I cannot recall all the points made for and against a 17% consumption tax. But I do recall feeling like I liked the idea. Would it still possibly work in today's economy? Or have things changed so much that it is rendered a bad idea because of something I hadn't considered or don't realize?

CJ, Would that replace the income tax boondoggle we have now?

If so, I'm for it. 17% for everybody, but put a bottom limit on it at, I don't know, maybe what the government publishes to be the "poverty level" income point?

However, there should be not upper limit cap.

That way the poor won't get nailed and the rich will pay their "fair share".

It works if you like the idea of a massive tax cut for the wealthy and a huge tax increase for everyone else. The low percentages set by advocates of the flat tax idea don't jibe with today's spending levels; they would either need to raise the rate or massively cut government spending.

...massively cut government spending...

And the problem with that is......?

We, the public, have had to cut our spending. Why should the government be any different?

What do you want to cut first, Bill? Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marines?

Why is it that any time someone mentions cutting government spending the first thing the libs want to cut is the military?

I think it must be because the military represents freedom and the libs are most definitely against that. They want everybody to be controlled by the government.

How about we start with cutting the politicians salaries 25%, I know that wouldn't be even a small drop in the bucket, but it would send them a message that we are fed up with their crap.

Then going forward, any pay increase must be voted on by the people in the state they represent.

Then we cut all government funding for Planned Parenthood. Want an abortion, pay for it.

Next we can cut all government subsidies to corporations and such. This would include dairy farmers, tobacco farmers etc. If they need subsidizing then any funds that the government gives them are in the form of a loan.

There is so much fat and pork in the government that Dan doesn't have enough storage space on his server to even scratch the surface.

The military is not the place to cut. That is unless you want to speak Chinese, Korean, or Farsi.

Bill, I guarantee you that you pay less than 17% federal income tax after all is said and done. Look at your tax return under "effective tax rate" and if it's below 17%, you'd pay more under a flat tax scenario.

Bottom line: A flat tax would be a massive, massive tax cut for the wealthiest Americans and would raise taxes for the rest of the 90% of us.

There's a reason buys like Steve Forbes want a flat tax and it certainly isn't because of the simplicity of it.

The military is one of the largest portions of the budget, so any time cutting government services is mentioned, cutting the military should be at the top of the list.

Repeated from my earlier post; The military is not the place to cut. That is unless you want to speak Chinese, Korean, or Farsi.

I think we could easily cut the military by 20% and still speak English just fine.

Bill, I guarantee you that you pay less than 17% federal income tax after all is said and done. Look at your tax return under "effective tax rate" and if it's below 17%, you'd pay more under a flat tax scenario.

I probably do. I think it's around 15% or 16%. I haven't done my taxes for this year yet.

I'd only favor the 17% if that included Social(ist) (In)Security tax or the option to opt out of it.

However, if a person chooses to opt out of Social(ist) (In)Security, then they can't collect it either.

"Social(ist) (In)Security". As opposed to the Chilean model conservatives like to use as an example of what Bush's Privatization of Social Security might have looked like. And now look, the Chilean system is a mess.

I'd opt out of it right this second if I could.

Cap whatever they are going to dish out to me (if it's even there when I retire) at where it is today and no more.

Let me manage my own retirement.

When I quit working and don't have enough to live on. Then it's my fault.

I don't expect anybody to give me handouts if I can't make it.

It's my problem, not societies.

Almost half of every tax dollar is military related spending, and or payments on our borrowed war.

Half.

All the social programs total maybe 20 percent. If we cut EVERYTHING that might actually help people, that's only 20 percent of your tax bill.

Say that's 5K, just for grins.

You get a cut of $1K / Year. About $20 per week.

Is that worth losing ALL the programs we currently service people with? Hell, is it even worth picking through the list to save, what? A buck or two?

Looking to do good with tax cuts only harms ordinary people.

The military is not the place to cut. That is unless you want to speak Chinese, Korean, or Farsi.

If we cut our military we'll get invaded? Why?

