ADVERTISEMENT

Had such high hopes for Kasich, oh well.

theiacowtipper

HB Legend
Feb 17, 2004
16,680
17,527
113
He released his tax plan and it is nothing more than a sop to right wing dogma that has previously been discredited, and rolled out by other candidates.

Repeal estate tax, check.
Lower capital gains, check (at least it's not a complete repeal)
More wasteful military spending, check
Lower the tax rates for the top bracket, check
Cut funding for education and transportation, check
Cut spending on Medicare/Medicaid, check
Freeze on all non-discretionary spending, other than defense, check

Nothing but right wing dogma.

Edit to add link:
http://news.yahoo.com/gop-hopeful-k...balanced-budget-plan-123400400--election.html
 
You interpreted some things in the article different than I did.

What do you think we should do? Does it matter if we balance the budget and/or lower the deficit?
 
You interpreted some things in the article different than I did.

What do you think we should do? Does it matter if we balance the budget and/or lower the deficit?[/QUOTE]

Not really. Balancing the budget for balancing the budget's sake would just be silly, and downright foolish in some cases. Same with lowering the deficit for the sake of lowering the deficit. Our deficit is hardly out of line as a percentage of GDP.
 
You interpreted some things in the article different than I did.

What do you think we should do? Does it matter if we balance the budget and/or lower the deficit?

I am all for cutting wasteful spending. However, anyone who things that increasing spending on the military is not wasteful does not deserve my vote.
The United States defense budget is already more than three times the rest of the world, combined.
We have ten major assault aircraft carriers. The rest of the world has ten, mostly little helicopter carriers.
We have 3/4 of the total number of attack helicopters in the world.
We have nearly half of the attack aircraft in the world.
We have the only stealth aircraft in the world.
And we need an increase in the defense budget? Really? Even though congressmen insist the Department of Defense spend money on projects they don't want or need, and call yourself a fiscally responsible person? http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ves-wasting-billions-on-cold-war-weapons.html
Then we get to the estate tax elimination. The step up in basis is already a huge tax cut for most estates because that money has never been taxed, now we want to eliminate the estate tax, and keep the step up, eliminating additional billions in revenue.

Anyway, my plan would be a 50% cut in defense spending, combined with a 50% cut in foreign aid. An elimination of the estate tax but combine that with an elimination of step up. Deferred capital gains taxes would be collected. Leave the rest of the rates alone. Let's see where that gets us.
 
I am all for cutting wasteful spending. However, anyone who things that increasing spending on the military is not wasteful does not deserve my vote.
The United States defense budget is already more than three times the rest of the world, combined.
We have ten major assault aircraft carriers. The rest of the world has ten, mostly little helicopter carriers.
We have 3/4 of the total number of attack helicopters in the world.
We have nearly half of the attack aircraft in the world.
We have the only stealth aircraft in the world.
And we need an increase in the defense budget? Really? Even though congressmen insist the Department of Defense spend money on projects they don't want or need, and call yourself a fiscally responsible person? http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ves-wasting-billions-on-cold-war-weapons.html
Then we get to the estate tax elimination. The step up in basis is already a huge tax cut for most estates because that money has never been taxed, now we want to eliminate the estate tax, and keep the step up, eliminating additional billions in revenue.

Anyway, my plan would be a 50% cut in defense spending, combined with a 50% cut in foreign aid. An elimination of the estate tax but combine that with an elimination of step up. Deferred capital gains taxes would be collected. Leave the rest of the rates alone. Let's see where that gets us.


I actually like this. The military needs to be cut and along with that the worlds police mentality.

All those aircraft carriers and subs should be enough to get rid of a good junk of military bases.

In a couple google searches I see 662 bases in 38 countries. Even half that number is insane.
 
I like elements of his plan. I'd focus on reducing spending first and then follow with tax cuts later. I'd cut military spending, but not by 50%. I'd push for spending cuts across the board, but the problem with universal statements it that the reality is that we have overfunded areas and underfunded areas. Some areas do need more money. On the whole, though, I'd cut spending. On the tax front, I'd lower gains taxes slightly and reduce income taxes across the board by a few % once spending cuts were in place. I'd eliminate the estate tax and at the same time eliminate the step-up. Pay legitimate taxes on legitimate gains and be done with it.
 
