The spending and tax proposals of the Gang of 6

CTK: This seems incredibly arbitrary.

Doesn't seem arbitrary to me all. Seems perfectly logical in fact.

Many worker's pay is already tied to the performance of the company. I.e. if the company has a good year, bonuses + raises are bigger. But the bulk of it is (and IMO should be) derived from the value of the labor they provide.

Well, I'd very curious to see how many Americans actually get company performance bonuses or increases. I guess that it's not many. You guess that it is.

Certainly nobody working for minimum wage or lower hourly wages does.

Most Americans take on a needless amount of unsecured debt (read: credit cards), and are generally just bad with money. To a degree larger than you'd admit, Americans choose not to save, and instead squander money on consumer goods & luxuries. The fact that the avg American household has about $16K in unsecured debt speaks to this. So yes, stock options, even to a small degree are an option for most Americans- just not an option they choose to take.

Question, where does housing debt fit in your analysis of Americans individual debt problems? Is that included the $16K number?

This might warrant another thread. Admittedly I don't know much about PT on a national level. But I do know PT is heavily dependent on high population density, which runs counter to the sprawl that defines the typical American city. Plus aside from that, it's much harder to add a PT system after the fact than to design a city around it. Even now in NYC it's damn near impossible to get something like a new subway line. What would you do if the city decided to trench your block for a new train?

Buses. Light rail. Regional rail. Better urban planning. HOV lanes. All are things that can be added on top of a pre-existing city or region.

Most of our public transit problems and excessive transportation costs are actually outside of the major cities, IMO. The cities are efficient. Well, some of them at least.

Wouldn't that money be better served towards programs to get people out of poverty? How does perpetually free housing break that cycle?

I agree that we should support employment programs.

I'm not arguing for free housing.

My starting point is that housing costs are a huge burden that are exponentially larger the poorer you are.

There are many tools available to the gov to make housing more affordable, less of a burden, or more able to financed over the long term.

The cost of society's contribution to someone's wealth is already paid for throughout their life through taxes.

That is opinion. An opinion I disagree with.

It seems as though you feel that if anyone is able to accumulate anything beyond what they need, they are obligated to give it back to society/those without.

No. Not beyond want they need. But I want taxes to go up exponentially when you start getting into the top 5% or 1% of wealth.

I also want extremely high taxes when this wealth is being transferred to another person.

But they are already giving back, first through taxes, and then often through charity.

I'd need to see numbers that a large percentage of the wealthy are giving significant money to charity. What I have read does not show that.

It was true 50 or 100 years ago, but I don't think today.

What is so immoral about making sure your kids are secure when you are gone, if you have the means to do so?

I didn't say you can't make them secure. I'm arguing the fairness of a meager 15% tax rate or whatever it is on a kid's $200M inheritance.

Perhaps low tax on the first $50M, and high tax on the next $100M?

(these are random numbers to illustrate a point)

The entity takes that money, invests it, and takes a cut of the profit as a fee. That's the financial industry in a nutshell. What part of that is unreasonable?

That is an extremely generous and I'd say naive reading of financial industries.

The 2008 financial crisis kind of laid waste to the idea that banks are simply providing fundamental services to facilitate business.

They are an uncontrolled beast that destroyed the global economy and created untold amounts of misery.

Where can you put a control valve that would make sense? The ONLY place I can see is in limiting the level of risk these entities are able to take. But that would also slow the economy at large.

This is far from established, whereas we have seen what happens when we go the other way:

unbridled, unregulated wild west of financial instruments and industries.

there are so many other ways we can fix things w/o hiking taxes.

This is philosophical. It is our profound disagreement.

Cool The Kid said:

Why would I work for anything I know the gov't will give me for free?

Ugh, give me a break fellas.

Other interesting things:

Americans to Congress: Please hike our taxes before you cut entitlements

What if pollsters asked Americans which concerns them more: The prospect of tax hikes on people like them, or the possibility of cuts to Medicare and Social Security?

Well, a new National Journal poll released today has done just that. And by a sizable margin, a plurality is more concerned about cuts to entitlements than about paying more taxes. It’s yet another sign that the public is on the Dems’ side in this fight.

Here’s the key finding, from the internals of the poll, which were sent my way by National Journal:

In the debate over proposals to increase the federal debt ceiling, which of the folllowing possible outcomes concern you most?

A default on the federal debt that could raise interest rates for things like mortgages and consumer loans: 17

An agreement that raises taxes on people like you: 17

An agreement that authorizes too much federal spending in the next few years: 19

An agreement that cuts too much from government programs like Medicare and Social Security: 39

Far more worry about cuts to entitlements than about tax hikes on themselves. Even among Republicans worry is running slightly higher over entitlements, 25-23.And this also applies to those over $75,000, with 28 percent worried about entitlements cuts and only 19 percent worried about higher taxes.

These findings come as yet another national poll finds majority support for the White House/Dem position. Reuters/Ipsos found today that 56 percent want the deficit fixed through a mix of spending cuts and tax increases.

Well, I'd very curious to see how many Americans actually get company performance bonuses or increases. I guess that it's not many. You guess that it is.

Certainly nobody working for minimum wage or lower hourly wages does.

In that realm, a bonus amounts to something like a promotion or first dibs at more hours. The avg corporation isn't as profitable as you think, and the cheap products I will bet you feel the poor are entitled to are funded in part by those low wages.

Question, where does housing debt fit in your analysis of Americans individual debt problems? Is that included the $16K number?