Then of course you need to factor all the federal money that goes to the states, municipalities and schools. Figure Special Ed at public schools would be gutted, public transit would be gutted, Medicaid, gutted; lots and lots of different state and local programs that receive all or some of their funding from the federal government. It would leave state and local governments in a nightmarish situation.

"When I quit working and don't have enough to live on. Then it's my fault."

That's all fine and dandy, but when you don't have enough to live on, society has to pay your way. The point of Social Security is to insure that even if the person mismanages their own retirement, they will have something to fall back on so they aren't relying on some other form of public assistance.

Hey, Bill, I am glad you got my message loud and clear! You want to cut government spending, but you don't want to cut the largest portion of the Federal Budget? How serious about cutting spending could you possibly be?

The US Military is the largest portion of our government's spending, followed by (in some order) Medicare and Medicaid and the interest on our national debt. Can't stop paying the interest on the debt (1/2 of which you can thank George W. Bush for). You want to throw a bunch of old people off medical insurance or cut their benefits? Or poor people? That's going to be a really tough sell.

(There are things that can be cut in Medicare such as the prescription drug benefit - what I'm saying is that there isn't much to cut without hurting a bunch of people. But I'm at least willing to take a look at it, while your response to "cut military spending" was an attack on "libs.")

What's left in the Federal Budget to is not very much, unfortunately, that isn't important in some way or another. Want the banks to all go under? Want loose nukes in former Soviet Republics getting into the wrong hands? Want a Homeland Security department that might be able to detect the next attack?

Sky-

I think you're still living with this idea that we have GOP President. And you totally missed Obama's making government not bigger or smaller but making it work for it's citizens. No small task. SOP will not work today.

My fear about the stimulus is that once all the money is infused we will see inflation rate spike in 2010-2011.

Chris, the amount of money in the stimulus package is practically negligible compared to the rest of the economy; it's not even going to be spent all this year. I wouldn't worry about inflation at all at this point, at least not as a result of that. Some economists are worried about deflation, one of the plagues of the Great Depression.

...public transit would be gutted...

Not if they ran it properly. If you TRULY can't afford to pay, then you get the discounted fare.

If you have a job that pays well and are just riding it out of convienence, then you pay what the true cost of hauling you from point A to point B is.

..but when you don't have enough to live on, society has to pay your way..

NO. That's what I'm saying. It is NOT society's responsibility to support me if I can't support myself, unless I'm truly disabled and can not do it.

Just because I blew all my money and didn't save any for retirement, why should that a tax burden on you or any other citizen?

Call it hard nosed or whatever you want to call it, but I'd still opt out of Socialist Insecurity this second if I could.

I do however, realize that it will never come to that because the SS funds are such a huge cash cow for the politicians that they would NEVER take a chance on letting it go.

So, I'll just continue to piss and moan about it like ya'll do about Bush!

"Not if they ran it properly. If you TRULY can't afford to pay, then you get the discounted fare".

Public transit receives a sizable subsidy from the federal government. Fare box revenue accounts for a small portion of operating revenue. If the federal portion of the equation were significantly reduced or eliminated, fares would have to radically increase and other methods used to support it would have to increase as well. Localities would have to step in and make up the difference.

Talpdx: Public transit receives a sizable subsidy from the federal government. Fare box revenue accounts for a small portion of operating revenue. If the federal portion of the equation were significantly reduced or eliminated, fares would have to radically increase and other methods used to support it would have to increase as well. Localities would have to step in and make up the difference.

Without the subsides, public transit would largely go away. And that would suit conservatives just fine. To them, if public transit can't survive solely on the actual fare paid, it shouldn't exist.

What would it mean in a city like Portland if there was no bus system? You can see what happens in other cities whenever they have a transit strike: traffic gridlocks. Despite the relatively small percentage of commuters who use public transit, that small percentage has a huge impact when the roads are highly congested, because congestion is an exponential, not a linear, function. So public transit reduces commute time for even the people who don't use it.

More cars means not only more traffic but greater demand for parking = higher parking rates. More pollution. Etc.

And those businesses that pay minimum wage to people who may not be able to afford cars and currently take the bus or MAX? They'll have to raise their wages to hire people who can afford cars. So they'll have to raise their prices. Or fold up and set up their business somewhere else. But who cares about business in Portland? Why do we need businesses to thrive there?

There are lots of side effects for a city for not having a decent public transit system.

I'm not trying to pick a fight, but I am still sorta hung up on; If we cut the military, we'll have to speak Chinese, Farsi or Korean.

I do not follow that logic at all.

Skybill? Please to explain that. I DO follow all the other points ( and frankly, you have to admit, they're all pretty damned reasoned and interesting to me ) but that one I can't see.

Bill thinks that even though the US currently spends more money on its military than the rest of the world combined, that were we to cut our military spending at all, the Chinese, Iranians, or North Koreans would attack and defeat us. If we cut our military spending in half, for example, they'd lose their fear of attacking us, even though we have 10,000 nuclear warheads, missiles nuclear submarines, bombers, etc. that could turn Iran and North Korea into nice glass parking lots (maybe not China - but enough of it to make it a moot point).

Actually, I can't fathom why anyone right-winger thinks China would threaten the US militarily? They are hugely dependent on the US now for trade (as we are on them). And we owe them billions of dollars in our national debt. Why would they want to defeat us in a war? Seems they already have us right where they want us.

I'm not saying it's impossible - but I can't see any other country invading us and just, you know, taking over. I don't know of any country that even has that desire. Or am I just supposed to be fearful of everyone?

"NO. That's what I'm saying. It is NOT society's responsibility to support me if I can't support myself, unless I'm truly disabled and can not do it."

You live in a perfect world. If old people don't have enough money to live, then what do you do with them? Put them on an ice float and bid them bon voyage? Desperate people will steal and kill if it means surviving. I don't want to live in a society that is all or nothing. Social Security is an insurance policy to make sure people have at least something to live off of. Otherwise you'd have a city full of homeless people. It may not be society's responsibility, but the burden of taking care of those without falls to society whether anyone likes it or not.

Social Security is an insurance policy to make sure people have at least something to live off of...

Yes it is and I don't have a problem with that per se. I just think it should be voluntary.

Pay in, collect when you are old. Don't pay in, don't collect.

I wouldn't even have too much heartache if it was mandatory to have SOME KIND of retirement plan as long as it can be personally administrated.

Again, though, I know I'm just pissing in the wind. The politicians will NEVER let that happen.

It can't be voluntary.

If it was, there would be people that don't pay in, don't collect, and they then become a burden on the rest of us, just like we set up the program to avoid!

Either we have that expectation set, or we don't.

I think I should be allowed to ignore the traffic laws about not waiting at stoplights, because I am an excellent driver and I don't drink; I can look both ways and go if it's clear. And I should not be ticketed for driving 70 in a 65 zone if I think it's safe. And I'd probably be OK doing that, too.

But everyone else would think the same way...and some of those people wouldn't be able to handle it, would have accidents, etc. Lots of them, making the roads really unsafe. So I have to obey those stoopid traffic laws. We all need to or driving would be chaos.

Social security wouldn't work if only some people contributed to it. Lots of people would opt out when younger, thinking they could save enough for retirement, and wind up broke as seniors (or when unexpectedly disabled), yet there wouldn't be enough money for the system to work for everyone else, either.

Sometimes we have to give up a little freedom to live in a better society, whether it's obeying traffic laws or contributing to social security. The tiny bit of freedom I give up for social security doesn't bother me. And I'd say the money paid for social security is just a tiny price to pay, really, for what it provides. I may not need it when I retire, but it keeps other people out of poverty.

How serious about cutting spending could you [skybill] possibly be?

He already has disclosed how "serious" he is about these things. There are better things to do than argue with him. Hey look, my lawn is starting to grow.

What Andrew2 is pointing out here is something that radio talk show host Thom Hartmann talks about all the time on his show.

