Deficit Reduction Commission, what a joke.
So Obama put together 18 people to make up a deficit reduction commission aimed at reducing the deficit. That is a great idea, almost stellar, and what a leader should be doing, reducing the nations red column. However, just as with healthcare, there is a right way and a wrong way to go about things.
Unless there is an entire re-write of US tax code which moves us from a progressive tax base to a flat-tax tax base, there is no way on earth that any of the "ideas" of this commission would come to pass. Which begs the question "was this just an exercise in futility?"
Some of the notions were: severely cutting Social Security, huge reductions in Medicare and removal of the Mortgage interest write-off. This is incredible without substantial tax changes.
First, Social Security..no matter what you do here somebody gets slammed, either the old or the young. It is as simple as that. Because the only remotely fair way to do this would be to say something along the lines of: If social security kicks in when you're 50, then anyone currently 25 and younger would be cleared of the system. That way you could end the system in 25 years. There is no fair way to do it, somebody who has paid in doesn't get money. Which brings up the question of "if I paid in for 10 years, can I now sue the government for my money back? since it was all blown on discretionary spending.
The second issue, Medicare, this is something Obamacare complicated, it didn't help it. So now we're suppose to do what, scrap everything health related while at the same time not allowing inter-state competition in health companies? What is the end-state here?
Thirdly, the mortgage interest deduction, who in their right mind would own a home paying even 4% interest if you couldn't write it off at tax time? Do the math here, you could rent a place for less than purchasing it to achieve the same results. Is the goal to have the government own housing, and citizens just rent? Unless there was some drastic change in economics as to how money was borrowed, this never flies.
With all of this, what was the point? The point is, start with the progressive tax-code. It is, ironically, the simplest thing to change. It hasn't even existed 100 years yet (though it is closing rapidly on that number). Currently 50% of US citizens don't pay federal income tax. Let's change that. Instead of burdening a group of 10% with 40% of the taxes, make it fair. Everyone pays something like 8% of their total gross earnings to federal income tax. And let's reduce all these other hidden taxes in water, sewer, gas, food, etc. We pay 10's of taxes every day but focus on income because it seems to be the obvious number every April 15th.
The point is, there is a better way. Maybe legislature isn't the best way to find the result.
Unless there is an entire re-write of US tax code which moves us from a progressive tax base to a flat-tax tax base, there is no way on earth that any of the "ideas" of this commission would come to pass. Which begs the question "was this just an exercise in futility?"
Some of the notions were: severely cutting Social Security, huge reductions in Medicare and removal of the Mortgage interest write-off. This is incredible without substantial tax changes.
First, Social Security..no matter what you do here somebody gets slammed, either the old or the young. It is as simple as that. Because the only remotely fair way to do this would be to say something along the lines of: If social security kicks in when you're 50, then anyone currently 25 and younger would be cleared of the system. That way you could end the system in 25 years. There is no fair way to do it, somebody who has paid in doesn't get money. Which brings up the question of "if I paid in for 10 years, can I now sue the government for my money back? since it was all blown on discretionary spending.
The second issue, Medicare, this is something Obamacare complicated, it didn't help it. So now we're suppose to do what, scrap everything health related while at the same time not allowing inter-state competition in health companies? What is the end-state here?
Thirdly, the mortgage interest deduction, who in their right mind would own a home paying even 4% interest if you couldn't write it off at tax time? Do the math here, you could rent a place for less than purchasing it to achieve the same results. Is the goal to have the government own housing, and citizens just rent? Unless there was some drastic change in economics as to how money was borrowed, this never flies.
With all of this, what was the point? The point is, start with the progressive tax-code. It is, ironically, the simplest thing to change. It hasn't even existed 100 years yet (though it is closing rapidly on that number). Currently 50% of US citizens don't pay federal income tax. Let's change that. Instead of burdening a group of 10% with 40% of the taxes, make it fair. Everyone pays something like 8% of their total gross earnings to federal income tax. And let's reduce all these other hidden taxes in water, sewer, gas, food, etc. We pay 10's of taxes every day but focus on income because it seems to be the obvious number every April 15th.
The point is, there is a better way. Maybe legislature isn't the best way to find the result.
Comments
Post a Comment