The budget compromise thread

[Honus]

Originally Posted by Txjake

...The Iraq invasion and deposement did have a strategic mission and that was to have a ME country where we could establish bases.

The more books we get out of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld crowd, the more strongly I believe that they invaded for exactly that reason. Watch Rumsfeld pitching his book on the talk shows. It is painfully obvious that almost nothing he says is true. If Iraq is anything approaching prosperous and friendly twenty years from now, history might start treating Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld pretty well, despite all their baloney. Their stories are so obviously false, historians will start to ignore them and will focus instead on the long-term strategic advantages we might get from the invasion. Who knows.

[MTI]

Foreign aid has the secondary benefit of being spent in the US.

[Txjake]

Originally Posted by Honus

The more books we get out of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld crowd, the more strongly I believe that they invaded for exactly that reason. Watch Rumsfeld pitching his book on the talk shows. It is painfully obvious that almost nothing he says is true. If Iraq is anything approaching prosperous and friendly twenty years from now, history might start treating Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld pretty well, despite all their baloney. Their stories are so obviously false, historians will start to ignore them and will focus instead on the long-term strategic advantages we might get from the invasion. Who knows.

the base idea was actually pre wubbya, a cold war issue in order to have a country from which to defend the ME from Soviet invasions.

[aklim]

Originally Posted by Txjake

Greatly reduce foreign aid. Use that money to bring down the debt. Example: we spent about what? 1 billion a year with Egypt. Of course there is a downside other than straight diplomatic; it will reduce our business access to some markets (in this way, it is a subsidy). But if we have to bribe countries to be nice to us, then what are we doing there anyway?

You're joking, right? Of course you have to bribe them in some way, shape or form or what do you think? They are your BFF and you will simply get them to do things for you because of your winning smile?

Simple question. If your spouse stopped doing things for you, how long before you leave?

[aklim]

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

I just don't see it that way. When you die, the money you leave to your children is unearned income to them. "because you died" is not a good enough reason for your children to dodge the income tax. As I stated earlier, we need to treat all income the same - while this is after-tax money to you, the dead guy, to the living, it is income. Capital gains, earned income, inheritance income above a certain point (which, contrary to your assertion is fabulous wealth to most people at the current 3.5 million of exempted estate) all should be taxed at around 12 percent IMO. I just don't see how, especially given the fact you would be dead at the time, this would be much skin off your behind.

I also think one way we might also compromise is for as all to admit that the entire income tax system in this country is a failure and is utterly unable to equitably divide the burden, that we scrapped the damned thing and institute a VAT tax, which at least assures that all will pay something.

It is also money you earned and were taxed on. This is more like the govt double dipping.

If by that you mean that I am only taxed on whatever I purchase and there are NO other taxes, be it county tax, stadium tax, dog catcher tax or what not, sure. Problem is that there are so many different taxes, I will bet that the Average American doesn't know exactly what they pay for taxes. That allows the politician to lower a tax here but add another one there.

[aklim]

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

Consider that we are on friendly terms with most of Europe the bases could be quickly reestablished should a need ever arise.

It is very easy to say but much harder to do. I can vacate my house in 24 hrs. Build back one there is going to be harder. At which time they might not want to go thru the process or ask more.

[SwampYankee]

Pick a number. 2.5%. 5%. 6%. 7.5%. And cut every budget across the board by that amount and let the chips fall as they may. If everyone is pissed off it's a good start.

It's probably going to play out just as it will in CT. Lots of talk of shared sacrifice but in reality the onus will fall on those paying the taxes with the sacrifice being of the pick-and-choose variety.

[SwampYankee]

Originally Posted by aklim

Problem is that there are so many different taxes, I will bet that the Average American doesn't know exactly what they pay for taxes. That allows the politician to lower a tax here but add another one there.

Hell, thanks to withholding, the average (and probably majority) American has no idea how much income tax they pay.

[aklim]

Originally Posted by SwampYankee

Hell, thanks to withholding, the average (and probably majority) American has no idea how much income tax they pay.

Which makes it easier to lower your taxes here and raise it there. If there were simply a tax paid on your purchases, it would be much easier and the politicians will not be able to borrow from Peter to pay Paul.

[MS Fowler]

While I agree with JR that the present trax system is fubar, I disagree with the VAT. That taxes everything at every step of its production.
Why not just a simple consumption tax/ national sales tax? Maybe a rebate to the underclass, or even a bank card like device to pay the tax for the poor, as waiting for a rebate might be too long for them to survive. Sales tax also does not require the bueraucrats to monitor compliance. Its just a simple % of their gross sales.

[aklim]

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Maybe a rebate to the underclass,

Why? All it does is add complication to the matter. Simple percentage of what you spend is fine. Of course a lot of accountants are going to be out of business. It will encourage saving

[SwampYankee]

Originally Posted by aklim

Which makes it easier to lower your taxes here and raise it there. If there were simply a tax paid on your purchases, it would be much easier and the politicians will not be able to borrow from Peter to pay Paul.

If people had to write a check every April 15 for the taxes owed, rather than never paying any attention to those pesky gross vs net numbers, there'd be a lot more expectation of accountability on where those dollars go. Instead it vaporizes in dribs and drabs and Average Joe and Jane are none the wiser.

[aklim]

Originally Posted by SwampYankee

If people had to write a check every April 15 for the taxes owed, rather than never paying any attention to those pesky gross vs net numbers, there'd be a lot more expectation of accountability on where those dollars go. Instead it vaporizes in dribs and drabs and Average Joe and Jane are none the wiser.

Well, of course. And when they have to raise the taxes, a lot of people will howl and scream so they had best make the case and make it good.

[MS Fowler]

Originally Posted by aklim

Why? All it does is add complication to the matter. Simple percentage of what you spend is fine. Of course a lot of accountants are going to be out of business. It will encourage saving

I was just trying to anticipate an objection to a national sales tax ( It will unfairly impact the poor).
I agree that no rebates, no bank cards would be simpler. I would accept it either way. What I would oppose would be the addition of a sales tax to the existing income tax. It all comes from us in the end, and piling taxes on top of taxes would make it impossible to pay.

[roflwaffle]

Originally Posted by Txjake

OK, lets do that. The Iraq invasion and deposement did have a strategic mission and that was to have a ME country where we could establish bases.

It was crucial to defense interests that we have six ME countries with bases as opposed to only five.