The fundamental core difference between a conservative and a liberal is this. To a conservative, humankind is evil. Therefore we need a strong, central, all powerful, all seeing, all knowing, SINGLE leader. King, Despot, Whatever. This father figure can protect people from their own wickedness. Be it in the bedroom, the public arena, or the "homeland defense."

A liberal, on the other hand, believes that humankind is (for the most part) good. That each of us has the potential to reach our highest goals IF we have the social structure and support to get us there (social safety-nets, access to education, solid well maintained infrastructure ect.)

There is a fundamentally wrong misconception to the myth of the self made man. That is there is NO such thing... It really does take a village to rear a child. DUH. Any business man that says he is a self made man is full of crap. Did his business not use the electric grid (built probably during the 1930's)? Or the roads? Or got his education at a public school (because if he only went to private school the silver spoon is so far up his butt he's blind to thinking he's "self-made")? Seriously, there are things that are commonly shared and supported by society. Do we want to go back to not knowing what's in products? oh wait lead tainted toys from China... DUH.

I feel that entitlement programs are sound not only Constitutionally. They were clearly proclaimed by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence - "...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Life. Huh. Yeah Medicare-Medicaid. I'd would take it one step further and let ALL Americans opt in to Medicare. Liberty. FISA should go back to it's 1979 incarnation. Pursuit of happiness. Jeez Louise. This one boggles my mind. There was a major "high-end" hotel chain that bragged that the majority of their bell hops had Bachelor Degrees. Seriously? The economy is that screwed up? How is that pursuing happiness. I know that a BA doesn't mean much these days but it should. I could rant on this all day but long story short is this. Our society is fraying around the edges and it's unraveling quicker every day. How many more responsible adults are going to slip through the cracks and end up on the streets? How many more AMERICAN children are going to live below the poverty line before we see soup lines filled more with single moms than the stereotypical homeless whino? I am sick and tired of hearing the same tired talking points about blah blah blah Socialism boogeyman threats from the other side. Lets TRY the universal health care. Let SEE if we can rebuild the prosperous America that was the envy of the world for so long. Let's HEAR the voices of the lonely, the sick, the hungry and the imprisoned. Isn't that what Jesus preached about? Helping those out? I am sorry if I took those words to heart after sitting through church services almost all my life. Not to turn this into a religious debate but bringing up the point that MY liberalism evolved over many years but the seed of it started from understanding those lines from the Bible when I was a late teen.

Long story short: Flat tax is a bad idea. Social safety net is a good idea. And the Lenin-monster from the Kiev Lagoon will NOT devour America if we have universal health care.
And it's late I should get to bed but those are my thoughts (rambling though they may be) on this subject.

So Skybill won't mind having old people starving on the streets and living in chicken coops, like they did before SSI. Check. At least he'll be able to laugh in their face and tell them that it's *their* fault. Or maybe just bad luck... whatever.

America has the best natural defenses of any nation on earth - two really big oceans. If our military budget was proportional for our actual national defense, it would be well less than half of what it is now. The real reason our military budget is so big is because we use our military to project our government's will across the world.

The notion that the Chinese, or Koreans, or whoever would "take over" the US and make us speak their language is ludicrous in the extreme. The Chinese ALREADY own a large proportion of the country, the national debt and our economic output. Why would they want to kill the golden goose, so to speak? Please Bill, tell us. Is it just because they're evil commies?

I say that as long as we're nationalizing the banks, lets nationalize the insurance companies too. The cost and efficiency savings there will take us a long way... if there's any organization more inefficient than the government, it's an insurance company.

if there's any organization more inefficient than the government, it's an insurance company.

And more crooked too.

There is just something wrong with the business model of insurance companies; "We are going to get as much money from you as we possibly can, then when you need some of it back, we are going to fight you for it"

That is the attitude most insurance companies seem to have.

It's no wonder people are prone to insurance fraud!

In my book, insurance companies are only one micro step above lawyers. And lawyers are only one micro step above the slime that forms on whale poop in the ocean!

This is why we need single pay health care! Private insurers can then offer value added policies above that single pay baseline, and compete to add that value.

Problem mostly solved.