Your $850k tax free would probably work as far as covering an individual retiree. But if you want to do it at the cost of Obama's deficit, you're covering 2 million people instead of 40 million, even under the most generous assumption that 100% of the current deficit is due to Obama and could be eliminated. So it doesn't solve the economic crisis at all.
With $40 trillion, the deficit still would be in the Obama range. Didn't his congress propose spending as much as possible? Anyway, much of expendure would come back from new taxes generated from people working in the auto. housing and adjunct industries -- not to mention the taxes generated from replacement jobs. Is this not -- basically -- Obama's plan? As I mentioned, this plan, like all economic plans, needs tweaks to make it work. Again, it's the concept that is intriguing. Actually, I also still like my graduated flat tax plan with 100% taxation of annual earnings above $5M and no tax shelters or tax breaks whatsoever. I've explained that plan more fully in other threads. Yes, it too would need serious tweaking. However, it's a plan. So far, Timmy's plan seems to be to threaten executive bonus and pay structures and to get the government involved in owning director's shares of as many companies as possible. In short, anything seems better than what our Mr. Wunderkind has presented thus far. BTW, I'm really disappointed in your Speer-Geithner treatment. I gave you a soft ball to hit out of the park and you chose to bunt weakly back to the pitcher.
Explain how this would come remotely close to making up the existing deficit PLUS an additional $40 trillion. It likely would cause inflation the likes this nation has never seen. Debatable, except for the $40 trillion part. Details, right? Tweaks? How are you going to tweak the fact that the result would be an additional $40 trillion and the fact that due to investments going bad, etc that many of these people would be broke 5 to 10 years into it? No...it's the concept that boggles the mind with its inherent stupidity. Ah yes, tax those bastards that have succeeded. That is truly the American way, eh comrade? I'll take his plan over any plan that involves taxing any amount of income at 100%. Are we going to outfit the IRS with bandanas to go over their faces and put the high level executives on a stagecoach just to get the full effect? After reading and considering the ramifications of what you propose, I suggest that it was a scorching line drive that went off your noggin. You may have a serious concussion.
Considering where IMO the Administration is going, this plan may well prove to be very palatable. If you make $5M annually, don't you think you could live comfortably, especially knowing it's out there for the coming year? Also, if you went back to read it, you would find that there is a suggestion for a 250 times linkage of lowest paid employee to highest paid company executive. The gap between the very, very wealthy and the normal wage earner would close while still leaving plenty of room for rewarded achievement. A bonus is the elimination of any need for an intrusive IRS. There's more like no payment of taxes for those making $40K or less, but I'm not keen on espousing ideas to those who just want to be contentious. BTW, Refman, where is your plan?
Since this is a softball and I have a concussion, please refute my observation / comparison. I long to be enthralled by your rebuttal and accompanying acumen.
My plan would not be to buy out every American over age 50 with money we don't have. My plan would not include whether somebody can live "comfortably" as the watershed test of what level of taxation they should have. Since your plan could be debunked by a 3rd grader writing in crayon with the "R"s backwards means that I don't have to have a plan to know that yours is an awful idea. Also, since you want to tax those that you believe have too much at 100%, please explain how that passes Constitutional muster. Be specific. Thanks for your assistance in this weighty matter. I look so forward to your "insight."
I wouldn't fire up and juggle chain saws either. Tell me what you would do. Give me a plan with details. As an actual, business-founding capitalist, I don't like spending money we don't have. But, you must face reality. You have a free-spending Congress and President with no constraints. Predicated on that fact and the tendency toward fascist governance, I am merely laying out a compromise on income vs. taxation. I invite you to come up with a workable plan. Don't tell me my plan won't work -- provide the critical analysis of why it won't work, including your ideas of what will work under the current circumstances. See you in the morning.
Hey another idea. Give all those over 55 health early Medicare or National Health Care. I talked to a friend who would retire tormorrow if she could get health insurance. I see this frequently. There are millions of Americns, mayb even 10 million who would retire if they didn't need to keep their jobs for health insurance. Let young family persons have those jobs and have a better life for their kids.
I am beginning to scare myself because I completely agree with you on this. I'm in jeopardy of losing my moderate conservative credentials. Seriously, I love the theater of the absurd because, sometimes, truth can be found on the painted lady's lips. I love to push all the buttons and look at issues from different perspectives, which is why I enjoy constructive repartee, even to the point of taking extremist, contradictory views. This exasperates Deckard to no end. I enjoy responding to Major because he just doesn't say "It won't work" and pouts or rants. Rather, he takes a more cerebral approach giving facts and figures to support his views. Glynch, you and I are old enough to know how the world works, and we probably always will disagree on most political issues. The key is in loving America for what it has been, what it is and what it still can be.
First off, I would abandon the idea of a $40 trillion forced retirement plan. The projected 2009 federal budget is $4 trillion. So we are going to add an entire decade of US budgets in one lump sum. This amount would be entirely deficit spending. That would send inflation through the roof and would hurt the overall economy in the long run. As a businessperson, you should know that. What we should have done with the bailout money is to have purchased non-voting stock in the entities that received the money. Once the danger has passed, then sell those shares back to the companies. You at the least recover some of what you put into it, and could even make a profit. You institute a flat tax, with the first $30,000 of income being tax exempt. This will result in a more fair tax structure. If you want to tax income over $2 million or $5 million at a higher rate, that would work. Taxing anything at 100% smacks of the fundamental unfairness that we revolted against in 1776.
This is all factually incorrect. The Obama deficit was estimated at $1.9 trillion. The Congressional Budget actually cut some of that out and has a slightly smaller deficit than the original Obama budget. It helps to have the basic facts. No it wouldn't. You're replacing 2 million old jobs with 2 million new jobs. That generates 0 extra taxes. Yes, you'll have a one time sale of more cars - that will provide maybe 50,000 to 100,000 jobs. 100,000 jobs at $50k per year at a 25% tax rate generates $1 billion. So where do you get your other $1.999 trillon from? The concept is dumb, not intriguing. The numbers will never get remotely close to adding up, because you're doing consumer spending instead of investment spending. It's a plan that wouldn't work. Why would any business expand beyond what is needed to make the owner make $5MM? It would completely shut down small/medium business growth. And a bunch of other stuff that you've conveniently ignored, of course. Besides which, all of the above you described in Geithner's plan has a total cost of a few hundred billion and does more (like saving the banking system, which your plan doesn't do0 than your $40 trillion or $2 trillion plan. I chose not to waste my time on stupidity. If you want to have a real debate on something with merits, let's do it. If you just post garbage, I will do no more than point out that it's garbage.
Actually, this is more in line with my thinking. I have no expertise in finance, but I listen to (and read) economists who are all over the place with their opinions. It's fun to push the plans to the extreme just to see where they go. At this point, one plan is as good or bad as another.
Give all the power back to the states, per the 10th amendment. Let the weak companies die. It doesn't matter what plan you come up with, someone is going to be hurt by it. There is no need to let the cancer continue its malignant growth; This includes the greedy and corrupt wall street and our complete federal government.
That's funny, because the bailout portion of what Refman described (What we should have done with the bailout money is to have purchased non-voting stock in the entities that received the money. Once the danger has passed, then sell those shares back to the companies. You at the least recover some of what you put into it, and could even make a profit.) is *exactly* what is being done in reality.
Please do not tell me that our government actually did something that makes sense. That changes the whole ballgame.
Major, come down from your ivory tower for a moment and lighten up. You are not as smart as I thought you are if you have not grasped that I pose questions and propose alternative courses simply to provoke/stimulate an enhanced pool of views and perspectives. See my response to glynch.
