Political Roundtable Part XVIII

[cammac]

The initial VAT Tax (GST) was 8% and was extremely unpopular but it also worked. It has been reduced over the years and now is at 5%.
There is no silver bullet reducing the debt or at least stemming it is hard work if you can balance a budget then the rise in the GDP brings down the national debt obviously it is even better to streamline cut costs and have a surplus. Just balancing the budget over a 10 year span will reduce the debt by 20 to 30% just because of GDP growth.

[Zonkerbl]

Well, I see the latest budget as evidence that there are services that we want from the government that cost more than we bring in in revenue. Frankly, increasing revenue is going to be easier than cutting the budget. Our revenue to GDP ratio is really low, the fifth lowest in the OECD: https://www.oecd.org/tax/revenue-statistics-united-states.pdf

A VAT would be a great place to start. It's regressive, so what we could also do is ask for the wealthy to contribute half a trillion to fund a basic income program.

Yes, the corporate income tax was stupid and we needed to get rid of it, or at least lower it significantly. But we need to replace that revenue.

[cammac]

If illegal immigrants were somehow legalized how would they contribute to US taxes?
This is a story on that a little over a year ago on how many illegal's contribute withut getting full benefits of taxes paid.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/17/15290950/undocumented-immigrants-file-tax-returns

[FAH1223]

Read on Twitter

While I agree with Paul on things like civil liberties and some things on foreign policy, he's so full of shid. Lol.. c'mon man, you're part of the Koch Brothers network... gave your donors a huge tax cut without any regard for the deficit or national debt.

[gtn130]

Uhhhh so this seems like a big deal:

Read on Twitter

[nate33]

I've asked this question a few times but have yet to get an answer: Where is this overwhelming evidence that the DOJ lied to a judge in order get a FISA warrant on Carter Page?

They omitted the crucial information that the Steele Dossier was funded by Clinton.

They represented to the FISA judge that the Steele Dossier was corroborated by other media stories when in fact the "corroborating media story" was also sourced from Christopher Steele.

They knew Steele leaked to the media that he was working for the FBI, which is instantly disqualifying. The FBI kept that fact from the FISA judge when they presented the Dossier. After the FBI got the first FISA warrant approved, the FBI cut ties with Steele specifically because he leaked to the press. (They delayed cutting ties until after securing the warrant.) Then, during the next renewal of the warrant, the FBI still failed to inform the judge that they had cut ties to Steele for violating their trust (by leaking to the media).

And we are now hearing information that some of the sources for the Steele Dossier come from Hillary Clinton henchmen like Sid Blumenthal. (I've been busy today so I haven't had a chance to research this aspect of the scandal yet.)

[dckingsfan]

According to this article we could raise revenue by about $356 billion with a 5% VAT:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-would-rate-be-under-vat

And like you say - that still wouldn't do it.

We could get rid of DOE, HUD, EPA, & Labor - after all, they are discretionary spending. And yet, that wouldn't do it either.

Well, except all the other things I mentioned were one time lump sum taxes, while a VAT that increases revenues by $356 billion a year for ten years is nothing to sneeze at. Three and a half trillion right there.

I agree with the Republicans that marginal tax rates that you impose on the rich have consequences for growth, but the rich must also realize that it would be bad for their business for the United States to go belly up, and they benefit tremendously from the services the US provides - rule of law (nobody even dreams of nationalizing anything in the US), a court system that favors the wealthy (let's face it), the strongest, most stable currency in the world, and a huge honking military complex that is a constant stream of cash. It's only fair for the wealthy to chip in to keep the whole thing solvent, so it would totally make sense for them all to pool their $3.5 trillion of assets together to fund a half trillion reduction in the debt.

Agreed. And agreed (I think you implied it) that there is a difference between marginal tax rates on businesses and on individuals.

Just have a fair tax rate with no carveouts - that would get us to pretty close to 20% of GDP. Problem is - we are still spending at close to 23% of GDP (well, we were).

[dckingsfan]

Well, I see the latest budget as evidence that there are services that we want from the government that cost more than we bring in in revenue. Frankly, increasing revenue is going to be easier than cutting the budget. Our revenue to GDP ratio is really low, the fifth lowest in the OECD: https://www.oecd.org/tax/revenue-statistics-united-states.pdf

A VAT would be a great place to start. It's regressive, so what we could also do is ask for the wealthy to contribute half a trillion to fund a basic income program.

