Eating the rich is an exercise in futility.

[swampgeek]

Whether anyone wants to except the "proof" or not, does not change the fact that our country is bankrupt. It's not the defense spending at @ 1\6th the budget. My view of defense spending is quite clear cut, we continuously involve ourselves in conflicts, assume the responsibility, assume all of the costs associated with the actions on foreign soil to solve other peoples problems regardless of whether it's just or not. Tyrants should be stopped, but if you can't do it yourself, you should at least contribute to the costs that are incurred. Also, clear reasoning in, not vague excuses, defined goals, and exit plans (not dates just end goals). I've fought one war for this country, would do it again, but am tired of how they are USED. AND no one in the government should make more than the salary structure used in the military, No one.

Medicare and Medicaid along with social security are the 800 pound gorillas in the room and no measure of tax the rich will come close to remedying those issues. Realistic change to these programs with realistic benefits have to be made. Social programs in general are unsustainable at the current rates of growth and the baby boomers are starting there flood now.

Every time the budget battles start and budget cuts get mentioned the first things to get thrown out there is police, teachers (a whole other thread and post), fire protection, and granny getting kicked out in the street. How bout tons of middle management, billions in unrealistic salaries and benefits for government employees, 1000s of redundant programs and agencies...this list is too long to put on here. There are plenty of things government should be doing and plenty of things that are dens of power. Banking, speculators, market managers, etc. chase the all mighty dollar and have no moral compass any more. More regulation will not answer this problems, the regulators are in bed with the most of the time any way. The BP mess, regulators all buddy buddy, the mortgage mess everyone sleeping together-congress, regulators, bankers, consumers, investors, until the mess came down around their ears. And then the blame game starts.

I truly do not have the time nor the inclination to enumerate all of the glaring issues facing us monetarily, but we have to start being realist. Hard choices are going to have to be made and there are going to be some really unhappy people for quite a while no matter what. The bill is coming due and ultimately we are all going to pay it one way or another.

Our Moral compass is broke as a country. We cannot make sound decisions without Morals. This is not changing. All sides of the argument are looking for what's in it for them, or their side, not the whole. The origins of this country were not an accident. We all had a stake, rich or poor. We sacrificed for the common good and looked to God and our Morals as the guiding force. That is no longer the case. We can discuss what should happen and each to is own on the opinion, ultimately it will have no affect without a core value change. I don't see that coming, do you?

Edited April 15, 2011 by swampgeek

[HoosierGuy]

Fifty seconds into that video and it's clear it's nothing but a lame conservative hit piece against the Democrats/liberals/universal healthcare/good jobs/unions. British nanny state? That nanny state has universal healthcare. Those nanny states in Europe have high speed trains. Those nanny states do what their citizens want them to do - take care of the people in society.

[HoosierGuy]

Why is this thread in the Current Events section? It should be in the regular discussion area.

[pam]

When you become a moderator you can decide where threads should be. It's fine just where it is.

[Elphaba]

British nanny state? That nanny state has universal healthcare.

That's what a "nanny state" is.

I think Whittle's characterization of the situation in Britain is flawed, but when someone talks about the "nanny state," universal healthcare is an example of what they're talking about. So I don't understand how the fact that they have universal healthcare proves Whittle is wrong about the "nanny state."

Or, did you mean something completely different?

Elphaba

Edited April 19, 2011 by Elphaba

[Just_A_Guy]

British nanny state? That nanny state has universal healthcare. Those nanny states in Europe have high speed trains. Those nanny states do what their citizens want them to do - take care of the people in society.

And they're broke.

Now, would you like to address the video's actual point about where the money's going to come from?

[FunkyTown]

And they're broke.

Now, would you like to address the video's actual point about where the money's going to come from?

Hey Jag!

