Originally posted by utherpendragonWhere does that $40 billion figure come from?
I highly doubt the legalization of marijuana for example, would cause a spike in its consumption contributing to the decline of civilized culture. Most of the people who would use it already are.
Alcohol is a fine example of this. Just because it is legal does not mean everybody out there is drinking to excess or becoming alcoholics. Just the savings ...[text shortened]... year. The revenue from taxing it,liscensing growers,distributers,sellers would be astronomical.
Originally posted by KazetNagorrasorry I for got the link. on page 2 I provided a more conservative figure.It varies a little depending on the link. Either way, its in the tens of billions
Where does that $40 billion figure come from?
http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/factsheets/economiccons/fact_economic.cfm
3 edits
Originally posted by eljefejesusAt some point, god willing, you will FINALLY begin to understand the REAL difference between the left and the right.
Anyone else tired of the same old "solutions" offered by the left on the recession, the medicare shortfall, the social security shortfall, and the deficit, and even on paying for the wars? I see no cuts, just tax some more, and when we have more record deficits, tax some more...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Left - increase Tax and increase spending
Result - balanced budget eventually (clinton)
Right - Cut tax and increase spending
Result - massive deficit passed on to children to deal with. (Bush, Bush Jr, Reagan)
Why anyone who is not in the top 10% tax bracket still votes for the right is beyond me.
2 edits
Originally posted by utherpendragonYou seem to have a contradiction in this post. Either consumption of these goods remains roughly in the same ball park in which case it doesn't come close to raising the necessary revenue, or it does raise the necessary revenue in which case this type of consumption would be by far the largest component of aggregate consumption implying that it did indeed spike up by many fold.
I highly doubt the legalization of marijuana for example, would cause a spike in its consumption contributing to the decline of civilized culture. Most of the people who would use it already are.
Alcohol is a fine example of this. Just because it is legal does not mean everybody out there is drinking to excess or becoming alcoholics. Just the savings ...[text shortened]... year. The revenue from taxing it,liscensing growers,distributers,sellers would be astronomical.
Just so you get an idea of what I'm talking about. Go check out what fraction of total tax revenues is composed of sales taxes. It's quite small, and that's on a whole boatload of different goods. Even if you jack the tax rate up to 75% you're not even going to come close to paying these deficits.
Originally posted by utherpendragonIt seems the US will always prefer to fight unwinnable wars that pander to minority interests. What do we have firmly attached to the public teat? The war on drugs,.... the war on terror?.......
Just the savings on legalizing it alone would be around $40 billion a year. The revenue from taxing it,liscensing growers,distributers,sellers would be astronomical.
That a fraction of the cost in fighting these wars would usually provide the education and rehabilation required to all but eradicate the problem seems a moot point.
But as always the danger there would be the institution of a dependency, a class of people hooked on welfare.
The American solution is so much more superior. Instead force people to overcome their addictions and problems and make them stand on their own two feet. That you have to foster a dependency of Federal Agencies and defence capabilities to fight these battles, so that the spirit of the people, its dynamism and do it yourself initiative is preserved.........oh well, nothings perfect...right?
But why try and help people, when you can instead sit in judgement of their inadequacies, their weaknesses and their foibles and not only blame the victim but actively erect an effective maze of bureacratic intransigence around them (the justice-correctional system) to keep them downtrodden.
And this is the democratic freedom that the world - in awe of its greatness no doubt - should readily adopt?
Originally posted by kmax87Nothing is perfect. Their is no Utopia. The USA is the best we got to offer,I wouldn't want to be any place else. But, if I so chosed too I could leave. Their is no wall or fences preventing people from leaving here.
It seems the US will always prefer to fight unwinnable wars that pander to minority interests. What do we have firmly attached to the public teat? The war on drugs,.... the war on terror?.......
That a fraction of the cost in fighting these wars would usually provide the education and rehabilation required to all but eradicate the problem seems a moot poin ...[text shortened]... the democratic freedom that the world - in awe of its greatness no doubt - should readily adopt?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraFuture taxes are increasingly looming as the spending remains out of control. It was good to hear him talk about the need to cut spending, let us see some actual cutting go on.
It seems Obama is ignoring the "tax" bit, and is spending heavily on those leftist hobbies like useless wars abroad.
Originally posted by MelanerpesHere we can have a debate as to whether the left has offered any solution at all... because more spending is not a solution in the long-term, just a short-term mirage.
we have a choice:
1. tired old solutions from the left
2. the usual chorus of crickets chirping from the right
we need a third option:
3. interesting NEW solutions from the right
The right has a better position to the extent that the deficit matters and there is less demand to increase spending.
