Why we need to look closely at spending in the tax code
If you’re interested in the debate about federal taxes, I highly recommend the Washington Post’s report about tax expenditures, a.k.a. spending in the tax code.
Some people on the right scoff at the idea that tax breaks should be considered government spending, and I agree with them that there’s a fundamental danger in such phrases from the Post story as “the government has reached a rare milestone in tax collection — it has given away nearly as much as it takes in.” The government doesn’t “give away” your income back to you. It was yours to start with. Suggesting otherwise leads to the slippery slope of talking about how much of your money you “deserve” to keep.
At the same time, I think it’s very short-sighted for conservatives to let any and every tax credit and loophole count as good tax policy. Some tax credits very clearly are nothing but a different mechanism for promoting government goals and policies, and those very same conservatives would object to the government doing so with appropriations. They would, rightly, call those appropriations “subsidies.” Well, they’re still subsidies if they come in the form of tax credits awarded for a particular activity.
There may be an argument to be made that tax credits are a more efficient and less politicized way of promoting certain goals: They apply to everyone equally, and they don’t require a bureaucracy to receive applications and make judgment calls about who does or doesn’t receive some of the limited funds appropriated for the purpose (and bow to lobbying pressure, either directly or applied to their bosses). But it’s also a less transparent mechanism, because most credits live forever in the tax code — and require very little in the way of verification that they worked.
Put another way: The loan made to Solyndra and the company’s subsequent bankruptcy are, appropriately, receiving scrutiny as an apparent misuse of federal funds. But how many Solyndras have taxpayers unwittingly funded through tax credits, with equally poor results?
The Post’s article is worth reading in its entirety, but I want to highlight two points.
First, if you think these tax breaks are mostly about “special interests” or “the rich,” think again:
“The big money is in the middle-class subsidies,” said Syracuse University economist Leonard Burman, former director of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. “You’re not going to balance the budget by eliminating ethanol credits. You have to go after things that really matter to a lot of people.”
The vast majority of tax breaks, both in the number of loopholes and their value, apply to individuals, not corporations — as you can see in this very interesting and informative graphic.
Second, this is a bipartisan problem that began almost as soon as President Reagan and congressional Democrats overhauled the tax code in 1986 to remove loopholes and lower marginal tax rates:
With no place else to go, lawmakers — particularly Democrats — latched onto the tax code as a vehicle for new initiatives. … [I]t started in 1986 with the low-income housing credit for developers and investors. As Reagan’s budget cutters were slashing direct spending on housing, Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) won bipartisan support for the credit, which quickly became a primary source of financing for housing construction and rehabilitation.
The trend accelerated under Clinton, who found Republican lawmakers far more willing to finance his priorities in the form of tax cuts than as new spending.
NB: I cut from the above quote a line about Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform and his “taxpayer protection pledge” for lawmakers. It’s not because I wanted to obscure that point, but because I plan to expand on it in another post in the near future. And we should have plenty of other fodder for discussion today.
P.S. — In a related note: As predicted, President Obama’s decision to focus on eliminating loopholes only for higher earners, while raising tax rates on them rather than lowering them, is making life more difficult for the congressional committee charged with proposing solutions for the debt and deficit.
Great.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
100 comments Add your comment
Hillbilly D
September 26th, 2011
11:28 am
What we need is to reform the tax system. Get rid of all the credits and breaks, tax all forms of income the same and have about 4 or 5 brackets. If two people both make X amount of dollars, they both pay Y percentage of that total, no matter how they make their money. That being said, hogs will fly before it ever happens.
DebbieDoRight
September 26th, 2011
11:28 am
Kyle: P.S. — In a related note: As predicted, President Obama’s decision to focus on eliminating loopholes only for higher earners, while raising tax rates on them rather than lowering them
Boo Hoo…cry me river. They’ve had tax cuts now for the past 8+ years. They haven’t created all those jobs they were supposed to create, they haven’t reached back and helped out the communities that were devastated by Wall Street’s malfeasance. They only thing they’ve done was to “trickle down” some yellow, stinky fluid on us. They said it was rain………
carlosgvv
September 26th, 2011
11:31 am
Yes, Kyle, this a bipartisan problem that will require co-operation from both sides of the isle. Unfortunately, the Tea Party Congress has made it clear that protecting their wealthy patrons is their one and only concern. Until these Tea Party loons are voted out and responsible Republicans voted in, nothing will change.
JF McNamara
September 26th, 2011
11:40 am
We are approaching the problem completely wrong, and its because of idealogues and dumb propaganda from both parties. The only thing politically palatable right now is to cut taxes, and cutting taxes is revenue negative and only contributes to digging a deeper hole.
