Bill Kristol tells GOP to come back to the table.

Nomad wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Nomad wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

It's not like not knowing will stop anyone from making catastrophic predictions in bold and CAPS. You don't need real information for hyperbole.

True, but it doesn't take a Doctorate in Economics to tell someone that if they continue to spend far more than they receive in income, they are in for some big trouble.

I guess it takes a doctorate to tell someone how if we receive income from people who are interested in paying, that balances spending different than if they weren't interested?

I love to get some type of education in identifying people who just like arguing from ones who actually want to discuss differing opinions in a constructive manner. :P

Just because you turned out to be wrong doesn't mean it wasn't discussing differing opinions in a constructive manner. At this point, whether it's constructive or not is up to you. If you realize that your arguments about how to balance the budget are based on emotions and not on facts, then that's a constructive thing if it makes you take a second look at them. If you try to argue the dictionary definition of the word 'fiscal' and provide no reason why, even if you were right, it would change anything relevant to those differing opinions, then it's not constructive.

I didn't make you type "No one that I know is interested in paying more into an entity that has enormous amounts of waste and mismanagement." I just pointed out the irrelevance of that opinion to the discussion about the math of balancing the budget or reducing the deficit.

Don't shoot the messenger. It's one of the least 'constructive' things you can do.

Then we agree.

It is probably going to take an existential crisis for the structural reforms we need to actually be implemented. With the political leadership we have today, I just cannot see any alternative. When the spigot of free money is finally tapped out. When the reality of a world caught in the peak cheap oil trap is revealed. Maybe then when the politicians actually have to make the hard decisions because there are no more free lunches will we get out of this mess.

CheezePavilion wrote:
Nomad wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Nomad wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Of course, that chart oversimplifies things but as far as you asking us to look at these charts, I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

You can't be serious. Even if the one side did spend a little more than the other, the numbers are so close its negligible. They are all guilty of gross financial misconduct.

32.6 vs. 44.7 is negligible?

Nomad wrote:

edit responding to edit:

Cheeze wrote:

the "Prevent Spending Cuts" part looks kinda tiny compared to the "Extend Tax Cuts" part.

Which is why both cuts and tax increases are needed.

Please explain why they are both needed. Not that they will both be effective--don't go moving the goalposts on me--explain to me why they are both needed.

No one that I know is interested in paying more into an entity that has enormous amounts of waste and mismanagement.

So we're talking about emotional needs, not fiscal ones.

CheezePavilion wrote:
Nomad wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Nomad wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

It's not like not knowing will stop anyone from making catastrophic predictions in bold and CAPS. You don't need real information for hyperbole.

True, but it doesn't take a Doctorate in Economics to tell someone that if they continue to spend far more than they receive in income, they are in for some big trouble.

I guess it takes a doctorate to tell someone how if we receive income from people who are interested in paying, that balances spending different than if they weren't interested?

I love to get some type of education in identifying people who just like arguing from ones who actually want to discuss differing opinions in a constructive manner. :P

Just because you turned out to be wrong doesn't mean it wasn't discussing differing opinions in a constructive manner. At this point, whether it's constructive or not is up to you. If you realize that your arguments about how to balance the budget are based on emotions and not on facts, then that's a constructive thing if it makes you take a second look at them. If you try to argue the dictionary definition of the word 'fiscal' and provide no reason why, even if you were right, it would change anything relevant to those differing opinions, then it's not constructive.

I didn't make you type "No one that I know is interested in paying more into an entity that has enormous amounts of waste and mismanagement." I just pointed out the irrelevance of that opinion to the discussion about the math of balancing the budget or reducing the deficit.

Don't shoot the messenger. It's one of the least 'constructive' things you can do.

You asked me to explain why both tax increases and spending cuts are needed, while in the same question attempting to disallow me from showing that they are both effective. Do I need to explain why this is ridiculous? You are the one who tried to turn it into a feelings vs facts argument.

It's simple math. The best way to fix a deficit is to reduce spending and increase income.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

Hang on - you could tax the top like 2-3% at 100% and not close the gap, correct? So if the goal is bridging the spending gap, you either need both, or you just need spending.

Hasn't pretty much everyone advocating tax increases acknowledged that income taxes are low across the board? While the top 2-3% should be the ones to get the biggest increase, several people here, including myself, have said that taxes should be increased across the board. Since the government expenditures are less than our GDP tax increases alone would balance the budget.

