Support NeoGAF

[Dreams-Visions]

Link to watch the collapse of the financial markets:

http://money.cnn.com/data/world_markets/asia/

so in about 20 minutes?

I'll be watching. We're about to see billions of losses in the market. All of which were completely avoidable.

 

[Phoenix]

Well, if every nation gets downgraded, no nation gets downgraded, so no harm no foul. Am I doing is rite?

Nah. Countries worse off than us could find themselves nearly insolvent in the process. In laymens terms its like what happened during the mortgage bubble, the people at the top could still get loans - it was harder and under more scrutiny, but the people in the middle and the bottom saw their options so drastically screwed that they ended up having to 'leave the market' through foreclosure.

 

[TheNatural]

so in about 20 minutes?

I'll be watching. We're about to see billions of losses in the market. All of which were completely avoidable.

In the meantime, some smart investors are about to gain a shitload of money, because all this is speculation and panic. Wait for the dollar to bottom out and watch some smart monetary investors buy it low, and then when it rises and stabilizes (like the market ALWAYS does), cleanup time. If I were a rich European, I would be taking the Euro next week and switching to dollars, and then back to Euro after it rises again.

 

[Phoenix]

so in about 20 minutes?

I'll be watching. We're about to see billions of losses in the market. All of which were completely avoidable.

Here is a link to the futures market from Bloomberg:

http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/stocks/futures/

 

[Phoenix]

In the meantime, some smart investors are about to gain a shitload of money, because all this is speculation and panic. Wait for the dollar to bottom out and watch some smart monetary investors buy it low, and then when it rises and stabilizes (like the market ALWAYS does), cleanup time. If I were a rich European, I would be taking the Euro next week and switching to dollars, and then back to Euro after it rises again.

Arbitrage of that sort is extremely difficult to do because the shit is all automated. The reactions in the currency market have delays but they are measured in seconds.

 

[Wall]

Nice sum up. Friedman's theories Reagan loved though, seem to have gotten way too much credit, since Reagan basically spent his way out of the 70's problems. Now that's exactly the problem. I'm not saying there's a catch all theory, sometimes you may need to adjust based on what's going on in the world, but we know what the problem is right now - it's DEBT. And from 1980-1990 debt went from 907.7 billion to 3.23 trillion.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

Of course an econ theory is going to be in favor when you spend whatever the hell you want during that timeframe and you're postponing the crunch until, well NOW.

Yeah, agree on Reagan. Since the Cold War ended ended its largely been Friedman that dominated though.

The problem now is that the Chicago School response to periods of depressed GDP and high unemployment, the Fed lowering interest rates, can't be used because they are already at zero. They keep trying to find other ways to stimulate spending, that the call "Quantitative Easing", but as far as I can tell those programs aren't really doing anything. About the only other "Chicago School" response that I could think of would be for the Fed to do a massively more advanced version of what it did to keep the financial system from collapsing, only targeted at individuals instead of banks. In other words, the would start buying up mortgages, student loans, and other types of debt that consumers carry from banks and other lenders and then either renegotiate the terms of those loans to make them less onerous to consumers, or cancel them outright. In effect, they would remove a lot of the private sector debt that is currently dragging the economy down. It would be the "demand side" solution of Chicago School economics, rather than the "supply side" solution they enacted where they just bought the worthless mortgage backed securities from the banks and loaned to them at zero interest rates in order to repair the banks' balance sheets.

I would put the likelihood of that happening at less than zero.

The only other way to remove private sector debt is the Keynesian solution, which is to have the government run at a deficit and spend money in a way that maximizes the chances that the money will land in the hands of private sector entities that can then use that money to repay their debts and spend elsewhere in the economy. Hopefully in that case the elevated economic activity would also spur businesses to expand their operations in order to meet increased demand.

Doing nothing, the Austrian solution, is basically what we did from the time our country started industrializing until 1932 or 1936. We were a young country, with cheap land and room to expand, and rapid scientific advances led to rapid leaps in technology that allowed for great technical progress, but there is a reason that parts of the period were called a "gilded age" and ideologies such as socialism and communism started to gain a foothold - the economy was simply too unstable to spread the new wealth generated by technological advances across society.

Attempts to find a "free market" solution to that problem, which we tried in the 20's, simply ended in a massive economic crash. In many ways, the history and ideas were eerily similar to what the second President Bush (and some democrats) were trying to do.

