What happened to all the Fair/Flat Taxxers?

[Ender]

Hell no I'll neg rep this to hell.

Death Tax? "We should discourage large transfers of PERSONAL PROPERTY between generations" FIFY. My grandfather owned a farm. Wasn't worth much when he bought it, but it was worth millions when he died... he lost almost everything due to your $#@!ing death tax. People like you need to take a long hard look in the mirror and realize that CONTROL and FORCE are EVIL.... you and your kind are just that. EVIL. It's people like you who seek power to control others and end up ruining $#@!ing everything for people who essentially just want to be left alone with the fruits of their labor.

I don't -neg rep anyone but:

I totally agree with your POV.

 

[Madison320]

Corporations and rich people don't want a flat tax. They want as many loopholes as possible.

It depends on whether the total compliance cost is more or less. Everyone wants to pay as low a tax as possible. Don't you?

 

[Zippyjuan]

It depends on whether the total compliance cost is more or less. Everyone wants to pay as low a tax as possible. Don't you?

Sure everybody wants to pay as little in taxes as possible but noting that if we go to a flat tax (which you seem to favor), your taxes would go up from where they are now not down.

 

[MallsRGood]

If you don't touch Social Security, Medicare/ Medicaid and the Department of Defense, and interest on the debt (all of which are responsible for a combined 3/4 of the US budget and are politically dangerous to suggest cutting), $500 billion is 100% of everything else.

If I were planning a $500 billion cut, I'd do something like this:

Departments/Agencies to be eliminated in full:

-Agriculture = $133 billion
-Labor = $45 billion
-HUD = $36 billion
-FEMA = $10 billion
-Commerce = $9 billion
-EPA = $8 billion
-TSA (privatize) = 8 billion
-TVA (privatized) = $1 billion
-SBA = $1 billion
​

Departments to be eliminated in part:

-Education, cut everything but grants to states = $45 billion
-Energy, cut everything but nuclear security = $20 billion
-Transportation, cut everything but grants to states = $16 billion
​

Individual programs to be eliminated in full:

-Medicaid from HHS = $527 billion
-EITC from Treasury = $84 billion
-SSI from SSA = $61 billion
-TANF from HHS = $17 billion
​

Other Cuts

-foreign economic aid = $40 billion
-end federal war on drugs = $20 billion
-5% cut federal civilian employee pay = $15 billion
​

Gross Cuts = $1096 billion

Now, the above cuts mean a gutting of the regulatory state and corporate welfare. They also mean a complete elimination of welfare spending sans Social Security and Medicare, the value of which is $919 billion. But, assuming it's not politically feasible to cut that deeply into popular welfare, here's what we do; cut a $12,000 check to everyone earning less than $30,000/year (50 million people), no strings attached. This would cost $600 billion/year. Though this would represent a significant cut in the real value of welfare benefits for some people, I contend that most people would happily take $12,000 in cash, to be used as they please, in place of assorted benefits and the strings that come with them.

So, $1096 billion - $600 billion = $496 billion in net cuts.

And Bob's your uncle.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Thanks for taking the time to do that. Already repped you on another thread or would give you one here.

 

[MallsRGood]

Thanks for taking the time to do that.

My pleasure

 

[TheCount]

If I were planning a $500 billion cut, I'd do something like this:

Departments/Agencies to be eliminated in full:

-Agriculture = $133 billion
-Labor = $45 billion
-HUD = $36 billion
-FEMA = $10 billion
-Commerce = $9 billion
-EPA = $8 billion
-TSA (privatize) = 8 billion
-TVA (privatized) = $1 billion
-SBA = $1 billion
​

Departments to be eliminated in part:

-Education, cut everything but grants to states = $45 billion
-Energy, cut everything but nuclear security = $20 billion
-Transportation, cut everything but grants to states = $16 billion
​

Individual programs to be eliminated in full:

-Medicaid from HHS = $527 billion
-EITC from Treasury = $84 billion
-SSI from SSA = $61 billion
-TANF from HHS = $17 billion
​

Other Cuts

-foreign economic aid = $40 billion
-end federal war on drugs = $20 billion
-5% cut federal civilian employee pay = $15 billion
​

Gross Cuts = $1096 billion

Now, the above cuts mean a gutting of the regulatory state and corporate welfare. They also mean a complete elimination of welfare spending sans Social Security and Medicare, the value of which is $919 billion. But, assuming it's not politically feasible to cut that deeply into popular welfare, here's what we do; cut a $12,000 check to everyone earning less than $30,000/year (50 million people), no strings attached. This would cost $600 billion/year. Though this would represent a significant cut in the real value of welfare benefits for some people, I contend that most people would happily take $12,000 in cash, to be used as they please, in place of assorted benefits and the strings that come with them.

So, $1096 billion - $600 billion = $496 billion in net cuts.

And Bob's your uncle.

I'll toss some moderate (and still likely unpopular) off-top-of-head defense spending ideas onto the pile. If we reduce our military spending to 2% of GDP, which is the number we've been requesting our allies provide, that would represent a 1/3rd reduction, or ~$200 billion.

