Yes, cutting teacher salaries and having 35 kids in a class makes for a more efficient school.
No, but not buying Oracle Enterprise 8i licenses for every single one of 270,000 California state employees would have freed up about $100M for those schools in 2001... (local example) Especially considering 9i rolled out weeks after the purchase. Yikes!
Maybe you really believe your euphemism. You call them schools. But you know they're nothing more than glorified daycare centers. How many students in your first year University class?
Yup, I never learned a single thing in my 15 years of education. You enjoy fishing?
#1 (repeat the Bush tax cuts) That is fiscally irresponsible. Where do the funds from repealed tax cuts go? To the government.
There's a good debate about how much of our GDP should be in the hands of the government. But that debate is independent of the debate about whether we should be fiscally responsible. Do you know what happens when you decrease taxes like Bush? Government spending increases due to the additional interest payments on the debt. It's exactly the same as taking out loans - you end up paying more in the end because you have to pay the interest + the principal, rather than just principal.
Quote:
#2 (set the nation on a path to a balanced budget) is pure rhetoric. The fiscal foundation of this country isn't sound? Why, because there are poor people?
I honestly don't think you know what the word "fiscal" means. It refers to the budget. It's not about the economy or poor people. You could have a sound fiscal policy (i.e., a balanced budget) and lots of poverty. All Dean is saying is that we should have a balanced budget so we don't pile up debt, which would eat money away from future generations.
Quote:
#3 (Create a fairer and simpler tax system) "Rich people shouldn't make a dollar for every 2 dollars they make just because." Ideally, the IRS needs to go. A flat income tax is simple, is it not? Admittedly that leaves a hole to be filled...so I'll give you higher sales/service taxes, taxes on imports, VAT, etc. The rich buy more, they pay more taxes. The rich import more, they pay more taxes. Meanwhile, people are encouraged to buy domestic goods.
Oh, that's a great idea.. At best it would be slapped down as unfair trade practices, at worst it would cause worldwide retaliation and the Great Depression II.
Anyway, how about this for a flat tax that is fairer and simpler: a flat tax with a high rate, say 40%, and a large standard deduction, say $50,000. So all income above $50,000 would be taxed at 40%. If you make $50,000, you pay 0 federal income taxes. If you make $100,000 you pay .40 X (100,000 - 50,000) = $20,000. If you're making a million, you pay pretty close to 40% of $1 million.
Quote:
Ah yes, whereas I said Dean is fiscally irresponsible, you're saying US Republican Presidents are fiscally irresponsible.
But I thought Dean claimed he was a fiscal conservative? That was my main point, eh? Why should I vote for him if he's saying he's something he's clearly not...or is he? In that case you should hate him because he'd just be allowing that Republican irresponsibility to persevere.
What are you saying here? I honestly can't parse this. Modern Republican presidents have been fiscally irresponsible. They cut taxes and increase spending - it's just what they do. That's why deficits were the result of Reagan, Bush, & Bush policies, and reduced deficits were the result of Clinton's policies. There's very clear data on that. Republicans are not fiscally conservative, they are fiscally liberal.
Bush is a fiscal liberal and a social conservative. Clinton was a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. Dean is marketing himself in the same way as Clinton, and governed that way in Vermont. Which do you prefer?
You get increased tax revenue from increased economic activity. When you cut taxes it means increased money flow for economic activity. The key is to make these cuts permanent so that business has to confidence to spend this money, and not horde it.
What I'm saying is that flat tax, and service-spending based taxes are unfair. The current system is more fair than that.
People earning less than $15K a year are generally in debt (therefore already paying a "tax" to their bank) and spend 100% of their post-tax income, saving nothing. Therefore, under your idea, they would be taxed for 100% of their post-tax income.
Whereas people in higher brackets do not have debt (less debt the higher you go) and spend a much smaller percentage of their income. Again, the higher you go, the smaller percentage of their income is spent, and therefore taxed, with service/sales taxes. Meanwhile they're earning interest on their extra cash.
And the poorer brackets are spending on things they NEED while the rich are spending on luxuries.
Then there's the fact that management salaries have increased exponentially in comparison with general salaries. It's no longer the case that if you work twice as hard and have twice as many people you're responsible for, you earn twice as much. That would theoretically be fair, but it's simply not the situation. The VP should not earn 50 times more than his secretary. He's not 50 times more important nor does he work 50 times as hard. That's just an excuse for the rich ("I've earned it!") Yeah, right.