 

[Chibits12]

Funny, some of these same politicians voted so many times to increase the debt ceiling without issues during the past decade and now they're saying no? In 2004 the US Public debt was about $7 trillion. Seven years later, it's more than $14 trillion...

The United States has one of the lowest tax rates in the western world. There should be a compromise, cutting debt without raising taxes is not very realistic. It's like increasing a credit line on your credit card and not finding a way to pay them.

I think there should have been a debt deal about a week ago. It might be too little too late to calm down the global market. Worst thing could happen is people panicking and running to the banks and pulling money from investments, I highly doubt this would happen though.

 

[ReBurn]

What's even more unrealistic is thinking that you can cut debt without cutting spending. Half of that increase in public debt has happened in the last two and a half years, which shows just how out of control things are.

Raising taxes is only half of the equation. You don't need to earn more money to pay off debt. You need to spend less than you earn, which give you a surplus that can be used to pay down debt. Raising taxes would provide more revenue, but the spend-hungry politicians won't ever use it to pay down debt. They'd rather make the minimum payments on the debt.

 

[TheNatural]

Yeah, agree on Reagan. Since the Cold War ended ended its largely been Friedman that dominated though.

The problem now is that the Chicago School response to periods of depressed GDP and high unemployment, the Fed lowering interest rates, can't be used because they are already at zero. They keep trying to find other ways to stimulate spending, that the call "Quantitative Easing", but as far as I can tell those programs aren't really doing anything. About the only other "Chicago School" response that I could think of would be for the Fed to do a massively more advanced version of what it did to keep the financial system from collapsing, only targeted at individuals instead of banks. In other words, the would start buying up mortgages, student loans, and other types of debt that consumers carry from banks and other lenders and then either renegotiate the terms of those loans to make them less onerous to consumers, or cancel them outright. In effect, they would remove a lot of the private sector debt that is currently dragging the economy down. It would be the "demand side" solution of Chicago School economics, rather than the "supply side" solution they enacted where they just bought the worthless mortgage backed securities from the banks and loaned to them at zero interest rates in order to repair the banks' balance sheets.

I would put the likelihood of that happening at less than zero.

The only other way to remove private sector debt is the Keynesian solution, which is to have the government run at a deficit and spend money in a way that maximizes the chances that the money will land in the hands of private sector entities that can then use that money to repay their debts and spend elsewhere in the economy. Hopefully in that case the elevated economic activity would also spur businesses to expand their operations in order to meet increased demand.

Doing nothing, the Austrian solution, is basically what we did from the time our country started industrializing until 1932 or 1936. We were a young country, with cheap land and room to expand, and rapid scientific advances led to rapid leaps in technology that allowed for great technical progress, but there is a reason that parts of the period were called a "gilded age" and ideologies such as socialism and communism started to gain a foothold - the economy was simply too unstable to spread the new wealth generated by technological advances across society.

Attempts to find a "free market" solution to that problem, which we tried in the 20's, simply ended in a massive economic crash. In many ways, the history and ideas were eerily similar to what the second President Bush (and some democrats) were trying to do.

You're above my head on econ, I'm a little rusty, but you're right. I think the free market stuff is a nice utopia idea, but when you have companies that are literally too big to fail, or it brings everyone else down, they have to be regulated. That's one part of it.

The second part is this trickle down econ shit, is not working. In the end, the private sector is mostly for-profit organizations. You give them money, their goals is to make money, that doesn't mean they're going to try to expand their business or create new jobs. So when talking about cuts of this and that, it sure seems like some people think that if you do it for everyone it helps everyone, and that the high income sector shouldn't be taxed because it hurts business and this and that.

If they were going to create jobs, they would have been created by now, we wouldn't be in this mess of 10% unemployment, the mortgage crisis wouldn't have happened, and we wouldn't be in this situation. Yet, so many still hang onto 'same taxes for all' and 'only cuts' philosophy which I think pretty much EVERY economist from both sides says you can't do with just cuts.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Just imagine if we got a bill that raised taxes on the top 1% to 40%....and we actually spent it wisely? That alone could solve half the problem and get us on the right track.

 

[Freedom = $1.05]

Funny, some of these same politicians voted so many times to increase the debt ceiling without issues during the past decade and now they're saying no? In 2004 the US Public debt was about $7 trillion. Seven years later, it's more than $14 trillion...

The United States has one of the lowest tax rates in the western world. There should be a compromise, cutting debt without raising taxes is not very realistic. It's like increasing a credit line on your credit card and not finding a way to pay them.

I think there should have been a debt deal about a week ago. It might be too little too late to calm down the global market. Worst thing could happen is people panicking and running to the banks and pulling money from investments, I highly doubt this would happen though.

Someone has to pay for the bear patrol. We must think of the children.

Just imagine if we got a bill that raised taxes on the top 1% to 40%....and we actually spent it wisely? That alone could solve half the problem and get us on the right track.

First off, they'll move that money out of the IRS view so fast it's ridiculous. Money has no sense of patriotism. Second, the politicians aren't going to screw their buddies like that. Golf games would never be the same.

No, they'll just keep screwing with the middle class until it's nonexistent. They're getting there, slowly but surely.

 

[Phoenix]

What's even more unrealistic is thinking that you can cut debt without cutting spending. Half of that increase in public debt has happened in the last two and a half years, which shows just how out of control things are.

Raising taxes is only half of the equation. You don't need to earn more money to pay off debt. You need to spend less than you earn, which give you a surplus that can be used to pay down debt. Raising taxes would provide more revenue, but the spend-hungry politicians won't ever use it to pay down debt. They'd rather make the minimum payments on the debt.

Well you really have to do both. I've been labelled 'evil' by suggesting to people that taxes are too low... they are, but at the same time you have to cut spending too. There are tons of places where you can make cuts from the budget and you don't need to make THAT big a change in the tax code to generate absurd amounts of additional revenue such that the average joe wouldn't notice.

 

[Slavik81]

Don't buy into the media hype. Much of the anxiety people are feeling is the result of attempted ratings grabs by news outlets.

No, it's really not. This has been brewing for months and has been warned about since the beginning of the year, if not earlier.

The anxiety has been growing as what once was a distant possibility has new become a keen reality.

What's even more unrealistic is thinking that you can cut debt without cutting spending. Half of that increase in public debt has happened in the last two and a half years, which shows just how out of control things are.

Raising taxes is only half of the equation. You don't need to earn more money to pay off debt. You need to spend less than you earn, which give you a surplus that can be used to pay down debt. Raising taxes would provide more revenue, but the spend-hungry politicians won't ever use it to pay down debt. They'd rather make the minimum payments on the debt.

What plan are you referring to? Because I don't know of any plan on the table that is not driven heavily by spending cuts.

 

[LQX]

I thought me and my friends were all having a laugh at the expense of democrats but my g-d, Obama is really on path to destroying this country. I don't like the games either side is playing though.

 

[TheNatural]

What's even more unrealistic is thinking that you can cut debt without cutting spending. Half of that increase in public debt has happened in the last two and a half years, which shows just how out of control things are.

Raising taxes is only half of the equation. You don't need to earn more money to pay off debt. You need to spend less than you earn, which give you a surplus that can be used to pay down debt. Raising taxes would provide more revenue, but the spend-hungry politicians won't ever use it to pay down debt. They'd rather make the minimum payments on the debt.

The #1 reason for the debt increase recently has without a doubt been the Bush era tax cuts. It's really drove debt up a ridiculous amount the past few years. Pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan and ending the Bush era tax breaks would almost single handedly stop the debt shortfall over the next several years.

A little old, but I'm sure this has been posted before:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html

 

[Veezy]

I thought me and my friends were all having a laugh at the expense of democrats but my g-d, Obama is really on path to destroying this country. I don't like the games either side is playing though.

Please explain, clearly, how President Obama, who publicly proposed a plan with three trillion plus in cuts over ten years and 1.2 trillion in revenue increases that don't violate Grover Norquist's insane pledge, are destroying the country.

I'm, honestly, curious.

EDIT: I'll make it easier. Obama is willing to sign off on raising the debt ceiling into 2013 without any adjustments. There are several members of the House, mostly GOP/Tea Party, who don't want to raise it at all cause a global financial meltdown. How, in this respect, is it Obama’s fault?

 

[ReBurn]

Well you really have to do both. I've been labelled 'evil' by suggesting to people that taxes are too low... they are, but at the same time you have to cut spending too. There are tons of places where you can make cuts from the budget and you don't need to make THAT big a change in the tax code to generate absurd amounts of additional revenue such that the average joe wouldn't notice.

