stop being selfish (re: the US deficit)

[livendive 8]

It seems to me that every argument on either side of this debate includes something along the lines of "my side can't/shouldn't give up X" but "the other side can/should give up y". Democrats insist the rich be taxed more, Republicans insist the poor get less welfare.

Let's try something different for a change. Without regard to what you think others should give up, would benefit do you currently enjoy that you'd be willing to sacrifice to help balance the budget.

For starters, I'd give up the mortgage interest deduction on my second home and the deduction of my state sales tax from my taxable income. I'd gladly forego Saturday mail delivery and I be willing to drive on roads maintained half as well as they currently are.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Bolas 5]

It's never going to work like that.

We need to get back to a concept that PC and diversity drove us away from a long time ago: equality.

If it's going to work it needs to suck equally for all, regardless of race, creed, color, religion, etc.

Then again, you could be on to something. Rather than have the sides choose what they can/can't give up, let the other side choose for them and vice versa.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[DougH 270]

I will stop being selfish, let see...

I will continue to go to the job that I earned by paying my own way through college, and by busting my ass.

I will continue to buy things with dollars that I earned to grow the economy. I will continue to file and pay my taxes, taxes on earning that I worked for.

I will continue to help educate my girlfriends children by being around, reading to them, and not fully counting on the government run public education to raise them.

I will continue to put some money away for the future, because you shouldn't expect that the government is going to support you down the road.

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[livendive 8]

Quote

I will stop being selfish, let see...

I will continue to go to the job that I earned by paying my own way through college, and by busting my ass.

I will continue to buy things with dollars that I earned to grow the economy. I will continue to file and pay my taxes, taxes on earning that I worked for.

I will continue to help educate my girlfriends children by being around, reading to them, and not fully counting on the government run public education to raise them.

I will continue to put some money away for the future, because you shouldn't expect that the government is going to support you down the road.

So in other words, you like the status quo and don't want to sacrifice anything to improve it?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[DanG 1]

Quote

If it's going to work it needs to suck equally for all, regardless of race, creed, color, religion, etc.

Do blacks and Jews have some highly maintained road system or super well equiped military that the rest of us aren't aware of?

- Dan G

[livendive 8]

Quote

It's never going to work like that.

We need to get back to a concept that PC and diversity drove us away from a long time ago: equality.

If it's going to work it needs to suck equally for all, regardless of race, creed, color, religion, etc.

Then again, you could be on to something. Rather than have the sides choose what they can/can't give up, let the other side choose for them and vice versa.

It would help if people would read the thread title. Forget everyone else, what (else) would you give up? If the answer is nothing, you are part of the problem.

I thought of another thing. I trust my adult neighbors to decide for themselves how much tobacco, drugs, alcohol, gambling, and/or prostitution is right for them, and would gladly give up the "public service" of prosecuting and imprisoning them. Further, I'd gladly submit to a 50% tax on those vices anytime I choose to partake.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[livendive 8]

Quote

I'll give up my SS in 25 years since it won't be there anyway.

Same. They can keep what I've paid in over the last 25 years as a gift. However this offer is only good for one quarter century...I'm keeping the next 25 years worth for myself.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[champu 1]

I'd give up the "OA" out of OASDI benefits with no change to how much I pay, although that's a bit of an empty offering as I don't expect the program to be solvent by the time I retire. I think providing "S" and "D" are defensible, but having the government finance people's retirement on the dime of the current working population is idiotic, has always been idiotic, and will always be idiotic.

You can choose either sales tax or state income tax to deduct in addition to property taxes (and some other taxes/fees.) I could either do without those or do without the mortgage interest deduction. I say either because getting rid of both would dramatically increase my federal tax liability. There's a difference between asking me to cut back on recreational activities and asking me to halt recreational activities.

On the spending side of things, most of the big government programs in my corner of the industry have already been cancelled over the last three years to save money. So unless you want to just cancel research and technology development all together, I'm not sure I can think of anything else I'd get rid of that would affect me.

