View Poll Results: What is (are) the best way(s) to eliminate the deficit?

Voters
97. You may not vote on this poll
  • A balanced budget amendment

    24 24.74%
  • A line item veto amenndment

    17 17.53%
  • replace income tx with a national retail sales tax

    10 10.31%
  • Raise taxes on the rich

    40 41.24%
  • Raise taxes on the middle-class

    7 7.22%
  • Raise taxes stealthily in the form of fees, a federal lottery, etc.

    4 4.12%
  • Nationalize oil and natural gas on federal land and get into the enegry business like Saudi Arabia

    11 11.34%
  • Cut federal spending

    66 68.04%
  • Sell services to prizate industry at a profit, privatize then tax them

    4 4.12%
  • other

    26 26.80%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 13 of 29 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 285

Thread: What's the best way to reduce the deficit?

  1. #121
    User sweEt Mauritius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    07-15-12 @ 09:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    79

    Re: What's the best way to reduce the deficit?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    1. Raising nominal rates on upper income earners will not produce more revenue
    2. It will increase the amount of time, energy, and resources that upper income earners spend minimizing their tax exposure which
    3. Means that it will also decrease the amount of time, energy, and resources that they put into being productive.
    Sorry, but that's not how it works. I understand where you're coming from, but raising taxes on, for example, a university dean who makes a $500,000 per year salary is going to produce more revenue. With that being said, we also need to simplify the tax code and eliminate loopholes and other ways that the ultra-rich minimize the amount they pay. But to say that raising taxes on high earners is somehow not going to do anything to increase revenue is just ridiculous.

  2. #122
    User sweEt Mauritius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    07-15-12 @ 09:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    79

    Re: What's the best way to reduce the deficit?

    Quote Originally Posted by code1211 View Post
    Clinton's surpluses were based on the .com revolution. When that ended, so did the boom.

    I was managing a business when the millennium turned and it was like a light switch was flipped. We had to scrap all of the budgets in about march and start over. The same was true of all of business nation wide.
    I'm not talking about businesses, I'm talking about the federal government's budget. It's irrelevant that private businesses had to rework their budgets. It has nothing to do with the fact that Clinton reduced spending and raised taxes. That is exactly the kind of compromise that could begin to meaningfully reduce our deficit, and it's an approach that Democrats have championed and Republicans have stonewalled.

  3. #123
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,589

    Re: What's the best way to reduce the deficit?

    Quote Originally Posted by sweEt Mauritius View Post
    I'm not talking about businesses, I'm talking about the federal government's budget. It's irrelevant that private businesses had to rework their budgets. It has nothing to do with the fact that Clinton reduced spending and raised taxes. That is exactly the kind of compromise that could begin to meaningfully reduce our deficit, and it's an approach that Democrats have championed and Republicans have stonewalled.

    If the spending cuts were to occur right now as the tax increases would, then a deal might be achieved. Under Reagan, every tax increase was tied to a spending cut to occur in the out years and they never, ever happened.

  4. #124
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,589

    Re: What's the best way to reduce the deficit?

    Quote Originally Posted by sweEt Mauritius View Post
    Sorry, but that's not how it works. I understand where you're coming from, but raising taxes on, for example, a university dean who makes a $500,000 per year salary is going to produce more revenue. With that being said, we also need to simplify the tax code and eliminate loopholes and other ways that the ultra-rich minimize the amount they pay. But to say that raising taxes on high earners is somehow not going to do anything to increase revenue is just ridiculous.
    I am all for eliminating every deduction for individuals in the tax code and then making new tax regulations unpassable. Include in the new law that any change can only be effected by a 75% majority vote from both houses.

    There have been something like 40,000 loopholes built into the tax code since the tax deal that Reagan got passed. That is simply ridiculous.

    That said, though, reduce the tax rates and expand them to include more people. "The Rich" with no deductions available to them will pay more at 25% than they do at any high rate after the magic of accounting and legal tricks.

    The rest of us don't have that magic, so we will just go on getting screwed.

  5. #125
    Sage
    Karl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    12-18-14 @ 09:35 AM
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,561

    Re: What's the best way to reduce the deficit?

    Quote Originally Posted by code1211 View Post
    If the spending cuts were to occur right now as the tax increases would, then a deal might be achieved. [...]
    No. No deals will be achieved, since no taxes will be increased by the Republicans, who are now controlled by Grover Norquist. The GOP has simply gone totally bat **** crazy.

  6. #126
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,589

    Re: What's the best way to reduce the deficit?

    Quote Originally Posted by sweEt Mauritius View Post
    I'm not talking about businesses, I'm talking about the federal government's budget. It's irrelevant that private businesses had to rework their budgets. It has nothing to do with the fact that Clinton reduced spending and raised taxes. That is exactly the kind of compromise that could begin to meaningfully reduce our deficit, and it's an approach that Democrats have championed and Republicans have stonewalled.



    The point is that tax revenues increased so dramatically because the business base was so stoked. After 1/1/00, the bottom fell out of the boom economy and the tax revenues immediately started to fall.

