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 State.

Just a random thought that crossed my mind when I was smoking my crack pipe.

Don't you think the post WW II marginal tax rate of 91% on the top bracket had a little something to do with retiring the war debt?

Raising the current top rate from 36% back to the pre-Bush 39% is still a bargain if you want to make those WW II comparisons.

Look, you aren't going to get someone like UG to even consider higher taxes short of guaranteeing it will increase penis length by 4 " and giving him a full and lustrous head of hair.

While you think I'm a right wing nutjob (and I play one on tv) I'm a bit more reasonable. I accept that the IRS, lobbiests, pols, and media will never allow a flat tax to ever go into effect. I believe for this country to survive as the powerhouse it was after WWII things must change. By things I don't just mean tax rates. Short term tax increases combined with drastic cost cutting is necessary. Obamacare, education, defense, and all of the rest of the sacred cows must be cut. Let the bloodletting begin. Cut all funding to the UN. Cut foreign aid. Close overseas bases. Gut the lobby-centric R&D process.

One more thought on the WW II comparison if you will indulge me.

Note how every tax bracket was raised by 20-30% at the onset of WW II to pay for war. Common sense economics when you go to war. As opposed to starting a war in Iraq and lowering taxes at the same time. BTW, the Iraq war is now the second costliest war in US history.

On the flat tax, I dont think it is just a matter of the IRS, lobbyist, pols, media oppose it but also because there has never been a flat tax model that realistically is revenue neutral, even assuming significant spending cuts.

On spending cuts, they should be strategic and not ideological. Foreign aid is insignificant (about 1% of the budget) and aid to some countries should absolutely be cut, but aid to others pays off is ways that are not easily measured but meaningful.

At the same time, in order to regain our economic competitiveness, we also need to spend more in some areas. R&D spending has been flat in recent years and while others, like China most notably, are making significant investments in R&D, particularly in cutting edge technologies like clean energy.

We also need to spend more on infrastructure on everything from roads and bridges to broadband. A recent report from the Organization for International Investment documents the issue.

There are many areas we can cut that make sense but it will require compromise and shared sacrifice (there I go again with those buzz words).

At the same time, Americans are paying the smallest share of their income for taxes since 1958.

Spending cuts that make sense, entitlement reform w/o gutting programs through more costly (to the end users) ideological privatization plans and tax reform, including restoring the marginally higher rate for the top bracket as well as closing the multitude of corporate tax loopholes (and perhaps even lowering the corporate rate a bit).

Oh, and I dont think my right wing nut job monitor has ever gone off in your presence. It is highly selective.

Ideology? Not at all. Waste. Waste. Waste.

I'm a strong proponent of making dead certain that each one of our military branches is the strongest of type in the world BUT the R&D process is so full of waste it is obscene. Lobbiests and backslapping politicians have spent decades creating processes that are less focused on introducing the best technology to the field than they are on enriching themselves. For a very good example of the excesses read the book Boyd.

In regards to the flat tax, I firmly believe absolutely every single person living legally in the US should pay income tax or no one should. As I've described in the past, my view on a flat tax isn't really flat but I truly believe 1% on every single dollar up to $50-60K and 20%(ish) on every dollar of personal income over with no deductions beyond first home mortgage interest would solve many problems.

After you get that done let's talk about my version of comprehensive immigration reform.

I don't think anybody sees you as a right-wing nutjob. A heartless capitalist who leaves a trail of broken workers and weary orphans, sure...

But not a nutjob :p

But I am getting a lingering whiff of a guerrilla in the mist this morning.

By ideological, I was referring to the proposal to defund Planned Parenthood (women's health screening and pregnancy prevention) and deep cuts to social safety net programs which will only cost taxpayers more in the end.

The federal government has had a significant role in R&D since the industrial revolution and helped fuel most innovations since then. Even before then, guys like Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton advocated government subsidies of R&D for the advancement of technologies to the benefit of industry.

Particularly when the focus is on basic research which stimulates innovation vs applied research. There is not enough return on investment for the private sector to spend on basic research.

Not to invest in a knowledge based economy would only make it much more difficult for the US to compete when other countries are making significant government investments in those areas.

Address the waste with a scalpel not a chain saw.

Sounds alot like Paul Ryan's proposal to have only two tax rates - 10% for income up to $100K, eliminating the alternative minimum tax, and 25% for income above that amount.

