Time for a flat tax

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Hog1

Before dismissing the flat tax, or solutions that sound good, ONLY to fall short of revenue needed, consider this.
Our government is out of control and lacking any real accountablilty. Our social programs desperately are in need of radical overhaul. The people that really are in need are being over-shadowed by those that don't. We now have a national debt in excess of how many Trillion???????? Is..........it..........8...TRILLION, and, an ever growing deficit. When are we going to face the music, and when are we going to demand at some kind of accountability from our elected officials?
If SERIOUS change is made in some of these things, and then a flat tax, or other alternative might work, as MUCH less revenue generation by the Fed would be required to maintain the satus quo.

This post is so vague it holds hardly any value. I get that you're saying the budget needs to be balanced; but to offer any value you need to tell us where you're going to cut spending in order to do so. Are you going to cut programs? Which ones?

Saying we need to cut spending is one thing, but when you get down and look at how the programs will be affected, it's not so easy to get the budget balanced. Especially without the tax revenue that the top 1% in this country provide. I mean unless you're going to cut ALL public welfare programs and come home from Iraq immediately, you're going to need to RAISE taxes on the rich if you hope to balance the budget.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Hog1

Before dismissing the flat tax, or solutions that sound good, ONLY to fall short of revenue needed, consider this.
Our government is out of control and lacking any real accountablilty. Our social programs desperately are in need of radical overhaul. The people that really are in need are being over-shadowed by those that don't. We now have a national debt in excess of how many Trillion???????? Is..........it..........8...TRILLION, and, an ever growing deficit. When are we going to face the music, and when are we going to demand at some kind of accountability from our elected officials?
If SERIOUS change is made in some of these things, and then a flat tax, or other alternative might work, as MUCH less revenue generation by the Fed would be required to maintain the satus quo.

Well the complex soultion to the higher taxes involves a startegic effort to reduce government spending drastically and then a reflective effort to reduce taxes to a comparable level.

I seriously think we'll see flying humans with wings and tails before our governent makes a concerted effort to actually reduce spending. By recude spending I mean eliminating billions of wasted dollars on entitlements that don't work and pork that does nothing for people.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Well the complex soultion to the higher taxes involves a startegic effort to reduce government spending drastically and then a reflective effort to reduce taxes to a comparable level.

I seriously think we'll see flying humans with wings and tails before our governent makes a concerted effort to actually reduce spending. By recude spending I mean eliminating billions of wasted dollars on entitlements that don't work and pork that does nothing for people.

I totally agree. BUT...When do we pay the piper? Do we continue on this path? Give up? At what point are we actually circling the drain?

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

This post is so vague it holds hardly any value. I get that you're saying the budget needs to be balanced; but to offer any value you need to tell us where you're going to cut spending in order to do so. Are you going to cut programs? Which ones?

Saying we need to cut spending is one thing, but when you get down and look at how the programs will be affected, it's not so easy to get the budget balanced. Especially without the tax revenue that the top 1% in this country provide. I mean unless you're going to cut ALL public welfare programs and come home from Iraq immediately, you're going to need to RAISE taxes on the rich if you hope to balance the budget.

There are without a doubt many scenario's that can lead us to a balanced budget. Hell no, it won't be easy. But like a Damn Cancer, it has to be attacked.
Yes, I would SERIOUSLY evaluate and Cut welfare and other Gimme' programs. And YES, I would (in a perfect world) develop a plan to get our asses out of Iraq in a manner we can live with other than turn tail and run. And NO it won't be easy!
By the way, the thrust of the post is that there are numerous other global issues we face in this country in NEED of attention that will greatly impact our tax generation needs. Not to provde a concise plan to do so.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Hog1

Before dismissing the flat tax, or solutions that sound good, ONLY to fall short of revenue needed, consider this.
Our government is out of control and lacking any real accountablilty. Our social programs desperately are in need of radical overhaul. The people that really are in need are being over-shadowed by those that don't. We now have a national debt in excess of how many Trillion???????? Is..........it..........8...TRILLION, and, an ever growing deficit. When are we going to face the music, and when are we going to demand some kind of accountability from our elected officials?
If SERIOUS change is made in some of these things, and then a flat tax, or other alternative might work, as MUCH less revenue generation by the Fed would be required to maintain the satus quo.
Check out the Debt clock. That's some spooky stuff

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

While I am for eliminating waste and prosecuting fraud in the expenditiure of public dollars, I don't believe a draconian reduction in the governmental revenues will accomplish anything other economic chaos.

As Schneed indicated, what are u cutting? how much? where? Let's say we reduce government spending 20% across the board. A military budget already strapped for cash will have to further increase the burden on individual soldiers. Okay, will exempt the military. Since that is the single biggest expenditure of the federal government (social security is based on an entirely separate tax), we will be cutting many additional services - parks, museums. Oh, and how about all those things that get regulated behind the scenes - like standardization of food production? Remember the dog/cat food issue we just had? Who do you think ensures that weights and measures are standardized in the production, transportation and sale of goods across state lines (You know, like gas and EVERYTHING in your supermarket)?

If you put 1 out of every 5 (20% for those non-math majors) of federal employees out of work, what is your proposed employment plan? Let them starve?

The budget can be reduced by a vigilant and educated electorate. How do we hold the government accountable? It's called the election process. What projects did your senator and/or representative fund? Have you questioned him/her on the reasons? If dissatisfied, did you become involved in the electoral process to bring the abuses to light?

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

And how would the states decide how much to pay?

Whatever a state pays is just going to get passed back on to that state's residents so in effect any money paid to the mititary fund bya state would result in a federal tax on that state's residents. It simply changes the bureaucracy of it.

The states representatives would hold congress together, and they would figure it out themselves.

Yes, the costs will ultimately trickle down to the state residents.

You are right, it simply changes the bureaucracy of it. However, it is a big distinction. It means that the states hold the power, and there really is no federal government -- except when the states hold congress together. There would be no "full-time" federal government. Do we really need a federal congress and senate meeting EVERY day -- in addition to the state congresses and senates? It seems redundant and unnecessary to me. IMO, there would be much less waste and corruption.

I believe the federal government should have VERY little, if any, power. They should certainly not have the power to tax the citizens directly.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

While I am for eliminating waste and prosecuting fraud in the expenditiure of public dollars, I don't believe a draconian reduction in the governmental revenues will accomplish anything other economic chaos.

As Schneed indicated, what are u cutting? how much? where? Let's say we reduce government spending 20% across the board. A military budget already strapped for cash will have to further increase the burden on individual soldiers. Okay, will exempt the military. Since that is the single biggest expenditure of the federal government (social security is based on an entirely separate tax), we will be cutting many additional services - parks, museums. Oh, and how about all those things that get regulated behind the scenes - like standardization of food production? Remember the dog/cat food issue we just had? Who do you think ensures that weights and measures are standardized in the production, transportation and sale of goods across state lines (You know, like gas and EVERYTHING in your supermarket)?

If you put 1 out of every 5 (20% for those non-math majors) of federal employees out of work, what is your proposed employment plan? Let them starve?

The budget can be reduced by a vigilant and educated electorate. How do we hold the government accountable? It's called the election process. What projects did your senator and/or representative fund? Have you questioned him/her on the reasons? If dissatisfied, did you become involved in the electoral process to bring the abuses to light?

Your plan is to do..........nothing? It's to hard? It won't work? To scary?That's a recipe for disaster in this country.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

The states representatives would hold congress together, and they would figure it out themselves.

Yes, the costs will ultimately trickle down to the state residents.

You are right, it simply changes the bureaucracy of it. However, it is a big distinction. It means that the states hold the power, and there really is no federal government -- except when the states hold congress together. There would be no "full-time" federal government. Do we really need a federal congress and senate meeting EVERY day -- in addition to the state congresses and senates? It seems redundant and unnecessary to me. IMO, there would be much less waste and corruption.

I believe the federal government should have VERY little, if any, power. They should certainly not have the power to tax the citizens directly.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Hog1

Your plan is to do..........nothing? It's to hard? It won't work? To scary?That's a recipe for disaster in this country.

Hog, you have offered no plan. JR is simply telling you the things you won't be able to do.

You said we need to cut spending, that will fix our budget problems. Really, Sherlock? You think?? You haven't really told us anything we don't know.

HOW is the hard part.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Care to elaborate?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Hog1

Your plan is to do..........nothing? It's to hard? It won't work? To scary?That's a recipe for disaster in this country.

MY plan is to, as I have always done, carefully evaluate the voting records of my representatives and to campaign and educate others on behalf of appropriate government spending. Central to every candidate's election should be how he/she spent my money for the public good and what he/she did to prevent the misuse of those public monies.

When was the last time you spoke to your representatives about the budget? They will actually listen AND if you have good ones, they act on your concerns. Have you worked on any inititives, collected signatures, joined with others to pool your efforts in electing candidates that WILL effect real change?

THAT is hard work - slow, sometimes depressing, hard work. As a veteran of many campaigns (both local and national), I can tell you one person can make a difference BUT only if you commit, work hard and don't look for the cheap and easy solution.

But you're right. Let's just get ourselves a dictator who can do all that for us and we won't have to worry about investing anytime into holding our representives accountable. Real democracy is just too damn hard to make work right.

[Hog1]

Let me give it to you again, as perhaps you did not read my earlier reponse to you.

By the way, the thrust of the post is that there are numerous other global issues we face in this country in NEED of attention that will greatly impact our tax generation needs. Not to provide a concise plan to do so.

That having been re-iterated. Changes can, and must occur in one way or another to reform our govt spending, and resultingly, reducing the debt, and growing deficit that is eating us alive and will continue to grow if left unchecked.
Obviously, our boys and girls on the hill will have to develope that plan. Again, it won't be easy. It can be done. Important safety tip:
Many (if not all) politico's won't do this willingly, as things like this don't line their personal nests.

But what is the alternative??? Sit on your ass and do nothing??? All is well??? That's how we got here. AND before you ask me again, I don't have a concise plan in place. Not my job. Not a job I can do. However, that is not an excuse we should accept from our govt, as it IS their job

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

The states representatives would hold congress together, and they would figure it out themselves.

Yes, the costs will ultimately trickle down to the state residents.

You are right, it simply changes the bureaucracy of it. However, it is a big distinction. It means that the states hold the power, and there really is no federal government -- except when the states hold congress together. There would be no "full-time" federal government. Do we really need a federal congress and senate meeting EVERY day -- in addition to the state congresses and senates? It seems redundant and unnecessary to me. IMO, there would be much less waste and corruption.

I believe the federal government should have VERY little, if any, power. They should certainly not have the power to tax the citizens directly.

Thank you Alexander Stephens. Actually, this would be closer to the Articles of Confederation than the Confederate States of America. However, as both models failed, I think it is safe to say that this is simply blatantly unworkable. It was tried and failed in the US - twice. The only way to ensure that Maryland residents (and businesses) are treated the same in any state is by having a federal government that is the final regulator.

Just as an example - it was the feds (with their ability to tax directly) that effected civil rights changes in the south, by their ability to trump the various State's monopoly on force, through its ability to create economic incentives and disincentives to change Jim Crow laws, etc. Had it been up to Alabama, either blacks would still be second class citizens OR there would have been a bloody bloody revolt. The feds forced southern states to comport with national standards

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

MY plan is to, as I have always done, carefully evaluate the voting records of my representatives and to campaign and educate others on behalf of appropriate government spending. Central to every candidate's election should be how he/she spent my money for the public good and what he/she did to prevent the misuse of those public monies.

When was the last time you spoke to your representatives about the budget? They will actually listen AND if you have good ones, they act on your concerns. Have you worked on any inititives, collected signatures, joined with others to pool your efforts in electing candidates that WILL effect real change?

THAT is hard work - slow, sometimes depressing, hard work. As a veteran of many campaigns (both local and national), I can tell you one person can make a difference BUT only if you commit, work hard and don't look for the cheap and easy solution.

But you're right. Let's just get ourselves a dictator who can do all that for us and we won't have to worry about investing anytime into holding our representives accountable. Real democracy is just too damn hard to make work right.

When was the last time you spoke to your representatives about the budget? HHmm, not recently....GUILTY!
However, as I have already stated, I don't have all the answers. I DO know, we are going down a dangerous path on several fronts. Probably nothing more so than the budget. We need to start moving in the right direction, not more of the same.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

This is far and away more interesting than my classes. Maybe thewarpath.net should start giving out degrees like Devry.