Another health care thread.

Rudyard K's Avatar
Value Added Tax. Its like a national sales tax, but applied at each level of production (raw materials, manufacturing, distribution, etc.). Very common tax in Europe, where government revenues are typically about 30+% of GDP. Originally Posted by pjorourke
You should have known PJ would run over the word limit.
WTF's Avatar
  • WTF
  • 03-31-2010, 08:44 AM
Yea pj, you better hope that he doesn't implement a verbiage added tax




You should have known PJ would run over the word limit. Originally Posted by Rudyard K
Nice counting - I get 18 words for the definition. The last sentence was editorial comment, not a definition.

Its like a national sales tax, but applied at each level of production (raw materials, manufacturing, distribution, etc.) Originally Posted by pjorourke
Yea pj, you better hope that he doesn't implement a verbiage added tax

Originally Posted by WTF
I need to worry? Check the mirror.
Rudyard K's Avatar
Nice counting - I get 18 words for the definition. The last sentence was editorial comment, not a definition. Originally Posted by pjorourke
That thought occured to me. But then, what fun is that?
Oh this is great! Watching two grown men debating their capabilities of counting to 25.
WTF's Avatar
  • WTF
  • 03-31-2010, 09:22 AM
I need to worry? Check the mirror. Originally Posted by pjorourke
Well that might be a tax you could get behind!
Rudyard K's Avatar
Oh this is great! Watching two grown men debating their capabilities of counting to 25. Originally Posted by Ansley
Yep. One never knows what is going to be in the envelope.
I would love for you to explain what you mean by "meaningful tort reform." Originally Posted by charlestudor2005
What would be the point? You totally misunderstood several of my recent posts, in one case (foolishly) telling me that I posted something that made me "look bad!"

I can explain something to you, but I can't understand it for you.

Besides, it looks like you already have your mind made up. All your recent posts indicate that you strongly oppose tort reform.

Or do you?

From much earlier in this thread:

I think the whole system should change: (1) we pay for dr. education; (2) we do tort reform; (3) we limit outrageous Midas-type profits. A reasonable and even really good income by the standards of most people. But not outrageous profits as they now exist. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005
Oops! Looks like you're having a little trouble deciding whether or not you favor tort reform.

Who do you think raised SS tax's? Gave this country a false sense of security. We have taken that SURPLUS and made it appear that everything was A-OK on the tax front. Originally Posted by WTF
Ah, that's it! Why didn't anyone else see this?

It's all so clear now. The SS tax increase of 1983 (although miniscule compared with today's deficits) lulled us into a false sense of security regarding our overall tax picture under the unified budget. As a result, all of a sudden we have a $1.5 trillion deficit! Obama, George W. Bush, and every member of congress can all be absolved of blame. Everything's Reagan's fault!

By the way, someone just recently found the butterfly that flapped its wings, ever-so-slightly disturbed the surrounding air, and triggered a chain of events culminating in the recent snowstorms.

Yea pj, you better hope that he doesn't implement a verbiage added tax




Originally Posted by WTF
tax's?...feller's Originally Posted by WTF
WTF, you damn well better hope they don't implement an "incorrectly used apostrophes" tax!



I posted a link to this article on the VAT earlier:

http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/26/news...tune/index.htm

Here's another good one:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...th_104936.html

The VAT is on its way, folks. Maybe not this year or next, but soon enough. Politicians are already looking for relatively gentle ways to prepare the public for this. What do you think Obama's newly-appointed "deficit commission" (sometimes called the VAT-recommendation commission) is all about?

It will be a very big, bitter pill to swallow and will dampen prospects for robust economic growth for years and years. But the alternative is a calamitous fiscal bust.
The VAT is on its way, folks. Maybe not this year or next, but soon enough. Politicians are already looking for relatively gentle ways to prepare the public for this. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight
I understand that they bought a REALLY big bottle of lube.
atlcomedy's Avatar
WTF, you damn well better hope they don't implement an "incorrectly used apostrophes" tax!



. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight
Tht be da bestest doubled stander o diz bored, if's you's got's da coin's you's can's still be's layed.
WTF's Avatar
  • WTF
  • 03-31-2010, 02:16 PM



Ah, that's it! Why didn't anyone else see this?

It's all so clear now. The SS tax increase of 1983 (although miniscule compared with today's deficits) lulled us into a false sense of security regarding our overall tax picture under the unified budget. As a result, all of a sudden we have a $1.5 trillion deficit! Obama, George W. Bush, and every member of congress can all be absolved of blame. Everything's Reagan's fault!

. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Yea . something like that captain. These cats had Ronnie pegged in 1988. You boys been worshipping at his alter ever sense.
October 1988

The Sad Legacy of Ronald Reagan


by Sheldon L. Richman

On August 2, 1988, President Ronald Reagan announced that he had changed his mind about the pro-union plant-closing bill. He had vetoed it three months earlier, but now let it become law without his signature after intense pressure from presidential nominee George Bush and former Treasury Secretary James Baker, now Bush's campaign chairman. Reagan claimed that only this action would enable him to sign a Congressional trade bill almost unequaled in its anti-consumer protectionism.
Ronald Reagan's faithful followers claim he has used his skills as the Great Communicator to reverse the growth of Leviathan and inaugurate a new era of liberty and free markets. Reagan himself said, "It is time to check and reverse the growth of government."
Yet after nearly eight years of Reaganism, the clamor for more government intervention in the economy was so formidable that Reagan abandoned the free-market position and acquiesced in further crippling of the economy and our liberties. In fact, the number of free-market achievements by the administration are so few that they can be counted on one hand—with fingers left over.
Let's look at the record:
Spending
In 1980, Jimmy Caner's last year as president, the federal government spent a whopping 27.9% of "national income" (an obnoxious term for the private wealth produced by the American people). Reagan assaulted the free-spending Carter administration throughout his campaign in 1980. So how did the Reagan administration do? At the end of the first quarter of 1988, federal spending accounted for 28.7% of "national income."
Even Ford and Carter did a better job at cutting government. Their combined presidential terms account for an increase of 1.4%—compared with Reagan's 3%—in the government's take of "national income." And in nominal terms, there has been a 60% increase in government spending, thanks mainly to Reagan's requested budgets, which were only marginally smaller than the spending Congress voted.
The budget for the Department of Education, which candidate Reagan promised to abolish along with the Department of Energy, has more than doubled to $22.7 billion, Social Security spending has risen from $179 billion in 1981 to $269 billion in 1986. The price of farm programs went from $21.4 billion in 1981 to $51.4 billion in 1987, a 140% increase. And this doesn't count the recently signed $4 billion "drought-relief" measure. Medicare spending in 1981 was $43.5 billion; in 1987 it hit $80 billion. Federal entitlements cost $197.1 billion in 1981—and $477 billion in 1987.
Foreign aid has also risen, from $10 billion to $22 billion. Every year, Reagan asked for more foreign-aid money than the Congress was willing to spend. He also pushed through Congress an $8.4 billion increase in the U.S. "contribution" to the International Monetary Fund.
His budget cuts were actually cuts in projected spending, not absolute cuts in current spending levels. As Reagan put it, "We're not attempting to cut either spending or taxing levels below that which we presently have."
The result has been unprecedented government debt. Reagan has tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion. Ford and Carter in their combined terms could only double it. It took 31 years to accomplish the first postwar debt tripling, yet Reagan did it in eight.
Taxes
Before looking at taxation under Reagan, we must note that spending is the better indicator of the size of the government. If government cuts taxes, but not spending, it still gets the money from somewhere—either by borrowing or inflating. Either method robs the productive sector. Although spending is the better indicator, it is not complete, because it ignores other ways in which the government deprives producers of wealth. For instance, it conceals regulation and trade restricdons, which may require little government outlay.
If we look at government revenues as a percentage of "national income," we find little change from the Carter days, despite heralded "tax cuts." In 1980, revenues were 25.1% of "national income." In the first quarter of 1988 they were 24.7%.
