Does the "soak the rich" tax scheme work?

[mk4]

Government has become a giant ice cream cone that licks itself.

bahahaha!

[gatlingun6]

I'll probably regret getting into this again, but the bald truth is that even though I seldom have the time to get into point-by-point recitations and refutations with folks who just don't understnd, I can't tolerate this pro-big government prattle silently any more!

Government has become a giant ice cream cone that licks itself.

It should exist to enable commerce. But it has grown so uncontrollably for so long that it impedes and obstructs commerce by shear weight of it's bloatedness.

Gat6, if you really view our government as a benevolent conferor of benefits, you're beyond hope by my lights. You either don't get it real bad or you approve of what's going on because you are a beneficiary of it. What government does is take income and wealth from us by force and hand it out to those it favors more than us. But first, it consumes a large portion of what it has appropriated to feed its own fat @ss. The only difference between the US government and some medieval warlord is the original claim to legitimacy the US government had before it started coercing incometaxes from it's citizens and redistributing the funds to b uy votes. I don't feel a damn bit of gratitude for what the damned government "lets me keep". IT WAS MINE TO BEGIN WITH! We need to reduce the size and scope of the federal government by at least half. Government "employment" is not REAL. It produces nothing (except, occasionally, by accident), and is reall just a form of consumption (it's part of what the ice cream cone sucks up when it licks itself).

************************************************************************************
Hey Dormin I read your post over and over trying to get to the heart of the argument. I’m not sure I got it but here goes anyway. Definitions were the first and major problem encountered. I can’t understand a discussion point when there’s no definition of the main argumentative points. The following is the problem: “But it has grown so uncontrollably for so long that it impedes and obstructs commerce by shear weight of it's bloatedness”. The preceding is how the piece defined the size of government. Question: The government has grown from what to what? What is the definition of big government? Big in terms of what? Number of employees? Spending? Is there some optimum size of government? In the end how does one discuss objectively something that’s wholly subjective?

For kicks I checked the number of non-military government employees at in 1981, at the beginning of the Reagan administration, the end of that administration, and the number in 2010. These are Office of Personnel Management (OPM) figures: 2,875,000 at the beginning, 3,113,000 at the end. By the end of 2010 the figure was 2,840,000. So under Reagan the number of federal non-military employees increased, but under Obama there are less Federal employees than under Reagan. This despite the fact that over the same period our population increased from 226,545,805 to approximately 330,000,000 in 2010.

President Bush increased the number of non-military employees but almost all the increases came in the Homeland Security arena like the Transportation Security Administration, a new organization. President Obama has also increased the number by a few thousand, but again the bulk is in the Homeland Security arena. For example Obama doubled the size of the Border Patrol, and increased hires for Black Book organizations.

The disjoint seems to be that someone counted new hires and temporary 2010 census hires as permanent employees without accounting for retirees, and others who left the government for other reasons.

Now the President wants to consolidate some 13 to 16 organizations into 1 with resulting job savings. Let’s see how this plays out. Who in Congress will support the consolidation and who will oppose it and why.
In another part of the piece it states that the federal government should be “reduced in size and scope by 50%”. Do I assume that means a 50% reduction in personnel, budget, or missions?

I’m not arguing for a specific number of federal employees, or even agencies and Departments. However I think the 2 former issues are driven by the latter, what is the role of the Federal government.
According to the governed who ratified the Constitution they chose this form of government over the Articles of Confederation for reasons outlined in the Preamble to the new Constitution.

It lists: 1. Forming a more perfect Union; 2. Establishing justice; 3. Insuring domestic tranquility; 4. Providing for the common defense; 5. Promoting the general welfare; 6. Securing the blessings of liberty. These are the reasons the Republic was formed.

The piece stated that the Federal government should exist to enable commerce. Indeed it does since the Constitution clearly gives the Federal Government supremacy over interstate and international commerce even when it chooses not to use that authority. The 5 listed reasons it seems all assist in enabling commerce.

Cutting the Feds by 50% means to me cutting spending by 50%. In FY10 that would have meant decreasing spending from $3.5 trillion to $1.5 trillion rounded up. Since the Feds collected $2.2 trillion that year a $1 trillion dollar surplus would have been realized. But what did we cut? Well, of the $3.5T Defense and Social Security are 20% each. The interest on the national debt is 6%, Federal retirees and veterans benefit are 7% so we are over 50% before we add Medicare, Medicaid, & CHIP 21%. They add up to 74%. Everything else the Feds do accounts for the remaining 26%. So what should we cut to get to that 50%.

What accounts for the $1.3T FY2010 deficit are the continuing effects of the Bush tax cuts, 2 unfunded wars, an unfunded prescription drug benefit to Medicare recipients, $720 billion TARP, the $800 plus billion stimulus, 40% of which was tax cuts, and massive decreases in Federal receipts thanks to the crashed Bush economy. So what should we cut in one year, and what effect would it have on the economy if government spending was decreased by 50% just as we are coming out of a recession.

Based on these dollars and percentages, no, the federal government is not a benevolent conferrer of benefits. There’s nothing benevolent about it, by definition government is granted coercive powers. One of those powers is the power to tax. Another is the power to transfer those tax dollars to some other group, or purpose. For example for every dollar in taxes sent to the Feds by VA it gets more than a dollar back. New York by contrast gets less than a dollar back.

Do I get any benefit from my tax dollars? Yes I do, and so does every other American who is not a hermit living in the Mojave Desert or some other wilderness.

So where does this leave us? I hope with the basis for serious discussions in the future based on defined terms and phrases. Big government means nothing to me; neither does out of control spending. How is it out of control when the budgets are approved by both houses of Congress and signed by the President? It’s the same for the Mandatory spending programs; because none of the rules are set in stone, they may all be changed by Congress.

Btw there is a non-partisan group that speaks to citizen's groups around the country. They note that we have both a spending and a revenue problem. They then invite the group to balance the Federal Budget. To first thing people find out is that it ain't easy, and you can't do it in a single year without wrecking the economy.

Gat6

Gat6

[gunderwood]

Actually the argument depreciates his entire idea that his "MAN" owes nothing to anyone but himself. Why? Because he owes something for all the benefits that he receives from living in a civilized and democratic society.

What an odd concept of a society...

Why must social collaboration be forced at the point of a sword rather than born of free exchange? Why must you force me to do your will rather than freely negotiating an exchange that benefits us both?

Ultimately there is but one answer. You desire more from me, and other such men, than you could ever hope to freely negotiation based on what you offer in exchange, and thus must resort to force, intimidation, and coercion under the guise of "society" to satisfy your desires. It can be no other way, for if you offered something of equal value, we would freely trade with you and we'd both be the better for it; and if you offered something of greater value, you would find it immensely more profitable to freely trade with us and keep the excess!

No, like a common thief, only a man who has nothing of value to offer looks to force to achieve his needs and desires. Only something far worse would claim such social theft as civilization.

[gunderwood]

It's all about competing social constructs...

Is a societies collaboration based on free exchange, where each party works to create value for others so they can participate or is society nothing but who has the biggest gun and is the most ruthless? There's a good reason those socialists kill off their own citizens by the millions...

[dorminWS]

I'll probably regret getting into this again, but the bald truth is that even though I seldom have the time to get into point-by-point recitations and refutations with folks who just don't understnd, I can't tolerate this pro-big government prattle silently any more!

Government has become a giant ice cream cone that licks itself.

It should exist to enable commerce. But it has grown so uncontrollably for so long that it impedes and obstructs commerce by shear weight of it's bloatedness.

Gat6, if you really view our government as a benevolent conferor of benefits, you're beyond hope by my lights. You either don't get it real bad or you approve of what's going on because you are a beneficiary of it. What government does is take income and wealth from us by force and hand it out to those it favors more than us. But first, it consumes a large portion of what it has appropriated to feed its own fat @ss. The only difference between the US government and some medieval warlord is the original claim to legitimacy the US government had before it started coercing incometaxes from it's citizens and redistributing the funds to b uy votes. I don't feel a damn bit of gratitude for what the damned government "lets me keep". IT WAS MINE TO BEGIN WITH! We need to reduce the size and scope of the federal government by at least half. Government "employment" is not REAL. It produces nothing (except, occasionally, by accident), and is reall just a form of consumption (it's part of what the ice cream cone sucks up when it licks itself).

************************************************************************************
Hey Dormin I read your post over and over trying to get to the heart of the argument. I’m not sure I got it but here goes anyway. Definitions were the first and major problem encountered. I can’t understand a discussion point when there’s no definition of the main argumentative points. The following is the problem: “But it has grown so uncontrollably for so long that it impedes and obstructs commerce by shear weight of it's bloatedness”. The preceding is how the piece defined the size of government. Question: The government has grown from what to what? What is the definition of big government? Big in terms of what? Number of employees? Spending? Is there some optimum size of government? In the end how does one discuss objectively something that’s wholly subjective?

For kicks I checked the number of non-military government employees at in 1981, at the beginning of the Reagan administration, the end of that administration, and the number in 2010. These are Office of Personnel Management (OPM) figures: 2,875,000 at the beginning, 3,113,000 at the end. By the end of 2010 the figure was 2,840,000. So under Reagan the number of federal non-military employees increased, but under Obama there are less Federal employees than under Reagan. This despite the fact that over the same period our population increased from 226,545,805 to approximately 330,000,000 in 2010.

President Bush increased the number of non-military employees but almost all the increases came in the Homeland Security arena like the Transportation Security Administration, a new organization. President Obama has also increased the number by a few thousand, but again the bulk is in the Homeland Security arena. For example Obama doubled the size of the Border Patrol, and increased hires for Black Book organizations.

The disjoint seems to be that someone counted new hires and temporary 2010 census hires as permanent employees without accounting for retirees, and others who left the government for other reasons.

Now the President wants to consolidate some 13 to 16 organizations into 1 with resulting job savings. Let’s see how this plays out. Who in Congress will support the consolidation and who will oppose it and why.
In another part of the piece it states that the federal government should be “reduced in size and scope by 50%”. Do I assume that means a 50% reduction in personnel, budget, or missions?

I’m not arguing for a specific number of federal employees, or even agencies and Departments. However I think the 2 former issues are driven by the latter, what is the role of the Federal government.
According to the governed who ratified the Constitution they chose this form of government over the Articles of Confederation for reasons outlined in the Preamble to the new Constitution.

It lists: 1. Forming a more perfect Union; 2. Establishing justice; 3. Insuring domestic tranquility; 4. Providing for the common defense; 5. Promoting the general welfare; 6. Securing the blessings of liberty. These are the reasons the Republic was formed.

The piece stated that the Federal government should exist to enable commerce. Indeed it does since the Constitution clearly gives the Federal Government supremacy over interstate and international commerce even when it chooses not to use that authority. The 5 listed reasons it seems all assist in enabling commerce.

Cutting the Feds by 50% means to me cutting spending by 50%. In FY10 that would have meant decreasing spending from $3.5 trillion to $1.5 trillion rounded up. Since the Feds collected $2.2 trillion that year a $1 trillion dollar surplus would have been realized. But what did we cut? Well, of the $3.5T Defense and Social Security are 20% each. The interest on the national debt is 6%, Federal retirees and veterans benefit are 7% so we are over 50% before we add Medicare, Medicaid, & CHIP 21%. They add up to 74%. Everything else the Feds do accounts for the remaining 26%. So what should we cut to get to that 50%.

What accounts for the $1.3T FY2010 deficit are the continuing effects of the Bush tax cuts, 2 unfunded wars, an unfunded prescription drug benefit to Medicare recipients, $720 billion TARP, the $800 plus billion stimulus, 40% of which was tax cuts, and massive decreases in Federal receipts thanks to the crashed Bush economy. So what should we cut in one year, and what effect would it have on the economy if government spending was decreased by 50% just as we are coming out of a recession.

Based on these dollars and percentages, no, the federal government is not a benevolent conferrer of benefits. There’s nothing benevolent about it, by definition government is granted coercive powers. One of those powers is the power to tax. Another is the power to transfer those tax dollars to some other group, or purpose. For example for every dollar in taxes sent to the Feds by VA it gets more than a dollar back. New York by contrast gets less than a dollar back.

Do I get any benefit from my tax dollars? Yes I do, and so does every other American who is not a hermit living in the Mojave Desert or some other wilderness.

So where does this leave us? I hope with the basis for serious discussions in the future based on defined terms and phrases. Big government means nothing to me; neither does out of control spending. How is it out of control when the budgets are approved by both houses of Congress and signed by the President? It’s the same for the Mandatory spending programs; because none of the rules are set in stone, they may all be changed by Congress.

Btw there is a non-partisan group that speaks to citizen's groups around the country. They note that we have both a spending and a revenue problem. They then invite the group to balance the Federal Budget. To first thing people find out is that it ain't easy, and you can't do it in a single year without wrecking the economy.

Gat6

Gat6

..................................................................................
WHAT IS IT ABOUT “TOO BIG” YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND, GAT6? YOU HAVE A BAD HABIT OF ERECTING SOME ARBITRARY CONSTRUCT, AS YOU HAVE HERE, AS A JUMPING-OFF POINT TO UNWARRANTED CONCLUSIONS AND NON SEQUITURS IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY SAYING SOMETHING YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT WHETHER IT’S GERMANE OR NOT. THAT MIGHT SCORE POINTS IN A HIGH-SCHOOL DEBATE, BUT IT CERTAINLY FRUSTRATES SERIOUS DISCUSSION. I SURE WISH YOU’D TRY NOT TO DO THAT.

FURTHER, “ We need to reduce the size and scope of the federal government by at least half.” ALSO MEANS EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS. I DIDN’T SAY “BUDGET”, OR “EXPENDITURES”. BUT AGAIN YOU SEIZED UPON THIS TANGENT OF YOUR OWN CONSTRUCTION TO JUSTIFY USING SOME ARGUMENT THAT SOUNDED GOOD TO YOU.
“SIZE” IS DEFINED AS: “physical magnitude, extent, or bulk : relative or proportionate dimensions”. “SCOPE” IS DEFINED AS: “ INTENTION, OBJECT; space or opportunity for unhampered motion, activity, or thought; extent of treatment, activity, or influence; range of operation”. BESIDES, IT OCCURRS TO ME THAT OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S SCOPE” IS MUCH WIDER THAN its ACCOMPLISHMENTS. ALSO, THE WAY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT P!SSES AWAY MONEY AND INFLATES THE COST OF EVERYTHING, HALVING its SIZE/SCOPE OUGHT TO MORE THAN HALVE IT’S BUDGET.

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT. EVEN THOUGH IT IS FRUSTRATING TO SEE THESE PSUEDO-REFUTATIONS THAT WARP ONE’S COMMENTS OUT OF SHAPE THROWN AROUND, WHO THE HECK HAS TIME FOR THIS TIT-FOR-TAT BS ABOUT NONEXISTENT ISSUES? SHEESH!

[allingeneral]

Gat6 is in the business of "Wow them with words". He writes a huge diatribe in every comment that he posts and never really addresses the issues that he's claiming to address - instead, he dances around each issue and tries to use a bunch of hyperbole to make it sound like what he's saying makes sense.

I've gotten to the point where I don't really bother reading anything he writes.

[dorminWS]

Sage counsel.

[dorminWS]

On the other hand, maybe ole Gat6 never had anybody use the phrase "too big" when addressing him, ya think?

[0007dad]

Rich people didn’t get that way by giving away money. If they are taxed they will simply charge more to everyone to make up for it. That's the way it works and that's the way a socialist government hides behind it's own words. We are all going to pay more while Washington puts the blame on someone else. Grab your hip waders it's an election year.

[ratherfish]

Pay attention......

Defense IS on the block.

and the ONLY one on your list MANDATED by the Constitution!

[Reverenddel]

Gat6 is a troll, and having no bridges? I don't deal with trolls. I stopped reading his "manifestos" long ago, but it's funny how this has kept the thread alive.

[grumpyMSG]

Gat6 is a troll, and having no bridges? I don't deal with trolls. I stopped reading his "manifestos" long ago, but it's funny how this has kept the thread alive.

Reverendel,Gat6 hasn't posted on this thread since January, It was0007dad that resurrected it.

To add to the discussion, we may see if the "soak the rich" scheme works if Governor Brown of California gets what he is asking for. http://www.myfoxla.com/dpp/money/gov-br ... s-20111205
Since Hollywood supports a similar plan on the national level, let's see if they do the same at the state level...

[Kreutz]

I prefer progressive tax because personally I come out ahead with progressive due its loopholes, deductions, and credits.

A flat tax would raise my taxes substantially. Which, I don't like.

Now, other people can pay through the nose....say anyone richer than me.

[ratherfish]

Sometimes honesty rears it's head.