You're right. I've caught a lot of flak for suggesting that the answer is both spending cuts and increases in taxes for all Americans. I hate hearing people say that funding cuts to entitlement programs is draconian or some other hyperbolic term. Much of the spend in these programs is on the cost of bureaucracy, not the actual benefits paid to people. Eliminating waste in government could offset a lot of the need to raise taxes, but probably not all of it.

The #1 reason for the debt increase recently has without a doubt been the Bush era tax cuts. It's really drove debt up a ridiculous amount the past few years. Pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan and ending the Bush era tax breaks would almost single handedly stop the debt shortfall over the next several years.

A little old, but I'm sure this has been posted before:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html

I think that's a rather narrow view of the problem. The Bush tax cuts and defense spending seem to be the #1 battle cry of people wanting to blame Republicans for this mess, but what about Obama's new spending? The government has been spending money faster than ever before under his administration, and that's not spending directly related to war. He likes to say it's because of Bush, but it isn't all Bush. This article has a lot of good stuff in it that you can draw your own conclusions from:

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/25/133211508/the-weekly-standard-obama-vs-bush-on-debt

This isn't a one-sided problem and Obama and the Democrats need to accept their fair share of the blame. Democrats didn't stand up to Bush when they controlled Congress at the end of his term and let that wartime spending get out of hand. They didn't do anything to keep spending in check during Obama's first two years. They simply gave him a blank check, which he spent freely.

Regardless of the cause, what matters is how it is dealt with now.

 

[sangreal]

What's even more unrealistic is thinking that you can cut debt without cutting spending. Half of that increase in public debt has happened in the last two and a half years, which shows just how out of control things are.

Raising taxes is only half of the equation. You don't need to earn more money to pay off debt. You need to spend less than you earn, which give you a surplus that can be used to pay down debt. Raising taxes would provide more revenue, but the spend-hungry politicians won't ever use it to pay down debt. They'd rather make the minimum payments on the debt.

Nobody is trying to reduce the debt without cutting spending though?

Cutting the deficit isn't required to raise the debt ceiling though. Even Paul Ryan's plan to replace Medicare would require a debt ceiling increase. If you could realistically cut spending to the point of a surplus there would be no need to raise the debt ceiling at all.

 

[Chibits12]

Reburn I agree with you about cutting spending and that is one of the main issue, how do we prevent lobbyists and politicians from doing just that? It goes on from both parties and it'll just keep going and going. Increase the debt ceiling and the cycle continues.

I'm not advocating a full blown tax increase for the masses but maybe revising the tax code? Then again, that would also open a whole new can of worms.

Also unless the freshmen Tea Party occupiers of the House of the Representatives agree to letting the Bush era tax cuts expire, that will be slim to none.

 

[UltimaPooh]

You're right. I've caught a lot of flak for suggesting that the answer is both spending cuts and increases in taxes for all Americans. I hate hearing people say that funding cuts to entitlement programs is draconian or some other hyperbolic term. Much of the spend in these programs is on the cost of bureaucracy, not the actual benefits paid to people. Eliminating waste in government could offset a lot of the need to raise taxes, but probably not all of it.

But takes also need to be raised... and cutting entitlement programs aren't really an answer either when you can easily take a scalpel to the U.S. Military.

 

[Piecake]

The only way i see this happening is spending cuts, uncapping the social security tax (why that is capped is beyond me), and raising taxes on people making over 350K. That should hopefully put us in a less precarious position at least

 

[polyh3dron]

I thought me and my friends were all having a laugh at the expense of democrats but my g-d, Obama is really on path to destroying this country. I don't like the games either side is playing though.

u be tr-llin

 

[Averon]

But takes also need to be raised... and cutting entitlement programs aren't really an answer either when you can easily take a scalpel to the U.S. Military.

Pretty much. Any plan that doesn't involve revenue increases and military cuts won't bring the debt down. And that's exactly what is happening. All the plans put forth involving entitlement spending cuts (which is needed). No new revenue; no cuts to defense.

 

[sangreal]

You're right. I've caught a lot of flak for suggesting that the answer is both spending cuts and increases in taxes for all Americans. I hate hearing people say that funding cuts to entitlement programs is draconian or some other hyperbolic term. Much of the spend in these programs is on the cost of bureaucracy, not the actual benefits paid to people. Eliminating waste in government could offset a lot of the need to raise taxes, but probably not all of it.

The problem is that Medicare (Part A) and Social Security are self-funded. Making cuts to those programs to pay for other programs is looting money people paid into those programs for their benefits. I don't think anyone has a problem with reforming them to ensure their long-term viability, separate from other budget discussions.

