This just in: The Obama Deficit Reduction Plan

[John-in-KC]

Just one cite. Y'all can googlenews the rest:

 

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/11/the_fiscal_commission_reports.html

 

Two highlights:

- Say goodbye to the mortgage interest deduction if this becomes enacted legislation.

- If you're a youngster now, start thinking about your life in the workforce until you are age 70.

 

Let the flaying begin... Other links to other commentaries welcome.

[Beavah]

Yah, dropping da mortgage interest deduction has been a component of Republican "flat tax" proposals for years, eh? And increasing da retirement age for SS is inevitable.

 

It seems like they're at least makin' a go of things, though I can't say I'm particularly fond of a plan that still shows a deficit 10 years out. Slowing the rate at which we're mortgaging the country to China is not a victory.

 

B

[John-in-KC]

The only thing I see out of all this is the amount of time I don't work for my own good is going UP.

 

I think it's now May before the sum total of my tax inputs totals out for the year... (income, F&S, property, sales, gas)...

 

I do wonder what the 2d order consequences will be for eliminating the mortgage deduction?

 

We do have to figure out something: Our Chinese bankers do not have infinite patience.(This message has been edited by John-in-KC)

[NJCubScouter]

You call this the "Obama Deficit Reduction Plan", but from the article you linked to, this is not a plan from the president, but from a commission he appointed. Googling the commission revealed that it is a bipartisan commission, and from the article you linked to, this is not even a report of the commission, but rather from the two co-chairs (one from each party.) I doubt the proposal to eliminate the mortgage interest deduction is going anywhere in Congress -- although, there are a number of (mostly) Republican congressmen who have been elected over the years on a platform of a "flat tax", and the mortgage interest deduction is (I believe) inconsistent with the idea of a "flat tax." So, whose line is it anyway? Not the president's, or not just the president's. So if people are going to do any "flaying", they should watch which way their knives are pointed.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

What does this have to do with scouting issues?

[Eagle92]

Just remember, a "flat tax" replaces the various brackets and exwemptions, and everyone pays the same % of income tax.

 

Me personally I would prefer a "fair tax" that would be an inclusive tax on items purchased. It would replace all income taxes, and would be similar, not identical to, a value added tax. That way every one pays taxes only on what they buy.

[Eagle92]

Merlyn,

Less money in people's pockets mean less folks doing activities.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

That's an absurd rationalization. This is a non-scouting issue.

[packsaddle]

Yes, non-scouting. For this forum, no big deal.

I support the basic premise of the 'Fair Tax' but its implementation would be difficult-to-impossible. I guess since no one has chimed in with support for my advocacy of terminating these welfare programs I should back off and instead advocate a means test and removal of the income cap. Let's see if that gets any more traction.

 

Back to the election, and in response to the earlier comment on the Fair Tax by Eagle92, I did note that some of the Republican candidates were unfairly (and in my opinion, deceptively) attacked by the Democrats for their support of the Fair Tax. These attacks amounted to lies as far as I was concerned. I wish the parties would take the high road for once.

[John-in-KC]

Merlyn,

 

This is in issues and politics. Read the header. We're allowed broader latitude.

 

NJCubScouter,

 

This Commission is not congressional. It was appointed by the President. It happens on his watch, it's his.(This message has been edited by John-in-KC)

[Eagle92]

Merlyn,

 

Yes less money does mean less scouting. When everyone's taxes increase January 1 because Congress his letting the 2001 tax law expire, people will not be able to afford to do some things.

 

I went on the IRS tax estimator site, plugged in my current salary into the 2000 estimator, and discovered I'll be paying approx $100 more every two weeks, and I don't make anywhere near $250K. So i will be cutting stuff I do to survive. Can't cut mortgage, food, and utilities. So I will probably travel less, do fewer scout activities, and not buy goods that I don't need.

 

And I thought that folks learned that the government does not increase the economy, people spending money increases the economy. post WWII America is an example of that. WWII stoped the Great Depression, and all the folks who saved their money b/c they served overseas or suffered rationing could spend their money on goods they haven't had in a while. At least that's what I leanred in my economics class in grad school.

 

 

Now I do hope A) the law is renewed as folks need the money, B) my estimate is way off, or c) Both A and B.

[GernBlansten]

I don't care what you call it, as long as its a step in the right direction.

Gotta eat an elephant one bite at a time.

 

Raising retirement age? Can't see how you can't.

 

No COLA? That's a bit tough, especially when we face inflation due to our weak dollar.

 

Mortgage deduction elimination? I'm all for it. I hate using the tax code to modify behavior. Maybe it will motivate people to live within their means instead of using their homes as credit cards too. Paid off my mortgage years ago, best thing I ever did financially.

 

I'm glad to see someone addressing the problem.

 

Real solution: Means test benefits.

[Eamonn]

Looking at the US National Debt Clock

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

It kinda seems that my part of this debt is about $44,372.91.

If the government were willing to make a deal.

I'd be willing to pay $45,000 if they promised that I'd never have to pay anymore taxes ever.

Ea.

 

 

[NJCubScouter]

Merlyn, this is the Issue AND POLITICS forum, so there is nothing restricting threads to subjects directly related to Scouting. I think members of the forum tend to want to stick to Scouting-related subjects anyway, so the non-Scouting discussions are kind of self-limiting. Right before and right after a federal election, the non-Scouting discussions tend to outnumber the Scouting topics, and that happened again this year.

 

John-in-KC says:

 

This Commission is not congressional. It was appointed by the President. It happens on his watch, it's his.

 

That is incorrect. The commission was not solely appointed by the President. The majority and minority leaders of each house of Congress got to appoint 3 members each (from among the membership of their house), and the president appointed 6, of whom no more than 4 could be Democrats. (See

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-national-commission-fiscal-responsibility-and-reform) (Pretty good researching, considering I had never heard of this commission before I read your post.) That means that Congress actually appointed a MAJORITY of the commission, members of Congress ARE a majority of the Commission, and half of those are Republicans. The Republican leaders got to appoint 6 of 18 members, and there were 2 other Republicans besides. (List of appointees here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Fiscal_Responsibility_and_Reform) And since the Executive Order provides that 14 "yes" votes are required to approve any recommendations, nothing could be recommended by this commission without official Republican approval. (And, somewhat predictably, nothing has been officially recommended, since your own link said that this is just a report of the two chairmen -- one of whom is a conservative former Republican Senator -- and was not approved by the commission.)

 

(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

[NJCubScouter]

Eamonn, that sounds like a reasonable deal. Please let us know what they say.