Slashdot Mirror

The poor are getting raped at 15.3% payroll tax right now

Ya know, I don't think I've come across anyone as strident in their ignorance about taxes.

The employee portion of payroll taxes are 6.2% for Social Security, and 1.45% for Medicare. You'll find, through some exceptionally complex mathematics, that this does not add up to 15.3%.

And no, removing those taxes does not mean the employee gets paid the employer portion of payroll taxes. Companies treat that like an operating expense. Removing that side of the taxes does not mean payroll goes up.

With the FairTax, they get the full $12K _plus_ the $2,760 Prebate.

And you're paying about $8k in consumption taxes in order to bring in the same revenue that income and payroll taxes currently collect. If we apply some complex mathematics to that, we find that your "prebate" doesn't quite pay all that.

The excerpt I posted elsewhere shows you that your laser printers, paper, machines in your business are all bought without FairTax applied.

Yes, I laughed heartily at that. Jeff4747, LLC will be buying a lot of goods and services for the CEO's use. Thus avoiding all of your taxes. We're a struggling consulting firm that just happens to not make any money, though we do have plenty of clients...who also just so happen to not make any money but they do buy goods and services that happen to be used by their primary shareholders.

Which is why I'm completely ignoring it. It is monumentally stupid and impossible to implement because there's no way to legally differentiate between my LLC and a "real" company.

I get it, you like to argue, but you're posting without even thinking about it.

Says the guy who hasn't quite managed to state what his consumption tax rate would be.

Go ahead. Show how much you've thought about it by showing everyone just how much you need to tax the purchases of individuals to replace $1.7T in individual income tax revenue, $239B in business income tax revenue and $1.2T in payroll tax revenue.

Lemme help. That's about $3.15T. US GDP was $19T in 2017. So if we were dumb, we'd just take that income divide it by total GDP and get an answer of 16.5%. Remember how you were talking about the horrors of a 15.3% tax?

But hang on, it's even worse than that. Because your plan only taxes consumer retail sales and consumer services. US retail sales in 2017 was only $453.5B...including retail sales to businesses. US GDP from the service sector was $15.2T......but about 70% of services are sold to businesses, not individuals. So that's only $4T subject to your tax.

So, we're gonna ignore the huge swath of retail sales that were to businesses to help you out, and we get $4.45T subject to your consumption tax. We need to raise $3.15T.

So we get a consumption tax rate of 70%.

But wait! The Prebate!! That'll save us, right? You gave that $12k/year person about 20% of their income as "prebate". Now, I'm no mathematician, but I'm thinking 70% - 20% is just a teensy-tiny bit more than 15.3%. Oh, the prebate would also cost about $800B, so now we need to raise 3.95T, leaving us with a consumption tax rate of 89%.

And, btw, this is just to tread water. We haven't dealt with the deficit at all.

I am not arguing because "I like to argue". I'm arguing because ideas like this are presented full of magic asterisks that enable faulty math, and people like you read the fraudulent plan and think it might be a good idea.

Leading to nuggets like:

You haven't stopped to think that the poor don't buy a lot at retail.

The poor spend about 50%-90% of their post-rent income on food. Show me the "used" food market.

Show me the "used" gasoline market they can buy from to fill up that used car you were talking about. Show me the "used" electricity market where they can keep the lights on (retail ain't just goods).

Ford did make it through, taking out the loan to compete with subsidized cars from GM and Chrysler because of their TARP funds. Ford repaid their loans in 2009 - they did not get tens of billions of Government dollars that disappeared when GM/Chrysler emerged from Federal management.

That must be why deficits have exploded under 2 years of Republicans controlling every lever of government.

I don't know if I'd say they "exploded". Deficit spending is high, but not the highest it has ever been. last year deficit spending accounted for 3.4% of the GDP, by comparison, deficit spending accounted for 9.8%, 8.6%, and 8.3% in 2009, 2010, 2011 respectively. Those were the last years that the Democrats controlled both chambers of congress.

source

Here is one listing that shows most of the unemployment and GDP. here is the rest Obama inherited -2.5 growth rate from the GOP for the first year and across the entire 8 years, had a 1.3% growth rate.
However, if we get rid of the first year (belonging to the GOP) and add in 2017 (which is really O's), then America had a growth rate of 1.9%. More importantly, O finished at 2.47, while Trump's first real year, was 3.0. Not much of a difference.

Then we have unemployment rate:
GOP gave him a 9.9 % unemployment Rate, while Mediocre Obama gave the GOP a 4.1%. And gee, trump brought it down to 3.9%.

I will take Obama's economy any day over Trump's, though I will say that I back Trump's trade war.

Uninsured numbers weren't cut in half, and premiums increased at the same rate as prior to Obamacare.

You also conveniently ignore that President Obama had complete control for a good chunk of the first two years of his Presidency (Chuck Schumer was Senate Leader, and Nancy Pelosi was Speaker).

Despite being given $350 billion by President Bush (as then-President Elect Obama requested) to stimulate the economy, the economy was starting to slink back to recession when President Trump was elected, with GDP plunging back down. Thankfully that's been arrested, and interest rates (which were at 0% for most of the Obama Administration) have started to come back up (which will strengthen the economy long-term). All while racking up more debt than pretty much all previous Presidents combined. He even got Congress to amend President Bush's 2009 budget by adding another $900 billion to it - and his supporters love to pin that $900 billion back on President Bush (which is completely disingenuous).

Now, you forgot things like his own self-described "worst mistake" of Libya, failures in Syria, drove world opinion of the USA down (thankfully it's rebounding back up), assassinated US citizens without due process, knowingly illegally selling guns to Mexican drug gangs (one of which was used to kill a US border patrol officer), and many, many more things which could be considered abject, Administration-destroying failures.

Try looking at some numbers. 2015 Spending (pie graph breakdown) 2018 Spending (no graph) ... So in order of problems: Social Security very very very very big problem, Medicare and Health system very very very big problem, Military big problem, Debt not so bad a little a few more % points than on my home load, everything else chump change.

So, let's use your hypothetical situation on my home budget. My mortgage is the single largest cost I have month to month. Based on your logic, I should cut funds to that in order to free up funds for other more fun things that I would refer to as discretionary. Somehow I don't the bank would let me live in my house very long if I wasn't paying my mortgage...

There's a reason that no one talks about the mandatory spending when talking about budgets, they're systems that (in theory) cannot be taken away from (but it doesn't stop the politicians from finding creative ways to "borrow" from those funds with no intention of paying back...). The military is the single greatest discretionary spending situation. And, with military budgets that grow every year, and situations where branches are told "If you don't use it, you lose" when it comes to budgets, you better believe there's superfluous spending going on. Hell, the company I work for gets inundated by military branches this time of year because they need to use up the last of their budgets.

Going back to my home budget, if I'm trying to cut spending, I look at my discretionary purchases and my budget there and realize, I don't need to eat out 4 times a week and I can save about $40 a week by cutting that back to once a week. Meanwhile, my mortgage still gets paid the same amount and I have more money to spend on computer parts that I need to upgrade.

Try looking at some numbers.

2015 Spending (pie graph breakdown)
2018 Spending (no graph)

Based upon the 2015 numbers (2018 number show increases in #1 and #2, and reductions to everything else)

Social Security is #1, with about 33% the total budget
Medicare and Health is #2, with about 27% the total budget
Military is #3, with about 16% of the budget (adding Veterans is another 4% ish, so 20% total)
Interest on debt is #4, with about 6% of the budget
Below this is chump change, at about 18%.

So if your broke, you don't start cutting thing #3 on your list, you start with #1, then move to #2, then #3 and so on. Heck, just cutting #1 in half would free up enough money to double military spending. Cutting #1 and #2 in half would free up 30% which would almost triple chump change spending and thats without touching military or debt spending.

So in order of problems: Social Security very very very very big problem, Medicare and Health system very very very big problem, Military big problem, Debt not so bad a little a few more % points than on my home load, everything else chump change.

Conservatives are the real psychopaths.
And more from you psychopaths

Bill Clinton added $1.396 trillion to the debt.

Thanks for playing.

You're wrong about many things, but the easiest to refute is that "China owns a significant amount of our debt".
 
They don't even own a significant amount of our foreign held debt.
 
They hold more debt than any other single country (squeaking past Japan for the title), but that amounts to less than a third of the total of foreign-held US debt.

Good point it was Bush, and that parasite Hank P. Obama just doubled down, on the stupid and made them build cars people would want even less.

No, it was primarily Bush.

The only problem with Biden’s history lesson is that the “man with steel in his spine” he referred to should have been George W. Bush, not Barack Obama. Lest we forget, it was Bush rather than Obama who initiated the government rescue of the auto companies.

https://www.newyorker.com/news...

The only thing Obama didn't do is step and and completely quash the bailout. Obama publicly supported the plan before he was elected, but the plan itself was the brainchild of the previous administration. An incoming president isn't going to kill a plan that's saving tens of thousands of American jobs. If you really blame Obama for that you aren't being honest with yourself.

Note the perspective of that article is that Biden is trying to give Obama undeserved credit for the bailout. It's actually an anti-Biden/Obama article.

Also, the bailout was a loan.
https://www.thebalance.com/aut...

You can see the fed invested ~$80B, and got back ~$70B... they lost ~$10B. Sure they lost, but it's not like this was some massive handout to GM with no strings attached. Honestly it seems like a pretty good gamble at the time considering what would be the impact to the US economy.

In any case GM was done - no money to retool to build stuff people wanted. Obama gave them a pile of money but insisted basically they pay Union workers to do something. It was either sit on their hand and do nothing or build products that might not sell in the existing plants. Bascially it was failing business before and its failing business now.

No factual documentation backs up anything you've said.

On December 19, 2008, President Bush agreed to a $24.9 billion bailout using TARP: $13.4 billion for GM, $5.5 billion for Chrysler, and $5 billion for GMAC.

In response, the companies promised to fast-track development of energy-efficient vehicles and consolidate operations. GM and Ford agreed to streamline the number of brands they produced. The United Automobile Workers union agreed to accept delayed contributions to a health trust fund for retirees. It also agreed to reduce payments to laid-off workers. The three CEOs agreed to work for $1 a year and sell their corporate jets.

and

The Obama administration used the take-over to set new auto efficiency standards. That improved air quality and forced U.S. automakers to be more competitive against Japanese and German firms.

In other words, the plan was set in motion by Bush, not Obama. And Obama added terms to the deal that required the automakers to up their game, not "pay union workers to do something".

https://www.thebalance.com/aut...

From McConnell's perpspetive he ain't doing too bad : he got what he wanted. Conservative judges filling all the vacanices across the country, 2 (and maybe more) ultra conservative supreme court justices and

Yep, and these are the reasons I overlooked the obvious flaws and voted for Trump, and will do so again.

THE FUCKING NEW TAX CODE (ie stealing from the poor to appease the rich).