Am I reading the numbers wrong that a flat 24.0086% tax would balance the budget? (Note that I prefer progressive taxes, but that makes the math easy. $3.796 trillion in federal expenditures, $15.811 trillion in GDP. This discounts state and local taxes, but as none of those combined reach anywhere close to 76% I think we are good, 8 to 12% seems closer to reality.)

Nomad wrote:

It's simple math. The best way to fix a deficit is to reduce spending and increase income.

If your definition of "best" is to lower the deficit the fastest then yes. If your definition of best includes metrics for speed of deficit reduction and preserving/improving the services of the entity in question then pesky facts and details are needed instead of soundbites and mantra.

Nomad wrote:

You asked me to explain why both tax increases and spending cuts are needed, while in the same question attempting to disallow me from showing that they are both effective. Do I need to explain why this is ridiculous?

Yes, you do need to explain why that's ridiculous. Because if tax increases are effective enough to solve our problem, then however effective spending cuts are, they are unnecessary. I look at the chart you provided, and the spending cuts are a small bar at the bottom while the tax increases are this huge block.

It's simple math. The best way to fix a deficit is to reduce spending and increase income.

I disagree. I don't think the math is simple, and I think what you are talking about is not math at all. Just because 50% of your tools are A and 50% of your tools are B, that doesn't make them equally effective tools. I take your argument seriously and look at your chart, and it looks like tax increases are pretty effective--way more effective than spending cuts. Let's look at that chart again, this time another part:

IMAGE(http://i1094.photobucket.com/albums/i453/czpv/NeedFAIL_zpsbd275403.jpg)

Looks like there's a lot of room in there for Debt Held by the Public to go down if in 10 years we're talking about 73% vs. 58%. Why can't we leave spending alone and still get a drop in that percentage? It won't be as large of a drop, but we'll still be moving in the right direction.

That's why it wasn't ridiculous to ask you that question: if we can get to where we want to go without spending cuts, but we'll just get there slower, then no--spending cuts are not needed.

If you want to say "they won't get us there fast enough; we need to get to 58% by 2022 or we're screwed, man" then hey--that's a valid argument.

Of course, you didn't make that argument. You said "No one that I know is interested in paying more into an entity that has enormous amounts of waste and mismanagement." Fact is, that is an emotional argument for fixing the deficit. The deficit doesn't treat angry dollars differently from happy dollars. A dollar payed in is a dollar payed in, whether the people paying were interested or not.

What I think is happening is you have two goals: reduce the government spending you see as wasteful and mismanaged, and balance the budget. I think your problem is you keep switching back and forth between your two goals. Well, what is a rational argument in pursuit of one goal is often an emotional argument in pursuit of another. So when you pull a 'waste' argument across to the 'balance' discussion, you get problems like this.

I'm just hesitant to point out these kinds of problems too far in advance because then people accuse me of putting words in their mouth. It's a Catch-22.

I love the idea of across the board spending cuts. This idea works very well at the state level.

The current problem is that every government program has its Congressional supporter(s). These programs are handed out like candy to buy votes. Thus Congress is incapable of prioritizing. Just cut across the board. You know it was a matter of national importance that pork was stuffed into the fiscal cliff bill to help NASCAR.

I would be very happy with a phased in 50/50 approach. Raise taxes by 2% per year (as we have just done) and cut spending by 2% a year until we run a slight surplus.

It is just too easy and it has been proven to work at the state level. Except at the state level, the spending cuts are immediate and not phased in.

Greg wrote:

I love the idea of across the board spending cuts. This idea works very well at the state level.

Examples? I highly doubt there's any state cutting X% out of every program. Why would you cut useful and well-run programs at all?

Greg wrote:

I love the idea of across the board spending cuts. This idea works very well at the state level.

I don't understand why you think this is a good idea. All of the areas of the government work at different levels of efficiency, some areas are underfunded. Saying that all departments are equally "bloated" is ridiculous.

Robear wrote:

Examples? I highly doubt there's any state cutting X% out of every program. Why would you cut useful and well-run programs at all?

You will laugh, but Alabama does this type of budget balancing. I lived through it twice as a state employee. The state government shrank. Within the government, necessary spending was cut. Each department took the same percentage cut, and prioritized the remaining dollars within each department. State mandated programs could not be eliminated, but there was some discretion.

Once state funding increased, prioritization of new spending occurred because people were aware that pro ration was a possibility. There was still fraud, waste, and abuse, but there was not gridlock and an inability to deal with deficits.

You cut useful and well run programs for two reasons. First, every program can become leaner and more efficient. Second every program is useful and well-run to at least one person that voted for it, and if that person is a Senator, it is really useful and really well-run.

