No, Is that the best you can do?
I never cease to be amazed!
- Thread starter Al Wohlstrom
- Start date
No, Is that the best you can do?
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
I raised a personal example for a single reason -- I am the only person for whom I can say with assurance what an increase or decrease in the marginal tax rates would do to my decision making. That's the problem with a lot of economics; it is voodoo guessing about what people might do in the future.
Be that as may, neither of us can capture all of the nuances of tax policy here. So let's talk in generalities, and the overall tax burden in this country.
We have, on average, a low to average tax burden here in the US vis a vis other modern democracties. Do you think a change in the marginal tax rate, either corporate or personal, would have a significant effect on investment in the US?
I'd suggest that history and economics would say no. What has consistently driven investment in the US has been the stability of our economic and political systems. The dollar is a safe, good investment, hence why T-bills rarely offer more return than slightly more inflation.
So what marginal corporate and personal tax rate have YOU decided are appropriate given the thousands of factors involved in setting them?
And if you are willing to signifcantly slash rates (I'm not talking about 2 or 3 point changes, which is all we have seen since the Reagan cuts of the 80s), what progrms are you willing to cut? Telling me cutting taxes will raise revenues to cover those cuts is a cop-out! Seriously, what do you cut? Most of our budget is tied up in (a) debt service (of debt created primarily by Republican Presidents by the way); (b) defense; (c) medicare and (d) social security.
But back to the most fundamental point. If our marginal tax rates are "in the sweet zone" for a modern democracy, isn't it an absolute truth that changes in that tax rate won't have any effect on investment in the US vis as vis other countries?
Again, I think conservatives vastly overstate the impact of tax rates on investment decisions. It matters, as does the Laffer Curve, but only at the extremes, and we are ot at the extremes. Too many other factors go into investment decisions.
Be that as may, neither of us can capture all of the nuances of tax policy here. So let's talk in generalities, and the overall tax burden in this country.
We have, on average, a low to average tax burden here in the US vis a vis other modern democracties. Do you think a change in the marginal tax rate, either corporate or personal, would have a significant effect on investment in the US?
I'd suggest that history and economics would say no. What has consistently driven investment in the US has been the stability of our economic and political systems. The dollar is a safe, good investment, hence why T-bills rarely offer more return than slightly more inflation.
So what marginal corporate and personal tax rate have YOU decided are appropriate given the thousands of factors involved in setting them?
And if you are willing to signifcantly slash rates (I'm not talking about 2 or 3 point changes, which is all we have seen since the Reagan cuts of the 80s), what progrms are you willing to cut? Telling me cutting taxes will raise revenues to cover those cuts is a cop-out! Seriously, what do you cut? Most of our budget is tied up in (a) debt service (of debt created primarily by Republican Presidents by the way); (b) defense; (c) medicare and (d) social security.
But back to the most fundamental point. If our marginal tax rates are "in the sweet zone" for a modern democracy, isn't it an absolute truth that changes in that tax rate won't have any effect on investment in the US vis as vis other countries?
Again, I think conservatives vastly overstate the impact of tax rates on investment decisions. It matters, as does the Laffer Curve, but only at the extremes, and we are ot at the extremes. Too many other factors go into investment decisions.
Jeff, We are a bit off the immigration track, but who do you think will be the end recipient of this little tax gem.
(Reuters) - President Barack Obama, fresh from a win on a sweeping overhaul of Wall Street regulations, on Saturday urged Congress to take up his proposal for a $90 billion, 10-year tax on banks as the next step in reform.
(Reuters) - President Barack Obama, fresh from a win on a sweeping overhaul of Wall Street regulations, on Saturday urged Congress to take up his proposal for a $90 billion, 10-year tax on banks as the next step in reform.
Seymour Snerd
Lifetime Supporter
Jeff --
You imply that "a change in the marginal tax rate, either corporate or personal, would [not] have a significant effect on investment"
You then justify that assertion by saying: "What has consistently driven investment in the US has been the stability of our economic and political systems"
The latter statement does not imply the former. You're using bad logic.
You say "If our marginal tax rates are "in the sweet zone" for a modern democracy, isn't it an absolute truth that changes in that tax rate won't have any effect on investment in the US vis as vis other countries?"
Well sure, if you define "sweet spot" as being "that range where the Laffer curve has no effect." More bad logic.
And why restrict the discussion to investment rates between countries? I know, because it neatly avoids the other examples I gave (rich people, small business leaders).