Here, we part company. The Tax changes are responsible for GDP growth and great unemployment numbers we have enjoyed over the last few months. The tax "cuts" have predictably caused in increase in tax revenue due to the increase in economic activity, upping employment, raising household incomes and otherwise causing the "poor" to have more money as more of them have jobs who where unemployed and raising the pay of those who already where working.

Also, the tax code is really stealing from the rich to appease the poor. When you look at how much the rich pay in taxes, it turns out that they pay MORE of the taxes than the poor do, with the top few percent paying over half of all taxes collected. So, when you consider what's *fair* I wonder how you determine what's fair? We already have a heavily progressive tax code.

My personal reading of the situation is that your ideas about taxes are based on a fundamental belief that having rich and poor people is evidence of unfairness. This is wrong headed thinking. This is looking at outcomes and not recognizing differing effort and ability and refusing to understand that being created equal doesn't imply outcomes are the same. Thus your decrying of the tax code, robbing from the poor, to pay the rich, even when the FACTS are that the rich pay far more in taxes than the poor because we have a progressive tax system already.

You are misinformed.

Tax revenue has been growing for decades, regardless of tax policy. But it is growing more slowly since the most recent tax cuts. https://www.thebalance.com/cur.... Supply-side economics has been debunked for years. It does not work. the only reason the idea lives on is that it serves as a propaganda item for the ultra rich.

The rich pay more in taxes because they benefit more from society's infrastructure. I'm sure you agree that people should pay their fair share.

Finally, you talk about outcomes when people don't start out in the same spot. Being born rich is a massive advantage, in many ways. The outcome can easily have nothing to do with effort or ability. You might have a point if everyone were born into the same circumstances. But that is not the case.

a $500,000 angel investment in the social network Facebook for 10.2% of the company and joined Facebook's board.

They say your first million in business is the hardest, and that got Facebook halfway there. It may seem impressive that half a million would be enough to launch a successful competitor against an established business, but the reality is few investors are willing to risk that kind of capital and most people don't have that kind of money to fund the venture themselves. The median American household has only $11,700 in savings. Facebook got lucky twice - first that they were able to secure venture capital, and second that they were able to gain marketshare and topple their competitor.

The Commie term has nothing to do with newcomers competing with the incumbents.

This quote explains it better than I could:

It's the sense that monopolies, and the oligarchs that run them, have rigged the system in their favor. They hired well-paid lobbyists to influence politicians. They won Supreme Court cases that give corporations the same rights as people. This allows them to spend untold millions on political ads that benefit them. Many feel that capitalism's winners may even favor inequality. They have fewer competitive threats. They "rig the system" by creating barriers to entry.

It is entirely possible to acknowledge a situation exists (in this case, late capitalism), without agreeing that communistic measures are the correct course of action to remedy it. History has already taught (most of us) that communism doesn't work.

Having a military to defend yourself with is the most economically sound way to dissuade a potential invader.

A good deterrence is one where you can hurt the opponent and allow the opponent to be able to hurt you. If you don't allow the opponent to be able to hurt you you break the symmetry and are going for dominance.

https://www.thebalance.com/u-s... says the military spending for 2018 is $874.4 billion. I think that's a very conservative estimate because the militarization of the US runs much deeper than these numbers suggest, but let's accept them. Then how much would the US need for defense? The spending has increased more this year than the total defense budget of Russia. What is the risk the US is going to be invaded? The US being free from invasion is a pretty natural state since it's main competitors are overseas. How many nukes does the US need as deterrence? Very few. 10 should be enough . Or 1 should be enough provided you have the ability to deliver it. North Korea thinks 10 should be enough.

Here's a table for you. https://www.thebalance.com/u-s...

Poverty level for a single person is $12,140/yr. Which at 2000 work hours/yr (40 hrs/week, 50 weeks/yr) is $6.06/hr. For a family of 4, it's $25,100/yr, which would translate into $12.55/hr.

So in both cases $15/hr would lift you and your family well out of poverty. Only in Alaska would a family of 4 with a single breadwinner making $15/hr still be in poverty.

Reducing living costs in cities is simple - allow more housing to be constructed, build better transportation to make it feasible to live further from work. Unfortunately, most cities are resistant to this, or are bound by geography which prevents expansion.

>"even more deficit spending...now to the tune of $1 Trillion per year, and every year, now that he and the Republicans"

Ha! Nice try. Deficit spending is just as rampant if not more under Democrats- it has to be, when you want even bigger government and more and more social programs; and yet "can't" raise taxes.

Spending money we don't have and crony capitalism is NON-PARTISAN. People are only elected that promise more "stuff" and yet at no more expense. Surprise, that means deficit and more national debt. The only solutions are a combination of:

1) Smaller and less government
2) Less spending
3) More taxes and revenue
4) Less corruption

And probably all of those in equal measure. None are popular with all segments (most with none), and many forces- voters, industries/corporations, unions, lobbyists, and "establishment" politicians will ALL fight one or more aspects of it.

And we are ALREADY paying for it, dearly. The national debt is already bigger than our GDP and we have to THROW AWAY over $300 BILLION dollars a year just to service that debt without even paying a penny to reduce it. And when the interest rates and debt go up more, it could be a HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR EXPENSE in just 10 years!

https://www.thebalance.com/int...

Interesting. Thanks for that link.

I looked up the US rate to compare... 48%

https://www.thebalance.com/cur...

Well for one thing they have us footing the bill for pharmaceutical research.