An additional advantage to pro-ration is that it was the law and once the Governor declares the budget to be out of balance, the remedy kicks in without needing legislative authorization. Of course, the legislative branch could raise taxes to balance the budget at any time.

Ironically, sequestration is very much like the process used to cut the military bases. Every military base was essential to someone so the process had to be created so that all bases were in jeopardy and prevent the protection of individual bases.

Even if one party controlled the government with an iron fist, they couldn't agree on the prioritization. Howard Dean pointed out that Congress decided how the cuts should be enacted, it was sequestration. They actually voted for across the board cuts.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

Hang on - you could tax the top like 2-3% at 100% and not close the gap, correct? So if the goal is bridging the spending gap, you either need both, or you just need spending.

This is incorrect. Well, obviously, in the real world, if tax rates were actually raised to 100%, almost no one would choose to make that much income and tax receipts would drop to near nothing. But in 2008 those making over $100,000 had a total income of $3.4 trillion and 2012's deficit was $1.1 trillion. And the rich's share of income has only grown since 2008.

Also, focusing on just income tax is misleading. The really rich folks make their money from capital gains--if you taxed that as income, even at current rates, tax receipts would go through the roof. Or you could go even more direct and institute a wealth tax for those over a certain threshold of wealth. One framework is given here.

So, we really could just tax rich folks more and make up the budget deficit. But of course that's politically impossible because both parties are beholden to those rich folks, and the media is owned by those rich folks.

NathanialG wrote:
Greg wrote:

I love the idea of across the board spending cuts. This idea works very well at the state level.

I don't understand why you think this is a good idea. All of the areas of the government work at different levels of efficiency, some areas are underfunded. Saying that all departments are equally "bloated" is ridiculous.

I did not say this, you did.

jonstock wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

Hang on - you could tax the top like 2-3% at 100% and not close the gap, correct? So if the goal is bridging the spending gap, you either need both, or you just need spending.

But in 2008 those making over $100,000 had a total income of $3.4 trillion and 2012's deficit was $1.1 trillion. And the rich's share of income has only grown since 2008.

So, we really could just tax rich folks more and make up the budget deficit. But of course that's politically impossible because both parties are beholden to those rich folks, and the media is owned by those rich folks.

Nice apples and oranges. In 2008, those with an income of 100,000 were in the top 18%, not the top 3%.

CheezePavilion wrote:

Yes, you do need to explain why that's ridiculous. Because if tax increases are effective enough to solve our problem, then however effective spending cuts are, they are unnecessary. I look at the chart you provided, and the spending cuts are a small bar at the bottom while the tax increases are this huge block.

There are three important points to examine, CheezePavilion: what solving the problem means, the math of taxation, and that this is a growing problem that must be solved with the next years in mind, not just now.

First, what do you believe is solving the problem? Is solving the problem balancing the federal budget, including interest we owe? Is solving the problem allowing the economy to continue to slowly wake from its 2008 rut? Is solving the problem reducing our federal debt to some significantly lower percent of our GDP? I venture to say that Congress as a whole would like to accomplish all of these, the trouble being that they are sometimes counterproductive.

On the math point, I almost hate to jump in on this point since I don't follow closely enough to have all the numbers memorized, but think of it this way. Members of both parties have repeatedly said that raising rates on millionaires, as the new law does, only increases the government's income by so much. I looked for awhile but can't find how much the federal government's income is expected to be since the new law was passed. If you seriously believe that increasing taxes to such an extent that we would balance our budget, then I wonder what type of taxes you want to raise on which groups (and which deductions you would eliminate or not), because I'm not impressed by much of what Milton Friedman says but with the extent to which our budget is in the red, I would be concerned with the constricting nature of a scheme to do so, especially considering the many folks like some members of my family who can hardly afford groceries as it is. Just how much taxation would be necessary to balance the budget? I would be curious to see whether that means personal tax rates would jump 5% or 50%.

But the biggest problem with a "taxation only" plan would be that following that means we will have to continually continue to raise more and more taxes. Sure, paying some debts now will eliminate some interest in the future, but the larger problem is the rate of inflation in medical plans, whether you're talking about Medicare, Medicaid, or private programs...those rising prices coupled with the number of retirees. Google any projection for the estimated expenditures necessary for Medicare and Medicaid for the next twenty years....that is what will kill us. If someone here does any kind of financial/accounting work at a hospital or health insurance company, it would be great to get your detailed input.

CBO projections and remember that government predictions are most often underestimates.

Edit: I like the ideas posted above by jonstock. I'm intrigued by the idea of a wealth tax but it sounds preposterous when you think about people and businesses in certain industries, e.g. real estate development.

Uh, yes we aren't yet borrowing 100% of GDP, so a taxation only solution would be possible in theory. But I'm working off the assumption that 98% of the country deserve to keep paying Bush era tax rates like Obama said.

Greg wrote:

I love the idea of across the board spending cuts. This idea works very well at the state level.

Tell that to the family of Mark Price, an Arizona resident who needed a bone marrow transplant. He had a donor lined up and has been certified by the federal government as Medicaid eligible and was waiting for his procedure in October of 2010. But our state legislature and the governor did across the board cuts to just about everything including Medicaid, and Price was denied the funding for his procedure. He died two months later.

Perhaps I am missing how this worked "very well" on the state level.

Survival of the fittest. We can't waste money on the weak.

Keithustus wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Yes, you do need to explain why that's ridiculous. Because if tax increases are effective enough to solve our problem, then however effective spending cuts are, they are unnecessary. I look at the chart you provided, and the spending cuts are a small bar at the bottom while the tax increases are this huge block.

There are three important points to examine, CheezePavilion: what solving the problem means, the math of taxation, and that this is a growing problem that must be solved with the next years in mind, not just now.

First, what do you believe is solving the problem? Is solving the problem balancing the federal budget, including interest we owe? Is solving the problem allowing the economy to continue to slowly wake from its 2008 rut? Is solving the problem reducing our federal debt to some significantly lower percent of our GDP? I venture to say that Congress as a whole would like to accomplish all of these, the trouble being that they are sometimes counterproductive.

On the math point, I almost hate to jump in on this point since I don't follow closely enough to have all the numbers memorized, but think of it this way. Members of both parties have repeatedly said that raising rates on millionaires, as the new law does, only increases the government's income by so much. I looked for awhile but can't find how much the federal government's income is expected to be since the new law was passed. If you seriously believe that increasing taxes to such an extent that we would balance our budget, then I wonder what type of taxes you want to raise on which groups (and which deductions you would eliminate or not), because I'm not impressed by much of what Milton Friedman says but with the extent to which our budget is in the red, I would be concerned with the constricting nature of a scheme to do so, especially considering the many folks like some members of my family who can hardly afford groceries as it is. Just how much taxation would be necessary to balance the budget? I would be curious to see whether that means personal tax rates would jump 5% or 50%.

I was just going with balancing the federal budget, as that seemed to be what was under discussion. Honestly, I was shocked looking at that graph at how much of the deficit reduction came from tax increases and how little came from spending cuts. From everything I'd heard about the fiscal cliff, I would have guessed the two would be far more equal. Heck, I never would have guessed we were that close to running a surplus again.

But the biggest problem with a "taxation only" plan would be that following that means we will have to continually continue to raise more and more taxes. Sure, paying some debts now will eliminate some interest in the future, but the larger problem is the rate of inflation in medical plans, whether you're talking about Medicare, Medicaid, or private programs...those rising prices coupled with the number of retirees. Google any projection for the estimated expenditures necessary for Medicare and Medicaid for the next twenty years....that is what will kill us. If someone here does any kind of financial/accounting work at a hospital or health insurance company, it would be great to get your detailed input.

CBO projections and remember that government predictions are most often underestimates.

Edit: I like the ideas posted above by jonstock. I'm intrigued by the idea of a wealth tax but it sounds preposterous when you think about people and businesses in certain industries, e.g. real estate development.

Sure--of course, the issue in this discussion was with calling that waste or saying that if you just cut their budgets, those programs will 'streamline'. We may very well wind up in a situation where either someone can't pay for groceries because of taxes or someone can't pay for medicine because of spending cuts, but if that's the way it has to be we have to face that tough choice, not just complain about 'pork' and pretend that if we just cut funding we're guaranteed everything will streamline itself so that we can have our cake and eat it too.

Greg wrote:
jonstock wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

Hang on - you could tax the top like 2-3% at 100% and not close the gap, correct? So if the goal is bridging the spending gap, you either need both, or you just need spending.

But in 2008 those making over $100,000 had a total income of $3.4 trillion and 2012's deficit was $1.1 trillion. And the rich's share of income has only grown since 2008.

So, we really could just tax rich folks more and make up the budget deficit. But of course that's politically impossible because both parties are beholden to those rich folks, and the media is owned by those rich folks.

Nice apples and oranges. In 2008, those with an income of 100,000 were in the top 18%, not the top 3%.

No, those with incomes of more than $100,000 in 2008 represented less than 12.9% of the population, not 18%. Go ahead and download the IRS's spreadsheet for Individual Income Tax Returns by Size of AGI in 2008 and see for yourself.

Jonstock was off on his numbers as well. People with AGI's of more than $100,000 accounted for $4.3 trillion in income in 2008, not $3.4 trillion.

Bump up the AGI to $200,000 and you're at less than 3.2% of the population, which puts everything back into the apples to apples range again. Those three percenters accounted for $2.4 trillion in income, more than double our 2012 deficit (the 2013 budget deficit will be about $950 billion when the dust from the recent legislation settles).

That means Jonstock's original premise is very much valid. We could simply increase the taxes on the very wealthy and that would largely--if not completely--erase our budget deficit without touching spending. Modest spending cuts or entitlement reforms would then put us in a budget surplus (and not send the economy spiraling back into a recession). Then all we would have to do is maintain that for about 40 years to pay down the debt to a reasonable level...

$100,000 is really wealthy! LOL.

OK, can we just agree that we need to pay for our government?

Greg wrote:

$100,000 is really wealthy! LOL.

OK, can we just agree that we need to pay for our government?

That would require believing that Bush should have rised taxes to pay for two wars instead of retroactively lowering taxes so we all got a check in the mail. But Republicans think that this will just magically pay for itself without raising taxes.

So if understanding that we need to pay for our government is the deal, then getting rid of the Republican freeloaders should be job one.

OG_slinger wrote:
Greg wrote:
jonstock wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

Hang on - you could tax the top like 2-3% at 100% and not close the gap, correct? So if the goal is bridging the spending gap, you either need both, or you just need spending.

But in 2008 those making over $100,000 had a total income of $3.4 trillion and 2012's deficit was $1.1 trillion. And the rich's share of income has only grown since 2008.

So, we really could just tax rich folks more and make up the budget deficit. But of course that's politically impossible because both parties are beholden to those rich folks, and the media is owned by those rich folks.

Nice apples and oranges. In 2008, those with an income of 100,000 were in the top 18%, not the top 3%.

No, those with incomes of more than $100,000 in 2008 represented less than 12.9% of the population, not 18%. Go ahead and download the IRS's spreadsheet for Individual Income Tax Returns by Size of AGI in 2008 and see for yourself.

Jonstock was off on his numbers as well. People with AGI's of more than $100,000 accounted for $4.3 trillion in income in 2008, not $3.4 trillion.

Bump up the AGI to $200,000 and you're at less than 3.2% of the population, which puts everything back into the apples to apples range again. Those three percenters accounted for $2.4 trillion in income, more than double our 2012 deficit (the 2013 budget deficit will be about $950 billion when the dust from the recent legislation settles).

That means Jonstock's original premise is very much valid. We could simply increase the taxes on the very wealthy and that would largely--if not completely--erase our budget deficit without touching spending. Modest spending cuts or entitlement reforms would then put us in a budget surplus (and not send the economy spiraling back into a recession). Then all we would have to do is maintain that for about 40 years to pay down the debt to a reasonable level...

Increase taxes on the "rich" to what level? Do you think this might have an effect on the overall economy?

deleted. Bad idea. Goodnight.

Jayhawker wrote:
Greg wrote:

$100,000 is really wealthy! LOL.

OK, can we just agree that we need to pay for our government?

That would require believing that Bush should have rised taxes to pay for two wars instead of retroactively lowering taxes so we all got a check in the mail. But Republicans think that this will just magically pay for itself without raising taxes.

So if understanding that we need to pay for our government is the deal, then getting rid of the Republican freeloaders should be job one.

That would require that the Democrats let the Bush Tax Cuts expire instead of propping them up for 98% of the country. Democrats just whiffed on their opportunity to teach the Republicans.

I stand with Howard Dean.

Greg wrote:

$100,000 is really wealthy! LOL.

OK, can we just agree that we need to pay for our government?

$100,000 is double the median income (which has been falling for years), so, yes, for a large swath of America $100K is wealthy.

We already know we have to pay for our government. What we're arguing over is *who* has to pay for it. The wealthy--who benefited massively from the Bush era tax cuts, who were barely affected by the recession, and who've been sucking up nearly all income growth since the 70s--or the middle class--who got a grand or so from the Bush tax cuts, were hammered by the recession, and whose wages have been stagnate for decades?

