Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
I guess we may have different definitions of implode then. Yes, there are going to have to be big changes and our current trajectory is unsustainable, but at no point in US history have we been on any singular stable trajectory, but rather a state of flux in various states of dynamic motion.
So, yes I would agree that we hve major and unsustainable issues that will require change. I'm also not thrilled ir confident in our likely general election candidates to address these issues. I guess we're primarily disagreeing on the concept of what an "implosion" would mean
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Vaktathi wrote: I guess we may have different definitions of implode then. Yes, there are going to have to be big changes and our current trajectory is unsustainable, but at no point in US history have we been on any singular stable trajectory, but rather a state of flux in various states of dynamic motion.
So, yes I would agree that we hve major and unsustainable issues that will require change. I'm also not thrilled ir confident in our likely general election candidates to address these issues. I guess we're primarily disagreeing on the concept of what an "implosion" would mean
funny thing is did some checking and our outstanding national debt in 1930 was lower then in previous years, if anything our national debt was like 16 Billion at the time, when a few years prior it was like 24 billion.
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
National debt was low in 1930, but debt is only one aspect of health and debt can be a useful tool. They also raised taxes to lower that debt (which exacerbated problems everywhere else). The US also was a much smaller player with a much smaller military and services/obligations and population and ambitions than today. The unemployment rate and income/wealth gaps were *way* worse back then than now. I'd much rather be line assembly worker today than in 1930 if given the choice (though 1970 over either )
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Vaktathi wrote: National debt was low in 1930, but debt is only one aspect of health and debt can be a useful tool. They also raised taxes to lower that debt (which exacerbated problems everywhere else). The US also was a much smaller player with a much smaller military and services/obligations and population and ambitions than today. The unemployment rate and income/wealth gaps were *way* worse back then than now. I'd much rather be line assembly worker today than in 1930 if given the choice (though 1970 over either )
actually the unemployment rate in 1930 was 8.7% chew on that for awhile.
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
Exalted. The whole,"You didn't build this", is one of the most loaded, asnine phrases I have heard. Sure, there are those who are born into wealth that just lounge about, but I know far more well off people who started by risking everything to make their business work. They would work consistent long days that carried them well into the night, keep things running off credit cards along with having everything they owned mortgaged to the hilt. This is why that whole statement met with such derision from these people.
Well, they had homes to mortgage and the credit ratings and history to get those credit cards. So that is already some huge advantages over lots of other people. It is much easier to "risk it all" for your business when you actually have stuff to put on the line.
Homes and cards they had worked their asses off to get. You seem to think if someone loses their house, it's no big deal.
Vaktathi wrote: National debt was low in 1930, but debt is only one aspect of health and debt can be a useful tool. They also raised taxes to lower that debt (which exacerbated problems everywhere else). The US also was a much smaller player with a much smaller military and services/obligations and population and ambitions than today. The unemployment rate and income/wealth gaps were *way* worse back then than now. I'd much rather be line assembly worker today than in 1930 if given the choice (though 1970 over either )
actually the unemployment rate in 1930 was 8.7% chew on that for awhile.
up from around 4% in 1928 and would be almost 30% on 1932.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
jmurph wrote: Western society has always struggled to get the wealthy to pay their fair share. It goes back to British kings, for crying out loud. Long story short- it is easier to force compliance on those with fewer resources to resist. In the US, the wealthy have created the whole "job creators" narrative to try to insulate themselves and whine about taxation, despite top level taxation being at a historic low and wealth concentration approaching historic highs. In other words the very top have more than ever and yet pay less in taxes. You would think with stagnant and declining wages, the average citizen would be very upset, but a big enough group buys into the crony capitalist story to keep it going. The fact that these people naively believe that we have anything even remotely resembling free markets and yet point to major market failures where there has been government involvement to buttress their argument would be laughable if it weren't so sad. Of course government is involved in major business issues- business pays loads of money to make sure that happens! They just want the protections and bail outs though, not the oversight and limits.
Part of the problem is the legal fiction of corporations as people and the free flow of money and influence into the political process. It undermines the whole concept of individual democracy and substitutes a bizarre collectivism for the wealthy. What it ignores is that those at the top are very few actual people and not the primary drivers of economic activity. Rather, they are largely the beneficiaries of it. While one can point to individual exceptions who innovate something new that does create wealth, by and large most just sit atop existing systems and are more or less interchangeable. Heck, get rid of them all and it would make much less of a difference than if you eliminated half of the people under them. It's why ensuring that generated wealth flows back into the systems for further improvement and expansion is so important. Otherwise you just end up with a quasi-feudal wealth extraction and collection system.