Cut the size of our nuclear arsenal to 300 warheads or ~15% of its current (yielding an arsenal similar in size to UK, France, China, etc.). Current nuclear weapons spending is ~$20-25 billion annually. Let's say $5 bill to maintain 300- some costs are fixed, so you won't get 85% reduction. That's $20B saved.

Eliminate the Marine Corps (Sorry Gunny) by rolling its ground forces into into the Army and its sea and air forces into the Navy without increasing the strength of either. That's $24 billion.

Eliminate half the supercarriers, that's $5+ billion in annual operating costs not to mention production, maintenance, refurbishing, aircraft, etc. I'll be generous and leave the number of amphibious assault ships alone, we can start calling them carriers like the rest of the world.

Eliminate the requirement for the DOD to be able to fight two wars simultaneously. $$$ amount saved is beyond my google-"research" skills.

So that's ~$50B I've identified and ~$150B that would come from force reductions and consolidations, not to mention elimination of redundant programs. (I wish CBO would examine simple things such as how much money would be saved if all of the forces utilized the same duty uniform design and/or pattern. How much money does it cost the US for Army boots to be tan, Marine to be coyote, Air Force to be that greenish whatever, etc, etc, etc?)

 

[MallsRGood]

I'll toss some moderate (and still likely unpopular) off-top-of-head defense spending ideas onto the pile. If we reduce our military spending to 2% of GDP, which is the number we've been requesting our allies provide, that would represent a 1/3rd reduction, or ~$200 billion.

Cut the size of our nuclear arsenal to 300 warheads or ~15% of its current (yielding an arsenal similar in size to UK, France, China, etc.). Current nuclear weapons spending is ~$20-25 billion annually. Let's say $5 bill to maintain 300- some costs are fixed, so you won't get 85% reduction. That's $20B saved.

Eliminate the Marine Corps (Sorry Gunny) by rolling its ground forces into into the Army and its sea and air forces into the Navy without increasing the strength of either. That's $24 billion.

Eliminate half the supercarriers, that's $5+ billion in annual operating costs not to mention production, maintenance, refurbishing, aircraft, etc. I'll be generous and leave the number of amphibious assault ships alone, we can start calling them carriers like the rest of the world.

Eliminate the requirement for the DOD to be able to fight two wars simultaneously. $$$ amount saved is beyond my google-"research" skills.

So that's ~$50B I've identified and ~$150B that would come from force reductions and consolidations, not to mention elimination of redundant programs. (I wish CBO would examine simple things such as how much money would be saved if all of the forces utilized the same duty uniform design and/or pattern. How much money does it cost the US for Army boots to be tan, Marine to be coyote, Air Force to be that greenish whatever, etc, etc, etc?)

Agree re carriers (not cost-effective in a naval war against a peer-level competitor, only good for bombing third world countries).

Agree re the USMC (no longer have a unique function, an amphibious landing against a peer-level competitor is suicidal given modern tech)

The nuclear question is more complex, and above my pay grade: not sure if 300 is enough to assure MAD.

In general, my plan (not politically feasible) for restructuring the military for non-interventionism would be:
-eliminating most of the active ground forces (no need for large standing army for defense, given naval superiority)
-eliminating the carrier altogether and replacing with more cost-effective submarines and destroyers
-eliminating most of the air force (very little is needed to defend North America, most of the current AF is for defending Europe and E. Asia)

The end result would be a defense budget below $200 billion, down from the current $617.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I'll toss some moderate (and still likely unpopular) off-top-of-head defense spending ideas onto the pile.

I don't think you are moderate at all. At least overall. Liberals want to cut defense, but increase social spending. Conservatives want to cut social spending, but increase defense. Liberty minded people are qualitatively different because they want to cut both.

This is very simplistic, but your posts obviously tell me you are in the first camp. The problem with that is you want to grow government in some areas, while limiting in others. That does not work because you can't grown government in one area, but lessen it in another. You are simply giving it more power. The government that is your friend today is your enemy tomorrow. The Frankenstein you build is the monster that you get.

I would ask if any liberty has rubbed off on you in your three years here, but guessing I won't get an answer.

 

[oyarde]

Corporations and rich people don't want a flat tax. They want as many loopholes as possible.

I will take any loop holes I could get to keep more of what was mine and I am not even a corporation.

 

[TheCount]

The nuclear question is more complex, and above my pay grade: not sure if 300 is enough to assure MAD.

I based it on this suggestion, which was written at a time when some academics hoped that they could get Obama to aggressively reduce the arsenal:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/24/opinion/24schaub.html?_r=0

 

[phill4paul]

Eliminate the Marine Corps (Sorry Gunny) by rolling its ground forces into into the Army and its sea and air forces into the Navy without increasing the strength of either. That's $24 billion.

Personally, I would keep the Marines and de-fund the the Army as was the founders intention. The Marines are an component of the U.S. Navy.

ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 12
The Congress shall have Power To ...raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years....

