Greg Norman on Fox Business talking about America's failure to Lead, High Taxes, Over-Regulation

[Mr. Desmond]

Sure we do, because there are A LOT of people in this country brainwashed by the liberal agenda to think that they are not overtaxed and over regulated.

Oh, I don't know ... I remember a 90% tax rate existed for certain individuals in the late 1970's. Of course, the payroll tax rate was lower (until Reagan -- so let's not go "liberal agenda" ... when they need revenue, it's party neutral) at that time. With the advent of the minimum tax and alternative minimum tax, meant to capture tax from people who took advantage of certain loopholes and types of income so they paid no tax or at very low rates, and new depreciation methods, and my gosh, about everything deduction under the sun, the tax code is far too complex.

I would say the laws are too complicated as well as the paperwork. Well intentioned laws are far too complex.

They need to simplify, simplify...

[k-troop]

Came back to this thread with 20 new comments hoping to see some good Shark-bashing...but just more pointless tax policy debate. :-(

[No Mulligans]

It would be just my luck that the year I retire they switch to a VAT or National Sales tax.  I've been taxed when I earned my income and then I'd be taxed (more) when I spend my savings.

[nevets88]

Came back to this thread with 20 new comments hoping to see some good Shark-bashing...but just more pointless tax policy debate. :-(

Fox is gonna need a bigger boat!

[Mr. Desmond]

Came back to this thread with 20 new comments hoping to see some good Shark-bashing...but just more pointless tax policy debate.

Rumor has it that Norman is the real father of Chelsea's baby.... came out of the womb with a Crocodile Dundee knife.... gotta be...

He and Bill are/were tight...

(joking)

[MSchott]

Two points: 1) Those nations that tax their people more than the United States are decidedly socialistic in nature. 2) I, too, would be willing to pay more taxes, but only if I could designate where all of my tax dollars would be spent.

I'm good with being more socialist if that's what you want to call it. Slippery slope using that word. We are a representative republic so the legislature you elect makes spending decisions for us. It's the basis for our country.

[Mr. Desmond]

I'm good with being more socialist if that's what you want to call it. Slippery slope using that word.

We are a representative republic so the legislature you elect makes spending decisions for us. It's the basis for our country.

The tax system has always been socialistic ... some provisions favor certain individuals, and other provisions favor certain industries, some incentivize investment in certain industries. The tax code performs many tasks.

Should it?

[saevel25]

Oh, I don't know ... I remember a 90% tax rate existed for certain individuals in the late 1970's. Of course, the payroll tax rate was lower (until Reagan -- so let's not go "liberal agenda" ... when they need revenue, it's party neutral) at that time. With the advent of the minimum tax and alternative minimum tax, meant to capture tax from people who took advantage of certain loopholes and types of income so they paid no tax or at very low rates, and new depreciation methods, and my gosh, about everything deduction under the sun, the tax code is far too complex.

I would say the laws are too complicated as well as the paperwork. Well intentioned laws are far too complex.

They need to simplify, simplify...

Well Jimmy Carter almost ran this country into the ground during the 70's

Yep, I agree, Keep It Simple!

[MS256]

We have tax problems but mostly have a spending problem.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

[iacas]

We have tax problems but mostly have a spending problem.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

That's not as relevant as many think.

Countries don't have a life expectancy, or something like that. So said my college Econ prof.

[MS256]

That's not as relevant as many think.

Countries don't have a life expectancy, or something like that. So said my college Econ prof.

Yeah that's what an Econ prof would say. Keep borrowing from China and hope the problem somehow goes away.

[iacas]

Yeah that's what an Econ prof would say. Keep borrowing from China and hope the problem somehow goes away.

It's not like that, but whatever man.

Was too long ago for me to remember the specifics, but I'm absolutely certain it made sense then. I don't care anywhere near enough to look into it more now, but I definitely wasn't saying or implying that the econ prof said anything like the bold.

[Mr. Desmond]

Well Jimmy Carter almost ran this country into the ground during the 70's

Yep, I agree, Keep It Simple!

Ike did not favor high taxes, but the highest rates were 90%+ for some individuals during his administration. I was merely pointing out that higher tax rates existed many years ago under the administrations of both parties. Higher taxes on the wealthy did not bring down the economy in the 50's, 60's, 70's... but the propaganda machine would have you believe otherwise. Over the last 40 years, in fact, the wealthy have gotten wealthier, and the middle class has gotten poorer as some rates have decreased and others (i.e. payroll taxes) have increased.  In the 80's, I believe 1% owned 25% of the wealth; now I believe that 1% own 40-45% of the wealth in this country...

The system is too complex and inequitable ... simplify ... expand the wealth of the middle class...

[jgreen85]

America is no longer the #1 manufacturer, it's not the economic powerhouse it once was, our educations system ranks poorly compared to other nations and our national debit is embarrassing.  40 years ago America was the leader of the world, today we are a nation that clings onto our past while it borrows on it's future.

