Obama funding plan for health insurance losses is a bailout

Oct 15, 2014 0:30:44 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Oct 14, 2014 12:17:51 GMT ShivaTD said:

In 2013 the Congress did "pair down expenditures as far as it could based upon compromise legislation approved by the House and Senate and signed into law by the President. That's how Congress works. How would you have paid for those authorized expenditures?

It is my belief that if our economy was based upon the "Natural (Inalienable) Right of Property" as opposed to "statutory laws of ownership" we would not require a "Welfare State" (with the rare exceptions of disabilities of individuals). IMO it is the "statutory laws of ownership" that violate the "Natural (Inalienable) Right of Property" that creates the poverty and the necessity for the "Welfare State" by government.

In short the "Natural (Inalienable) Right of Property" prevents "poverty" and the necessity of a Welfare State to mitigate the effects of the Poverty because the Poverty wouldn't exist.  

Whether religious beliefs dovetail with the law is irrelevant. The laws should allow any and all forms of "marriage" based upon any religious or secular belief so long as that "marriage" is based upon the voluntary mutual consent of those involved where no one's Rights as a Person are being violated. I'm uncompromisingly opposed to "social engineering" by government as it violates the Right of Liberty of the Person.

Yes, racial discrimination has a huge negative impact on those discriminated against that you continue to ignore.

It was interesting that you mentioned anti-Semitism. There was a movie released in 1934 titled "The House of Rothchild" that, in a fictional story, documents the rise of the House of Rothchild in banking. Subjected to discrimination the Jews of Europe were prohibited from owning land or businesses and the only economic opportunity left to them was "money lending" (i.e. banking) which lead to the rise of the Rothchild European banks that basically funded the governments of Europe. While most Jews suffered miserably one single family managed to rise above it by becoming the largest banking enterprise in Europe. Of note other families also managed to overcome the discrimination by cornering in the diamond business which is akin to the banking business but overall the Jews of Europe suffered horribly because of anti-Semitism.

Today both anti-black and anti-Semitism are still widespread in the United States and both remain oppressed. We can tell from the statistics on "hate crimes" based upon race and religion, while only an indicator, that this anti-black and anti-Semitic oppression is really unabated in America. To think otherwise is to simply hide one's head in the sand.

Although I have come across a few leftists who proclaim that America has come a long way in the matter of race relations--just not far enough--you are the first person I have ever come across to claim that racism in America remains "unabated," when compared with the way things were 50 or 60 years ago.  (As for anti-Semitism, I was simply aghast that you might believe that about this, also.  Charles Krauthammer--who is hinself a Jew--recently noted that there is not another country in the world so welcoming of Jews as America is.) 

I would suggest that the current Congress did not do a very remarkable job (to say the least) of paring expenditures. It may have used a scalpel. I would have much preferred a meat cleaver. (Anything that was passed, nonetheless, should have been paid--not merely passed along to the next generation, and the generation after that--but only after forcing major non-defense reductions, including cutbacks in automatic COLAs.)

Please explain the reasoning that has led you to conclude that poverty simply "wouldn't exist" without "statutory laws of [property] ownership." Say what? 

Since you appear to believe that marriage should not be prohibited as long as it is "based upon the voluntary mutual consent of those involved," you would (presumably) have no problem with an incestuous marriage, just as long as it was mutually agreed upon.  Right?

I would suggest you read the following on how far we've come since the 1960's in achieving racial equality.

www.csmonitor.com/Photo-Galleries/Infographics/Race-equality-in-America-How-far-have-we-come#720433

Yes, America has become more "Jewish" friendly since WW II but we also have a long history of anti-Semitism in the United States. If we refer to the FBI hate crime statistics to see where we're at today as this reflects the worst form of crime against a demographic group. Of all reported hate crimes 48.3% are based upon race, overwhelmingly against blacks, while coming in 3rd (behind crimes based upon sexual orientation at 19.6%) we find that 19% are based upon religion, predominately against Jews.  

