Published: Tuesday, Oct. 15 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT
Fact:"For the first time since the Korean War spending has gone down 2
yrs in a row."(Republican Rep. Dennis Ross)"..spending
almost always went up every year, at least until recently. It fell for one year
between 1964 and 1965, and then once again between 2009 and 2010.But
the only time it fell two years in a row was between 2011 and 2013."(politifact) Non-discretionary spending--(defense, SS, Medicare)
need to be addressed. Clinton raised the income cap on Medicare, the same needs
to be done for SS. We should also return to Clinton tax rates.
The real problem for America and Americans is the decision about just what kind
of world do we want to live in. Seems like all the options tried so far have
failed, Kings with their lords and ladies, Theocracy and other forms of
dictatorship, republics, democratic republics and even no government at all.
Democracy might work but it has never been tried beyond a few members. Strange
that democracy has such a terrible reputation when it has never been used.We and all the rest of the world are ruled by the whims of commercial
businessmen. And in every case where a government has failed from internal
problems, the internal problems were created by the corruption of greed of the
leaders of that government. The only solution for the ending of the
economic merry-go-round that has plagued civilization since the beginning is to
truly have government for the people, by the people.
The problem is collecting revenue not spending. We have at this point cut, cut,
cut. It is time for taxes to be raised on everyone. No one should be spared:
Rich/poor, religious/non-religious, Corporate/Non-Corporate. A government is
not like Kitchen Table economics. Spending is not the problem unless you are
willing to cut Defense by 25% minimum.
Here is an interesting question for all those that say Obama needs to stop
spending, please explain how he does that? Congress approves all spending, so
how is Obama spending too much? Congress just spent over a billion dollars on
nothing, absolutely nothing, yet you are not up in arms about that. Giving
backpay for government workers NOT WORKING.
The debt ceiling is certainly not our biggest problem. But it IS one of the
things that we must manage without blowing up the economy in the process. If you
think we have problems with the budget now, wait 'till you see what a
recession or worse does to this country's ability to pay it's
bills.Yes, definitely DO reduce government spending. But don't
blow up the Republic and use mechanisms like the sequester to accomplish this
goal. A big part of reducing the deficit is a strong economy. Just
the mediocre improvements over the past few years have done a lot to help. The
current budget fight may reduce spending, but the way it is being done runs
right over the edge of a cliff and into another recession at least.Crikey we need some adults in the room. Especially the room called the House
I cast a vote for first cutting foreign aid, which is a form of defense
spending. We try to curry favor wit quite a few regimes that are lost causes,
and with others that are merely milking us as long as they can. Then
we have what is known as entitlement spending. The first requirement for
any benefit should be citizenship, the second should be having actually paid
into the system prior to having applied for something from it. On a
completely unrelated note, this little snafu may well be an impetus to amend the
Constitution as it pertains to the workings of Congress. We live in an
electronic age. The era of using procedure and rules as a tool is as arcane
as a victrola in a disco. All votes should be on a roll call basis and
recorded, bills and issues should be kept separate, (that is, little amendments
that sneak unrelated gotcha's through), and these things should be
regulated, at least in part, by a Constitutional amendment. I think
it needs no more proof that the notion of accountability and responsibility
needs bolstering in the Congress.
"There is a point where a taxes becomes punitive, causing total revenues to
decrease. We've reached it. (People stop doing economic activities for
which they are punished.)"Well then.... Tell me how the country
did so well at times when tax rates were much higher.Yes, we are
spending too much. No doubt.But, our taxes have been much higher in
the past and the economy managed to thrive.
Why is the tea party concerned with growth? They want to shut down credit and
shrink the economy.
Is there the slightest chance that cuts in the corporate income tax and high end
personal income tax cuts have helped create deficits and debt. Remember
Bush's tax cuts while we were going to war.
A recent Businessweek article claimed that the deficit is only 4.2% of GDP, down
from over 10% in 2009. I can understand how two different analyses could yield
different values. But 4.2% vs. the 100% that this article claims? How can that
be? Somebody appears to be playing fast and loose with the truth, so many of us
don't believe that ANY of these figures can be trusted.
@JoeBlow "Tell me how the country did so well at times when tax rates were
much higher."Are you talking about marginal rates, or effective
rates? At most of the times in our history which fit your description (high
marginal rates coinciding with relative prosperity), there were also plenty of
loopholes which allowed high earners to shelter their money. Effective rates
were equal to or lower than today's rates, if you had a good tax planner --
and most of them did.But we were talking about revenue collections,
weren't we? I'll ask you this: how did government revenues fare during
the times to which you refer? Did they go up, as you seem to expect? Take a look
at the history and get back to me. I think you'll be surprised.
Bob presents the problem but offers only one solution. He pretends that there is
no such thing as raising revenue through taxes or closing loopholes. This
solution is not mentioned in his editorial at all. His comments point to his
vision of the world where the wealthy have no responsibility to improve the
society in which they live. The root of the problem is not the size of the
budget but the failure of those who earn the most to pay their share to reduce
the deficit. During the Republican administration of Dwight Eisenhower, the top
income bracket of earners over $400K was reduced from 92% to 91%. It is probably
not a coincidence but if you were to tax all income over $400K at 91% today, the
budget deficit of $1.090 trillion would be eliminated almost to the penny. The
debt was rung up by our Republican “friend” G.W. Bush. He played a
game of accounting smoke and mirrors by cutting taxes and regulations basically
gutting programs that are necessary to maintain a healthy economy resulting in
the need for an expensive clean up job that ballooned the total debt.
"Are you talking about marginal rates, or effective rates? "Regardless of how you slice it, the lowest personal tax rates under Reagan
were higher than they are today.Reagans lowest tax rate was in 1988
ant it was 28%. That was for one year. In his other years, the tax rates were
higher, with the top tax rate being 70%.However, under Reagan, the
28% top rate kicked in at $17,850 for individuals and $30,000 ($55K in
today's Dollars) for married couples.Today - the 28% tax rate
kicks in at $146000 Today's highest tax rate is 39.6% but only
for incomes over $450K.So, Yes, tax rates are lower today than in
Reagan's days. Much, Much lower than most of Reagan's tax rates.
And the country did well under Reagan.Tax rates are lower today than
under Clinton. And the country did well then also.I am not
suggesting that higher tax rates cause the country to do well, but history has
shown that today's tax rates are not an economy killer.
@JoeBlow "Regardless of how you slice it..."Actually,
"how you slice it" turns out to be very important. What matters is the
percentage of income the taxpayer actually ends up paying -- his effective tax
rate. You have completely dodged this question. We have fewer loopholes
available today than in Reagan's day.You also completely
ignored my question about revenue collections, so I'll supply the answer.
Historically, higher tax rates have not caused revenues to increase. As it turns
out, people handle their affairs differently under higher tax rates, finding
creative ways to preserve as much of their income as possible. Revenue
collections stay fairly constant as a percentage of GDP.Higher tax
rates won't solve the problem. Please look at history.
Sorry, didnt think I had to get into the dirt. I will agree that
few if any were paying the 70% rate. But, it would take huge deductions to get
to the "Effective" rates we have today.Even with Reagans 50%
top tax rate.I dont care how good your accountant is.But hey,
Convince me. Show me the deductions available under Reagan that don't
exist today.I seriously doubt that the effective rate under Reagan
was lower than today. And it darn sure was not noticeably lower.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments