First, as I have mentioned before,
taxes should be raised on the mega-wealthy and on capital gains. The mega-wealthy earn numerous times more
than they did in the 1960s and yet pay taxes at half the rate. According to Forbes, Richard Templeton, the
chief executive officer for Texas Instruments, made over $15.4 million in
2011—placing him 100th in CEO salary rankings. That list only includes CEOs, ignoring other
individuals who make millions a year, such as professional athletes,
film-related occupations (actors, actresses, directors, distributors), and
securities-related occupations (namely, hedge fund managers). Adjusted for inflation, all these individuals
would pay income taxes at a rate of 91%.
This would result in Templeton paying about $13.6 million in taxes,
leaving him with more than enough to live on.
But the tax rate does not necessarily have to be increased all the way
to 91%. Even if the rate is bumped up to
75%, substantial amounts would be generated from this rate. Templeton would pay $11.5 million, still a
great deal more than the $6 million he will pay under current rates.
Another possibility is entitlement
reform. This would obviously come in
various forms, from eliminating waste, reducing unneeded bureaucracy, and
preventing abuse of the system. Nicholas
Kristof, a columnist for the New York Times, wrote a column in December
explaining how in some low-income areas, families remove their children from
literacy classes in order to ensure they continue to receive Social Security
checks for intellectual disabilities.
This is unacceptable and must be stopped. This is only one example of a system rife with
abuse. My sister, who works at a Sheetz
location in Northeast Ohio, told me a story of an individual who tried to
purchase a pack of cigarettes with food stamps.
When she informed him that food stamps do not cover cigarettes, the
individual remarked along the lines of, “Man, I gotta pay for this in cash?”
and proceeded to pull out a wad of hundred-dollar bills. Unacceptable.
Another entitlement reform
possibility which I have conceptualized is a sliding-scale for when one is
eligible for Social Security retirement payments and Medicare insurance. The current Social Security retirement age for citizens born after 1959 is
67 and Medicare eligibility begins at 65.
A commonly proposed money-saving move is to raise both these ages to
reduce the number of individuals who receive payments, due to the rising life
expectancy of Americans. This would
prove disastrous due to the oversimplification of examining life expectancy
statistics. For example, while it is
true that overall the life expectancy of Americans has increased since 1990, the
life expectancy for white women lacking a high school diploma has in fact
decreased five years since 1990, with similarly undereducated white men have
lost three years of life expectancy. Due
to this trend, a simple increase in the eligibility ages would yank away the
services from those who need them the most.
The sliding-scale would be
formulated in a similar manner as the income tax brackets are, although taking
more factors into account. Level of
education would of course be considered, as would income, worth, and prior
medical history. This would allow those
citizens who need Social Security and Medicare the most to enter the programs
early while keeping those who do not need them out until they do need the
services.
The last suggestion is likely to
cause the most eyebrow-raising amongst readers.
It begins benignly enough, involving a cut in military spending. This comes in the form of cancelling
oft-delayed programs, cutting back the size of the branches by calling for
fewer soldiers, war planes, and naval vessels.
The point where it gets controversial is the advocation for selling off
old military equipment to other nations.
With a general Great-Power peace
blanketing the world, the target audience is not large, but it does exist. Israel is a likely consumer, due to its
rather small navy. With only three
submarines, the United States could surely sell Israel some of its older models
and still maintain a healthy advantage over the rest of the world. But Israel is not the one of America’s allies
who could be a landing point for old, decommissioned naval vessels.
South Korea and Japan are both
located near two nations which are often considered geopolitical adversaries of
the United States: North Korea and
China. If the United States wants to
contain the influence of China in the Pacific region and prevent North Korea
from attempting to invade South Korea, it is in America’s interests to bolster
the strength of its two primary Pacific allies.
While both South Korea and Japan have significant navies, they both lack
a key vessel type, which the United States has in spades. That vessel is aircraft carriers.
There are twenty active aircraft
carriers in the world today. The flag of
the United States flies above ten of those carries; other than Italy, no other
nation has more than one. Additionally,
three more American carriers are under construction while two are currently in
reserve. When the two in reserve are
both fully decommissioned they will taken apart or turned into museums, or
something else which I am just not aware of.
Instead of turning these ships into floating antiques, why not sell them
to South Korea and Japan, one apiece?
Not only would this save the United States from having to spend the
money on scraping the ships, it would also bring money in via the sale and
bolster the American alliance in the Pacific.
While nobody wants a war with China, should it come, the United States
would certainly benefit from having two nearby allies with aircraft carriers.
Obviously there are more ways to
reduce the deficit and debt than those that I have outlined above, but they are
steps which I believe should be taken. Feel
free to comment and refute my ideas and suggest more. A dialogue more complex than “No tax increases”
versus “No spending cuts” is a must if any substantial progress is to
occur.
No comments:
Post a Comment