Greg wrote:

That would require that the Democrats let the Bush Tax Cuts expire instead of propping them up for 98% of the country. Democrats just whiffed on their opportunity to teach the Republicans.

Yes, let's send our weak economy back into a recession and drive the unemployment rate back over 9% to teach the Republicans a lesson...

Nomad wrote:

Increase taxes on the "rich" to what level? Do you think this might have an effect on the overall economy?

North of 39%, south of 100%.

I'm not a big believer in the "wealthy as brave job creators" myth so I don't think that raising taxes on the rich to even something like 50% or higher would cause the economy to melt down.

Jobs and economic growth come from the economic activity generated by the middle class, not from the economic activity of 2% of the population. Entrepreneurs will always start new businesses if they see an opportunity and their effective tax rate plays little to no part in that decision.

Nomad wrote:

Increase taxes on the "rich" to what level? Do you think this might have an effect on the overall economy?

First of all I don't think that OG is saying that we should do this, I think he's one of those who thinks taxes are low across the board. I believe he is just responding to the "it's mathematically impossible to do this" with "um, no, it's not."

Secondly we can actually find that tax rate fairly easily using the numbers OG provided. The top 3% of the United States in 2008, (which made $200k or more a year) had a total combined income of $2.462 trillion. Their taxable income was $2.054 trillion. The tax collected was $537 billion. That's an average tax rate (based on taxable income, not total) of 26.13%. The 2012 deficit is $1.327 trillion, so the top 3% would have to pay that on top of the $537 billion they already paid, that's a total of $1.864 trillion, or 90.75% of their taxable income, or 75.70% of their total income.

Keep in mind this is the 2008 3% paying 2012 deficits. The 2012 3% have done a lot better for themselves in the last four years than the bottom 97% did. As for the impact on the economy, it should be stressed that I don't think anyone here is actually advocating solely balancing the budget on the backs of the 3%, but I've had a cursory look at US economic growth and the US tax rate on the upper class before and not seen a correlation.

Greg wrote:

$100,000 is really wealthy! LOL.

OK, can we just agree that we need to pay for our government?

OG may have Tannhausered you with his talk of $200k instead of $100k, but the fact remains that while the common conception has a $100k income as the lower-middle class every-family, statistically, yes, that is really wealthy.

Thanks for finding the actual numbers, OG and Yonder. Sorry, other folks, I didn't actually mean to elide the top 3% and $100,000, but didn't read carefully enough.

But all that was just correcting NormantheIntern's statement. My main point is that if you're just talking about raising income taxes, you're ignoring many of the superrich in this country. But if you want to raise a lot of revenue and actually reverse some of the flow of wealth to the top 1 or 0.1 percent, capital gains tax is a good way to go. Wealth tax is maybe even better, but way less likely.

Keithustus wrote:

Edit: I like the ideas posted above by jonstock. I'm intrigued by the idea of a wealth tax but it sounds preposterous when you think about people and businesses in certain industries, e.g. real estate development.

It's true that some businesses have huge capital costs and low margins, but all of their competitors will be affected in the same way by this tax, so they'll still be on a level playing field. For real estate in particular, I think that as long as payment plans and deferrals are available, they'll be able to muddle through. But my knowledge of the industry is pretty minimal.

I absolutely agree that Capital Gains tax is ridiculous and should be abolished, that's all just income, and it should be taxed as income. The functional regressive tax that we have in this country is shameful and disgusting.

As far as a Wealth tax goes, I definitely think that that is an intriguing idea. Similar to the Estate tax I see it as being partially a means of revenue production and partially as a means of balancing societal wealth and preventing the development (or at this point we should probably be honest with ourselves and say continuation/growth) of an aristocratic class.

I'm not entirely sure that a Wealth tax would accomplish either goal better than a combination of income and estate tax, but as a temporary fix to more directly repair the damage that the past 20-30 years of trickle-down economics had on our wealth distribution 10-20 years of a wealth tax may be the best route. Certainly the simplest.

By that I mean mathematically the most direct and simplest. Obviously politically it's right up there with only spending twice as much on our military as Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Libya together. That 32% cut would be unthinkable. It's a good thing too, you never know when our biggest rivals of the past and present will band together, double their military spending, and then declare war on us while somehow keeping Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, or the UK from fulfilling their obligations of mutual defense.

But when that dark day comes, we'll be ready.

Jayhawker wrote:

Survival of the fittest wealthiest. We can't waste money on the weak peasants.

More accurate?