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.

In other news, checkmate gays!

 Ouze wrote:
In other news, checkmate gays!

I read the title, and my first thought was "this is he guy who thought Obama was going to take over Texas isn't it?" Read to the end of the article and was pleased

 Ouze wrote:
In other news, checkmate gays!

problem with this is invitro fertilization pretty much ixnays this, so yes Lesbian couples I can see helping prolonging the human race, male gay couples though?

 LordofHats wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
In other news, checkmate gays!

I read the title, and my first thought was "this is he guy who thought Obama was going to take over Texas isn't it?" Read to the end of the article and was pleased

Saw the Chron head line and was thinking Chron Disease and then read the article. Notice it was "That Guy"

Asterios wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
In other news, checkmate gays!

problem with this is invitro fertilization pretty much ixnays this, so yes Lesbian couples I can see helping prolonging the human race, male gay couples though?

Could always donate sperm.

You know, in this hypothetical sci-fi scenario where we can only save a certain percentage of the human race by shooting them off to a space colony. I'm just gonna file that one next to the slowly-ticking WMD hidden in a major metropolis, the location of which is only known by a terrorist with low pain tolerance.

Asterios wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
In other news, checkmate gays!

problem with this is invitro fertilization pretty much ixnays this, so yes Lesbian couples I can see helping prolonging the human race, male gay couples though?

You know Gay Men still produce sperm, right?

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
In other news, checkmate gays!

problem with this is invitro fertilization pretty much ixnays this, so yes Lesbian couples I can see helping prolonging the human race, male gay couples though?

You know Gay Men still produce sperm, right?

but still not needed, heck its at the point women are not even needed, test tube babies rule.

Asterios wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
In other news, checkmate gays!

problem with this is invitro fertilization pretty much ixnays this, so yes Lesbian couples I can see helping prolonging the human race, male gay couples though?

You know Gay Men still produce sperm, right?

but still not needed, heck its at the point women are not even needed, test tube babies rule.

I'm glad that we have reached the point during which we throw a bunch of chemicals into a tube, create DNA from scratch, build our own humans, and just watch them grow.

 d-usa wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
In other news, checkmate gays!

problem with this is invitro fertilization pretty much ixnays this, so yes Lesbian couples I can see helping prolonging the human race, male gay couples though?

You know Gay Men still produce sperm, right?

but still not needed, heck its at the point women are not even needed, test tube babies rule.

I'm glad that we have reached the point during which we throw a bunch of chemicals into a tube, create DNA from scratch, build our own humans, and just watch them grow.

You just better hope that you get born into the Alphas or the Betas... being an Epsilon would definitely suck.

Asterios wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
In other news, checkmate gays!

problem with this is invitro fertilization pretty much ixnays this, so yes Lesbian couples I can see helping prolonging the human race, male gay couples though?

You know Gay Men still produce sperm, right?

but still not needed, heck its at the point women are not even needed, test tube babies rule.

Now we're getting somewhere. We've got a space ship with the last remnant of humanity on it and super-people-making technology. Just pick the 'best possible person', clone them seventy-nine times, and ship them off. No need to worry about inbreeding or genetic bottleneck - heck, no need to worry about homosexual vs. heterosexual couples, they're all clones anyway. There's nothing far-fetched, dystopian, or horrifying about this scenario, and it absolutely needs to be referenced when determining policy affecting actual people on Earth where we have no ark-type spaceship, insta-test-tube people, or Martian colony plans.

C'mon, Fraz. Get the weiner dogs to vote this guy out already.

 Spinner wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
In other news, checkmate gays!

problem with this is invitro fertilization pretty much ixnays this, so yes Lesbian couples I can see helping prolonging the human race, male gay couples though?

You know Gay Men still produce sperm, right?

but still not needed, heck its at the point women are not even needed, test tube babies rule.

Now we're getting somewhere. We've got a space ship with the last remnant of humanity on it and super-people-making technology. Just pick the 'best possible person', clone them seventy-nine times, and ship them off. No need to worry about inbreeding or genetic bottleneck - heck, no need to worry about homosexual vs. heterosexual couples, they're all clones anyway. There's nothing far-fetched, dystopian, or horrifying about this scenario, and it absolutely needs to be referenced when determining policy affecting actual people on Earth where we have no ark-type spaceship, insta-test-tube people, or Martian colony plans.

C'mon, Fraz. Get the weiner dogs to vote this guy out already.

