ScriptUO
General => Off Topic => Topic started by: Cerveza on September 13, 2011, 06:41:38 AM
-
US Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
New debt: $1,650,000,000,000
National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
Recent budget cuts: $38,500,000,000
Now just remove 8 zeros and pretend it's a household budget:
Annual family income: $21,700
Money the family spent: $38,200
New debt on the credit card: $16,500
Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
Total budget cuts: $385
-
US Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
New debt: $1,650,000,000,000
National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
Recent budget cuts: $38,500,000,000
Now just remove 8 zeros and pretend it's a household budget:
Annual family income: $21,700
Money the family spent: $38,200
New debt on the credit card: $16,500
Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
Total budget cuts: $385
Pretty Crazy
-
I would love to be able to write some laws that are much needed.
1) House and Senate and only do a max of 8 years. What is good enough for the president should be good enough for them too. Some of these guys stay in there and just kill the budget and get too powerful. Not to mention changing them out will bring fresh ideas.
2) Absolutely ZERO money for pork programs if the budget is not balanced. Period!!
3) No more raises for them until the budget is balanced and the country is out of the red.
4) Stop fighting everyone else's wars!! Nobody looked at us during our revolutionary war and said hey... We need to go straighten them out! Let them countries develop on their own.
5) Let the freaking banks and businesses that have over extended themselves fail as they should. New business will come and hopefully with better management.
6) Stop giving illegal immigrants free assistance, free healthcare, and every other benefit that is paid for by the working people's taxes. I don't work and pay my taxes to have that money given to someone that isn't here legally and pays nothing to this country themselves.
WoW... I could go on and on but I feel my blood pressure going up so I better not.. LOL I like the example you provided Cerveza. Even an 8th grader can see something wrong with that picture.
-
-
Add in the fact that its all just monopoly money and you understand why people are buying gold and other mineral assets, in the vain hope that their current purchasing power value will not get deflated.
I used to be shocked at how local governments and up mismanage their money .. and why the american populace as a whole mismanages their money... but now i see that both are act the same. MY conclusion is too much short term thinking, to much instant gratification. And no real planning for the rainy day that always comes.
-
Budget SURPLUSES (haven't heard that in awhile) should have been SAVED for when there were budget SHORTFALLS!
This one always used to bug me when I lived in Pennsylvania. Every year, they'd have a "budget" for snowplowing/rock salt etc. Each year they had a "surplus" they'd go and buy new equipment or spend it on other projects. Then on the years they had a couple major snow storms they'd B**** and whine about how they don't have enough money to keep snow plowing so it's going to take longer because they can't have people working overtime! It's ridiculous, the reason you BUDGET is so that you get a rough estimate of how much you're going to spend that year. If you over-estimated, GREAT! Save the money! If you under-estimated, then pull a little from your savings and adjust it next year! It's not a difficult thing to do! It's BASIC MATH!
-
That definitly reminds me on the TV Show "American Dad"
Stans Boss : Okay we are under our Budget and we need to spend 3 million Dollars until Midnight, else our next Budget will be cuttet down.
Next Location:
Stans Boss: Take a Stripper, take this money, every FBI Agent must spent now 100.000 Dollar until Midnight, give extra money for private Dances and go on. Its an Order!
Just amazing how much truth is behind this Scene.
-
Add in the fact that its all just monopoly money and you understand why people are buying gold and other mineral assets, in the vain hope that their current purchasing power value will not get deflated.
I used to be shocked at how local governments and up mismanage their money .. and why the american populace as a whole mismanages their money... but now i see that both are act the same. MY conclusion is too much short term thinking, to much instant gratification. And no real planning for the rainy day that always comes.
Welll EN, you are correct to a point. The main difference being that me being the American populace if I mismanage my finances and cannot pay my bills then I get penalized. Bad credit ratings, highest interest on loans, debt collection, foreclosures, etc etc. There is nothing holding the politicians or big business to those same standards. And that is the issue at hand. No accountability for their miss management of the country.
-
Add in the fact that its all just monopoly money and you understand why people are buying gold and other mineral assets, in the vain hope that their current purchasing power value will not get deflated.
