My Four Point Deficit Reduction Plan

I'd only add (0.00 / 0)

under your "Jobs=Revenue" part (which you're absolutely right about) that we should be spending money to keep people in work ala the stimulus without worry about the deficit.  That money pays for itself as the workers spend that money, thus jump-starting our economy like we've seen, and creating more jobs like we've also seen.  

I think we keep forgetting that the private sector has added jobs because of the stimulus and that the unemployment rate hasn't risen in a while.  Could we have done better by spending more in early 2009?  Of course.  But let's not stop just as things are starting to turn the corner because so-called 'deficit hawks' happened to deceive enough voters.

---

by: Timmy J @ Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 08:43:48 AM CST

It seems too... (0.00 / 0)

reasonable.

---

by: FrankLloydMike @ Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 08:44:22 AM CST

Dean for President (0.00 / 0)

Will you run sir??

---

by: Chaz Proulx @ Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 09:24:20 AM CST

The "Deficit" issue is a scam, except for the fact that, to the extent it (0.00 / 0)

represents an obligation, conservatives are opposed, simply because they reject the concept of owing anyone anything. But, they do like being owed.  
If the money-grubbing filthy rich were willing to pay their way, there'd be no deficit and no poverty either.

That the accumulation of monetary wealth is some sign of virtue is a notion that needs to be consistently debunked.

---

by: hannah @ Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 12:56:20 PM CST

I agree (0.00 / 0)

the rich really don't come close to paying their fair share.  I just wonder if any Democrat will ever have the courage to impose a tax sufficient enough so that the rich are paying their share.  Going back to 39% is a nice start, but that rate should not be the end goal.

---

by: Timmy J @ Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 12:59:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Your concern is showing (4.00 / 1)

n/t

---

by: JimC @ Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 13:30:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

not sure I understand your point. (0.00 / 0)

Do you disagree that we should at least go back to the 39% income tax bracket for the wealthiest Americans?  Dean said, "when 20th century American prosperity was at its height."  While that is left open to interpretation, I'm going assume he means the 90's under President Clinton.  

My point is that we've had tax rates in this country on the rich that exceeded 70%.  I believe if we are serious about providing a future for our children that includes social security and health care for all then we need to go back to those rates on the millionaires and billionaires in the not-too-distant future.

I'd like to hear those in the White House and Congress start talking about this now.

---

by: Timmy J @ Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 13:47:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

90% (0.00 / 0)

was the tax rate on the highest bracket after WWII when the middle class came into being and the economy that made the USA the envy of the world was created.  

---

by: Lucy Edwards @ Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 14:23:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

exactly! (0.00 / 0)

What billionaire can't afford to pay that rate?  If you make a billion dollars a year, a 90% income tax leaves you with 10 million dollars for crying out loud!  I really don't feel sorry for someone taking home 10 million dollars a year given that they made it all from the money of middle class Americans.

---

by: Timmy J @ Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 16:02:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Perhaps, if excess revenues are taxed away, this prospect will (0.00 / 0)

provide an incentive not to claim the excess in the first place.

Let's say a person actually "earns" a gigantic income from some socially valuable enterprise.  Once he has control of those funds, they will need to be managed and serve as a distraction from the original enterprise.  So, the initial "reward" will likely result in decreased effort, rather than more.  So, large monetary rewards are counter-productive, regardless of whether they were deserved in the first place.

---

by: hannah @ Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 17:51:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well, one reason they don't pay their fair share is because (0.00 / 0)

we base the share on the profits people presumably accumulate.  This presumption is, however, based on the false assumption that people actually strive for success and profit from it -- an assumption that's been proven false in practice by enterprises designed to fail.

Paying a fair share and meeting one's social obligations is anathema to some people.  They seem to operate from a predatory mind-set, a sort of primitive throw-back to the "give and take" characteristic of social behavior.  If that's the problem, then, since predators aren't amenable to reason, they have to be stopped.

It's important to judge behavior based on results, rather than what the perpetrators look like.

---

by: hannah @ Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 04:59:26 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Into the surreal: (4.00 / 2)

Deficit Hawks

I think the subject of this email I received just now says it all:

   George Stephanopoulos' Blog: Sen. Conrad: Extend All Tax Cuts; Time to Get 'Serious' About Deficit

-Atrios 09:38

http://www.eschatonblog.com/20...

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 17:33:33 PM CST

We have gone insane n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Lucy Edwards @ Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 17:42:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Financial Speculation Tax (4.00 / 2)

Another no brainer: Financial Speculation Tax = $100 billion a year.

http://www.commondreams.org/he...

Although I wouldn't even start at that level -- I'd propose it as a higher tax, netting $200 billion, and have it whittled down.

Carbon Tax @ $37 per ton of carbon emitted (equivalent to $10 per ton of CO2) = $55 billion (again propose this as $74/ton tax and have it whittled down

OK, so far

Speculation Tax: $200 billion /yr
Carbon Tax: $110 billion /yr
Raise Social Security Cap: $110 billion /yr
Public Option: $10 billion /yr

I just found a third of a trillion dollars we could have next week if we wanted. That should cover everything but Medicare/Medicaid. Double taxes on those making over $350,000 a year, and you start to get close to half a trillion.

So, that's everything but Medicare/Medicaid solved -- can we start working on that now please?

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 18:23:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Instead (0.00 / 0)

the cat food commission proposes lowering the top tax rate to 23% or some such ridiculous number and taking it out of the rest of our hides.  What use are we?   Only the rich create jobs, right?  When I spend my pittance at the supermarket, I'm not creating jobs, am I?  
Well, actually, there are quite a few people who have jobs because I spend my paycheck.  But that's real economics and we don't do that in this country.

---

by: Lucy Edwards @ Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 18:41:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I think the underlying rationale for this strategy is the (0.00 / 0)

assumption that social restraints (levying taxes) prompt an avoidance response.  It's the same argument which suggests that excessive vehicular speed on the highways is prompted by imposing speed limits and that vehicular speed will be automatically lowered by removing the limits.

Actually, the proponents of this way of thinking assume that all human behavior is in response to external prompts.  It's what they have to believe because what they want more than anything else is to be the prompt for what everyone else does.  They're like actors addicted to the audience cheering as soon as they step onto the stage.

Now, it is true that a goodly number of people prefer losing money at the gaming tables or risky enterprise to paying their social obligations.  But, that's not because the social obligations exist.  Nor is there any evidence that removing the obligations will cause them to be met.  People drive too fast because they are reckless (unable, perhaps, to recognize the risks of environmental conditions) and they fail to meet their social obligations because they don't recognize those, either.  
Is it because they are self-centered and myopic?  Perhaps.  But, regardless of the cause, reckless behavior, whether or not it immediately endangers other people, has to be stopped.

Hoarding and playing with currency is reckless because that's not what it's made for.  The purpose of currency is to lubricate trade and exchange.  People who hoard it need to be deprived of their store.  

How we do that is the question of the hour.  We collect taxes from exchange and trade.  People who hoard don't trade and, consequently, evade being taxed.  But, if that's correct, then the tax rate doesn't matter, does it?

How do we liberate our currency?  It is estimated that, at present, there's $3 trillion in cash that's being hoarded.  How do you catch something that's not moving?

---

by: hannah @ Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 05:27:43 AM CST

[ Parent ]

And Mike (0.00 / 0)

YOU do economics and I like your plan a lot!

---

by: Lucy Edwards @ Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 18:42:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]