Forbidden Donut

I would like to see the plan more thought out before I pass judgment. For example, how are we supposed to cut Social Security collection when we don't have enough Social Security funds to begin with?

I agree with Jedd about the social security thing. I understand what he is trying to do, but it is a totally reckless and irresponsible thing to do. The social security tax must exist if we are to keep social security around. I am 100% for getting rid of the social security tax, but the solution is to get rid of the reason for the tax (social security) and not the tax itself.

To be honest, I'm not sure I agree that these measures will have the result he says they will, but since I fundamentally support them regardless, I guess I won't question that particular aspect too much.

Of all the things he mentions, the thing I resoundingly support more than anything else is the repeal of the estate tax. That has to be the most unconstitutional, fucked up form of taxation that has ever been passed in this country, and it is a travesty that it hasn't been repealed yet.

woooo tax cuts.

zero capital gains tax would be a great way for us to be more like china. What with the crippling poverty and class immobility.

Since you're a walking constitution, what's unconstitutional about the estate tax? I agree it's kind of fucked up and all, but it's been upheld as constitutional repeatedly since the early twenties by the SCotUS. You'll understand if I trust their rulings more than your assertion.

I guess with Social Security and Medicare he will use the rest of the TARP money to pay for the lost revenue from the 50% cut for 2 years.

That isn't solving any problem though, Evestay. The responsible thing to do would be to put that TARP money back toward the monumental amount of debt we've been in as a result of retarded legislation like TARP.

The rulings by the supreme court regarding the estate tax are based on the [irresponsible] idea that you are not taxing the wealth itself but the transfer of it. That is bullshit. Bull. Shit. It's not so much an issue of trust as it is an issue of how strict and literal you are interpreting the constitution.

The best way to pay off the monumental debt is to grow the economy and cut spending like crazy. Having no money coming into the coffers is not conducive to paying off debt.

What are you strictly or literally interpreting in the constitution that such a tax violates? I'm really not familiar enough to say whether this is accurate or not. But right now it's you vs 80 years of supreme court rulings by a variety of court make-ups. You can see why I might conclude that by "unconstitutional" you mean you don't like it and find the rationale irresponsible.

Cut military spending by about 30 to 35%. If you don't want to do this (which Newt won't) then you're blowing smoke out your ass in an attempt to cut taxes and buy votes. Which is no different than the Democrats not wanting to cut Medicare and blowing smoke out their asses in an attempt to handout cash to buy votes.

This isn't a "plan" so much as the same tired republican mantra of 'fiscal responsibility' that they have been completely incapable of following whenever they're in power.

There's a school of thought that says cutting spending in a recession would be a terrible idea. What gives one or the other concept more merit?

I'd be willing to cut plenty, not that the general population would go along with it =\.

And during a recession the biggest problem is that the money supply is tight. Government spending does put money into the economy but there are other ways to do that like cutting taxes and decreasing the fed lending rate. And I would always argue that letting private individuals direct what to do with the increased money supply is better than letting the government decide what to do with the money it is printing.

Good.

We can't decrease the fed anymore, it's down between 0 and 0.5%. Unfortunately our last President squandered the opportunity to raise that rate while we were experiencing a boon because that would have destroyed our economy or something. So it was artificially low when the recession struck, so that option is off the table.

We can't talk about cutting taxes without cutting spending first. But since cutting Medicar/medicaid will alienate millions upon millions of voters that's a sacred cow. Since cutting military spending would result not in less stupid hardware (I'm looking at you F-22) but rather less body armor for troops, that's a no-no. Cutting social security right now would be very irresponsible given the number of people staring retirement in the cold ugly face and realizing for the first time in their life that all their money was fake. And the interest on our debt is static.

So what of the remaining 35.51% of our budget would you like to cut?

Whoa. The president doesn't set the Fed's rate.

This is very true. I shouldn't have taken a jab at the man there. All the same, the rate was kept so ludicrously low that now, when we need a pressure release most, we don't even have that option.

I'd suggest taking the keys to the hen house away from the fox. Give the power back to congress where the people could have some power over the situation.

This is a decent idea. I'm sure it's unconstitutional somehow, but I like it.

Though it presupposes that Congress is beholden to the people, which is what I'd call a "cute" idea. Like thinking police are trying to keep you and me safe, and that banks want you to pay back your loan on time.

I still like the idea though. It'd almost definitely be an improvement, since it would at the very least include a bigger group of people in the decision making process, rendering the decisions nigh un-makeable, and slowing down the process enough to allow for thoughtful consideration. I doubt the thoughtful consideration would be taken, but it does provide the opportunity.

The alternative argument would be that the interest rate is so crucial to the smooth operation of our debt-based economy that handing control of it over to a group as notoriously inefficient as US congress could delay, or even prevent a completely necessary adjustment to the rate with economically disastrous results. But there's a tendency to make poor decisions regarding the rate anyway, so I can't say that risk scares me all that much.

Sorry! I've had only enough time to read the forums occasionally but not enough time to actually write up a post.



Article 1, Section. 8.
Clause 1: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

With this clause, congress was given the right to tax people for pretty much whatever they want (under the guise of "general welfare"). However...

Article I, Section. 9.
Clause 4: "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

This clause limits congress to taxing people based only on a set amount as opposed to a percentage of wealth. Since those making the least money will always make up the majority of people in the country, this clause basically exists to greatly diminish congress' ability to spend unless the expenditures are extraordinarily worthwhile (like defending the country from invasion).

Now, the sixteenth amendment did deliver a swift kick in the balls to that philosophy:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

However, the sixteenth amendment only reverses the "with regard to census/enumeration" requirement on income. Strictly speaking, that should mean that taxing a person's estate based on a measure of its worth as opposed to a flat tax based on the census is unconstitutional. However, the courts have interpreted the estate tax as a tax not on the estate itself but the transfer of the estate/income to the heirs.

So you're saying that an inheritance is not a form of income?

I'd define income as an increase in personal wealth, in it's most general sense. How are you defining it to exclude inheritance?

I define income, much like the dictionary, to be monetary gain for goods or services provided.

Ah you quoting the Reagan dictionary?




The "usually..." clause is apparently where you get the crucial part of your definition that makes this tax unconstitutional. Perhaps the dictionary is not the best place to define terms when talking about US policy. How does our legal system define it?


You don't have a monopoly on definitions. But the SCotUS does have a monopoly on constitutionality.

"2. A trustee, invested by will with full dominion over an estate, in trust to pay the net income to the testator's widow for life, and afterwards to use it for the benefit of his children and to pay over their shares as they reached a certain age, sold certain corporate stock, part of the original assets, for a price greater than their cash value on March 1, 1913. Held (no earlier value being involved) that the gain after March 1, 1913, was taxable a income"


"Fax mentis incendium gloria cultum," et cetera, et cetera... "Memo bis punitor delicatum"! It's all there, in black and white, clear as crystal!

/re-reading this, I seem much angrier than I actually am. Just having fun with the tone.

First, I'm actually insulted that you would assume that I would align myself with pretty much anything "Reagan." I don't think you actually intended to offend me in the way that you did, but you succeeded one way or another. Reagan was a terrible president who touted truly conservative ideals in order to further his own irresponsible economic and foreign policies. He was a disgrace to this country and conservatism in general, so do me a huge favor and don't arbitrarily associate me with him.

Second,





I can play the hotlinking game, too. So...why has the argument shifted from substantial debate to dictionary-based semantics?

Hey man, you started it.

And I'm kinda a troll, so it was kind of intended to make you reply. Didn't mean to offend, just engage. I'm not at all surprised you feel the way you do about Raygun, and it's completely consistent with the rest of your opinions. Which is why I said it /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" /> Fark has been unkind to my internet discourse.

There is no substantial debate when you put up the wall of "unconstitutional". It FORCES us to dissolve a fairly interesting conversation based on the *merits* of an idea or plan into a argument about semantics. After all, definitions are absolutely crucial to understanding our constitution. And there is only one definition that matters to our law and that's the legal definition as defined by the supreme court, which again states:




I'm confused as to why you'd be annoyed with my linking. It's support for my argument so you know I'm not pulling definitions out of my ass. Sorry I'm not hosting a dictionary on my own webpage?

Now if you want to move on from pithy semantic arguments, you'd do well to avoid bringing up the constitution as the centerpiece of your rationale. It's a beautiful document. I love it too. I just don't think it applies to this case, and the supreme court agrees with me. You disagree, which is fine. But I think we can all agree that this is fucked up and will eventually destroy our country:


We've played the supply side charade for so long that we're on the cusp of having producers with no potential consumers. Upward class mobility has been steadily decreasing over the last 25 to 30 years, and the producers of goods make far less than the producers of capital. This is completely unsustainable and ... as a paradigm... needs to be examined with an open mind to find any real solutions. Putting a wall up to discourse using the constitution is counter productive. By all means, bring it up. I'm honestly impressed by your familiarity with the document. We'd be a far stronger country if we all knew as much as you. I'm always *actually* curious to hear the constitutionality argument. But I can't even begin to discuss the pros/cons of progressive taxation vs. flat taxation with you because you'll disregard the progressive tax as unconstitutional and the flat tax as the only fair, constitutional way to tax people.