Ok, so "American Leadership" has to do with America being the best in important categories. Thanks for the clarification. Do you think your definition of "American Leadership" is consistent with those who use the phrase? Is this something new or has it been a decline over time? What would you say is the one constant(s) that led to this decline? I appreciate you listing areas that are actually quantifiable. [quote name="iacas" url="/t/77579/greg-norman-on-fox-business-talking-about-americas-failure-to-lead-high-taxes-over-regulation/36#post_1064914"] It's not like that, but whatever man. Was too long ago for me to remember the specifics, but I'm absolutely certain it made sense then. I don't care anywhere near enough to look into it more now, but I definitely wasn't saying or implying that the econ prof said anything like the bold. [/quote] Yea, you really want to look at debt as a percent of GDP. $500k in debt is a lot to the vast majority of people, but it'd be nothing to Rush Limbaugh. Also what's with the "Government should be run as a business" or "When my income is down, I make hard choices" crowd? Government shouldn't be run as one run's his/her household budget. When the economy is poor, Government debt should rise (spender of last resort). When the economy is good, Government coffers should grow (to recover from previous decline). Unfortunately, during the last boom, the powers that be spent all of the money in tax breaks (I was <18, so this is on yall). "I'm here to ask for a refund" - George W. Businesses are designed to be efficient and pursue economic profit. The government is not. It is designed to do the important things private enterprise won't do. Build miles and miles and miles of highway when few people actually have cars (Dwight D). Loan money when the private sector is too scared to (pretty much every President). Insure flood zones; say what you want, but all of us depend on the fishing, oil exploration, and docks of those living in flood zones provide. Government is not supposed to be efficient in the types of activities it pursues. The inefficiency in our system is driven by private special interests both at the macro (big banks, big oil, big industry, etc) and micro level (dr. so and so with exorbitant medicare fees, joe general looking for a sweet gig with a defense contractor, and (the worst) dick congressman looking to stay in office. We, the people, enable all of the inefficiency in our government by not voting our real economic interests and those out there trying to get their proverbial beaks' wet.

[mdl]

This is about golf, so not looking to get too political here.  I agree with all of the bold, the difference between us is I think the Federal government has the money today to fix it all, there is just too much fraud, misuse and abuse within all levels of government.  Let them run the country like I had to run my business and I bet you'll find money isn't the issue it's all the waste that is preventing us from achieving what's important in our country.

The bold statement is a false, or at best uninformed and very susceptible to right wing propaganda/media.  Unless by misuse you mean a sweeping, completely comprehensive transformation of the federal budget into something absolutely unrecognizably different than the current.  Almost all of the federal budget goes to Medicare/Medicaid, which is wildly efficient compared to private insurance (in terms of the % of money actually spent on medical care), social security, which has an overhead percentage lower than any private business in the country, and the military, which I agree is wildly bloated but I assume is not what you're talking about.

[flopster]

Ike did not favor high taxes, but the highest rates were 90%+ for some individuals during his administration. I was merely pointing out that higher tax rates existed many years ago under the administrations of both parties. Higher taxes on the wealthy did not bring down the economy in the 50's, 60's, 70's... but the propaganda machine would have you believe otherwise. Over the last 40 years, in fact, the wealthy have gotten wealthier, and the middle class has gotten poorer as some rates have decreased and others (i.e. payroll taxes) have increased.  In the 80's, I believe 1% owned 25% of the wealth; now I believe that 1% own 40-45% of the wealth in this country...

The system is too complex and inequitable ... simplify ... expand the wealth of the middle class...

But that's a socialist agenda that would help the economy across the board, why would someone allow that to happen?

[boogielicious]

Came back to this thread with 20 new comments hoping to see some good Shark-bashing...but just more pointless tax policy debate.

I guy I know in Sydney went to a tournament when Normal was on top and Tiger was up and coming. He went to get autographs.  He said Tiger was gracious and fun and signed a few things.  He then said Normal was a pompous ass and walked around like a King.

Can you imagine the comments if Tiger called himself a "living brand"?

[newtogolf]

The bold statement is a false, or at best uninformed and very susceptible to right wing propaganda/media.  Unless by misuse you mean a sweeping, completely comprehensive transformation of the federal budget into something absolutely unrecognizably different than the current.  Almost all of the federal budget goes to Medicare/Medicaid, which is wildly efficient compared to private insurance (in terms of the % of money actually spent on medical care), social security, which has an overhead percentage lower than any private business in the country, and the military, which I agree is wildly bloated but I assume is not what you're talking about.

I am not talking party lines, both sides waste more money that you would want to believe.  I've personally witnessed unnecessary purchasing of equipment that sat in boxes because the department I worked in had "excess" budget and needed to spend it out of fear their budget for next year would get cut.

In my current business we have purchased millions of dollars of equipment at pennies on the dollar because the government agency ordered the equipment but never unboxed it.  By the time they needed new equipment the equipment that was still brand new in boxes was deemed too old and "traded" in on new equipment.

The government business model is to spend every dime or risk losing it next budget cycle.  The allocated budgets for the next fiscal year are designed to exceed the revenue that they expect to collect so without conscientious spending there's no way the government doesn't spend more than it will collect in revenue, thus the deficit just keeps getting bigger and taxes keep going up.

The GSA schedule (method that government purchases products from private sector) is a complete charade.  The concept is business must gives government the best price on everything that the government purchases.  While the $400 hammer is an exaggeration it's not as far fetched as elected officials would have you think.

The GSA schedule is basically a catalog of the products and services you wish to offer to the government.  I can sell a hammer in the private sector for $20 so if I list that same hammer on my GSA schedule, I have to list it at $16 or less.  But I can also choose not to list the $20 hammer as I sell it in the private sector but virtually that same hammer with a special engraved handle or 5 year warranty as a bundle on my GSA schedule for $150.

I've witnessed federal service contracts get renewed with the incumbent vendor at twice the price of competing bids because it was "easier" for the purchasing agent to not switch.

The fraud, waste, misuse and abuse I've personally witnessed is blatant.  It would be like someone on welfare going to the most expensive boutique store to buy something for $100 more than they could at Walmart.  Only we're talking about billions and trillions of dollars at the federal government level not $100.