You're still being evasive. Based upon "pay as you go" please explain how you would have funded the authorized expenditures of 2013. You're playing "pie-in-the-sky" evasive tactics while ignoring, like it or not, that Congress (Democrats AND Republicans) authorized the 2013 expenditures.

Oct 16, 2014 0:37:11 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Oct 15, 2014 13:58:28 GMT ShivaTD said:

I would suggest you read the following on how far we've come since the 1960's in achieving racial equality.

www.csmonitor.com/Photo-Galleries/Infographics/Race-equality-in-America-How-far-have-we-come#720433

Yes, America has become more "Jewish" friendly since WW II but we also have a long history of anti-Semitism in the United States. If we refer to the FBI hate crime statistics to see where we're at today as this reflects the worst form of crime against a demographic group. Of all reported hate crimes 48.3% are based upon race, overwhelmingly against blacks, while coming in 3rd (behind crimes based upon sexual orientation at 19.6%) we find that 19% are based upon religion, predominately against Jews.  

You're still being evasive. Based upon "pay as you go" please explain how you would have funded the authorized expenditures of 2013. You're playing "pie-in-the-sky" evasive tactics while ignoring, like it or not, that Congress (Democrats AND Republicans) authorized the 2013 expenditures.

I really have no idea why you might consider my stated views "evasive." I will attempt to set them forth one more time:

I do not believe that the "authorized expenditures" for 2013 were nearly so minimal as they might have been.  Nonetheless, I would have funded them, provided that Congress were to agree--immediately--to pare spending for the next fiscal year, very substantially; prior to which, not one dime should have been spent.

If you truly wish to debate me on this point, fine.  But please do not ask me to explain my position again, or claim that I am being "evasive."

Oh, here is an interesting link from the Heritage Foundation:  www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/08/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2013

If 19 percent of all "hate crimes" are "based upon religion"; and if a majority of those--at least 10 percent of all "hate crimes"--are committed against Jews--how many would that be, exactly?

The Washington Times recently reported that there were only "18 race-based hate crimes in 2013" in the nation's capital: www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/19/race-based-hate-crimes-spike-in-dc/?page=all

If this amounts to merely one percent of all the "hate crimes" in America--and that is probably a rather low estimate--that would extrapolate to 1,800 "hate crimes" based upon race in America.

Since such crimes "based upon race" are about 2.54 times more frequent than such crimes "based upon religion" (48.3 percent to 19 percent, according to your own statistics), that would be about 709 crimes "based upon religion."

And if the majority of these crimes are committed against Jews, that would be at least 355 per year, nationally.

But let us be generous in our estimate, and say that the correct number is closer to, oh, say, 500.  Per year.  Nationally.

That is still not exactly an epidemic... 

I state you're being evasive because you haven't offered a tax proposal that would have paid for the authorized expenditures in 2013 but I have.

You know my proposal because it's an income tax with an exemption. Basically I exempt 1/2 of all personal income (roughly $50,000 per household that then median income in the US) and then tax all income above that at the rate necessary to fund the general expenditures (i.e. Social Security/Medicare are funded with their own taxes that have collected more than ever spent). For 2013 in would have required a 29% income tax rate (basically a 25% tax rate reduction compared to the current 39.6% income tax rate).

I've read a lot of breakdowns for the 2013 expenditures but always have a problem related to them. Organizations like the Heritage Foundation always uses comparisons to the GDP but the GDP is not taxed. Personal income is the primary source of federal taxation so why don't these organizations address taxation based upon personal income that is the foundation for federal taxation. They also lump Social Security/Medicare expenditures with general expenditures when the two are funded from different sources. Social Security/Medicare have never been responsible for a dime of deficit spending (it still has over $2 trillion in surplus tax revenues) and is funded by low and middle income households. All deficit spending is from "general expenditures" and relates to personal income taxes that are overwhelmingly paid by those in th 10%-20% income tax rate brackets that pay many times the taxes collected from very wealthy investors in actual dollars.  