Actually cloning and test tubes are the way of exploration considering the distance and time to travel to other stars it would be pointless, furthermore any major extrasteller disaster which would effect the Earth would most likely have an impact on Mars which is currently the only planetary body near us to potentially support life, which would remove that as an option, which leaves distance solar systems which would take forever to reach.

 d-usa wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
In other news, checkmate gays!

problem with this is invitro fertilization pretty much ixnays this, so yes Lesbian couples I can see helping prolonging the human race, male gay couples though?

You know Gay Men still produce sperm, right?

but still not needed, heck its at the point women are not even needed, test tube babies rule.

I'm glad that we have reached the point during which we throw a bunch of chemicals into a tube, create DNA from scratch, build our own humans, and just watch them grow.

You forgot the dinosaurs to...mammoths.....Dire Wolves...Giant Sloths...Dodo bird......

Unless Hillary, Trump, or another US politician are trying to use space exploration as part of their platform/policy, we're done with that topic in the politics thread. Thanks

Under they "Go ahead and throw your vote away"* title the Libertarian Party has chosen its candidate for president.

Gary Johnson, the former Republican governor of New Mexico, on Sunday won the presidential nomination of the Libertarian Party, a sliver group hoping to make an outsized impact in this election year.

Johnson came within a half-point of scoring an outright first-ballot victory at the party's nominating convention in Orlando, Florida; a second ballot put him over the top, with 56 percent.

"I tell the truth, I am not a liar," Johnson told the group, insisting that his frank approach would appeal to disaffected voters and help the long-marginal Libertarians achieve "major-party status."

*Simpsons reference.

Prestor Jon wrote:
"The system"? Are you referring to the economy or what? Might just be one of those things were different locales and nationalities have different terminology/slang but I've never heard it explained like that. We don't have a system that just doles out money like we're all playing slot machines in a casino.

Not just the economy, by the vast network of systems and institutions that support that economic activity. All those things play a huge role in deciding how productive each individual can be.

The simplest way to think of this is to consider a lawyer, in your country or mine if he's gifted and very hard working he might earn a very healthy salary - let's say $200,000 a year. Now consider that same guy working in a small village in Bangladesh, he might be on something more like $20,000 a year. Not because he's less hard working or less talented, but just because he's part of a system which is nowhere near as good at supporting and enabling the economic activity of everyone single person in the system.

The tax code doesn't sit outside or separate to the rest of the system, which establishes and enforces property and contract laws, or the government institutions that build roads, provide education and encourage research.

And yeah, not many people anywhere think of it in those terms, and that's a shame because it would help to improve understanding greatly.

We have the discussion about "fair" tax rates all the time. It always boils down to the fact that "fair" is a subjective idea that varies with each individual. Some people think some tax brackets should have higher rates but nobody wants their own taxes to go up. Some people want the govt to do/spend more but everybody always pays the smallest amount of taxes they legally can. Everyone is free to pay more taxes to the govt but I've never seen an example of a rich person, especially a rich politician that voluntarily pays a higher rate because doing so is more "fair."

Sure, it's pretty typical that most people think everyone above them should pay more tax, and everyone beneath them should get less benefits. Humans are selfish, afterall. And yeah, exactly what is fair is pretty subjective. But what I am saying is that just looking at what is taxed is misleading in and of itself - fairness isn't about what you put in, but about what you have in total - and that means what we should look at is people's incomes after tax.

But it doesn't make much sense to argue that people's belief in a collective action is only okay when they personally are giving more. Because government is on such a scale that one individual's personal sacrifice means nothing - consider Warren Buffet, who earned a quite ludicrous $13 billion last financial year - if he was to give every penny he made last year to the federal government then total government revenue would increase 0.4%. And that's talking about one of the richest men in the world, who had their biggest single year, and who had most of that growth only on paper through increasing capital values. And it still rounds down to zero.

Campaign ads aren't meant to prompt meaningful policy discussions they're meant to motivate party bases, reinforce party differences (real or imagined) and get the electorate worked up over partisan wedge issues in the hope of increasing turnout and that's just the ads that aren't outright mud slinging negative ads.

Absolutely. And unfortunately most people think of politics only in terms of those slogans. Or in terms of arguing with those slogans.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:
"Rich" people aren't the only ones that benefit from civil society and infrastructure. Infrastructure is built by the government, the government is funded by taxes, in our progressive income tax system "rich" people pay the most income tax that funds the government. So "poor" people should be mad at "rich" people for funding government projects that benefit society? Or is it that "rich" people shouldn't benefit from civil society and a stable economy created by a government funded by their taxes?