A few picky points. Flat taxes and service spending taxes are much more fair than our current tax system. We have decided that unfair is fair. That is okay, and the notion behind the progressive system, but don?t call it fair.
People earning less than $15k a year are generally in debt, but they are not required to be. You can own a used car. You can rent a house. The only reason they taken on credit is because people are willing to loan it to them.
They likely do spend 100% of their post tax income and one of the main reasons is likely because Social Security is a profoundly regressive tax that mandates they give up 13% of their income instead of being able to invest it and gain assets to make them no longer poor. They get a promised return from Social Security, but not really since it is a pay as you go system.
Likewise, it is wrong to suggest that people in higher income brackets do not have debt. Even large corporations typically carry some debt as do many wealthy individuals. Additionally many wealthy folks are using leverage to attempt an even better return on their money.
They may have a smaller percentage of their wealth servicing a debt load, but even then this is a choice. There are obvious and frequent examples of very ?wealthy? individuals declaring bankruptcy. Sometimes they are even driven there by taxes owed. (Like WIllie Nelson for example)
You also tend to forget that the wealthy pay many different taxes that are never encountered by the poor. Property taxes can be a very large example of taxes the poor do not have to pay. Likewise you have taxes paid on dividends, capital gains, inheritance, etc.
I will agree with you though that executive compensation has gotten out of hand. This is largely because corporate boards no longer service their purpose and have a sort of cronyism where members from one board sit on other boards and scratch each others backs so to speak. However a few changes in the laws governing corporate boards could fix this quite quickly.
One of the main reasons executive compensation has soared so is because of stock options. This could and should also be fixed. Options should be counted as expenses against the bottom line whereas right now they aren?t.
I?ve already gone on too long, but I just wanted to mention that your assumptions are far from true.
You get increased tax revenue from increased economic activity. When you cut taxes it means increased money flow for economic activity. The key is to make these cuts permanent so that business has to confidence to spend this money, and not horde it.
Of course you get revenues from economic activity. But you can't cut taxes and get MORE tax revenues than you would have gotten otherwise. That's just not common sense, and it's not supported by the facts: Reagan reduced taxes, saw GDP growth, and massive budget deficits. Clinton raised taxes, also saw GDP growth, but got a budget surplus. In other words, government policies don't have much influence on GDP growth, but they do strongly influence our budget situation.
A few picky points. Flat taxes and service spending taxes are much more fair than our current tax system. We have decided that unfair is fair. That is okay, and the notion behind the progressive system, but don?t call it fair.
Well I guess that depends on how you define fair. If you define it as "everyone, rich or poor, pays the same percent of their income" then yeah, the federal income tax is not fair. If you define it as "if you have less money, then you pay less of your income" then it is fair. It seems to me that progressive is fair, because if you have more, you can afford to pay a larger percentage of your income: 15% is a huge hit in the necessities of someone making $25,000, but not to someone making $250,000.
Besides, the poor and middle classes do get killed with tons of taxes aside from the federal income tax: gas taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, state income taxes, etc. etc. When you take those into account, those lucky duckies in the lower and middle classes aren't quite as lucky as they're often made out to be.
Of course you get revenues from economic activity. But you can't cut taxes and get MORE tax revenues than you would have gotten otherwise. That's just not common sense, and it's not supported by the facts: Reagan reduced taxes, saw GDP growth, and massive budget deficits. Clinton raised taxes, also saw GDP growth, but got a budget surplus. In other words, government policies don't have much influence on GDP growth, but they do strongly influence our budget situation.
I think you're wrong. You're not taking into account the special circumstances associated with these cases. Reagan dramatically increased military spending to finally put an end to the chronic Ruskie menace. Clinton took advantage of Reagans achievement and has cut military spending. Therefore the magic "surplus". But then opportunists like Al Qaeda have emerged. And Bush has had to again dramatically increase spending cause of it. He also has had to bail out the insurance industry after 9/11. But, although acute, these represent a one time spending binge. Unlike the institutional chronic spending usually enacted by the democratic candidates with their various social welfare schemes.
Comments
Originally posted by bauman
Yes, cutting teacher salaries and having 35 kids in a class makes for a more efficient school.