Until Republicans drop the “no new taxes” stunt and drop the lie of “ALL tax cuts raise revenues”, we won’t make progress. Until the Democrats get off the tax the rich stuff, and get on the tax everyone a few percentage points more bandwagon, we won’t solve anything.
Both parties need to cut programs dear to them. Until then, its the same old, same old…At least you get a lot of articles out of it.
getalife
September 26th, 2011
11:40 am
“THE GREAT IRAQ GIVEAWAY:
U.S. Handing Over Billions In Bases And Equipment To Avoid Shipping Home ”
Where are the suddenly fiscal cons on military waste?
Dusty
September 26th, 2011
11:59 am
HILLBILLY D,
I hope your sensible solution is considered by those who MIGHT change our tax provisions. It is so fair that one would hope that it might arise on the horizon of government long”before hogs fly”.
But along comes DEBBIEDORIGHT, consumed by wealth envy that never looks beyond those “poor helpless communities”,those magical johnny-jump-up jobs that Wall Street, supposedly a relief agency, should provide.
Maybe Debbie can form her own relief agency. Call it DEPENDS, which Debbie can bravely lead against her perceived flow of “yellow sticky fluid” rained upon poor suffering dependents. Yep, Debbie’s Depends!! Go for it!!
In the meantime, KYLE, keep raising the banner. FAIR TAX CODE FOR ALL. We are in this together. American citizens all equal in opportunity and taxes without exception.
Cosby
September 26th, 2011
12:06 pm
Ahh…another argument for the fair tax. As usual, the 16th amendment was never about funding the federal government but about political postering for the elite in DC
FAIR TAX NOW!!!!
Dusty
September 26th, 2011
12:09 pm
getalife,
When are you going to start supporting the military instead of looking for things to discredit them? Members of the military are risking their lives for you while you sit here using them for political propaganda..
Can you compare costs on your last post? Do you know whether that was a wise decisison or not? Was it outdated equipment? Were shipping costs greater than the value? YOU DON’T KNOW.
Stop your biased complaining.
Dusty
September 26th, 2011
12:15 pm
COSBY,
I am for a fair tax CODE. I believe that is a little differenct from just plain fair tax. I do not support politicians who run on fair tax (for everything). We need the IRS but not for an unspecified coverall fair tax.
DebbieDoRight
September 26th, 2011
12:24 pm
I was over on the sport blogs reading other’s comments when I heard this naying, bleating sound…..sounded sort of like a cat whose tail was caught in the rocking chair. I came back over to this blog and saw this:
Dusty: But along comes DEBBIEDORIGHT, consumed by wealth envy that never looks beyond those “poor helpless communities”,those magical johnny-jump-up jobs that Wall Street, supposedly a relief agency, should provide.
Saw that and I thought, “What the heck? Has Dusty gone off her meds AGAIN?” I mean, what is “wealth envy” anyway? I have zero kids, own property, have a great career, and support and love my country — so I was kind of perturbed when I read her “wealth envy” comment. Is she somehow confusing wealth with “p3nis” and getting all Fraudian on us or something? Oh well, Like I said, I’m always a little confused about what Dusty is posting when she goes off her meds.
Dusty: Maybe Debbie can form her own relief agency. Call it DEPENDS, which Debbie can bravely lead against her perceived flow of “yellow sticky fluid” rained upon poor suffering dependents. Yep, Debbie’s Depends!! Go for it!!
Sigh. Dusty, it is always better to “JUST SAY NO” to drugs, don’t drink and drive and take all medications prescribed to you by your psychaitrist. Going through life fat, drunk, high and stupid is not a pretty sight. Life is so much better when you’re lucid — try it Dusty you just might like it.
Jefferson
September 26th, 2011
12:34 pm
You can hollar Fair, but it will never happen.
Dusty
September 26th, 2011
12:39 pm
Well, hi, Debbie, I see you are all fired up as usual. All I can say is: Is that the best you can do? Repetition gets stale.
Sorry but I don’t “do” drugs, alcohol or meds. Don’t even have a psychiatrist! I do have a few “degrees”. I just disagree with you which you think is “crazy”!
You better get busy with Debbie’s Depends. Those poor mistreated folks need your protection from the “evil rich”.
JDW
September 26th, 2011
12:47 pm
Kyle, I agree with you that it is incredibly short sighted to view this type of spending as “untouchable” and it is SPENDING pure and simple. It is a simple fact of accounting that if you create a receivable (tax bill) and then issue a credit against that bill you have created an expenditure in the amount of the credit. I also agree that most of the dollars benefit individuals but at the same time think that the dollars that benefit corporations should be the first to be cut.
