New "payroll tax"on investment income being considered--attack on the ants.

[Gone4Good]

You really believe that there aren't a lot of *individuals* who want some of these broad areas cut?

That is what the polls consistently show.

It may be true that individually "Johnny Red-State" favors more defense spending, lower taxes, and reduced transfer payments and that Sarah Blue-State favors reduced defense spending and increased social programs. But collectively we favor lower taxes and more spending. Which is precisely what we get.

 

[eridanus]

It may be true that individually "Johnny Red-State" favors more defense spending, lower taxes, and reduced transfer payments and that Sarah Blue-State favors reduced defense spending and increased social programs. But collectively we favor lower taxes and more spending. Which is precisely what we get.

This, of course, should be obvious from the way most people use their credit cards. Living like you're making $75,000 is great, especially if you're only making $50,000.

 

[ziggy29]

It may be true that individually "Johnny Red-State" favors more defense spending, lower taxes, and reduced transfer payments and that Sarah Blue-State favors reduced defense spending and increased social programs. But collectively we favor lower taxes and more spending. Which is precisely what we get.

I'm not arguing the collective results at all. We have no consensus on where to cut, so nothing gets cut. That much is painfully obvious.

I'm simply saying it's not a given that *individuals* don't have ideas about what they'd like to see cut. We may have "cognitive dissonance" collectively as a society in terms of refusing to make the hard but necessary choices, but not necessarily at the individual level. So perhaps we're more in agreement than it originally appeared.

 

[HFWR]

I'm not arguing the collective results at all. We have no consensus on where to cut, so nothing gets cut. That much is painfully obvious.

I'm simply saying it's not a given that *individuals* don't have ideas about what they'd like to see cut. We may have "cognitive dissonance" collectively as a society in terms of refusing to make the hard but necessary choices, but not necessarily at the individual level. So perhaps we're more in agreement than it originally appeared.

I believe this is also true about term limits. Limit the other guy's term, but I like having a senator/congresscritter with lots of seniority, who heads a committee or two. Good for the state, you know!

 

[Gumby]

And the issue is further complicated by the fact that most government spending translates directly into someone's paycheck. There are probably hundreds of thousands of people who have a vested interest in increased defense spending not because it is objectively necessary for our nation's defense but because it puts food on their families' tables. Similarly, there are a vast number of people who work in the "social services industry". Of course they view their own program as providing essential services, because their paycheck is contingent on the government continuing to fund that program. And the people who depend on government spending for their livelihood typically have a stronger incentive to push for a spending increase than any particular taxpayer has to push for a decrease.

 

[harley]

So when asked specifically . . . do you want taxes raised "No";

No

Do you want to cut defense spending "No";

Yes

do you want to cut Social Security "No";

Yes

do you want to cut Medicare "No";

Yes

Do you want to cut foodstamps and the like "No".

Yes

Do you consider the federal deficit a significant problem "Yes"

Yes

Cognitive dissonance.

? I guess I'm mising your point.

"The public" is not an individual. "The public" can not suffer from cognitive dissonance. Just individuals, and they're all, like, individuals.

 

[Gone4Good]

So perhaps we're more in agreement than it originally appeared.

You're probably just more charitable in your assumptions about the intellectual consistency of your fellow citizens than I am.

 

[clifp]

I think there's a lot to be said for this. However:

2) As we have discussed, there may come a time when assets, rather than just income, becomes the measure of who shall be shorn. Decreasing income can be done by increasing assets (e.g. decrease investment income by using investments to pay off the mortgage), but decreasing (detectable) assets while maintaining a satisfactory standard of living is more problematic. It probably involves lawyers (trusts, etc), or plunging into the grey areas of the economy (tangible, undocumented investments, etc). Most of these measures have relatively high costs of investing (actual or opportunity costs by way of reduced potential for growth). I guess we could think of this as another form of diversification to address another type of risk.

I remember the old joke about the future simple 1040 form.

1. How did you make?

2. Send it in.

I dreading when the joke is changed to .

1. How much are you worth?

2. Hand it over.