Yes, the problem is that the government has promised to pay too much money to too many people who are not productive enough to justify the expense. And there are not enough productive people to make up the difference.
Personally, I am for any plan that taxes the other guy.
Unfortunately (since I share your opinion), your opposition to it doesn’t do much to change the reality. The US government has presently committed to paying for lots of people’s healthcare, and I don’t see a problem with taxing recreational drugs that cause health problems as a result.
Poor dietary choices are not the same thing as recreational drugs.
I don’t personally speak for any Democrats. But I do read their literature.
There are people who hate the rich and want to nationalize the wealth. And some of them post on this board. But most of them will denounce the Democrats as being no different than the Republicans and tell you Obama’s problem is he’s just another conservative corporate lackey. Tell them Obama’s a Socialist and their answer will be “I wish.”
How do you come to that conclusion?
I am not so sure that federal wages or benefits are the issue. I do agree that spending, particularly defense spending is an issue, as is wasteful spending on any number of things/projects/studies/bridges to nowhere, etc. The government spends more money than it takes in, yes. But the nation as a whole has only 48% of the population paying into the tax system, which to me is a huge problem, along with tax cheats, people whom underpay, don’t file, whatever.
So what I mean by all that is that not only does the government need to cut spending…it also needs to take in more revenue at the same time if we are to ever emerge from this ungodly mountain of debt.
1980 called - it wants its rhetoric back.
The Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) only applies to employees hired before early 1984. The Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) is much less generous, and relies more on employee contributions. And there is proposed legislation to replace FERS with an even less generous system for employees hired after 2013.
And while you didn’t say anything about the myth that federal employees are ripping off social security by not paying in, it sounded like you were heading there, so here are the facts: CSRS employees do not pay social security taxes, but they don’t receive social security benefits when they retire. All the rest of federal employees pay in just like you do.
While the health plans offered to government employees are good, I work alongside contractors whose health plans are as good or better.
And I am very interested in learning about these automatic promotions you refer to. I could have used the info earlier: I spent 15 years in grade. I finally got promoted this year, after receiving ratings in my agency’s top 1% for several years and deploying twice to Iraq. I wish I’d known there was an easier way. :dubious:
And to the OP: I think XT said it best. The unintended consequences of job losses and loophole-finding almost always reduce the already meager revenue gains from a luxury tax.
Both parties need to quit keeping silent about social security and Medicare.
Bullshit. Cite?
Unmitigated bullshit. See previous post. Cite?
To go back to the original post, luxury taxes tend to mostly destroy high paying US jobs as George Bush Sr. learned.
I am actually for a tax increase, but this is a very foolish way to do so.
Where to start?
-
There’s no shortage of money to invest. In fact, we’ve got a glut of money, that’s why it’s so cheap, in the sense of interest rates scraping zero. The problem is a shortage of widespread demand due to widespread unemployment and low wages, which discourages investment. If there’s a shortage of people with money to buy your stuff, you won’t invest in plant, equipment, and workers to make more of it.
-
The problem with rich people isn’t that they buy all sorts of gold-plated toys; it’s that there’s only so many toys one can buy. If rich people could and did spend practically all their disposable income, that would help the economy enormously. But they can’t. Having a tax that discourages their spending and pushes them to add even more to the savings glut is bassackwards.
-
And then there are the problems mentioned by a number of posters in defining luxury goods as a distinct class for purposes of this tax.
There are plenty of ways to soak the rich that make more sense than a luxury tax, if only because that’s a low bar. I’ve got to get ready for work, but I’ll try to remember to drop in later and talk about a few. For now, I’ll just say: financial transactions tax.
The I suggest you read the news..recently a rather large government agency blew $1.8 million on a conference in Las Vegas. The head of this agency was allowed to retire..on a full pension.
I’d add to this excellent post-last year, the senior senator from Massachusetts (John Kerry), purchased a brand new yacht from a New Zealand firm. He paid $7 million, but parked the yacht in RI (in order to evade the MA sales tax and local excise taxes). A shining example of the rich paying their “fair share”!:mad:
It’s hardly against the law (or even any moral system I’m familiar with) to pay no more tax than one is legally obligated to pay.
I used to live in Bristol VA/TN. Tennessee has a high sales tax, but no income tax; Virginia has an income tax and a more middling sales tax. Is it somehow immoral for Tennesseeans living near the state line to choose to do most of their shopping in Virginia?
In fact MA requires you to report and pay sales tax on out of state purchases. There is even an option to pay the state income tax at a higher rate. Curiously, Sen. Kerry never chooses that option!
So, are you backing away from your claim that we don’t contribute to our pensions?
And by not commenting on the supposed discrepancy in health care plans, I assume you’re admitting you were wrong there too?
Who said anything about pensions? My point is that the Federal payroll is huge, and accomplishes very little (for the funds expended). What does the Dept. of Education accomplish? Since its inception (under Carter) it has grown to a $100 billion/year agency-whilst test scores (as measured by the SAT and ACT ) have declined substantially.
Is this a good use of money?
This guy: