Paying the fair share

[joe1776]

The state of Arkansas as well as any other state is quite capable of providing resources for its public education system without any meddling from Washington bureaucrats.

The USA doesn't have an education system run by the federal bureaucracy. It has more than 4,000 local systems and a staggering amount of local bureaucracy when you add them all up. IMO, that's why US education has been operating in a failure mode since inception.

 

[Kenny]

It is really impossible to calculate.

Just one example- one oerson's income
is from inherited securities. He doesnt work
at all.

Another is, oh, a rancher. Hardly anything
harder, more risky financially and physically.

If their income is equal, is it fair to tax them
the same?

Income is income, IMV, whether you are a roofer, rancher or interest from securities. All need the same protection, the same roads, the same infrastructure to do business etc.

But I wonder if those who are clamoring about those of greater capacity to pay more, if they aren't paying anything in the first place or using all the loopholes to pay less just like those of greater capacity.

 

[Kenny]

What is fair about a system that allows the highly intelligent and greedy to attain wealth well in excess of their needs?

But who is to say way "needs" are "needs"?

Is your local college a "need" or is it an Ivy League college? Is an small apartment in Manhattan the need? or is it the small house in the boonies? Or should it be the 3/2 home or a 2/1 home?

Which are greedy?

 

[Kenny]

The USA doesn't have an education system run by the federal bureaucracy. It has more than 4,000 local systems and a staggering amount of local bureaucracy when you add them all up. IMO, that's why US education has been operating in a failure mode since inception.

True... although I would say only in the last 100 years give or take.

 

[Kenny]

Government will always feel the need to be bigger.
So it should only be as big as we need it to be.

I need it to be half its size

 

[Kenny]

A $400/month universal basic income for all legal U.S. adult citizens (over age 18) and expansion of Medicare A into a universal Medicare A hospital insurance for all Americans (with $2,500 per insured deductible) totaling 1.8 trillion dollars of annual government spending in today's dollars could be implemented by way of eliminating Medicaid and food stamps $(600 billion dollars/yr. of savings), abolishing the U.S. department of education and Housing and Urban Development, $(130 billion dollars/yr. of savings), increasing Medicare part B annual deductible to $5,000 ( $110 billion dollars of savings/yr from current Medicare part B spending ) eliminating the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) fund, ($63 billion dollars/yr. of savings), a 32 percent reduction in social security disability benefits ($50 billion dollars/yr. of savings ), a 60 percent reduction in U.S. foreign aid ($23 billion/yr. in savings), a 25 percent reduction in federal unemployment compensation benefits ($10 billion dollars/yr. in savings), a 50 percent reduction in subsidized crop insurance and conservation programs for farmers ($10/billion.yr in savings.)

So then, after the nearly trillion dollars of cost savings, we now have to fund the nearly $800 billion net cost of my proposed $400/month universal basic income benefit program and universal Medicare A hospital insurance coverage.

I propose the following tax hikes to generate the needed revenue to fund the nearly $800 billion net cost of my proposed $400/month universal basic income benefit program and universal Medicare A hospital insurance coverage.

Increasing the top marginal federal income tax rate from 37% to 43% along with increasing the second highest top marginal federal income tax rate from 35% to 38%, an increase of the corporate tax rate from 21% to 25% (These income tax hikes would currently generate an additional $300 billion/yr. of tax revenue), an additional 80 cent/gallon fuel excise tax, an additional 50 cent tobacco excise tax on each pack of cigarettes, a 50 percent increase of excise taxes on adult beverage alcohol content, a doubling of federal excise taxes on air travelers and national park visitors, (These excise tax hikes would currently generate an additional ca. $160 billion/yr of tax revenue) and the reduction of the exemption on the federal estate tax from $10 million to $5 million, (this would generate an additional ca. $40 billion/yr of tax revenue) , increasing the limit of annual income from $131k $200k subject to social security taxes , ( this would currently generate ca. $60 billion/yr. of additional revenue), and a new tax that'd be a modest 4 percent national retail sales tax on new vehicle purchases, (this would currently generate ca. $50 billion/yr. of additional revenue), a doubling of Medicare Part D premiums, (this would currently generate ca. ($25 billion/yr of tax revenue), and a $200/monthly premium for each person who'd buy into a public option Medicare Part B program (with $5,000 annual deductible per insured), Medicare Part B premiums paid at this level over current levels would currently generate ca. $35 billion/yr of additional spending revenues.

I think the easy way to fund it all is to just not increase the budget until the income matches the expenses and then begin funding when more monies come in.

The general rule of thumb is "Don't borrow any more money until you have a budget that is within your income". - The government hasn't learned that and if they implemented what you said, in 5 years they would want more because they still spend more than they receive. They have learned to control themselves.

 

[Kenny]

Fair is subjective as we and by extent government change what fair means based on income.

Or on the whim of the next group of people?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I need it to be half its size

If you want a smaller government, you should be consistent and also want less wasteful spending on the military. The US spends more on "defense" than all other nations in the world combined. And yet most of this "defense" is really just money wasted on a system that is trying to police the rest of the world.

 

[joe1776]

But who is to say way "needs" are "needs"?

Is your local college a "need" or is it an Ivy League college? Is an small apartment in Manhattan the need? or is it the small house in the boonies? Or should it be the 3/2 home or a 2/1 home?

Which are greedy?

Aren't you being nit-picky? If need = N, we don't have to quibble about 1.5 N or 2.0 N but we're not going to argue about 10 million N. Are we?

Who needs a 40 million dollar mansion or yacht? Or 75 collectible cars?

 

[Kenny]

The US is one of the top 5 nations on funding per student and total. More money isn't going to solve the problem. I think people need to consider vouchers so those in failing schools can get out of the district trap

And include all educational outlets including religious.

 

[Kenny]

If you want a smaller government, you should be consistent and also want less wasteful spending on the military. The US spends more on "defense" than all other nations in the world combined. And yet most of this "defense" is really just money wasted on a system that is trying to police the rest of the world.

True... but are you talking about percentage or actual dollars. (to be consistent)

 

[Rational Agnostic]

True... but are you talking about percentage or actual dollars. (to be consistent)

I was referring to actual dollars. I don't know percentages off the top of my head.

 

[Kenny]

Aren't you being nit-picky? If need = N, we don't have to quibble about 1.5 N or 2.0 N but we're not going to argue about 10 million N. Are we?

Doesn't that depend?

"Apartments in New York City come in all different shapes and sizes. There are apartments that cost $400,000 and then there are apartments that cost $90,000,000. The most interesting thing is that these apartments can literally be a 10 minute walk away from one another"

So if an apartment cost 400,000 just to live... wouldn't you need to have hundreds of thousands of dollars just to live? (When you include food, car, insurance)

And are the people who are saying "Pay your fair share" - what are they comparing it to?

 

[Kenny]

I was referring to actual dollars. I don't know percentages off the top of my head.

Then we need to be consistent... it is always a percentage. A small country who spends 20% of their income on defense is spending more per capita that a large country who spends 10%

I don't think you can go by actual dollars. A large country has more land to protect that, let's say, Lithuania.

 

[joe1776]

Doesn't that depend?

"Apartments in New York City come in all different shapes and sizes. There are apartments that cost $400,000 and then there are apartments that cost $90,000,000. The most interesting thing is that these apartments can literally be a 10 minute walk away from one another"

So if an apartment cost 400,000 just to live... wouldn't you need to have hundreds of thousands of dollars just to live? (When you include food, car, insurance)

And are the people who are saying "Pay your fair share" - what are they comparing it to?

The cost of living in the USA does vary considerably but the apartments you're talking about can only be afforded by people in the upper income brackets. If those brackets didn't exist, (if it were not possible to make that much money after taxes) the market value of those apartments would drop as well.

 

[Kenny]

The cost of living in the USA does vary considerably but the apartments you're talking about can only be afforded by people in the upper income brackets. If those brackets didn't exist, (if it were not possible to make that much money after taxes) the market value of those apartments would drop as well.

I'm not sure that is the case...

People are paid more in New York City because cost of living is higher. Not because they are "rich" but rather, they need more to scrape by (My niece lives in Los Angeles and has that problem) - so they are paying higher taxes and yet live worse than others who live in lower brackets in other places.

 

[Salvador]

I think the easy way to fund it all is to just not increase the budget until the income matches the expenses and then begin funding when more monies come in.

The general rule of thumb is "Don't borrow any more money until you have a budget that is within your income". - The government hasn't learned that and if they implemented what you said, in 5 years they would want more because they still spend more than they receive. They have learned to control themselves.

As long as long term deficit spending gets to below than the economic growth rate; the debt to GDP ratio should remain manageable.

My proposed federal government budget would keep our annual federal government's long term spending under 23 percent of GDP and would enhance revenues to nearly 20 percent of GDP. ...

 

[Salvador]

Another big vs small false contrast. Given fallable human nature, what should government do? How can it do it most efficiently? t.

The USA doesn't have an education system run by the federal bureaucracy. It has more than 4,000 local systems and a staggering amount of local bureaucracy when you add them all up. IMO, that's why US education has been operating in a failure mode since inception.

Perhaps we can agree the role of our federal government shall be limited to providing for the common defense of the 50 states, ensuring every citizen has a subsistence living allowance, and the facilitation of interstate commerce. Right?

 

[Kenny]

As long as long term deficit spending gets to below than the economic growth rate; the debt to GDP ratio should remain manageable.

My proposed federal government budget would keep our annual federal government's long term spending under 23 percent of GDP and would enhance revenues to nearly 20 percent of GDP. ...

That is what every bankrupt filer said.

Yet... interest in 2018 - $523,017,301,446.12

I think that is a lot of Medical coverage.

No debt is better:

Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding

 

[PureX]

My proposed $400/month Universal income benefit would increase everybody's annual income by $4,800. ...

It would also drive the nation into debt so far it would collapse, because no one can live on $400 a month. We can't even live on $800 a month in this country without the help of food stamps and medicaid. So regardless of this universal income, all these social services would still be needed, and the taxes required to pay for them would, too.