Obama commission’s deficit ‘compromise’: Raise taxes

If recent reports about President Obama’s deficit commission are accurate, taxpayers will be going on a starvation diet while the government steps up to a dessert buffet. From the Wall Street Journal:

Sacrosanct tax breaks, including deductions on mortgage interest, remain on the table just weeks before the deficit commission issues recommendations on policies to pare back with the aim of balancing the budget by 2015.

The tax benefits are hugely popular with the public but they have drawn the panel’s focus, in part because the White House has said these and other breaks cost the government about $1 trillion a year.

At stake, in addition to the mortgage-interest deductions, are child tax credits and the ability of employees to pay their portion of their health-insurance tab with pretax dollars. Commission officials are expected to look at preserving these breaks but at a lower level, according to people familiar with the matter.

The officials are also looking at potential cuts to defense spending and a freeze on domestic discretionary spending. It is unclear if the 18-member panel will be able to reach an agreement on any of the items by a Dec. 1 deadline. …

Still, officials have found there aren’t any easy ways to balance the budget, and they are expected to steer clear of more polarizing issues like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and a broad rewrite of the tax code in their short-term recommendations. The panel could still make long-term recommendations to change these issues, but they would be less concrete.

As some of you have pointed out before, trying to eliminate the deficit and pay down debt without touching entitlements is futile. Saying “they would be less concrete” is another way of saying “they will never happen.”

What we’ll get to close the deficit, then, will be several hundred billion dollars in individual income-tax hikes (Congress probably wouldn’t get rid of all deductions) and a significantly smaller amount of federal spending cuts. Something like three parts tax hike, one part spending cut.

To put that in perspective, individual income-tax receipts in 2008 totaled $1 trillion. So, we could approach a doubling of that figure — and that’s before the Bush tax cuts expire. Worse, with the spending side of federal budgeting remaining largely unreformed, there would be absolutely nothing to prevent Congress from taking that tax hike and spending even more (borrowed) money.

To paraphrase comedian Chris Rock’s line about taxes, that ain’t a compromise, that’s a jack.

There are good arguments to be made for ending, or drastically reducing, these and other deductions as part of a complete overhaul of the tax code (here’s one of them). But it appears the deficit commission has dismissed the idea of proposing such an overhaul. We’re not getting tax reform, just a tax hike.

This is precisely why some of us were skeptical about this panel. So much for the commission chairman’s reassurances that “we can’t tax our way out” of the problem.

98 comments Add your comment

A Hearty Cheese Sauce

October 25th, 2010
3:21 pm

Im just hoping The Lord Jesus Christ Obama can save us…from ourselves.

A Hearty Cheese Sauce

October 25th, 2010
3:24 pm

Drug test all welfare and food stamp applicants and those currently enrolled. They fail the drug test then off the dole they go. I would venture to guess inner city enrollments would decrease by so…oh…65% or more.

Peter

October 25th, 2010
3:43 pm

Gee how do we pay for the Iraq War Kyle ?

JF McNamara

October 25th, 2010
3:47 pm

As for the taxation, it is what it is. What is really at issue is what we value enough to pay for it. From my understanding, there aren’t a lot of frivoulous programs out there, and its clear that people want Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. At some point, you have to PAY FOR WHAT YOU GET, and that is the reason why taxation is probably going to be higher.

Republicans always talk about cutting waste, but they never seem to. The reason why is that they actually do cut waste, but most of the things that people want to cut are not waste but value added services. If social security was “waste”, it would’ve been cut a long time ago. Its not “waste”, its value added so we need to pay for it to balance our budget.

I hope they do raise taxes and balance the budget. We’ll find out what’s really waste and what is not then. You really can’t now, because deficit spending masks the real cost impact of items. Since you don’t feel the impact, it feels like we can afford it. Once you pay, our government will get a lot more streamlined, because there will be a cause/effect relationship on your personal finances.

Raising taxes to achieve a balanced budget will actually be an action that will begin a much needed process and it should be welcomed by all fiscal conservatives.