Ranking by Total Biotechnology R&D Expenditures

The number of firms is one way to rank biotech by country, while expenditures in research and development are another. The United States outspends its nearest competitor, France, by eight to one, at almost $27 billion to a little over $3 billion in 2012. The other big spenders are Switzerland, Korea, Japan, Germany, and Denmark at all over one billion dollars.

https://www.thebalance.com/ran...

I suppose we can expect more muskisdelusionalandoutofcash postings.

In the last Tesla thread I pointed out that, as an stockholder, what I am looking for is NOT Elon Musk's cute personality or science fantasy. Nor do I care to whig out at every little story of production problems. What I am looking for is:

Technological leadership.

Market presence.

Production leadership.

Most of all: backorders and strong forecast. None of the rest matters unless you have someone willing to buy it. Tesla has that in spades.

So Tesla is delivering. Skepticism is healthy but not to the extent that the Tesla naysayers on /. take it.

There are a lot of people sending out fake news about Tesla nowadays, but there's an interesting bit of information.

Normally, in the two weeks ahead of a financial report the stock will mirror the report outcome. If the report is good, the stock will rise a little just before the announcement. If the report is bad, the stock will drop a little.

Tesla will be making their Q2 announcement on Wednesday (after the market closes), and it's dropped by 10% in that time.

In any other stock that would indicate bad news, but for Tesla? It could indicate a last-ditch effort for the bears to drive the stock down before a "good news" report. People are changing Tesla from "hold" to "sell", and saying that they're certain Tesla will need another round of financing.

(Musk claims that they will not need another round, and that Tesla will be profitable in Q3 and Q4 of this year.)

Tesla short interest is 34m shares right now, and with 170m shares outstanding, that's about 20% of Tesla is being shorted right now. 25% is held by Musk, so that's about 1/4 of public shares are held short.

There are three key periods coming up for Tesla: the Q2 report (Wednesday), and Q3 and Q4 of this year.

Over 50% of Tesla shares are held by 5 entities: Musk, Fidelity, Baillie Gifford, and so on. If the institutions dig their heels into the sand and refuse to sell, and if the other public shareholders also refuse to sell, there will be a short run and the stock price will skyrocket. There's nowhere that the short sellers can go to settle.

If no one is selling the stock, or there are many buyers, including panic buyers, caused by other short sellers attempting to close out their positions as they lose more and more money, you may be in a position to incur serious losses.

The institutions know this. Many of the public shareholders know this.

If the stock jumps up and Tesla seems reasonably solvent, it's estimated the short sellers will be out several tens of billions of dollars.

Expect a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth...

(I own shares in Tesla and want to see them succeed.)

Cryptocurrency, even all the coins put together, is still well within the range of what well financed individuals can screw with and fleece other investors.

The British Pound is well within the range of what well financed individuals and hedge funds can screw with. Bitcoin and other so called cryptocurrencies are childs play by comparison.

Wikipedia's summary disagrees:

Premiums must be the same for everyone of a given age, regardless of preexisting conditions.

The citation goes to How Much Will Obamacare Cost Me?

If you care about the national debt, you should never, ever vote a Republican into the Oval Office. Their stated goal ("starve the beast" philosophy) is to increase the debt to try to force the government to shrink. Like increasing your credit card debt to force yourself to be more frugal.

You can see the debt increase by president here

https://www.thebalance.com/us-...

Obama D 68%
Bush R 101%
Clinton D 32%
HW_Bush R 54%
Reagan R 186%
Carter D 43%
Ford R 47%
Nixon R 34%
LBJ D 13%
JFK D 8%
Eisenhower R 9%
Truman D 3%
FDR D 1048%
Hoover R 32%
Coolidge R -26%
Harding R -7%
Wilson D 727%

So that's 8 Democrats who added 1942% to the debt, or an average of 242.75% each. And 9 Republicans who added 430% to the debt or 47.78% each.

The only real outlier is Reagan who spent a tonne of cash. Still that caused the USSR to collapse and the economy to rebound. And he did much less fiscal damage than FDR or Wilson, both of whom also had an existential crisis to deal with. If you're going to exclude them on the grounds the won WWII and WWI, why not exclude Reagan too on the grounds he was governing at the end of the Cold War.

In which case you get this result. Six Democrat presidents increased the debt by a total of 167%, or 27.83% each. Eight Republican presidents increased the debt by a total of 244 or 30.5% each.

I.e. the notion that Democrats run cause the debt to increase more slowly isn't really true. In fact, and surprisingly, there's not much difference. Especially since FDR who enormously increased the size of the peacetime government. Something which is very hard to undo, because Democrat's pet welfare recipients will riot if you do and the media will cheer them on.

We never had a surplus. The national debt has increased every year since 1957.

That's an interesting chart.

Thank you! Many people don't look at the actual data of our national bank balance, so to speak...

Actually, no. You seem to have missed the words "Includes legal tender notes, gold and silver certificates, etc."

The debt on that page can increase when the government prints more money.

Only if that money is put into circulation, either in an attempt to stimulate the economy (Government literally giving money away via zero interest loans), or spent (Government buying goods and services). Print all you want, until it's handed over it's not debt.

An analogy would be that you have $10,000 in your bank account. If you write a $1,000,000 check, you are NOT overdrawn until you hand that check over to someone else. Then that printed money - written check - has become an actual liability that you must honor.

According to the Congressional Budget Office there were real surpluses in the years 1969, and 1998-2001.

