Budget Cuts ? UNACCEPTABLE ANSWER

Protectionist · Dec 30, 2012

Aren't you tired of hearing some government worker telling you the reason your service has been reduced (or eliminated) is because of budget cuts ? They say it as if we are all supposed to say "Oh yeah, we understand. It's OK".

Well EARTH TO PUBLIC OFFICIALS: No, it's NOT OK. And budget cuts are not an acceptable reason for cutting back service. And the reason why they're not acceptable, is because there's no need for budget cuts. In fact, government budgets ought to be INCREASED, not decreased. All that is necessary is for taxes on the very rich to be raised to NORMAL levels as they have been over most of the past 95 years, when the top US tax rate was never less than 70%, and varied up to 94%. Close the loopholes, restore the normal taxation, and there will be plenty of money for Social Security, Medicare, Food Stamps, infrastructure repair, the military, ICE and border patrol agents, the Mexican border fence, and everything else.

There's no reason why a movie star with a gross income of $100 million/year has to have a unusually low tax rate of 35% (if he even pays that much). Stop coddling the spoiled brat super rich, and restore normalcy in this country. The whole country is going to the dogs. It's time for budget HIKES.

myp · Dec 30, 2012

You can't always expand budgets- you end up with issues like Greece is dealing with.

Also, you don't seem to understand the concept of the Laffer curve and you don't acknowledge various philosophical and economic arguments for what is fair or even utility-maximizing taxation. Not surprising considering you think Reagan of all people is the central figure of supply side theory.

andrew320 · Jan 3, 2013

I don't know where I should begin:

- Government budgets should not be raised period. Have you seen the federal and state budget deficits and debts? Major cuts have to be made in all departments immediately.

- Raising taxes is only a short-term measure, but it will fail in the long run. There are many instances to suggest that raising taxes on the wealthy doesn't work. Also, if you tax 100 percent millionaires and billionaires it would only fund the government for an additional four months.

- If I earn money, why should I give it to a bureaucrat that is just going to waste it? Remember, nobody spends somebody else’s money as wisely as their own. Whether you like the celebrities or not, a lot of them donate to charity and take part in good causes. Look at Brad Pitt in New Orleans, how many houses did he build compared to the government?

- The whole country is going to the dogs, but budget cuts must transpire first in order for it to get better, which won't happen. $121 trillion in unfunded liabilities and expenditures will not be paid for anytime soon!

tecoyah · Jan 3, 2013

In a balanced approach of taxation and moderate austerity, we will (in time) come back into balance...the key seems to be a patient approach to the complex and slow aspect of any economy.

Yes we will need to revise the way we deal with government support.

Yes we will need to revise the way we financially support the things we "Need" as a society.

More importantly, we will need to grow up and understand these will not make everything better next week....fundamental change takes awhile to have effect.

chris7375 · Jan 3, 2013

Protectionist said:
Aren't you tired of hearing some government worker telling you the reason your service has been reduced (or eliminated) is because of budget cuts ? They say it as if we are all supposed to say "Oh yeah, we understand. It's OK".

Well EARTH TO PUBLIC OFFICIALS: No, it's NOT OK. And budget cuts are not an acceptable reason for cutting back service. And the reason why they're not acceptable, is because there's no need for budget cuts. In fact, government budgets ought to be INCREASED, not decreased. All that is necessary is for taxes on the very rich to be raised to NORMAL levels as they have been over most of the past 95 years, when the top US tax rate was never less than 70%, and varied up to 94%. Close the loopholes, restore the normal taxation, and there will be plenty of money for Social Security, Medicare, Food Stamps, infrastructure repair, the military, ICE and border patrol agents, the Mexican border fence, and everything else.

There's no reason why a movie star with a gross income of $100 million/year has to have a unusually low tax rate of 35% (if he even pays that much). Stop coddling the spoiled brat super rich, and restore normalcy in this country. The whole country is going to the dogs. It's time for budget HIKES.

No not really in all retrospect I believe the Fed takes on way more then it should and should cut back on what programs it offers. I believe the states should pick up if they so choice to whatever programs they would like to continue.

90 percent of the Federal Budget could be cut and we would save plenty of money. Get rid of the useless Department that take up space for no reason.

