I got an idea...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by syslight

You are getting close to resonable...
first exempt the first 52k a year from each WAGE earner. no earned income credits no penalties/rewards for lifestyle choices (single, married civil union, kids.... no extra deductions.)

roll back the Johnson era "great society programs", eliminate the Roosevelt era social net and tax everybody 20% on every cent above the 52K threshold.

return to the states the social welfare programs, the education system, the endowment for the arts and allow each state to decide how they want to raise the money to pay for theses things and how they are administered.

Any department or program that is not specifically defined in the US constitution needs to be eliminated.... thus the federal government will not need all that much money, the states will need more but there will be one fewer layer of bureaucratic stupidity to pay so all the programs will cost less.

Everybody saves money we are all happier. I have nave seen the reason why one person wages is taxed at 6% or less and another's is taxed at 44% the people paying the higher amounts do not get special money or privliges... why should they be taxed differently?


alternately, we could simply tax the poor so much they get better jobs to pay their tax bill and then are not longer poor!:D

As to deficit spending ban it. the government should not be allowed to spend money that will never exist in the tax coffer... as for the debt we have now ...shake down the civil service union pension program, the members of the house and senate and the pres (including all past holders of the jobs) for every cent they have and make a payment on it once they do their part then maybe the people should be asked... the other alternative it to simply declared all the T-bills and FDR notes null and void and start all over!

one last think in this rant... every city,county,state and federal job should start at minimum wage and top out at 52K if people want more than than that they should get a job in the private sector.

---

Wow. Interesting stuff!

Billyjeff,

What gives you the idea I might not be serious? A 12 % FLAT TAX, with NO deductions and no tax shelers, would bring in a goodly sum! We're talking 12% of EVERY dollar earned in this country. And everyone would pay exactly the same tax rate. What could be more fair than that?
12 dollars on a hundred and $120,000 if you earn a million. No way to get out of paying your FAIR share. The size of the IRS could be reduced by at least 80% and the Tax Code could be printed on one 8 1/2 X 11 sheet of typing paper. Your tax return could be filed on a 3 x 5 notecard.
Most Federal Programs should be scaled WAY back. The Department of Energy was created to get us off of foreign oil. That was under Jimmy Carter. It would seem that neither of them were very effective. Carter was voted out and the Energy Department needs to be done away with. Although we DID give it almost thirty years more than we gave Carter.

:chop:

CUT THE FAT!

There's a ton of problems with your flat tax suggestion, and that's why it's never been given serious consideration.
Let's start out with the most obvious problem. Under the current (progressive) tax system, everyone who owes taxes pays the same rate within the same income strata (i.e. everyone pays the same rate on the first $10K, and then the next $20K and so on--my figures are just examples, not the actual tax numbers). The tax rate begins to escalate as the taxpayer's income goes higher, to the current max of (approx) 38%. Under the current system, folks at the lower end of the scale pay little or no income tax, the reason being if you're earning, say, $20K a year and have a wife and 2 kids to support, any tax liability would be financially devastating and beyond your financial ability to pay.
Now under your proposed system, everyone pays 12%. Unless you didn't mention exempting the lowest income earners, if they now have to pay 12% where under the present system they have little or no tax liability, guess who suffers? The folks who can least afford to pay.
But it gets worse under your proposal. This is because the wealthy, the very wealthy and the super wealthy,
who now pay significantly more that 12% of their total income, would see a HUGE reduction in their tax liability. So those who can most afford to pay taxes get a dramatic reduction. This, in turn, would result in a HUGE drop in overall revenue. As you postulated, if someone earns $1million per year in income, they'd only owe $120,000 in taxes, (as opposed to, say, $250-$300K under the current system, give or take). So the biggest winners would be the wealthy, the very wealthy, and the super wealthy, and the biggest losers would be those at the low and lowest end of the economic spectrum.
Now I suppose your response will be to "cut the fat" to make up for the drastic drop in tax revenue that would result under your proposal. Do away with, or severly scale back federal programs/agencies. Well, that's a nice idea that no one, and no political party, has been able to implement on any significant scale. Would you like to forfeit your social security benefits and retire on just whatever is in your personal savings account? Do you want to eviscerate our military with Draconian spending cuts? Do away with FEMA? NASA? The FAA? Want to leave it up to industry to police themselves in terms of medical or pharmacological safety? Want to take prescription meds that haven't been approved by the FDA? Want to leave it up to the meat industry to ensure our hamburger isn't contaminated with e-coli? Want to see the FBI budgetarily handicapped? How about if we do away with homeland security while we're at it?
If this is what you're willing to do, fine. But for me-no way.

A flat tax system sounds seductively simple; if things were truly that simple, it would have been done long ago. It would literally screw the middle and lower class wage earners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brother Jeeter

Billyjeff,

What gives you the idea I might not be serious? A 12 % FLAT TAX, with NO deductions and no tax shelers, would bring in a goodly sum! We're talking 12% of EVERY dollar earned in this country. And everyone would pay exactly the same tax rate. What could be more fair than that?
12 dollars on a hundred and $120,000 if you earn a million. No way to get out of paying your FAIR share. The size of the IRS could be reduced by at least 80% and the Tax Code could be printed on one 8 1/2 X 11 sheet of typing paper. Your tax return could be filed on a 3 x 5 notecard.
Most Federal Programs should be scaled WAY back. The Department of Energy was created to get us off of foreign oil. That was under Jimmy Carter. It would seem that neither of them were very effective. Carter was voted out and the Energy Department needs to be done away with. Although we DID give it almost thirty years more than we gave Carter.

:chop:

CUT THE FAT!