No, the point is that everyone benefits from society. And if a single guy makes $200,000 a year from his job, he will still have $150,000 left after federal taxes, and maybe something like $130,000 left after state taxes. That will still leave the guy with about 2.5 times the average median income. From there it is clear that it is completely bonkers for him to complain that it is unfair that he pays a higher rate of tax than other people, because he is still a massive beneficiary from the overall system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
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.

I think most people met the quote with derision because they were too busy working long in to the night to read the full quote. Or possibly that lots of people thought it was easier to just be pretend outraged at Obama, instead of stop and realise that their personal success wasn't just because they personally are super-awesome, but because they exist in a system which creates and supports economic opportunity.

Anyway, here's the actual quote. Note there's nothing in there about inherited wealth, but just about the reality that success doesn't come in a bubble.

"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business – you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asterios wrote:
I look at it this way, its a messed up society when the top 1% of people are paying about 70-90% of the taxes

But if their net incomes are higher than they've ever been, exactly what are they complaining about?

our unemployment is thru the roof

You have no idea what you're talking about.



That said, I agree with you on the California statewide $15 minimum wage - it makes sense in a couple of California markets, but across the state it seems way too high.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asterios wrote:
so that brings us back to what is a good tax system? charge the rich a higher percentage of taxs? then why bother being rich if most of your money you cannot keep? why bother building businesses that hire lots of employees if you don't get to keep the money you made?

Why are you talking about 'most'? The current highest rate in the US right now is 39.6%. That's what you pay on each dollar you earn north of $415,000. Upping that tax rate to 45% will just about wipe the deficit. But you can even decide that the guy on $500,000 is paying enough, and just look at the 1 million biggest earning households in the US, which earn an average $2.1 million. Put their taxes up to 45% and you'd generate $276 billion, which would just about take out most of the deficit, it'd certainly be back to a level that, along with growth, would mean debt to GDP would start falling quite quickly.

And this is really the issue - people seem to hear any talk about raising taxes on the wealthy and respond with hyperbole about what happens when they are taxed at 90%. But if you just look at returning US top tax rates to something close to their historic norm, and it's amazing how much of the deficit problem just goes away.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
No... the OIG report changed the conversation, as the media enmass can't ignore/spin this.

And you're falling back on the old story that the media is this collective entity that makes decision on what it will cover - so that anytime it doesn't cover exactly what stories you want it to cover in the manner you think it should, it must be because the media is biased. But the Trump debacle should have finally killed that myth once for all by showing what the media really is - a collection good looking idiots who basically don't care about anything but what stories produce ratings.

If the Clinton story rated and got lots of interest it'd be the lead story every night.

It certainly adds into Trump's meme of 'Crooked Hillary'.

I think Trump's names have been less imaginative as the campaign has gone on. Little Marco was genius, the rest since then... meh.

So, to answer to your question: Yes. I've seen that while most don't believe Trump would ever be a "Good President", they simply abhor the idea of HRC in the WH. These folks are traditional Democrat voters mind you. (I'm still not voting for Trump anyways as I'm on Calvinball mode).

That wasn't my question! We all know there's plenty of Democrats who don't like Clinton. My question is whether anyone who likes or is neutral to Clinton is treating the email thing as a big deal. Any friends of yours saying 'I like Clinton and want to vote Democrat, but this email thing has me worried'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:
The problem is when politicians use taxes as a political football. Politicians promise more govt spending and then promise to make those other people, the "rich" people, pay for it when basic math shows that the govt already spends far more than it could collect in taxes no matter where the rates are set.

What basic math is that? Right now the generates $3.2 trillion in revenue, and spends $3.7 trillion. There is no 'basic math' that would stop taxes closing that gap.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asterios wrote:
yes but what about the small business owner, who now has to pay his employees more money then he/she makes themselves? I have a friend who has had a McDonald's franchise for over 30 years, he is going to have to close it down why? because it is not worth running it because he estimates he will be making less then $8 an hour himself thanks to the "Government" telling him he has to pay unskilled laborers a skilled wage,

If your friend can only make $8 an hour out of owning and running a McDonalds franchise, and on top of that is so bad at business that they don't even think of selling the franchise instead of closing it down, then to be perfectly frank capitalism is probably better off without your friend.

 sebster wrote:

our unemployment is thru the roof

You have no idea what you're talking about.

you do realize those numbers are based on people still collecting unemployment, the actual unemployed numbers are much further north then those numbers.

 sebster wrote:

That said, I agree with you on the California statewide $15 minimum wage - it makes sense in a couple of California markets, but across the state it seems way too high.