As someone in Britain who follows the country, I'd like to point out a few things:

1) Britain is in a fairly strong place financially. The austerity measures being taken aren't tearing apart the NHS because that's one of the priorities being placed by the people. The austerity measure is tearing first at the bureaucracy and middle managers - a popular move in some circles and an unpopular move in others, considering the huge amount of government workers there are.

2) Britain spends less per capita on health care than the US. The NHS pays mostly for medication, for instance. When I learned this, it disgusted me.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a1/International_Comparison_-_Healthcare_spending_as_%25_GDP.png/800px-International_Comparison_-_Healthcare_spending_as_%25_GDP.png

The problem, JAG, isn't that universal health care is an albatross. It can work as long as the country in question chooses to prioritize it over other things.

Germany and the UK are both strong economies currently, despite austerity measures that the whole world is taking.

The problem, in the US at least, is clearly that there is profiteering going on by somebody. If I didn't have the numbers in front of me, there's no way I'd believe the US is paying twice as much per capita on public health care than the UK. That's obscene, given that I just made a Doctor's appointment and have to wait until 5:30 this afternoon to see someone and when I do, it's going to cost me £7 for a months supply of medication. Why? Because taxes are higher. I'm willing to shoulder that burden for this kind of service. I don't see why Medicare/Medicaid is hemorrhaging money but clearly it has to be dealt with.

[Just_A_Guy]

Hey Jag!

As someone in Britain who follows the country, I'd like to point out a few things:

1) Britain is in a fairly strong place financially. The austerity measures being taken aren't tearing apart the NHS because that's one of the priorities being placed by the people. The austerity measure is tearing first at the bureaucracy and middle managers - a popular move in some circles and an unpopular move in others, considering the huge amount of government workers there are.

Sure; but that just means that other government agencies must make do with a smaller piece of the pie--for instance, Britain's higher ed system.

Moreover, I don't think references to "nanny state" pertain only to health care. It applies to pretty much any freebie government gives out, and especially to government workers who in many cases receive benefits far in excess of what those workers could get in the real job market.

2) Britain spends less per capita on health care than the US. The NHS pays mostly for medication, for instance. When I learned this, it disgusted me.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a1/International_Comparison_-_Healthcare_spending_as_%25_GDP.png/800px-International_Comparison_-_Healthcare_spending_as_%25_GDP.png

I concede that government-imposed price ceilings tend to depress prices. The question is whether they also create shortages in the long run, as potential care providers opt to pursue a more lucrative livelihood in another industry.

The problem, JAG, isn't that universal health care is an albatross. It can work as long as the country in question chooses to prioritize it over other things.

Sure; but as we fund health care more and more government must either do less and less in other arenas, or it must try to extract more and more from the private sector.

The point the video makes is, the US government really doesn't have that many piggy banks left to confiscate/break open.

Germany and the UK are both strong economies currently, despite austerity measures that the whole world is taking.

Well . . . the whole world except us, it seems.

The problem, in the US at least, is clearly that there is profiteering going on by somebody. If I didn't have the numbers in front of me, there's no way I'd believe the US is paying twice as much per capita on public health care than the UK. If I didn't have the numbers in front of me, there's no way I'd believe the US is paying twice as much per capita on public health care than the UK.

I agree, partly. You can hold prices down naturally, through competition between providers; or artificially, through price ceilings. The reality is, we really don't have either in the US right now--partly because the patient is insulated from the true cost of service via HMOs, and partly because the HMOs themselves are such a cats cradle of differing options that it's very difficult for a consumer to truly figure out which one's the best deal.

Another issue I've been hearing a bit more about lately, is America's so-called "higher education bubble" and the artificially high costs of advanced degrees due to too-easily-obtained student funding. I can't help but wonder whether that doesn't also put upward pressure on American medical costs (via the need to pay doctors with a quarter of a million in student debt or more); though I've not seen any studies on the topic.

At any rate, I just wish we'd given true competition a chance before jumping straight to price ceilings.