---

The Anerican middle class has supported the majority of the world for years! Let's start by buying the United Nations building and getting out of the whole thing. And the reason I say to buy the building is so that we can get he United Nations out of the US while we are getting the US out of the UN.
The UN is made up of us and everyone else, who only want to get their hands as deeply into our pockets as possible! Who needs 'em?
BTW, there are not nearly enough super rich to foot the bills for every pork barrel project that a halfwitted 84 year old Senator, or Representative might be able to dream up.
I have already mentioned the Energy Department...what has it done in the last 30 years except grow and spend dollars? Who needs it, except the people who are slopping at that particular trough?
There's a lot of fat to trim! I haven't even got started yet. Like the hundreds of thousands that were handed out to study why men like to go to strip clubs. After several years and many dollars, the study was ended and the results published. Men like to go to strip bars because a lot of guys like to drink and a lot of guys like to watch an attravtive woman take her clothes off. There is a lot of overlap in the two groups. DUH... I could have told them that and I would have only charged twenty bucks.
The existance of a lot of Federal Bureaus is indefensible. I'll grant you, some are necessary, but many are a useless drain.

Not sure if your last post was in response to mine. In any event, all that you propose, from buying the UN building to eliminating unnecessary studies, is all well and good, but please be reminded that aside from the "bone in your throat" principle as to why many want to do away with ear marks and other so-called pork barrel spending, ear marks constitute approx. 2% of the total fiscal budget for '10. So if you were to eliminate 100% of the ear marks, you wouldn't come close to putting a dent in current spending. And what the US spends on/thru the UN is meaningless in the context of a discussion about taxing/spending --the amount involved is miniscule in relation to what this country spends.

My original point remains: imposing a 12% flat tax would be a financial disaster to this country's revenue needs, and to the middle class. On the other hand, it would be an unmitigated boon to the upper incomes classes, whose tax rates would plummet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

ear marks constitute approx. 2% of the total fiscal budget for '10.

---

If I understood brother jeeter correctly, he was giving examples of things that could be cut rather than making a complete list. There is much more fat that could be cut than the UN building and earmarks.

PS it somehow bothers me when I hear you or anyone suggest that saving millions of dollars is not worth the effort as it is only a tiny percentage of the problem. Isn't this partially how the problem grows, that a few more million here and a few million more there is no big deal?

Billyjeff,

Hoglahoo is 'Zackley right. I was merely giving a FEW examples. The list was in no way comprehensive. End MOST foreign aid, deport as many illegal aliens as we can find. It may not get rid of 'em all, but every one (who is sucking up American resources and health care) is a step in the right direction. ELIMINATE ALL PORK from the budget. I don't care if Robert Byrd's name is gonna go on another building! We can't afford it.
There is a ton of C R A P in the budget.

The steps don't have to be big ones, they just have to go in the right direction.

Tom Clancy

Well, one man's pork is another man's livelihood. And while I agree with you in principle that there's much pork that can be eliminated, even if you eliminate "millions adding up to billions" my point remains the same--cuts totaling in the "billions" still won't come close to making a dent in the tax rate. As has been widely discussed, the only way of obtaining meaningful cuts in spending-the type of cuts that would have a tangible impact on what you and I pay in taxes each year, would involve reductions in entitlement programs, since they make up the overwhelming majority of the fiscal budget. Sorry-but it's not the illegal immigrants that's blowing up the budget, it's social security, medicaid, medicare, etc. So if you're willing to take a cut in your social security entitlement (current or future) by all means, please speak up. We need to hear from folks like you who are willing to do what it takes to tame this out of control entitlement beast. And if you are also willing to forgo any Medicaid or Medicare benefits (like those you or perhaps your elderly parents depend upon to help pay for their medical care and prescription drug bills) again, by all means please speak up and get your friends and relatives to do the same, cause that's where the meaningful entitlement cuts would come from.
And as to your suggestion about rounding up and deporting illegal aliens--sorry, but the costs associated with that would bust the budget!

It won't do a bit of good for me to turn on the light, when you stand there with your eyes tightly closed.
By that, I mean no matter what I suggest, "It's not enough, it's not enough..."
Perhaps not, but if we are going to get a handle on this thing, we need people who are willing to do something other than criticize the proprsed remedies.

Good night, Billyjeff.

I can assure you my eyes are fully open. If you read up on this issue, you will find the overwhelming factors contributing to the federal budget numbers we are, and have been, dealing with are entitlements. Medicaid/Medicare/Social Security. In fact Social Security represents the largest percentage of federal spending compared to all other categories, including military. Here's a link to the 2009 "pie chart" as to how federal spending is apportioned: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ycategory2.png.
The third largest category of spending, behind only military, is Medicare.
The various departments (EPA, Dept of Labor, etc) are miniscule in comparison.
So I'll say it one more time: Your suggestions about "eliminating all pork", buying the UN building, taken together won't amount to a hill of beans in terms of reigning in the federal budget. They are nothing more than "feel good" ideas. Plus, from a political perspective, there is no practical way you'll ever get a consensus about "eliminating all pork". Remember, for all the recent bellyaching by the Republicans about ear marks, fully 40% of the ear marks in the most recent budget were Republican sponsored. Republicans and Democrats will never agree to forgo all spending that funnels money into their home districts. Ain't never going to happen. So if you want to continue to vent about the small stuff, be my guest. But all that small stuff will never add up to anything of true financial significance, because when you're talking about multiple trillions in spending, millions and even billions of dollars aren't going to make a palpable impact.

So I'll throw it back to you: if we are seriously going to attempt to reduce spending, aside from going after the military, how would you propose we reduce entitlement spending? Means-testing for social security? Cuts in Medicaid/Medicare? Roll back of the prescription benefit program to the poor and elderly? Elimination of the S-CHIP health program for needy children? Do away with the recent tax reductions for the middle class? Increase taxes on wealthy Americans?
I'm open to your suggestions...