This is a waste of time. Bye.
You imply that "a change in the marginal tax rate, either corporate or personal, would [not] have a significant effect on investment"
You then justify that assertion by saying: "What has consistently driven investment in the US has been the stability of our economic and political systems"
The latter statement does not imply the former. You're using bad logic.
You say "If our marginal tax rates are "in the sweet zone" for a modern democracy, isn't it an absolute truth that changes in that tax rate won't have any effect on investment in the US vis as vis other countries?"
Well sure, if you define "sweet spot" as being "that range where the Laffer curve has no effect." More bad logic.
And why restrict the discussion to investment rates between countries? I know, because it neatly avoids the other examples I gave (rich people, small business leaders).
This is a waste of time. Bye.
Last edited:
I surfed into the website and was ready to sign the petition, then it hit me--what if Bee-OH finds out I signed the petition, would he come after me in some way?
It's not paranoia if they REALLY ARE out to get you!
BTW....I do support the AZ law. Other than the politically tumultuous times of the late 1960's, this is the first time I can remember really believing my government might hunt me down for opposing them.
Sad state of affairs, to be sure.......
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Ok, let's make it simpler. Basic policy questions that inform all of this.
1. You want smaller government. Ok. What services/programs would you cut? What modern democracy would you model the US after with this stripped down government?
I would suggest to you it doesn't exist. So, we chart a new path. Again, what gets cut back? Defense? I doubt you would support that. Debt service? Have to do that, thanks (mostly) to the Reagan/Bush years. Social security? No public support for cutting that. Same with Medicare.
That doesn't leave much
2. But say you COULD cut programs and reduce tax rates (which would then lead to a second discussion about the effect on investment flow of doing so). What studies/evidence do you have about the tax rate YOU think is necessary to support this new stripped down US government?
That's the fundamental flaw, in my view, of "tax cut" politics. We can never couple it with a realistic cut in services because in a modern complex democracy, that's just not possible anymore. I know there is a lament by folks like you (and my apologies if I am attributing something to you that is not correct) for a time when society was LESS complex and where we were ok with old folks dying once they couldn't work, or handicapped people having no real ability to be a part of society, or allowing 12 year olds to work 70 hour weeks.
Times have changed. Conservatism will always play an important role in dictating the pace and direction of change. But it will never be successful in rolling back the societal advances we have seen in the 250 year history of this country.
We aren't going back to the 50s (and Jim Crow and with woman as second class citizenrs), or the 20s (and complete, unrestrained economic madness) or the 1890s (the Gilded Age and Robber Barrons) or the 1840s (and slavery and destructive economic boom and bust).
1. You want smaller government. Ok. What services/programs would you cut? What modern democracy would you model the US after with this stripped down government?
I would suggest to you it doesn't exist. So, we chart a new path. Again, what gets cut back? Defense? I doubt you would support that. Debt service? Have to do that, thanks (mostly) to the Reagan/Bush years. Social security? No public support for cutting that. Same with Medicare.
That doesn't leave much
2. But say you COULD cut programs and reduce tax rates (which would then lead to a second discussion about the effect on investment flow of doing so). What studies/evidence do you have about the tax rate YOU think is necessary to support this new stripped down US government?
That's the fundamental flaw, in my view, of "tax cut" politics. We can never couple it with a realistic cut in services because in a modern complex democracy, that's just not possible anymore. I know there is a lament by folks like you (and my apologies if I am attributing something to you that is not correct) for a time when society was LESS complex and where we were ok with old folks dying once they couldn't work, or handicapped people having no real ability to be a part of society, or allowing 12 year olds to work 70 hour weeks.
Times have changed. Conservatism will always play an important role in dictating the pace and direction of change. But it will never be successful in rolling back the societal advances we have seen in the 250 year history of this country.
We aren't going back to the 50s (and Jim Crow and with woman as second class citizenrs), or the 20s (and complete, unrestrained economic madness) or the 1890s (the Gilded Age and Robber Barrons) or the 1840s (and slavery and destructive economic boom and bust).
This little rascal is going to get passed right along to every citizen that banks. Once again we will be paying and the nasty banks will be laughing all the way to the...................
Jeff, one statistic you didn't note:
- when Bush left office, debt was 3% of GDP
- under BHO, it went from 3 - 12% of GDP
From what I have learned through the various media sources, which I quoted in another post, debt is serviceable up to about 6 - 7% of GDP.
Once again, BHO adopted the Gordon Brown / Labour Party policies and if you want a model of where the US is going, look to the UK.