No, it's unsecured. Debts like mortgages, car notes etc are secured as there is something the lender can take back if you fail to pay (collateral).

And I was mistaken- I thought that $16K included college loans, which would have dulled this point- but it doesn't, that is all credit cards. At an average rate of about 15% APR. With just the interest alone that is $2400 a year. Really think about that. How much wealth could a family accumulate if they had an extra $200 a month? $2400 a year? $24000 a decade? What good would more income be if people aren't doing right with the money they are getting now?

Buses. Light rail. Regional rail. Better urban planning. HOV lanes. All are things that can be added on top of a pre-existing city or region.

Most of our public transit problems and excessive transportation costs are actually outside of the major cities, IMO. The cities are efficient. Well, some of them at least.

This warrants another thread, as there are pretty fundamental/obvious reasons public transportation networks can't work in rural areas. Again, population density and city planning- BEFORE the city is built.

Bus line for example. Think about how much slower a bus runs in the city compared to anything else. Factor in that the average American commute is about 16 miles/30 minutes long, and the somewhat lack of centrality of the bus. Logistically it just wouldn't work but we can explore that later.

I agree that we should support employment programs.

I'm not arguing for free housing.

My starting point is that housing costs are a huge burden that are exponentially larger the poorer you are.

Everything is more expensive when you have less money. That is basic arithmetic. I hope you are not leading in to suggest that the cost of goods should be proportional to one's income. If so, I'd love to hear the reasoning for it beyond "thats just how i feel". How you feel is immaterial if it warrants solutions that are unrealistic or don't make sense.

There are many tools available to the gov to make housing more affordable, less of a burden, or more able to financed over the long term.

Agreed, but I don't think public housing is one of the better ones. As much of a mess as the housing crisis has been, there's a definite incentive to enabling people to own their own homes, rather than perpetually subsidizing their rents, for example. Coming back for the

That is opinion. An opinion I disagree with.

No. Not beyond want they need. But I want taxes to go up exponentially when you start getting into the top 5% or 1% of wealth.

I also want extremely high taxes when this wealth is being transferred to another person.

Everyone has wants. But just because you want something doesn't mean it's good. And that's about all the reasoning you've come up with for why the rich should be taxed more. If I didn't know you would disregard the rest of my post, I would have more to say about that.

I am entering a new phase in my life. I just got married. I want to start a family and buy a house. And to some degree the gov't is going to pay me to do so. I don't want to give those things up. But if that's what I have to sacrifice for the country to move forward, then as a citizen who has benefitted from the opportunity here that is a price (on top of my taxes) that I am willing to pay. And I think with where we are, everyone, rich or poor, is OBLIGATED to do the same. The idea that the "rich aren't giving enough" is an opinion... but I don't know that it's a realistic one, nor is it a good one, especially considering the lack of substance behind your reasoning.

continued....

tateinbk said:

Cool The Kid: Why would I work for anything I know the gov't will give me for free?

Whynot: I would never show up to work in your society, and simply sit back on the dole.

Everyone I know would too.

It would be great.

This argument that free is always better and no one would ever work to get something on their own does not align with my experiences. The only case I see where someone would be happy to earn very little forever and get free services forever are those that haven't seen the other side. Yeah, sure earning little might get you a low income apartment. I personally want more for my life than that, and included in that are taking actual vacations and being able to pay for vet care without feeling the pinch afterwards.

I think we all want what you want, and I think healthcare is a place where people shouldn't have to worry.

But I am not sure it's the gov'ts obligation to ensure that the bare minimum afforded to everyone be a nice apartment and the means to take a vacation. I'm not sure when luxuries became necessities. They're fine to want but not justified to be guaranteed.

Education is one place we cannot afford any sacrifice. It is literally the key to a productive future. I guess that is my "sacred cow".

Sadly, shame/pride are a big driving factor in the feasibility of programs (i.e. not being known as a person on public assistance = incentive to get off it as soon as possible. But it takes a frame of reference that sees the world beyond something like a housing project, which a lot of people living in them don't have. If you are born into a world where public assistance and crime are the only tangible means of sustenance, odds are not in your favor of becoming a productive member of society. And while this obviously doesn't describe all people on public assistance, it's pervasive enough of a problem to at least warrant investigation/discussion.

If the Repubs cared about the debt they would have spoken up more during the "shopping" phase of the process (budget talks), not when the credit card bill is due.

I was responding to CTK's reference to Repubs

Thanks Mr Policeman.

I have no idea what will happen.

There are a number of reasons I could see the Repubs letting it happen.

It's possible Obama plays hardball and refuses to bow to their ridiculous demands, however I suppose it's more likely that he gives them everything they want.

Although as he as clearly already done that, repeatedly, I'm not sure what else the Repubs are waiting for.

This situation hinges almost entirely on Repubs. I'm not sure what else Obama could possibly be doing to facilitate a deal.

Boygabriel said:

If the Repubs cared about the debt they would have spoken up more during the "shopping" phase of the process (budget talks), not when the credit card bill is due.

Yes, the "Re-thugs" have embarked on a crusade of failure and hypocrisy with this debt ceiling nonsense. I don't think anyone disagrees.

But w/o their action, regardless of their dubious motives, the Dems would have done NOTHING regarding the deficit. So while I am not arguing that Republicans care about the country, they at least took SOME action, whereas I'm certain w/o being forced to react the Dems would have done nothing.