But then he also had to add a 8% VAT (national sales tax) and an assumption of a 7% annual GDP growth rate (5% would be considered highly optimistic) in order to be revenue neutral with the massive cuts he proposed.

I understand the ideology of wanting to tax everyone equally, but taxing those on the margin at the same rate as those at the top just doesnt make economic sense to me. Again, taxpayers will end up paying more as those on the margin are forced to turn to other programs just to survive.

That sounds ideological, to me. There's a whole lot of waste in the military, but, because of your ideology, you don't want to cut there.

Stop deductions for popping out kids. Zero tax liability? Fine. Negative 3000 dollars tax liability? No.

Problem solved.

I'm a strong proponent for killing deductions. If you kill the ascending tax rate plan there is no need/room for deductions.
As I said I believe everyone should pay something. I don't even believe 10% on the first $50-60K is necessary. 1% is a symbolic gesture that everyone pays their share. 20-25-30%... I don't really care what it is, so long as there aren't loopholes and shelters the money will come in. The mega rich have massive tax games to avoid paying at their current marginal rates and they already payin excess of 70% of every tax dollar collected. Eliminate the shell game, lower the rate, and actually collect more money. My problem is we seem to have this misguided idea that we should develop a giant system of all the things we want to do and then go taxing to try to pay for it all. Try doing that in your own life. Get the house, car, clothes, education, meal plans, medical care, retirement, toys, and while you're at it adopt a few of your neighbors needs as your own... then go tell your boss how much he needs to pay you. Let me know how that works for you.


F&B, I said nothing about killing R&D but gutting it like a fish is a good place to start. There is a vast difference between not researching and developing new technologies and letting R&D be driven by political forces. There is so much fraud, waste, and abuse in military R&D it would make an Enron executive blush. Design programs influenced by politicians and lobbiests are full of fluff and more often than not do not turn out the desired products. It should not take 15 + years to design a generation of fighters, armored vehicles, or body armor. Then again, the different services don't necessarily need individual camouflage patterns, and they certainly don't need to change their uniform designs every 24-36 months with a 5-7 year testing period beforehand.

Spexx, I'll assume you didn't read any of my posts before responding with some witty comment so you can skip this before going on to crafting your reply. Gutting R&D is a major cut in the military budget, withdrawing troops and closing bases around the world are major cuts. Fielding the best troops in the world with the best equipment in the world is possible if we quit trying to be the world's police force and focus on crafting a force to defend our country. A force capable of flat out destroying any nation or organization that chooses to provoke a response is what we should be aiming for. The military should be a hammer, not a swiss army knife.

Foreign aid? They all say we don't do enough anyway, so why bother? Cut the aid right now, toss the UN out on their asses and quit funding their corruption. Even if it's only 1% of GDP, that equals a lot of dollars that could be used to solve our own problems.

This is the kind of comment that causes unpleasant forum "discussions".

Not at all. I can only assume you didn't bother to read my post when this is your response to my post where I clearly state that military spending should be cut.

Anything else?

The US military is more powerful than the next (is it) eight countries combined? That is ridiculous. US military secret arms budget (that Congress is not permitted to study) is larger than something like the entire military of the next three largest countries combined.

Well, even the French and British could not collect enough smart bombs to attack Kaddafi. Why should they? They expect the US taxpayer to pay for all military stockpiles. And that is part of the problem. We have ridiculous amounts spent in a military as to even invent wars (ie Mission Accomplished) and enemies (Saddam).

Meanwhile, even the most obvious waste cannot be eliminated by a Congress now and again dominated (since the last Congressional elections) only by extremists. One billion dollars a year eliminated by stop printing a foolish dollar bill. Anyone in UK, the EU, Canada or elsewhere would immediately recognize the stupidity. Why is the UK £2 (also called $3.25) in coin form? No other country in the world would be so stupid as to print a paper £0.80 piece. Or a 1.33 Euro currency. No intelligence country would circulate currency that tiny in paper.

Congress gets all fizzed up over a trivial $38 billion spending cut. And cannot even eliminate $1 billion annually by replacing a paper dollar bill with the equivalent gold colored coin.

We don't even need half that military. And we don't need the paper dollar bill. Neither will be addressed due to too many extremist in Congress and too few moderates (which means higher intelligence).

You might notice I didn't say biggest or most expensive or anything at all about forms of currency. I said I believe each of our individual services should be the strongest of its type. I also said it should and could be done with much less cost.

Would you care to address that or do you want to educate us on the 70 hp/L engine for awhile?