No, but not buying Oracle Enterprise 8i licenses for every single one of 270,000 California state employees would have freed up about $100M for those schools in 2001... (local example) Especially considering 9i rolled out weeks after the purchase. Yikes!
Originally posted by Blue Shift
Maybe you really believe your euphemism. You call them schools. But you know they're nothing more than glorified daycare centers. How many students in your first year University class?
Yup, I never learned a single thing in my 15 years of education. You enjoy fishing?
Originally posted by bauman
Yup, I never learned a single thing in my 15 years of education. You enjoy fishing?
Good. At least you're honest with yourself. And yes I do. Why you ask?
Originally posted by Existence
I will not support the Democratic nominee unless it's Dean. I don't think any Democrats other than Dean have a chance.
If Dean does not win the nomination, I'm voting Nader again.
is he running again? did he decide yet? maybe i'll vote for him again
#1 (repeat the Bush tax cuts) That is fiscally irresponsible. Where do the funds from repealed tax cuts go? To the government.
There's a good debate about how much of our GDP should be in the hands of the government. But that debate is independent of the debate about whether we should be fiscally responsible. Do you know what happens when you decrease taxes like Bush? Government spending increases due to the additional interest payments on the debt. It's exactly the same as taking out loans - you end up paying more in the end because you have to pay the interest + the principal, rather than just principal.
#2 (set the nation on a path to a balanced budget) is pure rhetoric. The fiscal foundation of this country isn't sound? Why, because there are poor people?
I honestly don't think you know what the word "fiscal" means. It refers to the budget. It's not about the economy or poor people. You could have a sound fiscal policy (i.e., a balanced budget) and lots of poverty. All Dean is saying is that we should have a balanced budget so we don't pile up debt, which would eat money away from future generations.
#3 (Create a fairer and simpler tax system) "Rich people shouldn't make a dollar for every 2 dollars they make just because." Ideally, the IRS needs to go. A flat income tax is simple, is it not? Admittedly that leaves a hole to be filled...so I'll give you higher sales/service taxes, taxes on imports, VAT, etc. The rich buy more, they pay more taxes. The rich import more, they pay more taxes. Meanwhile, people are encouraged to buy domestic goods.
Oh, that's a great idea.. At best it would be slapped down as unfair trade practices, at worst it would cause worldwide retaliation and the Great Depression II.
Anyway, how about this for a flat tax that is fairer and simpler: a flat tax with a high rate, say 40%, and a large standard deduction, say $50,000. So all income above $50,000 would be taxed at 40%. If you make $50,000, you pay 0 federal income taxes. If you make $100,000 you pay .40 X (100,000 - 50,000) = $20,000. If you're making a million, you pay pretty close to 40% of $1 million.
Ah yes, whereas I said Dean is fiscally irresponsible, you're saying US Republican Presidents are fiscally irresponsible.
But I thought Dean claimed he was a fiscal conservative? That was my main point, eh? Why should I vote for him if he's saying he's something he's clearly not...or is he? In that case you should hate him because he'd just be allowing that Republican irresponsibility to persevere.
Bush is a fiscal liberal and a social conservative. Clinton was a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. Dean is marketing himself in the same way as Clinton, and governed that way in Vermont. Which do you prefer?
Originally posted by jimmac
I think this poll is rather telling. It may not be an accurate example but to me it means Bush won't be a shoe in.
It telling of AI membership. But then we always knew that. Didn't we?
Originally posted by tonton
What I'm saying is that flat tax, and service-spending based taxes are unfair. The current system is more fair than that.
People earning less than $15K a year are generally in debt (therefore already paying a "tax" to their bank) and spend 100% of their post-tax income, saving nothing. Therefore, under your idea, they would be taxed for 100% of their post-tax income.
Whereas people in higher brackets do not have debt (less debt the higher you go) and spend a much smaller percentage of their income. Again, the higher you go, the smaller percentage of their income is spent, and therefore taxed, with service/sales taxes. Meanwhile they're earning interest on their extra cash.
And the poorer brackets are spending on things they NEED while the rich are spending on luxuries.
Then there's the fact that management salaries have increased exponentially in comparison with general salaries. It's no longer the case that if you work twice as hard and have twice as many people you're responsible for, you earn twice as much. That would theoretically be fair, but it's simply not the situation. The VP should not earn 50 times more than his secretary. He's not 50 times more important nor does he work 50 times as hard. That's just an excuse for the rich ("I've earned it!") Yeah, right.
