Should entitlement programs get cuts before taxes go up?
By iowachap
@iowachap (100)
United States
September 18, 2010 12:10am CST
Lately it would seem that government on all levels is looking to raise taxes wherever they can, they say they are strapped for cash bla bla they are in debt etc.. Yet they typically are not willing to cut entitlement programs and other areas by the same percentage in tax hikes. They want to raise taxes 3%, well how about just cutting all spending by 3% across the board that way nobody feels like they were being treated unfairly, between the 3% cut, and the 3% increase they now have 6% surplus for the year. Don't ask working folks to cut their paycheck if the govt is not going to cut theirs also.
Remember folks taxes are a percentage base formula, as peoples income grow the govt gets a bigger check from taxes, as costs of goods go up again the govt gets a bigger check from those taxes, as the country has grown in population with a bigger work force the govt again .. you guessed it, gets more money from taxes. The problem is the govt keeps finding ways to buy votes with our tax dollars, you have the lobyists that are just as crooked. If we went to the FairTAx it would resolve most of the B.S we see going on. I just want to see a flat tax cut at the govt for their entire budget if they tell the people they are getting a tax hike.
1 person likes this
5 responses
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
18 Sep 10
Iowa, a good portion of our national debt comes from two completely unfunded wars. Once those two are over than it will drop our spending dramatically.
Your statement about taxes, and reality are two entirely different things. You are correct that taxes are based on a percentage, but the tax system is far from fair. The most taxed people in this country are SINGLE adults, with NO kids, and make between 25,000 and 75,000. NOT the Rich, the middle class, or the poor. Rich people have tax breaks, and accountants that hide their income in foreign countries so they don't have to pay taxes on the (but the Obama administration is going after these foreign countries, and republicans are NOT happy at all about this). If you have a few kids, a house, and make in the 30 - 70,000 range you don't pay a dime in federal taxes. The poor pay more in taxes than most middle class people, so if you are upset about people not paying taxes, it usually is the middle class that doesn't (I know because I am one of them).
The problem with your Flat Tax, is that it would be a tax increase on all but the poor and the middle class, single adult, with no kids. The rich would fight this because even a 10% flat tax would be a tax increase for them (look at D!ck Cheney's taxes while Vice president, 9% on average). The middle class would have a huge tax increase as well. Not to mention the churches would be irate because of the lack of tax breaks for being married and having kids.
Cutting spending would help, but you are going to have to increase taxes, unless you can find $800 BILLION in spending cuts, which is what it would cost over 10 years if the Bush "no billionaire left behind" tax cuts are made permanent.
@iowachap (100)
• United States
19 Sep 10
Sorry single adults with no kids do not pay the most taxes, with no kids a married couple each making 50k would pay more in taxes in the higher tax bracket than the single person who makes 50k. There are many sites that show adding up just the top 2% of the richest people in the country pay most of the total taxes paid in this country. Here is just one of many links that use data from the IRS stating such - http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2007/10/top-1-pay-more.html take a look you will see you are clearly wrong. If it was not for the tax breaks you talk about they would be paying even more. No clue where you are getting your data from, but the poor do not pay taxes, period, what do you consider poor? A single person making 30k bucks is not poor! However if they choose to live in a overpriced area like New York or San Fran then yeah 30k bucks aint going to go far, they need to move or find a better job, or get a better education. That is not the role of others to give them money based on where they live. Sorry 30k bucks being single is not poor by a long shot. 30k bucks in NC you could afford a basic home, same with many other areas like Texas.
I did not say Flat Tax, I said Fair Tax, there is a difference, go read up on it. The FairTax is supported by many rich people, they are not the ones fighting it they support it because they are tired of being unfairly pointed out as not paying enough yet the IRS data shows clearly they pay more taxes than 90% of all others combined.. this is where we are not going to talk about a percentage, because after their tax breaks etc you might argue they pay a less atax percent, however they still end up forking over way more dollars combined to the IRS than the middle class, and poor combined.