Also, Thanks for feeding stereotypes “cheese”. Nothing like cracking on others to make yourself feel better. I’m sure it helped your fragile self esteem in some miniscule childish way.

left wing

October 25th, 2010
3:48 pm

I prefer doing away with Reagan’s 5 tax brackets and expanding to at least 7. Why lump someone making “only” $250,000 with someone else making $25,000,000?

I would also do away with most of the corporate welfare, such as the tax breaks to Big Oil (although that’s really not all that much). We could easily cut defense by 10% which would still outspend the next 10 countries combined. And yes, we will have to “tweak” social security, either by raising the limit on the payroll tax (currently income up to I beleive $108,000 is taxed), increasing the percentage a decimal point or both. Medicare is trickier, but we absolutely need to do something there as well.

While this country has had a worse debt to GDP ratio (I think after WWII it was over 140%), we are getting to the point where “bad things will start to happen”.

BS Aplenty

October 25th, 2010
3:51 pm

I believe you’re starting to get the hang of this game….

jconservative

October 25th, 2010
3:52 pm

First, the commission only makes recommendations. So lets not kill the messenger. The problem is the 30 year combination of tax cuts and increasing spending. Not the commission.

Second, if the commission wants to raise taxes the recommendation will need to go through a Republican controlled House and a Senate where 41 filibuster votes are a given on any issue.

So lets do not play cheap politics. This only removes the focus from the real enemy – tax cuts and increased spending.

We got where we are now by Cutting Taxes and Increasing Spending in 28 of the last 30 budgets (I am giving the Republicans and Clinton their claimed balance). Did everyone get that? Cut Taxes and Increase Spending in the same budget! How irresponsible can a group of alleged public servants get?

So where did we get the funds to pay for the spending? We borrowed it.

So we want to extend the Bush tax cuts? Where will we get the money for extending the Bush Tax Cuts? We will borrow it (or worse, just print it)!

But whatever we do it will go through a Republican controlled House.

Amy in the ATL

October 25th, 2010
3:55 pm

It’s really high time for our elected leaders (from both parties) to get serious about cutting the deficit and eventually beginning to pay down debt, as opposed to just giving it lip service. And, unfortunately, there is no easy and painless solution.

Yes, we are going to have to raise taxes, and eliminating the Bush tax cuts is probably just the first step. And two, we need to start cutting spending, and there should be NO sacred cows. Review defense spending, look into Medicare options, and yes, let’s raise the Social Security retirement age. We’ll know we’re being fair when all segments of the population are upset about something.

And we probably need to get this done before those elected take office in January. Because if polls are to be believed, we’re looking at the potential for a high number of inexperienced and extremely idealogical folks getting into office, and that doesn’t necessarily bode well for taking action on the deficit. You can’t exactly run on a “Less Taxes” platform and then vote to let the Bush tax cuts expire.

And we should all learn a lesson from those Bush tax cuts, and that is that the government will never starve itself, even when the White House and Congress are all controlled by the GOP. Reducing government revenues tends to have no effect on spending, otherwise we wouldn’t be in the mess we are today. We need to reimplement PAYGO. So if anyone wants to reinstate the Bush tax cuts, they shouldn’t be able to do so unless they can cut the same or more government spending to offset the impact.

left wing

October 25th, 2010
3:58 pm

jconservative @ 3:52 – I agree with you (at least regarding the Bush tax cuts). We can’t afford them, and personally I prefer not keeping any of them (which “saves” us almost $4 trillion over 10 years).

As I said above, I’d prefer getting rid of Reagan’s 5 tax brackets and expanding to at least 7.

And having said that, we also need to decrease out spending. We need to cut from entitlements as well as defense. I’ll agree if you will.

booger

October 25th, 2010
3:58 pm

Was there ever any doubt?

BS Aplenty

October 25th, 2010
4:00 pm

So lets (sic) do not play cheap politics.

This kind of politics is anything but cheap. Conservatives, however, think spending cuts should be a key to reducing the deficit while the libtards (a word I can’t use on Bookman’s blah-og) think that George W. Bush’s reduction in tax rates is pure evil. Imagine that, let a man work hard AND let him keep the rewards of his labor – just pure evil.