I used to be shocked at how local governments and up mismanage their money .. and why the american populace as a whole mismanages their money... but now i see that both are act the same. MY conclusion is too much short term thinking, to much instant gratification. And no real planning for the rainy day that always comes.
Welll EN, you are correct to a point. The main difference being that me being the American populace if I mismanage my finances and cannot pay my bills then I get penalized. Bad credit ratings, highest interest on loans, debt collection, foreclosures, etc etc. There is nothing holding the politicians or big business to those same standards. And that is the issue at hand. No accountability for their miss management of the country.
Their nearly was... remember the US nearly had it AAA debt rating downgraded. That would have seen the cost for the US to borrow money go way up and add trillions in interest to the nation debt and thus ultimately have an effect on us all.
-
I almost wish we had been downgraded by everyone and our costs to borrow money WOULD go up, that way, maybe SOMEONE would think twice before borrowing any more!
-
A friend's wife was complaining to me about how they/he had withdrawn money from the Canadian version of a 401K(RSP) to pay down debts and he spend the money on 24" rims for his Denali truck amongst other items...sad but I'd be shocked not to see divorce coming from that house soon.
It's a sad view when those who run the countries, any first world one, have no idea on simple forsight. It seems to me that most of the US politicians are wealthy and won't screw themselves over to bad. Canadian ones are there for the amazing pension which a normal person can't dream of getting.
Shoot them all and lets start again?
I missed commenting upon gold and such, the belief that this will be some sort of doomsday cover makes me laugh even harder. If you were so lucky as to have actually purchased the physical items and now can trade it for food or something else we are all so screwed, shotguns and long barrel rifle's will have a much greater value. I'd be up the old creek.
-
That definitly reminds me on the TV Show "American Dad"
Stans Boss : Okay we are under our Budget and we need to spend 3 million Dollars until Midnight, else our next Budget will be cuttet down.
Next Location:
Stans Boss: Take a Stripper, take this money, every FBI Agent must spent now 100.000 Dollar until Midnight, give extra money for private Dances and go on. Its an Order!
Just amazing how much truth is behind this Scene.
Sad how true this is. My best friend was (I don't know the official title) head chef at one military base over seas. He had a $3-4 million budget for the year. He was able to go $1million under budget. Come October his superior finds out and gets angry. He's told to spend ALL the budget. So the last 3 months he had to spend $1million dollars on food. Every soldier ate like royalty. Fresh seafood, the best steaks, etc and he still was under.
-
-
Sad how true this is. My best friend was (I don't know the official title) head chef at one military base over seas. He had a $3-4 million budget for the year. He was able to go $1million under budget. Come October his superior finds out and gets angry. He's told to spend ALL the budget. So the last 3 months he had to spend $1million dollars on food. Every soldier ate like royalty. Fresh seafood, the best steaks, etc and he still was under.
They do this even state budget too. Their reasoning behind this is because if you spend less then when budget funding comes up for the next year they will base your funds on the lesser amount. So if he spent only 3 million instead of the 4 million they would only allow him to have a 3 million budget the next fiscal year. Essentially punishing the man for staying within his budget.
-
I missed commenting upon gold and such, the belief that this will be some sort of doomsday cover makes me laugh even harder. If you were so lucky as to have actually purchased the physical items and now can trade it for food or something else we are all so screwed, shotguns and long barrel rifle's will have a much greater value. I'd be up the old creek.
Not doomsday cover.. its move of a cover against currency devaluation. Remember money used to be based on the gold standard its now based on the monopoly standard... So traditionally if/when a particular currency devalues gold increases in value relative to that currency to maintain the same worth or better. When it comes to doomsday scenarios nothing much is going to help you, besides living on a self supporting hard to get to tropical island. :)
-
The rally in gold does not equate to the decline of the US$. I think there are going to be a lot of hurt mom's and pop's when the investment industry exits. If there was a true decline of the dollar equal to the rise in gold you would see every other US$ denominated commodity rising with the same fury and inflation would be insane.
The theory says that the reduced purchasing power of the dollar is what drives up the price, not so for gold.
