Slashdot Mirror
DHS to Begin Collecting DNA of Anyone Arrested
Foobar of Borg writes "The AP is reporting that the US will soon be collecting the DNA of anyone who is arrested by a federal law enforcement agency and any foreigner who is detained, whether or not charges are eventually brought. This begins to bring the US in line with the UK which, as discussed before on Slashdot, is trying to collect DNA of 'potential criminals' as young as five. DHS spokesman Russ Knocke stated that 'DNA is a proven law-enforcement tool.'"
I don't have dna
If you let the balance of power fall too far to the state, it's grossly naive to think it wont lead to use of that power over you, your friends and your children. History supports that as do numerous social studies.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
The UK is at the forefront of privacy invasion. This has been going on at least ten years. The governments claim that the system works. For instance Serial killer Steve Wright(Ipswich Murders) was caught because he had his DNA taken following a theft a few years previous. So yeah... the system works. *rolls eyes*
It's one thing to single out certain segments of the population for greater scrutiny if the greatest proportion of violent crimes is perpetrated by that group. It's another thing entirely to use that as an excuse to tag and release citizens just because they act like animals.
There has been very little that has been good since the DHS was formed. Maybe it's a matter of them preventing bad things from happening, but the tighter the grip, the more problems will seep through their fingers.
Don't get arrested or do anything remotely questionable (in the UK you get swabbed even if you're just cautioned) and don't go to the US. Oh, and if you do go to the US, don't accidentally drop anything down the plane toilet on your way there.
...anything you say or DNA will be held against you in a court of law.
crowbar??
1) Give cops an "anonymous tip" about your enemy
2) Enemy gets arrested and logged into the system
3) Enemy no longer trusted by law enforcement (or anyone who "accidentally" gets access to that database)
Some criminals already plant cigarette butts in stolen cars, to confuse the evidence and implicate innocent people, and I predict more of this. It's not hard to collect fake evidence from someone else's trash, to place at the scene of a crime.
To avoid identity theft, not only should you shred everything with your name and address, but now you also need to flush or incinerate everything with your DNA on it.
Reduce, reuse, cycle
Gattaca Corp. is an aerospace firm in the future. During this time society analyzes your DNA and determines where you belong in life. Ethan Hawke's character was born with a congenital heart condition which would cast him out of getting a chance to travel in space. So in turn he assumes the identity of an athlete who has genes that would allow him to achieve his dream of space travel. Written by {AVision200@aol.com} How long before we are to this point?
No comprende? Let me type that a little slower for you...
The police state has already started in Bushland. The state of Texas has decided that all teachers will be fingerprinted (http://www.sbec.state.tx.us/SBECOnline/fp/faq_SB9.asp) and their fingerprints will be compared annually to a nationwide criminal database. Any teacher who is not fingerprinted will be terminated within eighty days. Of course, I was scheduled for fingerprinting Monday morning. The one company in the state of Texas given the bid to fingerprint teachers couldn't be bothered to show up Monday, so I was bumped to Tuesday. Tuesday I was bumped to Wednesday because 9 AM is way too early for them to show up (they started taking "papers" at 1:45 PM.) Wednesday I was bumped to Thursday because they were "late" again. Just curious, what other licensed profession is fingerprinted and compared to a national criminal database annually? Doctors? Childcare Providers? Lawyers?
Enter the DHS DNA Sweepstakes now for your chance to win an all expense paid vacation at your regional FEMA Happy Clown Candy Fun Camp. No purchase necessary!
War is peace, ignorance is strength, slavery is freedom.
Power does not corrupt - power attracts the corrupt.
So the TSA cop that started to write me a ticket at Chicago Midway because I paused for 15 seconds at the curb in the drop-off/pick-up zone to wait for my 74 year old father to walk the from the terminal could conceivably result in my DNA being collected?
(Perhaps the cop was only Chicago PD or Illinois State Police, I couldn't tell from a distance.)
It is beyond reason to even think that genetics can predispose someone to crime. Anyone that thinks so has the ignorance of those who think other races are inferior. It may be a small factor, but it is nowhere near as important as their development and current situation. And then I hear dolts that say, "well statistics say that blacks are more likely to commit a crime", but statistics also say that blacks live more impoverished conditions, and I bet you'll find an indisputable correlation between the two. This will be terrible news for anyone who may have the "criminal gene" (the idea is so stupid it's on par with the "likes to watch baseball gene"). He could be a innocent person that is more likely to be accused simply because of his genetic inheritance. Or worse he could be framed. How easy would it be for lazy policemen to "find" the hair of a local "predisposed criminal" to "solve" a murder case (which has been done, minus the predisposed part). Rather than even bother with these expensive programs, we should focus on the other factors that cause crime, such as lack of education.
Help fight spam
The ultimate form of revolution is tax cuts. The more you cut taxes, the more the government will collapse.
This is my sig.
California has been doing this since forever.
The trouble with DNA is that it doesn't say that person was there - only that their DNA was. If DNA was (is?) accepted as proof of someone being at a crime scene then it would be too easy to frame someone by planting a few hairs/whatever... Couple that with some circumstantial evidence/suspicion (maybe an anonymous tip) that plant was the criminal, and there's your "scientific" "proof".
There was a recent case in the US where an attorney admitted letting an innocent man spend most of his life in prison because be wasn't willing to break the attorny-client confidentiality of his client who had admitted to the crime the other man was locked up for. With scumbags like this running the system, we should be very afraid of anything that can be remotely abused.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
The ultimate form of revolution is tax cuts. The more you cut taxes, the more the government will collapse.
Yeah, that's worked really well over in the US for the last 8 years.
Rich.
libguestfs - tools for accessing and modifying virtual machine disk images
Exxon pays more in taxes than the bottom 50% of American taxpayer.
If things don't change for the better in 1(one) year then I'm emigrating to Norway. Who's comin' with me?!
I would argue that the rich get tax cuts, the poor get social support and the middle class gets the shaft.
Quiz: True or False -- On a scale of 1 to 10, what is your middle name?
In Scotland, if you are arrested and subsequently not charged or acquitted, your DNA will be deleted from the database, which seems right and proper. It is in England and Wales that your DNA will be kept by default.
A
Coupled with that often-used cause for arrest, "Driving While Black", the inevitable compromise of this data base should eventually provide wonderful marketing opportunities for companies who market their products primarily to the African American community.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
I think everyone needs to (re)read 1984. And stop letting the government remove all your civil liberties in the name of making YOU safe !
The article said the the legislation would be posted on the Federal Register for 30 day comment. Anyone know where that would be? I am searching now, but I don't think I will find it.
National Security Letters are a "proven law enforcement tool" as well, but that doesn't mean we can trust the government to get it right.
That's simply untrue. The "rich" (*those making over $200,000/year) who make up about 5% of the population pay the vast majority of taxes in this country. You can't cut taxes on the poor when they already don't pay them. The bottom 50% (income bracket) of people in the country pay about 3% of taxes. That's right. 3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_States#Tax_distribution
"If a person is arrested but not convicted, he or she can ask the Justice Department to destroy the sample."
So it is bad, but not that bad.
Unlike fingerprints, once you build up a sizeable DNA database, you can also to a certain extent work out the DNA of people related to the person whose DNA you sampled. (or more accurately, from the DNA, you can establish that the DNA of perpetrator was relative of someone in your database). This "creep" allows you to effectively have a DNA database for the entire population with only a small proportion of records.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
I saw this story on Good Morning America this morning and they phrased things a little bit differently than this article. What is obvious to some but not all readers is that if you are being arrested by federal agents it is for a "federal crime". This has nothing to do with somebody being arrested for stealing a car, identity theft, simple assault etc.
In the real world, the U.S. taxcode is extremely progressive. The rich pay a far greater share of ALL taxes than anyone else.