Actually those markets had already placed a $15 minimum wage increase into their systems, meanwhile the bulk of California cannot sustain such an increase and not sure the state as a whole can sustain the increase, we are talking 6 years of $1 increase, when previous increases were no where near that much in consecutive years. the market as it stands cannot handle consecutive increases without dissolving.

 sebster wrote:

Asterios wrote:
so that brings us back to what is a good tax system? charge the rich a higher percentage of taxs? then why bother being rich if most of your money you cannot keep? why bother building businesses that hire lots of employees if you don't get to keep the money you made?

Why are you talking about 'most'? The current highest rate in the US right now is 39.6%. That's what you pay on each dollar you earn north of $415,000. Upping that tax rate to 45% will just about wipe the deficit. But you can even decide that the guy on $500,000 is paying enough, and just look at the 1 million biggest earning households in the US, which earn an average $2.1 million. Put their taxes up to 45% and you'd generate $276 billion, which would just about take out most of the deficit, it'd certainly be back to a level that, along with growth, would mean debt to GDP would start falling quite quickly.

And this is really the issue - people seem to hear any talk about raising taxes on the wealthy and respond with hyperbole about what happens when they are taxed at 90%. But if you just look at returning US top tax rates to something close to their historic norm, and it's amazing how much of the deficit problem just goes away.

that would be a nice fairy tale, except our government as it stands has a habit of spending more then it will ever bring in and our current deficit is edging up to 20 trillion, thats a billion times 20K hell just last year alone the deficit increased by about 600 billion, and if the Government gets more money they will still spend that much more.

also obviously you have never owned a franchise before which is evident by your statement.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Yes. The whole reason we have deductions is to lower the effective rates because the rates are set too high in order to score political points and help politicians win elections.

No, the reason deductions exist is because total revenue is not an indication of what the store was actually able to give its owner in income. A legal practice might generate $1 million in a year, but it'd be a nonsense to tax the owner on the full million - he had to pay staff and rent a premises, so he might actually take home something closer to $500,000. Whereas a supermarket might have $1 million turnover, but he's got even more in costs, because he's got the cost of all his inventory - on a million dollar turnover he might not clear more than $100,000.

That's what deductions do - they establish a system where people are taxed not just on revenue, but on revenue less all the necessary business costs.

Now, there is an issue from there, because deductions are also used to encourage certain kinds of behaviour - 150% deductions on R&D, deductions for interest on home mortgages even though it's unrelated to income and so on. Those kinds of things are potentially okay but in practice are frequently very problematic. But they're instances on the margin, and they shouldn't cause you to misunderstand the entirety of the basic concept of why deductions exist, and need to exist.

A general economic rule is that the more you make something cost the less of it you'll have, yet the govt keeps increasing the cost of legal domestic labor in response to high unemployment, low wages and widespread use of illegal labor. It's a counter productive solution. But it plays well on tv and in speeches so politicians embrace it even though it hurts their constiuents.

First up, unemployment isn't high.

Second up, this is more 101ism. You can't just go back to that one demand and supply graph and think you have any kind of economic analysis. There's extensive work in to the actual impact of minimum wages in different places, and while the results are subjective and heavily debated, the most common impact is an impact on overall employment that's so low it's close to impossible to measure. There's lots of reasons for this (market forces might drive wages below $x but productivity might be north of $x, or you might see increased agg D, as the money is shifted to people with a greater marginal propensity to consume).

Now, personally I think the California state wide $15 is pushing it too far, but you are simply wrong in saying that is known to be true, and certain to hurt constituents.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
You're kidding right??? The decades of the 1950s and 1960s were the most economically prosperous for the US in our history, and that didn't lead directly to a crash of the proportions of the 1929 crash. It was during the 50s and 60s that a household could literally be the nuclear ideal family on one blue-collar income.

Over the course of Eisenhower's presidency the US economy grew just under 28%. That 3% per year. That happens to be pretty much bang on the US historical average. It was a perfectly good period of economic development in US history, nothing more and nothing less.

 sebster wrote:


First up, unemployment isn't high.