Efficient tax systems should adequately cover necessary government functions as well as encourage sound economic practices. Arguably current US tax systems focus too much on income and encourage hoarding at high levels. Encouraging more fair systems is in the best interests of everyone over the long term as it encourages greater overall growth and stability.
As to societal revolution, it is always messy. But when it starts people are usually so upset and miserable, even death becomes a limited deterrent, so pointing out that "the poor die too" is kind of a nonpoint. Such revolutions are bloody and rarely make things more equitable as it is easy for military strongmen to take advantage of the chaos. It doesn't change the fact that if things grow too desperate, people tend to revolt. Such actors are primarily motivated by immediate concerns. Agitating for change or deposal of current authorities is not the same as a call for violent revolution. Though the former may become the latter.
The top earners pay most of taxes already and the bottom 40% don't pay taxes at all. What do you mean by the term fair share? Everyone pays tax?
Vaktathi wrote: National debt was low in 1930, but debt is only one aspect of health and debt can be a useful tool. They also raised taxes to lower that debt (which exacerbated problems everywhere else). The US also was a much smaller player with a much smaller military and services/obligations and population and ambitions than today. The unemployment rate and income/wealth gaps were *way* worse back then than now. I'd much rather be line assembly worker today than in 1930 if given the choice (though 1970 over either )
actually the unemployment rate in 1930 was 8.7% chew on that for awhile.
up from around 4% in 1928 and would be almost 30% on 1932.
and around 4% or less in the 40's
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
A Navy sailor entered a guilty plea Friday in a classified information mishandling case that critics charge illustrates a double standard between the treatment of low-ranking government employees and top officials like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and ex-CIA Director David Petraeus.
Prosecutors allege that Petty Officer First Class Kristian Saucier used a cellphone camera to take photos in the classified engine room of the nuclear submarine where he worked as a mechanic, the USS Alexandria, then destroyed a laptop, camera and memory card after learning he was under investigation.
Last July, Saucier was indicted on one felony count of unlawful retention of national defense information and another felony count of obstruction of justice. He pleaded guilty Friday to the classified information charge, which is part of the Espionage Act, a prosecution spokesman confirmed. No charge of espionage was filed and no public suggestion has been made that he ever planned to disclose the photos to anyone outside the Navy.
The sailor now faces a maximum possible sentence of up to ten years in prison, but faced up to 30 years if found guilty on both charges. Federal guidelines discussed in court Friday appear to call for a sentence of about five to six-and-a-half years, although the defense has signaled it will seek a lighter sentence.
Saucier’s friends, conservative commentators and others say the stiff charges leveled against Saucier were out of whack with more lenient treatment given to senior officials who face allegations of mishandling classified information, like Clinton.
“I just don’t think it’s fair,” said Gene Pitcher, a retired Navy sailor who served with Saucier aboard the Alexandria. “In reality, what she did is so much worse than what Kris did. ... I think it’s just a blatant double standard.”
Clinton has not been charged with any crime, but the FBI has been investigating how information that intelligence agencies consider classified wound up on the private server that hosted her only email account during the four years she served as secretary of state. Some news reports have said charges are unlikely.
“Felony charges appear to be reserved for people of the lowest ranks. Everyone else who does it either doesn’t get charged or gets charged with a misdemeanor,” said Edward MacMahon, a Virginia defense attorney not involved in the Saucier case.
To some, the comparison to Clinton’s case may appear strained. Clinton has said none of the information on her server was marked classified at the time. In many cases, it was marked as unclassified when sent to her by people in the State Department more familiar with the issues involved.
By contrast, sailors are trained early on that the engine compartment of a nuclear sub is a restricted area and that much information relating to the sub’s nuclear reactors is classified.
Still, it’s far from obvious that the information Saucier took photos of is more sensitive than information found in Clinton’s account. Court filings say the photos were clear enough that they reveal classified details about the submarine that could be of use to foreign governments, such as the vessel’s maximum speed.
However, the Navy says the photos are classified “confidential,” which is the lowest tier of protection for classified information and is designated for information that could cause some damage to national security but not “serious” or “exceptionally grave” damage.
Intelligence agencies claim that Clinton’s account contained 65 messages with information considered “Secret” and 22 classified at the “Top Secret” level. Some messages contained data under an even more restrictive “special access program” designation.