The data shows the progressive tax structure of the U.S. federal income tax system on individuals that reduces the tax incidence of people with smaller incomes, as they shift the incidence disproportionately to those with higher incomes - the top 0.1% of taxpayers by income pay 17.4% of federal income taxes (earning 9.1% of the income), the top 1% with gross income of $328,049 or more pay 36.9% (earning 19%), the top 5% with gross income of $137,056 or more pay 57.1% (earning 33.4%), and the bottom 50% with gross income of $30,122 or less pay 3.3% (earning 13.4%).[9][10]
From Wikipedia.
It's bullshit to say that taxation in the U.S. is somehow regressive, or that the poor pay for everything.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
In the UK they are trying to get everyones DNA, irrelevant of whether they are arrested or not. And they want to put the details on an ID card too. Identity theft will flourish, innocent people will be jailed...At least we don't have the death penalty.
When all is said and done, nothing changes...
Hardly! I don't see how the equivalent of fingerprinting everyone who is booked--a practice that is perfectly acceptable by the vast majority--could be compared with fingerprinting children who have been profiled as potential criminals.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
Why not just strap a camera on our heads at birth and get it over with? It won't be long before they just collect DNA at birth. Why not...will make things easier for law enforcement and that's what this seems to be all about.
Not all people behave in an equally civil manner. Short of putting up 50 ft. walls around thugly areas such as South Central, L.A., Detroit, and N.E. Philly this is the next best thing. It's the data handling rules that matter, not the data itself.
Cogito Ergo Sum
Thanks for the tip! After all, only thieves steal and when you're caught, off with your hands!
Your next "law and order, save the children, yadda yadda " political candidate.
Heck, just find one of his altar boys. DNA all over.
My blog
Forget about 1984, Fahrenheit 451 and wellcome the newly born NeoFascist States Of Nazimerica....
If hitler was alive he will be rotlf...
(paraphrasing)
If you're in a free society, it's not safe. You can either have safety, or freedom. But you can't have both at the same time.
Give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. But light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
BTW, I was making less than $38,000/yr when Bush got elected. Was I rich? I only ask because asshats like yourself keep claiming that only the rich get a tax cut and I got one.
THAT'S the REAL world. Please, don't let the facts get in the way of your "truth"
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
While on the surface it may appear to be no more onerous than the fingerprinting system in use today, a DNA database would have far greater potential for abuse. What happens if they decide to use the DNA to detect ancestral or genetic heritage? Not to Godwin the thread, but technology like this would have clearly been misused in the not so recent past.
With the recent abuses of the Patriot Act, I don't trust the government not to overstep the stated purpose of this policy either.
More like the middle-class pay for everything. The poor lack the wealth to tax, and the very rich can find ways to reduce their axes in manners which are unavailable to the middle-class. I'd seen an interview on TV who made a point of noting that he'd offered his staff the opportunity to voluntarily compare taxes to see how the scale went, and found that his secretary was being taxed at a final rate (comparing final amount of taxes to gross income) that was three times his own, and that he was doing nothing unusual specifically to lessen his taxes.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Sounds like you're describing the "Fair"Tax.
I think what he may have meant to say is that the poor pay a greater percentage of their money towards taxes and/or don't know how to lower the amount that you end up getting taxed on, stuff like that.
Trust me, if the rich poor and middle class were paying a fair share, they would prevent bogus methods of people with higher incomes from discounting the taxes, as there are more loopholes than swiss cheese for upper class and not so many for lower class.
If I have to spend 5% of my income to get that 5% back additionally as a tax return, (say itemized tax return) what's the benefit? If someone at a higher income level is paying 1% extra for the costs of the itemized tax return (since that cost doesn't scale the same for itemized) to get back 5% of their income, as an easy example, how is that balanced?
Next there will be tatoos for jews and blacks and whites with blond hair and people with redhair ould only be allowed to have one child and people with smart children would be allowed to have as many children as they please and politicians would be allowed to sleep with your first wife............. History repeats itself.