Reagan came into office proposing to cut personal income and business taxes. The Economic Recovery Act was supposed to reduce revenues by $749 billion over five years. But this was quickly reversed with the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. TEFRA—the largest tax increase in American history—was designed to raise $214.1 billion over five years, and took back many of the business tax savings enacted the year before. It also imposed withholding on interest and dividends, a provision later repealed over the president's objection.
But this was just the beginning. In 1982 Reagan supported a five-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax and higher taxes on the trucking industry. Total increase: $5.5 billion a year. In 1983, on the recommendation of his Spcial Security Commission— chaired by the man he later made Fed chairman, Alan Green-span—Reagan called for, and received, Social Security tax increases of $165 billion over seven years. A year later came Reagan's Deficit Reduction Act to raise $50 billion.
Even the heralded Tax Reform Act of 1986 is more deception than substance. It shifted $120 billion over five years from visible personal income taxes to hidden business taxes. It lowered the rates, but it also repealed or reduced many deductions.
According to the Treasury Department, the 1981 tax cut will have reduced revenues by $1.48 trillion by the end of fiscal 1989. But tax increases since 1982 will equal $1.5 trillion by 1989. The increases include not only the formal legislation mentioned above but also bracket creep (which ended in 1985 when tax indexing took effect—a provision of the 1981 act despite Reagan's objection), $30 billion in various tax changes, and other increases. Taxes by the end of the Reagan era will be as large a chunk of GNP as when he took office, if not larger: 19.4%, by ultra-conservative estimate of the Reagan Office of Management and Budget. The so-called historic average is 18.3%.
Regulation
For all the administration's talk about deregulation (for example, from the know-nothing commission which George Bush headed), it has done little. Much of what has been done began under Carter, such as abolition of the Civil Aeronautics Board and deregulation of oil prices. Carter created the momentum and Reagan halted it. In fact, the economic costs of regulation have grown under Reagan.
Some deregulation has occurred for banks, intercity buses, ocean shipping, and energy. But nothing good has happened in health, safety, and environmental regulations, which cost Americans billions of dollars, ignore property rights, and are based on the spurious notion of "freedom from risk." But the Reagan administration has supported state seat-belt and federal air-bag requirements. This concern for safety, however, was never extended to the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) rules, which, by imposing fuel-efficiency standards, promote the production of small cars. The shift to small cars will cause an estimated 10,000 to 20,000 highway deaths over the next ten years.
Bureaucracy
By now it should not be surprising that the size of the bureaucracy has also grown. Today, there are 230,000 more civilian government workers than in 1980, bringing the total to almost three million. Reagan even promoted the creation of a new federal Department of Veterans' Affairs to join the Departments of Education and Energy, which his administration was supposed to eliminate.
Trade
The Reagan administration has been the most protectionist since Herbert Hoover's. The portion of imports under restriction has doubled since 1980. Quotas and so-called voluntary restraints have been imposed on a host of products, from computer chips to automobiles. Ominously, Reagan has adopted the bogus fair-trade/free-trade dichotomy, and he was eager to sign the big trade bill, which tilts the trade laws even further toward protectionism.
Results
Reagan's fans argue that he has changed the terms of public-policy debate, that no one today dares propose big spending programs. I contend that the alleged spending-shyness of politicians is not the result of an ideological sea-change, but rather of their constituents' fiscal fright brought about by $250 billion Reagan budget deficits. If the deficit ever shrinks, the demand for spending will resume.
This is the Reagan legacy. He was to be the man who would turn things around. But he didn't even try. As he so dramatically illustrated when he accepted the plant-closing bill, there has been no sea-change in thinking about the role of government.
Wait till you see your tax bill for that bloviation WTF.
WTF's Avatar
  • WTF
  • 03-31-2010, 07:39 PM
Wait till you see your tax bill for that bloviation WTF. Originally Posted by pjorourke

LOL
discreetgent's Avatar
Do I win? He won't be defeated.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/10/us...stupak.html?hp


PJ, I'll take that bet Originally Posted by discreetgent
You are on. $20 says Stupak is defeated. Originally Posted by pjorourke
Deal. Originally Posted by discreetgent