 

[Xyrmellon]

Please explain, clearly, how President Obama, who publicly proposed a plan with three trillion plus in cuts over ten years and 1.2 trillion in revenue increases that don't violate Grover Norquist's insane pledge, are destroying the country.

What plan? Nothing is on paper. Nothing went to congress, because Pelosi and Reid won't go along with it. The republican plan failed to pass the senate by only 5 votes. Rather than compromise on this, the democrats forced a quick vote and said that plan will not be considered again. I think Obama and Boehner could get a compromise deal done themselves, but their own parties won't budge on their positions.

 

[outunderthestars]

The #1 reason for the debt increase recently has without a doubt been the Bush era tax cuts. It's really drove debt up a ridiculous amount the past few years. Pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan and ending the Bush era tax breaks would almost single handedly stop the debt shortfall over the next several years.

A little old, but I'm sure this has been posted before:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html

That tool is really enlightening!

I solved it by rolling taxes back to Clinton era levels, reducing military spending, and increasing the retirement age to 70.

 

[DayShallCome]

The thing I don't completely understand is why the "rich" get so much hate in all of this.

Raise taxes on the rich (exclusively)? Why? They already pay more (% wise) than the rest of us (the entire idea of our graduated taxation scheme). It seems pretty ridiculous to say "well, let's just up the tax on the very rich to 40%." How is that reasonable?

That said, I'd argue that the Bush tax cuts were done in bad faith - our budget was not balanced at that point, and it was pretty reckless to lower taxes in that situation.

I LOVED the gang-of-six plan (though I'd love for them to go even farther with tax reform) - it'd be great to just remove all tax breaks and exemptions. Wouldn't it be amazing to be able to figure out your taxes in 10 minutes?

 

[sangreal]

What plan? Nothing is on paper. Nothing went to congress, because Pelosi and Reid won't go along with it.

No, that would be because Boehner withdrew his support.

The republican plan failed to pass the senate by only 5 votes.

In fantasy land where you need 51 votes to pass a bill in the Senate. Even then you have to ignore the extraordinary requirements to pass a constitutional amendments. Oops.

Rather than compromise on this, the democrats forced a quick vote and said that plan will not be considered again. I think Obama and Boehner could get a compromise deal done themselves, but their own parties won't budge on their positions.

There are plenty of moderate Republicans and Democrats that would vote for a balanced solution. Boehner refuses to advance anything that doesn't cater to the Tea Party, which has sworn not to accept any deal.

 

[UltimaPooh]

The thing I don't completely understand is why the "rich" get so much hate in all of this.

Raise taxes on the rich (exclusively)? Why? They already pay more (% wise) than the rest of us (the entire idea of our graduated taxation scheme). It seems pretty ridiculous to say "well, let's just up the tax on the very rich to 40%." How is that reasonable?

How is it reasonable that they have a ridiculous amount of wealth as well?

 

[Evlar]

Raise taxes on the rich (exclusively)? Why?

Because they're rich. They can afford it.

 

[TacticalFox88]

The thing I don't completely understand is why the "rich" get so much hate in all of this.

Raise taxes on the rich (exclusively)? Why? They already pay more (% wise) than the rest of us (the entire idea of our graduated taxation scheme). It seems pretty ridiculous to say "well, let's just up the tax on the very rich to 40%." How is that reasonable?

That said, I'd argue that the Bush tax cuts were done in bad faith - our budget was not balanced at that point, and it was pretty reckless to lower taxes in that situation.

I LOVED the gang-of-six plan (though I'd love for them to go even farther with tax reform) - it'd be great to just remove all tax breaks and exemptions. Wouldn't it be amazing to be able to figure out your taxes in 10 minutes?

Those who have over 90 percent of the wealth should have 90 percent of the sacrifice.

 

[sangreal]

The thing I don't completely understand is why the "rich" get so much hate in all of this.

Raise taxes on the rich (exclusively)? Why? They already pay more (% wise) than the rest of us (the entire idea of our graduated taxation scheme). It seems pretty ridiculous to say "well, let's just up the tax on the very rich to 40%." How is that reasonable?

They can afford it, and taxes on the rich are at historical lows by a large, LARGE margin. Also, with the US tax scheme, we are only talking about increasing taxes on the money earned over a certain amount. The first $250k, 350k, 1MM or whatever would be taxed the same as it is today.

