Republican bill passes, opening path to debt deal

[Roger Dressler]

It would sure help if they weren't all running for re-election the moment that they hit the ground.

Indeed!

But it would hurt that none of them have any experience in governing;

Term limits does not mean lack of experience. The limit is for each elected office that person holds. It means you have to change jobs as you build your political career, just like happens in business. If you are doing the same entry level job in an organization after 6 years, and have not expanded your influence and responsibility, well, you are not all that valuable to the organization. Jack Welch had a great remedy for that: every year, 10% of the employees are exited.

I really don't want the lobbyists to be the only people in DC who know their way around.

Me neither. Sounds like a perfect place to target some of them fancy government regulations!

If the last few weeks have shown us anything, it's that freshmen Congresscritters know enough to be dangerous. Sweeping campaign and election reform would be much more effective, I think, and no more difficult than passing term limits. In other words, we're waiting for a cold day in hell.

All good ideas are welcome. The problem is huge and complex. Instead of "death a thousand cuts," let's try "success by a thousand tweaks."

 

[JackD201]

Term limits as a solution? It's a band aid. You'll get legislators divided into three groups, worthy, greenhorn and sock puppet just like you do every election. All term limits will do is forcibly retire the good with the bad.

The solution is far simpler. Make the politicians more accountable to their constituents by having the constituents actually register and vote in both good times and bad. IMO someone who doesn't exercise his right of suffrage shouldn't have the right to complain about the representation he does or doesn't get.

 

[Steve williams]

The solution is far simpler. Make the politicians more accountable to their constituents by having the constituents actually register and vote in both good times and bad. IMO someone who doesn't exercise his right of suffrage shouldn't have the right to complain about the representation he does or doesn't get.

Turnout in this country for people to exercise their right to vote has always been less than stellar

 

[Whatmore]

Turnout in this country for people to exercise their right to vote has always been less than stellar

We have compulsory voting in australia

 

[Steve williams]

Fantastic. What's the penalty for not voting

 

[Whatmore]

It's minimal - maybe $20 not exactly sure. But it seems to work, voter turnout in our last federal election was over 90%

 

[Steve williams]

That is amazing.

 

[Whatmore]

Didn't prevent us from ending up with a hung parliament and a completely ineffectual government though

 

[Roger Dressler]

Term limits as a solution? It's a band aid. You'll get legislators divided into three groups, worthy, greenhorn and sock puppet just like you do every election. All term limits will do is forcibly retire the good with the bad.

Band Aids are good. Nothing wrong with turnover. No one is irreplaceable. There's not that many Steve Jobs types pining for jobs in Washington.

The solution is far simpler. Make the politicians more accountable to their constituents by having the constituents actually register and vote in both good times and bad. IMO someone who doesn't exercise his right of suffrage shouldn't have the right to complain about the representation he does or doesn't get.

I don't see how forcing uninterested and uninformed people into a voting booth is any kind of solution. Forcing people into a class on economics, now that would be a step in the right direction.

 

[Whatmore]

Given the track record of economists over the years, perhaps a compulsory grounding in a real science would be more valuable

Even more useful would be compulsory education in how to make an informed comparison between the candidate's policies (as opposed to voting based on spin-doctored sound bites)

 

[JackD201]

Band Aids are good. Nothing wrong with turnover. No one is irreplaceable. There's not that many Steve Jobs types pining for jobs in Washington.

I don't see how forcing uninterested and uninformed people into a voting booth is any kind of solution. Forcing people into a class on economics, now that would be a step in the right direction.

You've got to look at it with the politician's eyes to see it Roger. You stay alive by keeping those that gets you the votes happy. Organized Labor, Industrial Complex, Bible Belt, it doesn't matter what side of the aisle you're on, it's a matter of personal survival. The unaffiliated silent majority gets it up the *** because historically they have not been a factor. They have not been a factor because they do not vote. The gap between the government and the general population, especially with regards to the alignment of interests and the requisite accountability, is traced back directly to the voting booth.