-
The US Credit rating was downgraded by some analyst companies (Fitch, S&P), but with political wrangling and arguing the rating was "put back" by Moody's and other agencies. Now if I could just argue my credit rating when I don't pay my bills...
Re. Canuker's comments: When I see gold advertised on TV, I don't see a buying opportunity, I see people who know what they are doing speculating in gold selling it. Honestly, when I think doomsday scenario for the economy I think self-sufficiency and self defense, I don't think gold -- particularly since watching the Katrina footage. Before I buy gold I will "invest" in burying 6-10 Kalishikovs, 20,000 rounds and a bullet press sealed in grease in my backyard -- but that is just my particular kind of crazy.
Speaking of Katrina, watching that mess is part of what made me want to move out of the middle of Chicago. Complete anarchy is a lot closer in larger cities.
-
The US Credit rating was downgraded by some analyst companies (Fitch, S&P), but with political wrangling and arguing the rating was "put back" by Moody's and other agencies. Now if I could just argue my credit rating when I don't pay my bills...
and we all know we can trust Moody's right .. i mean its not like moodys placed all those AAA ratings on those uncollectable mortgage packages is it... ow wait that was them .. oopps my bad .. but we can still trust them they would never do that again would they .. ??!!
-
Well, I know that there isn't a household in America that can survive on that budget.
It's time for "those that have" to put in their fair share.
As the economy tanks, the middle class are being hit the hardest. Jobs are being lost and more middle class are unemployed now then ever, thus the tax money that comes from middle class is less then ever. Meanwhile big money in America continues to go unchecked. Oil companies claim they "lost" billions when in fact they simply didn't make as much as they previously made. That's not losing LOL, it's just not gaining as much.
I hate to admit this, but Perot and Buchannan actually had some great ideas that I'm seeing make more sense. The biggest two things we could do to help ourselves out of this bind are A) Term Limits and B) Flat Taxes.
The problem is that both items depend on the rich and those in government to get them going and there is no way that they will because it directly affects them.
Oh well. I'm debating moving to Canada eh?
-
I am not convinced that flat taxes or term limits solve much.
Term limits will tend to create more situations where politicians are unafraid to do the right thing because they know they are leaving office, but that only seems to make a difference right at the end of the last term. I would almost rather see lifetime appointments subject to regular votes of confidence. Not sure that is the right solution, but what we have now is a mess. No one seems to have the stomach to do the right thing where its unpopular. Grow a pair doesn't seem to be catching on and I submit that its not just an American problem.
Flat taxes sound fair, like a VAT (consumption tax), until you consider that ultimately more of the burden, proportionate to income, falls on the poor. The more you make, the smaller your real expenses are as a proportion of your income. It doesn't seem popular, but I honestly don't see how it isn't fair that higher earners pay a larger share. I don't know if that thresshold should be $250,000, but somewhere in there a graduated higher tax seems only reasonable.
-
Well... after one gets elected the agenda changes dramatically. From promises and good intentions to "how do I keep this cush job". That's the issue. It's so difficult to get someone out once they get in, like cockroaches I suppose. Forcing term limits makes members know that they won't be able to milk the money cow forever, which is how it is now, and maybe they will pay more attention to the promises that got them elected in the first place.
Flat taxes. I agree that there should be some type of scale which starts at 0 for destitute and goes up to say 10% for the rich, it's just easier to say 8% across the board. The point is that if the rich paid the same percentage that I pay there would be no national debt in less then 5 years. Many of the "rich" agree with contributing more, the problem is that there isn't enough on board.
Both of those would eliminate much of whats wrong in America today.
-
Some type of flat/consumption tax would have to see a raising of the tax bracket. I'm not sure what a good level would be but I think that 25K with additional reductions for children would be a good start.
What is the average wage per year in the US?
-
I think income Flat taxes have potential..., except on the very poor + some. TO pull a number out of thin air I would say zero tax on all income less than 80k for a family of 4. A Penny after that 10-30% flat tax across the board . NO DEDUCTIONS NO EXCEPTIONS. (that might generate so much tax revenue that it would need to be reduced)
Of course all that would really mean is that the mega rich who pay practically zero tax, currently would use more corporate law to hide their money than they currently do, and never actually have very much income to get taxed.
thats the sad truth of it.