A few picky points. Flat taxes and service spending taxes are much more fair than our current tax system. We have decided that unfair is fair. That is okay, and the notion behind the progressive system, but don?t call it fair.
People earning less than $15k a year are generally in debt, but they are not required to be. You can own a used car. You can rent a house. The only reason they taken on credit is because people are willing to loan it to them.
They likely do spend 100% of their post tax income and one of the main reasons is likely because Social Security is a profoundly regressive tax that mandates they give up 13% of their income instead of being able to invest it and gain assets to make them no longer poor. They get a promised return from Social Security, but not really since it is a pay as you go system.
Likewise, it is wrong to suggest that people in higher income brackets do not have debt. Even large corporations typically carry some debt as do many wealthy individuals. Additionally many wealthy folks are using leverage to attempt an even better return on their money.
They may have a smaller percentage of their wealth servicing a debt load, but even then this is a choice. There are obvious and frequent examples of very ?wealthy? individuals declaring bankruptcy. Sometimes they are even driven there by taxes owed. (Like WIllie Nelson for example)
You also tend to forget that the wealthy pay many different taxes that are never encountered by the poor. Property taxes can be a very large example of taxes the poor do not have to pay. Likewise you have taxes paid on dividends, capital gains, inheritance, etc.
I will agree with you though that executive compensation has gotten out of hand. This is largely because corporate boards no longer service their purpose and have a sort of cronyism where members from one board sit on other boards and scratch each others backs so to speak. However a few changes in the laws governing corporate boards could fix this quite quickly.
One of the main reasons executive compensation has soared so is because of stock options. This could and should also be fixed. Options should be counted as expenses against the bottom line whereas right now they aren?t.
I?ve already gone on too long, but I just wanted to mention that your assumptions are far from true.
Nick
Originally posted by Blue Shift
You get increased tax revenue from increased economic activity. When you cut taxes it means increased money flow for economic activity. The key is to make these cuts permanent so that business has to confidence to spend this money, and not horde it.
Of course you get revenues from economic activity. But you can't cut taxes and get MORE tax revenues than you would have gotten otherwise. That's just not common sense, and it's not supported by the facts: Reagan reduced taxes, saw GDP growth, and massive budget deficits. Clinton raised taxes, also saw GDP growth, but got a budget surplus. In other words, government policies don't have much influence on GDP growth, but they do strongly influence our budget situation.
Originally posted by trumptman
A few picky points. Flat taxes and service spending taxes are much more fair than our current tax system. We have decided that unfair is fair. That is okay, and the notion behind the progressive system, but don?t call it fair.
Well I guess that depends on how you define fair. If you define it as "everyone, rich or poor, pays the same percent of their income" then yeah, the federal income tax is not fair. If you define it as "if you have less money, then you pay less of your income" then it is fair. It seems to me that progressive is fair, because if you have more, you can afford to pay a larger percentage of your income: 15% is a huge hit in the necessities of someone making $25,000, but not to someone making $250,000.
Besides, the poor and middle classes do get killed with tons of taxes aside from the federal income tax: gas taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, state income taxes, etc. etc. When you take those into account, those lucky duckies in the lower and middle classes aren't quite as lucky as they're often made out to be.
Originally posted by BRussell
Of course you get revenues from economic activity. But you can't cut taxes and get MORE tax revenues than you would have gotten otherwise. That's just not common sense, and it's not supported by the facts: Reagan reduced taxes, saw GDP growth, and massive budget deficits. Clinton raised taxes, also saw GDP growth, but got a budget surplus. In other words, government policies don't have much influence on GDP growth, but they do strongly influence our budget situation.
I think you're wrong. You're not taking into account the special circumstances associated with these cases. Reagan dramatically increased military spending to finally put an end to the chronic Ruskie menace. Clinton took advantage of Reagans achievement and has cut military spending. Therefore the magic "surplus". But then opportunists like Al Qaeda have emerged. And Bush has had to again dramatically increase spending cause of it. He also has had to bail out the insurance industry after 9/11. But, although acute, these represent a one time spending binge. Unlike the institutional chronic spending usually enacted by the democratic candidates with their various social welfare schemes.