More taxes? Only a career Californian or New Yorker (in Rubin's case) could see that as the appropriate solution to our deficit problem. We need to cut spending. Cutting taxes is causing the fiscal pain that it should, because the next step must be to reduce government spending.
If we cut the Pentagon and Spook stuff 100% we balance the budget!
Of course, our shredded remains of an industrial complex is now nearly 100% military oriented so this kills our economy.
Or...cut 100% of the money spent on all other things for American humans. This will be called "the Great Die Off" and is part of the horrors of the Hubbert Oil Peak.
I suppose some people don't mind walking over bodies on sidewalks or seeing little starving children begging for food but then upper class people have ingenious ways of avoiding these ugly things.
It will spell the end of America as a functioning society, though.
The rich just don't want to pay taxes anymore. They propagandized and pushed this TRAITOROUS concept hard and they rewarded TRAITORS who cut taxes without regard and they are the TRAITORS who sold our entire country to Asia.
Now we are on the road to bankruptcy and these same rich TRAITORS will suggest we starve to death or die young so they can continue to suck off of our country and then run off to Europe which is much more socialist and safer for them.
Yes indeed. Many Bush officials hold double passports too. Can't be 100% American.
As I just called Rubin's oped - it's Return of the Jedi. Of course, Revenge of the Sith was Reagan's fiscal policy - while the current White House = The Evil Empire Strikes Back.
Well, if we stopped deluding ourselves into thinking we can control the entire effing world, we would realize that our military budget is insane.
I would cut it to $50 billion, myself. But American can't stand the thought of not being uberpowerful. Of course, every economist knows that the US is completely vulnerable, to a large degree BECAUSE of our military expenditures.
Reality is not where the US is at, folks. We won't acknowledge it until we get strong external feedback from the rest of the world.
BTW: A $50 billion military budget would free up over $400 billion a year.
Just to keep along that line of thought,
In my fantasy, I would then set up a Health Care regulatory body to pass regs that would force uniformity, efficiency, and equity in the health care industry. No doubt, this would save Medicare and Medicaid significant amounts of money.
It ain't complicated. It really isn't, which is both sad and extremely frustrating to us that care.
Watch History Channel and its big metal or modern marvels about big military iron ask the question of what is it good for?
It is only good against a suicidal opponent who wants to fight just like us.
To eliminate the US as a military power:
Sink or disable the air craft carriers--Possible by cheap modern non nuke subs. I have seen articles where it has happened in war games. Esp if the opposition is ready to trade a sub for an aircraft carrier.
Knock out or screwup GPS. Everything is so based on GPS, that its elimination would do away with most of the technical edge the US enjoys.
Are you truly expressing surprise that a Republican Administration elected on (delivered) promises of tax-cuts does not share Democratic values? If you want an administration ideologically predisposed to tax increases, you will have to do a better job convincing voters in the next election to vote Democratic.
Punishing our most productive members of the working class, those wage earners making over $200k, is not the answer. Of course, he means families making over $200k and believe me that is not wealthy where I live.
The fair way to increase tax revenue is to remove tax breaks, shelters, and mechanisms the truly wealthy have available to protect their accumulated wealth and income derived from it. Aim your class envy there, not at me.
Of course, neither Democrats nor Republicans are interested in bringing tax fairness to the political donor class. But this is the farce of the Democratic party: stick to high-income wage earners who work to make a living under the guise of class envy, while the truly wealthy are protected.
Truly fair would be a flat tax with high standard deduction (25%, $50k but we can debate it those values) on ALL personal income, with no tax shelters under any pretense. Even the mortgage interest deduction is unfair since the truly wealthy exploit it more fully.
Two hundred thousand dollars in income is wealthy where I live, and I live in a very wealthy community, and I too have a lovely income and I assure you I am not too highly taxed.
Why tax at all? I mean, what if we didn't tax at all. What would be the consequences? We already run a $500 billion deficit, why not a $2000 billion
deficit?
Maybe taxing on a Federal level is just a waste of time. Maybe, we should just have the Federal gov't spend as much as it needs and have the Fed adjust interest rates as necessary to keep inflation in check. Then, that is all.
It is a strange thought, but not so far from what we already have.
Whether one believes they are overtaxed, undertaxed, or taxed just right is truly a matter of opinion, philosophy or other intangible and I hope you will grant me my opinion that I am overtaxed compared to the truly rich.
I can assure you also, despite a nice income, that I am not wealthy. I live frugally, and have so for many years. Yet purchasing even the median priced 3BR/2BA home in my area would be a great financial burden, if in reach at all. So while you may consider me wealthy, I cannot afford a house in a decent (but not exclusive) area let alone a second home, I drive an 8-year old car, I fly economy-class rather than on my own jet, I work long hours, travel little, and I cook my own meals. So by all means, please tax me to death, I have it sooo good.
With regards to tax fairness, I draw a distinction between high income wage earners and those persons with enough accumulated wealth to generate a high income. The latter are the truly rich, who don't need to work because their assets generate enough income to live a luxury lifestyle. I have no problem with that, except that with enough assets one is able to generate tax-free or tax-deferred income through a myriad of sheltering schemes. The more assets you have, the easier it is. Wage earners do not have access to such advantages. Overall, the super-rich end up paying the same proportion or less of their income as the middle class. So soak the Paris Hiltons, Kennedys, Bushes, Gates, Buffets, and Elaine Supkis not me.
Jason, I am surprised that a GOP administration does not share a classic GOP value: fiscal prudence. Of course, they do not share other old time GOP values either. As a Senator Hagel said in 2003: "Republicans used to believe in balanced budgets. Republicans used to believe in fiscal responsibility, limited international entanglements and limited government. We have lost our way."
Everyone would prefer to pay fewer taxes, but some of us are concerned with intergenerational inequities - like passing our debts onto our children and grandchildren. I believe the current generation should pay their fair share of the burden.
The deficit is too large to fix with spending cuts (unless we cut the military budget to zero). So tax increases are coming.
Rubin's argument is silly. It is regurgitating the same argument John Kerry made in his presidential campaign -- tax incomes greater than $200k. Americans rejected that approach.
I'm glad to hear you are concerned with generational inequities. As a 30-something, I am too. Specifically with shouldering the burden for the retirements and long term health care of the preceding generation which enabled Democratic Congresses for 40 years to spend the entire Social Security "Trust Fund" that is now coming due. It's the Democrats and the Baby Boom generation that created this monster Entitlement Society, and transfer of debts to my generation, and I resent having to pay higher taxes for it.
The deficit can also be attacked by reducing outlays from entitlement programs, like Bush's attempt to reform Social Security, and that is the approach the voters chose in 2004.
But since my parents' generation has the demographics in their favor, my generation is going to end up getting screwed. Shame on the Baby Boomers.
Jason, the boomers prepaid a big piece of their SS. That was fair to future generations. But Bush has destroyed the fiscal balance of America, and the question is: Who is going to pay to fix it?
It is incorrect to say the deficit can be fixed by reducing SS. Try this mind game: Eliminate SS and the payroll tax. Now you have a $600 Billion+ deficit. What are you going to do? Please don't tell me you're going to raise taxes on low and middle income Americans! But that is what you are saying when you advocate cutting benefits without reducing the payroll tax.
I agree your generation is probably going to get hurt (unless we enact some of Kerry / Rubin's excellent proposals), but not because of the low and middle income boomers - they prepaid their SS. You got taken by the high income boomers and Bush. Shame on Bush for destroying America's fiscal balance!
Rubin and many others are not on Moore's list of 250 economists that he so thoughtfully constructed for those of us who have too much to read and not enough time to sort out the wheat from the chaff.
With the SS issue bleeding the President's popularity and the nation's confidence in his leadership, I wonder if these editorials are having an effect on the rest of the WH press? I mean the national media. Is Rubin just dismissed as a Democrat?
Jason - I like the idea of eliminating all taxes and just printing money to fund public consumption. In fact, we are getting a preview of this courtesy of the Bush Administration. Lets see how long it lasts.
I imagine a saving account wouldn't be worth too much.
I think the only fair tax is the one that taxes everyone. Once you remove the tax from a group of individuals, they no longer feel the connection between confiscation of income and govt services. With no cost associated with services, they vote for more.
I think the retirees with moderate pensions and SS will vote for increasing taxes on those of us who are younger because they will not feel the consequences of the votes.
CR: "Everyone would prefer to pay fewer taxes" -- not necessarily the main point. It's relative -- how much do you and others pay, and how much is everybody getting out of it (not necessarily Jason "Moneybag" Wright)?
I suppose you would like to give to fundraisers for the needy, but would be less so inclined if you learnt that the fundraising organizers buy themselves nice cars and throw each other parties, right?
Jennifer: Well, there are regions where the cost of living (and housing) is so high that $100K+ or even $200K+ will not allow you an extravagant lifestyle, and a "comfortable" living with incomes below that can only be sustained by carrying debt. Maybe us engineers are all moneybags here in the Bay Area, but when so many people are making more than you, it limits your choices.
For example, in line with Jason's complaint about affordability of housing, aside from the occasional luck, people able to pay more than you effectively make their choice of house first, and you can have what they don't want. If things are such that many people are willing to engage in precarious devices such as ARMs, interest-only loans, "negative mortgages" where they don't have to pay all interest depending on equity, etc., then you can pretty much take what nobody wants, 200K or not.
I still think taxes may be outdated. Nobody likes them. So the key is to develope an economic system where social values are maintained (or even improved) but no taxes are levied.
Or in some sense, the taxes are built right into the economic system and the govt merely gives out subsidies to maintain social values.
The best analogy I can think of is this: Think of a pizza place. Rather than charge for delivery, they give free delivery, but a "carry out" special.
Maybe we should move away from charging for delivery, and focus on carry-out specials.
CR,
You make a good point about prepaying for their benefits. That is true and certainly there is an obligation there. What do you think about the amount of benefits received versus payments? It seems to me people are living and working more years than when SS was first implemented. They are also drawing SS payments for more years. Changes in the program to reflect modern lifespans and retirement ages seem reasonable.
Of course, we are not going to balance the budget on SS alone -- Medicare/Medicaid entitlements comprise much more our spending and reforms are needed there as well. Bush's SS proposals are one step in that direction.
I haven't heard any pro-taxers address the fairness of the Kerry/Rubin plan for taxing $200k+ wage earners without first eliminating tax shelters for the actually rich. Any limousine liberals out there want to try their hand at justifying their free ride at the expense of the working upper middle class? That is just tongue-in-cheek, please excuse my little joke. I do really want to hear why so much focus is always on taxing wages instead of eliminating tax loopholes.
I think that it is a poor-man's argument to believe that the government knows better what to do with the incomes of the wealthiest Americans than the wage-earners themselves.
The "Tax The Rich" crowd seems to believe that wealthy Americans make waste of their wealth. Quite the opposite, they invest more prudently than the government ever could. Even if the wealthy only blew their extra money on expensive cars, fine food and lavish parties, the beneficial economic effects cascade through society much better than government spending. The "Invisible Hand" drives the right economic incentives to every part of society.
One the flip-side, higher taxes are a very large economic disincentive. The best example is what would happen if the govt raised my taxes (especially where tax rates then vary across regions). Because my employer values my contribution more than others, my employer will raise my wages to keep me while cutting heads in other areas to keep budgets in line.
More taxes? Only a career Californian or New Yorker (in Rubin's case) could see that as the appropriate solution to our deficit problem. We need to cut spending. Cutting taxes is causing the fiscal pain that it should, because the next step must be to reduce government spending.
Cut spending! Hahahahaha.
If we cut the Pentagon and Spook stuff 100% we balance the budget!
Of course, our shredded remains of an industrial complex is now nearly 100% military oriented so this kills our economy.
Or...cut 100% of the money spent on all other things for American humans. This will be called "the Great Die Off" and is part of the horrors of the Hubbert Oil Peak.
I suppose some people don't mind walking over bodies on sidewalks or seeing little starving children begging for food but then upper class people have ingenious ways of avoiding these ugly things.
It will spell the end of America as a functioning society, though.
The rich just don't want to pay taxes anymore. They propagandized and pushed this TRAITOROUS concept hard and they rewarded TRAITORS who cut taxes without regard and they are the TRAITORS who sold our entire country to Asia.
Now we are on the road to bankruptcy and these same rich TRAITORS will suggest we starve to death or die young so they can continue to suck off of our country and then run off to Europe which is much more socialist and safer for them.
Yes indeed. Many Bush officials hold double passports too. Can't be 100% American.
As I just called Rubin's oped - it's Return of the Jedi. Of course, Revenge of the Sith was Reagan's fiscal policy - while the current White House = The Evil Empire Strikes Back.
We need to do one or the other.
Well, if we stopped deluding ourselves into thinking we can control the entire effing world, we would realize that our military budget is insane.
I would cut it to $50 billion, myself. But American can't stand the thought of not being uberpowerful. Of course, every economist knows that the US is completely vulnerable, to a large degree BECAUSE of our military expenditures.
Reality is not where the US is at, folks. We won't acknowledge it until we get strong external feedback from the rest of the world.
BTW: A $50 billion military budget would free up over $400 billion a year.
Just to keep along that line of thought,
In my fantasy, I would then set up a Health Care regulatory body to pass regs that would force uniformity, efficiency, and equity in the health care industry. No doubt, this would save Medicare and Medicaid significant amounts of money.
It ain't complicated. It really isn't, which is both sad and extremely frustrating to us that care.
Our expensive military is almost obsolite.
Watch History Channel and its big metal or modern marvels about big military iron ask the question of what is it good for?
