(08-01-2018 08:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 08:45 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  I'm going to be honest with you...I flew right past your X amount and O amount and every other X or O or A or Z because in America we have a higher standard of living for most people to ever go to the UK model

You're missing the whole point. Nobody is saying go to the UK model. At least I'm not. All I'm saying is that we are shooting ourselves in the foot in terms of competitiveness because of the way we tax. We are going to have to balance the budget and start paying down the debt at some point. How would you propose to do it?

Reduced spending and cut out waste would be a very good start

If you think that 15% is going to balance the budget again you are fooling yourself. Hell you seem to think the US is a 3rd would country in terms of competitiveness. That's not the case at all.....

LOWER INCOME/standard of life or basically slave labor is why we import so much.

Most (probably all) of the EU needs that higher income to pay for the high price items they buy. One area that the US could never compete in compared to the EU....


Mass Transportation.... the USA is spread out a lot more than the EU so we depend on our cars. Triple the cost of gas in the US and see how that works.

Again most Americans are not paying as much in income (federal) as a 20% tax

(07-31-2018 08:12 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/...li=BBnb7Kz

Quote:Jane Hardy, the chief executive of a company that makes lawn-care equipment, says she had to lay off 75 employees this summer because of President Trump’s trade war. As she fights to keep her southern Indiana business going, Hardy is one of several manufacturers warning the White House that, unless they see relief from the tariffs soon, job losses will mount and factory closures are likely.

Trump has repeatedly said he would protect American farmers in the trade war, last week setting aside $12 billion to help them, but he is facing pressure to extend aid to other industries if the tariffs remain in place or get extended to more products.

Pass out that Monopoly money. There's plenty to go around.

(07-31-2018 08:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Tariffs are a bad idea. Maybe it's okay to threaten them as a negotiation ploy, but if they call your bluff you are in a world of hurt.

"Bailouts" are par for the course. They've had various other names, but they're all bailouts.

$13.4 Billion to Fiat and Government Motors

$3 Billion for "cash for clunkers" (another auto bailout)

$250 Billion for the 2008 Bank "Rescue"

$293 Billion to Savings & Loan bailout in 1989

$200 Billion to Fannie & Freddie

$85 Billion to AIG

$831 Billion of bailouts & favors disguised as "Stimulus"

$50 Billion of "investments" in green energy

Why are people NOW outraged over $12 billion? It's the lowest amount of the bunch.

(08-01-2018 09:14 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(07-31-2018 08:12 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/...li=BBnb7Kz

Quote:Jane Hardy, the chief executive of a company that makes lawn-care equipment, says she had to lay off 75 employees this summer because of President Trump’s trade war. As she fights to keep her southern Indiana business going, Hardy is one of several manufacturers warning the White House that, unless they see relief from the tariffs soon, job losses will mount and factory closures are likely.

Trump has repeatedly said he would protect American farmers in the trade war, last week setting aside $12 billion to help them, but he is facing pressure to extend aid to other industries if the tariffs remain in place or get extended to more products.

Pass out that Monopoly money. There's plenty to go around.

(07-31-2018 08:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Tariffs are a bad idea. Maybe it's okay to threaten them as a negotiation ploy, but if they call your bluff you are in a world of hurt.

"Bailouts" are par for the course. They've had various other names, but they're all bailouts.

$13.4 Billion to Fiat and Government Motors

$3 Billion for "cash for clunkers" (another auto bailout)

$250 Billion for the 2008 Bank "Rescue"

$293 Billion to Savings & Loan bailout in 1989

$200 Billion to Fannie & Freddie

$85 Billion to AIG

$831 Billion of bailouts & favors disguised as "Stimulus"

$50 Billion of "investments" in green energy

Why are people NOW outraged over $12 billion? It's the lowest amount of the bunch.

And with the EU agreement that was just made, it may not have to be used at all.

(08-01-2018 09:03 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 08:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 08:45 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  I'm going to be honest with you...I flew right past your X amount and O amount and every other X or O or A or Z because in America we have a higher standard of living for most people to ever go to the UK model

You're missing the whole point. Nobody is saying go to the UK model. At least I'm not. All I'm saying is that we are shooting ourselves in the foot in terms of competitiveness because of the way we tax. We are going to have to balance the budget and start paying down the debt at some point. How would you propose to do it?

Reduced spending and cut out waste would be a very good start
If you think that 15% is going to balance the budget again you are fooling yourself. Hell you seem to think the US is a 3rd would country in terms of competitiveness. That's not the case at all.....
LOWER INCOME/standard of life or basically slave labor is why we import so much.
Most (probably all) of the EU needs that higher income to pay for the high price items they buy. One area that the US could never compete in compared to the EU....
Mass Transportation.... the USA is spread out a lot more than the EU so we depend on our cars. Triple the cost of gas in the US and see how that works.
Again most Americans are not paying as much in income (federal) as a 20% tax

A 15% consumption tax on a $20 trillion economy would produce roughly $2.5 billion (15% x 83% [average historical experience] of $20 trillion). The budget deficit is roughly $1 trillion. Sounds balanced, or better, to me. You could give up the $1.5 trillion that comes from personal income taxes and still be balanced. I don't understand why that math is so hard.

As for cutting expenditures, where would you go? Non-discretionary spending (entitlements, debt service) is about 2/3 of the budget. Of the discretionary items, defense is the largest at about 40%. Even if we spent zero on defense, that wouldn't balance the budget. So WTF do you cut to reduce spending by $1 trillion?

We're going to balance the budget by cutting spending is a pipe dream. There's to much baked into the cake already.

OK, I get that you want to restrain spending. So do I. But get real. As long as we are willing to run deficits, nothing is going to get cut. It's like my friend Rand Paul said in an interview the other day, "compromise" means that republicans get the increased defense spending they want, in exchange for letting democrats get the increased social spending they want. The only way to constrain spending is to balance the budget first, and then retire each spending increase to include spending cuts elsewhere or new taxes to pay for it.

And no, I don't think the US is a third world country in terms of competitiveness. Where did I say anything even remotely approaching that? Don't go pouting words into my mouth. I'm not interested in defending your straw men. We have so many geographic and demographic advantages that we should never be the world's biggest importer or biggest debtor. But we are, and have been for some time.

(08-01-2018 09:38 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 09:03 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 08:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 08:45 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  I'm going to be honest with you...I flew right past your X amount and O amount and every other X or O or A or Z because in America we have a higher standard of living for most people to ever go to the UK model

You're missing the whole point. Nobody is saying go to the UK model. At least I'm not. All I'm saying is that we are shooting ourselves in the foot in terms of competitiveness because of the way we tax. We are going to have to balance the budget and start paying down the debt at some point. How would you propose to do it?

Reduced spending and cut out waste would be a very good start
If you think that 15% is going to balance the budget again you are fooling yourself. Hell you seem to think the US is a 3rd would country in terms of competitiveness. That's not the case at all.....
LOWER INCOME/standard of life or basically slave labor is why we import so much.
Most (probably all) of the EU needs that higher income to pay for the high price items they buy. One area that the US could never compete in compared to the EU....
Mass Transportation.... the USA is spread out a lot more than the EU so we depend on our cars. Triple the cost of gas in the US and see how that works.
Again most Americans are not paying as much in income (federal) as a 20% tax

A 15% consumption tax on a $20 trillion economy would produce roughly $2.5 billion (15% x 83% [average historical experience] of $20 trillion). The budget deficit is roughly $1 trillion. Sounds balanced, or better, to me. You could give up the $1.5 trillion that comes from personal income taxes and still be balanced. I don't understand why that math is so hard.

As for cutting expenditures, where would you go? Non-discretionary spending (entitlements, debt service) is about 2/3 of the budget. Of the discretionary items, defense is the largest at about 40%. Even if we spent zero on defense, that wouldn't balance the budget. So WTF do you cut to reduce spending by $1 trillion?

We're going to balance the budget by cutting spending is a pipe dream. There's to much baked into the cake already.

OK, I get that you want to restrain spending. So do I. But get real. As long as we are willing to run deficits, nothing is going to get cut. It's like my friend Rand Paul said in an interview the other day, "compromise" means that republicans get the increased defense spending they want, in exchange for letting democrats get the increased social spending they want. The only way to constrain spending is to balance the budget first, and then retire each spending increase to include spending cuts elsewhere or new taxes to pay for it.

And no, I don't think the US is a third world country in terms of competitiveness. Where did I say anything even remotely approaching that? Don't go pouting words into my mouth. I'm not interested in defending your straw men. We have so many geographic and demographic advantages that we should never be the world's biggest importer or biggest debtor. But we are, and have been for some time.

I will only address the one point because you start out with a flaw....


you are assuming that tax is going to be on all dollars spent and that's just not the case. There is not a chance in hell......better chance of Hillary becoming President sometime in 2018, the tax would be across the board.

There will be a income level you must meet and a age limit also. No way will the poor, the working poor or the old pay this tax.

Not going to happen and if you think so you haven't paid any attention to our government during your lifetime.

Till you are willing to address that flaw, there's really nothing to talk about. So what % of the $20 trillion economy is exempt? My guess is at the very least 20% of Americans would be tax free and that is still 26% less that dont pay federal taxes today.....


46% of Americans pay no federal income tax and now they are expected to pay 20% of their spendable income on taxes? Not happening because anyone voting for this would be voted out.

So address that or there's nothing to discuss with the what ifs you laid out

(08-01-2018 10:42 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  I will only address the one point because you start out with a flaw....
you are assuming that tax is going to be on all dollars spent and that's just not the case. There is not a chance in hell......better chance of Hillary becoming President sometime in 2018, the tax would be across the board.
There will be a income level you must meet and a age limit also. No way will the poor, the working poor or the old pay this tax.
Not going to happen and if you think so you haven't paid any attention to our government during your lifetime.
Till you are willing to address that flaw, there's really nothing to talk about. So what % of the $20 trillion economy is exempt? My guess is at the very least 20% of Americans would be tax free and that is still 26% less that dont pay federal taxes today.....
46% of Americans pay no federal income tax and now they are expected to pay 20% of their spendable income on taxes? Not happening because anyone voting for this would be voted out.
So address that or there's nothing to discuss with the what ifs you laid out

But you miss the whole point. The consumption tax is on everything. That's how you get 83% of GDP in the tax base.

You take care of the poor by having something like the Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund. Read up on it if you are unfamiliar. It's Google-able.

We have to get the budget back into balance. It's unsustainable. So how do you do it? Don't say cut spending and eliminate waste. What spending are you going to cut, what waste are you going to eliminate,and how does that add up to $1 trillion? Try it, it's a lot harder than you seem to think.