No, according to the CBO, there were real BUDGET surpluses, which only counts the on-budget spending. For example, the Federal Government does not consider spending on Social Security, the US Postal Service, Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae, and several other large ticket items as "on budget". So you can keep the rest of spending just under budget, but blow trillions on these via borrowing - and still be, per the CBO, under budget and in surplus.

This would be akin to you having a $10,000/month take-home pay. You spend $9,000 per month on food, utilities, travel, clothing. You spend $3,000 per month on housing, and you spend $2,000 per month on your IRA/401K. Your total spending is $14,000 - with only $10,000 income. BUT, because you consider housing and your IRA/401K not "on budget", you actually ran a surplus! Never mind that your actual net worth dropped by $4,000 (you accumulated $4,000 of debt - excess spending relative to income). You were below your budget on the other things you want to put into your budget, so you're all good.

It's already been said, but it's worth noting that the last Republican to lower the deficit on average was Nixon, yet Clinton and Obama both managed it.

Each one of those increased the debt

https://www.thebalance.com/us-...

If you actually read what I wrote, you'll notice that I made a claim regarding deficits, not debt. Debt tells you very little about a given president's influence - because frequently a president inherits a massive deficit, so it's more or less a given that the debt will increase under their tenure. What you should really look at is whether the deficit is increasing, which tells us whether the president is moving the trend towards a balanced budget, or turning towards higher levels of debt. Republican presidents for the last few decades have increased the deficit, increasing the rate at which the debt grows, while Democratic presidents have decreased the deficit, or even moved us into a surplus, in Clinton's case.

If you care about the national debt, voting for a Republican president is, historically speaking, a terrible move. We can see that playing out in Washington right now. Anybody who thinks the GOP is fiscally conservative hasn't been paying attention for a very long time.

Democrats don't hold a candle to Republicans when it comes to increasing national debt. It's already been said, but it's worth noting that the last Republican to lower the deficit on average was Nixon, yet Clinton and Obama both managed it.

Each one of those increased the debt

https://www.thebalance.com/us-...

Barack Obama: Added $7.917 trillion, a 68 percent increase from the $11.657 trillion debt at the end of George W. Bushâ(TM)s last budget, FY 2009.

Bill Clinton: Added $1.396 trillion, a 32 percent increase from the $4.4 trillion debt at the end of George H.W. Bush's last budget, FY 1993.

Richard Nixon: Added $121 billion, a 34 percent increase from the $354 billion debt at the end of LBJ's last budget, FY 1969.

And if you don't trust that, you can check the figures here

https://www.treasurydirect.gov...
and
https://www.treasurydirect.gov...

E.g. Nixon you subtract 1974's debt from 1969's. I.e. $475B - $353B = $121B

For Clinton you subtract 2001's debt from 1993's, i.e. $5.807T - $4.411T = 1.396T

I'm not a US citizen, so US party politics is not something that matters a great deal to me. I wasn't sure if there were documented facts concerning debt levels and US Presidents, so I went digging and came up with this:-

https://www.thebalance.com/us-...

It's a single source, so of course could be complete hogwash, but it's a start. According to the records there, every single US president all the way back to Herbert Hoover [directly before Franklin D. Roosevelt] added to the US Debt.

Unfortunately, even these figures don't tell the whole story, because we have to consider both debt and deficit, in which the former is the amount the US owes, and the latter is the rate with which the former is changing.

I make this distinction because, in recent memory, Bill Clinton has been the only US president who has actually decelerated the increase in US national debt. When he left office [IIRC] he did so leaving his successor, George W. Bush, with a tiny budgetary surplus. It's also instructive to look at the scale of the change in the debt position between Presidents. For example, George H.W. Bush left office with a national debt 54% greater than the one he inherited. Bill Clinton had trimmed that to a 32% increase. George W. Bush doubled-down on his Father's spending policies and managed a 101% increase in national debt. In the case of the two Bush Presidents, the increases were likely driven mainly by military spending to support the wars that they started.

Now, I'd absolutely have to agree with you if we look at Obama's record. He added $7.917 trillion to the US national debt, a 68% increase, which puts him somewhere between Bush Father and Bush Son and way beyond Clinton's record. However, it has to be remembered that Obama won office in late 2008 and became President in Januaru 2009. In other words, less than 6 months after the 2008 financial crash had really hit home.

What Obama did during his 8 years in office was, in economic terms, kick the can down the road. These are unarguable facts - the record speaks for itself. The reason *why* this is the case is obviously going to be highly partisan and subject to fierce debate. But the fact remains that the chief reason that Obama's record on the economy stands where it does is simply because he inherited one of the worst financial crises in living memory from his predecessor. The damage was done during the 8 years that George W. Bush spent in office [with increased military spending and tax cuts]. Obama just papered over the cracks and kicked the can down the road.

But the record is pretty clear - with the exception of Coolidge and Warren Harding [who served immediately before him] every US President from the First World War to the present day has added to the US debt.

I get it. You're a fucking idiot. You don't know what you're talking about, and refuse to learn about it. You are making stupid people embarrassed because they're now associated with you. It's been explained to you why you are wrong. If you continue to intentionally be wrong and lie about it, then you are no long simply wrong.. you're a lying sack of shit. That's probably an upgrade from what you normally are, but you should still strive to be better.

https://www.factcheck.org/2008...

https://www.thebalance.com/us-...

https://www.thoughtco.com/hist...

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/10...

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/...

Apples and oranges ... $1.5 trillion is the *additional increase* in the debt over the next ten years. Deficits were already projected to grow by $10 trillion over the next decade, now the projection is $11.5 trillion.