It is only good against a suicidal opponent who wants to fight just like us.
To eliminate the US as a military power:
Nice series of posts, as usual
Are you truly expressing surprise that a Republican Administration elected on (delivered) promises of tax-cuts does not share Democratic values? If you want an administration ideologically predisposed to tax increases, you will have to do a better job convincing voters in the next election to vote Democratic.
Punishing our most productive members of the working class, those wage earners making over $200k, is not the answer. Of course, he means families making over $200k and believe me that is not wealthy where I live.
The fair way to increase tax revenue is to remove tax breaks, shelters, and mechanisms the truly wealthy have available to protect their accumulated wealth and income derived from it. Aim your class envy there, not at me.
Of course, neither Democrats nor Republicans are interested in bringing tax fairness to the political donor class. But this is the farce of the Democratic party: stick to high-income wage earners who work to make a living under the guise of class envy, while the truly wealthy are protected.
Truly fair would be a flat tax with high standard deduction (25%, $50k but we can debate it those values) on ALL personal income, with no tax shelters under any pretense. Even the mortgage interest deduction is unfair since the truly wealthy exploit it more fully.
Jason, the really rich own with out debts to deduct.
For example, I own all my property outright.
Two hundred thousand dollars in income is wealthy where I live, and I live in a very wealthy community, and I too have a lovely income and I assure you I am not too highly taxed.
Why tax at all? I mean, what if we didn't tax at all. What would be the consequences? We already run a $500 billion deficit, why not a $2000 billion
deficit?
Maybe taxing on a Federal level is just a waste of time. Maybe, we should just have the Federal gov't spend as much as it needs and have the Fed adjust interest rates as necessary to keep inflation in check. Then, that is all.
It is a strange thought, but not so far from what we already have.
Whether one believes they are overtaxed, undertaxed, or taxed just right is truly a matter of opinion, philosophy or other intangible and I hope you will grant me my opinion that I am overtaxed compared to the truly rich.
I can assure you also, despite a nice income, that I am not wealthy. I live frugally, and have so for many years. Yet purchasing even the median priced 3BR/2BA home in my area would be a great financial burden, if in reach at all. So while you may consider me wealthy, I cannot afford a house in a decent (but not exclusive) area let alone a second home, I drive an 8-year old car, I fly economy-class rather than on my own jet, I work long hours, travel little, and I cook my own meals. So by all means, please tax me to death, I have it sooo good.
With regards to tax fairness, I draw a distinction between high income wage earners and those persons with enough accumulated wealth to generate a high income. The latter are the truly rich, who don't need to work because their assets generate enough income to live a luxury lifestyle. I have no problem with that, except that with enough assets one is able to generate tax-free or tax-deferred income through a myriad of sheltering schemes. The more assets you have, the easier it is. Wage earners do not have access to such advantages. Overall, the super-rich end up paying the same proportion or less of their income as the middle class. So soak the Paris Hiltons, Kennedys, Bushes, Gates, Buffets, and Elaine Supkis
not me.
Jason, I am surprised that a GOP administration does not share a classic GOP value: fiscal prudence. Of course, they do not share other old time GOP values either. As a Senator Hagel said in 2003: "Republicans used to believe in balanced budgets. Republicans used to believe in fiscal responsibility, limited international entanglements and limited government. We have lost our way."
Everyone would prefer to pay fewer taxes, but some of us are concerned with intergenerational inequities - like passing our debts onto our children and grandchildren. I believe the current generation should pay their fair share of the burden.
The deficit is too large to fix with spending cuts (unless we cut the military budget to zero). So tax increases are coming.
Best Regards to All. Have a great weekend.
Rubin's argument is silly. It is regurgitating the same argument John Kerry made in his presidential campaign -- tax incomes greater than $200k. Americans rejected that approach.
I'm glad to hear you are concerned with generational inequities. As a 30-something, I am too. Specifically with shouldering the burden for the retirements and long term health care of the preceding generation which enabled Democratic Congresses for 40 years to spend the entire Social Security "Trust Fund" that is now coming due. It's the Democrats and the Baby Boom generation that created this monster Entitlement Society, and transfer of debts to my generation, and I resent having to pay higher taxes for it.
The deficit can also be attacked by reducing outlays from entitlement programs, like Bush's attempt to reform Social Security, and that is the approach the voters chose in 2004.
But since my parents' generation has the demographics in their favor, my generation is going to end up getting screwed. Shame on the Baby Boomers.
Jason, the boomers prepaid a big piece of their SS. That was fair to future generations. But Bush has destroyed the fiscal balance of America, and the question is: Who is going to pay to fix it?
