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.
This thread will be filled by lots of liberal handwringing, attacks against Republicans, and cries thats its all Bush's fault. Obama will be hailed as a living saint, suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or alternatively a commie pinko socialist hellbent on destroying the US. Biccat will counterattack and get flamed. Frazzled will post nonsense or something about wiener dogs. Dogma will argue about word choices. Cannerus may or may not post about important matters of the heart, and motorcyle repair. If Malf posts, lots of socks will mysteriously disappear.
But then again this is more of a prediction than an opinion isn't it.
Edit: already zoinked by Biccat/halo/Melissia. I must be getting slow.
If that post is not asking for trouble, I don't know what is.
Frazzled wrote: Frazzled will post nonsense or something about wiener dogs.
Oooo, this should be a pleasnat change to the norm!
Well, by popular demand:
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Da Boss wrote: Edit: People cannot save "regardless" of income level, what a blinkered thing to say. There are people out there starving or barely surviving with long term ailments and other problems that they can't get treated. That was a very poor generalisation.
First of all, I have already stated that there are several types of people who deserve deductions, the disabled and wounded veterans. A person suffering from a long-term ailment that causes them to not work counts as disabled and would get benefits.
Your generalisation is also poor, not every single poor person is starving, works for a scrooge, and has a child missing a leg along with several other children. People can find ways to save money, and if a person becomes poor it is not my fault nor is it the fault of anyone else. Besides, if this whole tax law changed they still wouldn't be paying taxes. Think about it, if someone cannot afford to feed themselves or their family then chances are they don't make enough income to warrant taxation and they already pay a sales tax and a food tax on top of whatever they already buy. All I'm saying is get rid of the already existing sales taxes and income taxes(there are state and federal levels for both) and replace them a sales tax variant for both levels. Again, that means more income and if you don't buy anything then you don't pay taxes. The stuff that they should be buying to stay within means is most likely incredibly cheap and will probably add on a dollar or so in this new taxes.
@AlmightyWalrus: Nobody cries when a rich person loses their income, nobody cried out when Michael Jackson went bankrupt. It seems that its only when the average joe goes bankrupt that anyone ever cares. So unless a rich person spends themselves into oblivion and you back them up then I don't want to hear from you.
@Frazzled, yes I am talking about a sales tax variant. Everybody buys things, citizens, illegals, people who have income that is outside of legal means(drug dealers), anything with humanoid features and a pulse.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/09/19 17:24:55
halonachos wrote:Besides, if this whole tax law changed they still wouldn't be paying taxes.
Actually they'd go from not paying tax on income to paying tax on consumption.
So they'd be being taxed MORE, while the rich woudl be being taxed LESS (they, especially corporations, can just save most of the millions they make every year).
Funny, that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/09/19 17:28:46
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
halonachos wrote:Besides, if this whole tax law changed they still wouldn't be paying taxes.
Actually they'd go from not paying tax on income to paying tax on consumption.
So they'd be being taxed MORE, while the rich woudl be being taxed LESS (they, especially corporations, can just save most of the millions they make every year).
Funny, that.
They're already paying sales tax Melissia. How can corporations save money, they buy the materials they need including staplers, paper, pens, etc, etc. All of that would be getting taxed and if the corporation involves the production of items then they have to pay for materials. I say that if you want to give tax deductions to the poor then you need to give them to the rich because that's fair, if you want to say that life isn't fair then the poor should live in squalor accordingly.
I fail to see how the rich would save money when they will also be buying food on top of other, more expensive, items.
I will quote Theodore Roosevelt several times:
TR wrote:The first requisite of a good citizen in this republic of ours is that he shall be able and willing to pull his own weight.
TR wrote:A man who is good enough to shed his blood for the country is good enough to be given a square deal afterwards.
TR wrote:Big jobs usually go to the men who prove their ability to outgrow small ones.
Simple philosophy to follow. He also has some inspirational quotes, and if you ever make fun of Teddy Roosevelt, Melissia, i will have you know that the man was first and foremost in the belief in women's rights, the man actually said publicly that he wouldn't make a woman take his last name in marriage.
Lets not bring TR into this as someone will inevitably speak ill of THE GREAT ONE. I will of course then have to go Bull Moose on his ass.
Its interesting that sales taxes are a darling of certain conservative circles, whilst VAT taxes are a darling of more social governments.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Melissia wrote:Everyone IS being taxed. It's just that because of our government basically being run by rich white Christian males, its tax code is very much biased towards rich white Christian males.
