Closing this fiscal gap requires an immediate and permanent 64 percent hike in all federal taxes
This is the thinking of the geniuses in charge?
Why this election isn’t solely about massive fiscal reform is beyond me. It’s a looming crisis, and yet we’re squabbling over things like free birth control, immigration, whatever. Not that no other issue is important, but we’re in real trouble.
Also, we can’t tax our way out of it, as a dramatic real tax increase would, of course, kill the economy and reduce revenues.
Why this election isn’t solely about massive fiscal reform is beyond me.
Deficit spending is the ultimate tragedy of the commons. The historically brief period of solvency we’ve enjoyed for the last hundred years is anomalous — runaway taxation has masked runaway spending, but now that we’re near the Laffer maximum, we’ll return to the insolvent norm.
Why this election isn’t solely about massive fiscal reform is beyond me.
I agree. You’ve just self identified as a tea partier. Although I’ve never joined or participated the fact that I agree makes me one too.
The confusing thing is, TEA stands for taxed enough already, when it’s not so much about taxes (which self regulate to about 20%) it’s about spending.
But I’ve noticed that the various organization heads are very choosy in their words when responding to the talking heads. They are concentrating on local elections, because choosing president has become a red herring. We need to get rid of 98% of rats(D) and 79% of pugs(R.) This may take a few election cycles but they’re in it ’til the end.
Then we need to clean up or eliminate (the preferred choice) the bureaucracy.
Why this election isn’t solely about massive fiscal reform is beyond me.
Who in any position of power would put fiscal reform as a top priority? Not the Democrats, and certainly not the Republicans; Ryan’s plan immediately increases the deficit, and relies on hand-waving like $6T in eliminated tax loopholes when he won’t name a single one.
The Democrats are about using government to address expensive social problems (elderly poverty, health care, etc.). The Republicans are about reducing taxes on the wealthy. Neither one cares particularly about balancing the books.
But in recent history, one of the parties has been more serious about fiscal issues. The Republican priorities of the 2000s — Medicare prescription drugs, two wars, a massive increase in federal hiring — were added to the deficit. The big Democratic priority, the Affordable Care Act, reduces the deficit. Only one of the Republican candidates running for the presidency has a fiscal plan with (very slightly) lower projected deficits than Obama’s, and that’s Ron Paul. Romney, Santorum and Gingrich would all, if their plans were enacted, explode the deficit. The Republican desire to cut taxes on the rich trumps the Democrats’ desire to spend money, again and again.
If you really wanted a balanced budget, like we had in 2000, you would aim for higher revenue (as a percentage of GDP) than we had in 2000, because we have an older population now, more expensive health care, and a war. But neither party talks seriously about setting tax rates that would raise a higher revenue level than we had in 2000.
You make some good points Jim, however…
Taxes self regulate by changing behavior. Taxes are a red herring.
You are absolutely right that those in power don’t want change. Being in power does that to [most] people.
We need somebody that has proven she can clean house. Somebody ‘undefeated.’ I’m hoping for a miracle. A brokered convention and the only chief executive that would actually clean house… and senate… and depts.
It has been shown repeatedly that raising tax rates most often leads to decreased revenues and vice versa. If you want to increase revenues, the best way is to do the things that stimulate growth in the economy. Higher tax rates and more regulation don’t increase revenues.
There are two sides to the deficit equation, revenues and spending. At the rate that spending is increasing, it’s unlikely any amount of increased revenues are going to be sufficient. Until the spending side of the equation is addressed fundamentally, we’re going to keep sinking. There needs to be cuts across the board – defense and entitlements to start but entire departments need to be eliminated to even begin closing the gap. Taxing and spending our way to prosperity is as likely as drinking our way to soberity.
But I see that the slope on Barack’s plan doesn’t reach shit hitting the fan levels until he’s out of office. Even if he gets a 2nd term. So, what does he care?
Josh, he doesn’t care. He never has. And he’s liable to start ever. IMHO.
Make that…NOT…liable to start ever…
When our economy reaches game over, the government is forced to default on its promised payment to the contemporaneous elderly.
No offense to the authors of that paper, but the consequences of “default” are just that they have to cut back on Social Security and medical care (and retirement for federal and railroad employees)? That’s not much of a consequence (the obligation to pay doesn’t actually exist and payments are only enforced through voter power) and would be something that needs to be done anyway. One could just as well consider any deliberate cut back now as a “default” on “promised payment”.
Anybody here read “We The Living” by Heinlein? Apparently the precursor to all his other work. He proposes a very detailed economic model that I’m not at all comfortable with, and which seems completely at odds with his later thinking. Essentially the government just tops up the economy by creating enough new money to balance out the losses in the system, ad infinitum.
Doesn’t work. Value is related to scarcity. Apparently the only book some in govt. have read.
