Want to cut taxes and spending? Fine. Do it then.

Denerick

There is a reason why the far right rabble in America refuse to eliminate social security, medicare, or reform the armed forces. Because this is the holy trinity of American politics, cutting it is suicide, especially with an older generation (The first two) and for a flag waving, hysterically exaggerated body politic (The latter)

I would love to know how the American right wing proposes doing anything to the deficit without touching the top 3 areas of Federal expenditure. This is the elephant in the room. No more prevarication, just straight out. Tell us how you will deal with this issue.

Denerick

3 thanks and no replies?

Memnoch

The people who claim they are against spending are really just against Obama. It's nothing to do with looking after the country and more to do with hate filled ideology.

So don't be surprised if you don't get any replies, especially where their precious military spending is concerned.

Too many of the masses have been hood winked by weapon's manufacturer lobbies in the media to realise what a waste these wars are.

Eliot Rosewater

Selective fiscal conservatism seems to be in fashion these days. What's surprising is the variety of people using it. In the States Palin attacks spending she doesn't personally like on the basis of some small-government mantra, yet, as Denrick alludes to, she has no problem increasing military spending. In Ireland it's the hard left who are championing themselves as fiscal conservatives, fighting against the bailout because of the services it will cost.

These people aren't interested in economic prudence. They're just populist politicians.

Memnoch

Well I'll be upfront here and say that I'm not a fiscal conservative. I do believe that for a healthy society we need to look after the sick and the needy, but not in a manner that encourages people to go on the dole and as such I'm in favour of people on lower incomes paying little to no tax so that working for those people isn't worth less than they would get from social services etc.

At the same time I see the flagrant kind of spending on NAMA as wasteful, especially without bootstrapping regulations and really holding the balls of the bankers over the fire. And I do think it wrong that the neediest in society should be made to suffer due to the actions of an elite few who were living it large through greed and selfishness.

Black Swan

Most Republicans want to cut taxes for the rich, claiming that the increased accumulation of wealth by the wealthy will trickle down domestically and create jobs. They point to Reagan and swoon how it may have worked way back then, forgetting completely about how world trade and investment has changed in past decades.

For example, during the more recent GW Bush administration when Republicans controlled Congress, they cut taxes for the rich, but such cuts did not mitigate the onset of the greatest recession since the Great Depression, while the federal deficit almost doubled during GW Bush, and unemployment doubled by 2008.

Now Republicans want to maintain those GW Bush tax cuts for the rich, claiming that it will stimulate the economy and create jobs with domestic trickle-down (when it didn't during 8 years of Bush). Oh, there is probably a trickle-down occurring, but not so much domestically as in China or India, where the American rich can get a greater return on investment.

In essence, they have welfare for the poor, and wealthfare for the rich, with the middle class picking up the tab.

Eliot Rosewater

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

For example, during the more recent GW Bush administration when Republicans controlled Congress, they cut taxes for the rich, but such cuts did not mitigate the onset of the greatest recession since the Great Depression, while the federal deficit almost doubled during GW Bush, and unemployment doubled by 2008.

Did somebody argue that giving tax cuts to the rich would prevent a recession?

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

In essence, they have welfare for the poor, and wealthfare for the rich, with the middle class picking up the tab.

I think there is merit to your point, but I don't like the attitude that the government has first dibs on everyone's earnings. When tax cuts are introduced people say the government is giving money to the rich, which they obviously aren't. The mindset appears to be that the government owns everything in the country, and that anything you have is only yours by their grace.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Anonymous1987

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Aside of some relatively far left groups in Europe you'd be hard pressed to find many people who view the government in those terms. I would think only Marxists groups on the fringe of the political spectrum have that point of view in the US, most US centre left groups are concerned with progressive taxation to sustain a large middle class not the Marxist ideology of the state owns everything.

mgmt

Anonymous1987 wrote: »

Aside of some relatively far left groups in Europe you'd be hard pressed to find many people who view the government in those terms. I would think only Marxists groups on the fringe of the political spectrum have that point of view in the US, most US centre left groups are concerned with progressive taxation to sustain a large middle class not the Marxist ideology of the state owns everything.

hmmm have you read the UK proposal, that all your wages go to the government first, the government then "pays" you

http://www.cnbc.com/id/39265847

Denerick

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

A state needs to be financed, even a minarchist one. How else can this be accomplished except through taxation? like it or not, any ideology that believes in the fundamental legitimacy and necessity of the state also believes that the state has an inherent right to confiscate some income. Where you and I differ is that I regard the state as the great 'leveller', that body that can redistribute income from the atrociously wealthy to the atrociously poor, all in the name of the greater good of society.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Denerick

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The only reason the government doesn't take 90% of our wages is because it would be uneconomical to do so. The Laffer curve and all that.