- when Bush left office, debt was 3% of GDP
- under BHO, it went from 3 - 12% of GDP
From what I have learned through the various media sources, which I quoted in another post, debt is serviceable up to about 6 - 7% of GDP.
Once again, BHO adopted the Gordon Brown / Labour Party policies and if you want a model of where the US is going, look to the UK.
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Uh, what?
Overall debt as a percentage of GDP is rapidly approaching 100%:
File:US Federal Debt as Percent of GDP by President.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Basically, every President beginning with Truman "paid down" (a misnomer, but I'll use it) the WWII war debt with debt as percentage of GDP bottoming out with Carter.
Look at that graph. The "debt presidents" of the post-war era have been Reagan/Bush I (who took debt as a percentage of GDP from 40 o 60% -- because, in my view, they believed they could cut taxes and increase spending at the same time) and Bush II (who took it from 60-80%). Clinton "paid down" debt.
Obama inherited the worst ecomonic mess since the Great Depression and followed the Keynesian prescription of deficit spending to ge us out. That involved more debt (nearly all of which, TARP I and II and the stimulus that would have been spent by Bush anyway).
We can take a look at this chart again in 2016 when Obama's second terms ends...lol...but for now, your point is wrong.
Also, I ignored it before, but you TRULY think Fox is the best source of "balanced" news and you TRULY listen to Glenn Beck for instruction on what the Constitution says means? Really? A former alchoholic drug using DJ who never went to college? That's your constitutional scholar?
You scare me dude. Sorry, but you do.
Overall debt as a percentage of GDP is rapidly approaching 100%:
File:US Federal Debt as Percent of GDP by President.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Basically, every President beginning with Truman "paid down" (a misnomer, but I'll use it) the WWII war debt with debt as percentage of GDP bottoming out with Carter.
Look at that graph. The "debt presidents" of the post-war era have been Reagan/Bush I (who took debt as a percentage of GDP from 40 o 60% -- because, in my view, they believed they could cut taxes and increase spending at the same time) and Bush II (who took it from 60-80%). Clinton "paid down" debt.
Obama inherited the worst ecomonic mess since the Great Depression and followed the Keynesian prescription of deficit spending to ge us out. That involved more debt (nearly all of which, TARP I and II and the stimulus that would have been spent by Bush anyway).
We can take a look at this chart again in 2016 when Obama's second terms ends...lol...but for now, your point is wrong.
Also, I ignored it before, but you TRULY think Fox is the best source of "balanced" news and you TRULY listen to Glenn Beck for instruction on what the Constitution says means? Really? A former alchoholic drug using DJ who never went to college? That's your constitutional scholar?
You scare me dude. Sorry, but you do.
Alan,
If they can keep more they will, and this would not automatically lead to more employees.
John Dyson was making a fortune in the UK in 2005 profits had passed £100 million, allowing him the luxury of trying to decide how much dividend to pay himself and his wife Deirdre.
He hardly needed the money: in 2004 he took out £17 million, helping to pay for a country estate. The small blot on his landscaped garden
He still moved production to the east loosing over 880 jobs in the UK because he could cut production costs pay his employees less and make even more money.
Pat Buckley
GT40s Supporter
I think moving jobs out of country is a whole different issue, but I get your point. As for how much money he retains, that is his perogative. He is entitled to keep every single dime if he desires - but the fact is that in order to grow his business he needs to hire more and more people - it is not automatic only in the sense that he has to establish an HR department, place ads, etc.....
Different studies have the debt to GDP as being from 88% to 92% at this time. The deficit spending that is going on will make it higher. When BO gets out of office in 2012 the debt will be atleast 10% higher than when Bush left office. Will this additional 10% be attributed to Bush? At any time during this presidency is anyone going to say "we are responsible for this". This "Bush did it" bullshit is getting old. We all know Bush screwed things up, but..... Will four years be enough time to accept responsibility?
It seems funny that BO is preaching stimulus at the conference and no one wants to incur more debt. What a concept, what the hell are those people thinking, they want to pay down their debt, how stupid!