Yes, the corporate income tax was stupid and we needed to get rid of it, or at least lower it significantly. But we need to replace that revenue.

Actually...

[JWizmentality]

I've asked this question a few times but have yet to get an answer: Where is this overwhelming evidence that the DOJ lied to a judge in order get a FISA warrant on Carter Page?

They omitted the crucial information that the Steele Dossier was funded by Clinton.

They represented to the FISA judge that the Steele Dossier was corroborated by other media stories when in fact the "corroborating media story" was also sourced from Christopher Steele.

They knew Steele leaked to the media that he was working for the FBI, which is instantly disqualifying. The FBI kept that fact from the FISA judge when they presented the Dossier. After the FBI got the first FISA warrant approved, the FBI cut ties with Steele specifically because he leaked to the press. (They delayed cutting ties until after securing the warrant.) Then, during the next renewal of the warrant, the FBI still failed to inform the judge that they had cut ties to Steele for violating their trust (by leaking to the media).

And we are now hearing information that some of the sources for the Steele Dossier come from Hillary Clinton henchmen like Sid Blumenthal. (I've been busy today so I haven't had a chance to research this aspect of the scandal yet.)

That has already been debunked. The court was told that there was a political element to the dossier.

Wow, we're back to Blumenthal.
I'll go out on a limb and say this is typical garbage from Foxnews. Who wants to bet this will be dropped in a few days and they they'll try to stick some other feces to the wall.

[nate33]

I've asked this question a few times but have yet to get an answer: Where is this overwhelming evidence that the DOJ lied to a judge in order get a FISA warrant on Carter Page?

They omitted the crucial information that the Steele Dossier was funded by Clinton.

They represented to the FISA judge that the Steele Dossier was corroborated by other media stories when in fact the "corroborating media story" was also sourced from Christopher Steele.

They knew Steele leaked to the media that he was working for the FBI, which is instantly disqualifying. The FBI kept that fact from the FISA judge when they presented the Dossier. After the FBI got the first FISA warrant approved, the FBI cut ties with Steele specifically because he leaked to the press. (They delayed cutting ties until after securing the warrant.) Then, during the next renewal of the warrant, the FBI still failed to inform the judge that they had cut ties to Steele for violating their trust (by leaking to the media).

And we are now hearing information that some of the sources for the Steele Dossier come from Hillary Clinton henchmen like Sid Blumenthal. (I've been busy today so I haven't had a chance to research this aspect of the scandal yet.)

That has already been debunked. The court was told that there was a political element to the dossier.

Wow, we're back to Blumenthal.
I'll go out on a limb and say this is typical garbage from Foxnews. Who wants to bet this will be dropped in a few days and they they'll try to stick some other feces to the wall.

That is not "debunked". A footnote that says there is a political element is not the same thing as it was funded by the Clinton campaign.

And these are just the deliberate lies and deceptions by the FBI. There's also the fact that nearly every relevant part of the Dossier is either false or unverified.

[cammac]

And like you say - that still wouldn't do it.

We could get rid of DOE, HUD, EPA, & Labor - after all, they are discretionary spending. And yet, that wouldn't do it either.

Well, except all the other things I mentioned were one time lump sum taxes, while a VAT that increases revenues by $356 billion a year for ten years is nothing to sneeze at. Three and a half trillion right there.

I agree with the Republicans that marginal tax rates that you impose on the rich have consequences for growth, but the rich must also realize that it would be bad for their business for the United States to go belly up, and they benefit tremendously from the services the US provides - rule of law (nobody even dreams of nationalizing anything in the US), a court system that favors the wealthy (let's face it), the strongest, most stable currency in the world, and a huge honking military complex that is a constant stream of cash. It's only fair for the wealthy to chip in to keep the whole thing solvent, so it would totally make sense for them all to pool their $3.5 trillion of assets together to fund a half trillion reduction in the debt.

Agreed. And agreed (I think you implied it) that there is a difference between marginal tax rates on businesses and on individuals.

Just have a fair tax rate with no carveouts - that would get us to pretty close to 20% of GDP. Problem is - we are still spending at close to 23% of GDP (well, we were).

One other avenue is the cost of incarceration which is estimated to cost municipalities, states and federal government over 1 Trillion a year! USA has 5% of the worlds population and 25% of people in jail or prisons. Just cutting back 25% saves 250 million a year.

The elimination of the death penalty like other civilized democracies would be a huge savings in California it costs $137 million for death row inmates per year according to Forbes and that doesn't include significantly higher court costs involved in death row verdicts. The death penalty isn't a deterrence and in how many cases have falsely accused been murdered by the sate?

[stilldropin20]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[Pointgod]

Trump is blocking the release of the Democratic memo. What does Don the Con have to hide? If anyone thinks this guy isn't somehow compromised I don't know what to tell you.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/373229-trump-will-not-approve-release-of-dem-counter-to-nunes-memo-report

[closg00]

HAHA, of-course the Trump WH is not releasing the Democrat rebuttal to the memo. *Breaking*

[stilldropin20]

Trump is blocking the release of the Democratic memo. What does Don the Con have to hide? If anyone thinks this guy isn't somehow compromised I don't know what to tell you.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/373229-trump-will-not-approve-release-of-dem-counter-to-nunes-memo-report

wray blocked the memo due to national security concerns. wray has been instructed by trump to make himself available to D's and educate D's on which parts of the memo expose national security.

Read on Twitter

[Zonkerbl]

HAHA, of-course the Trump WH is not releasing the Democrat rebuttal to the memo. *Breaking*

He’s terrified it’ll make him look stupid, of course.

[closg00]

If the Nunes memo were accurate or true, and the FISA warrant was based on the "fake" dossier alone, there wouldn't be anything else about the FISA warrant to discuss by denying the release of this memo and by admitting there is important classified information in this memo (concerning that FISA warrant) that can't be released, the Trump admin is admitting there was more to the FISA warrant than just the dossier thereby debunking the Nunes memo

They will drag this out as-long as possible, next we'll have to see if Ryan will schedule a vote in the house to over-ride.
The fact that they are doing this one again just shows how morally bankrupt this administration is and people will remember this when the next damaging shoe is dropped.

[JWizmentality]

Cadet Bone Spurs won't release Dem memo? I'm shocked.

Who cares. The Meuller awaits at the doorstep. Head be rollin.

[Zonkerbl]

Well, I see the latest budget as evidence that there are services that we want from the government that cost more than we bring in in revenue. Frankly, increasing revenue is going to be easier than cutting the budget. Our revenue to GDP ratio is really low, the fifth lowest in the OECD: https://www.oecd.org/tax/revenue-statistics-united-states.pdf

A VAT would be a great place to start. It's regressive, so what we could also do is ask for the wealthy to contribute half a trillion to fund a basic income program.

Yes, the corporate income tax was stupid and we needed to get rid of it, or at least lower it significantly. But we need to replace that revenue.

Actually...

OECD figures include state revenue. No one includes local revenue, that's silly.

Actually, to be precise, I advocate that the tax base be as broad as possible. A VAT with no exemptions is the broadest tax base you can fashion, and it doesn't have the disincentive to work built into it that the income tax does.

[dckingsfan]

Well, I see the latest budget as evidence that there are services that we want from the government that cost more than we bring in in revenue. Frankly, increasing revenue is going to be easier than cutting the budget. Our revenue to GDP ratio is really low, the fifth lowest in the OECD: https://www.oecd.org/tax/revenue-statistics-united-states.pdf

A VAT would be a great place to start. It's regressive, so what we could also do is ask for the wealthy to contribute half a trillion to fund a basic income program.

Yes, the corporate income tax was stupid and we needed to get rid of it, or at least lower it significantly. But we need to replace that revenue.

Actually...

OECD figures include state revenue. No one includes local revenue, that's silly.

Actually, to be precise, I advocate that the tax base be as broad as possible. A VAT with no exemptions is the broadest tax base you can fashion, and it doesn't have the disincentive to work built into it that the income tax does.

Four things to this. First, OECD's numbers show us at 26 odd percent - but we are really at 30+ for federal and state. Second, the 40+ percent does make a difference and is necessary in our case to understand our total receipts. Third, I agree a VAT would be a good place to start. Fourth, getting the cost drivers in hand should be done first - otherwise it won't matter - we will still outspend any new taxes as we have done in the past.