Trespassing on railroad lines to shoot bottles and cans with a BB gun is a federal crime, or so I was told at 13. I don't know if that's true, or if they'd take a swab from a kid. There was a student at a university I taught at who was really bitter about politics in the US. He wrote a short story in which Prez Bush is assassinated. The teacher told campus security, campus security told the Secret Service, and the kid was held incommunicado over the weekend before being released into his parents' custody for "psychiatric evaluation." I bet they'd swab him.
Can we collect the DNA of the current Administration preemptively? It'd save a lot of time later on, and we already know they'll qualify for membership of the DB...
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
Just fucking wow!
How do they define 'detained'
The move towards a near police state in the US is rather alarming.
I, for one, won't set foot in the US any more, and I know I'm not alone. I'm just not willing to subject myself to the absolutely insane level of bullshit that America is subjecting its visitors to. Sadly, the level of xenophobia and isolationist sentiment is just too scary for me.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
This reminds me of the how my high school civics teacher put it:
Let's say I go to the supermarket with a hand gun, demand all the cash from the registers, and shoot several patrons just because I can. So far, all state crimes.
On the way out, I see a postage machine and realize I need stamps, so I shoot it open and remove a single stamp. *Now* I have committed a federal crime.
You, sir, have a strange notion of "vast majority". According to the Congressional Budget Office, the top 5% (for whom the average income is $457,400) of the population account for 41.4% of all tax revenue*. That percentage is a far cry from a "vast majority." Perhaps you meant the top quintile (average income = $214,500) who account for 67.2% of the tax revenue. The effective tax rate for this group is 25.2%.
How much blood do you expect to extract from the lowest quintile (average income = $15,800) anyway? Sure their effective tax rate is only 4.3%, but increasing their tax rate to 25% won't have much impact on the massive deficits to which we've grown addicted.
*Like so many tax critics, you have forgotten that income tax is but one source of tax revenue. Once you account for the additional sources (social insurance, corporate income, and excise taxes), the picture changes considerably. The upper quintile account for 58.5% of income tax revenue, but only 41.4% of all revenue.
The top 5% of earners account for 60% of Income Tax revenue in the US and pay a much higher percentage rate. The 'working poor' mostly pay zero Federal Income Tax.
As for 'tax cuts for the rich', I am hardly rich yet somehow I magically saved quite a bit of money on the last round of cuts. I might be on the bottom rung of 'upper middle class' if you count mine and my wife's income.
It's a very tired meme you are repeating, and very inaccurate.
Fundamental injustices like that make the people ungovernable. Eventually they rebel completely, either all at once in civil war, or just gradually until there is no rule of law over anyone.
Heckuva job, Bushie!
--
make install -not war
but I believe the DHS spokesman Russ Knocke is just a little confused.
I think he meant to say that "law enforcement are a bunch of tools".
Ya that's it.
figures that they stand the greatest benefit from tax reduction.
The rich can only be abused so much before they stop spending, when they stop spending everyone will be hurt.
I am not one of the evil rich but I want to be there one day. It sickens me to see all the people who think its okay to tax people at higher percentages simply because they make more money. These same jealously driven whiners then toss stupid examples like Paris Hilton while standing around with their friends nodding their heads as if that is the answer to the questions of life.
Progressive tax rates are regressive. They are used to buy off the lower class by taking money from the most productive people to the least productive because the second always is more than first the longer the progressive tax system remains. The whole idea was sold on class jealously and is perpetuated by it.
However we can see shining examples of what happens when you tax people and industry too much, they leave. Look to Michigan, parts of PA and CA for great examples where "the evil rich fled" to avoid paying "their fair share". Buzz phrases for people who are more than willing to use other people's money for programs they like but won't spend their own on.
this brings me back to DNA tracking and all the ranting about it. Why do you all act so aghast about them tracking by DNA for criminals but don't care they take a huge portion of your income directly, some indirectly, and spend it on all sorts of new ways to abuse your rights? Why are these same people screaming to have government pay their healtcare - the big lie - government pays for nothing, it is a tool that is used to force redistribution of money. Would you have the guts to ask someone at work who makes more than you to pay your medical? Would you?