When the Heritage Foundation addresses expenditures it is based upon GDP that isn't taxed and when it addresses comparative taxation between high and low income households they only include "income taxes" while excluding "FICA/Payroll/Self-Employment" taxes that are also taxes based upon income of the workers.  IMHO it is an intentionally dishonest approach to addressing expenditures and taxation.

Back to the point. What would your proposal have been for funding all of the authorized 2013 expenditures. Better still make a proposal like I've done that would always fund the authorized expenditures.

Ironically you believe that there is a problem in Wisconsin related to voter impersonation that has "zero" documented cases of voter impersonation (which is also true for most states) but don't have a problem with literally hunderds of documented hate crimes being committed against Jews. Why is that?

I noticed you had no comment on the fact that economic and education equality for African-Americans hasn't come all that far from the 1960's nor the previously established evidence that anti-black (and anti-Hispanic) racial prejuduce is increasing, not decreasing, in recent years.

Oct 17, 2014 23:34:32 GMT pjohns1873 said:

I have already noted that I would not favor "one dime" of spending by Congress--even if those expenditures have been "authorized" by a prior Congress--absent a very substantial reduction in future spending.

Period.

End of story.

Although Social Security and Medicare are entirely separate from the "general fund," in theory, the fact is that they are being comingled; and it is not just one party that is guilty of that, but both. (Former Presidrnt Clinton"s Social Security "lockbox" was something of a joke, really.)

Income taxes, under our "progressive" tax system, are primarily being paid by those with the most income. In fact, a recent study by the Heritage Foundation (which I know you disdain) showed that fully 68 percent of all federal income taxes--more than two-thirds--is paid by the top 10 percent of earners:  www.heritage.org/federalbudget/top10-percent-income-earners

And the American Enterprise Institute--yes, another conservative think tank--recently showed that 37 percent (or about three-eights) of all federal income tax is paid by the top one percent, with the top 10 percent paying 71 percent (or slightly more than was shown by the Heritage Foundation's study):  www.aei-ideas.org/2014/04/irs-data-the-top-1-pay-37-of-all-taxes-the-bottom-half-pay-2-a-blubbering-david-letterman-cant-believe-the-facts-2/

It is simply not true that I "don't have a problem" with "hundreds of documented hate crimes being committed against Jews." As with all other crimes, this is a matter for law enforcement.  (By the way, these crimes really are crimes; and ought to be treated as precisely that.  Your comparison to voter-ID laws is most instructive: You apparently do not wish for these laws to exist.) 

"If you don't play by my rule then I'm going to take my ball and go home."

The United States Congress is elected by the people and Congress determines the spending authorizations. Your apparent position is that if you don't personally like the authorizations then the government shouldn't be funded. Unless they play by "your rules" you fully embrace deficit spending and an ever increasing national debt.

That is a huge problem with the Republican Party today. Because Congress won't play by "their rules" that fully embrace the deficit spending and ever increasing national debt.  That's why I call the Republican Party the "Party of Deficit Spending" because they refuse to fund the authorized expenditures.

There is no gray area between Social Security/Medicare taxes and Income Taxes.

I don't distain the Heritage Foundation but it does distort the numbers. For examply in the chart you provided it addresses that the top 10% paid 68% of all personal income taxes and based upon the following link that equates to $1.088 trillion out of $2.6 trillion of total federal revenue. That leaves $1.712 trillion in federal revenues of which Social Security/Medicare taxes accounts for $0.9 trillion, almost as much as the Top 10% paid, coming from those in the bottom 50% of income earners. We can also note that the Top 0.1% of income earners basically paid ZERO towards this $0.9 trillion in tax revenue because their income is from investments that didn't pay Social Security/Medicare taxes (Note: Under the ACA they now pay the Medicare Taxes but only on incomes above about $250K/yr to fund the expansion of Medicaid).

www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/fed_revenue_2013US  

That's the problem with the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute They're completely ignoring roughly 1/3rd of the tax burden (Social Security/Medicare taxes) that's almost exclusively carried by the poor and middle income workers in America. Why do they choose to ignore this huge tax burdern of the poor and middle class? I often read articles from them complaining about "business" taxation which only equates to about $100 billion per year according the the chart I've provided. We have corporations with hundreds of billions, and sometimes over a trillion dollars, in gross income but combined all of the federal business taxes equal less than 4% of all federal revenues. Seriously?   