Here is another FANTASTIC thread on this topic over at Stephen Green’s Vodkapundit: http://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2012/03/21/your-wednesday-morning-dose-of-doom-and-gloom/
Closing this fiscal gap requires an immediate and permanent 64 percent hike in all federal taxes
This is the thinking of the geniuses in charge?
Why this election isn’t solely about massive fiscal reform is beyond me. It’s a looming crisis, and yet we’re squabbling over things like free birth control, immigration, whatever. Not that no other issue is important, but we’re in real trouble.
Also, we can’t tax our way out of it, as a dramatic real tax increase would, of course, kill the economy and reduce revenues.
Deficit spending is the ultimate tragedy of the commons. The historically brief period of solvency we’ve enjoyed for the last hundred years is anomalous — runaway taxation has masked runaway spending, but now that we’re near the Laffer maximum, we’ll return to the insolvent norm.
Why this election isn’t solely about massive fiscal reform is beyond me.
I agree. You’ve just self identified as a tea partier. Although I’ve never joined or participated the fact that I agree makes me one too.
The confusing thing is, TEA stands for taxed enough already, when it’s not so much about taxes (which self regulate to about 20%) it’s about spending.
But I’ve noticed that the various organization heads are very choosy in their words when responding to the talking heads. They are concentrating on local elections, because choosing president has become a red herring. We need to get rid of 98% of rats(D) and 79% of pugs(R.) This may take a few election cycles but they’re in it ’til the end.
Then we need to clean up or eliminate (the preferred choice) the bureaucracy.
Why this election isn’t solely about massive fiscal reform is beyond me.
Who in any position of power would put fiscal reform as a top priority? Not the Democrats, and certainly not the Republicans; Ryan’s plan immediately increases the deficit, and relies on hand-waving like $6T in eliminated tax loopholes when he won’t name a single one.
The Democrats are about using government to address expensive social problems (elderly poverty, health care, etc.). The Republicans are about reducing taxes on the wealthy. Neither one cares particularly about balancing the books.
But in recent history, one of the parties has been more serious about fiscal issues. The Republican priorities of the 2000s — Medicare prescription drugs, two wars, a massive increase in federal hiring — were added to the deficit. The big Democratic priority, the Affordable Care Act, reduces the deficit. Only one of the Republican candidates running for the presidency has a fiscal plan with (very slightly) lower projected deficits than Obama’s, and that’s Ron Paul. Romney, Santorum and Gingrich would all, if their plans were enacted, explode the deficit. The Republican desire to cut taxes on the rich trumps the Democrats’ desire to spend money, again and again.
If you really wanted a balanced budget, like we had in 2000, you would aim for higher revenue (as a percentage of GDP) than we had in 2000, because we have an older population now, more expensive health care, and a war. But neither party talks seriously about setting tax rates that would raise a higher revenue level than we had in 2000.
You make some good points Jim, however…
Taxes self regulate by changing behavior. Taxes are a red herring.
You are absolutely right that those in power don’t want change. Being in power does that to [most] people.
We need somebody that has proven she can clean house. Somebody ‘undefeated.’ I’m hoping for a miracle. A brokered convention and the only chief executive that would actually clean house… and senate… and depts.
It has been shown repeatedly that raising tax rates most often leads to decreased revenues and vice versa. If you want to increase revenues, the best way is to do the things that stimulate growth in the economy. Higher tax rates and more regulation don’t increase revenues.
There are two sides to the deficit equation, revenues and spending. At the rate that spending is increasing, it’s unlikely any amount of increased revenues are going to be sufficient. Until the spending side of the equation is addressed fundamentally, we’re going to keep sinking. There needs to be cuts across the board – defense and entitlements to start but entire departments need to be eliminated to even begin closing the gap. Taxing and spending our way to prosperity is as likely as drinking our way to soberity.
But I see that the slope on Barack’s plan doesn’t reach shit hitting the fan levels until he’s out of office. Even if he gets a 2nd term. So, what does he care?
Josh, he doesn’t care. He never has. And he’s liable to start ever. IMHO.
Make that…NOT…liable to start ever…
No offense to the authors of that paper, but the consequences of “default” are just that they have to cut back on Social Security and medical care (and retirement for federal and railroad employees)? That’s not much of a consequence (the obligation to pay doesn’t actually exist and payments are only enforced through voter power) and would be something that needs to be done anyway. One could just as well consider any deliberate cut back now as a “default” on “promised payment”.
Anybody here read “We The Living” by Heinlein? Apparently the precursor to all his other work. He proposes a very detailed economic model that I’m not at all comfortable with, and which seems completely at odds with his later thinking. Essentially the government just tops up the economy by creating enough new money to balance out the losses in the system, ad infinitum.
Doesn’t work. Value is related to scarcity. Apparently the only book some in govt. have read.
Sorry, correct title is “For Us, The Living”