I look forward to hearing what you have to say about “Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform and his “taxpayer protection pledge” for lawmakers”. Grover et al… may not be the gravest danger facing the security of our country but they are damn sure in the top 5.
JDW
September 26th, 2011
12:49 pm
O’ and Kyle one last bit, you said “they don’t require a bureaucracy to receive applications and make judgment calls about who does or doesn’t receive some of the limited funds appropriated for the purpose”.
Must disagree, the bureaucracy is the IRS and the judgement calls are made every day in audits and tax court.
common sense
September 26th, 2011
12:52 pm
what the Dimwits do not understand is this, if we raise taxes on the Rich, then prices of everything we buy will go up along with those taxes. Our wages will remain flat, and hiring will cease. The rich will also begin to layoff more people, in order to lower their cost to pay for these increases. It is a vicious cycle, as they raise prices to cover these tax increases, their income rises, which means taxes rise. They will raise prices again, to cover taxes, it is called hyper inflation of prices.
I say we reform our tax code, everyone pays the same amount every year, regaurdless of income.
Bart Abel
September 26th, 2011
1:09 pm
RE: “The government doesn’t ‘give away’ your income back to you. It was yours to start with.”
I actually take issue with this comment, which seems to be the foundation of Tea Party activism.
In fact, we all benefit from government services and investments–from infrastructure to defense to education to clean air and water to safe food and products to a transparent financial system to a strong justice system to disaster relief to medical research–without wanting to pay for it or even taking notice of such benefits until they’re not there. Nevertheless, we all benefit we and we all have to contribute. Try living in a country without such services and see how well you succeed with government out of the way.
It was “yours to start with?” So what. So was the money I used to buy groceries and pay my mortgage. But taxes paid isn’t money that goes into a black hole or goes exclusively for the benefit of others. They’re an exchange for the goods and services that had grown the middle class and made our country great. Chipping away at these good and services could ultimately lead to lower taxes…and a smaller middle class…and higher poverty. We’ve seen it happen over the last few decades. It’s time to reverse the trend.
Ayn Rant
September 26th, 2011
1:22 pm
Thanks, Kyle, for deviating from right-wing dogma by calling out tax deductions, loopholes, and special rates for what they are: hidden subsidies, arithmetically equivalent to federal expenditures. Some subsidies may be justified, but they should be enacted as outright expenditures, not buried in the 70,000+ page federal tax code.
Everybody agrees that the Federal Tax Code need to be replaced, not revised and patched. Why can’t we do that? Why is that not more urgent than the debt ceiling increases and stop-gap funding measures that Congress quarrels over?
Eliminating outrageous tax deductions and loopholes, such as “carried interest”, and foolish outright subsidies, such as corn/ethanol, would be a good start to reducing the federal deficit.
Kyle, your continued use of the meaningless catch phrases “your money” or “my money” is obnoxious. Money is just pieces of paper and computer records; it’s meant to circulate. What is my money today was my employer’s or my government’s money yesterday, and will be Kroger’s or Amazon’s money tomorrow.
Jefferson
September 26th, 2011
1:33 pm
If it was “your” money, you would still have it, get over it, it is gone to run the house of reps.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 26th, 2011
1:46 pm
The logic (or lack thereof) of Jefferson is simply stunning.
ragnar danneskjold
September 26th, 2011
1:47 pm
While tax preferences for favored contributors constitute a solid 10% of the individual income tax code and regulations, fully 40% is nothing but rules to cobble together the “progressivity” element of the “progressive” income tax. From separate percentages for married vs single, to the various deductions for rugrats, to the limitations on various expenditures, it is all there to keep the tax “progressive.” While the maddening twists and turns in the code keep people like me fully employed, any rational economist would embrace a flat tax or a Fair Tax alternative in a heartbeat.
Jefferson
September 26th, 2011
1:57 pm
Too bad, its not going to change.
KyleKyleGoAway
September 26th, 2011
1:59 pm
@ bart abel @ 109pm – you make way too much sense. Your comment, sadly, is over the heads of the confederacy of dunces that includes Kyle and his ideologically blinded acolytes.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 26th, 2011
2:04 pm
“@ bart abel @ 109pm – you make way too much sense.”
If you like deflection and posting nothing to do with the original post, yeah.
Otherwise, no.
UGA 1999
September 26th, 2011
2:10 pm
KyleKyle…..you do know you do not have to join this blog? Right?
DebbieDoRight
September 26th, 2011
2:36 pm
Sigh – Heard the screeching again…….
Sorry but I don’t “do” drugs, alcohol or meds. Don’t even have a psychiatrist! I do have a few “degrees”. I just disagree with you which you think is “crazy”!