I was responding to the original comment which claimed the debt world grow by 1.5 trillion. If, as you say, that's on top of the projected growth, it changes things but not that much. The "projected growth" is an accumulation of programs built by every president before Trump. So how close did Obama come?

Well, depending on how you measure it, he added anywhere between 0.983 trillion and 9 trillion. Let's go with the smallest number. 0.983 in 8 years is 1.22 in 10 years.

In other words, under the best possible circumstances, your glorious Saviour of The United States added just slightly less debt than The Cheeto will. And yet I didn't hear a single democrat whining about Obama's fiscal irresponsibility.

Of course, at this point the "projections" are hypothetical, and Obama's record is set in stone. Nobody knows what the actual result of trump's tax policies will be; they can only guess. But their worst estimates are still in line with the most generous assessments of the previous president.

That should tell you something.

Obama increased the national debt by nearly $8 trillion - yes, trillion, with a T. Yes, that's nearly half our national debt (our national debt is just over $20 trillion), increased by one irresponsible president.

Right in their bailout-holes

> LOL, you mean "target pratice?" Just look at the facts, being a police officer is one of the SAFEST jobs in America

No. It was N10 on the list in 2010

https://www.thebalance.com/how...

the basic research that underpinned this (e.g. all the hard work) was done at public University on the public dime.

So the not-hard-work includes the Phase I, II, and III clinical trials required to gain approval of a drug that genetically modifies a human being, as well as the mountain of documentation required for marketing approval and the manufacturing process?

So done "at public University" means done at a private university and private hospital? Ones that are licensing the treatment in exchange for royalties?

Now where does "on the public dime" come in? Do you have any evidence that the project used NIH grants? Even if you apply a generic contribution of 1/3rd of some fraction of costs, that is not exactly grounds for nationalizing the product.

Ahh, the pie cannot grow! I guess that's why the GDP went from $3.2 trillion in 1981 to $5.2 trillion in 1988. That's a 62.5% growth. The GINI ratio went from 0.406 to 0.426; under President Clinton it went from 0.433 to 0.466 - a much bigger jump. Money comes from creating wealth; if it didn't, we'd still have a sub-$1 trillion GDP.

That is utter nonsense. The entire federal tax collection in 2016 was 3.46 trillion dollars. That'd be about $24k for 150 million people.

Here's the problem: the amount isn't $24k ($12k is much more realistic) and effectively, it's only going to a small fraction of the population. Everybody technically gets the check, but you would rework the bottom tax bracket so that the first $12k isn't taxed. Then you set the rate higher such that at $60k of total income, or $100k, or whatever we decide is appropriate, the tax cancels out the $12k of UBI. That means that someone making more than the notional $60k sees some numbers shift around, but doesn't end up with any more (or less) in their pocket at the end of the day.

You won't be raising children, owning a home and a vehicle, enjoying the network, consuming utilities, buying new clothing, receiving medical care, etc. on $24k.

Nice strawman. Nobody said that you should be able to live the "american dream" off of UBI. You should be able to afford to rent a room, keep yourself from starving to death, and buy second-hand clothes. $12k can do that easily in most of the country.

The economic system will have to be re-jiggered in a major way to make the available resources and services map to the number of people - and that's almost certainly what's going to happen when automation of most jobs comes along.

BS. We live in the most technologically advanced, prosperous society in all of human history. We have the resources as a country, TODAY, to keep anyone from starvation and homelessness.

Also, $1.5T is the current amount of entitlement spending. Considering that there are ~50M people on welfare and ~60M on social security, that works out to... surprise surprise... $13000 per person. Something very similar to UBI is already happening, but it's following arcane rules that require a complex bureaucracy to administer and the structure provides a disincentive to work. Turning welfare into UBI could even end up saving money in the long run, because it restores an incentive to work, it removes inefficient regulatory bandaids like minimum wage, and it gives people enough of an economic safety net to promote starting small businesses.

A poster below me already mentioned that your corporate profit figures are off - increase the amount to $2T, and make it quarterly, and you have the right idea.

Doesn't matter. Isn't even in the ballpark.

While your comment correctly asserts that the premise of the article is flawed (there isn't enough US corporate profit to realistically pay for UBI) you then make a flaw by assuming that UBI is unworkable by any means, and that's quite untrue.

No, I didn't say that. I said it was unworkable in the context of the current economic system - which is accurate. I also made it pretty clear that we're going to have to do something, once it becomes clear what that something is - which is not yet the case.

but the point is, all that's REALLY required to fund a UBI is a rework of the tax policy no more drastic than what the GOP is doing right now, along with replacing entitlements.

That is utter nonsense. The entire federal tax collection in 2016 was 3.46 trillion dollars. That'd be about $24k for 150 million people. Poverty, under the current system. Poverty accompanied by zero government services, no military, no federal law enforcement, etc.

That's not a basic income within the context of the current economic system. That's pocket change. You won't be raising children, owning a home and a vehicle, enjoying the network, consuming utilities, buying new clothing, receiving medical care, etc. on $24k. The economic system will have to be re-jiggered in a major way to make the available resources and services map to the number of people - and that's almost certainly what's going to happen when automation of most jobs comes along. Until then, the environment precludes a working model in other than over-funded, under-utilized small test groups. You can't just swap out the current social safety net and distribute it to everyone - it'll just fall on its face. In only works now (and it barely works, frankly) because the recipients are limited in number and in benefits.

Sure, we know that augmenting income will work when you have income. But when there's no income, and that is what we're going to be facing, augmentation is not a viable solution.

https://www.thebalance.com/wha...