It is incorrect to say the deficit can be fixed by reducing SS. Try this mind game: Eliminate SS and the payroll tax. Now you have a $600 Billion+ deficit. What are you going to do? Please don't tell me you're going to raise taxes on low and middle income Americans! But that is what you are saying when you advocate cutting benefits without reducing the payroll tax.
I agree your generation is probably going to get hurt (unless we enact some of Kerry / Rubin's excellent proposals), but not because of the low and middle income boomers - they prepaid their SS. You got taken by the high income boomers and Bush. Shame on Bush for destroying America's fiscal balance!
Best Regards.
Rubin and many others are not on Moore's list of 250 economists that he so thoughtfully constructed for those of us who have too much to read and not enough time to sort out the wheat from the chaff.
With the SS issue bleeding the President's popularity and the nation's confidence in his leadership, I wonder if these editorials are having an effect on the rest of the WH press? I mean the national media. Is Rubin just dismissed as a Democrat?
Jason - I like the idea of eliminating all taxes and just printing money to fund public consumption. In fact, we are getting a preview of this courtesy of the Bush Administration. Lets see how long it lasts.
I imagine a saving account wouldn't be worth too much.
I think the only fair tax is the one that taxes everyone. Once you remove the tax from a group of individuals, they no longer feel the connection between confiscation of income and govt services. With no cost associated with services, they vote for more.
I think the retirees with moderate pensions and SS will vote for increasing taxes on those of us who are younger because they will not feel the consequences of the votes.
CR: "Everyone would prefer to pay fewer taxes" -- not necessarily the main point. It's relative -- how much do you and others pay, and how much is everybody getting out of it (not necessarily Jason "Moneybag" Wright)?
I suppose you would like to give to fundraisers for the needy, but would be less so inclined if you learnt that the fundraising organizers buy themselves nice cars and throw each other parties, right?
Jennifer: Well, there are regions where the cost of living (and housing) is so high that $100K+ or even $200K+ will not allow you an extravagant lifestyle, and a "comfortable" living with incomes below that can only be sustained by carrying debt. Maybe us engineers are all moneybags here in the Bay Area, but when so many people are making more than you, it limits your choices.
For example, in line with Jason's complaint about affordability of housing, aside from the occasional luck, people able to pay more than you effectively make their choice of house first, and you can have what they don't want. If things are such that many people are willing to engage in precarious devices such as ARMs, interest-only loans, "negative mortgages" where they don't have to pay all interest depending on equity, etc., then you can pretty much take what nobody wants, 200K or not.
And it's not just housing that costs more.
Just to point out.
I still think taxes may be outdated. Nobody likes them. So the key is to develope an economic system where social values are maintained (or even improved) but no taxes are levied.
Or in some sense, the taxes are built right into the economic system and the govt merely gives out subsidies to maintain social values.
The best analogy I can think of is this: Think of a pizza place. Rather than charge for delivery, they give free delivery, but a "carry out" special.
Maybe we should move away from charging for delivery, and focus on carry-out specials.
CR,
You make a good point about prepaying for their benefits. That is true and certainly there is an obligation there. What do you think about the amount of benefits received versus payments? It seems to me people are living and working more years than when SS was first implemented. They are also drawing SS payments for more years. Changes in the program to reflect modern lifespans and retirement ages seem reasonable.
Of course, we are not going to balance the budget on SS alone -- Medicare/Medicaid entitlements comprise much more our spending and reforms are needed there as well. Bush's SS proposals are one step in that direction.
I haven't heard any pro-taxers address the fairness of the Kerry/Rubin plan for taxing $200k+ wage earners without first eliminating tax shelters for the actually rich. Any limousine liberals out there want to try their hand at justifying their free ride at the expense of the working upper middle class? That is just tongue-in-cheek, please excuse my little joke. I do really want to hear why so much focus is always on taxing wages instead of eliminating tax loopholes.
Jason: Because you don't bite the hand that feeds you?
I think that it is a poor-man's argument to believe that the government knows better what to do with the incomes of the wealthiest Americans than the wage-earners themselves.
The "Tax The Rich" crowd seems to believe that wealthy Americans make waste of their wealth. Quite the opposite, they invest more prudently than the government ever could. Even if the wealthy only blew their extra money on expensive cars, fine food and lavish parties, the beneficial economic effects cascade through society much better than government spending. The "Invisible Hand" drives the right economic incentives to every part of society.
One the flip-side, higher taxes are a very large economic disincentive. The best example is what would happen if the govt raised my taxes (especially where tax rates then vary across regions). Because my employer values my contribution more than others, my employer will raise my wages to keep me while cutting heads in other areas to keep budgets in line.