Had such high hopes for Kasich, oh well.

[What Would Jesus Do?]

As far as I can tell from the OP's article, Kasich's budget is a complete fraud.

He will create more debt for several years and - no doubt based on the ever-popular wingnut theories that have never worked - expect lowered tax cuts to produce enough growth that the reduced taxes will nevertheless produce increased revenues to pay the bills by year 8 of his 2 terms. Meanwhile, he will have gutted Medicare and Medicaid and who knows what else.

[from the article]
Kasich advocated tax cuts that would increase the budget deficit over the early years of his presidency, according to projections his campaign shared with The Associated Press.

Here's what his advisers predict: enough economic growth from those cuts, and backed by reductions to Medicare and Medicaid and an eight-year freeze on increases in nondefense discretionary spending, to eventually offset lost tax revenue.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

In an interview before his speech, Kasich said, "If you are a person that thinks you ought to pound the rich into submission, I guess you won't like the plan."

As someone who merely thinks the rich ought to pay their share, I don't like the plan.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

 

[JRHawk2003]

I don't like debt paying the bills either, except perhaps in emergencies. Which is why I have always been the strongest advocate on this board of actually paying the bills.

The American public would never go for it. The parties perfectly reflect the public; Give us stuff, but dont make us pay for it.

I support SS, but raising the caps makes it more of a social program. Everything has limits.

 

[pablow]

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.

Thanks.

 

[theiacowtipper]

I'm legitimately curious to hear the reasoning for lowering the retirement age and how you plan to increase SS funding all at once?

I know this is purely anecdotal but I know a number of people who would love to retire and would be self-sufficient on their savings, at least until 65 when Social Security would supplement, however they can't because of the cost of health insurance. Bringing the cost of healthcare down would lead to more job openings. A universal payer system would be a great start.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I know this is purely anecdotal but I know a number of people who would love to retire and would be self-sufficient on their savings, at least until 65 when Social Security would supplement, however they can't because of the cost of health insurance. Bringing the cost of healthcare down would lead to more job openings. A universal payer system would be a great start.

Good observation.

 

[JRHawk2003]

I work in an office now, and I worked hard in school a lot of years so I could. I also lifted kegs at one point in my life and worked as a janitor and yes I still think it should be 70.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I work in an office now, and I worked hard in school a lot of years so I could. I also lifted kegs at one point in my life and worked as a janitor and yes I still think it should be 70.

And, as I suggested before, while some could still do the labor at 70, most probably couldn't. So the result would be a lot of people retiring early anyway - but on disability.

And a lot of others would suffer needlessly, denying those jobs to younger workers, just so you and people like you will feel better or not have to pay a few pennies more of FICA.

How does that make sense?

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

To be fair he did have a 10% increase on the earned income tax credit.

However his budget seems to be 75% conservative at the very least.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

This mistake of trickle down economics is believing that the rich with extra money will buy material goods or will hire people.

It's believed like this because that is what a middle class person or a poor person would likely do with extra money, so they tend to think that the rich are just like them but with bigger and better toys.

In reality though the wealthy tend to take that extra money and invest it and make even more money which they re-invest. Making trades and buying up stocks doesn't increase employment unless the stocks bought are newly released shares.

Increasing the amount of money the wealthy have doesn't send the middle class or the poor back to work.