Selfish and lazy. To have the audacity to bitch about rights being lost while preaching to take money away from people who earn it
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
They should be taking a lot more. My wife and I together make less than six figures, and OUR effective tax rate is 25.5%. Tell me how that's fair.
That may be true, but there is a different demographic that would generally carry the burden of the load. If you are healthy, single, childless and working; you pay more in taxes and get less back in benefits and tax cuts/tax returns.
Really? My wife and I make combined less than six figures, and my effective tax is 25.5%. Those that have more can afford to pay more. At the end of the day, some people have millions, so another million they won't even notice, but a few thousand dollars can be a big deal to me. So ya, I feel like we are paying for everything, since there's a lot more middle class than upper class and more strain on more people.
I think the ultimate solution is to eliminate almost all of the Federal government though, so we can ALL pay less.
You got a tax cut making 38k a year.. so what? Did you end up with $10 in your paycheck each week? People with higher incomes got to keep more, on everything from paychecks to capital gains.
Already the unique genetic code of roughly one in 250 Canadians is in the data bank. But police say that's not nearly enough.
Toronto police Chief Bill Blair hopes that, as soon as 2011, police will have the power to demand DNA samples from anyone charged â" not just convicted â" of serious crimes.
"DNA doesn't discriminate," said Blair. "It's a revolutionary crime-fighting tool."
Blair is championing a broadened genetic data bank even as police and privacy advocates throughout the Western world spar over who should be forced to surrender their DNA.
Remember that 'working poor' is defined as people who don't qualify for social assistance like welfare or food assistance because they make 'too much' money.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
How are you comparing a corporation's income to a private citizen's income?
Tell us how much an Exxon CEO's income tax is compared to his income, then the same proportion for someone in the "bottom 50%" (less than $30k/yr gross income).
Nonsense. First, as the Republican Party has shown, spending is no longer tied to taxes. You just borrow money.
Second, spending has little correlation with repression. You could make enormous cuts in the budget for social services, scientific research, foreign military adventures, and still direct all remaining spending to oppression.
A dictatorship can be run on the cheap. North Korea's national budget is $30.9 billion, at 23.3 million people that's about $1,330 per person. The U.S. federal budget of $2.90 trillion, with 301 million people, is $9,634 per person. (There are also state and local taxes in the U.S., and some local spending in North Korea, but I think not enough to change the comparison here.)
Third, "tax cuts" are an action taken by the state, and so cannot be in revolution against it.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Some states let you seal or destroy your arrest records including fingerprints if you are exonerated, charges are not brought within a certain period of time, or they are dropped.
Some of those states make you wait a few years which can make it difficult to get a job if someone checks your background for arrests and blackballs you for it.
Personally, I see DNA as equivalent to fingerprints: If the feds fingerprint everyone, then taking DNA and keeping only what amounts to a hash isn't much more intrusive. In both cases, they should destroy it when you are cleared or if they don't prosecute in a reasonable length of time, and in no case should they keep the raw DNA sample, there is just too much private medical data contained in it.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
My mom actually did. Turns out, it was the best thing she did. The teacher's union is a useless piece of shit. Teachers get shit pay, shit jobs, and their union supports a left-wing agenda instead of the teachers.
I think it's very funny that you cut out the portion of the quote where he defines rich as "over $200,000" and then go on to show that that's exactly right. Of course, he was wrong that only 5% make over $200,000, but instead of just pointing that out you go get all high and mighty.
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
Look, once you have the ability to use DNA fingerprinting, it's more or less inevitable that authoritarian groups will mount a long-term plan to use it. And for every group like the Innocence Project which is using it to exonerate people, there's five groups that go out after a political protest with mops and buckets to grab DNA samples of people who were there to run through the Federal Crime Database.
I'm not *for* this, I'm simply noting that once the science is there, trying to stop it being used in obvious ways which have some tangible social benefits (rape becomes very, very much harder to get away with) is very hard, even if the social costs (political protests become hard to get away with too) are also very real.