-
I think income Flat taxes have potential..., except on the very poor + some. TO pull a number out of thin air I would say zero tax on all income less than 80k for a family of 4. A Penny after that 10-30% flat tax across the board . NO DEDUCTIONS NO EXCEPTIONS. (that might generate so much tax revenue that it would need to be reduced)
Of course all that would really mean is that the mega rich who pay practically zero tax, currently would use more corporate law to hide their money than they currently do, and never actually have very much income to get taxed.
thats the sad truth of it.
Existence Minimum to live saving. and than as a Algorythm a raising tax for more money you earn.
u said 80k per year? that would be pretty much in Germany.
A standart good Earner( IT Developer as example) earning 3-5k per month.Some times ago a show asked some prominents from Germany, when they would say you count as poor.
The result were 70% of the asked Persons said : Under 300K a year you are poor like a begger...
-
If you take a similar poll in the US you will get different answers depending on who you ask and where you ask them. The cost of living in Manhattan is a lot higher than in the Midwest.
If you live in a country like Canada or Germany offset your earnings valuation by costs that you don't have to pay. We let every Tom Dick and Susan go to university, and its subsidized, but it is primarily the responsiblity of the parents and the student to pay or borrow to cover it. Employers used to pay for health insurance for most full time employees, but that is going away. Small business owners like myself have always had to pay for their own health insurance costs. I pay $14,000 a year for health insurance for my family and its not a great plan.
-
-
While the public health system is good in Canada I plan on purchasing a secondary plan if and when I can. There are certain benifits derived from such that you just can't get in the public...like quicker service. I know of a person in my office who was given a death sentence via cancer in Canada who went to Texas and is 5+ years still alive but I could only guess on what the cost of doing this was.
-
I am of the mindset that we should have a flat tax for EVERYONE! To me, that's the only version of "fair share" that is acceptable and here's why:
My boss makes roughly $245,000 a year running his own private consulting business. His wife wanted to get a part time job for extra income, however if she made more than $5k in a year, they'd be bumped up to the $250,000 tax bracket and pay $10,000 more in taxes which means they actually LOSE $5,000! This gives his wife NO incentive to work! Why should ANY family be punished for working harder and making money?!?!
Here's how I see it: I have always thought a 10% flat income tax would be reasonable (although I wouldn't mind Herman Cain's 9% since it'd be cheaper ;) ). Here's how you do your taxes: add up all income and move the decimal point one place to the left! DONE! Bye bye IRS (except for a few auditors). All of you who say "the rich should pay more!" are right, AND THEY DO! THEY HAVE FOR YEARS! If you make $5,000 a year, you pay $500. If you make $5,000,000 a year, you pay $500,000! Now some people say this is "regressive" because people who are "rich" can afford MORE than 10% and people who are "poor" CANT afford 10%, but I say that if you're "poor" you're probably getting other money from the government anyways so you'll probably recoup your $500 (not that I really agree with that, but oh well, one step at a time).
For as long as you have tax "brackets" there will always be some point where an individual will get a "raise" that will actually HURT them, instead of helping them and that is WRONG!
And a sidenote for some food for thought, a recent study was done that said, even if you raised taxes on anyone making over $250,000 to 75%, you could still not raise enough in tax revenue to offset the debt limit increase! (That means we need to cut spending!)
-
I think something everybody is forgetting is that we need to have a flat tax on corporations and CHURCH. If you look at this country most of the corporations have HUGE loopholes, you cant tell me companies like Exxon or Microsoft are paying thier fair share...and dont even get me started on church's...They make more money then anybody. Church's are the richest corporations in the world, and they are ALL tax free! Make em start paying!
And by that I mean they MUST pay on everything..not only the HUGE amounts of cash they take in, but pay taxes on all of thier real estate holdings...I believe I once read that the catholic church was the largest holder of real estate (besides the federal government) in the U.S...and they pay NO TAXES.
