But regarding spending, the point was that a 15% flat tax 'might' bring in 10% of revenue lets say, but as I showed above thats more than current. Once you also add in the SS tax, thats 18% of GDP. So no deep cuts are needed relative to not having a flat tax.
Republicans - No Compromise!! Ever!! Stick to your guns! Listen to what Rush and the other leaders of your party on radio are saying!
"Groups with guitars are on the way out, Mr. Epstein"
Dick Rowe, A & R man
It would be an interesting argument if increasing taxes on the wealthy would have a meaningful effect on revenue, but it won't. This isn't about the money, it's about punitive taxation. It won't change the deficit, it's just a move to make selfish people feel better. Problem is, the thinking is backwards. Taxing the rich more will not reduce everyone else's taxes. If the middle class feels taxes are too high they should seek a reduction instead of acting like petulent children. Since increasing taxes on the rich will not have a meaningful effect on revenue, it raises the question: What's next? Raise their rates and the dem base gets a feeling of revenge, for a while. But what happens when that feeling wears off? Raise them higher?
I've got a better idea. Instead of looking at current spending and saying the government needs more (and more and more) why not submit a budget. You know, a REAL one (since we haven't seen one since Obama took office) and only THEN see what adjustments need to be made. Households need a budget, businesses need a budget, the government should have one too.
Even if they taxed everyone at 100%, they may not have enough.
The only answer is cut spending, If the Dems price to balance the budget is to increase taxes
on those over $250 a year by 10%, so be it.
We must get our budget under control if we are to survive as a nation.
Well, sort of:
So, the government can lend the SS money to itself, spend it, and put the IOU (T bond) back into the SS fund. The result is a pot full of IOUs. There is no essential difference between the fate of money paid via payroll taxes and money paid in the form of income taxes.However, the Social Security Act specifies that the monies in the fund may "be invested in securities backed by the full faith and credit of the Federal government," such as treasury bills, treasury notes, and treasury bonds, as well as special issue bonds. So, essentially, the government can "invest" Social Security funds by lending them to itself, then spending that money on programs not related to Social Security (e.g., defense, foreign aid, education). This has always been the case.
Can't we just turn Congress off and then turn it back on again?