Your Federal Government Shutdown Thread

[Conan71]

1% reduction can do it.  It's a 1 percent reduction.  Plus the 3 % inflation(ish) with the increase in revenue that hopefully goes with that.

It would be pretty hard for each department and federally-funded program and project to NOT be able to find a place to come up with AT LEAST 1% savings.  That would be so simple, and then all the sacred cows are taken out of play.  If we really wanted to accelerate cleaning up the debt mess, that could be met across the board with everyone taking on a 1% tax increase...except Congress, they should get their taxes doubled for allowing this mess to happen in the first place and then playing games with it.

[Townsend]

except Congress, they should get their taxes doubled for allowing this mess to happen in the first place and then playing games with it.

The freshmen would all holler, "t'weren't us".

[Red Arrow]

The freshmen would all holler, "t'weren't us".

Not too many were forced into the job.

[we vs us]

That would be so simple, and then all the sacred cows are taken out of play. 

Do tax increases count as sacred cows?

[Red Arrow]

Do tax increases count as sacred cows?

No, they are sacred Bison.

[Conan71]

Do tax increases count as sacred cows?

I don't see why it should be if every taxpayer saw a 1% increase, it's not a class envy thing and no one group is being asked to give more than another.  That would mean a 1% decrease in net receipts from the government to those who don't actually pay taxes.

[Gaspar]

I don't see why it should be if every taxpayer saw a 1% increase, it's not a class envy thing and no one group is being asked to give more than another.  That would mean a 1% decrease in net receipts from the government to those who don't actually pay taxes.

A 1% tax increase is fair.  A 1% tax decrease is unfair.

[Red Arrow]

I don't see why it should be if every taxpayer saw a 1% increase, it's not a class envy thing and no one group is being asked to give more than another. 

Actually, the rich will have a bigger tax increase which should keep all the social justice folks happy.

Someone with $100,000 taxable income would pay $1000 more.
Someone with $50,000 taxable income would only pay $500 more.
The rich guy pays twice as much more than the average working stiff pays more.  (Using some descriptive words used by others.)

[Gaspar]

Actually, the rich will have a bigger tax increase which should keep all the social justice folks happy.

Someone with $100,000 taxable income would pay $1000 more.
Someone with $50,000 taxable income would only pay $500 more.
The rich guy pays twice as much more than the average working stiff pays more.  (Using some descriptive words used by others.)

Strange how that "social justice" stuff doesn't apply when the tables are reversed. 

[nathanm]

It's obvious we don't have a plan to keep the deficit at a dull roar.

That's funny. The stimulus is expiring, which will cut the deficit spending, and HCR should save quite a bit also. Seems like there's already hope for the future.

I find it shocking that people think the problem is overspending when the effective tax rate is the lowest it's been in something like the last hundred years. Before the income tax, recall we had pretty beefy tariffs. Ideology gets in the way of thinking, I guess.

Oh, and regarding a 1% across the board increase? Not really going to work without fixing the problems we find here, otherwise it pretty much is a tax increase on the poor and middle class without a corresponding tax increase on those making more:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_16/b4224045265660.htm
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-you-can-pull-a-ge-on-taxes-2011-04-01

[we vs us]

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2011/04/final-spending-cuts-program-by-program.php?page=1

Line by line, the spending cuts negotiated by Boehner/Reid last Friday night.

Notice on page 1 the cuts that WIC receives.  Pretty brutal.  Skim through for more!

[Conan71]

That's funny. The stimulus is expiring, which will cut the deficit spending, and HCR should save quite a bit also. Seems like there's already hope for the future.

I find it shocking that people think the problem is overspending when the effective tax rate is the lowest it's been in something like the last hundred years. Before the income tax, recall we had pretty beefy tariffs. Ideology gets in the way of thinking, I guess.