[DanG 1]

Quote

I trust my adult neighbors to decide for themselves how much tobacco, drugs, alcohol, gambling, and/or prostitution is right for them, and would gladly give up the "public service" of prosecuting and imprisoning them.

Any houses next to you for sale?

Seriously, I think we need to get rid of the mortgage interest deduction. It would greatly increase my current tax liability, but I think it makes sense. I don't see a current need to encourage home ownership through the tax code.

- Dan G

[mirage62 0]

+1

But the problem isn't picking what to give up...it's giving it up and then watching the Dem or the Reps spending MORE.

If we could get either side to show a true desire to not spend more and people believed it than the hard choices wouldnt be so hard.

I've stated several times that I would be willing to pay more taxes based on the above.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[livendive 8]

Quote

Seriously, I think we need to get rid of the mortgage interest deduction. It would greatly increase my current tax liability, but I think it makes sense. I don't see a current need to encourage home ownership through the tax code.

I think limiting it to one home is a no-brainer, and I think capping it at some reasonable level would make sense too. Eliminating it altogether? Probably doable but it would hurt some people a lot more than others, and most would be those who can least afford it (recent buyers who spent close to their max budget while considering the deduction). Maybe a phased elimination, e.g. 90% of mortgage interest in 2012, 80% in 2013, etc...otherwise we'd be bankrupting a bunch of working class families.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[captain_stan 0]

I'll give up cheap, imported manufactured goods and start paying more for US workers to make these.

[captain_stan 0]

Quote

Quote

I'll give up cheap, imported manufactured goods and start paying more for US workers to make these.

It shouldn't be any more expensive. You need to account for all the money that's being saved on heavy metals and lead.

I've already done the math. Think of all the income tax, property tax, and sales tax that these American workers could afford to pay back
into our system. Higher prices of these products would be a bargain.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

If it's going to work it needs to suck equally for all, regardless of race, creed, color, religion, etc.

Do blacks and Jews have some highly maintained road system or super well equiped military that the rest of us aren't aware of?

While everyone benefits at minimum indirectly from both of those you mentioned, the focus needs to be on services that one directly benefits from which allows a much more widespread effect.

The key is for everyone to have to make at least some direct sacrifice to lessen the finger pointing.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[champu 1]

Quote

The average median family of four doesn't benefit from the mortgage deductions anyway. The standard deduction is $11k a year, which is pretty tough to beat.

It depends a great deal on where you're talking about. In California it's not difficult to get above $11k with just state income and county property taxes.

[jclalor 12]

With much regret, my monthly Government cheese.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

So in other words, you like the status quo and don't want to sacrifice anything to improve it?

If you want to change it then it requires acknowledging that DougH is part of the problem.

I don't think that people like DougH got us here. Indeed, getting DougH to reverse course would likely have a detrimental effect on him and the economy. One would think that we want MORE people who are educated, employed, buying, paying taxes, nurturing kids and helping to support them while saving money.

What should he sacrifice for the better good? His job? Pay less in taxes in order to buy more things?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jclalor 12]

I would be in favor of Capping tax deductions to 4 kids per family, if you want more, you pay for them.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I would be in favor of Capping tax deductions to 4 kids per family, if you want more, you pay for them.

Um - we DO pay for them. Getting a deduction for a kid is not the same as not paying for them.

I've long thought that if you can't feed them then you shouldn't breed them.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The outsourcing experiment has shown to be a failure in many respects. Business sites and magazines are running article after article about companies pulling work back out of China because the extra costs are just not worth it.

Yes, the newer trend in the IT world is now a domestic form of outsourcing - jobs in San Francisco are moved to cheaper locales like Wilmington, DE, where costs of living are lower, and thus so can salaries. But it's not free lunch either - the talent pool is shallower, there are still plenty of other jobs in SF to take instead of moving. But true far shoring (my company's lame renaming of offshoring) has been a disasterous clash of language skills and cultural differences. My Singapore team wants to be very helpful to the callers, even when the answer should be no. So happy customers for a few hours, then the consequences start.

