to the 20th Century where we overthrew democratic governments to put in brutal dictators that would sell us cheap oil. How we forced countries to pick sides with us or the Soviet Union with those not choosing us being hampered with severe sanctions. How we funded various terrorist organization, government coups and anything else to keep chaos going in the Middle East. If someone else did that to your country, would you be happy with them?

But the most ironic thing with all this is that we created all these monsters. We funded Osama Bin Laden in the 80's and gave his groups the money and weapons they needed. We supported and funded the Taliban in their fight to take over the country. We kissed the ass of Saudi Arabia (where almost all the 9/11 hijackers came from) for cheap oil. Heck, we were the ones that helped put Saddam into power.

The only one stupid is the one who has no knowledge of history. The one that doesn't understand why some of our previous actions have brewed a society of hatred for the United States.

First off, someone making over $90,000 a year every year won't need the same retirement benefits that someone who didn't make that much would need. So basically you are saying that people who make more money should pay for everyone else's social security benefits? That doesn't sound very fair to me. If you want fair, shouldn't everyone be putting in their fair share?

Even if you believe that, your statement that 40% don't pay anything is just simply wrong. The payroll tax is just one example, but you could include property taxes, sales taxes, fees, etc. if you wanted. The point is that arguing about the fairness of the tax code while only discussing one tax is dishonest.

There's also the very real issue that the payroll tax has been financing the federal budget for the past twenty years. Most people agree that those IOUs are unlikely to be paid in full, so in effect the payroll tax has been a de facto income tax.

Obviously they have enough money to keep adding more onto proposed spending bills, not to mention tons of money that goes to the ME. It's like going to Best Buy to buy a huge TV and then on the way out, throw in several laptops, a bunch of iPods and a handful of dishes so you can make a few people happy. Problem is that you have the budget and authorization to only buy the TV.