Thats just the catholic church, there are TONS more that own a LOT and pay NOTHING!
-
I don't disagree with TT, corps are completely flush right now, not hiring, and to a large degree not investing. There is a TON of money sitting on the sidelines right now, and guess what? Its not helping the economy, and its corporations, for the most part, sitting on it. Where is the trickle down there?
MD, I would agree with a flat tax as long as it had an offset at the bottom end that accounted for very low wage earners. I don't think we should be taking anything from a family of four that is making $40,000 a year. I don't know where the number is, but there is a cost of subsistance that ought to fly beneath the tax hit.
-
I am of the mindset that we should have a flat tax for EVERYONE! To me, that's the only version of "fair share" that is acceptable and here's why:
My boss makes roughly $245,000 a year running his own private consulting business. His wife wanted to get a part time job for extra income, however if she made more than $5k in a year, they'd be bumped up to the $250,000 tax bracket and pay $10,000 more in taxes which means they actually LOSE $5,000! This gives his wife NO incentive to work! Why should ANY family be punished for working harder and making money?!?!
Here's how I see it: I have always thought a 10% flat income tax would be reasonable (although I wouldn't mind Herman Cain's 9% since it'd be cheaper ;) ). Here's how you do your taxes: add up all income and move the decimal point one place to the left! DONE! Bye bye IRS (except for a few auditors). All of you who say "the rich should pay more!" are right, AND THEY DO! THEY HAVE FOR YEARS! If you make $5,000 a year, you pay $500. If you make $5,000,000 a year, you pay $500,000! Now some people say this is "regressive" because people who are "rich" can afford MORE than 10% and people who are "poor" CANT afford 10%, but I say that if you're "poor" you're probably getting other money from the government anyways so you'll probably recoup your $500 (not that I really agree with that, but oh well, one step at a time).
For as long as you have tax "brackets" there will always be some point where an individual will get a "raise" that will actually HURT them, instead of helping them and that is WRONG!
And a sidenote for some food for thought, a recent study was done that said, even if you raised taxes on anyone making over $250,000 to 75%, you could still not raise enough in tax revenue to offset the debt limit increase! (That means we need to cut spending!)
Doesn't the american brackets work in that every dollar in the new bracket is taxed in that range? So the above couple it would be the next dollar above $250K is taxed at 30%(or whatever % it is) and not a subjective tax of 10K for making that one dollar?
-
I don't disagree with TT, corps are completely flush right now, not hiring, and to a large degree not investing. There is a TON of money sitting on the sidelines right now, and guess what? Its not helping the economy, and its corporations, for the most part, sitting on it. Where is the trickle down there?
MD, I would agree with a flat tax as long as it had an offset at the bottom end that accounted for very low wage earners. I don't think we should be taking anything from a family of four that is making $40,000 a year. I don't know where the number is, but there is a cost of subsistance that ought to fly beneath the tax hit.
With the current system, here's what I would be willing to concede after going to a flat tax. EVERY person MUST pay their flat tax each year, however we are still required to pay into Social Security and Medicare, and in theory, the government holds onto that money and we get it back when we retire. For families making BELOW the poverty line each year, they would have the OPTION of NOT contributing into their SS and MC for that tax year, thereby giving them a tax "break" because of their financial situation. However, that does mean that when they get back on their feet, they should think about contributing EXTRA to their SS/MC to make up for a missed year or years.
I hate this idea that because you're "poor" you don't have to contribute anything. You still use roads, highways, sidewalks, benefit (or suffer) from trade agreements, etc. The LEAST you could do is chip in a few dollars, especially when you know some richer guy is chipping in way more.
For the family of 4 making $40,000 a year, there are THOUSANDS of agencies across the country that are willing to help with food, clothing, etc. As Ron Paul said at the debate, "I practiced medicine BEFORE Medicare, and we NEVER turned anyone away! There was always a church group or charity that was willing to help those that could not afford care." Let CHARITIES do the work of CHARITIES, and let GOVERNMENTS do the work (and ONLY the work) that is laid out for them in the Constitution.