Simpson-Bowles is the way. A solid common sense bi-partisan solution, which of course means it has no chance.

http://www.fixthedebt.org/blog/summarizing-the-new-simpsonbowles-plan_1#.Vh_a6PlVhBc

That certainly is a place to start. It is painfully obvious that the politicians we send to Washington are never going to enact a plan to get spending under control. Republicans want to cut taxes and raise the debt and Democrats want to increase spending and raise the debt. Much easier to identify the problems than it is to come up with solutions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TexMichFan
Here's my plan:
No tax on income up to 50k per year.
After 50k, income tax assessed at 25% with no deductions, other than charitable giving.
No estate tax.
Capital gain tax assessed at 15% to encourage investment

You eliminate costs for tax preparers and tax attorneys.
The govt would assess you quarterly much the way real estate taxes are done currently.
 
Here's my plan:
No tax on income up to 50k per year.
After 50k, income tax assessed at 25% with no deductions, other than charitable giving.
No estate tax.
Capital gain tax assessed at 15% to encourage investment

You eliminate costs for tax preparers and tax attorneys.
The govt would assess you quarterly much the way real estate taxes are done currently.

Would be interested in how this plan would score out. I would assume it would be a significant decrease in revenue. Jeb Bush's plan cut the top rate to 28%, and was going to cost trillions, even accounting for dynamic scoring.

Curious as to why you eliminate the estate tax? Most of the estates are currently untaxed, and amount to a permanent deferral for taxes that were owed.
 
Would be interested in how this plan would score out. I would assume it would be a significant decrease in revenue. Jeb Bush's plan cut the top rate to 28%, and was going to cost trillions, even accounting for dynamic scoring.

Curious as to why you eliminate the estate tax? Most of the estates are currently untaxed, and amount to a permanent deferral for taxes that were owed.
No reason to tax estates. Tax has been paid once on that income already. With no deductions the 25% flat rate would bring in much more revue than is currently being collected.
 
Would be interested in how this plan would score out. I would assume it would be a significant decrease in revenue. Jeb Bush's plan cut the top rate to 28%, and was going to cost trillions, even accounting for dynamic scoring.

Curious as to why you eliminate the estate tax? Most of the estates are currently untaxed, and amount to a permanent deferral for taxes that were owed.

I think eliminating estate taxes and the step-up in basis concurrently would actually lead to more tax revenue in a fair way. If my old man has a business and leaves me that business, the current system taxes the estate based on the value of the business (or insert personal property, houses, land, etc., here). The estate pays the tax and I get today's value as the step-up. That leads, in some cases, to the family business being sold to cover taxes due. This doesn't happen in all cases, but there's not really a reason for it to ever happen. I shouldn't get any step-up in basis, but instead if/when I sell the business (or other asset), I pay tax based on whatever gains are in play from my old man's original basis. It's a completely legitimate and fair tax, IMHO, and it's paid at the proper stage.
 
That certainly is a place to start. It is painfully obvious that the politicians we send to Washington are never going to enact a plan to get spending under control. Republicans want to cut taxes and raise the debt and Democrats want to increase spending and raise the debt. Much easier to identify the problems than it is to come up with solutions.

Paul Tsongas was my political hero. Sadly, I find no one in the party like him now. Hillary does nothing for me. Sanders and O'Malley want to expand entitlements. Come on. I am all for SS and Medicare/Medicaid, but lets get them on solid footing. I don't know why good budgeting is a partisan issue.
 
Imagine if money was only ever taxed once, and wasn't taxed again after switching hands. Because you know....it already got taxed once before.

This should all be about gains. If I cash my paycheck Friday and put all the cash in a box in my closet, I've already paid taxes on that cash. If I leave that box there and then take the money out in 6 months to use it for something, it's simply my cash/my asset. It's been taxed.....but if I take this week's paycheck and invest in a stock/fund that goes up and 6 months later I sell the investment so that I can use the money to buy something, I now have 2 sets of money -- my initial outlay, which has already been taxed once, and the new money I've generated through my investment, which hasn't been taxed. I should pay gains taxes on that money.
 