    Before you go wild and find that the revenues of 2000 were good, recall that the revenues received in 2000 were generated by activities in 1999.

  7. #127
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,589

    Re: What's the best way to reduce the deficit?

    Quote Originally Posted by Karl View Post
    No. No deals will be achieved, since no taxes will be increased by the Republicans, who are now controlled by Grover Norquist. The GOP has simply gone totally bat **** crazy.


    Boehner and the Big 0 had a deal that the Big 0 walked away from.

  8. #128
    User sweEt Mauritius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    07-15-12 @ 09:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    79

    Re: What's the best way to reduce the deficit?

    Quote Originally Posted by code1211 View Post
    If the spending cuts were to occur right now as the tax increases would, then a deal might be achieved. Under Reagan, every tax increase was tied to a spending cut to occur in the out years and they never, ever happened.
    Like Karl said, there will be no deal because Republicans are not interested in reducing the deficit, period. If they were, they would agree to a balanced, commonsense solution of half cuts and half revenue increases. But they have ruled out ANY tax increases, so it's not happening. Until they decide they're willing to be serious about the issue, nothing will happen.

    I am all for eliminating every deduction for individuals in the tax code and then making new tax regulations unpassable. Include in the new law that any change can only be effected by a 75% majority vote from both houses.

    There have been something like 40,000 loopholes built into the tax code since the tax deal that Reagan got passed. That is simply ridiculous.

    That said, though, reduce the tax rates and expand them to include more people. "The Rich" with no deductions available to them will pay more at 25% than they do at any high rate after the magic of accounting and legal tricks.
    I don't see how making new tax regulations unpassable helps anything going into the future. How is a nation supposed to adapt to new stimuli if they can't touch taxes in the future?

    To your other point, this whole notion of reducing rates and expanding people makes no sense. That might work in a country where there is not a staggering level of income inequality. However, we live in a country where 1% of the population controls something like 40% of the nation's wealth, so expanding the base is really not going to do as much as raising taxes on the highest income earners would.

  9. #129
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,589

    Re: What's the best way to reduce the deficit?

    Quote Originally Posted by sweEt Mauritius View Post
    Like Karl said, there will be no deal because Republicans are not interested in reducing the deficit, period. If they were, they would agree to a balanced, commonsense solution of half cuts and half revenue increases. But they have ruled out ANY tax increases, so it's not happening. Until they decide they're willing to be serious about the issue, nothing will happen.



    I don't see how making new tax regulations unpassable helps anything going into the future. How is a nation supposed to adapt to new stimuli if they can't touch taxes in the future?

    To your other point, this whole notion of reducing rates and expanding people makes no sense. That might work in a country where there is not a staggering level of income inequality. However, we live in a country where 1% of the population controls something like 40% of the nation's wealth, so expanding the base is really not going to do as much as raising taxes on the highest income earners would.


    The law of large numbers changes the math. If 300 million people all pay 20 dollars each, that adds up pretty quick.

    The amount of income paid by the top wage earners is a pretty respectable % of what's earned. the % of the tax paid by the same drop is a larger % than that.

    I don't understand why there are exclusions in the tax code. The level of income that is sub just to SS withholding stops at about $107,000/year. Everything above that is free and clear. I assume there was some logic behind this at some point in the past, but, seriously, what's the reason now? 14% of the wage of a minimum wage worker is a bigger hit to him than 14% of the Millionaire Obama supporter in Hollywood or a similarly rich guy supporting Romney on Wall Street.

    As far as the poor not paying Federal income tax, that is just, plain infantile and stupid. Why is it that some are given access to all of the goodies of the society and are not required to help pay the bill. We are up to about 48% of the people not paying any federal Tax. That is stupid. If most of the people are allowed to not pay any tax, there is a problem that is brewing that has nothing to do with who is capable and who isn't.

    I should think it would be a point of shame to be in the group that is freeloading.

  10. #130
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,589

    Re: What's the best way to reduce the deficit?

    Quote Originally Posted by sweEt Mauritius View Post
    Like Karl said, there will be no deal because Republicans are not interested in reducing the deficit, period. If they were, they would agree to a balanced, commonsense solution of half cuts and half revenue increases. But they have ruled out ANY tax increases, so it's not happening. Until they decide they're willing to be serious about the issue, nothing will happen.



    I don't see how making new tax regulations unpassable helps anything going into the future. How is a nation supposed to adapt to new stimuli if they can't touch taxes in the future?

    To your other point, this whole notion of reducing rates and expanding people makes no sense. That might work in a country where there is not a staggering level of income inequality. However, we live in a country where 1% of the population controls something like 40% of the nation's wealth, so expanding the base is really not going to do as much as raising taxes on the highest income earners would.


    That is the point. If a new tax regulation is passed, it is passed because some group paid of a politician in some way and now they get their little hook into the system and the system becomes less and less fair.

    The 1% are the folks that get these things passed. Why are you trying to help this group?

Page 13 of 29 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •