Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (180787)	1/17/2004 11:04:42 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576360

>>> In other words, if you pass a spending bill to fund NASA going to Mars, have the budget office figure the cost, and raise the income tax percentages immediately to cover the cost The concept has a certain appeal, so people could truly see what some of the liberal spending programs have done to this nation. But since the Kennedy administration, tax policy has been a key element in controlling social policy and the economy. It is far bigger than merely the collection of the revenue. That said, I would love to see the Income, Social Security, Medicare, Estate, and Gift taxes replaced by a single National Sales Tax -- the flat rate for which would be varied annually according to the revenue that needed to be raised. This would be the single biggest boon to our economy we could dream of and would help bring wasteful spending under control. But it'll never happen, and I'm resigned to that -- unless a presidential candidate makes it the basis of his campaign -- then wins.

To: Road Walker who wrote (180787)	1/22/2004 5:08:24 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1576360

Figure a way to change taxes in (almost) real time for any spending bill that gets passed. In other words, if you pass a spending bill to fund NASA going to Mars, have the budget office figure the cost, and raise the income tax percentages immediately to cover the cost. The idea would have certain definite benefits but the details would be difficult. I have some issues with the idea 1 - Are you talking about budgets or specific bills for new programs or program expansion? If the later you would ignore most spending increases because increases in entitlement spending are built in to already passed laws. If the former you would effectively just be saying that the deficit can not increase beyond its current size, you wouldn't be tying specific new spending to a specific tax increase. Also there is off budget spending and loan guarantees to consider. 2 - In times of great national emergency we would have to increase deficits. But if you allow an out for national emergencies then it will be abused by politicians. 3 - If we can actually implement major changes in the way government does business I'd rather focus on spending then the deficit. I the government doubled its spending but increased taxes to erase the deficit it would be more harmful to the country then the current large deficit. 4 - Are you calling for a law or constitutional amendment ? 5 - How would it be enforced? The net effect? A lot less crap programs would get passed. A lot more public debate. A balanced budget Maybe you would get less crap programs. In fact I agree you probably would get less but I'm not sure if it would be a lot less. As for a balanced budget, your proposal as stated would not balance the budget, it would just keep the deficit from getting bigger. Tim