Wipro, one of the largest Indian outsourcers, has found that only 3-4% of their applicants meet the basic requirements for employment.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

So in other words, you like the status quo and don't want to sacrifice anything to improve it?

If you want to change it then it requires acknowledging that DougH is part of the problem.

I'm not part of the famine problem in Somalia...that doesn't mean I can't be part of the solution.

Quote

I don't think that people like DougH got us here. Indeed, getting DougH to reverse course would likely have a detrimental effect on him and the economy. One would think that we want MORE people who are educated, employed, buying, paying taxes, nurturing kids and helping to support them while saving money.

What should he sacrifice for the better good? His job? Pay less in taxes in order to buy more things?

This thread assumes that some belt-tightening is required in order to balance our budget, and that it would be more productive to look at where we would personally be willing to sacrifice rather than to point out where we think others should sacrifice. If DougH believes he's already doing enough, then this thread isn't really for him. If everyone believes they're already doing enough, we won't get very far.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Andy9o8 2]

I'll give up foreign wars and, say, 33.33% of our military spending that every president since Truman has insisted is necessary to keep my children safe.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

I would be in favor of Capping tax deductions to 4 kids per family, if you want more, you pay for them.

No-can-do. Anti-Catholic & anti-Orthodox Jewish. Thus, it's racist.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

For starters, I'd give up the mortgage interest deduction on my second home and the deduction of my state sales tax from my taxable income. I'd gladly forego Saturday mail delivery and I be willing to drive on roads maintained half as well as they currently are.

Honestly, Dave, you're not giving up much here. Few people have second mortgages or deduct their sales tax on their return. Saturday mail doesn't affect the budget (personally I'd rather drop two week days) and you can't save half of nothing not maintaining the roads.

Killing the primary mortgage deduction would do much more, though it will do it to the people already paying the taxes (middle class of blue states like CA, NY with higher costs of living, higher housing prices). And unless it's phased in, it will put many more people underwater on their loans, as housing prices are determined by the cost of the mortgage, which is determined by the effective interest rate.

But to answer your question:
I'll go back to the Clinton tax brackets, which effectively mean 3-4% more of my income. I think someone posted something suggesting that this was worth 400-500B per year. But I only will accept that if spending is likewise reduced by 400-500B, with at least 100-200 of that coming from defense. Those two actions get us back into the kinds of deficits we'd been dealing with for a couple decades, and with another boom, gets close to even again.

But the recent experience with BOTH parties tells me that just agreeing to give them more money isn't going to result in any savings.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

it would be more productive to look at where we would personally be willing to sacrifice rather than to point out where we think others should sacrifice.

Okay. Here's what I'd be willing to do:
(1) not request a refund of the money that I have paid into Social Security and Medicare and then just simply say, "I'll be on my own, and come retirement age I won't take a damned thing. instead I'll make sure that I either take care of myself or I don't and I won't be anyone else's responsibility."

So, there's my sacrifice. I'll decline having it available for me in the future. Which is also a benefit because I'll be able to use it to take care of myself.

In exchange, I'd like to suggest that everybody plan for a time when they will have to take care of themselves and that the government won't be there to do it. That everybody out there under the age of 50 simply say, "Nope. Not gonna be there" and work on preparing for themselves. Anyone under the age of 65 will wait until they are 70 to get Medicare or Social Security. Anyone younger that 60 will be 75. Anyone under 55 will be 80. Anyone under 50 will be 85. Under 45 will be 90. And under 40 will not have it.

This will provide a buffer and a grandfathering in. In fact, make it unavailable to anyone born Jan. 26, 1973 and later. I'll volunteer to be the FIRST person who won't have the benefits given.

There's my sacrifice. My sacrifice is that I will be forced to take care of myself. It's actually a rather interesting thing what people do when thy have no choice. The people WILL take care of themselves.

So there's my sacrifice. The vast sums I've paid into Medicare and Social Security will be forfeited. As will everybody born after me. For those born before me, they'll wait to get their money so they better prepare for it.

And the budget will be balanced all by itself within 25 years because 2/3 of government spending by 2030 will be mostly eliminated.

My wife is hotter than your wife.