I have a partial solution to this problem.
http://guptaoption.com/4.SIAB-ISA.php
It's a proposal - done on a DoD grant - for using strong cryptography and division of powers to separate the biometric database from the identity database, so that all the metadata about a DNA sample - name, for example - is encrypted in a way which requires court orders to retrieve and - *critically* - stored by a separate agency so that it requires three separate groups to work together to bind a name to a DNA sample.
* the DNA database must run the sample
* the Court must agree to decrypt the name information when it is presented
* the Identity database must agree to provide the encrypted data to the court
This approach gives excellent security to the individual, and acknowledges the simple reality that we can't make DNA analysis and other biometric technologies go away. We have to use other technologies to counterbalance them (strong crypto) rather than hoping to turn back the clock.
Hexayurt - open source refugee shelter,
"AP is reporting that the US will soon be collecting the DNA of anyone who is arrested by federal law enforcement agency and any foreigner who is detained, whether or not charges are eventually brought. This begins to bring the US in like with the UK which, as discussed before on slashdot, is trying to collect DNA of 'potential criminals' as young as five. DHS spokesman Russ Knocke stated that "DNA is a proven law-enforcement tool."" I wonder what happens if a 5 year old refuses, they gonna beat or arrest or even taze him? Sorry but if I ever become a parent, I will be like John O Connor, against Big Brother (Terminator)
When expecting to find intelligence in a person, do not look at their age but instead look at their IQ and maturity firs
The top 5% of earners (what I call rich) pay 99% of government expenses.
The rich are hardly getting off. In fact, they are basically keeping the government afloat, and if the top 5% suddenly decided to leave the country, the U.S. Congress would fold-up due to a 99% reduction in revenue.
The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
*You* didn't get enough of a tax cut, while people who are earning way more than you got too much of one.
the guy was a chimera, meaning he is the product of the rare fusion of two early embryos in the womb. so different organ systems in his body have different genetics. they tested the crime scene, and found out genetically that the main suspect was the brother of the actual perp. they rounded up the guy's brothers. none of them matched. the chimera guy was counting on all of this genetic confusion
i for one welcome our new chimera crimelords
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
As a Canadian living close to the border, I'm feeling less and less welcome, and much less likely to pop over to the US to spend my dollars shopping or sight-seeing, given the growing risk that I'll be detained, finger printed, DNA stolen, laptop hard-drive taken or copied, and given a terrorist risk rating.
Really, "welcome" to the land of the free.
Here's hoping the coming election brings SOME kind of change.
In the real world, in 2006 the top 1% of income earners made 18% of the income yet paid 25% of the federal taxes, the top 5% made 33% and paid 43% and the top 10% made 44% and paid 55%. It looks to me like 10% of the population paid more than the other 90%, but don't let facts get in the way of your populist propaganda.
The heck with criminals...where do I sign up if I want to submitt my DNA to DHS?
Poor people pay a greater percentage of their total income in taxes than rich people do. Rich people get more of their income from capitol gains that are taxed at a lower rate than income taxes. Also, poor people are disproportionately affected by sales taxes, since they spend a greater percentage of their income.
Your numbers only account for income taxes paid. Your numbers don't tell us anything about the actual tax rate paid by individuals. Using these numbers to claim that the US tax system is not regressive is completely disingenuous. Look at the next paragraph in the wikipedia article you quoted:
You're not telling the whole story here, and you know it. Shame on you.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
An old analogy:
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
"Since you are all such good customers", he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
More Twoson than Cupertino
On one hand, especially in Texas where I live, a *LOT* of innocent people are being freed because of the re-examination or the introduction of DNA evidence. I enjoy watching the justice system at work when it's actually working correctly.
On the other hand, there's a virtual guarantee that this will be abused somehow. National Security Letters and all sorts of new things were, in my opinion, designed to be abused. I'm not creative enough to guess how DNA information might be abused at the moment, but I'm sure this forum is ripe with potential abuse scenarios.
Wait.
You sir, are absofuckinglutely correct. Have a wife & kids, live in San Francisco, but only make $100k? You won't die of hunger, but you sure as hell aren't rich either (despite the "high" salary).
Please come down to the station to discuss it. And bring any possessions you will need for relocation.
The rumor that this gene also coincides with a gene that regulates independent thought is not true. Do not believe this rumor. Only criminals repeat rumors.
You have 28 minutes to comply.
technical writing / development
Just because you can barely afford the payments for your Ferrari and 500k square foot house, not to mention the monthly trips down to the caribbean for hookers and blow doesn't mean that you aren't rich.
There was a similar discussion on another board I frequent. Part of the difficulty in defining 'Rich' is that many try to use income to define it, but in reality it's more a statement of wealth. For example, a sole proprietor of a business could have a gross annual income in the millions, yet not be 'rich' because 99% of that is immedietly spent as business expenses.
Still, one guy made a general rule of thumb that I liked:
Poor - Income at or below basic expenses; IE unable to save
Middle Class - Has the ability to save money/live better.
Rich - Independent of work; capable of living indefinitly off of assets.
I don't read AC A human right
When you figure in user fees, transaction fees (have you seen what it costs to get a passport or file a government application?) and the extra cost to you because you've had to repair your car and lost traveling time thanks to the cuts in spending for infrastructure and the road you take to work is crumbling, along with the indirect costs that you bear because the economy is tanking thanks to the war, oil prices and a money policy designed to enrich the President's pals, you have most likely experienced a net loss.
Taxes are more than just the deductions from your puny pay check.
And I wouldn't even mind so much if there was any expectation that the current administration was being even a little bit responsible with the revenue. But you can bet they're falling all over themselves to give tax rebates, "incentives" and givebacks to the corporations, the Chinese and other "sovereign investment funds".
You are welcome on my lawn.
I'd like to know so I can invest in their stock.
the us government can't defficit spend much longer
Yeah, nobody wants to be rich because they wouldn't be able to afford the taxes. Wait a minute...
"The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
And the figure that Exxon supposedly pays in taxes never seems to include the money they get back in "incentives" for drilling for the oil that they then sell to us at inflated prices.
What we have these days in the US is socialism for the richest Americans. When Morgan Chase was able to buy Bear Stearns with the 29 billion that the government gave them, it was one of the biggest handouts in US history.
And last week the Fed announced plans to loan money to banks (which include brokerages that are not banks) at 2.5 percent, and then turn around and allow those banks to loan OUR money back to us at 30 percent credit card rates, that sure sounds like a handout to me.
George Bush has presided over the greatest transfer of wealth in our history: from the working class to the rich.
You are welcome on my lawn.
These figures are 'capable of' determinations. You can still be rich and bleeding money out like a firehose if you have no fiscal discipline(like most big lottery winners). You might still be saving money and be poor through extraordinary measures.
Somebody who's 'Rich' in the midwest may be poor in NYC.
I don't read AC A human right
Some years ago I donated blood at the Red Cross. I had to sign a release form that gave them the right to do ANY thing they wanted to with it. Why would anyone doubt that all blood donors genetic information are in government accessible databases?
Camping on quad since 1996.
How my you pay in taxes is one part of the equation. How much you receive in benfits is another. Consider this parable:
A professor explained tax cuts to students thus: suppose that every day 10 men drink beer and the bill is $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay tax, it would go like this: the poorest four men would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1, the sixth $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18 and the richest man $59.
So that's what they did. They were happy until one day the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your beer by $20." Their drinks now cost just $80.
They still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay tax, so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink free.
But how would the other six divide the $20 windfall fairly? $20 divided by six is $3,33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, the fifth and sixth men would be paid to drink. So the bar owner suggested reducing each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he worked out what each should pay.
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings). The seventh paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings). The eighth paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Outside the bar the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man: "But he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," said the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got 10 times more than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up, so the nine drank without him. But then they discovered they didn't have enough for even half the bill!
That is how the system works. People who pay the most taxes benefit most from a reduction. Attack them for being wealthy and they might not show up.