That's obscene, given that I just made a Doctor's appointment and have to wait until 5:30 this afternoon to see someone and when I do, it's going to cost me £7 for a months supply of medication. Why? Because taxes are higher. I'm willing to shoulder that burden for this kind of service. I don't see why Medicare/Medicaid is hemorrhaging money but clearly it has to be dealt with.

My understanding of the studies is that waiting times in the UK are a mixed bag, and depend on the procedure. I don't discount your anecdotal experience. But I also see stories like

--the guy in the UK who built a Star-Trek themed apartment. Note his explanation as to why there's no bed in his apartment: he suffers from sciatica, and his doctor told him to sleep on the floor. Now, here in the USA, my brother-in-law was diagnosed with sciatica about a year and a half ago. Three weeks later, the condition was surgically fixed. He sleeps in a bed.

So again, I don't discount that the NHS can provide some services quite speedily. But apparently, there are also people in the UK who need some types of surgery and are so sure they won't get it, that they're re-arranging their apartments based on that expectation of (no) service.

Going back to Medicare/Medicaid: Yeah, the bleeding has to stop; but I don't think that it will. According to our own CBO (they who originally promised Medicare would cost no more than $9 billion per annum by 1990), as of last March, our new health care program does not cut costs [see graph on page 6]. It actually increases medical spending; it just nets a surplus because it forces people to buy their own coverage.

Edited April 19, 2011 by Just_A_Guy

[Elphaba]

Moreover, I don't think references to "nanny state" pertain only to health care. It applies to pretty much any freebie government gives out, and especially to government workers who in many cases receive benefits far in excess of what those workers could get in the real job market.

Since Funky didn't mention the term "nanny state," and I did, I think you're responding to my post to hoosier. If so, I understand your explanation of the word. The reason I mentioned healthcare only is that's the only aspect of a "nanny state" that hoosier mentioned. But I do understand the term encompasses much more than just government-subsidized healthcare.

If you weren't responding to my post, then just ignore this one.

Elph

[Just_A_Guy]

Mea culpa, Elphaba; I got a bit confuzzled there!

[Guest]

Healthcare in America is more expensive due by a large part to defensive medicine.

[HoosierGuy]

Don't take it from me, take it from the very smart and wise Robert Reich -

Robert Reich (Why We Must Raise Taxes on the Rich)

Here’s the truth: The only way America can reduce the long-term budget deficit, maintain vital services, protect Social Security and Medicare, invest more in education and infrastructure, and not raise taxes on the working middle class is by raising taxes on the super rich.

Notice he says super rich. Not the low rich, not the middle rich, but the upper super rich.

If the rich were taxed at the same rates they were half a century ago, they’d be paying in over $350 billion more this year alone, which translates into trillions over the next decade. That’s enough to accomplish everything the nation needs while also reducing future deficits.

[PrinceofLight2000]

Don't take it from me, take it from the very smart and wise Robert Reich -

Robert Reich (Why We Must Raise Taxes on the Rich)

Here’s the truth: The only way America can reduce the long-term budget deficit, maintain vital services, protect Social Security and Medicare, invest more in education and infrastructure, and not raise taxes on the working middle class is by raising taxes on the super rich.

Notice he says super rich. Not the low rich, not the middle rich, but the upper super rich.

If the rich were taxed at the same rates they were half a century ago, they’d be paying in over $350 billion more this year alone, which translates into trillions over the next decade. That’s enough to accomplish everything the nation needs while also reducing future deficits.

Our 1.6 trillion dollar deficit disagrees with his math. 350 billion isn't even close to half of the hole the current budget is digging annually. It wouldn't even be enough to cover half of Social Security. It's growing more and more apparent that Social Security and the rest of the entitlements can't be protected at this point if we want to be serious about the debt crisis, and we must work to salvage what we can to fulfill the obligations we've already set. Ryan's budget does a good job of that, imo.

Honestly, even suggesting a source that says 350 billion a year would be anything close to enough just tells me that you're not paying attention very well.

