Taxes: how low is low enough?

Fast_Eddie · #1 10-01-2009, 10:48 PM

While engaging in my typical tit for tat banter I ran across a couple of interesting articles. I got to wondering...

We hear from the right that we should cut taxes. But, thing is, we did. And then we did again. And again. And now taxes are low. Historically low.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...errer=facebook

And this guy makes a pretty good argument that if we want to be fiscally responsible, we need to balance the budget.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/24/fis...-bartlett.html

So if you're interested, take a look at these articles.

The question- is it *possible* that it's time to raise taxes? How low is low enough? Or more to the point, will taxes ever be low enough that Republicans would say "yup, that's good". And if you think we should cut spending, what exactly would you cut? I'm not sure there's as much "fat" as some would have you believe. Take out military spending, medicade, medicare and social security and percentage wise there's not enough left to make a huge difference. So, should we pay more taxes and get the budget ballanced?

Take care,

Ed

merrylander · #2 10-02-2009, 09:07 AM

The Post also had an article on a survey where most people wanted more spending on schools, on roads, on this and on that, but that same majority wanted lower taxes. Says a lot about our educational system, or maybe they believe in the tooth fairy.

Fast_Eddie · #3 10-02-2009, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by merrylander

The Post also had an article on a survey where most people wanted more spending on schools, on roads, on this and on that, but that same majority wanted lower taxes. Says a lot about our educational system, or maybe they believe in the tooth fairy.

Call me a Socialist if you like. I want all those things too. And I'm happy to pay my share. I'd like it a lot more if they would just charge what's due and get it over with instead of letting things slide further and further. Not to mention the Police/Tax force setting up undercover taxation stations on every street in the city. How cool would it be if all those guys could, I dunno, arrest criminals all day and investigate who stole your car stereo?

Fast_Eddie · #4 10-02-2009, 09:58 AM

But I don't believe in the Tooth Fairy. I still remember when my mom told be *she* was the Tooth Fairy. I thought she meant she really was the Tooth Fariy and she traveled the world each night giving silver dollars to kids. I asked her if she had a special costume she wore. It's been a family joke ever since.

Twodogs · #5 10-02-2009, 10:41 AM

I know one part of the whole tax mess that I have trouble with is the waste. I truly believe that if Washington would budget like anyone else, and spend wisely with a little common sense, they would have excesses of money. I know nothing is perfect, but the way the government spends money is inexcusable at the very least.

Fast_Eddie · #6 10-02-2009, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Twodogs

I know one part of the whole tax mess that I have trouble with is the waste. I truly believe that if Washington would budget like anyone else, and spend wisely with a little common sense, they would have excesses of money. I know nothing is perfect, but the way the government spends money is inexcusable at the very least.

I'm sure there is waste. But I would ask again as I did in the first post- where would you cut? Look at where the money goes:

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/node/6916

Where is the waste, specifically, that will make a difference? Let's say we *eliminate* something big. How 'bout Education and Socal Services. Not trim them. Kill them. That's pretty radical. It's also 7% of our spending. Not sure that's going to make a difference. So when you talk about the 'waste' in Public Eucation, on the national level, trimming a bit here or there won't really net you anything.

So where do you cut?

Fast_Eddie · #7 10-02-2009, 11:04 AM

Oh, let me point something out- I have a little problem with the chart in the link above. They call it the "Discretionary Budget". What they mean is they took out Social Security, Medicade and Medicare. The logic is that you can't really cut those. I agree you can't, but it is manufactured a bit to make the Military spending look bigger.

However, I wish it had everything in it. When you see it that way, Social Security, Medicade, Medicare and Military Spending are the whole budget. There's not a single other segment that would make a difference. You can kill everything else in the budget and you don't make a dent.

So two choices. Cut one of those. Or if you don't think we can, raise taxes. There are no other answers.

Twodogs · #8 10-02-2009, 11:04 AM

I'd start with all the absolutely absurd stuff, like research for odor from pig poop. After all that kind of stuff was gone, I'd start trimming EVERYTHING, like welfare, etc....

Fast_Eddie · #9 10-02-2009, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Twodogs

I'd start with all the absolutely absurd stuff, like research for odor from pig poop. After all that kind of stuff was gone, I'd start trimming EVERYTHING, like welfare, etc....

Again, don't trim it. Kill it. Kill the whole welfare program, every bit of science. Kill it all. Doesn't really add up to much.

Found a better chart:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ycategory2.png

Fast_Eddie · #10 10-02-2009, 11:09 AM

Found the 1% figure twice for "welfare". 1% isn't even a start. That's if you kill the entire program.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare...nancial_aid%29