I have no problem with the state expropriating my hard earned income, providing it leads to a healthier, more cohesive society. In liberal democratic societies the state is determined by both constitutional precedent and democratic will - so I don't have this instinctive 'fear' of the state. It is not a soulless Medusa, it is shaped and formed by civil society.

Anonymous1987

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I guess there is a belief that the government is entitled to take some income but looking at the current case in the US, if the Obama administration decided to take 90 percent of workers wages do you think it could? It is struggling even letting a tax reduction expire. It seems to me to be infeasible to reduce the current government debt levels without a combination of mostly expenditure reduction but also some tax increases.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

"Libertarianism" Anarchy for rich people.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

metrovelvet

Except df - the government are the employees of the people, and need to be paid. They service us and we pay them. At least Americans have some awareness of this. I wish the Irish would wake up to this concept instead of behaving like post colonial zombies, paying 21 or 48 percent taxes to employees who stab them in the back.

Black Swan

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Represented by powerful lobbies.

Denerick

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes, taxation on the luxuries of the poor. Very just. Britain had the income tax since the Napoleonic wars, it never seemed to cower under economic repression. And are you still banging that welfare-warfare drum?

The state redistributes income in all kinds of ways that you might not consider "fair." From struggling middle-class workers to inefficient yet hugely overpaid civil servants, for instance. From hard-pressed small and medium sized enterprises to multi-billion-euro banks. From younger couples who can't afford a down payment on a home to wealthy retirees with lots of assets. It really is a myth that all the redistribution goes from "the atrociously wealthy to the atrociously poor."

If anything the great beneficiaries of the welfare state are the lower middle classes: free public education, healthcare, child benefit, a safety net should someone in the family get a disability, public pensions, and other public services. I believe synergy is relevant here. If ten people earn 50 k per annum each, they will spend maybe 10k buying individual services from the private sector. If those ten people pool their resources into a national contribution aka tax, they might pay 5k per annum to receive universal benefits from which everyone benefits disproportionately.

We could try the American model, where Americans are more than happy to spend extortionate amounts on the private sector for health insurance, when all logic dictates that a public, collaborative system would dramatically reduce healthcare costs.

Denerick

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Never took you for being a fan of Joe Duffy. Yes, public servants do get a comfortable living wage. If only private sector workers could attain the same standard of living. Besides, the generous welfare system - child benefit, the dole, public housing, education and healthcare allows everyone to benefit, rich or poor. Unfortunately your misplaced cynicism is just that; misplaced.

Many are now waking up to exactly how much power the interventionist, redistributionist state has to wreak havoc with their lives, their futures, and their dreams. And a lot of them are absolutely terrified.

Stay off the pot DF

mgmt

Denerick wrote: »

We could try the American model, where Americans are more than happy to spend extortionate amounts on the private sector for health insurance, when all logic dictates that a public, collaborative system would dramatically reduce healthcare costs.

Or the Americans could could try the Irish model. Where the Irish taxpayers money is thrown at health care. It is then wasted on slush funds for the union workers and doctors who cannot speak english. The service is so bad that 50% of the population feel the need to avoid the public health service and get private cover.

Anonymous1987

From a purely cost perspective the NHS outperforms the US system substantially

US

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 75/80
Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 67/71
Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 8
Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 137/80
Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 6,714
Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 15.3

UK

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 77/81
Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 69/72
Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 6
Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 98/61
Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 2,784
Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 8.4

Anonymous1987

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

True but it is equally false to say that a libertarian society would ensure perfect social mobility

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But it can't without somewhat of a mandate.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

mgmt

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

LOL I think the biggest public sector farce was the $578million public school they built in California this year.:eek: link

Manic Moran

The issue of Medicare/SS has been brought up in the past, and there are proposals to get rid of it: The system is inadequately funded as it is for now, and the finances are getting worse. The problem is that there's no equitable, fast way of fixing it. To do the job right, you would have to notify people starting work at 18 (or whatever) that they will not have social security later in life, and they need to make their own arrangements. Thus the SS bill isn't going to start getting reduced until these people reach retirement age themselves, half a century later. That doesn't help the politician trying for his re-election bid in two years.

NTM

Black Swan

mgmt wrote: »

LOL I think the biggest public sector farce was the $578million public school they built in California this year.

Almost as bad as the $400 million "Bridge to Nowhere" that was almost built in Alaska by Sarah Palin, before the national media disclosed what a colossal waste of federal highway funds this bridge would have been (then she flip flopped from supporting the bridge, to not supporting it). Palin is a fiscal conservative in spin only.

Red Hand

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This is probably just a stupid observation, but up until 1913, the States hadn't "filled up". People went west when they needed land. You weren't happy with your situation where you live?-move west. Not to mention, poor people could move away to somewhere and farm/log etc and need not be cared for by the state (which drains coffers). By 1913, whatever land the government hasn't taken, is now all gone. The industrial revolution has impacted every state. New taxes need to be found.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Those guys have always been whispering in their ear. Back even in the early days of the state. Even back before the Van der Bilts and the railway barons...so it is certainly not a recent phenomenom.

I don't think you can avoid acknowledging that the real game-changers in personal taxation over the course of the twentieth century were the two world wars. Compare taxation levels in 1912 with those in 1947, and you'll see how much changed in that era. Taxation has never returned to pre-world war levels, while the size of government has grown exponentially.

Society changed dramatically. You can't just build a log cabin anymore and become a fur trapper...someone now owns that land. Libertarian ideals are great when you have a vast empty land. When someone now owns that land, society/attitudes needs to change. You need a schooling/education etc to become something, and those things cost money.

mgmt

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Almost as bad as the $400 million "Bridge to Nowhere" that was almost built in Alaska by Sarah Palin, before the national media disclosed what a colossal waste of federal highway funds this bridge would have been (then she flip flopped from supporting the bridge, to not supporting it). Palin is a fiscal conservative in spin only.

I don't think they compare. But Sarah Palin is a fraud. A total FCINO. LOL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wo_Ejfc5hW8

metrovelvet

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

How does a libertarian view child support? Do they think the state does not have the right to stick its fingers into the pockets of fathers who dont want to pay for their kids?

Mjollnir

metrovelvet wrote: »

How does a libertarian view child support? Do they think the state does not have the right to stick its fingers into the pockets of fathers who dont want to pay for their kids?

They support it if it's a judgment of the court system.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

metrovelvet

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes I do mean maintenance. Not benefit. I would have thought that a libertarian would think the courts have no business interfering in private monies or matters and they should butt out. Libertarians and child benefit... lol oh how I laughed when I read that. I'd sooner believe in Unicorns.

Mjollnir

metrovelvet wrote: »

Yes I do mean maintenance. Not benefit. I would have thought that a libertarian would think the courts have no business interfering in private monies or matters and they should butt out. Libertarians and child benefit... lol oh how I laughed when I read that. I'd sooner believe in Unicorns.

And why would you have thought that? How is a court-ordered child support payment 'private', since such payments are determined by courts?

metrovelvet

Mjollnir wrote: »

And why would you have thought that? How is a court-ordered child support payment 'private', since such payments are determined by courts?

Exactly. They arent private anymore. So I would think a libertarian wouldnt want the courts sticking their fingers in private pockets.

Overheal

metrovelvet wrote: »

Yes I do mean maintenance. Not benefit. I would have thought that a libertarian would think the courts have no business interfering in private monies or matters and they should butt out. Libertarians and child benefit... lol oh how I laughed when I read that. I'd sooner believe in Unicorns.

Thats what I thought of Conservatives that oppose government intrusion but support such fine things as the Patriot Act and opposes gay marriage between consenting adults.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Exactly. They arent private anymore. So I would think a libertarian wouldnt want the courts sticking their fingers in private pockets.

He said it upstairs already, if you care to revise:

"Most libertarians would argue that both parents have a responsibility to support their children financially (a responsibility that should be upheld by the courts, if necessary)." -DF

Mjollnir

metrovelvet wrote: »

Exactly. They arent private anymore. So I would think a libertarian wouldnt want the courts sticking their fingers in private pockets.

*facepalm * blinkblinkblink.

Are you sure you understand how libertarianism works, and that it includes a court system?

Overheal

Its not all that uncommon to mistake Libertarianism for Anarchy, in fairness. But yes one of those differences would be an established system of government, however unobtrusive in ordinary life.

Mjollnir

Overheal wrote: »

Its not all that uncommon to mistake Libertarianism for Anarchy, in fairness. But yes one of those differences would be an established system of government, however unobtrusive in ordinary life.

Yes, it is uncommon, but it's also expected that one might know the difference between the two before one attempts to discuss one or the other.

Esp. given the number of times the differences have been explained around here.

metrovelvet

Mjollnir wrote: »

*facepalm * blinkblinkblink.

Are you sure you understand how libertarianism works, and that it includes a court system?

No Im not sure. That's why I asked a question about it.

Mjollnir

metrovelvet wrote: »

No Im not sure. That's why I asked a question about it.

And now you know. It includes a court system/LE apparatus.