Everyone being taxed at the same rates would actually be quite unequal, because ten percent of ten thousand s far more important to the poor man's life than ten percent of a a million to a rich man.
Your (Freudian) slip is showing.
Everyone is NOT being taxed. Everyone is being assessed. Currently 93% of tax filers in the bottom 20 percent of income earning pay nothing... in fact they actually DRAW OUT in the form of tax credits.
All this talk of "fairness" is making me sick. You want to know what's fair? Divide the annual budget among the number of Americans. That's fair, just like in kindergarten when everyone got one cookie out of the pile.
Everyone should pay SOMETHING. No one should pay NOTHING. There should never be FREELOADERS that suck off their fellow taxpayers. There's a word for that in the animal kingdom, when something subsists off the life blood of another animal. It's called a parasite.
Zyllos wrote:The Buffett Rule...I am not quite sure to make of this. I understand that lowering taxes on job producers helps them reinvest to create jobs but that does not seem to be happening at the moment. Of course, a lot of this might be resolved with fixing the current loopholes in the tax code, regarding to the Buffett Rules.
I actually wouldn't mind the "Buffett" tax if it could be coupled with an agreement of some kind. For example, you get to pass the "millionaire's tax" for as much of a tax increase as you want. Seriously, sky's the limit. Then we wait a year. If the economy recovers and all of those millionaires start producing jobs (to...avoid getting taxed? I'm not sure exactly how that works, but whatever) then we agree that the tax was a good idea and let you guys run the economy.
However, if (when) this tax fails to do what is promised - increase government revenue from millionaires and create jobs - then you step aside and let the grown-ups take over.
The last liberal economic program - affectionately known as Porkulus - failed miserably, yet the President still insists that the program was correct in concept (see e.g. American Jobs Act). Others claim that it simply wasn't big enough and that a bigger spending plan is necessary. Obviously the Democrats won't take responsibility for a failed program (who would?), but lets at least try to have some sense ourselves.
Rented Tritium wrote:I want someone to explain to me clearly how having a large national debt hurts us.
As in, I want someone to explain mechanically the bad things it does to us.
Well, debt costs money. The government has to pay interest on the debt that it is borrowing (hopefully, because if they're borrowing to pay interest we're getting into serious trouble). That means that either the government is providing fewer services (that it could be spending the interest on) or that you are taxed more.
Interestingly, I found this chart when I was doing some googlin'. Ah for the halcyon days when 2012 debt was projected to be 64% of GDP. Unsurprisingly, the story has since changed. (not directly contradictory, but evidence of a change in perception of debt)
Frazzled wrote:Lets not bring TR into this as someone will inevitably speak ill of THE GREAT ONE. I will of course then have to go Bull Moose on his ass.
Its interesting that sales taxes are a darling of certain conservative circles, whilst VAT taxes are a darling of more social governments.
Who could speak ill of a man with his face on the side of a mountain with 3 other guys that the country actually liked? You know, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and Dick Cheney?
They're actually already saving. Trillions, as in multiple, have been saved up in various forms by US-based multinational corporations.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
They're actually already saving. Trillions, as in multiple, have been saved up in various forms by US-based multinational corporations.
You're right. If we followed proper economic theory, that cash would be dividended to its stockholders. International Capital Gains treatment, legal limitations, and realization we're in GR II are limiting that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Foot wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Lets not bring TR into this as someone will inevitably speak ill of THE GREAT ONE. I will of course then have to go Bull Moose on his ass.
Its interesting that sales taxes are a darling of certain conservative circles, whilst VAT taxes are a darling of more social governments.
Who could speak ill of a man with his face on the side of a mountain with 3 other guys that the country actually liked? You know, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and Dick Cheney?
Dick Cheney...the Penguin... why is it they are never in the same room at the same time?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/09/19 17:57:00
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Dick Cheney...the Penguin... why is it they are never in the same room at the same time?
You know...I've never thought about that...quick! To the batsignal!
HUaa huaa hua!
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
They're actually already saving. Trillions, as in multiple, have been saved up in various forms by US-based multinational corporations.
Except for the fact that they're saving that up under the current taxes and the quote, that you took grossly out of context I might add, is referring to the new tax system where they get taxed for purchasing office supplies, raw materials, etc I would say that your point is somewhat valid.