By the way, tax rates on the rich half a century ago were extremely exorbitant and very unfair. As this site shows, in the 50's and 60's, the rich were taxed to 90% of their income. None of that money can go directly into the economy if we restore those kinds of rates. Not to mention you won't even be getting that kind of money since raising the rates just encourages more of the wealthy to take advantage of tax loopholes. We need a FAIR tax, or possibly a flat tax, with a lower rate.

Edited April 20, 2011 by PrinceofLight2000

[Just_A_Guy]

Notice that Reich said it would reduce (not eliminate) the deficit, and said nothing about the national debt.

Not to mention you won't even be getting that kind of money since raising the rates just encourages more of the wealthy to take advantage of tax loopholes.

The biggest loopholes would be the mortgage interest deduction and the charitable interest deduction. A certain politician of some note (who shall remain nameless on these boards since he is now campaigning for re-election) recently proposed eliminating both.

But yeah; it all ultimately comes back to the video and the plan of some to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

[NeuroTypical]

Just a friendly reminder of a pretty hefty fact that is often left out of these discussions: "Raising taxes on the rich and super rich" pretty much always means raising income taxes. Folks born into wealth are pretty much untouched. Because you can't just go pass a "take every third mansion" tax or some such. And death taxes only catch the unprepared - there many sufficient ways to protect 'the family wealth' from the touch of inheritance taxes.

So basically, you have to be working at a job that is paying you something, in order to be considered one of the "rich or super rich" in these scenarios. Not that great of a deal for folks motivated by class hatred, because so many of the upper-crust don't really earn a wage.

[Elphaba]

Mea culpa, Elphaba; I got a bit confuzzled there!

No need. Your point was a valid one. Besides, these days I define the word "confuzzled." Maybe next time I stumble, you'll give me a break.

. . . and the charitable interest deduction.

I think you're referring to the deduction for contributions to charity, but just in case you mean something else, what is the "charitable interest deduction."

Thanks,

Elph

[Just_A_Guy]

Sigh . . . yeah, the charitable contribution deduction. Sorry!

[PrinceofLight2000]

Sigh . . . yeah, the charitable contribution deduction. Sorry!

Strike two!

[towers10]

Whittle is not being intellectually honest here (or truly doesn't understand fiscal policy himself). I'll quote some comments that explain why his logic is flawed-

"This guy's math is fuzzy. He is talking about paying THE ENTIRE FISCALYEAR OF 2011 (4.7 trillion) with money from the rich, corporations, etc. In the real words we are talking about increasing taxes on the rich to pay off what's in deficit (1.6 trillion). If you combine significant tax increases on incomes above 250K, capital gains taxes, and slightly raise corporate taxes (and yes, spending cuts in addition to this) we can pay down the debt."

"I did watch it and it's wrong, which is WHY I'm responding. This guy's math makes no sense. he talks about the $3.7 trillion 2011 budget and starts from 0 as if none of it is paid yet. This is not the case. The deficit we are facing is 1.6 trillion which means 2.9 trillion is already accounted for. We could actually tax the rich and corporations at their 1960 tax rates and take a huge chunk off the deficit. Also, as the economy continues to recover, tax revenues will increase."

"At approximately $14 trillion GDP, a 25% approximate average tax rate would fully fund the government. Whittle also doesn't count non-tax revenue, which is around 20% of yearly government revenue."

Some of the posts in this thread have confused the difference between a deficit and a debt. We do not need to fully pay off our "debt" by the end of the year, that's not how bonds work. Our total outstanding debt is 14.5 trillion dollars, about the size of our nation's GDP in 2010. We make interest payments on all our foreign debt each year, and economists have calculated that it is pretty much impossible for the US to default on those interest payments. The debate is over deficit, which is an increase in debt. As one of the people I quoted said, our deficit projection for 2011 is only 1.6 trillion, while the GDP will be ~14 trillion. Thus increasing taxes could easily balance the budget and stop the deficit, contrary to Whittle's claims.

