New York to Tax the Rich

[BT]

Welcome to the discussion again Plane.

What i am trying to discover is what can be expected from reducing spending to approximately 18% of gdp with taxation also set to 18% of gdp or even less if justified.

We are currently spending somewhere around 24% of gdp if rough figures are to be believed with no real understanding of what is on books and what is off books and how accounting is handled for programs like SS and Medicare.

What do you think the net result of a 5-10% cut in federal spending would be to a city like warner robins?

[sirs]

So your answer is more if it, SOP, move along.  Yea, I got that the 1st time.  Yea, much easier.  Here's a hint, a 5% cost cutting across the board is obviously going to change the habits of those Federal employees no longer working for the Fed.  It generally means what it means to the rest of us who lost far more jobs in the private sector.  You find work elsewhere, and budget better until then

It would behoove you to examine your own answers rather than projecting what my answers might be?

So the loss of those jobs will have zero effect on whatever locales these employees reside? Is that your position?

Well considering you're playing some sort of zero-sum game, where if anything negative might affect the economy, we can rain all over it, so that we can can all go back to the easy talk of raising taxes again, which have been demonstrated over and over again, as one of the worst things you can do, in a recession.  You know that, I know that, many a politician has spouted it and has been pasted here for all to see.  This goal of yours to try and convince everyone that everyone's taxes need to go up, "to be fair", so that not just "the rich" are targeted, while noble and principled, misses the problem entirely

The way you outline your efforts to argue with me, has a position logically to maintain some status quo of big government, because if government employees are laid off, it can effect the economy negatively.  I don't have a position that there is some zero effect.  There *gasp* might be a small negative effect, as those Federal workers might have to find new jobs, like the millions more are having to do in the private sector.  The point being the mess has been caused by rampant out of control spending, at all levels of Government.  The housing meltdown is what lit the economic fire, and Obama's (democrats') liberal policies of spending is the gasoline that was poured all over it.  THAT's what has to stop. 

We can't take back the tarp money, or the bailouts, or all the Solydra's this administration has payed off.  So, rather than take the easy way out and just keep harping on taxes, which will inhibit economic growth all the more, we start somwhere, and my somewhere was a 5% cut to all Federal Departments.  Then we adopt the Ryan Plan

It's a start, but at least its the right thing to do

[Plane]

And what i am really against is this 99% vs the 1% bullshit. We are americans damnit and if the country is in trouble i expect 100% participation in helping to fix it. Just like how we came together after pearl harbor.

Well said!

There is no undertaxed component of the economy, but there is a big disparity in who produces and who consumes the benefits of the government.

This is a disparity that could be shrunk.

[BT]

Again please don't project what you think my position is. State your position and explain it the best you can. You have already stated that raising taxes during a recession will adversely impact the recovery. I am just wondering if you have thoroughly considered what the impact of cutting the budget by 5%-10% at one fell swoop would be.

[sirs]

I have, the cutting is merely a start.  As long as we do NOT raise taxes, the impact should be minimal, as companies and industries start to grasp some certainty coming out of DC, and start opening up their expansion projects and ideas, with the $$$ they've been hording.

It's the right thing to do, in order to fix the problem Obama and the Democrats have wrought with the exponential spending they've been pushing.  What's far more easier of course is to talk about taxes, because its unfair that the 1% should be made to shoulder even more of the country's burdens.  While it is grossly unfair, it fails to address the problems that are at the heart of our economic mess, and in fact, will only saturate the blanket of incertainty, that much more, and perpetuate the status quo

More Jobs --> More Income taxes into the Fed/More spending by consumers thus more in Sales taxes ---> More revenue --> Goodbye debt & deficits (eventually)

[BT]

Do you have any idea of what percentage of the workforce is employed by the federal government either directly or indirectly as contract labor?

Do you think the number of soon to be unemployed federal workers would be abhou the equivalent of the armed forces downsizing after WWII?