Funny things about the VAT, Nancy Pelosi said it was possible and I hate Nancy Pelosi so we should call it the American Way of Economic Support for Other Materialistic Excursions or AWESOME for short.
halonachos wrote:Except for the fact that they're saving that up under the current taxes
And they have less reason to save it now than they would if we exchanged income tax for the consumption tax you love so much (After all, money then wouldn't be taxed until it's spent, so they put it in a bank and earn interest on it instead).
So you'd see MORE saved up under a consumption tax policy.
And less spending.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2011/09/19 18:13:46
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
halonachos wrote:Except for the fact that they're saving that up under the current taxes
And they have less reason to save it now than they would if we exchanged income tax for the consumption tax you love so much (After all, money then wouldn't be taxed until it's spent, so they put it in a bank and earn interest on it instead).
So you'd see MORE saved up under a consumption tax policy.
And less spending.
What is wrong with putting money in a bank? They earned that money and can do with it what they please, besides they would still have to buy things in order to have their corporation function. Toilet paper is used on a dialy basis and bought on a daily basis, are you assuming that under a consumption tax policy that instead of buying toilet paper the corporations would just put the money into a bank account? Don't be silly Melissia, they're going to spend the same amount of money in the consumption tax policy as they do in the current policy. If they put some into a bank account and earn interest then its more money that they can spend and put into the federal government.
Nothing, except that such a policy would only further work to separate the rich from the poor, as people with lots of money can use it to make more money while people without are struggling to get from day to day because the increased consumption tax makes prices go higher.
Which only goes to make the economy even worse, as the masses end up with less to spend, making the corporations less likely to want to expand. Basically it's just about one of the worst tax reforms you can make right now.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/09/19 18:28:46
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Melissia wrote:Nothing, except that such a policy would only further work to separate the rich from the poor, as people with lots of money can use it to make more money while people without are struggling to get from day to day because the increased consumption tax makes prices go higher.
Which only goes to make the economy even worse, as the masses end up with less to spend, making the corporations less likely to want to expand.
Unless of course we see the poor exercising financial responsibility and also putting any extra money they have in the bank. It is possible for the poor to increase their financial holdings believe it or not, some people have done it before. No matter what there will be a difference between the two groups financially and if you don't want to have that difference its called communism and it doesn't work in real life. There will always be poor and there will always be rich and there has always been different societal standings. The difference is that now people who are poor can become rich.
People with a lot of money can buy more expensive things and you're acting as if they also won't be paying higher prices for their items like the poor are. Here's the difference Melissia, the huge fething difference between the poor and the rich, where and what they buy. Rich people buy less? Is it maybe because they already have most of the basics, maybe its because they tend to be older and need less, is it because they may have children who are no longer dependant on them? Look at all of the reasons that the rich are buying less, fiscal responsibility and so on and on. But here's the kicker if you're poor then you shouldn't be buying $100 shoes, yes that kind of person does indeed exist, if you're poor then maybe a 60" flatscreen is just a bit out of budget for you and so on and on. If you're rich chances are you don't go down to the local Wal-mart or Big Lots or any second-hand store and shop, chances are you buy new, big, and expensive. That's the biggest difference there, a rich person who can afford a $100,000 surround sound system can buy it and will be paying $25,000 in sales tax while a poor person won't even buy that system and contribute nothing in taxes. Rich people often spend more on food because they have a 'refined' taste and that food is more expensive than the food poor people would buy.
I don't care if you're a highschool dropout with three kids and a minimum wage job, you screwed up and its not my fault so I'm not going to pay for you. I don't care if you went to college and got a liberal arts degree and can't find a job because you don't want to work minimum wage, that's your own damn fault. People, poor and rich, need to take responsibility for their own failures. If you don't have a job join the military, does it suck, yes, but its a job and a source of income. If you get a dishonorable discharge then tough gak, you screwed up. If you don't learn from your failures then tougher gak.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/09/19 18:46:36
halonachos wrote:Unless of course we see the poor exercising financial responsibility and also putting any extra money they have in the bank.
Just TRY saving any meaningful amount of money while earning merely 30k (or less) a year with a child to support....
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
@halonachos: With your sales tax variant system, it seems to me that this would create an incredible incentive for a black market on anything taxed to this imaginary degree. I personally wonder how much the federal government would get from this system as oppossed to the current or "loophole-free" system, and I suspect it would be far less than our current tax revenue after you take into account a realistic percentage of revenue lost due to black market sales.