Why all the fronting for estates? Some of you are brainwashed or eyeing some rich parents and licking your chops. That's the best tax in the world to pay; you're dead. I'd like to see a way to shift all my tax burden until I die and let them have 100% of my estate. Of course I wold buy hookers and blow for everyone at the nursing home so there may not be much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: moral_victory
This should all be about gains. If I cash my paycheck Friday and put all the cash in a box in my closet, I've already paid taxes on that cash. If I leave that box there and then take the money out in 6 months to use it for something, it's simply my cash/my asset. It's been taxed.....but if I take this week's paycheck and invest in a stock/fund that goes up and 6 months later I sell the investment so that I can use the money to buy something, I now have 2 sets of money -- my initial outlay, which has already been taxed once, and the new money I've generated through my investment, which hasn't been taxed. I should pay gains taxes on that money.

hawkifann is dispensing some wisdom in this thread. I don't know why more people aren't listening.
 
Imagine if money was only ever taxed once, and wasn't taxed again after switching hands. Because you know....it already got taxed once before.

In the flow of commerce . . . yes. But estate tax generally deal with inter-family gifts and inheritance. We certainly don't want to tax a surviving spouse. Children?
 
No reason to tax estates. Tax has been paid once on that income already. With no deductions the 25% flat rate would bring in much more revue than is currently being collected.
Again, hawkifann has some good information in this thread. I agree with you if you're talking about cash in an estate. However, most of the money that transfers hands after a death consists of unrealized capital gains. That income has never been taxed. What we need is a reform of the estate tax, not an elimination of that tax.
 
In the flow of commerce . . . yes. But estate tax generally deal with inter-family gifts and inheritance. We certainly don't want to tax a surviving spouse. Children?

Man buys 1000 shares of GE stock at $5.00 a share when he is 18. The man gets married at 20 and holds the stock in his name until he is 40, when he dies, with the stock as his only asset. The stock on his death is worth $50.00. The wife currently gets a step up in basis and a pass on the estate tax because the estate doesn't meet the total value exception. In other words, taxes on a gain of $45,000 are forever unpaid and forgiven. How is that fair? The gains taxes should be permanently deferred until the wife, or her heirs sell the stock, at which time it should be treated as regular income.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hawkifann
Man buys 1000 shares of GE stock at $5.00 a share when he is 18. The man gets married at 20 and holds the stock in his name until he is 40, when he dies, with the stock as his only asset. The stock on his death is worth $50.00. The wife currently gets a step up in basis and a pass on the estate tax because the estate doesn't meet the total value exception. In other words, taxes on a gain of $45,000 are forever unpaid and forgiven. How is that fair? The gains taxes should be permanently deferred until the wife, or her heirs sell the stock, at which time it should be treated as regular income.

I believe a capital gains tax would be owed if the stock was cashed. That's not good enough? Are you saying the wife gets the step-up-basis for capital gain tax purposes? Not following you.
 
Again, hawkifann has some good information in this thread. I agree with you if you're talking about cash in an estate. However, most of the money that transfers hands after a death consists of unrealized capital gains. That income has never been taxed. What we need is a reform of the estate tax, not an elimination of that tax.

Unless the appreciated assets are sold there absolutely is no income. Taxing it will simply force a sale in many cases. So you cannot pass on the family farm cause little Johnny can't afford the estate taxes. Now if or when Little Johnny does sell he will likely have to pay some taxes but it is true under current law he pays no taxes on his step up in basis, which I think is ok.
 
I am all for cutting wasteful spending. However, anyone who things that increasing spending on the military is not wasteful does not deserve my vote.
The United States defense budget is already more than three times the rest of the world, combined.
We have ten major assault aircraft carriers. The rest of the world has ten, mostly little helicopter carriers.
We have 3/4 of the total number of attack helicopters in the world.
We have nearly half of the attack aircraft in the world.
We have the only stealth aircraft in the world.
And we need an increase in the defense budget? Really? Even though congressmen insist the Department of Defense spend money on projects they don't want or need, and call yourself a fiscally responsible person? http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ves-wasting-billions-on-cold-war-weapons.html
Then we get to the estate tax elimination. The step up in basis is already a huge tax cut for most estates because that money has never been taxed, now we want to eliminate the estate tax, and keep the step up, eliminating additional billions in revenue.

Anyway, my plan would be a 50% cut in defense spending, combined with a 50% cut in foreign aid. An elimination of the estate tax but combine that with an elimination of step up. Deferred capital gains taxes would be collected. Leave the rest of the rates alone. Let's see where that gets us.
Have you ever used Goggle to look for websites that let you play at balancing the budget?

There are several good ones that let you raise taxes and cut spending. Fun to see where things get when you have the controls but scary also when you see how far away we are from being able to balance the budget.

What would your 50% decrease in spending look like? That is a big chunk to cut at one time. Kasich had a 17% over 8 years which would probably leave us pretty much where we are now.
 
I believe a capital gains tax would be owed if the stock was cashed. That's not good enough? Are you saying the wife gets the step-up-basis for capital gain tax purposes? Not following you.

The point with the current estate tax, though, is that the wife gets the step-up and would pay tax later on the value today. So, using that example, the man buys 1000 shares at $5 when he's 18, dies at 40 when the stock is worth $50. Wife gets the 1000 shares, pays no income tax because the estate wasn't big enough, but her basis is now $50/share. She holds the stock until she dies at 80, it's her only asset and the stock is $100/share. The estate pays no taxes because it's not big enough and their kid cashes the stock when mom dies and takes the $100k with no taxes paid on Dad's $45k in gains or Mom's $50k in gains.

If you eliminate the estate tax and the step-up in basis, there's no worry about estate size at point of death and the only taxes ever paid are gains, just the same as if the original owner realized the gains. If Dad had sold the stock the day before his death, he'd have owed 15% gains taxes on $45k ($6750). If, instead, Mom had sold the day before she died, she'd have paid taxes on $50k ($7500). So, under today's laws, Dad's gains are never taxed because his estate is in the exemption and, ultimately, neither is Mom's if she doesn't sell....so almost $15k in what I think are legitimate taxes are never paid. Without the estate tax or step-up, the son can hold for however long he wants, but then would pay on the gains. If he cashes out at point of inheritance, he'd pay 15% on the $95k in gains, which would be $14,250.

I'm completely against the estate tax. I'd rather not deal with all the exemptions and trying to assess value to non-cash assets at a point when they're not being liquidated and instead just focus on taxes due on gains at the point they're realized.
 
The point with the current estate tax, though, is that the wife gets the step-up and would pay tax later on the value today. So, using that example, the man buys 1000 shares at $5 when he's 18, dies at 40 when the stock is worth $50. Wife gets the 1000 shares, pays no income tax because the estate wasn't big enough, but her basis is now $50/share. She holds the stock until she dies at 80, it's her only asset and the stock is $100/share. The estate pays no taxes because it's not big enough and their kid cashes the stock when mom dies and takes the $100k with no taxes paid on Dad's $45k in gains or Mom's $50k in gains.

If you eliminate the estate tax and the step-up in basis, there's no worry about estate size at point of death and the only taxes ever paid are gains, just the same as if the original owner realized the gains. If Dad had sold the stock the day before his death, he'd have owed 15% gains taxes on $45k ($6750). If, instead, Mom had sold the day before she died, she'd have paid taxes on $50k ($7500). So, under today's laws, Dad's gains are never taxed because his estate is in the exemption and, ultimately, neither is Mom's if she doesn't sell....so almost $15k in what I think are legitimate taxes are never paid. Without the estate tax or step-up, the son can hold for however long he wants, but then would pay on the gains. If he cashes out at point of inheritance, he'd pay 15% on the $95k in gains, which would be $14,250.

I'm completely against the estate tax. I'd rather not deal with all the exemptions and trying to assess value to non-cash assets at a point when they're not being liquidated and instead just focus on taxes due on gains at the point they're realized.