Second up, this is more 101ism. You can't just go back to that one demand and supply graph and think you have any kind of economic analysis. There's extensive work in to the actual impact of minimum wages in different places, and while the results are subjective and heavily debated, the most common impact is an impact on overall employment that's so low it's close to impossible to measure. There's lots of reasons for this (market forces might drive wages below $x but productivity might be north of $x, or you might see increased agg D, as the money is shifted to people with a greater marginal propensity to consume).

Now, personally I think the California state wide $15 is pushing it too far, but you are simply wrong in saying that is known to be true, and certain to hurt constituents.

Actual unemployment is high and very high at that, you base your numbers on those who are on unemployment insurance, it does not take into account those who are unable to find jobs after their unemployment insurance wears off.

as to minimum wage increases, yes there will be a definit job impact from the current round in California, you and others say, people been saying this for awhile every time minimum wage is increased and yet, minimum wage has never been increased with consecutive increases of $1 a year, go look here is California's minimum wage increase by year.

http://www.dir.ca.gov/iwc/minimumwagehistory.htm

effective date new
minimum wage old
minimum wage amount of
increase percentage of increase over
previous wage

January 1, 2016 $10.00 $9.00 $1.00 11.1 percent
July 1, 2014 $9.00 $8.00 $1.00 12.5 percent
January 1, 2008 $8.00 $7.50 $0.50 6.7 percent
January 1, 2007 $7.50 $6.75 $0.75 11.1 percent
January 1, 2002 $6.75 $6.25 $0.50 8.00 percent
January 1, 2001 $6.25 $5.75 $0.50 8.70 percent
March 1, 1998 $5.75 $5.15 $0.60 11.65 percent
September 1, 1997 $5.15 $5.00 $0.15 3.00 percent
March 1, 1997 $5.00 $4.75 $0.25 5.26 percent
October 1, 1996 $4.75 $4.25 $0.50 11.76 percent
July 1, 1988 $4.25 $3.35 $0.90 26.87 percent
January 1, 1981 $3.35 $3.10 $0.25 8.06 percent
January 1, 1980 $3.10 $2.90 $0.20 6.90 percent
January 1, 1979 $2.90 $2.65 $0.25 9.43 percent
April 1, 1978 $2.65 $2.50 $0.15 6.00 percent
October 18, 1976 $2.50 $2.00 $0.50 25.00 percent
March 4, 1974 $2.00 $1.65 $0.35 21.21 percent
February 1, 1968 $1.65 $1.30 $0.35 26.92 percent
August 30, 1964 $1.30 $1.25 $0.05 4.00 percent
August 30, 1963 $1.25 $1.00 $0.25 25.00 percent
November 15, 1957 $1.00 $0.75 $0.25 33.33 percent
August 1, 1952 $0.75 $0.65 $0.10 15.38 percent
June 1, 1947 $0.65 $0.45 $0.20 44.44 percent
February 8, 1943 $0.45 $0.33 $0.12 36.36 percent
1920 $0.33 $0.28 $0.05 17.86 percent
1919 $0.28 $0.21 $0.07 33.33 percent
1918 $0.21 $0.16 $0.05 31.25 percent
1916 $0.16 - - -

Asterios wrote:
look at our Social Security system, as it stands it will be gone in 10-15 years, those who are putting into it now will get nothing when they retire since there will be nothing,

You don't understand how social security works. The government is required to pay SS, if there is insufficient funds in SS then government will put more money in. SS is just an accounting entity within government, if they don't have the funds to cover mandatory expenses then government has to provide more funding.

The actual issue here is that government has been able to cover shortfalls in other areas through SS, as it has collected more than it pays. But in future SS will pay out more than it pays in, which will have an impact on the overall budget that will need to be adjust for somewhere.

the government debt is at its highest it has ever been

Only if you use the nominal amount, which is a very silly thing to do. If you instead look at debt to gdp, you get reality;

in the 30's? we had no national debt to speak of

Completely wrong, look at the graph above.

the reason why this country hasn't gone into another depression is because the government spends more money then we could ever hope to cover.

Actually its due to a host of reasons, most of which were leaned the hard way through the depression. Gold standard, bank runs and austerity all played a part in making the depression considerably worse.

if a normal household was ran the way the government is, we would be on the streets now.