EDIT: Plus, what about debt spirals for poor people? If a series of gakky events (Car problems, disasters, bad expensive things that you didn't "choose" that insurabnce doesn't cover) exceed your ability to pay the interest on said debt? Many people can't save money because they're simply trying to pay interest on debt accumulated due to circumstances outside of their control.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/09/19 18:54:20
Imagine the feeling when you position your tanks, engines idling, landing gear deployed for a low profile, with firing solutions along a key bottleneck. Then some fether lands a dreadnought behind them in a giant heat shielded coke can.
halonachos wrote:Unless of course we see the poor exercising financial responsibility and also putting any extra money they have in the bank.
Just TRY saving any meaningful amount of money while earning merely 30k (or less) a year with a child to support....
My dad did, in fact he had two children.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
darkPrince010 wrote:@halonachos: With your sales tax variant system, it seems to me that this would create an incredible incentive for a black market on anything taxed to this imaginary degree. I personally wonder how much the federal government would get from this system as oppossed to the current or "loophole-free" system, and I suspect it would be far less than our current tax revenue after you take into account a realistic percentage of revenue lost due to black market sales.
It would get quite a bit, a lot of countries use the system. Although if America were to adopt it then we would be looking at 8% with no exemptions to the taxes and 18% if we exempt health-care, living, and similar expenses.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/09/19 18:55:00
darkPrince010 wrote:as oppossed to the current or "loophole-free" system
How is the current system "loophole-free"? Tax evasion is an incredibly easy crime to commit (since you're objection is on black-market sales, which would presumably be illegal under an income-tax based system).
halonachos wrote:My dad did, in fact he had two children.
Congratulations, your dad got lucky.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
darkPrince010 wrote:@halonachos: With your sales tax variant system, it seems to me that this would create an incredible incentive for a black market on anything taxed to this imaginary degree. I personally wonder how much the federal government would get from this system as oppossed to the current or "loophole-free" system, and I suspect it would be far less than our current tax revenue after you take into account a realistic percentage of revenue lost due to black market sales.
EDIT: Plus, what about debt spirals for poor people? If a series of gakky events (Car problems, disasters, bad expensive things that you didn't "choose" that insurabnce doesn't cover) exceed your ability to pay the interest on said debt? Many people can't save money because they're simply trying to pay interest on debt accumulated due to circumstances outside of their control.
That is what bankruptcy is for, a fresh start.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
halonachos wrote:Unless of course we see the poor exercising financial responsibility and also putting any extra money they have in the bank.
Just TRY saving any meaningful amount of money while earning merely 30k (or less) a year with a child to support....
So, 3 years ago, my wife walked out on me and my 3 kids. 3,4, and 5 years old. I worked a job at a retail store (non management.) My life was crap, but I worked my ass off and took care of my family AND saved money. Sure, it wasn't an ideal life but I made it work. I didn't go out at all, I didn't go see movies. I brown bagged lunch everyday. My kids were well cared for but we didn't have any extra's. I prided myself on taking care of my family, and yes, I was able to save money up as well.
You just have to learn that eating out and Xbox games are extra's and not your right. I am in a much better place now thankfully and can afford things I want, but I had to EARN it.
I never got child support and never asked the government to bail me out.
halonachos wrote:My dad did, in fact he had two children.
Congratulations, your dad got lucky.
Well technically, I'd proffer that 100% of our dad's got lucky.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Frazzled wrote:That is what bankruptcy is for, a fresh start.
Quite a few banks and even hirers will reject you or give you far, far less leeway if you've had a bankruptcy, especially with unemployment as high as it is right now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Melissia wrote:
halonachos wrote:My dad did, in fact he had two children.
Congratulations, your dad got lucky.
Well technically, I'd proffer that 100% of our dad's got lucky.
Okay, I kinda forgive you for before. That actually made me laugh
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/09/19 19:02:49
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
halonachos wrote:Unless of course we see the poor exercising financial responsibility and also putting any extra money they have in the bank.
Just TRY saving any meaningful amount of money while earning merely 30k (or less) a year with a child to support....
People shouldn't have kids if they cant afford them. Thats what has made us skint! Toothless stupid people breed like rats to get wellfare cheques. Its a guaranteed job and the pay cheques for life.
Im sick of my taxes paying for ugly fethed up womens ugly fethed up kids.
I think we should scrap child support altogether. Its not like kids are rare.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/09/19 19:04:52
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
All is forgiven if repaid in Traitor's blood.