Clinton and her campaign have disputed those findings, calling them a result of “overclassification” and urging that the messages be released in full.
However, Clinton’s critics and some former intelligence officials said she should have recognized the sensitivity of the information. They’ve also noted that about 32,000 messages on Clinton’s server were erased after her lawyers deemed them personal.
“The DOJ is willing to prosecute a former sailor to the full extent of the law for violating the law on classified material, in a situation where there was no purposeful unsecured transmission of classified material,” conservative blogger Ed Morrissey wrote last year. “Will they pursue Hillary Clinton and her team, at the other end of the power spectrum from the rank-and-file, for deliberate unsecured transmission of improperly marked classified nat-sec intelligence? Will they pursue the same kind of obstruction of justice charges for Hillary’s wiping of her server as they are for Saucier’s destruction of his laptop?”
Jury selection in Saucier’s case took place earlier this month in U.S. District Court in Bridgeport, Connecticut, and opening arguments were scheduled to take place Tuesday, just after the Memorial Day holiday. The change of plea hearing Friday morning was not publicly noticed on the court's docket.
Judge Stefan Underhill set sentencing in the case for August 19. Both sides agreed that sentencing guidelines call for a sentence of 63 to 78 months, but the judge will also calculate the guidelines range and can give a sentence outside the range. Plea documents indicate that the defense plans to ask for a more lenient sentence on the basis that Saucier's conduct was "aberrant."
A defense attorney for Saucier did not respond to messages seeking comment for this story.
The investigation into Saucier kicked off in a rather unusual way in 2012 when a supervisor at a dump in Hampton, Connecticut, found a cellphone “on top of a pile of trash approximately three to four feet into the middle of a dumpster at the transfer station,” a court filing read. The supervisor showed the images to a retired Navy friend who turned over the device to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service.
Pitcher acknowledges that his friend violated Navy rules if he took the photos as prosecutors allege, but he says such infractions by submariners were not uncommon and were almost always dealt with through what the military calls “nonjudicial punishment” or Captain’s Mast. Those involved were demoted and docked some pay, but didn’t face a felony record or the prospect of years behind bars, the retired sailor said.
“Two guys in our boat were caught taking photos in the engine room on the nuclear side of things. Basically, all that happened to them was they … lost a rank,” Pitcher said. “I’ve seen quite a few cases like this and never seen any handled like Kris’.”
One factor that may have led investigators and prosecutors to handle Saucier’s case more aggressively is the way he responded when confronted about the photos. Court filings say he initially denied he took the pictures. Prosecutors say he later smashed his laptop, camera and memory card and threw them in the woods.
On top of that, Saucier had a handgun not registered to him in his home, prosecutors allege. After the FBI and NCIS showed up to question him, he allegedly cleaned it with bleach and stashed it under the dishwasher.
“They love the obstruction charges,” MacMahon said. “What they look for is something that’s aggravating.”
The defense attorney noted that CIA Director David Petraeus was accused of lying to the FBI when first confronted about keeping top secret notebooks at home and sharing them with his lover.
Many lawyers believe that fact may have tipped the case against Petraeus from something that might have cost him his job to one that resulted in criminal prosecution.
Still, Petraeus was never charged with obstruction of justice. Before any charges were filed, his attorney reached a deal with prosecutors in which the retired general pleaded guilty to a single misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified information.
A former military investigator who handled classified information cases said the military tends to treat such violations more seriously than civilian government agencies do and there are some valid reasons for that.
“It is exceedingly common for people in the military to be held accountable for classified information violations, much more so than in the civilian government or contractor world,” said Bill Leonard, former director of the government’s Information Security Oversight Office. “My sense is that’s just a reflection of the military’s emphasis on good order and discipline. ... It really does make a difference to the guy or gal next to you if [sensitive] information is compromised. That’s a very real consequence.”
Since Saucier is still in the Navy, it’s unclear why he was charged in federal civilian court rather than sent to a court-martial. One possibility is that investigators may have considered charging others in civilian life with conspiring with the Navy sailor, but that has not happened.
Former Navy sailors said Saucier’s case also overlaps with a period during which the Navy was trying to strike a balance involving the boredom of submarine life during deployments as long as six months and the increasing popularity of smartphones, video-game players and similar devices.
While photography was always banned in engine rooms and taking a camera there would have been highly suspicious, ubiquitous phones with cameras have added new complexity to the situation, the sailors said.
With his friend set to plead guilty, Pitcher said he’s still convinced that Saucier is being treated more harshly than others in government of low or high rank.