-
UOMaddog, I would have to conclude that you have never really been without money. Not that that is a bad thing.
-
I've always been a fan of the flat income tax. The day I don't have to do an income tax return is the day I'm going to pinch myself because I must be dead. I'm not a great fan of the fact that 50% of our citizens pay no tax OR STILL GET A REFUND. Imagine the savings when they can unplug the IRS completely. Nothing like self-fulfilling bureaucracies. I'd even be OK with a reasonable VAT, but that VAT has to be applied at the top level (at final consumption). If you layer VAT after VAT throughout the production process, that'll really inflate the prices. But if that tax is added (say 10%) at final consumption (i.e. us consumers) then I'd be all for that. More money in my pocket to buy stuff, more equal tax burden spread across the masses, and a giant kick in the pants to the economy. I'm taxed 60% (F,S,L) now, and I'm getting a little fed up with it.
-
I'm taxed 60% (F,S,L) now, and I'm getting a little fed up with it.
Gotta LOVE paying for the privaledge of living in California! I have never in my life payed state taxes, and unless something really strange happened I never will.
-
I'm taxed 60% (F,S,L) now, and I'm getting a little fed up with it.
Gotta LOVE paying for the privaledge of living in California! I have never in my life payed state taxes, and unless something really strange happened I never will.
Been their done that... ouch .. especially if your self employed... everyone's got their hands in your pockets.
-
I have definitely had times in my life with little to no money to my name (and a bunch of debt), but I was always extremely careful about how much I spent and went without a lot of things.
Everyone always wants to tax the rich more and I'm sorry, but that's not right! Let's dig deeper...
The three mantras have always been:
Communism: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"
Socialist: "To each according to his contribution"
Capitalism: "From each to himself"
Let's take a look at cash flow in the U.S.
"Class" / "Pay In" / "Get Out"
RICH - TONS - Very Little (Social Security probably, but most have their own IRA's and 401k's too)
MIDDLE - DECENT - Little (Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment maybe)
POOR - NOTHING - TONS (Welfare, Medicaid, WIC, Unemployment, "Disability", and the list goes on)
If you put that in a bar graph, it'd look quite disproportionate! In fact, it looks almost exactly like communism! (Or as our president put it, a "redistribution of wealth"). Of course, in this case it's the adulterated form: "From the rich, because they can afford it, to the poor, because they need it." And that's why Communism never works, because not everyone contributes "from their ability" and you end up with a large group that just wants handouts. If you think the United States is capitalist, then I'd say you don't know economics very well. We may be the CLOSEST developed country TO capitalism, but since the early 1900's we have become quite clearly Socialist. The current "Social Security" (need I say more) system is based on the quintessential quote from above "To each, according to what they contributed!" Not to mention welfare and unemployment, which falls completely into the category of communism. And anti-trust/monopoly laws prevent true capitalism as do higher taxes on the rich.
Here's my vision for America:
Federal Government: (shockingly this all comes from the Constitution)
- Handles national security/defense (military)
- Handles immigration with the help of the states
- Handles foreign policy
- Handles making sure that interstate commerce is not inhibited by any state(s)
- Handles interstate highway system (maintenance, plowing, etc)
- Is funded by a flat income tax on individuals AND businesses (fair share)
State Government:
- Handles local law enforcement
- Handles state and local roads
- Can choose a tax system of it's own (none, income, sales, etc)
- Assists federal government with immigration (all states, not just border states)
People:
- Handle their own finances, including, but not limited to: retirement, healthcare, higher education,
- Pay taxes
- Maintain their own property (this includes land, homes, vehicles, etc)
- Strive to make their country better
There is only one thing that I believe should be added to the Federal Government's "control" that currently is not something that Constitution allows and that is Education! As we have become more of a nation and less of individual states, I believe it is important for all citizens to be on an even playing field with regard to education. If states were in charge (as we see currently), education levels would (and do) vary drastically from state to state and I don't believe that is good.
It's really not a difficult world to live in and it's based on personal responsibility!