Well there’s only 6 degrees of separation between sane, insane, and plain dang crazy. Guess which side you’re on!
brad
September 26th, 2011
2:37 pm
Common Sense: “what the Dimwits do not understand is this, if we raise taxes on the Rich, then prices of everything we buy will go up along with those taxes. Our wages will remain flat, and hiring will cease. ”
If your argument is correct, why did prices not drop after the Bush tax cuts?
UGA 1999
September 26th, 2011
2:38 pm
Brad…..9/11, Iraq, Afganistan….take your pick.
KyleKyleGoAway
September 26th, 2011
2:42 pm
@ Tiberius @ 204pm – an eye for an eye, right? Surely someone as filled with hate as you can appreciate that!
@ uga 1999 @ 210pm – I need my daily dose of crazy. For sh1ts and giggles, you know.
brad
September 26th, 2011
2:43 pm
99. How did those events impact pricing on a micro level, other than for products being purchased by the DOD?
UGA 1999
September 26th, 2011
2:49 pm
KyleKyle….then may I suggest you watch the latest Obama campaign videos regarding this “jobs” plan.
HDB
September 26th, 2011
2:50 pm
UGA 1999
September 26th, 2011
2:38 pm
Question: Why didn’t the Bush Administration PAY for the war effort with a tax INCREASE (as his predecessors have done) rather than BORROWING the money from the Chinese…forcing more borrowing and government SPENDING to arrest the reccession he got the nation into??? Wouldn’t that have been the prudent thing to have done?? That’s why we’re in the boat we’re in NOW!!
UGA 1999
September 26th, 2011
2:53 pm
HDB…..because Bush knew that taxing the American people when the jobless rates were increasing and a recession was looming was NOT the answer.
brad
September 26th, 2011
2:57 pm
99, still waiting for your explanation of tax cuts and micro-economics. You don’t have anything, do you?
KyleKyleGoAway
September 26th, 2011
2:59 pm
@uga 1999 @ 249pm – har har har. Seriously, though – and I’m puttin’ this in language you and your mates will understand – the fakts r nawt on yer syd.
UGA 1999
September 26th, 2011
2:59 pm
I did.
UGA 1999
September 26th, 2011
3:02 pm
FYI – I am not all against a tax increase. I dont think it is a great idea. However if you are going to raise taxes then they should be raised for EVERYONE!
brad
September 26th, 2011
3:05 pm
Really? Where?
brad
September 26th, 2011
3:10 pm
Never mind, 99, I can see that you’re in over your head.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 26th, 2011
3:10 pm
“Surely someone as filled with hate as you can appreciate that!”
KyleKyle, you should read (or understand) English more often.
I am not filled with hate – I am merely a conduit for the hate of others who cannot cope with the reality of the real world.
KyleKyleGoAway
September 26th, 2011
3:20 pm
@ Tiberius @ 310pm – good on ya; you are a republican through and through, a true patriot, to borrow from Herr o’reilly.
HDB
September 26th, 2011
3:40 pm
UGA 1999
September 26th, 2011
2:53 pm
Question: So the solution to BORROW from the Chinese…which further strained the economy….and placed the nation in economic peril was the PRUDENT thing to do?? I don’t get it….especially, in order to ensure national unity, a tax increase to finance wars was necessary!! The only areas of the populace who were NOT called to sacrifice were the WEALTHY…and a tax increase WAS necessary at that point!!
Wrong policies…..wrong implementation……
AngryRedMarsWoman
September 26th, 2011
4:19 pm
It comes down to something this simple – the tax code should not be used to manipulate social or business policy. For individuals, the only deductions should be for other income-based taxes paid…period. For businesses, no special tax breaks or “incentives” for doing (or not doing) something/anything. If it makes sense for a person or business to do (or not do) something they will do it…neither should need a tax/break incentive. If you want a home and it makes sense to you to buy one you should do so – if you need a deduction of the interest payments to tip the scales in favor of home ownership then maybe you should not buy.
November 6, 2012
September 26th, 2011
4:29 pm
DebbieDo, I love you……..
Get Real
September 26th, 2011
4:32 pm
DebbieDoesObama….get a life and get a clue…end of story
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 26th, 2011
4:32 pm
“you are a republican through and through, a true patriot,”
No, and yes.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: Thee Magnificent!!! mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
September 26th, 2011
4:34 pm
In a normal world, I would probably agree.
But in this era of government waste fueled by the catastrophe that is obozonomics, where no tax dollar is safe from being squandered, methinks that those who are responsible enough to even be qualified for tax breaks, homeowners and businessmen for instance, are far less likely to give it all to some drug dealer.
Just a thought…
Laurie
September 26th, 2011
4:39 pm
Dear Dusty, GET A LIFE! The guy has it right. It’s not about supporting the military. Where you went from point A to 123 on that one, I do not know. getalife is pointing out a story that came out today where the DOD has decided to “give” Iraq billions of dollars worth of installations and equipment from investments made during and after the war. I would like to see the US CHARGE Iraq for what we had to spend over there rather than give it a way. It’s a decision that speaks to the stupidity of those in charge of the DOD… like we couldn’t use the money…
a dad
September 26th, 2011
5:04 pm
Ok y’all, here are some topics for discussion, and I would appreciate hearing each sides suggestions. First, to stimulate employment, how would your particular candidate/political party/ideology/etc. go about encouraging business to expand and hire new workers? Second, compare a flat consumption tax with, say, a slightly progressive flat tax such as everyone pays a certain amount of their income, no deductions, all income taxed the same, etc., then at the end of the year, say those who earn less than 50k apply for and receive a full refund, 50-100k get 75%, etc (all amounts and figures purely arbitrary). OR should we just go with a strictly flat tax (and by the way, has anyone seen any sort of figures about what kind of revenue this was generate? I never have.)
So c’mon y’all, lets hear some real IDEAS and not just regurgitating what some talking head said. How would YOU address these problems? And in commenting, let’s try to do so intelligently for a change, shall we?
I’m waiting …..
I Report (-: You Whine )-: Thee Magnificent!!! mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
September 26th, 2011
5:07 pm
Like I was just sayin…
PRINCETON, NJ — Americans estimate that the federal government wastes 51 cents of every dollar it spends, a new high in a Gallup trend question first asked in 1979.
a dad
September 26th, 2011
5:09 pm
I Report: good start. What’s the estimation based on, opinion or fact?
killerj
September 26th, 2011
5:10 pm
Smaller Government means more money in your pocket,Go Tea Party.
a dad
September 26th, 2011
5:12 pm
Another question. Who on this blog is an adherent of Keynesian economics? I beieve we cann all agree that the POTUS is.
Reality
September 26th, 2011
5:33 pm
America’s going broke. It’s as simple as that.
a dad
September 26th, 2011
5:37 pm
Reality – not really. We just to balance expenditures with revenues. How to do that is, of course, the topic of this discussion.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: Thee Magnificent!!! mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
September 26th, 2011
5:47 pm
Let’s see, obozo spent 2 Trillion Bucks last year and you are welcome to tell me what we have to show for it.
I’ll wait patiently.
a dad
September 26th, 2011
5:50 pm
I Report – a bogus loan to that solar company for one (sorry, couldn’t resist).
Man, I tell ya’ll to play nice and KyleKyle, UGA99, Debbie, etc. all disappear. Ok, I’ll leave. Have it folks.
Rafe Hollister
September 26th, 2011
5:50 pm
We need to remove social engineering from the tax code, period. No deductions, no tax incentives, no earned income tax credit, no progressivism. We need the 9-9-9 plan or the Fair Tax.
The complexity of the current code results in billions of dollars in federal revenue lost because of avoidance, non reporting, or fraud. It is time we start to recoup some of the money from the underground economy.
obama’s sychophants seem to think the tax increases he proposes will always fall on someone else. History teaches us that these rates will continue to be lowered as there are no enough “millionaires and billionaires” out there to make much difference in total revenue. He has already lowered it to $200K and it will wind up even lower over time due to tinkering and inflation. It will become another AMT, where everyone is threatened every year. No is the time. We Cain do it.
Hillbilly D
September 26th, 2011
5:53 pm
It is time we start to recoup some of the money from the underground economy.
One way to get money out of the underground economy or from money squirreled away off-shore would be to change the currency. The old currency would have to come out of hiding or be lost. As with everything else, the devil would be in the details.
Lil' Barry Bailout
September 26th, 2011
6:04 pm
getalife: U.S. Handing Over Billions In Bases And Equipment To Avoid Shipping Home ” Where are the suddenly fiscal cons on military waste?
——————–
If you have a problem with this, you should address your concerns to the folks who made this decision…your Idiot Messiah and his incompetent regime.
ODD OWL
September 26th, 2011
6:04 pm
The Republican Tea Party and the Republican candidates for President are so confused and in great turmoil. Rick Perry is crashing and burning. Mittens Romney don’t have any interpersonal skills. Herman Cain is surging to the top. Is he the one ??? The Master of the predator drone is having trouble figuring out which Republican candidate to line up in the crosshairs.
MarkV
September 26th, 2011
6:06 pm
common sense @12:52 pm: “what the Dimwits do not understand is this, if we raise taxes on the Rich, then prices of everything we buy will go up along with those taxes.”
One does not have to be a Dimwit to not understand this fallacy. What common sense has failed to do is to present any rationale for this argument.
Lil' Barry Bailout
September 26th, 2011
6:10 pm
ODD, quit whining just because you and the Democrat party are stuck with a loser.
Rafe Hollister
September 26th, 2011
6:11 pm
Hillbilly
Not a bad idea, however, what stops people from digging up their jars and changing the money and then burying it back in their yard again. I wrote a long comment and deleted it (boring), about the “cash” economy that exists out here in the heartland among people who have little credit, no bank accounts, and no incentive to clue the government in on the money they make.
I think our only chance to get access to ’some’ of this unreported cash is a retail sales tax and a simple flat tax rate. The income tax rate should be so low, it is not worth the effort or costs to try and flaunt it.
Lil' Barry Bailout
September 26th, 2011
6:15 pm
Actually, if we raise taxes on the rich, prices should drop because the rich will reduce their spending and demand for all manner of products will be lower. Lower demand generally leads to lower prices.
Rafe Hollister
September 26th, 2011
6:18 pm
Hillybilly
To add to my argument, my brother worked in a farm credit agency and got transfered to from S GA to NC. In S GA the farmers make huge amounts of money due to subsidies and since they get gov money have no choice but to file accurate 1040’s. His agency required copies of prior year 1040’s be submitted with loan apps.
When he moved to NC, those small cabbage and produce farmers could not get approved for loans as they did not have 1040’s to submit. They existed on cash received for their crops and never reported.
MarkV
September 26th, 2011
6:20 pm
The most fundamental question is, should the tax code be used for what is called, for the lack of a better term, “social engineering.” The resounding answer in all developed countries, including the US, has been Yes. The conservatives answering No live in a fantasy world.
MarkV
September 26th, 2011
6:22 pm
America’s is not going broke. It’s as simple as that.
Streetracer
September 26th, 2011
7:00 pm
A little fodder for folks on both sides of the “Tax the Rich” debate. According to my high school civics teacher (and it has been so long I don’t remember his name, never mind his source) there was a serious debate about including a 10% limit in the Income Tax Amendment. The decision of Congress was to not include that because some fool Congress sometime or other would actually want to take that much of somebodies money.
Dusty
September 26th, 2011
7:11 pm
Laurie, back somewhere
Why don’t you let getalife answer the questions and accusations he left here?
Or why don’t you answer the questions that might explain what the military is leaving in Iraq and for what reasons?
I don’t think you know. I don’t know either. But, as Lil Barry Bailout suggested: Why don’t you ask the Commander-in-chief Obama? Do that before you start knocking the military.
Michael H. Smith
September 26th, 2011
7:28 pm
a dad
September 26th, 2011
5:12 pm
Reply: I believe obama is a hardcore dyed in the wool Marxist ideologue with a passionate lust for imposing his version of a European style Big Government Socialism on America. No way anyone who is honest can deny obama’s public statements concerning wealth/income redistribution, which is fundamental to Marxist dogma.
a dad
September 26th, 2011
5:37 pm
Reply: That will never happen in reality but as close to actually achieving such a real-life case scenario that one could ever hope to witness would require ratification of a very carefully crafted Constitutional Balanced Budget Amendment. The reason for this strong measure should be quite clear to anyone: Simply passing a law to the affect of creating a balanced budget requirement upon Congress could easily be negated by any future Congress. Whereas, an Amendment forces the government to go back to We the People to again amend our Constitution to lift the permanent spend restraint we placed on the Congress – Wherein, WE are never so easily negated.
MarkV
September 26th, 2011
7:43 pm
“obama is a hardcore dyed in the wool Marxist ideologue with a passionate lust for imposing his version of a European style Big Government Socialism on America.”
Ignorant nonsense.
Michael H. Smith
September 26th, 2011
7:51 pm
Just a small logical footnote for reasoning minds to ponder:
WE have all heard in a great deal of “vain repetition” from lil mr. you know who, saying to the affect: THE RICH MUST PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE!
Truth is and I challenge you to verify this one James Tharpe – yep put it to the truth-o-meter – if the RICH ever do actually PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE as lil mr. you know who so pseudo-cunningly – or just plain “conning” – demands, then we of lesser fiscal means will be screwed and the country right along with us.
Even under a true Flat Tax – all deductions, loopholes and subsidies eliminated – the RICH would pay more in actual dollar amounts of tax than anyone like me – that would include Warren Buffet’s Secretary as well.