Here is an abstract from 2 Harvard economists Alberto Alesina and Silvia Ardagna
We examine the evidence on episodes of large stances in fiscal policy,
both in cases of fiscal stimuli and in that of fiscal adjustments in OECD
countries from 1970 to 2007. Fiscal stimuli based upon tax cuts are more
likely to increase growth than those based upon spending increases. As for
fiscal adjustments those based upon spending cuts and no tax increases are
more likely to reduce deficits and debt over GDP ratios than those based upon
tax increases. In addition, adjustments on the spending side rather than on
the tax side are less likely to create recessions. We confirm these results with
simple regression analysis.
http://www.economics.harvard.edu/fa...rge+changes+in+fiscal+policy_October_2009.pdf
Now if I can find this, why can't BO's people find it?
Back to immigration.
It seems funny that BO is preaching stimulus at the conference and no one wants to incur more debt. What a concept, what the hell are those people thinking, they want to pay down their debt, how stupid!
Here is an abstract from 2 Harvard economists Alberto Alesina and Silvia Ardagna
We examine the evidence on episodes of large stances in fiscal policy,
both in cases of fiscal stimuli and in that of fiscal adjustments in OECD
countries from 1970 to 2007. Fiscal stimuli based upon tax cuts are more
likely to increase growth than those based upon spending increases. As for
fiscal adjustments those based upon spending cuts and no tax increases are
more likely to reduce deficits and debt over GDP ratios than those based upon
tax increases. In addition, adjustments on the spending side rather than on
the tax side are less likely to create recessions. We confirm these results with
simple regression analysis.
http://www.economics.harvard.edu/fa...rge+changes+in+fiscal+policy_October_2009.pdf
Now if I can find this, why can't BO's people find it?
Back to immigration.
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
We've moved on from immigration because we've proved your "cost of illegals" numbers were bunk, and because you were never able to articulate a rational economic basis for your immigration policy
Alesina and Adragna were in a minority as to what to do in 2008. Many economists believed the stimulis package was in fact too small.
The biggest problem with their analysis is that it ignores political realities. I've asked this question several times in this thread and the other -- what programs would you cut (and could you cut given the political realities in this country) to support your tax cuts? The majority of our budget is social security, medicare, defense and debt service. What goes? You have to make that choice to make tax cuts work.
Otherwise, you get what we had in the 80s. Short term growth, that ultimately collapses under artificially inflated long term interest rates due to rapidly increasing debt
Don't get me wrong, the debt HAS to come down. If not, we are in BIG trouble. I'm just trying to figure out why you think tax cuts will do that given that spending cuts to go along with it are pretty much just not possible.
Also, I don't blame Bush for TARP and the stimulus. Well, I blame 30 years of in cases shortsighted economic deregulation and a US policy to put people into houses who actually couldn't afford to own them. But we were getting TARP and the stimulus regardless of whether McCain or Obama or someone else won.
So no, I don't "blame" Bush and I don't blame Obama either. It was a necessity.
Alesina and Adragna were in a minority as to what to do in 2008. Many economists believed the stimulis package was in fact too small.
The biggest problem with their analysis is that it ignores political realities. I've asked this question several times in this thread and the other -- what programs would you cut (and could you cut given the political realities in this country) to support your tax cuts? The majority of our budget is social security, medicare, defense and debt service. What goes? You have to make that choice to make tax cuts work.
Otherwise, you get what we had in the 80s. Short term growth, that ultimately collapses under artificially inflated long term interest rates due to rapidly increasing debt
Don't get me wrong, the debt HAS to come down. If not, we are in BIG trouble. I'm just trying to figure out why you think tax cuts will do that given that spending cuts to go along with it are pretty much just not possible.
Also, I don't blame Bush for TARP and the stimulus. Well, I blame 30 years of in cases shortsighted economic deregulation and a US policy to put people into houses who actually couldn't afford to own them. But we were getting TARP and the stimulus regardless of whether McCain or Obama or someone else won.
So no, I don't "blame" Bush and I don't blame Obama either. It was a necessity.
The analysis was based on what worked on other countries economies. Massive stimulus has never worked, were income tax cuts and small business tax cuts have always stimulated the economy. Business tax cuts encourage business growth, more jobs, less unemployment, more taxpayers, hmmmmmm........... And no I don't think McCain would have been a good president, but this spending with no money in the bank has to stop. We call people that do this irresponsible, yet we allow our government to go far beyond this, what they are doing is criminal!
Jeff, Illegal alien costs are real, this is just one hospital. Tucson hopitals have had huge illegal alien debt each year. School costs are ridiculous. The prison illegal population is huge. What do you think CA would save each without illegal aliens? They pay tax on goods purchased, that's it! It hardly helps.
Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, Texas is a fairly famous institution and for a variety of reasons:
1. John F. Kennedy died there in 1963
2. Lee Harvey Oswald died there shortly after
3. Jack Ruby-who killed Oswald, died there some years later.
On the flip side, Parkland is also home to the second busiest maternity ward in the country with almost 16,000 new babies arriving each year. (That's almost 44 per day---every day)!
A recent patient survey indicated that 70 percent of the women who gave birth at Parkland in the first three months of 2006 were illegal immigrants.That's 11,200 anchor babies born every year just in Dallas!!!
According to the article, the hospital spent $70.7 million delivering 15,938 babies in 2004 but managed to end up with almost $8 million dollars in surplus funding. Medicaid kicked in $34.5 million, Dallas County taxpayers kicked in $31.3 million and the feds tossed in another $9.5 million.
The average patient in Parkland in maternity wards is 25 years old, married and giving birth to her second child. She is also an illegal immigrant. By law, pregnant women cannot be denied medical care based on their immigration status or ability to pay.
OK, fine. That doesn't mean they should receive better care than everyday, middle-class American citizens. But at Parkland Hospital , they do. " Parkland Memorial Hospital has nine prenatal clinics. NINE!!!
The Dallas Morning News article followed a Hispanic woman who was a patient at one of the clinics and pregnant with her third child---her previous two were also born at Parkland. Her first two deliveries were free and the Mexican native was grateful because it would have cost $200 to have them in Mexico. This time, the hospital wants her to pay $10 per visit and $100 for the delivery but she was unsure if she could come up with the money. Not that it matters, the hospital won't turn her away. (I wonder why they even bother asking at this point.)
"How long has this been going on? What are the long-term effects?
Well, another subject of the article was born at Parkland in 1986 shortly after her mother entered the US illegally - now she is having her own child there as well. (That's right; she's technically a US citizen.)
These women receive free prenatal care including medication, nutrition, birthing classes and child care classes. They also get freebies such as car seats, bottles, diapers and formula.
Most of these things are available to American citizens as well, but only for low-income applicants, and even then, the red tape involved is almost insurmountable.
Because these women are illegal immigrants, they do not have to provide any sort of legitimate identification - no proof of income. An American citizen would have to provide a social security number which would reveal their annual income - an illegal immigrant need only claim to be poor and the hospital must take them at their word.
Parkland Hospital offers indigent care to Dallas County residents who earn less than $40,000 per year. (They also have to prove that they did not refuse health coverage at their current job.. Yeah, the 'free' care is not so easy for Americans.)
There are about 140 patients who received roughly $4 million dollars for un-reimbursed medical care.. As it turns out, they did not qualify for free treatment because they resided outside of Dallas County so the hospital is going to sue them! Illegal's get it all free! But U. S citizens who live outside of Dallas County get sued! How stupid is this?
As if that isn't annoying enough, the illegal immigrant patients are actually complaining about hospital staff not speaking Spanish. In this AP story, the author speaks with a woman who is upset that she had to translate comments from the hospital staff into Spanish for her husband.. The doctor was trying to explain the situation to the family and the mother was forced to translate for her husband who only spoke Spanish.
This was apparently a great injustice to her.
In an attempt to create a Spanish-speaking staff, Parkland Hospital is now providing incentives in the form of extra pay for applicants who speak Spanish.. Additionally, medical students at the University of Texas Southwestern for which Parkland Hospital is the training facility will now have a Spanish language requirement added to their already jammed-packed curriculum. No other school in the country boasts such a ridiculous multi-semester (multicultural) requirement.
Jeff, Illegal alien costs are real, this is just one hospital. Tucson hopitals have had huge illegal alien debt each year. School costs are ridiculous. The prison illegal population is huge. What do you think CA would save each without illegal aliens? They pay tax on goods purchased, that's it! It hardly helps.
Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, Texas is a fairly famous institution and for a variety of reasons:
1. John F. Kennedy died there in 1963
2. Lee Harvey Oswald died there shortly after
3. Jack Ruby-who killed Oswald, died there some years later.
On the flip side, Parkland is also home to the second busiest maternity ward in the country with almost 16,000 new babies arriving each year. (That's almost 44 per day---every day)!
A recent patient survey indicated that 70 percent of the women who gave birth at Parkland in the first three months of 2006 were illegal immigrants.That's 11,200 anchor babies born every year just in Dallas!!!
According to the article, the hospital spent $70.7 million delivering 15,938 babies in 2004 but managed to end up with almost $8 million dollars in surplus funding. Medicaid kicked in $34.5 million, Dallas County taxpayers kicked in $31.3 million and the feds tossed in another $9.5 million.
