Jackson Jambalaya

It is going to take a combination of cuts plus tax increases to get us out of this mess. It can't just be taxes on the rich though. There is a major problem when over 50% of American families don't pay any income tax.

The tax code needs to be simplified and everyone should pay their fair share. The child tax credit and the earned income credit need to be rolled back. At a minimum they should not be refundable credits (ie. if the family's tax liability is less than the credit they get it back in cash).

There are less than 15% of Americans living at or below the poverty line. Exempt them; everyone else should be contributing. You can't have a meaningful discussion on taxes when a majority of the people get back more than they are paying in.

Social Security and Medicare are going to have to be reformed too. Everyone knows by now that the system is going to run out of money in about 15 years. Fix it now. Rather than wait until it is bankrupt and cut benefits by 25%, freeze benefit increases until such a time as the projected contributions can support the benefits.

It is going to be painful for sure, but everyone is going to have to step up and bear some of the burden. America cannot continue down this path of wealth transfer and unnecessary spending based on borrowed money.

"Their fair share" and "below the poverty line" are both meaningless, elusive and often undefined phrases. The definition of 'poverty level' has changed more often over the past thirty years than vaccuum cleaner design. Oddly, although the table numbers adjust over time, the definition never demonstrably expands except under democrat legislation.

"Their fair share" is another democrat notion which only has meaning when certain people meet around a table behind closed doors.

'Freezing SS benefit increases' would not provide the system with a drop in the bucket. Imagine the monetary value to the system of freezing a 1% benefit increase for current retirees. Miniscule. Why do we never hear mention of the very real value of removing the wage cap on taxed income? Surely those making over the 'cap' would not realize their entire income being subject to SS taxes. Maybe the term 'fair share' could come into play here.

The term 'default' (in this context) is about as meaningless as the word 'impeached'. It's only value, as slight as it is, would apply to the historical legacy of the president to whom the term was affixed.

And, anon 8:00, what do you expect would be the likelihood of democrats in congress (or a sitting president) actually causing their very political base to have to cough up money or take less in entitlements? I suggest about the same likelihood as a gnat impregnating a camel.

@0645: Surely you do not believe that I would NOT notice a 33% increase in my federal tax obligation. Over the years SS payouts have been allowed to grow out of proportion to actual contributions by recipients. Politicians (all) tried to curry favor with the senior citizen voting block by allowing benefit increases to be tied to productivity and wage increases over the years rather than inflation. During years of productivity increases the seniors received increases in there checks essentially consuming our seed corn. Cut SS benefits or retard the rubric of their growth and extend the retirement age for for future recipients to something that is actuarially supportable. That is the only workable solution.

JB

The notion that a tax increase of any size on anyone will suddenly herald a new federal enthusiasm for, and strict adherence to, fiscal discipline is folly.

No, make that a wet-dream.

Jim Rogers is a real paradox to me. Here is a man that talks like a Libertarian, yet was a former business partner and is a friend of George Soros, the famous friend of the left.
He now lives in Singapore, so his young children can learn mandarin.
He says people in Asia are motivated like people used to be here, and he wants his children to be in that environment.
Hey, I am not a libertarian, but I do listen to him on occasion. I am sure he is right about a lot of what he says, but the questions remain.

JB: Shut up and pay your fair share. If you are among the top tier that has 33% of your wages not taxable to the SS ponzi- account, you really ought to consider foregoing your annual trips to Aruba and Cozumel. As relatively miniscule as SS contributions are (relative as compared to other IRS confiscations), no, you likely would not be crippled by all of your income being SS-taxed. You make it sound like an enema. (and while you're groveling, tell us why you think all of some income should be taxed but all of yours should not be ~ take your time now.)

JB: Shut up and pay your fair share. If you are among the top tier that has 33% of your wages not taxable to the SS ponzi- account, you really ought to consider foregoing your annual trips to Aruba and Cozumel. As relatively miniscule as SS contributions are (relative as compared to other IRS confiscations), no, you likely would not be crippled by all of your income being SS-taxed. You make it sound like an enema. (and while you're groveling, tell us why you think all of some income should be taxed but all of MINE (edit) should not be ~ take your time now.)