Michael H. Smith
September 26th, 2011
7:53 pm
MarkV
September 26th, 2011
7:43 pm
And you are full of socialist hooey!
MarkV
September 26th, 2011
7:55 pm
Michael H. Smith @7:53 pm: Yopu are pathetic in your ignorance.
Michael H. Smith
September 26th, 2011
8:01 pm
MarkV
September 26th, 2011
7:55 pm
You mean the evidence of you ignorance is pathetic.
Trying the deny and defend Marxism at the same time is very vain, even coming from you.
Dumb and Dumber
September 26th, 2011
8:03 pm
I’m still waiting for the GOP to show how the “Iraq war will pay for itself” worked out.
Well?
Jefferson
September 26th, 2011
8:09 pm
A dollar means less to a man who has many, a lesser man will want more.
Rafe Hollister
September 26th, 2011
8:12 pm
Dumb and Dumber
I’m still wanting to know what happened to all that oil, that the Dims insisted we were fighting the war for. War for oil, War for oil, then, where is the oil. We should make the Iraquis pay for the war, since we obviously got no oil.
Filster
September 26th, 2011
8:17 pm
MarkV – if you don’t believe Obama is a Marxist (and that’s not as in the Marx brothers), then a true discussion with you is impossible. Keynesian economics does run towards socialism/marxism in its spread the wealth (more like impound the well) and use a strong central gov’t to re-distribute it.
Hillbilly D
September 26th, 2011
8:18 pm
Rafe from earlier
I don’t like the idea of a sales tax because in my opinion, the lower your income, the harder it hits you. Regardless of that argument, a sales tax is as easy if not more easy to get around than an income tax. If you sell lawnmowers and I sell washing machines, and I need a lawnmower and you need a washing machine. The rest is easy to figure out.
The only real benefit to changing the currency would be to bring out the money that’s hidden off-shore. That’s where the real money would come from and it’d be a one time deal.
Michael H. Smith
September 26th, 2011
8:31 pm
A dollar means less to a man who has many, a lesser man will want more.
Very doubtful, otherwise the man with many dollars would never have a great fortune. A man with many dollars may not suffer the same sense of the loss of his dollars by account, nevertheless, it does not mean he values his money any less and it is not a case of a lesser man in any event. Many deemed poor among us are by other means of measure the greater and better man than some men who hold vast fortunes.
There again, it is not moral to take from one to give to others by reason of ability or the lack thereof – a.k.a. wealth redistribution a.k.a. Marxism
“From each according to their ability, to each according to their need”
United States of Idiocy
September 26th, 2011
8:42 pm
@ Michael H. Smith – you, sir, are a pinhead, a moron of epic proportions. it is evident you wouldn’t know a socialist if one slapped you right upside the head. more dispiritingly, people like you and ideology such as yours are what’s wrong with modern america. and the root cause: you’ve likely never set foot beyond the borders of this country; you take everything for granted.
Michael H. Smith
September 26th, 2011
8:51 pm
United States of Idiocy
September 26th, 2011
8:42 pm
HOOEY
Lil' Barry Bailout
September 26th, 2011
8:55 pm
“From each according to their ability, to each according to their need”
——————————–
I wonder which part of that our liberal/Democrat friends here would disagree with.
United States of Idiocy
September 26th, 2011
8:57 pm
@ michael h. smith – thank you for proving my point. guten tag, as they are wont to say in a formerly fascist state.
Michael H. Smith
September 26th, 2011
9:09 pm
Kyle, perhaps you will agree with this line of thought concerning obumer’s obsession with raising taxes: By the way, he wants to raise taxes on the middle and low wage earners as well but he likes to demagogue the RICH MUST PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE! for political gainsay.(more on that one later) However, he wants to increase taxes to pay for policies – mostly wrong headed ones of a socialist nature – that he cannot produce the economic conditions within the private sector to provide those necessary revenues otherwise.
We agree I’m sure on the approach to funding. Tax increases would mostly likely be seen from the elimination of subsidies, deductions and the closing loopholes in exchange for lower rates and flat tax code. I’d definitely go for a flat tax if all other taxes were eliminated.
Michael H. Smith
September 26th, 2011
9:15 pm
United States of Idiocy
September 26th, 2011
8:57 pm
fascist state?
Now there is subject you know very well.
You have proved nothing to anyone but to yourself absorbed MarxV socialist ego.
You are just another one of Lenin’s “Useful Idiots” now an obumer puppet.
Michael H. Smith
September 26th, 2011
9:18 pm
Ooops…
Make that You are just another one of Lenin’s “Useful Idiots” now reduced to the lowest level obumer puppet.