Edited May 5, 2011 by towers10

[Just_A_Guy]

Whittle is not being intellectually honest here (or truly doesn't understand fiscal policy himself). I'll quote some comments that explain why his logic is flawed-

Sources (above and beyond anonymous YouTube contributors) are always nice.

"This guy's math is fuzzy. He is talking about paying THE ENTIRE FISCALYEAR OF 2011 (4.7 trillion) with money from the rich, corporations, etc. In the real words we are talking about increasing taxes on the rich to pay off what's in deficit (1.6 trillion). If you combine significant tax increases on incomes above 250K, capital gains taxes, and slightly raise corporate taxes (and yes, spending cuts in addition to this) we can pay down the debt."

If there's double-counting, it's going both ways. Plan to fill the deficit by taxing the rich if you like; but you can't do it with the entire income of the rich--only with the sixty-ought percent they have left over after the taxes they already pay (not counting state and local taxes, of course).

As to the larger point: certainly, higher taxes plus cutting spending will tend to bring you closer to a balanced budget. Provided, of course, that you don't kill all incentive for your tax base to continue generating income. Provided, further, that you understand just how staggeringly massive the spending currently IS.

"I did watch it and it's wrong, which is WHY I'm responding. This guy's math makes no sense. he talks about the $3.7 trillion 2011 budget and starts from 0 as if none of it is paid yet. This is not the case. The deficit we are facing is 1.6 trillion which means 2.9 trillion is already accounted for. We could actually tax the rich and corporations at their 1960 tax rates and take a huge chunk off the deficit. Also, as the economy continues to recover, tax revenues will increase."

The three primary culprits to the national debt are defense spending, Social Security, and Medicaid. Two of these three were in their infancy in 1960.

Whittle also doesn't count non-tax revenue, which is around 20% of yearly government revenue."

I don't see how one could make this assertion. Whittle takes the "deficit", which is income (of whatever type) minus outlays.

"At approximately $14 trillion GDP, a 25% approximate average tax rate would fully fund the government. . . .

As one of the people I quoted said, our deficit projection for 2011 is only 1.6 trillion, while the GDP will be ~14 trillion. Thus increasing taxes could easily balance the budget and stop the deficit, contrary to Whittle's claims.

But I doubt you're talking about a flat 25% income tax? 45% of Americans pay no income tax, and I strongly doubt you'll be asking them to chip in now. So, what are we really looking at? Let's run some additional calculations.

We agree that there's currently a $1.6 trillion annual deficit. Using Iowahawk's numbers (basis for the video), you can (barely) close it by a) confiscating every single asset held by every single billionaire in the country [$0.75 trillion], and 2) taxing all income over $250K at 61% [($1.6 trillion - $0.75 trillion) / total income over $250K of $1.412 trillion]. Of course, when you factor in state income/sales/property taxes, many of these people will actually be LOSING money even if they've worked every single day of the year.

Worse yet, eliminating the billionaires was a one-trick pony. In Year 2 you have another $1.6 trillion deficit and you don't get a $750 billion shot-in-the-arm to fix it. Raid the profits of the Fortune 500 companies this year and you get $0.357 trillion. You still have $1.055 trillion to recover, which you do by taxing earnings over $250K at 75%. Again, factoring in state/income/sales/property taxes, many of these people--because of their choice to work--are ending the year in worse shape than they started it. Moreover, by confiscating the profits (read: stock dividends) of the Fortune 500 company, you've probably killed darned near half of them. So in Year 3, you've got to tax the rich even more to close the deficit.

The only rational thing for these individuals to do, is to quit producing. And then what--you put a gun to their head and tell them to get back to work? Scenarios like that may give Marxists their kicks. Bottom line, though, is that you don't maintain a viable long-term economy with those kinds of punitive measures and you can't sustain the kind of spending we've been doing without them.

Edited May 8, 2011 by Just_A_Guy
Fixed some numbers