The only programs that the Fed should continue is SSI, and Medicare. Welfare, HUD, Cash Assistance and so on should either be run by each individual state or given to charities to handle the poor's needs.

With an 80 to 20 ratio and Charities the 20 I would go with charity.

Protectionist · Jan 3, 2013

myp said:
You can't always expand budgets- you end up with issues like Greece is dealing with.

Also, you don't seem to understand the concept of the Laffer curve and you don't acknowledge various philosophical and economic arguments for what is fair or even utility-maximizing taxation. Not surprising considering you think Reagan of all people is the central figure of supply side theory.

Sure I know about the Laffer Curve, I taught economics at 3 colleges of the City University of New York for 4 years. The Laffer curve is similar to the bell shaped curve of prices vs business income. Unlike that true curve, however the Laffer curve does not have a true basis.

It's premise is at the extreme of a 100% tax rate, the government theoretically collects zero revenue because taxpayers change their behavior in response to the tax rate: either they have no incentive to work or they find a way to avoid paying taxes. Thus, the "economic effect" of a 100% tax rate is to decrease the tax base to zero. If this is the case, then somewhere between 0% and 100% lies a tax rate that will maximize revenue.

In reality, if taxes were raised to 92% (on the top bracket), or say 70%, the super rich might go through some of these changes temporarily, but as the new rates become more familiar, the greed freaks will likely settle down, and adjust their consumption behavior as much or more than their shock at the "new" rates. And I put the word "new"in quotation marks, because it is only the young rich to whom these rates will seem excessive. Older richies will remember the 91-92% rates of the 1950s and 60s, and the rates of 70% right up to the 80s.

As far as incentive to work, once their materialistic lunacy comes down to earth, they'll be quite content with a 30 % share of their gross. It's not to tough for a guy like Johnny Depp to get to like $30 Million/year (especially when he knows what real workers are receiving out there).

As for "fair", I'm fine with my assessment of that, and utility-maximizing I suspect is a new term for something I'm familiar with, but know by another name. Could you clarify ? As for central figure ? Who cares who is ?

Protectionist · Jan 3, 2013

chris7375 said:
No not really in all retrospect I believe the Fed takes on way more then it should and should cut back on what programs it offers. I believe the states should pick up if they so choice to whatever programs they would like to continue.

90 percent of the Federal Budget could be cut and we would save plenty of money. Get rid of the useless Department that take up space for no reason.

The only programs that the Fed should continue is SSI, and Medicare. Welfare, HUD, Cash Assistance and so on should either be run by each individual state or given to charities to handle the poor's needs.

With an 80 to 20 ratio and Charities the 20 I would go with charity.

I don't see Social Security in your list. You would eliminate Social Security ? That would be crazy.

As for 90% of the federal budget being cut, cut by how much ?

Protectionist · Jan 3, 2013

andrew320 said:
I don't know where I should begin:

- Government budgets should not be raised period. Have you seen the federal and state budget deficits and debts? Major cuts have to be made in all departments immediately.

- Raising taxes is only a short-term measure, but it will fail in the long run. There are many instances to suggest that raising taxes on the wealthy doesn't work. Also, if you tax 100 percent millionaires and billionaires it would only fund the government for an additional four months.

- If I earn money, why should I give it to a bureaucrat that is just going to waste it? Remember, nobody spends somebody else’s money as wisely as their own. Whether you like the celebrities or not, a lot of them donate to charity and take part in good causes. Look at Brad Pitt in New Orleans, how many houses did he build compared to the government?

- The whole country is going to the dogs, but budget cuts must transpire first in order for it to get better, which won't happen. $121 trillion in unfunded liabilities and expenditures will not be paid for anytime soon!

I would agree with certain things being cut, starting with all welfare money going to illegal alien families via the anchor baby racket. Another lunacy is watching these rover vehicles hopping pointlessly around Mars. Last I heard, the overgrown space cadets were excited about the prospect of discovering water on Mars (while we all sit around wondering why they care) I still wonder if the funny looking things even are on Mars, or if the 1969 guys ever even set foot on the moon, rather than some deserted landscape in Nevada or Utah.

myp · Jan 3, 2013

Protectionist said:
Sure I know about the Laffer Curve, I taught economics at 3 colleges of the City University of New York for 4 years. The Laffer curve is similar to the bell shaped curve of prices vs business income. Unlike that true curve, however the Laffer curve does not have a true basis.