I do have one pet peeve to add and it relates to elections. The current electoral system is horribly flawed and needs drastic changes. Here's how I envision it being fixed:
- You may not run for any public office while holding another public office (*cough* all you representatives that aren't doing your job because you're too busy campaigning, including presidents *cough*)
- By the same token as above, that would mean that you cannot be "re-elected" immediately after your current term, you'd have to wait at least one election cycle!
- There would no longer be "campaign funding". That means politicians would not be dipping in the pocketbooks of corporations or the rich! Here's how campaign funding would work: You fill out a form that requires a set number of signature (let's say 5,000) from tax-paying citizens (if you're delinquent, you don't count). If you collect sufficient signatures you are now entered into the race!
- Each person is given 1 page to explain their platform (or really, use however they want) in a bi-yearly election publication (I'm thinking magazine-form).
- Also, all BROADCAST (that's the Over-The-Air stations that are controlled by the FCC) would be required to show a 5 minute video for each entrant over the course of a week during the election "season" (so there would be 10 videos a day, shown over the course of an hour at 3 different time slots so that people of all shifts would get to see all of the videos). The broadcast stations would have to give up this time as a condition of being allowed to broadcast OTA (let's be honest, it's not that much time in the grand scheme of things!). These videos would not be the political ads you see today, but rather would only be allowed to be the entrant, standing in front of a seal of the president and an American flag, saying whatever they want for those 5 minutes.
- That is all the promotion you get, other than you going around and talking to people.
This completely removes the idea of political parties (which have honestly destroyed much of our nation) and "primaries". Everyone is on a level playing field for elections and may (hopefully) the best person win!
My fingers are tired and I feel winded... /END RANT
-
wow, that's defiantly not how i think but this thread is probably going to start to trigger Cerveza's warning sirens, so i'll say no more :)
-
wow, that's defiantly not how i think but this thread is probably going to start to trigger Cerveza's warning sirens, so i'll say no more :)
HAHA! I agree completely! I'm waiting for the big red letters to appear!
-
Well, though we don't normally allow such talk, as long as it's the ideas being discussed and not the person posting them...
The second someone attacks someone else you'll see stars.
-
I've been enjoying this thread with great pleasure.
-
Cerveza sounds like my wife! ;) She hates when I talk politics and makes me see stars! ;D
-
It was a pretty good read to be honest Maddog.
One question, Is flat tax rate based on Your Income? Say, you retire and don't make a dime, do they still tax you?
-
It was a pretty good read to be honest Maddog.
One question, Is flat tax rate based on Your Income? Say, you retire and don't make a dime, do they still tax you?
You would have something like a 401 or a roth(I think that is what those american things are called)? In Canada the similar plans who show as taxable income when you utilize them and I'd think the same in the US so that should be where your taxation comes from.
-
One question, Is flat tax rate based on Your Income? Say, you retire and don't make a dime, do they still tax you?
Flat tax is based on your income. Unlike Romney, I don't think that people should get away with no tax on interest. It creates a HUGE tax loophole. (Imagine someone who saves up enough money, such as $3,000,000 who can then live off the interest, modestly, for the rest of their life and never pay taxes). So I would say, income is ANY money that comes to you during that tax year. So if your parent died and you got a $10,000 inheritance, you wouldn't pay all those stupid death taxes, etc, you'd simply count it as INCOME and pay your normal income tax on it.
As for retirees it's complicated right now because of the 2 different types of IRAs. With a normal one, you contribute to your IRA BEFORE taxes are taken out, so each year you pay tax on any interest, and when you retire and start taking out money, you pay tax on it (as if it were income). With a Roth IRA, you are contributing money AFTER you paid taxes on it, so you pay interest on it yearly but since you've already paid income tax on it, when you take the money out, you don't pay taxes. (Please don't hold me to that exact description because I'm only about 90% sure on that and I know there are all kinds of penalties and deferred interest options and such).
I'd prefer that the system would only allow Roth IRA's, that way it acts very much like a standard savings account just with potential for higher returns.
So to sum it up, people have to pay tax on every cent of income throughout their life including interest, but if you're saving your income and then withdrawing it later, then you would only be paying tax on any interest that has accrued.
-