Near as makes no difference to 10%

I read the entire article. Why did you cherry-pick the January 2017 U6 number of 9.4% and round up to 10% to justify your "double digits" claim? The October value for U6 is 7.9%. As the article states:

In October 2017, the real unemployment rate (U-6) was 7.9 percent

The entire point of the article is that regardless of the unemployment statistic you use, unemployment is down in apples to apples comparisons across the board. I don't understand what point you're trying to make other than that the fed does not use the U6 number to report unemployment. And if that's your axe to grind, why don't you refute the reasons they give for reporting U3 instead of U6? There are actual reasons, it wasn't a totally arbitrary decision of "because the number looks nicer."

https://www.thebalance.com/wha...

Near as makes no difference to 10%

Although Ford did not receive TARP funds, it did receive government loans. These were critical because banks were not lending during the financial crisis. It requested a $9 billion line-of-credit from the government.....
On June 23, 2009, Ford received a $5.9 billion loan from the Energy Department's Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing program. In return, it pledged to accelerate development of both hybrid and battery-powered vehicles, close dealerships and sell Volvo.....
The Congressional Research Service estimated the loans saved 33,000 jobs. Ford will repay this loan by 2022....
Ford says it was in better shape than the other two because it had mortgaged its assets in 2006 to raise $23.6 billion.

We are talking grant money of maybe 100k here. Put that into perspective with 824 billion for the military. I'd say 0.000012% of our defense spending is very well spent on something that really could level most of America to smoking ruin, unlike some rag tag terrorists we helped create ourselves to have an excuse to wage wars that financially reward key players. Hell, I'd even up that to 0.001% and still call it financially sound.

And just imagine the situation when we gratefully hand over the new Nucs for dear leader to play with.

Actually, that ain't happening, the amount of Pu needed just isn't there, and NASA is constantly scrounging to get some to fuel their thermovoltaic generators. Dear leader is talking a Manhattan District project number two.

But yes, it is a massive display of ignorance when some slashdotters and the crypto-conservatives moan and gnash their teeth over how the scientists are reaping the big bucks with their ill gotten research money. It's truly a drop in the bucket of the big picture.

And a good bit of it is of utility to the programs they are willing to make the country go bankrupt.

Indeed. All federal funding for the National Science Foundation, which is the vast majority of all government investment in science research (outside of NASA which was 11.3B) is just 5.67 billion dollars for everything. That includes everything from researching Yellowstone to robotics to stem. The majority isn't even spent on hard sciences but rather integrating groups. We are talking grant money of maybe 100k here. Put that into perspective with 824 billion for the military. I'd say 0.000012% of our defense spending is very well spent on something that really could level most of America to smoking ruin, unlike some rag tag terrorists we helped create ourselves to have an excuse to wage wars that financially reward key players. Hell, I'd even up that to 0.001% and still call it financially sound.

https://www.thebalance.com/che...

Belarus estimates total losses of $235 billion. (Source: Chernobylâ(TM)s Legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts, The Chernobyl Forum: 2003-2005)

Other source:

Economic damage of the Chernobyl accident is estimated at $235 billion for 30 years on after the explosion, making up 32 national budgets as of 1985. Chernobyl disaster vastly damaged the agricultural sector of the Belarusian economy, which is worth over $700 million annually.

https://www.reuters.com/articl...

Japanâ(TM)s government on Friday nearly doubled its projections for costs related to the Fukushima nuclear disaster to 21.5 trillion yen ($188 billion), increasing pressure on Tokyo Electric Power (Tepco) (9501.T) to step up reform and improve its performance.

Other source: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/n...Â¥70-trillion-triple-governments-estimate-think-tank/

A private think tank says the total cost of the Fukushima disaster could reach Â¥70 trillion ($626 billion), or more than three times the governmentâ(TM)s latest estimate.

I would not call that: cheap.

It's decentralized you idiot, no government can stop it.

Decentralization protects the technology behind bitcoin from being attacked by some random state actor. The infrastructure of bitcoin is pretty safe from the intervention of governments, but that does not mean that the value of bitcoin is equally untouchable. Bitcoins derive their true value from being exchangeable into fiat currencies and the governments know this, which is why they are taxed and regulated, which means their value can be affected by governments.

what crack are you smoking? GM paid $39.7B of $51B given to it. While Ford didn't take a TARP bailout like GM, they /did/ take a $5.9B loan from a fed program to make alternate fuel tech cars, with a stipulation that money be used for US jobs. Ford hasn't paid back a penny from that 2009 loan, and has moved the production and design the money paid for out of the US. TARP lost $10.2B total, and if you add the $5.9B from Ford which happened at the same time and was more or less a sideways bailout, that's $16.1BILLION DOLLARS that you're just dismissing as "paid back their loan" - no, they didn't.

All that ignores the fact that the subsidies aren't aimed against other car manufacturers, since they can use the same subsidies. I myself own a Chevy Bolt and a Chevy Volt, both of which gave me the "Tesla subsidy" despite not being Teslas. The goal is an alternate to oil an industry that has been benefiting from massive US subsidies and special programs for damn near a century. If anyone needs to not be subsidized anymore nor get special treatment (Exxon took how long to pay anything for their Valdez spill, for instance? And how many oil companies get to drill and destroy federal land? And the whole Dakota pipeline insanity?). The US has carried the oil industry for close to a century, if not longer. I can tell you from personal experience that the Bolt is actually a pretty good car. This isn't a "Tesla" subsidy.