Economics doesn't work that way. A household is a single actor, while an economy is millions of actors, and the interactions between all of them. If I cut my spending then I save money, if everyone cuts their spending then everyone's incomes drop (because income is the product of someone else's expenditure). Read your Keynes.

 sebster wrote:

Asterios wrote:
look at our Social Security system, as it stands it will be gone in 10-15 years, those who are putting into it now will get nothing when they retire since there will be nothing,

You don't understand how social security works. The government is required to pay SS, if there is insufficient funds in SS then government will put more money in. SS is just an accounting entity within government, if they don't have the funds to cover mandatory expenses then government has to provide more funding.

The actual issue here is that government has been able to cover shortfalls in other areas through SS, as it has collected more than it pays. But in future SS will pay out more than it pays in, which will have an impact on the overall budget that will need to be adjust for somewhere.

the government debt is at its highest it has ever been

Only if you use the nominal amount, which is a very silly thing to do. If you instead look at debt to gdp, you get reality;

http://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/debt-and-gdp-main6.png?w=1024&h=603

in the 30's? we had no national debt to speak of

Completely wrong, look at the graph above.

the reason why this country hasn't gone into another depression is because the government spends more money then we could ever hope to cover.

Actually its due to a host of reasons, most of which were leaned the hard way through the depression. Gold standard, bank runs and austerity all played a part in making the depression considerably worse.

if a normal household was ran the way the government is, we would be on the streets now.

Economics doesn't work that way. A household is a single actor, while an economy is millions of actors, and the interactions between all of them. If I cut my spending then I save money, if everyone cuts their spending then everyone's incomes drop (because income is the product of someone else's expenditure). Read your Keynes.

you really have no clue about how Social Security is ran, as it goes I'm calling your bluff, show me where it says Social Security is ran like that, also show me where Social Security is taking in more money then its paying out, I'll be here waiting, and not too worried, since its obvious you haven't kept up with the news. and i'm talking federal SS not state run SS. which is a running joke right now in California.

heres the words you will most likely find:

"Payments to current retirees are financed by a payroll tax on current workers' wages"

also 16 mil. debt is not much to speak of which is what our debt was in the 30's, nowhere near our almost 20 trillion debt now. (thats like a thousand times a thousand more and then some.)

dethork wrote:
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).

In the current system progressive taxes don't work as you're assuming. You only pay the higher rate on additional money, income up to that point is taxed at the lower level. To use your numbers, the guy making $45k is taxed $2300 ($2200 on his first $44k, and 10% on his pay over that $1000).

So your problem has already been considered and is accounted for in the current tax system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
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".

The only difference between the current system and your proposed rates are that your rates are unsustainably low.

As to the deductions and credits you want to get rid of, see my answer above. Deductions are a basic part of deciding how much a person or company actually earned in a year. A business that generates $1m in revenue but has $600k in rent, salaries and inventory should not be taxed the same rate as a business that makes $1m in revenue, but has $900k in rent, salaries and inventory.

There are issues with targeted deductions and the like, but it isn't that simple a fix because assessing where genuine deductions end and too generous, social engineering deductions begin is a very complex thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:
American economy floats on illegal labour. I very much doubt the wall will be built.

I have no problem believing that a wall will be built. There's already elements of a wall in place along the border. If you consider the double barrel of Republicans unwilling to oppose their own successful presidential candidate, and everyone's willingness to accept federal dollars spent in their state, I can see the stupid wall thing getting the numbers.

The bigger point is that the wall won't do anything. Mexican illegal immigration is already in decline, mostly driven by improving economic conditions in Mexico. Increasingly the illegal immigrants are coming from Asia. They get a temporary visa, then don't leave.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asterios wrote:
and I repeat you have no idea how much jobs are very much needed.

I think you need to spend some time thinking about the deeply ridiculous position you have put yourself in, where you complain about the size of government debt, but then cheer for a completely ineffective spending program because 'jobs'.

 sebster wrote:

Asterios wrote:
and I repeat you have no idea how much jobs are very much needed.

