Reducing the $9.5 trillion national debt should be a top priority of the presidential candidates. But the tax plans of both candidates would make the debt even worse, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. Barack Obama’s tax plan would lower federal revenue by $2.7 trillion by 2018. John McCain’s plan would reduce revenue even more — by $4 trillion over the next 10 years. Most of this decrease would result from extending President Bush’s tax cuts, which are set to expire at the end of 2010. Obama supports extending tax cuts for low and middle-income taxpayers, but not extending some of the cuts benefiting the wealthy. McCain, who voted against the Bush tax cuts, supports extending all the cuts and adding others.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Daniel on Open thread 11/8
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/8
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/8
- Daniel on Open thread 11/8
- sursum on Open thread 11/8
- Monkeyhawk on Death penalty review promised
- DavidB on Open thread 11/8
- Phantom on So they said
- Phantom on Roberts already wants a fourth term
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/8
26 Comments
Unfortunately I don’t see any incentive for any President to lower the $9.5 trillion dollar national debt. This is going to take some kind of action by Congress to force this reduction. I’m sure China appreciates receiving humongous amount of interest on its reputed 60% of the national debt.
Unfortunately, in this day of high tech media and sound bites where analysis of the political consequences of what candidates say is far more immediate than analysis of the policy consequences of what candidates say, this is not surprising. Overwhelming majorities of both Republicans and Deomocrats have been saying to voters that we can continue on as we have without consequence, or that the voters that they are targeting are the ones who do not need to prepare for changes. Responsibility calls for fiscal discipline on both ends of the budgetary process, revenues and spending. The problem is, the problematic spending right now is not as discretionary as many presume (and it has deep, deep constituancies), and no one wants to go to their constituants and say “I want to raise your taxes” or “I want to end your tax cut”.
Another refreshing thread.
Realizing that our nation cannot afford to be all things to all people – and BOTH parties are responsible for coming up with hard solutions which must include spending cuts. It may include tax increases too. But we cannot create enough revenue with tax increases to resolve this problem.
Our debt is going to lead to the destruction of our way of life.
I’m dreaming, but it would be nice to hear ideas today which are not driven by party politics.
Or blame. It gets us nowhere.
http://www.concordcoalition.org/about-us
Wait a minute. Tax cuts generate more revenue than the tax cuts. It’s called voodo economics, and bush is the witch dr. who’s trained his apprentice mcsame.
Maybe congress and the preznit need two cigar boxes to figure it out. It doesnt take a degree in finance to understand you cant, forever, pay out more than you take in. You have to take in more, and/or pay out less. duh.
Only in ‘merica…
“For me! For me! A share of the plunder for me!”
We need even more progressive taxes and more redistribution of wealth.
That’s worked out great so far.
No max, we need to take in more than, or at least as much as, we spend. Is there some part of that too hard for you to understand?
we need to take in more than, or at least as much as, we spend.
Let’s see.
Bring the troops home from Iraq.
Bring the troops home from all foreign soil.
Get out of the UN, NATO, WTO and any other organization that restricts us.
Stop foreign aid.
Dispose of the DOE.
Dispose of the Homeland Security[sic]
Restructre or eliminate all federal agencies/positions to at least 1/3 of current positions.
Hows that for a start.
How about 15% tax for every damn one. No tax breaks. No loopholes. 15%. Period.
That is until we can control spending enough not to need an income tax.
That work?
Sol: first question: Please define income for purposes of applying the 15% rate.
VT,
Won’t begin to tell you I understand all the tax code. Barely enough to fill out my own 1040.
So lets start there. What you have to claim as income on your 1040.
KISS.
VT, exactly. Sol, not bad, but I’d go further.
And I know my left wing brothers and sisters hate it when I say this, but I’d be more inclined to support a national sales tax if you exempt food and drugs. Yeah I know it’s regressive, but there is NOTHING progressive about the tax code we have now.
Given the nature of this economy, I’d support a tax on consumption more than a tax on income. At least until the wealthy rat phuck that tax as well.
Nothing progressive about the tax code?
What frickin planet are you on?
Very clearly a Lib Blog site.
Oh I know now, if you be in the lower tax brackets, you would have no clue what others in higher brackets pay.
You’d have to have basic math and reading skills to understand how progressive our current income tax system is.
Carry on….
I know many of my colleagues are in shock when I say this, kfg; tax consumption, exempting only basic foodstuffs and medications. Any new consumption of anything else, whether new or used goods (tangible or intangible), or services, is subject to the tax thereon. Yes, even (gasp) attorneys’ fees. The more spent on acquisition of goods and services, the more paid. Simple enough, Sol? By the way, my tax plan would include transfers of goods (estate and gift taxes) as well.
Simple enough, Sol?
Yeah, but…. I dunno. Think I would rather get screwed once a year instead of everyday.
Y’all’s points do make sense. Gotta give you that.
On a lighter note…
my tax plan would include transfers of goods (estate and gift taxes) as well.
Why do you want to tax Christmas VT? How can those poor little kids pay taxes on their gifts? Halloween? Their birthdays? For shame VT, for shame.
OK, Sol, I’ll reconsider Christmas, birthday and Halloween gifts; so long as the Christmas, etc., gift isn’t 10,000 shares of AT&T.
gift isn’t 10,000 shares of AT&T.
9,999 it is. DEAL !!!
Upon due consideration, the tax on birthday, etc., gifts would need to be paid by the donor; after all, it just wouldn’t be fair to the small children to have to use their next year’s allowance to pay taxes.
Ah, Sol, saw your earlier post about “what I have to claim on my 1040″. Thought you wanted to eliminate loopholes, Sol; so, sale of your personal residence for a gain would not be income subject to your 15% tax, then, even though but for the “loophole” created in the IRC, it would be. For some light reading, look at Section 61 of the Code some night you have trouble falling asleep; but for certain exclusions (”loopholes” in common parlance), darned near anything that one receives in exchange for labor, sales of goods and services (including but not limited to barter exchanges, value of employee benefits etc.), is income.
You just can’t make this stuff up; no one would believe you.
Well, we at least need to quit adding to the public debt. A scary sum is already necessary just to pay the damn interest on it.
Unfortunately, Agnatha is essentially correct. While our foreign war-making and related theft, medical costs etc. is costing a bundle, the remainder of Sol’s suggestions would save little budget dollars and might even cost us in the long run. No, I’m no fan of the WTO (openly hostile, in fact), I wonder about relevance of NATO (Georgia notwithstanding) and prefer having something like the UN to nothing-at-all. But what I or Sol or anyone wants doesn’t matter when you’re talking about economic consequences.
Budget-wise, the big ticket items are the Social Security trust fund (love it or hate it, trillions have been paid into it) and the military-industrial complex (including Treasury’s “black budget”). If you’re going to screw with Social Security, sorry, but I want my damn money back first–every penny. And the program, for the modest reasons it was created, in fact works.
The rest–including the relatively obscene corporate welfare–is just tinkering at the margins and in many instances would do more harm than good.
I think a big part of the solution is to create an economy wherein private profit at the expense of the common good is not rewarded by government. Revenues, be they income tax, sales tax, property tax, excise tax, user fees, whatever, don’t come from thin air. A nation chock full o’ sick, malnourished paupers is guaranteed to always be in debt.
Those whose minds are in auto-”socialist!” mode should note, though, that I am not–and have never–advocated simply handing government revenue to people. A better idea is the notion, long lost in our cynical age, that we’re all in this mess together.
Because we are. It’s just a simple fact. You can be as individualistic as you want–that’s fine, I like making my own choices too–but if you really think you’re making it all on your own, fine: let me drop you in some isolated woodland with nothing but the clothes on your back.
You’ll find out soon enough how independent you really are.
P.S. A targeted consumption tax might not be a bad idea but–I hate to point this out–large concentrations of wealth at the very top can assist in the general welfare of this country without harming those persons–other than perhaps their very slightly impinging their freedom to determine the terms of existence for the rest of us.
It’s not class warfare to acknowledge that the war is already underway, and the lower and middle classes are losing.
VT,
No deductions. Income is income. If you made money, you pay tax.
Ah, Sol, understood; but there are “exclusions” as well (scholarships, for example) in the code, which are not deductions, but which reduce gross income. Unless you do not consider a scholarship as “making money”, of course.
The rich would just make their purchases over seas and not pay sales/consumption tax.
Scholorships. No tax. The code needs to be reviewed, if not scrapped and started over. You don’t deduct your kids, your 401, anything. No deductions. Period. If you won money gambling, pay tax. Sold your house at a profit, tax it.
And again, this tax code will only live long enough until we do away with income tax. If we reduce our massive spending problem, then citizens would not have to pay income tax.
Here is another kicker. Senators and congressmen get paid $4,000 per year. Receiving lobbyists’ money will be criminal. Campaign contributions will be from individuals only. The house and senate meet twice per year. That is it. No health care, no retirement.
Maybe that will flush the lifers out and bring in people that want to work for their constituents.