Michael H. Smith
September 26th, 2011
9:20 pm
Goodnight to the rest of you guys or gals, I’ve better things to do – like sleep – than continue the exchange with this resident socialist DEMwit.
buck@gon
September 26th, 2011
10:33 pm
Kyle,
Your dissembling of conservative ideas about tax policies is misguided, I think. You seem to be jumping the gun. Tax policy is NOT a big issue right now, and anyway, neither spending nor taxes have much of a chance at receiving ANY conservative input as long as our organizer-in-chief occupies the White House. I don’t hear the candidates giving such detail on tax policy that they are distinguishing universal credits vs. targetted ones vs. purely insured loans (which Solyndra was; it was NOT a credit, Kyle).
The issue right now is balancing the budget, and as for that, we have an opposing party, the Democrats who’ve shown they’re not even interested in passing one.
So, we are SOOO far apart, the answer is, “let’s wait and see”, but still, your critique of “conservatives” is as if you’re not really one of them anymore than Jay Bookman is.
MarkV
September 26th, 2011
10:33 pm
Michael H. Smith @8:01 pm: “Trying the deny and defend Marxism at the same time is very vain, even coming from you.”
Why don’t you try to write about something you understand – if there is something?
MarkV
September 26th, 2011
10:36 pm
Filster @8:17 pm: “true discussion with you is impossible. Keynesian economics does run towards socialism/marxism in its spread the wealth (more like impound the well) and use a strong central gov’t to re-distribute it.”
It might be impossible to have a discussion with someone as ignorant as you are. You have demonstrated that you know nothing about Marxism.
buck@gon
September 26th, 2011
10:41 pm
MarkV @ 6:22,
“America’s is not going broke. It’s as simple as that.”
I agree with you. The government, after all, has a printing press and can conjure up all the money it needs to monetize its own debt.
However, what would that do to us, who hold dollars? Wouldn’t it cause prices to rise? Wouldn’t it essentially be a tax on future Congress’ and future generations, money that needs to be paid back before anymore spending can take place?
It’s nice to think that the US is indestructible economically, but during the Great Depression, unemployment was 25% (really, unemployment now is probably more accurately described as closer to 15% than 9%).
No matter, it won’t seem to help Jimmy Carter, er, I mean 36%, er, I mean Prez Obama come next year.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/obama-job-approval-at-36/
Lil' Barry Bailout
September 26th, 2011
10:45 pm
Still waiting for a Dem to disown Karl Marx’s governing philosophy.
Cue the chirping crickets.
buck@gon
September 26th, 2011
10:49 pm
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/the-real-shocking-numbers-behind-the-jobs-numbers/
MarkV,
You can see the participation rate, the ratio of employment-to-population, and the unemployment rate itself are all bad news. There’s nothing there that could be considered good news for the economy. If trends continue, the winner of the Republican primary will be the winner of the Presidential race, period, bye bye Barry.
Lil' Barry Bailout
September 26th, 2011
10:56 pm
B-b-b-b-u-t Jay Bookman posted a pretty chart showing how Lil’ Barry had singlehandedly turned the economy around and created all kinds of jobs!
Ray
September 27th, 2011
12:30 am
When you see legislation for tax reform that proclaims to be “revenue neutral”, it will not raise taxes overall, GRAB your wallet, because it’s whole intent is to lower tax rates for the well to do, at the expense of the middle and lower class. Corporations and “job creators” (a Republican buzz word) must be supported, and protected at all cost. Yay. As more and more of us are forced to get creative about lowering the cost of meals,and housing cost, those so called “job creators” will be gleefully looking at their bank and investments statements, while Rome burns, as the U.S. pie shrinks next year.
Lil' Barry Bailout
September 27th, 2011
7:05 am
Ray, folks who pay no federal income tax don’t have standing to complain about the rates paid by others. Your Idiot Messiah has said we’ll all need to sacrifice to fix his deficit problem. Time for the 50% who pay zip to eat their peas and pay their fair share.
Voice of Reason
September 27th, 2011
8:23 am
Yes the military is giving away billions of dollars of assets, but how much would it cost to bring it all back to the states and return it to a serviceable condition? Try to look at it from every angle, getalife.
GT
September 27th, 2011
8:23 am
“Obscure that point” is the whole reality of modern day journalism. The points are there before the written word, become foot notes. Kyle you are a bit like the preacher that woke up one morning and decided he didn’t believe in God anymore. If you stop preaching you are broke, so why run a good thing. Georgia is now even or ahead of Mississippi in negative image for the world. We are deeper in recession than any place in the country. A lot of that is because someone has obscured the point.