money.cnn.com — The debate over how to reduce U.S. debt levels has generated a lot of partisan huffing and puffing in Congress, but no meaningful action. Enter President Obama's bipartisan fiscal commission, which will hold its first meeting in a few weeks.
Apr 13, 2010 View in Crawl 4
d3dmApr 14, 2010
I agree with you. I think where we disagree is your definition of "transaction".I don't agree that money I give my kids should be taxed just because I give it to them or anyone else (church, charity, etc.), because I've received nothing in return.Sure, go ahead and tax the money when they spend it but they shouldn't be taxed simply on me passing money to my family or anyone else.
xtlosxApr 15, 2010
umm... actually, it's NOT a democracy, it's Representative Republic.... How quickly you try to forget?
seanhemsApr 15, 2010
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I don't understand how being poorer makes you consume more resources. If you have more money, you probably have more things that may or may not use more energy.If by resources you mean food, water, etc., I would assume that having more money means you can eat better and live better.Another note, why do the people who physically produce nothing make the most in this country? I understand that if you start a company from scratch and build it up you should make a good deal of money, but paying your laborers more gives them more money to go out and buy more things which in turn creates more jobs.Got offf track a little bit, sorry.
addiktionApr 15, 2010
Money is debt. If you were to eliminate all debt, you would eliminate all money. When the government goes and prints all that money they usually give it to banks to give out in loans. Obviously they have been giving quite a bit to businesses who are 'to big to fail' lately but it's not possible to eliminate all debt. The government doesn't remember how to shrink which is rather unfortunate because it's going to be forced to now that we are heading toward a financial collapse. I've been investing in commodities to avoid our inflation nation.
addiktionApr 15, 2010
Solution to what you are saying is to allocate the money to universities and other institutions that actually aren't designing weapons of mass destruction. Much more effective because then you aren't wasting time on killing machines and you still get innovative stuff.@ralphthemagiWell if the money that we spent on military went to universities during that time I'm guessing we would of had the same technologies soon or later. Just because military discovered it doesn't mean it couldn't of happened from someone else. Our country has always been backwards in overly spending on military. So it makes sense that a lot of innovations would come out of that simply because thats where most of our money federal budget is being allocated to. I'm tired of the endless war on terrorism. We need innovations that fix America, not WMD's that kill our neighbors.
sodadeApr 15, 2010
I do have an axe to grind - 60 years of massively wasteful spending - all cheerfully greenlighted by the very people who are claiming a platform of fiscal conservatism. It has been a huge drain that only bought us more danger in the world. All because we couldn't keep our f**king hands to ourselves and just defend.
Closed AccountApr 15, 2010
Okay, I see what your saying but the way I see it an equal tax rate would be anything but fair. If I make like 20k per year, and you tax me 30%, that might mean I can't afford transportation or shelter. Clearly this has a huge effect on my standard of living. But if I'm making 200k per year and you tax me 30% maybe I can't afford a third car or a vacation home. My standard of living has dropped, but not by much. I would argue that to have true equality in taxation, everyone would be making the same sacrifice in terms of their standard of living rather than straight monetary terms, which is why rich people should be taxed more; they won't miss it but poor people will. Aside from principle, you have to realize that taxing the rich more is the only practical way to pay for anything in the country. Income inequality int he US is enormous so a flat tax rate would basically mean crushing the lower classes with taxes. Even as it is, income inequality is still growing and much larger than most democratic countries. Just out of principle, I would think some kind of wealth redistribution would appeal to most people. Wealth inequality is a a really s**tty situation and probably hurts anyone not in the upper classes already.
atarioApr 15, 2010
"The dollars we use today have only been around since 1971. Not surprisingly 97% of the entire nations debt has been run up since that time."My wife has only been around since 1971. Not surprisingly, 97% of the national debt has been run up in that time.Hey, this is fun! What can we blame next?
bloodweaverApr 16, 2010
It's a not a bad idea, and really this should be the only tax. Just tax consumption. It needs to be clear that when a sales tax is imposed the corporations just raise the price of the product. The people who pay the tax are the consumers, the population. This of course can be a good thing if the government uses the money wisely. Personally I think this is a great idea and it should be the only form of tax, just flat tax all consumption. Unfortunately the real core problems are in the government, any money given to them will go into the black hole which is their spending. In a well functioning system a flat sales/consumption tax I would agree is the best. Unfortunately with the current government who is spending $1.60 for every $1 of income no amount of tax is going to fix this.The reckoning day of overspending, borrowing, medicare and social security promises is coming quick. This era of spending is over, just the mass population doesn't know it yet, and the government doesn't want to tell them.