Oh, and regarding a 1% across the board increase? Not really going to work without fixing the problems we find here, otherwise it pretty much is a tax increase on the poor and middle class without a corresponding tax increase on those making more:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_16/b4224045265660.htm
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-you-can-pull-a-ge-on-taxes-2011-04-01

Nathan, at times you manage to get some respect out of me because I think you really believe what it is you propose and defend on here, but now you are just being a lazy Googler.  The porkulus expiring means nothing. The porkulus was nothing more than a smokescreen while Congress and POTUS crammed far more permanent spending in on top of that.  The deficits of the last two years are far greater than the stated amount of the porkulus.  What's that tell a thinking person?  Now all those government programs and new jobs have been created, you can't get rid of them.  It's the immutable truth of metastasized government, American style.

Knock it off with the regressive taxation BS.  The middle class and poor use the government and infrastructure far more than I do.  It's most definitely a corresponding contribution across all income levels. Hello?? Straight 1% increase on everyone.  Consider it a group effort to return this country to the great promise it had 40 years ago.

Under what I propose, everyone gives up something.  1% of anyone's income is damn near imperceptible.  Everyone should be set up to expect a 10 to 25% "what if" in their monthly budget to begin with.  You can't possibly claim 1% of someone's livelihood as a means of taking some token personal responsibility back from the government What's wrong with expecting someone earning $20K per year to give up $200 to help sustain all the great things all Americans enjoy?  If they are the patriarch or matriarch of a family of 4 they pay jack squat in taxes to start with, yet they get more benefit from the government than any of us.  Net monthly difference to someone earning $20K per year?  $16 a month.  Get real.

Using flat rates of increases takes away favored treatment for any taxpayer or company. Using flat rates of spending cuts across the board makes every department and program figure out a way to sustain itself without a major catastrophy and takes it out of the hands of politicians as to who can continue to grease the palms of favored lobbyists.

If 1% cuts in spending will have such a dramatic effect, why not a 1% uptick in revenues?  That doubles the effect, right?

[nathanm]

You missed my point. My point is that those whose income is largely not wage income will not pay 1% more in tax, much less 1% of their income. A person working a fast food job will in fact pay 1% more. A person making a couple hundred grand a year will just throw 1% more into a Roth IRA. I think we both agree that our current tax system is broken. Maybe I think it's a little more broken than you do..

And just wow on the WIC cuts. Of all the things. Shame on the entirety of Congress for that one. And Obama for going along with it.

[Conan71]

You missed my point. My point is that those whose income is largely not wage income will not pay 1% more in tax, much less 1% of their income. A person working a fast food job will in fact pay 1% more. A person making a couple hundred grand a year will just throw 1% more into a Roth IRA. I think we both agree that our current tax system is broken. Maybe I think it's a little more broken than you do..

And just wow on the WIC cuts. Of all the things. Shame on the entirety of Congress for that one. And Obama for going along with it.

Nope, YOU missed the point. Everyone pays 1% more, no gimmicks, no loopholes.  Corporations and all individuals.  If the government would accept Milk Bones as currency my beloved Mr. Butch would even contribute.  No loopholes, no excuses, we all pay and we all accept there will be some cuts in government services.  At a 1% reduction in spending, no one would ever be able to tell the difference.  At a 1% increase in taxation on every individual and corporation, no one will feel a difference.

[nathanm]

Nope, YOU missed the point. Everyone pays 1% more, no gimmicks, no loopholes.  Corporations and all individuals.  If the government would accept Milk Bones as currency my beloved Mr. Butch would even contribute.  No loopholes, no excuses, we all pay and we all accept there will be some cuts in government services.  At a 1% reduction in spending, no one would ever be able to tell the difference.  At a 1% increase in taxation on every individual and corporation, no one will feel a difference.

We can keep going back and forth if you like. My point is that with the present tax code, that's simply not possible, and there's no political will for a significant rewrite.

I get what you're saying, and if it had a snowball's chance in hell of actually playing out that way, I'd agree with you. I think I've mentioned many times before that I'd be perfectly happy going back to Clinton rates with some adjustments for inflation. That would mean everybody who pays tax would pay more than 1% extra.