“A lot of people were doing what Kris was doing,” Pitcher said. “Clearly, to an educated observer, this is not fair treatment in comparison to other highly visible cases.”
If high government official don't follow the laws...
Right, but thats talking a decade later after a national transformation and the US ending up the big winner of the largest conflict in human history, having ended up with tremendous amounts of wealth transferred in from that conflict and the preceding WW1 (and the financial center of the world moving from London to New York). The ultimate point I was making when referencing the 30's however was that the US has been through far worse than what we're facing now and didnt go all to hell.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
I did some number crunching regarding tax brackets and came to the conclusion that I am not smart enough or qualified to write a tax plan. (And I am a professional number cruncher.)
That said, any tax brackets would probably have to be progressive within the tax brackets themselves, not just overall. Tax brackets are exceptionally craptacular for the lower end of the bracket. If our theoretical brackets are [X-$44k] = 5% and [45K-Y] = 10%, the guy making 44k pays $2200 in taxes and keeps $41,800 while the guy making $45k pays $4500 and keeps $40,500. If I made $44k per year and my boss offered me a raise, it would be stupid to accept anything less than $46,500 as otherwise I'd be making less money than before (and actually, only getting an extra $50/year with the $2500 raise). Pretty much wherever you drew the lines would make the bottom amounts worthless.
I will be honest and admit that I am not well informed regarding Bernie's politics, but this points out one problem with the "tax the rich" rhetoric. It is essentially meaningless without knowing where the lines would be drawn.
dethork wrote: I did some number crunching regarding tax brackets and came to the conclusion that I am not smart enough or qualified to write a tax plan. (And I am a professional number cruncher.)
That said, any tax brackets would probably have to be progressive within the tax brackets themselves, not just overall. Tax brackets are exceptionally craptacular for the lower end of the bracket. If our theoretical brackets are [X-$44k] = 5% and [45K-Y] = 10%, the guy making 44k pays $2200 in taxes and keeps $41,800 while the guy making $45k pays $4500 and keeps $40,500. If I made $44k per year and my boss offered me a raise, it would be stupid to accept anything less than $46,500 as otherwise I'd be making less money than before (and actually, only getting an extra $50/year with the $2500 raise). Pretty much wherever you drew the lines would make the bottom amounts worthless.
I will be honest and admit that I am not well informed regarding Bernie's politics, but this points out one problem with the "tax the rich" rhetoric. It is essentially meaningless without knowing where the lines would be drawn.
I'd advocate for a tier'ed flat tax system.
Classify income as all "new money", not simply from your employment wages.
No deduction, credits or any other "social engineering".
ie:
0$ to poverty level: 0%
poverty level to $50k: 5%
$50k to $75k: 7.5%
$75k to $100k: 10%
$100k to $200k: 15%
$200k to $500k: 20%
$500k +: 25%
Just pulled those numbers out of my nether region, but you get the idea.
Vaktathi wrote: Right, but thats talking a decade later after a national transformation and the US ending up the big winner of the largest conflict in human history, having ended up with tremendous amounts of wealth transferred in from that conflict and the preceding WW1 (and the financial center of the world moving from London to New York). The ultimate point I was making when referencing the 30's however was that the US has been through far worse than what we're facing now and didnt go all to hell.
you still miss the bigger picture, the US now is spending much more then they collect then the national debt was in the 30's.
dethork wrote: I did some number crunching regarding tax brackets and came to the conclusion that I am not smart enough or qualified to write a tax plan. (And I am a professional number cruncher.)
That said, any tax brackets would probably have to be progressive within the tax brackets themselves, not just overall. Tax brackets are exceptionally craptacular for the lower end of the bracket. If our theoretical brackets are [X-$44k] = 5% and [45K-Y] = 10%, the guy making 44k pays $2200 in taxes and keeps $41,800 while the guy making $45k pays $4500 and keeps $40,500. If I made $44k per year and my boss offered me a raise, it would be stupid to accept anything less than $46,500 as otherwise I'd be making less money than before (and actually, only getting an extra $50/year with the $2500 raise). Pretty much wherever you drew the lines would make the bottom amounts worthless.
I will be honest and admit that I am not well informed regarding Bernie's politics, but this points out one problem with the "tax the rich" rhetoric. It is essentially meaningless without knowing where the lines would be drawn.
I'd advocate for a tier'ed flat tax system.
Classify income as all "new money", not simply from your employment wages.
