There Is Simply Not Enough Revenue. The Deficit Is Too Large. Debt Is Out Of Control.

[Ross Dolan]

I quit keeping that score a long time ago. Doesn't matter how much you get, there's always somebody else with more. It's, really, a boring concern. I have plenty to be comfortable. Happiness is my concern. That can't really be purchased. It has to come from within.

Happiness...contentment...are the crown jewels.

I feel lucky that I have more than my fair share of both.

I am content with my life...what it has been...where it is now.

I imagine I will die before I want to die...even if at 105. Perhaps I will be lucky and have it come in a sudden rush rather than as a lingering thing.

 

[Nordberg]

When you are right...you are right.

And here, for the most part...you are right.

So...the logical thing to do then is to cut spending. BUT...whatever we cut...almost anywhere we cut it...causes less SPENDING at the other end of that continuum.

If we cut welfare and safety net expenditures, for instance...local grocery stores and hardware stores and dollar stores and such get hammered. Landlords get hammered.

If we cut military expenditures...huge defense contractor corporations get hammered...and start laying off people.

Even if we cut foreign aid...farmers and equipment manufactures get hammered (we don't send bushels of dollar bills in foreign aid, we send products and such)...and people get laid off.

We gotta do something else.

Something outside the box.

Something WAY outside the box.

Taxing the rich and corporations is not a one time thing. You don't just confiscate all their wealth, even though they took ours. But you increase their tax burdens and it will year after year eat away at the debt. They have been getting their taxes slashed since Reagan. You cannot get a fairer system in a year. It will take time .

 

[Ross Dolan]

Taxing the rich and corporations is not a one time thing. You don't just confiscate all their wealth, even though they took ours. But you increase their tax burdens and it will year after year eat away at the debt. They have been getting their taxes slashed since Reagan. You cannot get a fairer system in a year. It will take time .

It will definitely take time...and it must be long lasting. The rates for the rich MUST go up considerably...and significant adjustments must be made to increase taxes on capital gains. AND inheritance taxes must be raised considerably also. I have no problem with making large amounts of inheritance tax free...but above a certain amount...the tax should be high. Perpetuation of wealth is one of the greatest dangers we face.

All that having been said...overall philosophical changes regarding so-called safety net features of governance must be broadened to take into consideration that decent paying jobs for humans are in severe contraction.

 

[Gunny2009]

Taxing the rich and corporations is not a one time thing. You don't just confiscate all their wealth, even though they took ours. But you increase their tax burdens and it will year after year eat away at the debt. They have been getting their taxes slashed since Reagan. You cannot get a fairer system in a year. It will take time .

Taxing corporations is just a backdoor way to tax individuals.

If you raise the taxes on corporations by 30% they raise their price/fees by that much and the individual tax payer is paying the tax.

 

[Gunny2009]

When you are right...you are right.

And here, for the most part...you are right.

So...the logical thing to do then is to cut spending. BUT...whatever we cut...almost anywhere we cut it...causes less SPENDING at the other end of that continuum.

If we cut welfare and safety net expenditures, for instance...local grocery stores and hardware stores and dollar stores and such get hammered. Landlords get hammered.

If we cut military expenditures...huge defense contractor corporations get hammered...and start laying off people.

Even if we cut foreign aid...farmers and equipment manufactures get hammered (we don't send bushels of dollar bills in foreign aid, we send products and such)...and people get laid off.

We gotta do something else.

Something outside the box.

Something WAY outside the box.

Taxing the rich even more is not outside the box.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Taxing the rich even more is not outside the box.

Yeah...I know.

That is why I suggest it as PART of what has to be done.

"Taxing the rich more" IS NOT GOING TO GET THE JOB DONE. Neither is making capital gains a part of ordinary income...nor is increasing inheritance taxes.

It is a beginning...a first step in a process that will have to be accomplished in a structural pattern.

So???

 

[Gunny2009]

Yeah...I know.

That is why I suggest it as PART of what has to be done.

"Taxing the rich more" IS NOT GOING TO GET THE JOB DONE. Neither is making capital gains a part of ordinary income...nor is increasing inheritance taxes.

It is a beginning...a first step in a process that will have to be accomplished in a structural pattern.

So???

So...how do we pay for all the things that you think the government is supposed to be doing if taxing the rich alone will not fix the problem?

Here is my simple solution...a pipe dream that will never happen.

The POTUS submits his budget and Congress does their part and comes up with a final budget. Then the IRS adjust the taxes on everyone in the nation by an amount that will pay for all the things that Congress just agreed to spend money on, plus 10% to start paying down the debt.

This gives people a chance to see how much all of this really cost and then they can reach out to their elected officials and let them know if they are willing to keep paying that much in taxes or if they want spending cuts.

Having our cake now and making our kids and grandkids pay for it is an immoral act and should not be tolerated.

 

[Ross Dolan]

So...how do we pay for all the things that you think the government is supposed to be doing if taxing the rich alone will not fix the problem?

Here is my simple solution...a pipe dream that will never happen.

The POTUS submits his budget and Congress does their part and comes up with a final budget. Then the IRS adjust the taxes on everyone in the nation by an amount that will pay for all the things that Congress just agreed to spend money on, plus 10% to start paying down the debt.

This gives people a chance to see how much all of this really cost and then they can reach out to their elected officials and let them know if they are willing to keep paying that much in taxes or if they want spending cuts.

Having our cake now and making our kids and grandkids pay for it is an immoral act and should not be tolerated.

You are correct...what you propose will never happen.

My notions in broad strokes:

We have got to get away from the idea that money is the score keeper.

We have got to insure that EVERYONE has sufficient for a decent life BEFORE ANYONE HAS TO WORK...and then allow anyone competent enough to compete with a machine to have a go at it. We have to limit the number of humans working to the minimum possible.

Anyone actually working will be rewarded mightily.

If you own a big house with a big lawn and don't want to tend to it yourself...you will not be able to get people off the coach and doing your bullshit for nickles and dimes.

My ideas suffer from the same problems yours do...and chances are, will never happen.

Unless we start slowly...by incorporating large hunks of socialism into our system.

We just have to get past the American conservative Neanderthals to get that done.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Gunny2009,

Taxing corporations is just a backdoor way to tax individuals.

If you raise the taxes on corporations by 30% they raise their price/fees by that much and the individual tax payer is paying the tax.

They can only raise their prices as much as the market will bear. After that they have to reduce exorbitant executive compensation. And that makes sense. I don't care how good somebody is. They are not worth 500 times the average worker. Nobody is that good. It is understandable if they are twice as valuable, even 5 times, maybe 10 or 15. But not 500.

This comparison is not referenced to the lowest paid worker. It is referenced to the AVERAGE worker. 500 times is too much. We should have a law limiting total executive compensation to a percentage of their average worker. That way, if executives want to get paid more, they have to figure out how to make the company profitable enough to raise everybody.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Gunny2009,

So...how do we pay for all the things that you think the government is supposed to be doing if taxing the rich alone will not fix the problem?

Here is my simple solution...a pipe dream that will never happen.

The POTUS submits his budget and Congress does their part and comes up with a final budget. Then the IRS adjust the taxes on everyone in the nation by an amount that will pay for all the things that Congress just agreed to spend money on, plus 10% to start paying down the debt.

This gives people a chance to see how much all of this really cost and then they can reach out to their elected officials and let them know if they are willing to keep paying that much in taxes or if they want spending cuts.

Having our cake now and making our kids and grandkids pay for it is an immoral act and should not be tolerated.

An interesting idea but who figures out the tax brackets?

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Frank,

You are correct...what you propose will never happen.

My notions in broad strokes:

We have got to get away from the idea that money is the score keeper.

We have got to insure that EVERYONE has sufficient for a decent life BEFORE ANYONE HAS TO WORK...and then allow anyone competent enough to compete with a machine to have a go at it. We have to limit the number of humans working to the minimum possible.

Anyone actually working will be rewarded mightily.

If you own a big house with a big lawn and don't want to tend to it yourself...you will not be able to get people off the coach and doing your bullshit for nickles and dimes.

My ideas suffer from the same problems yours do...and chances are, will never happen.

Unless we start slowly...by incorporating large hunks of socialism into our system.

We just have to get past the American conservative Neanderthals to get that done.

What needs to be worked out is a way to transition from the capitalist-work-reward society to a UBI society.

Did you have a chance to check out that 14 min video?

I liked his idea that under the UBI people could get paid more if they perform community service work.

 

[Gunny2009]

You are correct...what you propose will never happen.

My notions in broad strokes:

We have got to get away from the idea that money is the score keeper.

We have got to insure that EVERYONE has sufficient for a decent life BEFORE ANYONE HAS TO WORK...and then allow anyone competent enough to compete with a machine to have a go at it. We have to limit the number of humans working to the minimum possible.

Anyone actually working will be rewarded mightily.

If you own a big house with a big lawn and don't want to tend to it yourself...you will not be able to get people off the coach and doing your bullshit for nickles and dimes.

My ideas suffer from the same problems yours do...and chances are, will never happen.

Unless we start slowly...by incorporating large hunks of socialism into our system.

We just have to get past the American conservative Neanderthals to get that done.

Sorry, but I find this concept "We have to limit the number of humans working to the minimum possible." to be just insane. Somehow everything you want has to be "paid" for, one way or another. Farmers will not grow food unless they are getting something tangible in exchange for it. There is only so much that a machine can do, there still has to be people involved.

Then what happens when the person you gave a "sufficient amount" for a decent life blows it or does not use it well and runs out, will they get more?

In order to incorporate large hunks of socialism into our system, you would also need to get rid of the Constitution, or just ignore it I suppose.

 

[Adolf_Twitler]

When you decide to put the entire burden of taxes off on the working class, and decide to give the Richest Americans a 2 trillion dollar bonus check, there is no fuzzy math going to come up with the money to repay the 2 trillion dollar debt that was just created.

That is the Revenue part of the Internal Revenue! You just shot your wad and blew your revenue!

So, we are basically facing about a 2 trillion dollar a year void in revenue, that has to be added to the deficit ceiling every year moving forward.

Way to go Paul Ryan- you fucking reckless plutocratic irresponsible idiot!

Don't let the door knock you on your ass on the way out!

 

[Gunny2009]

Hello Gunny2009,



They can only raise their prices as much as the market will bear. After that they have to reduce exorbitant executive compensation. And that makes sense. I don't care how good somebody is. They are not worth 500 times the average worker. Nobody is that good. It is understandable if they are twice as valuable, even 5 times, maybe 10 or 15. But not 500.

This comparison is not referenced to the lowest paid worker. It is referenced to the AVERAGE worker. 500 times is too much. We should have a law limiting total executive compensation to a percentage of their average worker. That way, if executives want to get paid more, they have to figure out how to make the company profitable enough to raise everybody.

But when you raise the rates on every corporation at the same time the market will shift.

As a libertarian I am ideologically opposed to such things as laws that limit what one can earn, yet then I wonder why it is only limited to people such as CEOs and the like. I rarely hear people talk about the QB that is making more per touchdown pass than some make in their lifetimes. Or the Hollywood star that gets 43 million dollars for a single movie. It is always the CEOs, because big business is the "enemy".

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Gunny2009,

Sorry, but I find this concept "We have to limit the number of humans working to the minimum possible." to be just insane. Somehow everything you want has to be "paid" for, one way or another. Farmers will not grow food unless they are getting something tangible in exchange for it. There is only so much that a machine can do, there still has to be people involved.

There have been many times in the past when it was thought that automation would destroy work and the fabric of the economy. And every time, it was unforeseen that the automation actually created jobs as it destroyed them, and the advancements led to unanticipated possibilities which then led to more jobs for adept humans.

So why should this time, with AI computers and robots, be any different? I'll tell you why. Here is the difference. In the past the machines did what they were designed to do and that was it. If you wanted a machine to do another function you had to design and build another machine to do that. The different thing which is now a game-changer is that the new machines will be smart machines with brains able to think and learn. They will be able to adapt and modify their own capabilities. And they will also be able to design and build more machines to accomplish other functions. So much of the new work they will generate will also be able to be done by machines.

