Taxes/Revenue -- A Suggestion (Al Gore, wage, generation, global warming)

[2nd trick op]

Make no mistake about it; this writer remains an ironclad fiscal conservative, But like George Will, I can subscribe to the concept that an aging, too-petroleum-dependent society needs major infrastructural enhancements -- the problem is how to pay for them.

And I have absolutely no faith in the class-warfare rhetoric coming from the White House, nor the economic illiterates to whom it's aimed. Once the dust settles from this fall's battle it would not suprise me to see another call for raising the top income tax brackets.

If that policy is connected to one of monetizing those multi-trillions in defecits by running the printing presses, it won't be long before the near-runaway inflation of the 1970's will be back. Taken in combination, a large portion of the upwardly mobile middle class will soon find themselves "rich", and ratcheted into those higher brackets.

But there's more:

It's also worth noting that the no generation has been as aware of the credit-based economy than that which has most recently entered the workforce. Forget forming capital; the object of the game is to get you and yours (not necessarily a stable group) into that first exurban "castle" at the earliest stage possible -- and maybe to pay off the mortgage in inflated dinero.

That cycle also contributes to the dimunition of farmland and, possibly in the future, to that of completely-undeveloped areas.

And more:

Over the past century, the mix of our population living in urbanized, or semi-urbanized, vs, rural areas, has essentially beeen juxtaposed; just how much depends on how it's measured. The Okies and the African-Americans from the rural south made the switch without much capital, but those of us who lived in the north often got our "seed money" from the sale of the Old Homestead, and often managed to put some of that to work for us in businesses or investments.

And a final piece to the puzzle is that our tax structure is arranged, largely through the tratment of capital gains, both to preserve wealth and to encourage its eventual transfer to non-profit institutions. Ranting by the extreme Lefties here to the contrary, both the financial community and those of us with a basic understanding of economics view that as a positive.

My point in the paragraphs above is that, as with the current contoversy over climate change (which IS real) vs. "global warming" (which is an extremist scare-tactic), we need to develop revenue policies which will dampen the current credit-fueled cycle of buy/develop/sell which is both depleting the supply of finite resources, and was likely a key factor in the imbalance which brought about many of our current troubles three years ago.

Let's have at it!

[the_windwalker]

My guess is that you're too young to know where it all started to head this way. Tax structure is certainly the way to get things corrected, but has little to do with capitol gains. The actual fact is that we were already on the road to this point in our economy some 50 years ago. Some of the old-timers were able to see it coming way back then. If they were still alive today, they could probably also tell us how to get out of it. I was told that all this was coming some 35 years ago, by a man that, at the time, was in his 70s. Pete and Jack, both lived through the great depression, and both said that another one was coming. They also said that what worked in the past will not work on this one.

[noexcuseforignorance]

2nd trick op,

Kudos for making this thread, but what you wrote is seriously hard to read, make sense of or discuss. You use a bunch of run on sentences. Your thoughts are all over the place.

For instance, "If that policy is connected to one of monetizing those multi-trillions in defecits by running the printing presses, it won't be long before the near-runaway inflation of the 1970's will be back. Taken in combination, a large portion of the upwardly mobile middle class will soon find themselves "rich", and ratcheted into those higher brackets.
"

You wrote the above quote in a new paragraph. As such, when you say, "If that policy", it doesn't really reference any policy. Your whole paragraph doesn't make sense.

Why are you bringing global warming into this? Where's your proof of global warming being an extremist scare tactic?

Why are you echoing the Republican talking point of class warfare? It sort of shows you as being biased. The "economic illiterates" to whom what you're talking about is aimed would include yourself, so by that reasoning, we shouldn't listen to what you write here.

What's your overall point here? You bring up many issues that you seem to be emotional about, but you're sort of thrown spaghetti against a wall here. Figure out your main point and write more clearly and concisely and provide something other than biased right commentary to back it up.

[wutitiz]

The problem of infrastructure is not lack of revenue. It's wasting the of the revenue that is already there. See the thread on 'why infrastructure costs so much. We're replacing a bridge here in Seattle that was built in 1963. The new bridge is projected to cost almost 20 times what the old one cost, with only minor upgrades.

Great point about inflation kicking people into higher tax brackets. So far the economy has held down wage hikes, but they will not be held down forever.

[2nd trick op]

Well, at any rate, I'm glad to see that the thread is finally getting some attention.

For the record, I'm 62 years of age, and hold a degree in Business Logistics (Penn State '71) with both Transport Economics and Carrier Management Options. I've worked in both the trucking and rail industries, and am a regular and long-time poster (under the same pseudonym) on railroad.net.

My politics are sociallly liberal and very strongly economically conservative, having been involved with the Libertarian movement since its inception in 1969.