Fair Tax goes on a consumption basis, the more you buy the more tax you end up paying, so if you dont go overboard spending you pay less in taxes.. the poor would always get their cost of living check each month for taxes that they would get on food and basic cost of living.. they would essentially still pay no taxes like they do now.
Laugh 800 billion.. hello Obama has 989 billion in NEW spending planned just say 1 trillion.. go ahed say it.. 1 TRILLION DOLLARS .. seriously man you do understand trillion is more than 800 billion right? If Obama would not have created this new 1 TRILLION in spending plan .. he would not need another 800 billion, but I guess you go on Mr. Bidens math, you have to spend more to get out of debt right? Yes Bush was handing out bailout money too ..
Most people are poor are poor because they choose poorly, or choose to be there.. there are some who do need help, to be picked up etc.. and they find their way back, take me for instance.. me n wife booted from apt in 2003, in hotel room and then a empty college dorm room for a few months, to 6 years later owning a home..
just read that site on taxes.. and then go buy the book on the FairTax.. written by Boortz and Linder, check it out on Amazon.com total with shipping is like 7 or 8 bucks
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
19 Sep 10
You DO know federal income taxes are currently the lowest they've been in years, don't you? That part of the stimulus was a tax cut for 95% of Americans? I just wanted to get that out of the way before saying anything more...
That having been said, I've felt for a long time our tax system needs to be changed. Since I'm not an economist and I don't have all the figures available I can't say exactly what would be the best answer, but I'm definitely leaning towards a national sales tax with exemptions for necessities such as food, medicine and clothing. I think probably a rebate for some energy expenses such as gas and heating expenses. We could get in a lengthy and heated discussion on this alone, so I'll stop right now on this particular topic.
You ask if entitlement programs should get cuts before taxes go up; do you mean Social Security, Medicare, unemployment compensation and other safety nets should be taken away rather than allowing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% to expire? If so, I say unequivocally, absolutely NOT! I think we need to prioritize our expenses. Is it morally right for those with incomes of a million dollars per year to get tax cuts of $100,000 while the paltry checks that keep seniors, most of whom worked many decades and were very productive members of our society, from living in dire poverty or worse are cut or taken away? Does it make any sense that these so-called deficit hawks currently in Congress that insisted no extensions could be given to those on unemployment through no fault of their own without them being "paid for" should think this $700+ billion in tax cuts for the rich does NOT need to be offset in spending cuts?
There are loads of ways our government could cut spending without hurting those who need help the most. Our defense budget is out of control but nobody wants to touch that! There are tons of other programs and agencies that could be streamlined and made more efficient.
One final word - I think lobbyists should be outlawed entirely and campaign financing should be completely reformed and revamped, including doing something drastic to counteract the Supreme Court's recent horrendous ruling. Corporations are not people and should not be given the same rights as people!
Annie
@iowachap (100)
• United States
19 Sep 10
I dont consider social security or medicare entitlement programs, however I consider medicaid, welfare, this new obama health care bomb, free cell phones for the poor, in some cases food stamps, section 8 housing, and many other programs like these to be entitlement programs..
social security and medicare folks have worked and paid into those systems for many years typically.
yes indeed lobyists are a serious problem.
@mattic (282)
• United States
25 Sep 10
First, let's address the 95% tax cut myth. $13 per week is hardly a tax cut, and most who received it will have to pay it back at the end of the year.
As far as "safety nets"...where is the Constitutional guarantee of a job, a home, food, etc.? These are items that individuals are responsible for providing themselves.
Is it "morally right" to take one dime from someone who has earned it to redistribute to someone who hasn't? No, it is theft whether the perpetrator is a masked gunman or the government.
@mattic (282)
• United States
25 Sep 10
Again, to address the lie that 95% of Americans received a "tax cut". The most intelligent president ever is either a) too stupid or b) too dishonest to realize that 40% of American citizens pay NO TAXES. What that means is that 40% of American citizens utilized the force of government to steal even more from their hard working neighbors. A tax credit is not a tax cut, even in Odumbo land.