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/52/army-clause

ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 13
The Congress shall have Power To ...provide and maintain a Navy....

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/53/navy-clause

 

[TheCount]

Personally, I would keep the Marines and de-fund the the Army as was the founders intention. The Marines are an component of the U.S. Navy.

That's a good argument.

My plan was built on a different idea: That the current mission of the Marines is something that they have not done since Korea (and the Army joined them in that operation), and will likely never do again. Eliminating an entire branch is appealing, as you have a complete set of bureaucracies and staffs and headquarters and all the attendant claptrap which will be eliminated. Even if you got rid of the entire active duty Army you would still require a headquarters for the reserves and state national guards, so (in my completely out of my ass estimation) you would not achieve the same benefit.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

The marines would not be eliminated. They have the lowest requirements for ASVAB. The have the lowest re-enlistment rate. They have a lot of other crap like that. It's why they have to float on the best looking uniforms and dopey sayings like Once a marine, always a marine.

If the marines are eliminated, then all those people who would have joined would have to be absorbed elsewhere. That's not going to happen. They serve a purpose, mostly for the lower societal echelons wanting to join the military.

 

[phill4paul]

That's a good argument.

My plan was built on a different idea: That the current mission of the Marines is something that they have not done since Korea (and the Army joined them in that operation), and will likely never do again. Eliminating an entire branch is appealing, as you have a complete set of bureaucracies and staffs and headquarters and all the attendant claptrap which will be eliminated. Even if you got rid of the entire active duty Army you would still require a headquarters for the reserves and state national guards, so (in my completely out of my ass estimation) you would not achieve the same benefit.

The combined force of the Regular Army, ARNG, and the USAR make up aprox. 1 million troops. I do not see a need for that kind of troop strength unless we wish to continue being the aggressor across the globe. The Marine force of 200k is more than ample. Only 250k U.S. troops were used to topple Iraq.

 

[phill4paul]

The marines would not be eliminated. They have the lowest requirements for ASVAB. The have the lowest re-enlistment rate. They have a lot of other crap like that. It's why they have to float on the best looking uniforms and dopey sayings like Once a marine, always a marine.

If the marines are eliminated, then all those people who would have joined would have to be absorbed elsewhere. That's not going to happen. They serve a purpose, mostly for the lower societal echelons wanting to join the military.

Thanks for contributing nothing but a baited rebuttal to an adult conversation.

 

[TheCount]

The combined force of the Regular Army, ARNG, and the USAR make up aprox. 1 million troops. I do not see a need for that kind of troop strength unless we wish to continue being the aggressor across the globe.

Completely agreed. I remember during the Obama 'drawdown' (back to what the numbers were before the surge) that the DOD announced 'we will no longer be able to fight two wars at once!' The usual suspects picked up the call about how 'weak' we were becoming, and it turned into a Republican talking point.

U.S. Military No Longer Able to Fight Two Wars at Same Time

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/u-s-military-no-longer-able-to-fight-two-wars-at-same-time/

Experts: The US military is no longer able to fight two wars simultaneously

http://www.businessinsider.com/experts-us-military-cant-fight-2-wars-simultaneously-2015-2

http://index.heritage.org/military/2015/chapter/us-power/


In my opinion, this capability to fight two wars is what leads to us actually fighting two wars.

 

[phill4paul]

Completely agreed. I remember during the Obama 'drawdown' (back to what the numbers were before the surge) that the DOD announced 'we will no longer be able to fight two wars at once!' The usual suspects picked up the call about how 'weak' we were becoming, and it turned into a Republican talking point.

U.S. Military No Longer Able to Fight Two Wars at Same Time

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/u-s-military-no-longer-able-to-fight-two-wars-at-same-time/

Experts: The US military is no longer able to fight two wars simultaneously

http://www.businessinsider.com/experts-us-military-cant-fight-2-wars-simultaneously-2015-2

http://index.heritage.org/military/2015/chapter/us-power/


In my opinion, this capability to fight two wars is what leads to us actually fighting two wars.

It also provides for protracted wars like the never ending war the U.S. has been waging. Instead of going in to win and come home it allows for troop rotations.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Thanks for contributing nothing but a baited rebuttal to an adult conversation.

Say what?

 

[Dr.No.]

Hell no I'll neg rep this to hell.

Death Tax? "We should discourage large transfers of PERSONAL PROPERTY between generations" FIFY. My grandfather owned a farm. Wasn't worth much when he bought it, but it was worth millions when he died... he lost almost everything due to your $#@!ing death tax. People like you need to take a long hard look in the mirror and realize that CONTROL and FORCE are EVIL.... you and your kind are just that. EVIL. It's people like you who seek power to control others and end up ruining $#@!ing everything for people who essentially just want to be left alone with the fruits of their labor.

Looks like that was a herring that worked. Missing the forest for the trees, there.

The death tax doesn't even kick in until, what, ten million? And in my scenario, the income tax/payroll tax/corporate tax is either eliminated or severely reduced.