That said, I'd argue that the Bush tax cuts were done in bad faith - our budget was not balanced at that point, and it was pretty reckless to lower taxes in that situation.

Well the budget was balanced until they passed the reckless tax cuts

 

[TheNatural]

The thing I don't completely understand is why the "rich" get so much hate in all of this.

Raise taxes on the rich (exclusively)? Why? They already pay more (% wise) than the rest of us (the entire idea of our graduated taxation scheme). It seems pretty ridiculous to say "well, let's just up the tax on the very rich to 40%." How is that reasonable?

That said, I'd argue that the Bush tax cuts were done in bad faith - our budget was not balanced at that point, and it was pretty reckless to lower taxes in that situation.

I LOVED the gang-of-six plan (though I'd love for them to go even farther with tax reform) - it'd be great to just remove all tax breaks and exemptions. Wouldn't it be amazing to be able to figure out your taxes in 10 minutes?

Probably because the rich can afford it, they made their wealth off the backs of the American free market system, and should pay for it in kind. If I show up to a ball game and pay $100 a ticket for a shitty event, I don't have an option for a refund, they're taking advantage of the free market system here - so they should get higher taxes IMO.

 

[Izayoi]

Raise taxes on the rich (exclusively)? Why?

You're joking, right?

 

[outunderthestars]

The thing I don't completely understand is why the "rich" get so much hate in all of this.

Raise taxes on the rich (exclusively)? Why? They already pay more (% wise) than the rest of us (the entire idea of our graduated taxation scheme). It seems pretty ridiculous to say "well, let's just up the tax on the very rich to 40%." How is that reasonable?

That said, I'd argue that the Bush tax cuts were done in bad faith - our budget was not balanced at that point, and it was pretty reckless to lower taxes in that situation.

I LOVED the gang-of-six plan (though I'd love for them to go even farther with tax reform) - it'd be great to just remove all tax breaks and exemptions. Wouldn't it be amazing to be able to figure out your taxes in 10 minutes?

They received 98% of all new wealth created since 1980 but have had their taxes cut. The current system is destroying the middle class, which is vital for a healthy economy.

By rolling back just the Bush tax cuts to the top 2% we can generate 54 billion a year in revenue.

Close the mortgage interest deduction for the top 10% and we get another $25 billion.

add a 5.4% surtax on incomes over a million and you get another $50 billion.


$129 billion in new revenue, just by going back to our old tax codes.... That is almost one third of our shortfall.

Reform the estate tax and get us out of the foreign wars while cutting the overall size of the military and you add $170 billion to that. Now we're 75% of the way done.....

The Republicans have cut taxes on the wealthy in almost every possible way. They are trying to starve the government into making massive cuts that are not necessary.

 

[Xyrmellon]

You guys keep forgetting about the corporate jets!! That's all I hear on the news, corporate jets, corporate jets, CORPORATE JETS!!!

 

[Veezy]

The thing I don't completely understand is why the "rich" get so much hate in all of this.

Raise taxes on the rich (exclusively)? Why? They already pay more (% wise) than the rest of us (the entire idea of our graduated taxation scheme). It seems pretty ridiculous to say "well, let's just up the tax on the very rich to 40%." How is that reasonable?

That said, I'd argue that the Bush tax cuts were done in bad faith - our budget was not balanced at that point, and it was pretty reckless to lower taxes in that situation.

I LOVED the gang-of-six plan (though I'd love for them to go even farther with tax reform) - it'd be great to just remove all tax breaks and exemptions. Wouldn't it be amazing to be able to figure out your taxes in 10 minutes?

It's simple:

The rich, frankly, benefit more from American society and it's laws than the poor do, specially that we’re an incredibly low tax country with a huge military and a piss poor regulated market. Despite this, their money doesn't go back into the country they benefit so much from, since they finance politicians who fight hard to keep taxes low on the premise that low taxes create jobs.

This theory, of course, is shown by the extreme amount of jobs that were totally created via the Bush tax cuts and all the amazing salary raises I, and my lower middle class brethren, have received. That last statement was sarcasm.

So, the rich are doing well and corporations are making record breaking profits. The middle class and the poor are not doing so well. It's during times like these that the most wealthy among us should be asked to step up and help take care of shit, considering that our middle class money is what takes care of them.

Or, I'm bitter because they're doing better than me and I bust my ass 60 hours a week.