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
19 Sep 10
If you look at every entitlement or government program it is done for political reasons and not to help people. Food stamps is not a food program but a farm subsidy, that requires a hugh government bureaucracy (people who owe their job to keeping the program not helping people) to run the program. Social Security is not a retirement program but a tax to provide money for the politicians to spend as they see fit. Read you SS statement and you will see that it clearly states that this is a compact (not a contract) between generations and Congress and change or end it and you have no recourse. The elected officials have a hugh department of people who are employed because of the program and will vote to keep in power who ever will keep them employed. .
Look at the recent reports on Federal Wages and you will see where a great deal of the money goes. One proposal to save several hundred Million dollars is to freeze federal wages until they come in line with public sector job
@GardenGerty (157674)
• United States
19 Sep 10
I think many people forget that all the government programs we expect and ask for all actually come out of our own pockets in the form of taxes. I am sure government could be run more economically if the services provided were managed by the most local form of government available. I think we lose a lot sending all of our money to Washington to be redistributed back down to the community again. Every body seems to get a cut all the way up and back down.
@iowachap (100)
• United States
19 Sep 10
Yep, exactly why California is so broke, so many people there bragged about how great it was to get all those services done from illegals, yet all the tax dolalrs being spent was where they were losing money, and even now they still cant figure out why the state is so broke, even though it is the 3rd largest in terms of GDP in the world. California has some of the highest taxes, yet biggest population of illegals, they are 3rd largest in world for GDP .. yet they are beyond broke.. they have lots of entitlement programs, many of which pay out to illegals.. laugh.. hello
@mattic (282)
• United States
18 Sep 10
If the government were to be reduced to only those functions mandated by the Contstitution, our tax burden would be dramatically reduced. This would mean cutting, not only social spending, but farm subsidies, bailouts, reducing the size and scope of the military, etc.
The problem is that most American citizens have been content to trade individual liberties for the sake of "security" - which usually comes with a big government price tag. Hopefully movements like the Tea Party and Libertarian Party are beginning to educate folks on just how much that security costs.
@iowachap (100)
• United States
18 Sep 10
Exactly, I mean the federal governments main role is to protect the citizens, not provide food, shelter, healthcare, and money for them. So many people are always looking who to blame why they are where they are, why their kids do what they do, and where is the govt at when they need them.. instead of asking how did I let this happen to myself, or why am I allowing my kids to act that way..
State and local government have different roles and responsibilities, yet so many folks push the federal govt to do things they should never be doing or responsible for. Perfect examples....
Hurricane Katrina - Everything before it hit, and everything up to the point where the govenor and mayor declare a state of emergency and request federal assistance is a state and local government responsibiity, once the call goes out that there is a disaster and state of emergency and they request federal assistance then it also becomes a federal responsibility. So many folks blamed Bush and the federal govt for Katrina, and 90% of the problems/deaths were failure on the State and local govt levels. (please note I feel that yes the feds did mess up on Katrina too, but not nearly the level of state and local)
The recent BP disaster - Totally 100% federal govt responsibility to get involved and after not seeing any progress to take over and push for resolution, not continue to allow companies to fumble and bumble around scratching their arses and heads asking what do we do now... the federal response to the BP disaster was just insanely slow and almost non existant, yet they were quick to call it the biggest oil disaster of all time, and how it was going to cause years and years of issues, mainly so they could push their oil drilling ban.. now the leak is stopped.. and bam all of a sudden the waters are all clear and its ok to eat the fish / crab etc .. SAY WHAT? Go figure its election time need to get that cleared up so it wont hurt the democraps.. dont worry many repubtards will be getting the boot too.. time to get some new life in there.. at this point we just need to show those in power now that we will not tolerate their bull crap and will boot them with unknowns to prove that point.
