Obama to propose cuts to Social Security

[Sbane]

..and now Boehner has already rejected it.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/obama-budget-medicare-social-security-89658.html?hp=t2_3

It seems that is the case as to the overall package Obama is proposing, but not the chained CPI concept, which is a non brainer, because with the chained CPI concept, the purchasing power of the SS payments will remain intact, but not grow to the extent the purchasing power of wages grows over time.

Do you support anymore tax hikes, including if all of it is achieved through tax reform as opposed to raising rates? I don't think the Republican party is going to go for even a cent more in revenue. There is no point negotiating with them. The best bet is to vote them out of power and hope the Democrats don't go too far. I am sorry, but the current Republican party is not worthy of governing.

[Sbane]

I hope I have made everything clear as to where my little brain sits on this at the moment. Did I sbane?

Yeah, you have. It seems like you wouldn't dismiss out of hand any more revenues like Boehner has. Once you do that, there is no negotiation to be had. Now, the Republicans may want more cuts than what Obama has proposed. Nothing wrong with that. They just have to realize there is no deal out there that doesn't include revenue. Republicans have a great chance of enacting tax reform and getting entitlement reform, but they seem intent of shooting themselves in the foot. If the Democrats get the white working class back on their side, it's over for the Republicans.

[Sbane]

A chained CPI is not equal to destroying Social Security.

[Sbane]

Why not just limit deductions?

[Sbane]

Why not just limit deductions?

That, if it were me, would certainly be part of the mix, starting with nixing the deduction for state and local income taxes. Just what the mix should be depends on how much more revenue is "needed" to meet the metric, and frankly while I said 90% of GDP as a max, I would prefer that cruising speed be around 75%, so in downtowns, there is some elbow room for that percentage to grow.

I completely disagree going after the state and local income tax deduction. It punishes states like California that provide more benefits at the state level (of course there is a lot of waste aka pensions). Still, I like having sidewalks.....

I would just have a hard limit on how much you can deduct from your taxable income. The middle class still benefits but the rich do not. And you don't have to raise rates to raise revenues.

[Sbane]

Why not just limit deductions?

That, if it were me, would certainly be part of the mix, starting with nixing the deduction for state and local income taxes. Just what the mix should be depends on how much more revenue is "needed" to meet the metric, and frankly while I said 90% of GDP as a max, I would prefer that cruising speed be around 75%, so in downtowns, there is some elbow room for that percentage to grow.

I completely disagree going after the state and local income tax deduction. It punishes states like California that provide more benefits at the state level (of course there is a lot of waste aka pensions). Still, I like having sidewalks.....

I would just have a hard limit on how much you can deduct from your taxable income. The middle class still benefits but the rich do not. And you don't have to raise rates to raise revenues.

Yes, we do indeed disagree about the state and local income tax deduction. I see no reason why the Feds should tax subsidize high income taxing states.  The Feds should be neutral about that, rather than subsidize and encourage that.  You obviously do favor such a subsidy.  Different strokes for different folks.

I think the problem is that a federalist system leads to a race to the bottom. Each state trying to undercut each other by lowering income taxes and trying to attract businesses there. This is usually done on the backs of the poors. Ideally, the feds would pay for everything, and perhaps outline the ends, and let the states figure out the means to enact programs (which is why I like the medicaid expansion, though maybe more freedom should be given to states on how to administer the program. Hopefully the feds keep funding at least 90% of it at the very least). I do think states are better at knowing how to run programs in the best way, but struggle in finding a way to finance that. Anyways, a deduction for income tax helps those brave states with high income taxes somewhat.

[Sbane]

Well, California and the local governments within at pretty dysfunctional. Many other states around the nation are not. Businesses in many cases would rather deal with them, Democrat or Republican, rather than Washington DC bureaucrats of either party.

[Sbane]

Well, California and the local governments within at pretty dysfunctional. Many other states around the nation are not. Businesses in many cases would rather deal with them, Democrat or Republican, rather than Washington DC bureaucrats of either party.

What high income taxing states do you have in mind as havens for "businesses," at least vis a vis their dealings with state and local government bureaucrats?

No, I was talking about states in general.

[Sbane]

Why would part D be only allowed under the more expensive plan? Maintanence medications for blood pressure, cholesterol and type 2 diabetes lower health care costs more than anything else, so why would that not be covered but expensive hospital coverage be covered?