No deduction, credits or any other "social engineering".
ie:
0$ to poverty level: 0%
poverty level to $50k: 5%
$50k to $75k: 7.5%
$75k to $100k: 10%
$100k to $200k: 15%
$200k to $500k: 20%
$500k +: 25%
Just pulled those numbers out of my nether region, but you get the idea.
actually thats what it is about right now. problem is you remove deductions and such it will hurt the middle class much more then the rich, the middle class survives on deductions as it is.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/27 18:25:03
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
dethork wrote: I did some number crunching regarding tax brackets and came to the conclusion that I am not smart enough or qualified to write a tax plan. (And I am a professional number cruncher.)
That said, any tax brackets would probably have to be progressive within the tax brackets themselves, not just overall. Tax brackets are exceptionally craptacular for the lower end of the bracket. If our theoretical brackets are [X-$44k] = 5% and [45K-Y] = 10%, the guy making 44k pays $2200 in taxes and keeps $41,800 while the guy making $45k pays $4500 and keeps $40,500. If I made $44k per year and my boss offered me a raise, it would be stupid to accept anything less than $46,500 as otherwise I'd be making less money than before (and actually, only getting an extra $50/year with the $2500 raise). Pretty much wherever you drew the lines would make the bottom amounts worthless.
I will be honest and admit that I am not well informed regarding Bernie's politics, but this points out one problem with the "tax the rich" rhetoric. It is essentially meaningless without knowing where the lines would be drawn.
I'd advocate for a tier'ed flat tax system.
Classify income as all "new money", not simply from your employment wages.
No deduction, credits or any other "social engineering".
ie:
0$ to poverty level: 0%
poverty level to $50k: 5%
$50k to $75k: 7.5%
$75k to $100k: 10%
$100k to $200k: 15%
$200k to $500k: 20%
$500k +: 25%
Just pulled those numbers out of my nether region, but you get the idea.
That's essentially what I did while crunching numbers (though I was a bit less friendly with the percentages, lol) right down to basing beginning taxes on the poverty line.
To illustrate the problems with the lower ends of the brackets, lets take the poverty threshold which is about $12,000. Someone making $12k per year will pay $600 in taxes @ 5% and thus really makes $11,400. Thus the taxes have literally impoverished him.
I would propose having both a minimum wage and a living wage. The minimum wage is pretty much as it is now - the company's obligation to pay X amount or the owner can just do the work himself. But, it would in no way try to be a living wage. The living wage would be essentially a guaranteed income (Basic Income). Let's say Poverty Threshold + 10%. No one in the Serene Republic of Dethorkia will be impoverished. Any difference between income and the living wage would be made up for by the government. The government would then compare the company's profits and if it exceeded X% they would be given a commensurate corporate tax rate.
To keep this brief I have not discussed "professional layabouts" or the top earners in the company.
If anyone thinks my financial planning sucks, please note that I have already admitted to not being smart enough to write a comprehensive tax plan. These are brainstorming ideas. I promise by the time I run in the 2032 Elections I will have something better.
dethork wrote: I did some number crunching regarding tax brackets and came to the conclusion that I am not smart enough or qualified to write a tax plan. (And I am a professional number cruncher.)
That said, any tax brackets would probably have to be progressive within the tax brackets themselves, not just overall. Tax brackets are exceptionally craptacular for the lower end of the bracket. If our theoretical brackets are [X-$44k] = 5% and [45K-Y] = 10%, the guy making 44k pays $2200 in taxes and keeps $41,800 while the guy making $45k pays $4500 and keeps $40,500. If I made $44k per year and my boss offered me a raise, it would be stupid to accept anything less than $46,500 as otherwise I'd be making less money than before (and actually, only getting an extra $50/year with the $2500 raise). Pretty much wherever you drew the lines would make the bottom amounts worthless.
I will be honest and admit that I am not well informed regarding Bernie's politics, but this points out one problem with the "tax the rich" rhetoric. It is essentially meaningless without knowing where the lines would be drawn.
I'd advocate for a tier'ed flat tax system.
Classify income as all "new money", not simply from your employment wages.
No deduction, credits or any other "social engineering".
ie:
0$ to poverty level: 0%
poverty level to $50k: 5%
$50k to $75k: 7.5%
$75k to $100k: 10%
$100k to $200k: 15%
$200k to $500k: 20%
$500k +: 25%
Just pulled those numbers out of my nether region, but you get the idea.
That's essentially what I did while crunching numbers (though I was a bit less friendly with the percentages, lol) right down to basing beginning taxes on the poverty line.