Do you think the economy in its current state is prepared to absorb those workers?

Just being the devils advocate here, but it seems to me that the issue is deeper than major party talking points of tax the rich or  cut the spendings or its all their fault.

Nothing is easy. Just leave this place better than you found it. That's the best you can do.

[Plane]

What do you think the net result of a 5-10% cut in federal spending would be to a city like warner robins?

   Warner Robins is peculuar, our local economy depends so much on government spending that each per cent of reduction is practicly a percent of reduction in the local economy.

    Howsomever the last time that we had a BRAC the base that they closed was Kelly AFB in San Antonio Texas. Warner Robins had to adzorb the workload that Kelly released. We had hundreds of Texans moving here driving up home prices and rents causing a building boom. New hangars had to be built and contractors from six states away were bidding on the contracts. Bizzare new buildings on wheels were constructed to convert hangars built for B-24 s to hangars suited for the C-5. San Antonios loss was our gain.

     So less government in total made more government spending locally in this locality. If RAFB had been closed I would have been moved to Kelly probly.

      Chaos theroy applys, the situation is too complex to predict in detail. The best predictions are the gross ones.

[sirs]

Do you have any idea of what percentage of the workforce is employed by the federal government either directly or indirectly as contract labor?

It's MASSIVE.....that's part of the problem, and we, the tax payers pay for it, and their pensions.  Why do you think you have all these Government Union uprisings in places like Ohio & Wisconsin.  they need the tax payers to pay for their ever growing size and numbers

Do you think the economy in its current state is prepared to absorb those workers?

It would have to, under my plan.  I think I already referenced that there may be some negative issues to begin with, but we have to fix the problem, and I'm going with the right thing to do vs the easy thing to do

Nothing is easy. Just leave this place better than you found it. That's the best you can do.

The status quo isn't it.  Raising taxes on everyone during a recession isn't it either

[Plane]

   All of the "cuts" that have been proposed lately were cuts in the new budget that didn't amount to making the new budget smaller than the previous years spending.

   A freeze would be a bigger cut.

     A spending freeze would automaticly be across the board.
    Since inflation would not stop there would be an automatic across the board reduction in buying power for each government agency , contractor , employee and retireee.

      If the comittment of the government was firm, the investing community might benefit from the improvement in predictability.

       If there were any growth in the economy the government would become a smaller purportion of the economy ,an improvement in the teeth to tail ratio.

[BT]

So adding some untold millions to the unemployment roles is the right thing to do?

Wouldn't the states be liable for any uninsurance payments? is that how it works with fed employees . It does with service members.

[sirs]

Yes

[Plane]

So adding some untold millions to the unemployment roles is the right thing to do?

Isn't this the exact effect to be expected in the aftermath of a large tax increase?

[BT]

Hope you have plenty of ammo

[BT]

So adding some untold millions to the unemployment roles is the right thing to do?

Isn't this the exact effect to be expected in the aftermath of a large tax increase?

Define large. Would you consider allowing the Bush Tax Cuts to expire a large tax increase?

How much would the revenue increase as a percentage of GDP?

[Plane]

So adding some untold millions to the unemployment roles is the right thing to do?

Isn't this the exact effect to be expected in the aftermath of a large tax increase?

Define large. Would you consider allowing the Bush Tax Cuts to expire a large tax increase?

How much would the revenue increase as a percentage of GDP?

  I am not qualified to quantify.
   I don't even believe in it.

  A large tax increase might not improve revenue at all, if it were crippleing to the money making businesses then it would be too large to increase revenue, too big to succeed.

    A tax decrease that helps improve an overtaxed situation might increase revenue as the lower tax rate is applied to a healthyer economy.

    These are unquantified principals.
    The amount of improvement isn't predictable , forcasting a future situation from a present that we don't really understand , no.

       Tell me if right now we are taxed at an optimum rate , a sub optimum rate or a superoptimum rate , if we really knew that we would know at least which direction to move .