The average patient in Parkland in maternity wards is 25 years old, married and giving birth to her second child. She is also an illegal immigrant. By law, pregnant women cannot be denied medical care based on their immigration status or ability to pay.
OK, fine. That doesn't mean they should receive better care than everyday, middle-class American citizens. But at Parkland Hospital , they do. " Parkland Memorial Hospital has nine prenatal clinics. NINE!!!
The Dallas Morning News article followed a Hispanic woman who was a patient at one of the clinics and pregnant with her third child---her previous two were also born at Parkland. Her first two deliveries were free and the Mexican native was grateful because it would have cost $200 to have them in Mexico. This time, the hospital wants her to pay $10 per visit and $100 for the delivery but she was unsure if she could come up with the money. Not that it matters, the hospital won't turn her away. (I wonder why they even bother asking at this point.)
"How long has this been going on? What are the long-term effects?
Well, another subject of the article was born at Parkland in 1986 shortly after her mother entered the US illegally - now she is having her own child there as well. (That's right; she's technically a US citizen.)
These women receive free prenatal care including medication, nutrition, birthing classes and child care classes. They also get freebies such as car seats, bottles, diapers and formula.
Most of these things are available to American citizens as well, but only for low-income applicants, and even then, the red tape involved is almost insurmountable.
Because these women are illegal immigrants, they do not have to provide any sort of legitimate identification - no proof of income. An American citizen would have to provide a social security number which would reveal their annual income - an illegal immigrant need only claim to be poor and the hospital must take them at their word.
Parkland Hospital offers indigent care to Dallas County residents who earn less than $40,000 per year. (They also have to prove that they did not refuse health coverage at their current job.. Yeah, the 'free' care is not so easy for Americans.)
There are about 140 patients who received roughly $4 million dollars for un-reimbursed medical care.. As it turns out, they did not qualify for free treatment because they resided outside of Dallas County so the hospital is going to sue them! Illegal's get it all free! But U. S citizens who live outside of Dallas County get sued! How stupid is this?
As if that isn't annoying enough, the illegal immigrant patients are actually complaining about hospital staff not speaking Spanish. In this AP story, the author speaks with a woman who is upset that she had to translate comments from the hospital staff into Spanish for her husband.. The doctor was trying to explain the situation to the family and the mother was forced to translate for her husband who only spoke Spanish.
This was apparently a great injustice to her.
In an attempt to create a Spanish-speaking staff, Parkland Hospital is now providing incentives in the form of extra pay for applicants who speak Spanish.. Additionally, medical students at the University of Texas Southwestern for which Parkland Hospital is the training facility will now have a Spanish language requirement added to their already jammed-packed curriculum. No other school in the country boasts such a ridiculous multi-semester (multicultural) requirement.
You can move on from illegal immigration, but the problem in Arizona is still here and alive.
Ron Earp
Admin
Graphically it looks like this and Jeff's description is accurate. The low hanging fruit that makes up ~66% of the budget (or did in 2009) is SS, medicare, and national defense.
Graphically it looks like this and Jeff's description is accurate. The low hanging fruit that makes up ~66% of the budget (or did in 2009) is SS, medicare, and national defense.
Wait till you see the slice of the pie that healthcare takes.
Speaking of healthcare, get a grip on this....for most of us our healthcare plans are not taxable, either the benefits or the premiums we pay. That might just be changing, one of the provisions in the healthcare plan switches the value of medical benefits to "gross taxable income".
Not good, but not necessarily bad, either....at least if we make healthcare benefits taxable, those who enroll in the government's healthcare program (whom I believe have been mostly uninsured) will then have to pay an increased income tax, too...and thereby will help fund their own healthcare, as do we who have taken the responsible high road and insured ourselves. Too bad we'll have to continue to pay for part of their healthcare, too, but at least we won't have to pay for ALL of their healthcare, like we have been doing (based on my observations).
Doug
Not good, but not necessarily bad, either....at least if we make healthcare benefits taxable, those who enroll in the government's healthcare program (whom I believe have been mostly uninsured) will then have to pay an increased income tax, too...and thereby will help fund their own healthcare, as do we who have taken the responsible high road and insured ourselves. Too bad we'll have to continue to pay for part of their healthcare, too, but at least we won't have to pay for ALL of their healthcare, like we have been doing (based on my observations).
Doug
