http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=4&ref=opinion

maybe you looked at too many NYT articles today I think they have a metered paywall

still asking to log in. But i know what it is about and i am glad somebody is trying to talk some sens into empty brains :)

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=stop+coddling+the+super+rich

After having read the article, I have to say I cannot agree more. I was stunned by the percentages Buffett mentions. 15% tax rate, that's ridiculous. Here in the Netherlands, the highest income tax scale is at 53%. And it starts around 50.000 euro, instead of the $10.000.000 Buffett has in mind.

The United States has to increase taxes, and decrease the defense budget. That's the only way to balance goverment spending, and reduce the debt.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/08/17/2532704/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html

===

It's more than taxes and defense. The current entitlement system is unsustainable; we have unfunded future liabilities in the form of entitlements whose cost EXCEEDS THE GDP OF THE ENTIRE WORLD.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-06-06-us-owes-62-trillion-in-debt_n.htm

Personally, I think the solution is to look to adjust (read: cut) spending first and scale government back within financially-solvent and Constitutional bounds. That's going to include entitlement reform. That's going to include military spending. That's going to include ending corporate welfare and ending the American Empire.

The second step is to reform the tax code, with one exception -- tax loopholes should be closed ASAP. (Technically that makes it the first step, but calling it the first step makes it sound like it's THE issue when it's clearly not. The point is that President Eden wouldn't put off tax reform until he got his cuts, he would fix tax loopholes right off the bat because it's an easy and necessary fix, his more-extremely-conservative colleagues be damned.)

Tax code should be made much simpler first, because there's no need for it to be complex. In reforming the tax structure, you tinker around with the simplified tax rates and try to produce a net increase. I'm actually thinking -- though I can't back this with numbers, and would welcome a correction if I'm wrong -- that fixing the loopholes could possibly even allow for taxes to be *decreased* across the board while *still* increasing revenue relative to the current situation... but obviously you're not necessarily looking to decrease taxes, that's just a fun rhetorical point to observe.

You fix your loopholes and simplify the tax structure and see where that leaves you. If you're still short, you raise taxes, noting that, having cut government expenditures back to within Constitutional bounds, my conservative colleagues who actually believe the principles they claim to believe should assent to this tax increase. (Not happily, of course -- no one likes new taxes -- but they should see reason and assent.) And if you have a surplus, then you lower taxes across the board.

Why all this "first" nonsense though?

Why can they not both be done? We are way overdue both on cutting our runaway spending and on taxing ourselves as much as everyone else does in the world.

They will both be done. The point is that the higher priority needs to go to reducing spending, because the vast majority of the unfunded obligations of the government are in future spending. Any revenue raised is going to go to current and past unmet obligations first by default. Revenue, I would imagine, needs to be raised to fix this debt crisis. There's a lot of government waste and even more unconstitutional programs, but the numbers are simply unbelievable.

I do disagree with the last bit, though. I don't think we necessarily need to make our tax rates match everyone else. Our tax rates need to reflect our government's expenditures, and so they may not match the global or Western averages, whatever those may be.

The cut to tax ratio should be about 3 to 1 or 4 to 1.

You should do them both at the same time. yes you should cut more than you tax but you should do them both and not wait. we need both if we are going to nip this in the bud (which we arent)

I need to explain a bit further, I think. I meant only in the actual process of drafting whatever legislation would be enacted to solve the debt issue. The tax and spending adjustments would be proposed in the same bill and enacted at the same time, I'm just saying cut spending first when you're drawing up your plan, then adjust your taxes to complete the plan, then present the plan in the bill and get that thing passed and save this country.

@Eden
Unconstitutional programs?

That $62 trillion number is huge, and also mostly meaningless. The retirement and medical programs for seniors, veterans, ex-congress people are expensive. Social Security is sound financially, and has a large amount of government funds to pay for any yearly deficits. It will be good for a long time, and at that time (assuming we make no changes till then), it will stay pay out 80% of the benefits forever. I also wouldn't call it an entitlement, since you earn it through working. Social Security has been used for the last 30 years to hide deficits caused by huge tax cuts across the board. Since Social Security is only collected on the first ~$108,000, this ends up being a big boon to people who make over ~$108,000. The idea that now we want to not pay back the debt we owe to the Social Security program, and instead cut it...is crap. We have caused those making less than ~$108,000 to pay a very regressive tax for 30 years if we aren't going to lock those payments into benefits.

Medicare is growing without bound, but so are all medical expenses in the US. Nothing has been done to curb the growth, and in fact we seem to be causing other countries to follow our unsustainable path. I probably would call that an entitlement.

We need to treat all income the same, and get rid of all the deductions.