We are not a communist country.
No we aren't, thank God. But add in the cost of all federal, state, and local government spending, and all the costs associated with complying with their laws and regulations, and it amounts to over half our GDP, so I suppose we are half way there. Still "half" is hugely better than "all" or "almost all", its a major and vital difference.
"Society would march along just fine if government spending and taxes had never exceeded half or even a quarter of what they are now."
Show the numbers. Show the detail.
How about you show the numbers and detail for other side of the argument. I've provided more detail than you have.
And your trying to defend a ridiculous proposition anyway. Either your implying that society would collapse if we significantly cut government spending (in which case I suggest the burden of providing specific evidence properly belongs on you), or your not opposing my point.
SS is a self funding program so getting rid of that is a wash.
Its nothing that resembles a wash, its over $600bil in spending a year. "Self funding" merely means its paid for by a tax that has the same name and in this particular case was created by the same law". That's not an important distinction when your considering how big the government is, directly associate the tax and spending, or have them be separate, whatever you want, but either choice doesn't change the size of the government.
I wouldn't have started Social Security, at least not set up the way it is, but canceling it isn't something I'd really support now. People paid in to it all their lives and made their decisions in life based on it being there. I also wouldn't get rid of Medicaid (although again perhaps there would be a better way to have set it up). As for Medicaid. I don't see any reason to generally pay for people's medical expenses solely because of their age, rather then because they are to poor to pay the costs for themselves. OTOH like SS I wouldn't simply cancel the program because the transition would be nasty. Instead I would restrict the growth of all three programs.
I never said anything about a program that increases the price of milk. I don't like the farm supports that benefit large, industrialized farms. They are bad for our health and increase the cost of health care. That is your strawman.
Its not a straw man in the context of your argument that taxes are the price we pay for society, and refusing to accept that point that much of what taxes pay for isn't necessary in order to have society. As long as you continue to support that idea, any foolish, or even just undesirable government program is a reasonable counterpoint.
Well really any government program that wasn't necessary to maintain society is a reasonable counter point. I am not calling for the end of Social Security, and Medicare, but they aren't a necessary part of society. Social Security benefits are $644 billion for FY 2009, Medicare is $408 billion, and running the SSA is an additional $8.4 billion. So that's over a trillion dollars, that can be defended in all sorts of ways, and arguably is something we should continue, but which can't reasonably be defended as "the cost of society".
With time and effort (that probably wouldn't be worth it) trillions more could be added to that list.
If you want to argue that these programs are a good thing, that we should have them, that their will be pain if we don't etc. Well for some of those trillions you could be right.
But even if you are that doesn't make it "the cost of society", it is rather "the cost of big government".
Why would having people making over $104K or thereabouts paying out their fair share of SS taxes be damaging?
For the same reason that increasing income tax rates would be damaging. Your reducing the incentive for productive people to work longer and harder. Your also bringing in more money to the government to have its use decided by politics rather than letting people decide what they want to do with their own money. Furthermore your creating an incentive to shift income away from salaries, and instead have it come in the form of non-taxed benefits, or in some cases equity stakes, or other forms of compensation. These other forms aren't inherently bad, sometimes they might be good ideas, but if they aren't what people want, and they are only being given to avoid taxation your decreasing people's net well being, and also creating investments in ways to provide these alternate benefits that may not be very productive.
If the cap is not just raised but eliminated, your effectively raising the tax on earned income to everyone who makes over the current limit by 15.3% percentage points. 15.3 percent isn't just a large tax increase its a massive increase. Its enough for the incentives to be changed for many people and businesses. If a corporation rewards its executives with lavish facilities, and access to a corporate jet, so that it can compensate them without extra taxes having to be paid, then you get a lot of resources devoted to such extravagances, solely as a response to tax policy. If it gives out equity shares instead of salaries, then the executives assume risks that they might not want to, if the company does poorly they make little, and if it does well they get an even larger share of the benefit from that than they do now. In some cases equity, diamond plated health plans and other lavish benefits, or lavish corporate assets for the use of executives may make sense, but we shouldn't set up our tax policy so as to encourage them.
What do you think would have been the consequences of the federal government doing nothing?
Part of the reason such problems can get so big is the expectation of government bailouts.
If the government did nothing except having the fed supply some liquidity the short term results might have been a bit worse than they are now, but the long term situation would probably be better as we would be clearing up messes, rather than papering them over with government cash, and we wouldn't be creating perverse incentives by causing people to think that large financial companies will be bailed out again if they run in to problems in the future.
Are you against the continuing occupation in Iraq at a cost of $10-12b/month?
There is no occupation of Iraq, since we aren't an occupying power there (even though we where in the past), but that's a totally separate issue.
At this point just jumping out of Iraq immediately would cause more harm then good, but eventually I want us to pull out. The way things have been going pulling out and not having massively horrible results is becoming more and more possible.
What else do you want to shut down?
I already provided you with a list that would add up to the low twelve figures and recommended restraint in future growth of programs that account for a thirteen figure spending amount.
That would be good as a start, even though the immediate cuts would not be massive compared to the current government's spending. Once we get that we can evaluate from there. It doesn't have to be one big prearranged plan, or something done all at once. |