Obama and the right should now agree to cooperate on cutting some spending.
It is urgently and desperately needed for the long-run health of the US economy.
Originally posted by UllrCut some from both.
Here's an idea. The 2010 defense and defense related budget is set to be around 1 trillion dollars. Cut 2/3rds of it. There is over 600 billion off the deficit right there. As a taxpayer I'm tired of paying for never ending wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and for the ongoing occupations of Germany, Japan, S. Korea, and other places. Roll back the American empire starting now.
Then we can talk about the out of control social spending.
Originally posted by whodeyLol, I see why he said in his speech that he offers a hand and gets a fist, but indeed he has been spending even more than bush did just as bush spent more than clinton did. I've seen this movie before and it ends badly...
Nonsense, we need to spend spend spend. We spend when the eoconomy is good because we have the funds to do so and we spend when the economy is bad because we all know that is the thing to do to get us out of recessions. Just look at how the last stimulus package did for our economy. We were on the brink and Obama single handidly spent billions more to save us all. Soon he plans to save us again with the upcoming 3 trillion dollar spending spree.
Originally posted by telerionTax increases during the recession, are you changing your Keynsian proposals now? lol, fair enough, there should be both reduction in tax credits/exemptions AND reductions in spending, although at more realistic levels than Burman proposes, could make a dent in the debt taken together.
Leonard Burman, an economics professor at Syracuse, has an interesting piece in The Washington Post. He claims that capping tax expenditures from 2013 to 2016 and then indexing them to inflation thereafter would save 14 times as much as capping non-military discretionary spending ($3.5 Trillion).
Doing so of course is sure to make everyone angry (sh76?) ...[text shortened]... do something like he proposes.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=901319
Originally posted by kmax87Do you have a reason to suspect this danger could materialize?
But as always the danger there would be the institution of a dependency, a class of people hooked on welfare.
I.e. if you look at countries with extensive social security systems, do they have "a class of people hooked on welfare"?
1 edit
Originally posted by telerionI was curious for some numbers, so let's calculate something on the back of an envelope. Income from tobacco tax ( around 200% ) here is 1.8 billion euros per year, roughly 2.5 billion dollars. The amount of regular smokers is about 40% of the population or so, so let's assume the amount of regular pot smokers is about a tenth of that, 4% of the population (a fairly conservative estimate). If people spend as much on cannabis as a regular smoker would spend on tobacco, and a similar tax was applied, this would bring in 250 million dollars per year in the Netherlands. Correcting for population size, that would mean about 5 billion dollars in the U.S.
You seem to have a contradiction in this post. Either consumption of these goods remains roughly in the same ball park in which case it doesn't come close to raising the necessary revenue, or it does raise the necessary revenue in which case this type of consumption would be by far the largest component of aggregate consumption implying that it did indeed u jack the tax rate up to 75% you're not even going to come close to paying these deficits.
Originally posted by eljefejesusThree things.
Tax increases during the recession, are you changing your Keynsian proposals now? lol, fair enough, there should be both reduction in tax credits/exemptions AND reductions in spending, although at more realistic levels than Burman proposes, could make a dent in the debt taken together.
1) I don't think he meant for his example to be taken as a serious policy. He just wanted to give people an idea of big these tax expenditures are and will be in the near future.
2). Most of us are in favor of cutting spending. Burman's piece really pointed out to me just how difficult this problem is. With about 2/3 of the budget pre-determined and, realistically, only some fraction of the remaining third being truly discretionary, there isn't much room for Obama to manuever.
3). Since when am I a Keynsian? Hell, I wouldn't even call myself New Keynsian.
Originally posted by telerionIndeed, there is not much room for Obama to manuever. So what does he do? He seeks even bigger entitlements that would give the US less room to manuever.
Three things.
1) I don't think he meant for his example to be taken as a serious policy. He just wanted to give people an idea of big these tax expenditures are and will be in the near future.
2). Most of us are in favor of cutting spending. Burman's piece really pointed out to me just how difficult this problem is. With about 2/3 of the budget pr ...[text shortened]... uever.
3). Since when am I a Keynsian? Hell, I wouldn't even call myself New Keynsian.
The US has allowed Presidents from about a century ago dictate current fiscal policy today. It then matters little who else preceeds them, unless they make it worse like Obama is trying to do.