Again, hawkifann is dispensing logic to this argument. If grandpa keeps $1,000,000,000 in a checking account, his heirs shouldn't have to pay a dime of estate taxes. However, if the heirs inherit unrealized capital gains, they should have to pay those taxes, once they realize the gains. If you don't sell the asset, you will never pays the tax, however they will then be owed by your heirs, again once they sell the asset. A very simple solutions to the entire estate tax argument.
 
Have you ever used Goggle to look for websites that let you play at balancing the budget?

There are several good ones that let you raise taxes and cut spending. Fun to see where things get when you have the controls but scary also when you see how far away we are from being able to balance the budget.

What would your 50% decrease in spending look like? That is a big chunk to cut at one time. Kasich had a 17% over 8 years which would probably leave us pretty much where we are now.

Except Kasich pisses more money away on increased defense spending and tax cuts that primarily benefit the wealthy.
 
Except Kasich pisses more money away on increased defense spending and tax cuts that primarily benefit the wealthy.
I think part of the problem for our politicians is they have to win and to win you have to promise stuff you should not deliver.

I am interested in what you would do on your defense budget cuts. Also if the increase that Kasich was asking for was going to be mostly for veterans health benefits would that make it easier for you to take or do you still think we should cut 50%. It would be nice to know what he planned to spend it on.
 
I think part of the problem for our politicians is they have to win and to win you have to promise stuff you should not deliver.

I am interested in what you would do on your defense budget cuts. Also if the increase that Kasich was asking for was going to be mostly for veterans health benefits would that make it easier for you to take or do you still think we should cut 50%. It would be nice to know what he planned to spend it on.

Defense cuts will equal lost jobs. Certainly the armed forces would be significantly reduced in numbers. The defense budget shouldn't be treated as a jobs program. Significant reductions in new arms purchases. The joint strike fighter gone. The new attack sub gone. All purchases of new armor gone.

To the extent veterans have been promised benefits, you have to keep those promises. The is absolutely no reason we need to continue to serve as the worlds policeman, and the worlds welfare agent. Countries like Japan and South Korea can defend themselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JRHawk2003
  • Like
Reactions: naturalmwa
Simpson-Bowles was deservedly dead in the water. Too much protection of the rich and the military-industrial-security complex at the expense of the safety net and programs that make America great.


The idea that you are going to keep the retirement age the same and not deal with longer life expectancy is ridiculous. I agree that military spending could go down a bit more, but Simpson Bowles is still a good compromise. You wont get all you want. Neither side will. Thats the point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Floyd R.
Kasich had a good interview a day or two ago. I think it was Chuck Todd on his campaign bus when the subject of the candidates from outside the mainstream came up. Kasich looked bemused, and peeved at the same time. He said something to the effect of people will seek non traditional medicines, but, when they get really sick they call on a doctor. Clearly he sees himself as the guy who can outlast the non traditional types when the Republican voters come to their senses and realize they need a guy who has actually succeeded in politics.
He scares me as a candidate. I hope his candidacy withers on the vine.
 
The idea that you are going to keep the retirement age the same and not deal with longer life expectancy is ridiculous. I agree that military spending could go down a bit more, but Simpson Bowles is still a good compromise. You wont get all you want. Neither side will. Thats the point.
There is zero reason to increase retirement age. We've had this discussion here too many times for you to actually believe otherwise. There are, in fact, excellent reasons for lowering the retirement age.
 
  • Like
Reactions: THE_DEVIL
A lot of people are working after 65. More than ever. There is zero need to expand SS. I have no faith in it. If I could opt out,I would.

I do not like the idea of debt paying for expenses. Manage the damn budget.
 
  • Like
Reactions: swagsurfer02
There is zero reason to increase retirement age. We've had this discussion here too many times for you to actually believe otherwise. There are, in fact, excellent reasons for lowering the retirement age.


I'm legitimately curious to hear the reasoning for lowering the retirement age and how you plan to increase SS funding all at once?
 
[1] I'm legitimately curious to hear the reasoning for lowering the retirement age [2] and how you plan to increase SS funding all at once?
[1] With not enough jobs for all who want to work, you can have seniors retiring and going on SS or younger workers on unemployment and welfare. Which is better for the nation and for the people involved?

[2] Adjust the cap.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT