GOP Budget & Tax Plan

1. Roll back a significant portion or all of the stimulus that has not yet been distributed as of 2010.

2. Indiiduals earning less than $50,000 or couples earning less than $100,000 could either file under the current tax provisions or pay a flat 10%. Others earning more would pay a flat 25%. All who choose the flat tax rate could literally file their taxes on a form the size of a single index card.

You have to think about some of the implications of these tax ideas to understand the less obvious benefits, among which would be the stanching of the flow of investment outside the country and attraction of foreign investment, and an enormous savings in the waste of time and money that presently go to nothing more productive than filing taxes. A simple scheme like this would also be much more difficult to defraud than the complex system currently in place.

On this last point, just consider all the back taxes that Obama has collected from his tax-scofflaw political appointees - over $100,000! Not one of the excuses that any of them offered for not paying their taxes - i.e., that the tax laws are too complicated even for that "brilliant" idiot, Geithner (who now heads up the IRS). Not one of them could have skated by "paying their back taxes" while apologizing that they just couldn't get a handle on what they're supposed to pay. Now, multiply just those people by all the other tax cheats in this country who couldn't use similar excuses (or schemes, whichever term you prefer).

It's simple: What do you make? Withhold 10% and you owe nothing at the end of the year. Fill out your card, send it in, and you're done. And you tax accountants who have helped your clients avoid taxes for years...we need accountants for other purposes, so you won't starve either.

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

The budget funds Volunteer America, and includes a provision to set up a commission to STUDY whether or not "mandatory volunteerism" should be established. My prediction is that it won't happen.

Peter Peterson. (Photo: Reuters)

Peter Peterson is coming to get your Social Security and Medicare. Peterson was the commerce secretary in the Nixon administration. He then went on to make billions of dollars as one of the top executives at the Blackstone Group, a private equity fund. Mr. Peterson is known as one of the top beneficiaries of the fund managers' tax break, through which he personally pocketed tens of millions of dollars.

Mr. Peterson has been using his Wall Street wealth to attack these social insurance programs for decades, but he recently stepped up his efforts. Last year, he spent $1 billion to endow the Peter G. Peterson Foundation to further his efforts.

In politics, it's not easy to counter the impact of $1 billion. In addition to its money, the Peterson crew enjoys the support of many important news outlets, most importantly The Washington Post, which pushes his line on both its editorial and news pages.

In fact, The Post even went so far as to identify Peterson's foundation by its boilerplate, an organization that "advocates for federal fiscal responsibility," instead of telling readers of its political leanings, the normal mode of identification for such organizations. (The Center for Economic and Policy Research was established "to promote democratic debate on the most important economic and social issues that affect people's lives.")

While the Peterson crew may have the money and the support of the media, the rest of us can rely on logic and ridicule to counter the attack. In this spirit, we have the Peter G. Peterson Intergenerational Fairness Tax Credit. (Mr. Peterson is apparently fond of having things named after him. In addition to his new Peter G. Peterson Foundation, he also has a think tank named after him, the Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics.)

The Peterson tax credit would essentially take the Peterson crew at their word. They claim that they are worried that huge tax burdens will leave future generations worse off than the generations that preceded them.

This isn't true. There is no plausible scenario, short of war or environmental disaster, that would leave future generations worse off than their parents or grandparents. But we don't have to argue with the billionaire; let's just give future generations the option to trade places with their parents or grandparents who made out so well.

This is where the tax credit comes in. The tax credit would allow an individual to trade her after-tax income for the after-tax income that someone born 20 or 40 years sooner would have earned at the same age. For example, if someone born in 1990 believes in 2020 that their grandparents got a better deal, they would simply check off the year 1940, and they would have their taxes adjusted so that they would have the same after-tax income of a person born in 1940, when they were also age 30.

Of course, the young ones would end up big losers in this story. Real wages, on average, will be more than 50 percent higher in 2020 than they were in 1970. Even if tax rates were, on average, 5 percentage points higher, workers in 2020 will still have after-tax wages that are more than 40 percent higher than their counterparts in 1970.

This means that anyone who chose to take advantage of the intergenerational equity tax credit would end up as a big loser. That is why it can help solve the deficit problem. If people check off the tax credit, they will pay more in taxes and, therefore, increase government revenue.

It might be hard to convince large numbers of people to voluntarily pay more in taxes. This is where the Peterson Foundation comes in. They are spending huge amounts of money trying to convince young people that they are being ripped off by their parents and grandparents. They are even promoting front groups of young people to advance this effort.

With his billion dollars, Peterson could convince a huge number of gullible young people to tax advantage of the intergenerational equity tax credit. Insofar as he is successful in this effort, he can help to generate billions of dollars that can be used for items like health care, preschool education, and other pressing needs.

So, let's join efforts with Mr. Peterson and encourage his followers to take advantage of the Peter G. Peterson Intergenerational Fairness Tax Credit. There is a word for taking money from willfully ignorant young people who would deny their parents and grandparents the Social Security and Medicare benefits they need to survive: justice.

over the past 3 years, including charts. This is by the National Debt Awareness Center. There are lots of other links on there to check out too but, again, I am short on time today.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/2009/02/25/hot-docs-bleak-and-uncertain-federal-budget-outlook-as-deficit-climbs.html

I saw today where they passed a budget to take us through the next couple months to the tune of $896B. Filled with pork. Hopefully, I'll get a chance to look it up tomorrow.

I assume you watched both conventions????? I watched the Dems and now I'm watching the Pubs. I am an INDEPENDENT. I would support Obama were it not for my research of the church he has been associated with for 20 years. This church, in my humble opinion, belongs to an extreme, radical, racist group. We don't need that in the White House. With the exception of illegal immigration, he pretty much addressed all the things that I feel are important to the future of my children and grandchildren and were it not for his affiliation with his chosen church, I would probably vote for him. . At least he had the good sense to select a person as his running mate who actually might be "ready on day one" to lead this country.

Secondly, again in my humble opinion, McCain has a few screws loose rattling around upstairs. He answers every question, even about how many houses he owns, with something like, "well, the longest time I spent anywhere was when I was a POW." Other than that it has been all about bashing Obama and his not having "experience." Then look what he did. Picked a little-known female who has been abroad exactly once and tries to pass her off as "experienced." Truth: She is a female and her state is the second largest producer of oil. Bush governed the biggest oil producing state. Enjoying those prices at the pumps? To this point all the pub speakers have pushed McCain's war record. What????? Do we need more war? I think a peacemaker would be better.

Now, before anyone pounces on me, I support NEITHER of these candidates and NEITHER will receive my vote. Either way, the middle class Americans, to which I expect most MTs belong, lose. Our government will change when and if the majority of Americans quit using their heads as a hatrack for the Democrat and Republican parties, kick them out and bring back government "of the people, by the people and for the people." Won't happen this time but maybe next time won't be too late.

First of all, let me say I was undecided on this election until yesterday. Obama's tax plan scares me to death. I heard him on an interview yesterday, and he said that the top 5% of the country could *afford to help out those less fortunate to us*, meaning those that make above $200,000. He also said that someone making under $45,000 would *probably* not have to pay income taxes, because all the tax revenue would be generated from the top 5% of the country, again, who could *afford* to help out his fellow man.

So, here's my question. If I work my BUTT off making a great living for my family, who the heck is he to say I have to share it? My husband and I put ourselves through school to get a good education for ourselves, searched for good jobs, worked more than one sometimes, and enjoy or standard of living, because we worked hard for it and EARNED it. How dare he suggest that I have to share that with ANYONE, just because they dont' have as much. We give to quite a few neighborhood organizations and national charities, we do not keep every penny for ourselves.

If he does get elected and puts this new plan in place, why would people work hard to make a good living if quite a bit chunk of it is going to be taken away? Why not just sit back, work as little as you want, stay under that $40,000 radar, not pay income taxes, and have the government give you some other *rich* guy's money because you don't have as much?

This really made my mind up for me. It's time this county taught some personal responsibility and accountability, and I do not think he is the one for the job!

you will need to keep things like OBAMA and OSAMA straight. The political system was based on the assumption that voters would know the difference between a tall black man running for president and a tall man in a sheet running for cover. Study up. Only a few more weeks . . . I'm betting you can do it.

If it doesn't apply to you, then nothing about your mortgage would change. How is that unfair to you? Would it be more fair to charge the taxpayers, including you, whether in you're arrears or not or owning a mortgage or not, the $700 billion dollars?

I don't get what about this is upsetting to you. You already have a better rate and your credit must be great. Any resolution to this problem should not result in someone making out better than before the problem started.

I haven't been here for a while, and if this has already been posted below somewhere, I apologize for duplicating it.