We are entering the age envisioned in the original Star Trek. Machines will do much of the work. And that will create the problem we have been discussing. There will not be enough work for everyone. What work is there won't pay very much, because there will be so many people willing and qualified to do it. That is going to disrupt our economy because with so many people out of work, there won't be enough paying customers to purchase products and keep the economy humming along.

Then what happens when the person you gave a "sufficient amount" for a decent life blows it or does not use it well and runs out, will they get more?

That's a very good question. We are certainly going to have to solve drug abuse simultaneously. My, don't we have our challenges!

In order to incorporate large hunks of socialism into our system, you would also need to get rid of the Constitution, or just ignore it I suppose.

The Constitution doesn't say we will be a capitalist nation. Nor does it rule out socialism.

 

[Gunny2009]

Hello Frank,



Here is a great talk about what our future might look like when machines do most of the work. It addresses how income is distributed, and how we will derive meaning in our lives without working traditional jobs:

He does make some valid points, though I am not buying into all of it.

I am curious why incentivising finishing high school would even matter in a society where one is no longer a productive member, just a member. If one is sitting at home doing "whatever" why is a high school education desirable, let alone worth rewarding?

If we no longer have jobs, something worthwhile and productive has to replace them, people need a purpose in life.

 

[Gunny2009]

The Constitution doesn't say we will be a capitalist nation. Nor does it rule out socialism.

The Constitution puts limits on the government, there are things that the government has no constitutional authority to be involved in.

 

[PoliTalker]

But when you raise the rates on every corporation at the same time the market will shift.

As a libertarian I am ideologically opposed to such things as laws that limit what one can earn,

It would not limit them ultimately. All they have to do is their job. Make the company more profitable. The only requirement the law would impose is that they have to share those increased profits with the people who did the work to make it possible. If they want to make more, all they have to is make the company more profitable.

yet then I wonder why it is only limited to people such as CEOs and the like. I rarely hear people talk about the QB that is making more per touchdown pass than some make in their lifetimes. Or the Hollywood star that gets 43 million dollars for a single movie. It is always the CEOs, because big business is the "enemy".

It's a completely different situation. Stars' worth is determined by public response and willingness to pay for the performance. Corporate executives sit on the boards of each other's companies. The board determines the ratio of executive pay vs worker pay, so they all vote each other pay raises in return for voting each other pay raises.

But you may be onto something about stars. Perhaps such a top/average compensation ratio law should apply there as well. It is really not right for the lead singer / song writer in a band to be making millions while the back-up singers, roadies and instrument players are all working just as hard for peanuts. James Brown was terrible to his band. Once, they complained that following his initial success that they had not been given a raise from the time they were nobodies. James Brown fired them all, and started a new band. After all that work they did to help him get famous. That's just not right. Life on the road in a band is a rough life. I wouldn't even do it if I could. Very rough life. Traveling all the time, a different bed every night. Life in hotels is not really very good. It's hard to be as comfortable in a new hotel room each night as it is to be in your own home. Very stressful. And all that different food. It's a tough life. There is no relaxing on the road. The stars do it for the money. The rest of the band does it for the music, often with no other benefits at all and no savings.

Football players? How long a career is that?

 

[PoliTalker]

The Constitution puts limits on the government, there are things that the government has no constitutional authority to be involved in.

That is an interpretation, not an absolute.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Hello Frank,



What needs to be worked out is a way to transition from the capitalist-work-reward society to a UBI society.

Did you have a chance to check out that 14 min video?

I liked his idea that under the UBI people could get paid more if they perform community service work.

I have not watched the video...(I hate videos except when naked women are involved). Is there a transcript of what he slowly says.

I agree that community service could be a rewarding activity (getting MORE)...although I think there is lots to be had using volunteers.

Interesting story: The Town council where I live once proposed to pay the volunteers of the Volunteer Fire Companies...and Volunteer First Aid ambulance companies...but the volunteer members lobbied against the idea and won. They wanted their efforts to be voluntary...not for monetary compensation.

I guess this is as good a place to mention that MONEY as the major (often the only) compensation for work or contribution...is something that has to end.

Romans used the use of purple for toga fringe as compensation. Chevrons, other insignia, and military scrambled eggs may be needed...or items of that sort. The love of money is the root of most evil in our society.