Edit: Xyrmellon: Ya know, you can write off a jet as a business expense, right? I mean, it's not a huge ammount of money in the grand scheme of things, but don't you think that's a little, I don't know, fucked up?

 

[Lamel]

Dude as long as I have my incandescent bulbs I'm gonna be great, just fucking great.


Retards run our country.

 

[Razorwind]

They received 98% of all new wealth created since 1980 but have had their taxes cut. The current system is destroying the middle class, which is vital for a healthy economy.

By rolling back just the Bush tax cuts to the top 2% we can generate 54 billion a year in revenue.

Close the mortgage interest deduction for the top 10% and we get another $25 billion.

add a 5.4% surtax on incomes over a million and you get another $50 billion.


$129 billion in new revenue, just by going back to our old tax codes.... That is almost one third of our shortfall.

Reform the estate tax and get us out of the foreign wars while cutting the overall size of the military and you add $170 billion to that. Now we're 75% of the way done.....

The Republicans have cut taxes on the wealthy in almost every possible way. They are trying to starve the government into making massive cuts that are not necessary.

And the rich are just going to say "Oh, 2%? Ok, here you go."
While it is easy to see the extra tax revenue, we would definitely see a larger outflow of money out of the US as the rich utilize even more tax havens to park their assets under. Let's ignore the potential lobbying that might happen, it is rather hard as it is to raise taxes to anyone, let alone foxes that have significant control over the media.

Meanwhile, just for laughs, someone has to own those corporate jets and show that America is the place to get filthy rich.

 

[dabig2]

Dude as long as I have my incandescent bulbs I'm gonna be great, just fucking great.


Retards run our country.

Definitely one of if not THE worst session of Congress in the history of America. Shit will go down in infamy when we look back at it 10 years from now and laugh

Spoiler

cry

 

[TheNatural]

It's simple:

The rich, frankly, benefit more from American society and it's benefits then the poor do, specially that we’re an incredibly low tax country with a huge military and a piss poor regulated market. Despite this, their money doesn't go back into the country they benefit so much from, since they finance politicians who fight hard to keep taxes low on the premise that low taxes create jobs.

This theory, of course, is shown by the extreme amount of jobs that were totally created via the Bush tax cuts and all the amazing salary raises I, and my lower middle class brethren, have received. That last statement was sarcasm.

So, the rich are doing well and corporations are making record breaking profits. The middle class and the poor are not doing so well. It's during times like these that the most wealthy among us should be asked to step up and help take care of shit, considering that our middle class money is what takes care of them.

Or, I'm bitter because they're doing better than me and I bust my ass 60 hours a week.

Preach on. A better example is say Apple, and all the people that work for Apple at the top and the money they make.

The free market system gives them a place to sell their product country wide to make profit. Even moreso, the American Judicial system provides them protection for their likeness and products, and prevents others from reverse engineering their product and selling it with the same exact likeness and materials at a cheaper price.

So my philosophy is, everyone who makes a ton of money, be it in consumer products, or pharmaceuticals, or whatever else - they're taking advantage of a protection of the US Government to GET that money. Hell its a protection that if I go buy a product that goes bad, that I can't go to the maker or owner of the company and beat the living shit out of them with a baseball bat for stealing my money on a product I'm not satisfied with.

That's my main philosophy on taxing the rich. They have their millions based on the protections, and hell, even flaws of the government. You're the ones who most benefit, so you should be the ones to pay the most percentage wise.

 

[Xyrmellon]

I know things can change on a dime, but the Nikkei is down half a percent right now. Hardly armageddon. Before you say it isn't going to start Monday, some people on here have said just that.

 

[Wall]

Most of the deficit over the short term is caused by the Bush tax cuts, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the revenue shortfalls and associated spending increases in fiscal stabilizers such as unemployment benefits resulting from the recession. Letting the Bush tax cuts expire, winding down the wars, and stimulating the economy so that it returns to full employment will largely fix these contributors to the deficit.

Over the long term, Social Security will go into a deficit and need to start dipping into its trust fund in order to keep paying out benefits sometime towards the end of this decade, and become unable to pay benefits as mandated by law sometime in the early 2040's. We can fix this problem by lifting the cap on payroll taxes.