It's premise is at the extreme of a 100% tax rate, the government theoretically collects zero revenue because taxpayers change their behavior in response to the tax rate: either they have no incentive to work or they find a way to avoid paying taxes. Thus, the "economic effect" of a 100% tax rate is to decrease the tax base to zero. If this is the case, then somewhere between 0% and 100% lies a tax rate that will maximize revenue.

In reality, if taxes were raised to 92% (on the top bracket), or say 70%, the super rich might go through some of these changes temporarily, but as the new rates become more familiar, the greed freaks will likely settle down, and adjust their consumption behavior as much or more than their shock at the "new" rates. And I put the word "new"in quotation marks, because it is only the young rich to whom these rates will seem excessive. Older richies will remember the 91-92% rates of the 1950s and 60s, and the rates of 70% right up to the 80s.

As far as incentive to work, once their materialistic lunacy comes down to earth, they'll be quite content with a 30 % share of their gross. It's not to tough for a guy like Johnny Depp to get to like $30 Million/year (especially when he knows what real workers are receiving out there).

As for "fair", I'm fine with my assessment of that, and utility-maximizing I suspect is a new term for something I'm familiar with, but know by another name. Could you clarify ? As for central figure ? Who cares who is ?

The Laffer curve is undeniably real given marginal reactions, but the actual shape of the curve is virtually indefinable at any given time and with any given market- there lies the inherent issue with the idea.

"Greed" doesn't really mean anything- it is more of a gotcha phrase, so I won't comment on that.

As for utility-maximizing, I mean a utilitarian standpoint. I.e. J.S. Mill's thought that has been the philosophy of many economists including Milton Friedman.

chris7375 · Jan 3, 2013

Protectionist said:
I don't see Social Security in your list. You would eliminate Social Security ? That would be crazy.

As for 90% of the federal budget being cut, cut by how much ?

No I would not if you read my statement I said the only programs I would have the Fed keep are SSI and Medicare. Though I would privatize a portion of SSI for future generations.

chris7375 · Jan 3, 2013

Protectionist said:
I don't see Social Security in your list. You would eliminate Social Security ? That would be crazy.

As for 90% of the federal budget being cut, cut by how much ?

What programs and Departments would you like a list. I mean really eliminating a lot of the BS departments. When I mean cut I mean gone for the most part. If the state does not want to support them get rid of them. We have to many Departments. In reality you will need the Military though I would close bases down overseas and bring them back to the US. Their creation was to protect our borders not everyone else's. A portion of the Energy Dept I would keep but the only the portion that regulates Nuclear weapons and power plants.

In all reality a lot can be operated by the state's with a better overall job performance then the Fed does.

http://www.usa.gov/directory/federal/index.shtml

The following is a link to all the agencies and Department the Fed has. See how much money we waste.

Protectionist · Jan 7, 2013

myp said:
The Laffer curve is undeniably real given marginal reactions, but the actual shape of the curve is virtually indefinable at any given time and with any given market- there lies the inherent issue with the idea.

"Greed" doesn't really mean anything- it is more of a gotcha phrase, so I won't comment on that.

As for utility-maximizing, I mean a utilitarian standpoint. I.e. J.S. Mill's thought that has been the philosophy of many economists including Milton Friedman.

Greed most certainly DOES mean something. It is one of the most relevant things in America today. Because of it, our taxation has gone through a 30 year low period, and look where we are now. If not for GREED, out taxes could be much higher and we wouldn't have many of the problems we have today, or they wouldn't be as bad as they are (immigration, infrastructure, poverty, crime, etc)

myp · Jan 7, 2013

Protectionist said:
Greed most certainly DOES mean something. It is one of the most relevant things in America today. Because of it, our taxation has gone through a 30 year low period, and look where we are now. If not for GREED, out taxes could be much higher and we wouldn't have many of the problems we have today, or they wouldn't be as bad as they are (immigration, infrastructure, poverty, crime, etc)

What is greed to you is not greed to others. What is greed to me might not be greed to you. It's a subjective term. Not much of a place for it in an objective discussion- you can't quantify it really. You can point to it as a reason for something, but to what extent, etc. is hard if not impossible to quantify in any form.