Hillbilly Deluxe

October 25th, 2010
4:01 pm

The only thing that will work is a complete overhaul of the tax code. That ain’t gonna happen.

Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)

October 25th, 2010
4:04 pm

Well, it’s tax here and tax there and spend here and there and it just don’t end. My Skoal and Redman costs twice as much as it use to, and now I got a county tax bill on the trailer last Friday. I just don’t know how I’m going to come up with 50 bucks.

How about we just get rid of SS and welfare and Medicaid and leave things as they are? Just keep the guvmint’s hands off of my Medicare. I don’t care if they get rid of the mortgage interest deduction. I paid cash for the trailer and I don’t see why we should reward people for going into debt big-time. You want a big house, you pay all the taxes on it. People like me ain’t your Daddy.

Have a good night everybody.

JF McNamara

October 25th, 2010
4:06 pm

BS Aplenty,

No one else is saying we shouldn’t have spending cuts. We all want them, but we can’t balance our budget with spending cuts alone. Its going to have the be a combination of raising taxes and cutting spending. If we don’t touch the entitlements, and we are unlikely to do so, its going to be a lot more taxing than cutting.

Ragnar Danneskjöld

October 25th, 2010
4:10 pm

I can describe the Obama Tax, pardon Deficit Commission in four letters: GIGO

songbird

October 25th, 2010
4:13 pm

Painful choices will have to be made to bring down the deficit. We will have to decide what programs we want and how much we are willing to spend for them. There’s no way to cut enough to bring down the deficit without some tax increases. I agree with the 7 tax brackets. Why should someone earning $250K be lumped in with people earning 10 times that amount.

No More Progressives!

October 25th, 2010
4:17 pm

Peter

October 25th, 2010
3:43 pm
Gee how do we pay for the Iraq War Kyle ?

Easy. Implement Hearty Cheese Sauce’s idea of 3:24 PM.

I have to pass a drug screen to remain employed and so does my wife. Why not the “less fortunate?”

BS Aplenty

October 25th, 2010
4:23 pm

JF McNamara -

A more socialist solution under the guise of “stimulus” and then “tax increases” is not a solution. It is the problem. We have to rethink government and then the budget solutions will become more evident. You now have the genesis of the “Tea Party” movement.

joe

October 25th, 2010
4:27 pm

Make welfare recipients work for their entitlements. Also, cut out ALL unnecessary spending. $47 million for ATL trollies? Now another 5 million for a rail line to Charlotte…who even goes to Charlotte? If you have to go there, drive your own damn car or fly. Planes fly there, correct? They have an airport there, correct? Give me an effin break. Love the earlier idea of drug testing welfare lifers too. When I was deep in debt, I cut out all unnecessary spending and in two years am almost debt free. Our govt needs to take the same approach. Once our debt as been paid off, then we can splurge on trolly’s and rail lines.

Thurston B. Howell III

October 25th, 2010
4:35 pm

Only Suckers pay income tax.

AmVet

October 25th, 2010
4:41 pm

You fiscally irresponsible non-conservatives are a real hoot!

You ignorantly blather on and on about income redistribution and socialism and other such sophomoric nonsense.

But you rubes don’t have the first clue on how to put a helluva dent in the budget deficit, every year, do you?

Jefferson

October 25th, 2010
4:46 pm

The country operates better when high incomes pay higher taxes. There is little left to cut that would generate the needed shortfall.

Question Authority

October 25th, 2010
4:46 pm

Of course. If you cut spending you will lose the votes of the parasites that live off the rest of us.

End the Federal Reserve. It is the root and source of all the evil that plagues our country. If you don’t have a clear understanding of why, please go to http://www.mises.org and read up on this criminal organization that has been robbing the american people blind since 1913 and enabling all of the government excesses that a sound currency would inherently require.