Medicare and Medicaid will continue to contribute the deficit because medical expenses in general are rising and the amount of people using those programs is increasing. We definitely need to find ways to save money here. There are two bits of good news here though. One bit of good news is that there are plenty of examples of countries around the world who do this, manage to provide universal coverage to their citizens, and have health outcomes that are just as good or even better than ours. The other bit of goods news is that the Affordable Care Act already has measures that start to address this issue.

 

[outunderthestars]

And the rich are just going to say "Oh, 2%? Ok, here you go."
While it is easy to see the extra tax revenue, we would definitely see a larger outflow of money out of the US as the rich utilize even more tax havens to park their assets under. Let's ignore the potential lobbying that might happen, it is rather hard as it is to raise taxes to anyone, let alone foxes that have significant control over the media.

Meanwhile, just for laughs, someone has to own those corporate jets and show that America is the place to get filthy rich.

So we don't do it because they could fight it or cheat? They seems rather absurd...

By simply returning those making $250,000 or more to Clinton era levels for income and estate taxes, and removing the mortgage deduction, we can close the revenue gap by 50%

It seems more absurd not to do it...

 

[SoulPlaya]

People need to stop with this "raise income tax to 40%" BS. All you'll be doing is hammering on upper middle class professionals. If you really want to tax the rich, then you need to tax capital gains more. That's how the top 400 earners in the country are paying something like 14% in taxes.

 

[DayShallCome]

They received 98% of all new wealth created since 1980 but have had their taxes cut. The current system is destroying the middle class, which is vital for a healthy economy.

By rolling back just the Bush tax cuts to the top 2% we can generate 54 billion a year in revenue.

Close the mortgage interest deduction for the top 10% and we get another $25 billion.

add a 5.4% surtax on incomes over a million and you get another $50 billion.


$129 billion in new revenue, just by going back to our old tax codes.... That is almost one third of our shortfall.

Reform the estate tax and get us out of the foreign wars while cutting the overall size of the military and you add $170 billion to that. Now we're 75% of the way done.....

The Republicans have cut taxes on the wealthy in almost every possible way. They are trying to starve the government into making massive cuts that are not necessary.

Agreed - the Bush tax cuts were done in bad faith, and it seems reasonable to revert back to them.

 

[outunderthestars]

People need to stop with this "raise income tax to 40%" BS. All you'll be doing is hammering on upper middle class professionals. If you really want to tax the rich, then you need to tax capital gains more. That's how the top 400 earners in the country are paying something like 14% in taxes.

People making $250,000 or more are not upper middle class.

Bush's theory that jobs will be created by reducing income, estate, and capital gains taxes is a complete failure. It's time to abandon it.

 

[Volimar]

Please GAFers, register and VOTE!!

 

[SoulPlaya]

People making $250,000 or more are not upper middle class.

Maybe so, but my point still stands. If you want to go after "corporate jet riders", then you must go after capital gains.

 

[Piecake]

Most of the deficit over the short term is caused by the Bush tax cuts, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the revenue shortfalls and associated spending increases in fiscal stabilizers such as unemployment benefits resulting from the recession. Letting the Bush tax cuts expire, winding down the wars, and stimulating the economy so that it returns to full employment will largely fix these contributors to the deficit.

Over the long term, Social Security will go into a deficit and need to start dipping into its trust fund in order to keep paying out benefits sometime towards the end of this decade, and become unable to pay benefits as mandated by law sometime in the early 2040's. We can fix this problem by lifting the cap on payroll taxes.

Medicare and Medicaid will continue to contribute the deficit because medical expenses in general are rising and the amount of people using those programs is increasing. We definitely need to find ways to save money here. There are two bits of good news here though. One bit of good news is that there are plenty of examples of countries around the world who do this, manage to provide universal coverage to their citizens, and have health outcomes that are just as good or even better than ours. The other bit of goods news is that the Affordable Care Act already has measures that start to address this issue.

Totally agree

As for our health care, everyone should check out these podcasts to find out how totally fucked up our system is right now

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/391/more-is-less

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/392/someone-elses-money

After listening to them, I find it absolutely hilarious when people say that a govt run health care system is inefficient, cumbersome, and bureaucratic waste of a nightmare. That's what i would describe our system now! reducing it down to one provider, one system, one everything would make it infinitely more efficient!

They also suggest that going the other route would be much better than our current one, a straight up pay as you need. I'm not really in favor of that though since it sucks for the poor and can totally screw over low income, hard working folks if they get a serious long term injury or illness

I also find it absolutely absurd that the payroll tax on social security is capped. Makes no freakin sense