Protectionist · Jan 7, 2013

chris7375 said:
No I would not if you read my statement I said the only programs I would have the Fed keep are SSI and Medicare. Though I would privatize a portion of SSI for future generations.

SSI is only a small part of Social Security. It is the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program which pays benefits to disabled adults and children who have limited income and resources.

It is seperate from the main Social Security that I get just for being over 66 years of age. So you would cancel Social Security for old folks ?

Protectionist · Jan 7, 2013

myp said:
What is greed to you is not greed to others. What is greed to me might not be greed to you. It's a subjective term. Not much of a place for it in an objective discussion- you can't quantify it really. You can point to it as a reason for something, but to what extent, etc. is hard if not impossible to quantify in any form.

Oh. I don't think it's so hard. I think Johnny Depp moving to a foreign country to avoid even a miniscule 35% tax rate (when he 's grossing $100 Million/year), could be considered GREED.

In contrast, If I had Depp's $100 Million, I'd give 99% of it to worthy charities, and I might still feel a bit guilty keeping a Million $ for myself.

chris7375 · Jan 7, 2013

Protectionist said:
SSI is only a small part of Social Security. It is the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program which pays benefits to disabled adults and children who have limited income and resources.

It is seperate from the main Social Security that I get just for being over 66 years of age. So you would cancel Social Security for old folks ?

SSI stands for Social Security Insurance just so you know. That was the name of the program when it was created.

The program you are talking about is SSID. Social Security Insurance Disability. Then you have SSIS for survivors of people who died.

So no I would not cancel SSI.

myp · Jan 7, 2013

Protectionist said:
Oh. I don't think it's so hard. I think Johnny Depp moving to a foreign country to avoid even a miniscule 35% tax rate (when he 's grossing $100 Million/year), could be considered GREED.

In contrast, If I had Depp's $100 Million, I'd give 99% of it to worthy charities, and I might still feel a bit guilty keeping a Million $ for myself.

I think what he did there is smart. And therein, my point is proven that this sort of thing is subjective. And get the $100 million and then we'll see what you do with it

(easier said than done I'd assume)

Also, I highly doubt he is grossing 100 mill PER year...

Protectionist · Jan 7, 2013

myp said:
I think what he did there is smart. And therein, my point is proven that this sort of thing is subjective. And get the $100 million and then we'll see what you do with it (easier said than done I'd assume)

Also, I highly doubt he is grossing 100 mill PER year...

1. I don't have to get the $100 Million to demonstrate my lack of greed. When I owned my own business for 12 years, I paid my sales reps (in commissions) the equivalent of $150/hour, when the greed freaks were lobbying their legislators to keep the minimum wage below $4/hour.

Funny thing of it was, the biggest problem I had in my business was how low that minimum wage was. It kept the community disposable income, and thereby my sales, down.

2. http://www.therichest.org/entertainment/vanityfairtop-40-highest-paid-stars-in-hollywood/

myp · Jan 7, 2013

Protectionist said:
1. I don't have to get the $100 Million to demonstrate my lack of greed. When I owned my own business for 12 years, I paid my sales reps (in commissions) the equivalent of $150/hour, when the greed freaks were lobbying their legislators to keep the minimum wage below $4/hour.

Funny thing of it was, the biggest problem I had in my business was how low that minimum wage was. It kept the community disposable income, and thereby my sales, down.

2. http://www.therichest.org/entertainment/vanityfairtop-40-highest-paid-stars-in-hollywood/

So what ended up happening to your business out of curiosity? Just because you paid what you thought was fair and others paid what they thought was fair and there was a divergence, does not mean you are inherently right. Isn't that a bit egotistical?

2. That was for one year... You said per year implying every year...

Protectionist · Jan 7, 2013

chris7375 said:
SSI stands for Social Security Insurance just so you know. That was the name of the program when it was created.

The program you are talking about is SSID. Social Security Insurance Disability. Then you have SSIS for survivors of people who died.

So no I would not cancel SSI.

Just so YOU know, SSI means Supplemental Security Income, just as I said. It does NOT mean Social Security in general. In fact it is completely seperate from Social Security, which has its own individual source of funding. Unlike Social Security, SSI is funded from general revenues. You stand corrected.

http://www.ssa.gov/ssi/

Budget Cuts ? UNACCEPTABLE ANSWER

Similar threads