Jefferson

October 25th, 2010
4:57 pm

Medicare and defense are the hogs of the budget, the rest is like pissin’ in Niagra falls. Just wait until you get dropped by the employer or the prices are too high, then health cost will get your attention, until then just pass it off, the working class poor is already at that point. Sooner or later it will become everyone’s problem. You could cut all aid foriegn and domestic and still have a big deficit, revenue must increase.

Rafe Hollister

October 25th, 2010
4:59 pm

Peter:

Where do we get the money for the Iraq war. You guys ranted for years about a war for Oil, so take it out of that Oil money we got.

I can see the Folk getting it in the end. The emphasis seems to be on tax hikes, which will be spent ineffectively and the deficiet will rise.

The only way to fix this is to examine every dollar spent and make tough choices, kinda like a family trying to reduce their outgo. Can we take our lunches for awhile, maybe drop Cable TV for awhile, etc. Families successfully bring their finances in line with a little effort and they have no control over income for the most part. They eat beans and rice and stay at home. The US Gov needs to make spending cuts that hurt.

Only then do you raise taxes. And the Tax system should be the first thing examined. Outlaw deductions by passsing the Fair Tax. We can then get some of the money back from the underworld economy.

left wing

October 25th, 2010
5:03 pm

Question Authority @ 4:46 – It appears that you don’t understand the function of a central bank. The Federal Reserve’s prime function is to regulate the economy by setting and meeting objectives regarding unemployment and inflation.

It is true that right now, they’re not doing a very good job with that. Blame Alan Greenspan if you want (personally, I think he got a little bit of a bum rap, but that’s another story). Dr. Greenspan took the interest rates down to zero, which is also known as the zero lower bound. But, I digress. The point is that without a strong central bank, we have no way to directly influence interest rates. Essential programs like the FDIC run out of the Federal Reserve.

The root and source of all the evil that plagues our country is misinformation. And BTW, the current Federal Reserve may only have existed since 1913, but we’ve had a central bank since Alexander Hamilton created the Bank of the United States in 1791.

Rafe Hollister

October 25th, 2010
5:07 pm

Jefferson: I disagree with the common lib argument that it makes no difference to cut small things as they are a drop in the ocean. No need to cut foreigh aid, extinct commissions and agencies, funding for the arts, etc, you say. You guys claim that you have to cut Defense first, entitlements second. Wrong you cut everything you can and then see where you are.

A family budget has big items that are fixed, like rent, insurance, car payments, so I guess they should just give up as you can’t cut those. Wrong, they cut around the edges, eliminate movie rentals, cable tv, babysitters, yard maintenance, etc as that is their only choice. They make it work and so can the US Govt.

left wing

October 25th, 2010
5:07 pm

Jefferson @ 4:57 – You are correct in that right now the government does not have new massive spending. The problem is that in a recession, revenue has dropped.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/why-have-deficits-exploded/

Dd

October 25th, 2010
5:08 pm

It takes no leadership to spend more on voters, so our politicians default to that approach. True leaders explain what has to happen and why, in a way people understand and accept. And there are few (none?) democrat politicians who want to do this, it’ll have to come from a republican or 3rd party. My bet is we just keep borrowing and devaluing the dollar. I see a time not far off where my kids will have to leave the usa and go elsewhere, since there is no way we can pay off what we owe as a country. That’ll seriously suck

left wing

October 25th, 2010
5:16 pm

Rafe Hollister @ 4:59 – The “fair tax” is a sham. Here’s 4 big problems with it:

1. It pushes the tax burden from rich people (like Neil Bortz) onto lower incomes (like everyone else).

2. They lied when they claimed the sales tax rate is only 25%. We have a $15 trillion dollar economy, and the US budget is $3.7 trillion, or roughly 25%. But, governments aren’t going to pay tax to themselves, and make up about $5.5 trillion in spending. So, you’re taxing $9.5 trillion to get $3.7 trillion in tax revenue, or almost 40%.

3. I’m older and am close to retiring. I’ve already paid income taxes on my savings and now you want to tax me on spending it. That’s double taxation!