I think you need to spend some time thinking about the deeply ridiculous position you have put yourself in, where you complain about the size of government debt, but then cheer for a completely ineffective spending program because 'jobs'.

people need jobs, also heres some info for you:

https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2010/tr2010.pdf

it will be a shocker for your poor fragile ears.

especially this specific phrase from SS itself:

"The dollar level of the Trust Funds is projected to be drawn down
beginning in 2025 until assets are exhausted in 2037. Individually, the DI
fund is projected to be exhausted in 2018 and the OASI fund in 2040."

oh and here is SS's response to where SS monies come from:

https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/chartbooks/fast_facts/2015/fast_facts15.html#page35

don't see nothing from the Government adding money there.

and there is so much more just from the SS site, even they said the trust fund will run out of money in 2033 now.

The Social Security Trust Fund continued declining in 2012 and 2013, and this state of affairs is projected to continue until the Trust Fund is exhausted in 2033

 Ahtman wrote:
Sears has had issues for decades now and isn't the beginning of the end of anything.

Brilliantly, Sears is basically collapsing under the weight of one man's ego. It's been in trouble for a long time, but it's the really dramatic dive it's now entered in to is entirely in the hands of its primary investor and CEO, Ed Lampert. He make an insane amount of money at Wall Street, first at Goldman Sachs, then in his own investment firm, using the old model of buying underperforming business with loads of debt, fixing up the profitability then selling the asset again at huge profit.

He tried that with Sears and it didn't work because the problem wasn't with the structure or practice of the company, Sears' problems are all because conventional department stores are a declining business. Unable to admit he made a bad call, Lampert doubled down and took active control of the company himself. Because he is an avid follower of Ayn Rand, he then put in place his principle of absolute compeitition at all times, including within the company. He made different department compete and fight for space within the catalogue, he encouraged areas to steal good workers from other areas, that kind of thing.

Obviously, it really, really didn't work.

Someone trying to use Sears as an argument against minimum wage is so wrong it's almost poetic.

Asterios, Sebster's description of how SS is run is actually spot on. (It's the reason Gore was going in and on about lock boxes when he was running). Where he is a bit off is his idea that SS is currently taking in more that it pays out. It did in fact for thirty years or so after it was restructured by congress in 1983 in order to plan for the coming Baby Boomer influx. The extra money was put into trusts. The govt. has been skimming off that trust money to pay other things. Since 2010 that excess has become a shortfall.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Asterios, Sebster's description of how SS is run is actually spot on. (It's the reason Gore was going in and on about lock boxes when he was running). Where he is a bit off is his idea that SS is currently taking in more that it pays out. It did in fact for thirty years or so after it was restructured by congress in 1983 in order to plan for the coming Baby Boomer influx. The extra money was put into trusts. The govt. has been skimming off that trust money to pay other things. Since 2010 that excess has become a shortfall.

Then why does the SS website say different?

https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/chartbooks/fast_facts/2015/fast_facts15.html#page35

go back to school cause you need to learn more.

also:

The Social Security Trust Fund continued declining in 2012 and 2013, and this state of affairs is projected to continue until the Trust Fund is exhausted in 2033

which is why this year Congress decided to not allow DI to drain money from the SSR so as to extend the life of the retirement benefits.

I don't think that graph says what you think it says.

 LordofHats wrote:
I don't think that graph says what you think it says.

learn to read:

Social Security is largely a pay-as-you-go program. Most of the payroll taxes collected from today's workers are used to pay benefits to today's recipients. In 2014, the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance Trust Funds collected $884.3 billion in revenues. Of that amount, 85.5% was from payroll tax contributions and reimbursements from the General Fund of the Treasury and 3.4% was from income taxes on Social Security benefits. Interest earned on the government bonds held by the trust funds provided the remaining 11.1% of income. Assets increased in 2014 because total income exceeded expenditures for benefit payments and administrative expenses.

you know that line that says SECA on your paycheck? thats for SS.

Asterios wrote:
you do realize those numbers are based on people still collecting unemployment, the actual unemployed numbers are much further north then those numbers.

Actually it's from people who tell the BLS that they are actively looking for work, whether they're on unemployment or not. So you're even wrong in your defence of your earlier incorrect statement.

And please don't use the call for this phantom real figure. It comes up whenever anyone really wants to believe something that flies in the face of actual facts and figures on the issue. Like to believe inflation is 'really' higher than the figures - just make up some nonsense about the 'real' rate! Have a personal belief that needs unemployment to be higher than it is, make up a 'real' number!

But actual thinking doesn't work like that. If a number isn't as high as you'd like it to be, you don't get to just ignore it. That's just playing make believe.

Actually those markets had already placed a $15 minimum wage increase into their systems

No. The law is in place, but they won't reach $15 for a few years yet. They have increases locked in to place over several steps. I think it's 2018 that the rates will finally get there..

that would be a nice fairy tale, except our government as it stands has a habit of spending more then it will ever bring in

Typically revenue is short of expenditure that's true. But to argue that as an unyielding law is very silly. And it leads to a very warped kind of nonsense where you claim to be very worried about the deficit, but then claim that taxes can't resolve that because people will just spend more, but then claim that spending cuts can do the job. Which is nonsense because if there exists the ability to cut expenditure, then there also exists the ability to keep expenditure down even though tax revenue is increased.

also obviously you have never owned a franchise before which is evident by your statement.

Not personally. And while it is going way back, I did manage tax returns for a few franchise owners. Nothing on the scale of a McDonalds, just food court operations. None of them had profits anywhere near the ridiculous $8 an hour figure you gave, and the minimum wage here is much higher than the proposed US figure.

You made up a silly example, its okay, we understand, this is the internet and it happens all the time. But what also happens all the time on the internet is that people dig themselves deeper. That never goes anywhere good. Don't dig deeper on this.

 sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
No... the OIG report changed the conversation, as the media enmass can't ignore/spin this.

And you're falling back on the old story that the media is this collective entity that makes decision on what it will cover - so that anytime it doesn't cover exactly what stories you want it to cover in the manner you think it should, it must be because the media is biased. But the Trump debacle should have finally killed that myth once for all by showing what the media really is - a collection good looking idiots who basically don't care about anything but what stories produce ratings.

Seb... that's a cop-out.

It's one thing for a political party to point fingers at the opposition party to claim that it's "a manufactured outrage"... but, it's another when IG (who's independent AND was appointed by Obama) releases a damning report like this. I've posted SEVERAL pundits/newsites whom are known to treat the Clintons with kid's glove, but are simply hammering HRC now.

If the Clinton story rated and got lots of interest it'd be the lead story every night.

It's splashed across the news sites... such that, it makes you wonder if these journalist are *hoping* that Sanders wins the nomination.

It certainly adds into Trump's meme of 'Crooked Hillary'.

I think Trump's names have been less imaginative as the campaign has gone on. Little Marco was genius, the rest since then... meh.

Trump's names *works* because it's 8th grade schoolyard level. That's what sticks....

So, to answer to your question: Yes. I've seen that while most don't believe Trump would ever be a "Good President", they simply abhor the idea of HRC in the WH. These folks are traditional Democrat voters mind you. (I'm still not voting for Trump anyways as I'm on Calvinball mode).

That wasn't my question! We all know there's plenty of Democrats who don't like Clinton. My question is whether anyone who likes or is neutral to Clinton is treating the email thing as a big deal. Any friends of yours saying 'I like Clinton and want to vote Democrat, but this email thing has me worried'.

Yes, I know plenty of folks like that. One who has voted for Bill Clinton (life-long Democrat), but absolutely refuses to vote for HRC. (he won't vote for Trump either, as he told me he ain't interested anymore). He works for NGA, and if he did what she has done... he'd be in prison now.

So, yes... this "email thing" as you call it, does have legs.

The key you're looking for, is if this impact the regular votes (who doesn't understands the email scandal) during the General Election.

 sebster wrote:

Asterios wrote:
you do realize those numbers are based on people still collecting unemployment, the actual unemployed numbers are much further north then those numbers.

Actually it's from people who tell the BLS that they are actively looking for work, whether they're on unemployment or not. So you're even wrong in your defence of your earlier incorrect statement.

who is this BLS? I have been "unemployed" for several years now and no one asked me if I was looking for work or not?in fact only time they ask if you are looking for work is when you are on Unemployment Insurance. not after it expires, they don't care then.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/04/charts-whats-the-real-unemployment-rate.html

 sebster wrote:
And please don't use the call for this phantom real figure. It comes up whenever anyone really wants to believe something that flies in the face of actual facts and figures on the issue. Like to believe inflation is 'really' higher than the figures - just make up some nonsense about the 'real' rate! Have a personal belief that needs unemployment to be higher than it is, make up a 'real' number!

actually that "phantom" number is a number, check the U6 number instead of the U3 number you like quoting

Actually those markets had already placed a $15 minimum wage increase into their systems

No. The law is in place, but they won't reach $15 for a few years yet. They have increases locked in to place over several steps. I think it's 2018 that the rates will finally get there..