My central point was, both parties have, over the past ten years or so, embarked on programs based on fantasies of continued growth which are not likely to be sustainable. As that unpleasant scenario unfolds, a lot of people are going to come looking for someone to blame. I have very little faith in the Republicans, and absolutely none in the Democrats.

So the central question I'm trying to pose is; "Where do we go from here, particularly once more and more the men and women in the street learn that there is no vault full of money hoarded by some ficticious group of idle wealthy."

My views on climate change, as opposed to the "global warming" fad are similar; The issue needs to continue on the path of serious, more detailed study begun twenty years ago, and to develop workable resoponses if the "threat" intensifies or becomes more demonstrable. But I hold individuals like Al Gore directly responsible for the polarization of the issue. The environmentalists rail at Republicans for refusal to sign the Kyoto protocols, but forget that the senior Bush, first to sign a ground-breaking accord at Rio twenty years ago, was prompltly hooted down, with Fidel Castro leading the lynch mob.

Conservatives are ready to talk seriously on environmental issues; a cover story in National Review two years ago demonstrates that. But not if the principal tactic of the opposition is "polar bear" apppeals directed toward twelve-year-olds.

We need a fundamental change in tax structure, one which conserves resources, strongly discourages "crass consumption" and as always, rewards foresight and investment.

Not likely given the current gang of idiots within the Beltway.

Please lead on, ladies and gentlemen. This is a subject in need of discussion by more than accountants and engineers.

[Memphis1979]

We could be energy independent in less then 12 years with a major push to natural gas, and every car that runs on gasoline could be converted to run on it for very little cost.

Tax subsidies for natural gas, end all oil subsidies.

See how quickly the market jumps.

[noexcuseforignorance]

My central point was, both parties have, over the past ten years or so, embarked on programs based on fantasies of continued growth which are not likely to be sustainable. As that unpleasant scenario unfolds, a lot of people are going to come looking for someone to blame. I have very little faith in the Republicans, and absolutely none in the Democrats.

So the central question I'm trying to pose is; "Where do we go from here, particularly once more and more the men and women in the street learn that there is no vault full of money hoarded by some ficticious group of idle wealthy."

My views on climate change, as opposed to the "global warming" fad are similar; The issue needs to continue on the path of serious, more detailed study begun twenty years ago, and to develop workable resoponses if the "threat" intensifies or becomes more demonstrable. But I hold individuals like Al Gore directly responsible for the polarization of the issue. The environmentalists rail at Republicans for refusal to sign the Kyoto protocols, but forget that the senior Bush, first to sign a ground-breaking accord at Rio twenty years ago, was prompltly hooted down, with Fidel Castro leading the lynch mob.

Conservatives are ready to talk seriously on environmental issues; a cover story in National Review two years ago demonstrates that. But not if the principal tactic of the opposition is "polar bear" apppeals directed toward twelve-year-olds.

We need a fundamental change in tax structure, one which conserves resources, strongly discourages "crass consumption" and as always, rewards foresight and investment.

Not likely given the current gang of idiots within the Beltway.

When you make your central point you do so with a run on sentence. Were you to write business communication that way, you'd get some rather negative feedback from customers and staff.

You're still missing the point. Be some straight forward and concise in what you write. What does your point have to do with tax reform? What does it have to do with global warming. None of them have much to do with what you are talking about here.

The updates to your thread still don't make much sense and it's not clear what you even want to discuss here.

[subsound]

This is ridiculous. Even high school students write in clearer and more concise statements and ideas.

I have seen this a few times though, it's the word salad of ideas you see with the onset of paranoid schizophrenia or mania. It's that time people are still largely cogent, but the ideas come out jumbled in a stream of words like a hummingbird on crack. We even have a few examples that an older mentally ill neighbor would leave on cars around her home.

You don't need answers to your ideas, you need meds. I'm not trying to be mean, I'm trying to make sure there's not another disheveled wackjob ranting on a street corner. Get help, the sooner you do the easier it will be.

[2nd trick op]

OK ... so let's try this:

Both parties have been tying down safety valves, the boiler might blow, and there is goig to be a lot of blame-throwing if it does.

I see constant ranting from trolls, usually over in Left field, thet threre is a huge pile of funds to be tapped to address their pet issues. When I attempt to go a bit deeper as to why that can't work, I'm dismissed as a rambling paranoid.

Assuning the folly of a return to the 70% to 90% top brackets of the Sixties and Seventies can be avoided, where do we go from here?

[whogo]

If we do not want to end up like Greece we need to start doing something like this:

Fiscal Commission Co-Chairs Simpson And Bowles Release Eye-Popping Recommendations | TPMDC

Yep, it ain't something anyone really likes. Time to take our medicine. While I prefer consumption taxes over income taxes it will take too long to sell the American people on it and the clock is ticking.