4. I’m a consultant and travel. I fly on Delta and stay at hotels; rent cars, eat in restaurants, all of which I deduct as a business expense. The “fair tax” eliminates that, which will put me out of business, as well as hurt Delta, the hotels, restaurants, car rentals, and also all of my clients. And there are a lot of people who travel for business.

This concept of “fair tax” is a really really stupid idea.

Lil' Barry Bailout

October 25th, 2010
5:35 pm

Debt Has Increased $5 Trillion Since Speaker Pelosi Vowed, ‘No New Deficit Spending’

(CNSNews.com) – When Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) gave her inaugural address as speaker of the House in 2007, she vowed there would be “no new deficit spending.” Since that day, the national debt has increased by $5 trillion, according to the U.S. Treasury Department
—————

Oopsies, I guess we forgot about that promise, eh?

Lil' Barry Bailout

October 25th, 2010
5:37 pm

It’s the spending, stupid.

Cut spending first, then we can talk about the Democrats’ pathological need to raise taxes.

Gman

October 25th, 2010
5:39 pm

Left wing,

Actually you’re off on all your fair tax arguments.

1. Shifts tax burden from rich to poor. Not so fast, my friend: http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_fairtax_four#regressive
2. It’s higher than 23% tax rate: Not exactly…http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_fairtax_four#neutral
3. You’re not being taxed anymore than you would be now: How does the FairTax help seniors who have paid taxes on their retirement savings or invested in Roth IRAs?

Simply put, the FairTax is a revenue-neutral proposal, raising no more money than does the current system. The FairTax only changes where the money is raised, not the amount.

Additionally, some erroneously believe that people who have invested in Roth IRAs will never pay taxes on this money again. They may not know it, but they are paying corporate income taxes, employer payroll taxes, plus the associated compliance costs that are hidden in the price of every retail purchase they make. Under the FairTax, these hidden taxes are driven out of retail prices. And note, they can determine the amount of tax they pay through their own lifestyle choices.

Furthermore, used goods are not taxed because they have already been taxed once — when they were new. Therefore senior citizens, like all Americans, do not lose purchasing power, but gain it instead. Moreover, the FairTax preserves the purchasing power of Social Security benefits, and seniors receive a monthly prebate so they don’t pay taxes on the purchase of necessities. Tax-deferred investments get a one-time windfall. Savings invested in any long-term, income-generating asset such as a stock, real estate, or a long-term bond that can’t be called, increase substantially in value. Finally, complex estate planning is an artifact of an earlier age.
4: Lose the business expense deduction: You only need the deduction if you’re being taxed on the business expense. With the fair tax, there is no business expense. Today, you can deduct the lunch because it is a business expense. By “deduct” I mean that the dollars that you spend on the lunch are tax-free. Tomorrow, in a FairTax world, no business expenses are ever taxed. Do you lose the deduction? Absolutely. But a deduction is only a fancy way of saying “you don’t have to pay taxes on this business expense.” In a FairTax world, you never pay taxes on business expenses…so you never need business deductions. In a FairTax world you always purchase business items tax-free, and those tax-free purchases are never limited by “partial deductibility” or “depreciation schedules” as many business purchases are today. Rather than fear the loss of your tax deductions, you should celebrate being completely tax-free for the very first time. http://linderfairtax.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=FAQs.View&FAQ_id=10

Lil' Barry Bailout

October 25th, 2010
5:40 pm

“left wing” doesn’t know how the fair tax works.

AmVet

October 25th, 2010
5:44 pm

OK, Barry, lets make you’re the budget cutter.

Tell me exactly what you are going to cut and just how much of a dent that is going to make.

D = Drunk Sailor Spenders, R = Reformed Drunk Sailor Spenders.

October 25th, 2010
5:46 pm

One-Term Limit For All Politicians!

left wing

October 25th, 2010
5:55 pm

Gman @ 5:39 –

1. If they have this “prebate” then the effective tax rate the “fair tax” needs to charge would be greater than the 40% I just demonstrated.
2. Your link didn’t work. But I just demonstrated the math to you. It’s simple & you can do it yourself.
3. You didn’t read (or understand) my point. I earned income last year and put that money in savings. I paid tax on that income. Now, in a few years I retire, only this fart tax “fair tax” is passed. When I spend my savings, it gets the tax on it again. That is double taxation, my friend!
4. By “deduct” I mean that the dollars that you spend on the lunch are tax-free. Not correct. The dollars I spend on business expenses are deducted from my business income. Big difference.

Try looking at something independent:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jan/23/adding-fairtax/

left wing

October 25th, 2010
5:57 pm

Or, Gman you could look at it this way; Anytime you’re on the same side with a troll like Lil’ Barry Bailout you might want to rethink the arguement.

@@

October 25th, 2010
6:07 pm

No deductions on mortgage interest or children!!??!!

I’ll keep my ears open for the Millennials…

BOOM!!!!

I won’t grow up.

Not a penny will I pinch.

I will never grow a mustache,

Or a fraction of an inch.

‘Cause growing up is awfuller

Than all the awful things that ever were.

I’ll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up,

No sir,

Not I,

Not me,

So there!

jm

October 25th, 2010
6:10 pm

Final verdict’s not out. Wait for Rivlin’s separate study group, which will hopefully influence all this. But if not, yes, this is a bunch of tax increases and no entitlement reform.

Kyle, you’re right on on this one. We need a decent Republican president like Mitch Daniels to fix all this.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_44/b4201031321462.htm

(article about Rivlin’s shadow study group)

AmVet

October 25th, 2010
6:16 pm

Iit is time to eliminate the capricious tax deductions and the pernicious and perverse tax code we suffer under.

Why penalize renters?

Why reward certain purchases, like homes? Or SUVs?

Why try to legislate people’s behavior?

Tax earned and unearned income equally.

No more loopholes.

No more giveaways, handouts and subsidies to the already wealthy.

No more treating corporations like people for certain purposes and not for others.

No more American plutocracy.

left wing

October 25th, 2010
6:20 pm

AmVet @ 6:16 – Hold on there my friend. I think this might be a little strong. We do have tax breaks for hybrid/electric vehicles, which is a good thing. We allow tax breaks for children and I’m in favor of that (up to a certain amount) as I can testify to the cost of raising kids.

And, as I pointed out above, I do need to be able to deduct business expenses.

I fully support simplifying the tax code, eliminating the overwhelming majority of loopholes, and expanding the # of brackets.

AmVet

October 25th, 2010
6:33 pm

I agree that personal exemptions are legit. If there is one of you – you get one. If you have a (non-working) wife and five kids – you get 7.

The rest seems somewhat capricious to me.

Why induce behaviors deemed beneficial?

If I want to waste a ton of gas money buying a Hummer, or if I want to spend virtually none via an electric car, why should the government get involved.

In a purely free market, doesn’t supply and demand and other variables decide this?

I’m not saying I advocate a system with no deductions, but the current one is unquestionably a disaster and I think it relies excessively on these deductions…

redneckbluedog

October 25th, 2010
6:36 pm

I’ve heard a lot of conservative talk about cutting both taxes and spending to curb the deficit. Haven’t seen much of it, though, not since Nixon. And please, let’s not start a war somewhere in order to grow the economy…it’s just so bourgeois…How about cutting spending and raising taxes on the wealthy, like in England…when we get the deficit down we can start cutting taxes…but let’s not put more of the burden on the middle class… and if you think the wealthy and corporations are going to help, just sit down and count how many jobs they’ve sent overseas in the last 10 years…!!!

left wing

October 25th, 2010
6:45 pm

AmVet @ 6:33 – I’d limit the tax exemptions because I don’t want to support people pushing out football teams. Something between 1 and that we can discuss. All we’re doing is hagling over the number.

Why induce behaviors deemed beneficial? Because we get a social good out of it. First of all, driving that Hummer has lots of ‘negative externalities’ associated with it, like pollution. Secondly, buying all that oil from the middle east drives our trade into negative terratory. Third, IMO, we should not be funding the middle east or their activities (although that is purely my personal opinion).