To illustrate the problems with the lower ends of the brackets, lets take the poverty threshold which is about $12,000. Someone making $12k per year will pay $600 in taxes @ 5% and thus really makes $11,400. Thus the taxes have literally impoverished him.
I would propose having both a minimum wage and a living wage. The minimum wage is pretty much as it is now - the company's obligation to pay X amount or the owner can just do the work himself. But, it would in no way try to be a living wage. The living wage would be essentially a guaranteed income (Basic Income). Let's say Poverty Threshold + 10%. No one in the Serene Republic of Dethorkia will be impoverished. Any difference between income and the living wage would be made up for by the government. The government would then compare the company's profits and if it exceeded X% they would be given a commensurate corporate tax rate.
To keep this brief I have not discussed "professional layabouts" or the top earners in the company.
If anyone thinks my financial planning sucks, please note that I have already admitted to not being smart enough to write a comprehensive tax plan. These are brainstorming ideas. I promise by the time I run in the 2032 Elections I will have something better.
That hypothetical I posted: You'd only get taxed 5% of the $ earned after the poverty demarcation. So if it's $12k, and a person made $12,100... then that person is only taxed $100 at 5%.
You only taxed at whatever band you've received. So, it'd be like you earned $150,000... then your tax liabilities would be:
0$ to poverty level: 0% First $12k is ZERO.
poverty level to $50k: 5% next chunk $38k is $1900.
$50k to $75k: 7.5% Next chunk $25k is $1875.
$75k to $100k: 10% Next chunk $25k is $2500.
$100k to $200k: 15% Next chunk $50k is $7500.
Totalling tax liability of $13,775 of your $150k income, which works out to be ~10.8 percent tax (not include state/local taxes).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/27 19:21:47
dethork wrote: I did some number crunching regarding tax brackets and came to the conclusion that I am not smart enough or qualified to write a tax plan. (And I am a professional number cruncher.)
That said, any tax brackets would probably have to be progressive within the tax brackets themselves, not just overall. Tax brackets are exceptionally craptacular for the lower end of the bracket. If our theoretical brackets are [X-$44k] = 5% and [45K-Y] = 10%, the guy making 44k pays $2200 in taxes and keeps $41,800 while the guy making $45k pays $4500 and keeps $40,500. If I made $44k per year and my boss offered me a raise, it would be stupid to accept anything less than $46,500 as otherwise I'd be making less money than before (and actually, only getting an extra $50/year with the $2500 raise). Pretty much wherever you drew the lines would make the bottom amounts worthless.
I will be honest and admit that I am not well informed regarding Bernie's politics, but this points out one problem with the "tax the rich" rhetoric. It is essentially meaningless without knowing where the lines would be drawn.
I'd advocate for a tier'ed flat tax system.
Classify income as all "new money", not simply from your employment wages.
No deduction, credits or any other "social engineering".
ie:
0$ to poverty level: 0%
poverty level to $50k: 5%
$50k to $75k: 7.5%
$75k to $100k: 10%
$100k to $200k: 15%
$200k to $500k: 20%
$500k +: 25%
Just pulled those numbers out of my nether region, but you get the idea.
That's essentially what I did while crunching numbers (though I was a bit less friendly with the percentages, lol) right down to basing beginning taxes on the poverty line.
To illustrate the problems with the lower ends of the brackets, lets take the poverty threshold which is about $12,000. Someone making $12k per year will pay $600 in taxes @ 5% and thus really makes $11,400. Thus the taxes have literally impoverished him.
I would propose having both a minimum wage and a living wage. The minimum wage is pretty much as it is now - the company's obligation to pay X amount or the owner can just do the work himself. But, it would in no way try to be a living wage. The living wage would be essentially a guaranteed income (Basic Income). Let's say Poverty Threshold + 10%. No one in the Serene Republic of Dethorkia will be impoverished. Any difference between income and the living wage would be made up for by the government. The government would then compare the company's profits and if it exceeded X% they would be given a commensurate corporate tax rate.
To keep this brief I have not discussed "professional layabouts" or the top earners in the company.
If anyone thinks my financial planning sucks, please note that I have already admitted to not being smart enough to write a comprehensive tax plan. These are brainstorming ideas. I promise by the time I run in the 2032 Elections I will have something better.
That hypothetical I posted: You'd only get taxed 5% of the $ earned after the poverty demarcation. So if it's $12k, and a person made $12,100... then that person is only taxed $100 at 5%.
5% of $12,100 is $605
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/05/27 19:15:38
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
At least, that's how I'd do it if I had the powah. (rates themselves would adjust based on government revenue needs, but it's this *mechanic* I'm trying to convey).
Well... the income bands/rate would need some work: Persons in Household--------2014 Federal Poverty Level threshold 100% FPL 1------------------------------------$11,670 2------------------------------------$15,730 3------------------------------------$19,790 4------------------------------------$23,850
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/05/27 19:27:34
At least, that's how I'd do it if I had the powah. (rates themselves would adjust based on government revenue needs, but it's this *mechanic* I'm trying to convey).
Well... the income bands/rate would need some work: Persons in Household--------2014 Federal Poverty Level threshold 100% FPL
1------------------------------------$11,670
2------------------------------------$15,730
3------------------------------------$19,790
4------------------------------------$23,850
2016 POVERTY GUIDELINES FOR THE 48 CONTIGUOUS STATES AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PERSONS IN FAMILY/HOUSEHOLD POVERTY GUIDELINE
For families/households with more than 8 persons, add $4,160 for each additional person.
1 $11,880
2 16,020
3 20,160
4 24,300
5 28,440
6 32,580
7 36,730
8 40,890
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
This is would I'd call "the liberals are eating their own...":
https://amp.twimg.com/v/9b7924d2-a1c1-41de-a3fe-7391efb13eec
Lifelong Democrats Say Hillary's Campaign/Credibility are at a New Low
Chuck Todd "She could not get confirmed as Attorney General right now" Mika Brzezinski said "she is straight out lying right now" and has been all along Even Andrea Mitchell says she's indefensible
Easy E wrote: The only way to stop illegal immigration is to make our own country such a Gak-hole that no one wants to come here anyway. Anything short of that is a waste of time.
Do any of us really want to go that far?
instead, we need to focus on how we are going to use these incoming resources to build our country and make it stronger.
Oh we are already going down that path, with "Actual" unemployment on the rise and more and more businesses shuttering their doors, its just a matter of time till this country implodes.
But on the other hand Trump might be onto something, building a wall would put people to work give jobs and so forth.
I try and be an optimist, but nothing good ever happens!
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
Easy E wrote: The only way to stop illegal immigration is to make our own country such a Gak-hole that no one wants to come here anyway. Anything short of that is a waste of time.
Do any of us really want to go that far?
instead, we need to focus on how we are going to use these incoming resources to build our country and make it stronger.
Oh we are already going down that path, with "Actual" unemployment on the rise and more and more businesses shuttering their doors, its just a matter of time till this country implodes.
But on the other hand Trump might be onto something, building a wall would put people to work give jobs and so forth.
I try and be an optimist, but nothing good ever happens!
I'm being optimistic too the wall would bring much needed jobs and so forth.
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
Easy E wrote: The only way to stop illegal immigration is to make our own country such a Gak-hole that no one wants to come here anyway. Anything short of that is a waste of time.
Do any of us really want to go that far?
instead, we need to focus on how we are going to use these incoming resources to build our country and make it stronger.
Oh we are already going down that path, with "Actual" unemployment on the rise and more and more businesses shuttering their doors, its just a matter of time till this country implodes.
But on the other hand Trump might be onto something, building a wall would put people to work give jobs and so forth.
I try and be an optimist, but nothing good ever happens!
I'm being optimistic too the wall would bring much needed jobs and so forth.
The wall's not going to be built.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Easy E wrote: The only way to stop illegal immigration is to make our own country such a Gak-hole that no one wants to come here anyway. Anything short of that is a waste of time.
Do any of us really want to go that far?
instead, we need to focus on how we are going to use these incoming resources to build our country and make it stronger.
Oh we are already going down that path, with "Actual" unemployment on the rise and more and more businesses shuttering their doors, its just a matter of time till this country implodes.
But on the other hand Trump might be onto something, building a wall would put people to work give jobs and so forth.
I try and be an optimist, but nothing good ever happens!
I'm being optimistic too the wall would bring much needed jobs and so forth.
Easy E wrote: The only way to stop illegal immigration is to make our own country such a Gak-hole that no one wants to come here anyway. Anything short of that is a waste of time.
Do any of us really want to go that far?
instead, we need to focus on how we are going to use these incoming resources to build our country and make it stronger.
Oh we are already going down that path, with "Actual" unemployment on the rise and more and more businesses shuttering their doors, its just a matter of time till this country implodes.
But on the other hand Trump might be onto something, building a wall would put people to work give jobs and so forth.
I try and be an optimist, but nothing good ever happens!
I'm being optimistic too the wall would bring much needed jobs and so forth.
The wall's not going to be built.
if presented as much needed jobs, you would be surprised what can get done.
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
Easy E wrote: The only way to stop illegal immigration is to make our own country such a Gak-hole that no one wants to come here anyway. Anything short of that is a waste of time.
Do any of us really want to go that far?
instead, we need to focus on how we are going to use these incoming resources to build our country and make it stronger.
Oh we are already going down that path, with "Actual" unemployment on the rise and more and more businesses shuttering their doors, its just a matter of time till this country implodes.
But on the other hand Trump might be onto something, building a wall would put people to work give jobs and so forth.
I try and be an optimist, but nothing good ever happens!
I'm being optimistic too the wall would bring much needed jobs and so forth.
The wall's not going to be built.
if presented as much needed jobs, you would be surprised what can get done.
American economy floats on illegal labour. I very much doubt the wall will be built.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Easy E wrote: The only way to stop illegal immigration is to make our own country such a Gak-hole that no one wants to come here anyway. Anything short of that is a waste of time.
Do any of us really want to go that far?
instead, we need to focus on how we are going to use these incoming resources to build our country and make it stronger.
Oh we are already going down that path, with "Actual" unemployment on the rise and more and more businesses shuttering their doors, its just a matter of time till this country implodes.
But on the other hand Trump might be onto something, building a wall would put people to work give jobs and so forth.
I try and be an optimist, but nothing good ever happens!
I'm being optimistic too the wall would bring much needed jobs and so forth.
The wall's not going to be built.
if presented as much needed jobs, you would be surprised what can get done.
American economy floats on illegal labour. I very much doubt the wall will be built.
and I repeat you have no idea how much jobs are very much needed.
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
Easy E wrote: The only way to stop illegal immigration is to make our own country such a Gak-hole that no one wants to come here anyway. Anything short of that is a waste of time.
Do any of us really want to go that far?
instead, we need to focus on how we are going to use these incoming resources to build our country and make it stronger.
Oh we are already going down that path, with "Actual" unemployment on the rise and more and more businesses shuttering their doors, its just a matter of time till this country implodes.
But on the other hand Trump might be onto something, building a wall would put people to work give jobs and so forth.
I try and be an optimist, but nothing good ever happens!
I'm being optimistic too the wall would bring much needed jobs and so forth.
The wall's not going to be built.
if presented as much needed jobs, you would be surprised what can get done.
American economy floats on illegal labour. I very much doubt the wall will be built.
No. It does not.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/27 23:04:38
dethork wrote: I did some number crunching regarding tax brackets and came to the conclusion that I am not smart enough or qualified to write a tax plan. (And I am a professional number cruncher.)
That said, any tax brackets would probably have to be progressive within the tax brackets themselves, not just overall. Tax brackets are exceptionally craptacular for the lower end of the bracket. If our theoretical brackets are [X-$44k] = 5% and [45K-Y] = 10%, the guy making 44k pays $2200 in taxes and keeps $41,800 while the guy making $45k pays $4500 and keeps $40,500. If I made $44k per year and my boss offered me a raise, it would be stupid to accept anything less than $46,500 as otherwise I'd be making less money than before (and actually, only getting an extra $50/year with the $2500 raise). Pretty much wherever you drew the lines would make the bottom amounts worthless.
I will be honest and admit that I am not well informed regarding Bernie's politics, but this points out one problem with the "tax the rich" rhetoric. It is essentially meaningless without knowing where the lines would be drawn.
The problem is that taxes don't work like that. They work in a bracket system where you pay X% on a portion of your money. What you are looking for is effective tax rate, and the way that brackets work it means that people never make less by making more because of taxes. Because that would be stupid.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
and I repeat you have no idea how much jobs are very much needed.
There are an abundance of roads, bridges, damns, and other critical infrastructure that is in desperate need of repairs. All of which are a much higher priority than a wall, and all of which are routinely ignored.
and I repeat you have no idea how much jobs are very much needed.
There are an abundance of roads, bridges, damns, and other critical infrastructure that is in desperate need of repairs. All of which are a much higher priority than a wall, and all of which are routinely ignored.
problem is all of those are State Repairs, too which the Federal Government does give them the money to do, what the States do with that money is another thing, like in California the Federal Government gave the state a crud load of a money for a Bullet Train that may never be done.
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