It is already a felony for a person to impersonate another voter at the polls and apparently that law is quite effective because voter impersonation at the polls is virtually non-existant. As noted in Wisconsin there were zero reported cases of voter impersonation at the polls so why would they require a voter ID law that will disproportionately strip African-American Citizens of the Right to Vote.

I would ask you to take the time to read the following request for the 7th District Court of Appeals to rehear en blanc (i.e. by the full court) the Wisconsin Voter ID law because the request was made by five of the ten justices on the 7th District Court of Appeals.

s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1312285/posner.pdf

As you will note upon reading it that an estimted 300,000 Wisconsin registered voters (i.e. US Citizens) lost their Right to Vote based upon the requirement under the law to present specific types of personal identification.

I fully support enforcement of the laws when it comes to voting but what we can tell is that Republican actually researched the voting habits and characteristics of African-Americans and then crafted voting laws that would disenfranchise them even when a problem, such as voter impersonation, didn't exist. We already have laws that prohibit non-citizens and ex-felons from registering to vote. Like the NRA when it comes to gun laws I state, "Enforce the Laws on the books." When it comes to voter impersonation at the polls the current laws that establish it's a felony are already working as the cases are extremely rare so there is no necessity to create laws that disenfranchise (the poor, the African-American, and Hispanic-American) US Citizens.

Oct 18, 2014 21:40:11 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Oct 18, 2014 11:02:10 GMT ShivaTD said:

"If you don't play by my rule then I'm going to take my ball and go home."

The United States Congress is elected by the people and Congress determines the spending authorizations. Your apparent position is that if you don't personally like the authorizations then the government shouldn't be funded. Unless they play by "your rules" you fully embrace deficit spending and an ever increasing national debt.

That is a huge problem with the Republican Party today. Because Congress won't play by "their rules" that fully embrace the deficit spending and ever increasing national debt.  That's why I call the Republican Party the "Party of Deficit Spending" because they refuse to fund the authorized expenditures.

There is no gray area between Social Security/Medicare taxes and Income Taxes.

I don't distain the Heritage Foundation but it does distort the numbers. For examply in the chart you provided it addresses that the top 10% paid 68% of all personal income taxes and based upon the following link that equates to $1.088 trillion out of $2.6 trillion of total federal revenue. That leaves $1.712 trillion in federal revenues of which Social Security/Medicare taxes accounts for $0.9 trillion, almost as much as the Top 10% paid, coming from those in the bottom 50% of income earners. We can also note that the Top 0.1% of income earners basically paid ZERO towards this $0.9 trillion in tax revenue because their income is from investments that didn't pay Social Security/Medicare taxes (Note: Under the ACA they now pay the Medicare Taxes but only on incomes above about $250K/yr to fund the expansion of Medicaid).

www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/fed_revenue_2013US  

That's the problem with the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute They're completely ignoring roughly 1/3rd of the tax burden (Social Security/Medicare taxes) that's almost exclusively carried by the poor and middle income workers in America. Why do they choose to ignore this huge tax burdern of the poor and middle class? I often read articles from them complaining about "business" taxation which only equates to about $100 billion per year according the the chart I've provided. We have corporations with hundreds of billions, and sometimes over a trillion dollars, in gross income but combined all of the federal business taxes equal less than 4% of all federal revenues. Seriously?   

It is already a felony for a person to impersonate another voter at the polls and apparently that law is quite effective because voter impersonation at the polls is virtually non-existant. As noted in Wisconsin there were zero reported cases of voter impersonation at the polls so why would they require a voter ID law that will disproportionately strip African-American Citizens of the Right to Vote.

I would ask you to take the time to read the following request for the 7th District Court of Appeals to rehear en blanc (i.e. by the full court) the Wisconsin Voter ID law because the request was made by five of the ten justices on the 7th District Court of Appeals.

s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1312285/posner.pdf

As you will note upon reading it that an estimted 300,000 Wisconsin registered voters (i.e. US Citizens) lost their Right to Vote based upon the requirement under the law to present specific types of personal identification.

I fully support enforcement of the laws when it comes to voting but what we can tell is that Republican actually researched the voting habits and characteristics of African-Americans and then crafted voting laws that would disenfranchise them even when a problem, such as voter impersonation, didn't exist. We already have laws that prohibit non-citizens and ex-felons from registering to vote. Like the NRA when it comes to gun laws I state, "Enforce the Laws on the books." When it comes to voter impersonation at the polls the current laws that establish it's a felony are already working as the cases are extremely rare so there is no necessity to create laws that disenfranchise (the poor, the African-American, and Hispanic-American) US Citizens.

Although you previously noted that you "don't give a damn" about how these people vote, I find it instructive that you are concerned that those who are a part of Democratic client groups might lose their privilege of voting (that is, until--and unless--they acquire proper documentation; which is necessary for me to access my own money, at my credit union). 

Your caricature of my view--"If you don't play by my rule then I'm going to take my ball and go home"--is not exactly accurate.  Actually, it is more like this:  If Democratic client groups wish to vote themselves ever-expanding benefits, a Republican (i.e. conservative) Congress has every right to rebel.

An interesting quotation, in this regard--traditionally attributed to the Scottish jurist, Sir Alex Frazer Tytler (although it may be a rough congeries of different quotes--or may even be apocryphal--goes like this:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.... The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from great courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependency back again to bondage.

The mere fact that voter impersonation has not been widely reported in Wisconsin (which, by the way, is just one state out of 50) does not mean that it is "virtually non-existent."

The burden of Medicare and Social Security taxes is separate from the burden of income taxes. To address the latter does not say anything about one's views as concerning the former.

The 2013 expenditures were authorized by Congress. You can't have a "re-do" and change them. Congress, Democrats and Republicans, authorize the expenditures and those expenditures must be funded for the year authorized. Whatever the following years authorizations may or may not be is up to the Congress "next" year. You can't simply state "I'm not going to pay for this year unless you agree to next year." That doesn't work because budget authorizations are made each and every years. Whatever the following year's budget may nor may not include has absolute no bearing on paying for the current year's authorizations (in this case, because it's historical, 2013).

Yes, Repulbicans can "rebel" but that is during the budget negotiations and not after the budget authorization has been passed.

The Republicans and Democrats authorized the 2013 budget (and since then the 2014 budget) but Congress didn't fully fund it. How would you have funded what Congress authorized)? Why do you refuse to answer that question. I'll even give you a "hypothetical" because I'll cut the hypothetical 2014 budget by $200 billion. Does that make you happy? Hell, we could cut it by $500 billion but that has absolutely nothing to do with how you would make up the 2013 deficit.

Voter impersonation at the polls is very easy to identify and it is virtually non-existent in the US.   Voter impersonation at the polls hasn't been reported at all in Wisconsin (or most states) and it is very easy for the poll workers to figure out that if two people claim to be the same registered voter then either there's a mistake by the poll workers, a mistake by the voters, or an actual case of felony (intentional) voter impersonation is occurring. None of these problems are being reported in Wisconsin or virtually any other state. As we both know Texax leads the nation with reports of possible (not proven) voter impersonation with four cases identified over an 6-year time frame (2004-2010) covering four election cycles. That's an average of one possible case per election and these usually turn out to be a mistake by the voter or poll workers and not actual voter impersonation.

The federal tax burden placed on the person is ALL of the federal Taxes they have to pay.  

The "conservative think tanks" and Republicans like to disparage low income workers pretending like they don't pay federal taxes when, in fact, they often pay higher federal tax rates than multi-millioniares. I don't know if Mitt Romney's only paying 14% in federal taxes this year but if he is then he's paying a lower rate in federal taxes than a minimum wage worker that's responsible for a 15.3% tax rate starting at the first dollar of gross income.  

Oct 20, 2014 2:15:34 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Oct 19, 2014 3:01:59 GMT ShivaTD said:

The 2013 expenditures were authorized by Congress. You can't have a "re-do" and change them. Congress, Democrats and Republicans, authorize the expenditures and those expenditures must be funded for the year authorized. Whatever the following years authorizations may or may not be is up to the Congress "next" year. You can't simply state "I'm not going to pay for this year unless you agree to next year." That doesn't work because budget authorizations are made each and every years. Whatever the following year's budget may nor may not include has absolute no bearing on paying for the current year's authorizations (in this case, because it's historical, 2013).

Yes, Repulbicans can "rebel" but that is during the budget negotiations and not after the budget authorization has been passed.

The Republicans and Democrats authorized the 2013 budget (and since then the 2014 budget) but Congress didn't fully fund it. How would you have funded what Congress authorized)? Why do you refuse to answer that question. I'll even give you a "hypothetical" because I'll cut the hypothetical 2014 budget by $200 billion. Does that make you happy? Hell, we could cut it by $500 billion but that has absolutely nothing to do with how you would make up the 2013 deficit.

Voter impersonation at the polls is very easy to identify and it is virtually non-existent in the US.   Voter impersonation at the polls hasn't been reported at all in Wisconsin (or most states) and it is very easy for the poll workers to figure out that if two people claim to be the same registered voter then either there's a mistake by the poll workers, a mistake by the voters, or an actual case of felony (intentional) voter impersonation is occurring. None of these problems are being reported in Wisconsin or virtually any other state. As we both know Texax leads the nation with reports of possible (not proven) voter impersonation with four cases identified over an 6-year time frame (2004-2010) covering four election cycles. That's an average of one possible case per election and these usually turn out to be a mistake by the voter or poll workers and not actual voter impersonation.

The federal tax burden placed on the person is ALL of the federal Taxes they have to pay.  

The "conservative think tanks" and Republicans like to disparage low income workers pretending like they don't pay federal taxes when, in fact, they often pay higher federal tax rates than multi-millioniares. I don't know if Mitt Romney's only paying 14% in federal taxes this year but if he is then he's paying a lower rate in federal taxes than a minimum wage worker that's responsible for a 15.3% tax rate starting at the first dollar of gross income.  

If you believe that that "minimum wage worker" is paying too much in federal taxes, then, by all means, you should feel free to advocate a reduction in his (or her) federal tax rate--not an increase in the rate for "multi-millionaires" (who, in any case, amount to a negligible proportion of all Americans). 

No, Congress cannot have a "re-do." But it can (and should, in my opinion) use Congress' (unique) power of the purse, in this regard.

The frequency of voter impersonation is really not the issue. As I have pointed out on a couple of previous occasions, I cannot even access my own money, at the credit union, without a photo ID.  Why should the standard for voting be any more lenient than the standard for withdrawing one's own money? 

I'm not concerned with "multi-millionaires" but instead "high income investors" that only pay a 3.8% Medicare Tax above about $250K/yr in income and no Social Security taxes whatsoever. Based upon your logic virtually no one pays Social Security/Medicare taxes and all Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid benefits would have to be paid for with personal income taxes. Social Security/Medicare(Medicaid) are the only fully funded federal expenditures and you want them to be funded with deficit spending.

Okay - Congress cannot "re-do" the 2013 expenditures so what would your tax proposal have been to fund those expenditures for that single year?

Your bank account is a contractual arrangement you have with your bank and not a Constitutionally protected Right. Why do you oppose voting by US Citizens?  

BTW - You don't need a government issued ID card to withdraw money from you bank account. When you opened your account you signed a "signiture card" and the bank can verify your identity based upon that card alone. You can also write a check or make a cash withdrawal using your ATM card (that is not an ID card) as well. Even when I make cash withdrawals from Chase, inside the bank, they have me run my ATM card and do not request ID.   

Oct 21, 2014 23:27:20 GMT pjohns1873 said:

I should probably note that it is with my credit union--not my "bank"--that I have my savings. (I do, however, have a checking account at a bank.) And I am not sure if federal regulations differ between the two. (In any case, I never filled out a "signature card" with either.  I cannot say whether my late wife did or not.)

I have no desire to force either "multi millionaires" or "high income investors" to pay more in taxes.  In fact, I would much prefer a lower tax burden for every American citizen; and without running a deficit, or cutting defense spending.

I have already made my proposal as regarding those "authorized expenditures" for 2013.  I feel no compelling need to reiterate my position.  (But you may wish to refer to the "not one dime" part again.)   

I just ran an appoximate calculation based upon "everyone" having a lower tax burden, including wealthy investors, where everyone pays the same rate and it only resulted in about $875 billion in TOTAL federal revenue (Personal Income and Social Security taxes combined). That won't even really fund defense spending much less other major government expenditures like Social Security, Medicare, border patrol, immigration, etc. (or Congressional salaries and pensions - LOL)!!! You really need to get realistic.

You haven't made any proposal for funding 2013 except you'd "demand" spending cuts for 2014. Assume those 2914 spending cuts happened how would you have funded 2013 (pay as you go)?

Oct 22, 2014 20:24:32 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Oct 22, 2014 0:33:06 GMT ShivaTD said:

I just ran an appoximate calculation based upon "everyone" having a lower tax burden, including wealthy investors, where everyone pays the same rate and it only resulted in about $875 billion in TOTAL federal revenue (Personal Income and Social Security taxes combined). That won't even really fund defense spending much less other major government expenditures like Social Security, Medicare, border patrol, immigration, etc. (or Congressional salaries and pensions - LOL)!!! You really need to get realistic.

You haven't made any proposal for funding 2013 except you'd "demand" spending cuts for 2014. Assume those 2914 spending cuts happened how would you have funded 2013 (pay as you go)?

If those very large spending cuts had actually occurred, I would have favored a one-time tax increase (similar to the "assessment" that the condominium association, to which I am attached, may assess its homeowners, as a one-time fee, in lieu of raising monthly HOA fees). Absent such a reduction, however, I would not have favored the spending.

What tax rate did you (rather arbitrarily) use for your "calculation"? 

Who would you have imposed the tax increase on? The poor, the wealthy, everyone?

I based my rough calculations on the Capital Gains tax codes because they are the lowest form of federal taxation in America. They also exclude any Social Security tax (a draconian and regressive tax imposed on low and middle income households) and only impose the Medicare tax above about $250K/yr in net household income (i.e. virtually all Social Security and Medicare taxes are wiped out because over 95% of all Americans are exempted using the Capital Gains tax codes).

Gross US personal income +/- about:

$12.5 trillion

Minus income of those not taxed (at least 1/2 of all personal household income):

 $6.25 trillion

Taxable income:

$6.25 trillion

Typical Capital Gains tax rate for multi-millionaires about 14%:

$875 billion in gross Federal tax revenues

This is a very short-form calculation but it is unquestionably an over-exstimate because it's based upon "gross income" as opposed to "net income" that is what's actually taxed. To come up with a higher federal tax revenue it means that someone needs to get screwed and taxed more than what the Capital Gains tax codes, on the average, impose on multi-millionaires.