With regards to ‘free market’, First, what is and is not a ‘free market’? A grocery store is an example. I go there to buy apples. I know the price they should be and an expectation of quality. I get there and think apples are expensive, but bananas are cheap, so I buy them instead. That’s free market. Housing on the other hand, is not. Each house has a different price, becuase of condition, area, # of bedrooms/baths, etc. I may not like the carpeting, my wife may not like the view. These are called ‘frictions’ in the market. The third thing to keep in mind is that many ‘free markets’ need to be regulated, or that industry screws consumers (think banking).

So, we should give tax credits to people buying the Volt, because we want people to use electric cars, and I’d even be in favor of a tax on that Hummer, because of the things I described above. It’s the same principle as subsidizing milk (because we want it to be affordable for kids) and taxing cigarettes, because we don’t want people to smoke.

Hope that helps, becuase it’s time for me to go. Nice talking to you.

Lil' Barry Bailout

October 25th, 2010
7:09 pm

AmVet: Tell me exactly what you are going to cut
———————

Obamacare–gone. Medicaid–gone. Medicare Part D–gone. Medicare and Social Security–means tested and eligibility age raised. We stop providing for the defense of a whole bunch of countries who could be paying for it themselves. Subsidies for most every commercial enterprise (ethanol, oil exploration, nuclear plants)–gone.

How much is that?

Gman

October 25th, 2010
7:10 pm

left wing,

Name calling normally shows lack of maturity (what 3rd graders do) or caught in the heat of the moment…I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and give you caught in the heat of maturity.

Secondly,
1) explain to me why you would have to charge a higher percent for a prebate?
2) You’re math is wrong: If the economy is $15 trillion and it costs $3.7 trillion to run the US govt, where does the $5.5 trillion in spending come in? But you’re right, the government wouldn’t tax itself, but would tax you twice (e.g. death tax)
3) You didn’t read well…regarding taxed again…Additionally, some erroneously believe that people who have invested in Roth IRAs will never pay taxes on this money again. They may not know it, but they are paying corporate income taxes, employer payroll taxes, plus the associated compliance costs that are hidden in the price of every retail purchase they make. Under the FairTax, these hidden taxes are driven out of retail prices. And note, they can determine the amount of tax they pay through their own lifestyle choices

4. As stated before, who cares that your business expense is deducted from your business income or your personal income as your business probably is; you won’t have to worry about your income tax because there wouldn’t be one

Lil' Barry Bailout

October 25th, 2010
7:12 pm

Oh, almost forgot–subsidies for electric/hybrid vehicles–gone. If you want to make a statement, do it on your own dime, azzhole.

No More Progressives!

October 25th, 2010
7:21 pm

AmVet

October 25th, 2010
4:41 pm
You fiscally irresponsible non-conservatives are a real hoot!

You ignorantly blather on and on about income redistribution and socialism and other such sophomoric nonsense.

But you rubes don’t have the first clue on how to put a helluva dent in the budget deficit, every year, do you?

Well, apperantly you do, so share the good news with us. It’s really simple when you’re a lefty; raise taxes, implement fee’s, VAT’s, surcharges, cap & trade. So simple, even ScamWet can figure it out. Nothing to it, right?

Next problem…………………

Gman

October 25th, 2010
7:24 pm

Barry, No need for name calling. Regarding subsidies for electric/hybrid vehicles…they aren’t that less poluting when you consider where most of us in this country get the electricity to charge the electric vehicle…coal mines. Environmentalist have killed the opportunity to have cleaner coal plants. Instead we are pushing wind energy….what happens when there isn’t as much wind? Although a good supplement, will never be able to replace coal for efficiency in getting energy out….Solar energy…have made large strides, but what do you do during the winter and the fall when the days get shorter… and people’s homes are in the shade…should we cut down trees?..not there yet…Keep working on ways to improve these things, but can’t wean ourselves off of coal and petroleum yet…we should have greater “subsidies” in nuclear…and help the environmentalists reach their goal of cleaner energy…so many advancements in safety have happened since 3 mile island. Very expensive start up, but if you want to think about the future, will be cheaper and cleaner in the long run…