Going back to term limits, I can just see how many Reps on their last terms will make hay while the sun still shines. The lobbyists would love it.

Give me a vigilant and demanding constituency holding a huge stick over the heads of elected officials any day.

 

[Roger Dressler]

Give me a vigilant and demanding constituency holding a huge stick over the heads of elected officials any day.

I'm totally for that. They need adult supervision. Hence not a good idea to goad people into the voting booth against their will.

 

[rblnr]

Give me a vigilant and demanding constituency holding a huge stick over the heads of elected officials any day.

Wouldn't that be great!? But it's about as likely as the workings of govt and business self-policing. People would actually have to read about the issues and get engaged.

The saddest truth is probably that we get exactly what we deserve.

 

[jazdoc]

Wouldn't that be great!? But it's about as likely as the workings of govt and business self-policing. People would actually have to read about the issues and get engaged.

The saddest truth is probably that we get exactly what we deserve.

I would be happier if our elected officials actually "read the bills to find out what was in them" before voting on legislation!

 

[rblnr]

Warren Buffet's take on the taxes/spending cuts issue:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=3

 

[Steve williams]

good read Bob

 

[jazdoc]

Let me preface by saying I'm a big fan of Mr. Buffett and have made a lot of money with him. However...

While it is true that dividend income tax rate is 15%, that occurs after corporate taxes are applied. If a company earns $1M earmarked for dividends and pays 25% corporate tax, the distributed dividend is $750,000. If a 15% dividend tax rate is applied to the dividend, an additional $112,500 in tax is collected. The total tax collected is $362,000, yielding an actual tax rate of 36.25%.

Secondly, as Mr. Buffett almost certainly knows, nothing prevents him and his wealthy friends from paying more tax than they owe. Finally, instead of donating the bulk of his wealth to the charity, Mr. Buffett could put his money where is mouth is and send the money to the government. That he has chosen to donate it to the Gates Foundation, implies that he believes that the Foundation will use the money more wisely the government.

 

[Steve williams]

That he has chosen to donate it to the Gates Foundation, implies that he believes that the Foundation will use the money more wisely the government.

well stated

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Let me preface by saying I'm a big fan of Mr. Buffett and have made a lot of money with him. However...

While it is true that dividend income tax rate is 15%, that occurs after corporate taxes are applied. If a company earns $1M earmarked for dividends and pays 25% corporate tax, the distributed dividend is $750,000. If a 15% dividend tax rate is applied to the dividend, an additional $112,500 in tax is collected. The total tax collected is $362,000, yielding an actual tax rate of 36.25%.

Secondly, as Mr. Buffett almost certainly knows, nothing prevents him and his wealthy friends from paying more tax than they owe. Finally, instead of donating the bulk of his wealth to the charity, Mr. Buffett could put his money where is mouth is and send the money to the government. That he has chosen to donate it to the Gates Foundation, implies that he believes that the Foundation will use the money more wisely the government.

This is the old double taxation argument and it doesn't hold water in the face of a bit of logic. The corporation I work for pays taxes. The cost of those taxes, among the many other costs they face each year, figures into their ability to pay my salary and benefits, my bonus, etc. That pre-taxed money then shows up in my bank account. Is that "double-taxed?" Yes. Is it different? Of course not. Buffet's argument is a simple one: Income from an investment portfolio is income, period. Why should he be paying half the rate of tax on his income than his salaried employees make? It's a great point. Let's apply it to inheritance tax as well. Hold on to reasonable exceptions to allow decent-sized family businesses, etc, to be passed along without being taxed out of affordability, then tax the trust fund for exactly what it is - a source of income.

I'm not foolish enough to believe that if we did all of the above, it would raise enough revenue to solve the deficit problem, but in combination with the closing of a whole bunch of loopholes it could do one thing: Actually tax the powerful in America, which might put a bit more inspiration behind the drive toward real tax reform.

Tim

 

[jazdoc]

Sorry Tim, I'm not following your logic. Salary and benefits are subtracted from the income statement before taxes. Dividends are paid out of post tax monies.