"Paid off" is a relative term. The books are closed for sure, but the end result was $10+ billion in taxpayer money lost in the auto industry bailout.

https://www.thebalance.com/aut...

This took me 2.5 seconds to google and I don't even give a crap about the issue.

Could people stop being so damn lazy when the information is easy to verify?

https://www.google.com/search?...

New York Taxable Income Rate
$25,000 - $50,000 3.591%
$50,000 - $500,000 3.648%
$500,000+ 3.876%

https://www.thebalance.com/cit...

Alabama: Birmingham levies an income tax of 1%
Arkansas: Seven Arkansas school districts assess an income tax surcharge equal to 10% of state income tax before tax credits. They are Berryville, Green Forest, Westside, Hope, Huntsville, Waldron, and Marshall.
Colorado: Three cities impose flat taxes on compensation. Aurora charges $2 per month on compensation over $250, Denver charges $5.75 per month on compensation over $500, and Greenwood Village charges $4 per month on compensation over $250.
District of Columbia: D.C. has a bracketed income tax system. The rates are 4% for the first $10,000 of income, 6% for $10,000 to $40,000 of income, and 8.5% for income over $40,000.
Delaware: Wilmington has a flat 1.25% tax on income.
Iowa: 666 school districts impose an income tax surcharge ranging from 1% to 20% of state income tax owed.
Indiana: All 92 counties in Indiana have an individual income tax. Tax rates are in the process of being changed and will be announced on the Indiana Department of Revenueâ(TM)s website once they are finalized.

Kentucky: Eight cities in Kentucky levy income taxes on residents and non-residents. They are: Bowling Green (1.85%), Covington (2.5%), Florence (2%), Lexington-Fayette (2.25%), Louisville (2.20% for residents and 1.45% for non-residents), Owensboro (1.33%), Paducah (2%), and Richmond (2%). Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government and Louisville - Jefferson County also impose taxes on businesses.

Maryland: All 24 Maryland counties levy income taxes on residents and non-residents. Tax rates range from 1.25% to 3.20%. Baltimore also has an income tax of 3.05%.
Michigan: Several Michigan cities impose income taxes with rates ranging from 0.50% to 2.50%. Detroitâ(TM)s income tax rate is 2.50% for residents and 1.25% for non-residents.
Missouri: Both Kansas City and St. Louis have an income tax of 1%.
New York: Yonkers and New York City both have individual income taxes. New York City's income tax rates range from 2.907% to 3.648%. Yonker's income tax rate is equal to 10% of your net (after credits) state income tax.
Ohio: 235 cities and 331 villages in Ohio have an income tax, including Columbus, Toledo, Cincinnati, and Cleveland. Ohio law requires a flat rate that cannot exceed 1% unless it is approved by the voters. Ohio local income tax rates range from 0.40% in Indian Hill to 3% in Parma Heights.
Oregon: The Tri-Met Transit District (includes Portland) assesses an income tax of 0.6318% and the Lane County Transit District (includes Eugene) assesses an income tax of 0.60%. Multnomah County (Portland) also assesses a 1.45% business income tax.
Pennsylvania: Most municipalities in Pennsylvania assess a tax on wages, known as the Earned Income Tax. This tax is usually split between the municipality and the local school district. The local Earned Income Tax is only assessed on earned income, like wages. Unearned income like interest and dividends are not taxed. Pennsylvania state law limits the Earned Income Tax to a maximum flat rate

An interesting question. I've never had anyone questing the 'common knowledge' before and it occurred to me that while I've heard this I never bother to google it.
Although If i had cared before I probably would have and I would suggest you do when you have such questions.

https://www.americanexpress.co...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
https://www.thebalance.com/pol...

I didn't cherry pick these these were just on the top of the relevant results in google. Before you react it is good to research.

The Oxford dictionary definition of storm wave-base implies that storms affect the seabed only to a depth of up to 40m, but two other sources say submarines can be impacted to a depth of roughly 100m rather than 50, at least for hurricane-strength storms. So since this project plans to operate at depths of 100 to 700m so they should be safe.

I did not realize that. No need to be a complete dick about it.

Sorry, I was trying to be nice. As I said, it was in my earlier post.

It's yet another design flaw in our patent system.. patents are a type of intellectual property, and patent rights are usually analogized to property rights. If I own have the deed for my house free and clear, it means I have complete control over my house (notwithstanding laws)... not just that I can keep other people off, but I have positive control over it as well. You're saying patents are negative only. That totally runs counter to the common understanding of it.

Nope, and with all due respect, you may misunderstand your property rights over your house. Your deed gives you the right to exclude others from your land - same as a patent allows one to exclude others from their invention. Your deed, however, does not give you the right to, say, operate a business in a residential zone; or build a tower beyond height limits; or freely tap into water lines running under the property; or practice nude sunbathing on your front lawn; or start a sweatshop, etc., etc.

Specifically, property rights in real estate are frequently discussed as a bundle of rights, with the right to exclude others being prime. There's also a right to quiet enjoyment and right of control that come in with real property, but that's a result of the fact that real property is physical... someone cannot be on the same land without intruding on your land... By contrast, with intellectual property, one can freely occupy the same idea without intruding on your right to enjoy your idea. Like, if you have a house and I park my car on your lawn, you can't enjoy your lawn. If you have an idea for something and I too think of that idea, I'm not diminishing your enjoyment of it except through your loss of exclusivity, unlike real property. Accordingly, the only real right that attaches in intellectual property is the exclusive right.