The following link will take you to a site that will show you how much money Barack Obama will save you on taxes, compared to John McCain. (Remember, McCain will be taxing your health insurance benefits for the first time in American history.) Depending on your income, there is quite a difference between the two plans.

of sharing the wealth will put us in the GREAT DEPRESSION just like back when Hoover was in office, exept this time, it will be worse because many more people make more than 100,000 a year than they did years ago. So basically it will be spreading the wellfare around.

Hate to break the news to you, but it looks as if there has been a welfare plan in place - its called "Corporate Welfare" and we are the ones who they rob; and every single Republican President from Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 have robbed this country blind

Take all this money and instead of giving to big businesses and letting them do whatever with (because that worked so well with the bailout huh?) just pay off everybody's mortgage. If my house was paid off, I would buy that 1K TV I want for my bedroom. I'd buy new furniture for my living room because mine is 10+ years old. I'd buy curtains and blinds for my windows. I'd buy some nice rugs to put throughout my house. I'd buy that Thomas Kincaid painting I've always wanted to hang on my wall. I'd buy more fencing material to fence in more pasture for my horses. I'd buy those 2 llamas I've been wanting. My husband could buy another Harley like he has been wanting. We would go out to eat more often. These are just things that I would do if my hosue was paid off. That is quite a bit of money back into the system but I can't do these things because I owe on my house. Think about it.

The Pickens Plan.

While dependence on foreign oil is a critical concern, it is not a problem that can be solved in isolation. We have to think about energy as a whole, and that begins by considering our energy alternatives and thinking about how we will fuel our world in the next 10 to 20 years and beyond.

New jobs from renewable energy and conservation.

Any discussion of alternatives should begin with the 2007 Department of Energy study showing that building out our wind capacity in the Great Plains - from northern Texas to the Canadian border - would produce 138,000 new jobs in the first year, and more than 3.4 million new jobs over a ten-year period, while also producing as much as 20 percent of our needed electricity.

Building out solar energy in the Southwest from western Texas to California would add to the boom of new jobs and provide more of our growing electrical needs - doing so through economically viable, clean, renewable sources.

To move that electricity from where it is being produced to where it is needed will require an upgrade to our national electric grid. A 21st century grid which will, as technology continues to develop, deliver power where it is needed, when it is needed, in the direction it is needed will be the modern equivalent of building the Interstate Highway System in the 1950's.

Beyond that, tremendous improvements in electricity use can be made by creating incentives for owners of homes and commercial buildings to retrofit their spaces with proper insulation. Studies show a significant upgrading of insulation would save the equivalent of one million barrels of oil per day in energy by cutting down on both air conditioning costs in warm weather and heating costs in winter.

A domestic fuel to free us from foreign oil.

Conserving and harnessing renewable forms of electricity not only has incredible economic benefits, but is also a crucial piece of the oil dependence puzzle. We should continue to pursue the promise of electric or hydrogen powered vehicles, but America needs to address transportation fuel today. Fortunately, we are blessed with an abundance of clean, cheap, domestic natural gas.

Currently, domestic natural gas is primarily used to generate electricity. It has the advantage of being cheap and significantly cleaner than coal, but this is not the best use of our natural gas resources.

By generating electricity from wind and solar and conserving the electricity we have, we will be free to shift our use to natural gas to where it can lower our need for foreign oil - helping President Obama reach his goal of zero oil imports from the Middle East within ten years - by replacing diesel as the principal transportation fuel for heavy trucks and fleet vehicles.

Nearly 20% of every barrel of oil we import is used by 18-wheelers moving goods burning imported diesel. An over-the-road truck cannot be moved using current battery technology. Fleet vehicles like buses, taxis, express delivery trucks, and municipal and utility vehicles (any vehicle which returns to the "barn" each night where refueling is a simple matter) should be replaced by vehicles running on clean, cheap, domestic natural gas rather than imported gasoline or diesel fuel.

A plan that brings it all together.

Natural gas is not a permanent or complete solution to imported oil. It is a bridge fuel to slash our oil dependence while buying us time to develop new technologies that will ultimately replace fossil transportation fuels. Natural gas is the critical puzzle piece that will help us keep more of the $350 to $450 billion every year at home, where it can power our economy and pay for our investments in wind energy, a smart grid and energy efficiency.

It is this connection that makes The Pickens Plan not just a collection of good ideas, but a plan. By investing in renewable energy and conservation, we can create millions of new jobs. New alternative energies allow us to shift natural gas to transportation; securing our economy by reducing our dependence on foreign oil, and keeping more money at home to pay for the whole thing.