Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Sirus]

I don't think anyone's calling it a bad idea. I think it's just that people are surprised that Donald "still a birther" Trump came up with such a plan.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Trump has never really struck me as an ultra-conservative either, for the record. He just loves being in the spotlight. I doubt he seriously believes Obama was born in Kenya, he says it because it brings the cameras to listen to him grandstand.

[mainiac]

I don't think anyone's calling it a bad idea.

I will come out and call it a bad idea.  If you think having one hundredth of the economy go to debt service is such a runaway problem then just propose a tax hike or spending cut the size of one hundredth of the economy to cancel it out.  Dont go nuking your economy so there is scrap metal to gather.

Most politicians have staffers and think tanks and government agencies that can look at their ideas and tell them if they are making sense or speaking nonsense.  Trump is certainly not acting like a politician.

[redwallzyl]

I see the deficit is down quite a bit. Better check my ideological weathervane.

Hmm. Democrat President, Republican Congress, deficit down.

... congress is responsible for the low deficit. The president has no part it in.

mostly the economy doing well despite congress. they are just bad at doing anything remotely helpful whatever the party.

[Rolepgeek]

I don't think anyone's calling it a bad idea.

I will come out and call it a bad idea.  If you think having one hundredth of the economy go to debt service is such a runaway problem then just propose a tax hike or spending cut the size of one hundredth of the economy to cancel it out.  Dont go nuking your economy so there is scrap metal to gather.

Most politicians have staffers and think tanks and government agencies that can look at their ideas and tell them if they are making sense or speaking nonsense.  Trump is certainly not acting like a politician.

It is a tax hike. That's the point. A spending cut that large would basically ruin every federal service in existence, and the spending cuts so far have already been pretty bad. Losing 15% of your possessions sounds pretty bad. Until you realize it's on a net worth of ten million or more. Which means about 150 thousand dollars. Which won't make much of a dent on individuals ('oh no I no longer have 3 yachts, I only have 2'), and I doubt it would affect trusts very much, though I know very little about them.

Granted, now it's too big of a problem to be solved that way.

[mainiac]

It is a tax hike. That's the point.

If you want to define a tax to include one time levies, then simply read my previous statement as "one time taxes are a really bad idea."

I'm not going to lose a wink of sleep over the thought of some billionaire losing 15% of their wealth.  The troublesome thing is the macroeconomic effect of a simultaneous selloff of every financial asset out there because it's happening to them all at once.  I'm not even 100% sure that it's even possible because that's such a big chunk of the money supply.  It's such an exotic circumstance that I can't really say what would happen since so much relies on how smoothly the Federal Reserve and banks handle a very complex, very unprecedented situation.

[GlyphGryph]

It is a tax hike. That's the point.

If you want to define a tax to include one time levies, then simply read my previous statement as "one time taxes are a really bad idea."

True, but a wealth tax is something we direly need in more ways than one and its not the sort of tax you can really do annually. I suppose you could have an assessment, and then have the actual tax paid out over a period of 10 years or so? IF it went back towards paying off the debt, that would mean the money would probably be getting reinvested in other things pretty quickly - do you think a "one time 15% wealth tax" paid out over the course of a decade could work?

You couldn't do the same sort of tax level needed with an income or sales tax or property tax or any of the usual ones without even further solidifying the strangehold of the already-enriched, by kicking the ladder out from underneath them but leaving them safe on the roof... with all the money.

[mainiac]

True, but a wealth tax is something we direly need in more ways than one and its not the sort of tax you can really do annually.

It would be a challenge for the IRS but it wouldn't be bad a bad thing to accomplish.

[FearfulJesuit]

Another establishment Republican has lost his primary (though barely) because of immigration reform.

Also, wealth taxes are a one-time windfall- and do we really trust Congress with a one-time windfall? Most very rich people keep their money in investments, so just raise the capital gains tax. Way more politically palatable.

[smjjames]

Hm, I wonder how many times there was a democratic president with a democrat controlled Senate and House, same goes for republicans.

*googles it*

http://wiredpen.com/resources/political-commentary-and-analysis/a-visual-guide-balance-of-power-congress-presidency/ (only goes back to 1945)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/Combined--Control_of_the_U.S._House_of_Representatives_-_Control_of_the_U.S._Senate.png (goes back to 1855, beyond that, things were more complicated and also the whigs)

http://arts.bev.net/roperldavid/politics/congress.htm (the wiki one is easier to read)

[GlyphGryph]

It would be a challenge for the IRS but it wouldn't be bad a bad thing to accomplish.

Certainly be worth trying, anyway. Even if it ended up not being annually, having it happen regularly would be a good thing.

[smjjames]

Government spending would still have to change. Even if a wealth tax was applied, it doesn't help much if spending habits don't change.

[mainiac]

Government spending would still have to change. Even if a wealth tax was applied, it doesn't help much if spending habits don't change.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45229

Deficits are at a stable level already and will remain so for the next 10 years.  Predictions more then 10 years in the future are difficult to do because technology changes a lot.  It's true that 20 years down the line a problem may develop but that's not a problem with todays budget, it's a problem with how things might change for the worse over many years.

[Reelya]

Most of the spending blowout is related to Social Security. Privatizing Social Security out of the government's coffers might fix things for the government, but at the cost of impoverishing a large chunk of the population in their old age.

Right now, the government is subsidizing people's retirements. That's where most of the money is going. Other countries don't have the co-payments system, but they do have pensions. So this "fix" to the balance of payments basically requires that we throw every old person to the wolves. No Social Security, no pension system. Welcome to Calcutta.

[mainiac]

Not really: http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45471

It's a contributing factor but not the big one.