2 bad things could happen off the top of my head:
1) A mastermind collects people's DNAs and frames them because our society has accustomed DNA with guilt 100%
2) Big Brother identifies genes of a criminal, and genetically engineers babies so they don't have the "criminal gene".
God spoke to me.
No, but if there had been any significant tax cuts, it might have... Of course, the income tax does not exist in a vacuum. We live in a country where if the federal government doesn't get the money it wants from taxes, it can 'borrow' money any time it wants, creating money from nothing and devaluing our currency.
Welcome to the machine. Is the DHS operating on the legal precedent that "where there is smoke, there is fire"? Where are all you Republicans-stand-for-less-government-intrusion-into-people's-live idiot Bushites now? Still think you have nothing to hide? Still think only the guilty get arrested?
Fiat Homos et Pereat Theos
Corporate taxation is always voluntary. Any company that doesn't like its taxation level can simply disolve as a standard corporation and become any of a number of pass through entites that don't pay corporate taxes but pass all taxes on to the people who were once their shareholders.
For a huge company like Exxon, with many, many foreign investors, corporate investors, etc, this would admittedly take about three to five years to fully transition, as it couldn't just remain monolithic and declare itself a single S-Corp or LLC . There would have to be a number of staged pass through entities which separated stockholders ineligible to join S-corps from ones who were, for example, until all stockholders ended up members of an S-Corp, partnership, LLC, or even a sole propritorship that had contracts with other parts as needed. But, the corporation itself would avoid more and more taxes every year of the transition.
So why not? Corporate immunity. Whatever taxes Exxon pays, it thinks are worth it to reduce its shareholder's liability for 'incidents' such as the Exxon Valdez. If those taxes were ever too high, as determined solely in Exxon's own opinion, they could pick from several of the many alternatives and transition.
This doesn't stop corporations from complaining that their voluntary taxes are too high just like an individuals non-voluntary ones.
Who is John Cabal?
So instead they decided to take a new route.
All ten men paid equally 10% of the bill.
The poorest 5 couldn't afford it, so they didn't drink.
6 and 7 could afford to drink a little.
8, 9, and 10 Could drink the most.
Then they realized that the analogy didn't work at all- substitute drinks with roads, police, firemen, public services. Either they happen or they don't.
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
Remember that 'working poor' is defined as people who don't qualify for social assistance like welfare or food assistance because they make 'too much' money.
Personally, I'd define 'working poor' as somebody who's still on assistance despite still working. They're the people I actually have some sympathy for.
Having seen people on assistance, they're often not that bad off. I sigh when I see them driving a newer car than mine and watch a bigger, newer TV.
I don't read AC A human right
OJ is proof that DNA evidence doesn't mean you will be given a fair and just trial, and DNA may not be used to convict and incarcerate the guilty. He's a thieving sociopath who killed people, yet even with DNA they did not convict.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
and very naive. You're implying that the government will only use the DNA it collects and stores for current-technology DNA profiles -- restriction enzymes and gels and the like. This is very naive and ignores the fact that technology is always progressing and before long it will be relatively easy to sequence a person's individual genome. Furthermore, the technology does exist now -- if they want it badly enough. It only needs to get cheaper and easier (and it will) before sequencing becomes common. If we allow the government to start down this path and do not stop it, we will get there.
For all the arguments that the world should be transparent and that information should be free.... where are the advocates for it in this scenario?
Innocent until proven guilty. DNA doesn't change that.
Anti-discrimination laws... DNA doesn't change that.
Potential to find out if you are pre-disposed towards certain preventable diseases? DNA does change that.
I say DNA should be taken at birth AND by law it should be analyzed and compared against the population. Also by law your DNA should not be allowed as a determining factor in any kind of discrimination. DNA should be taken again at puberty and at age of majority and then again each time you have to renew your ID in person (new picture every 8 years, new DNA sample).
DNA could be used as biometric ID when provided in person in a controlled environment and should be required to sign a long term contract of any sort. However it should be used like a password... blind comparison by the general public. A sample is taken then matched against the database... no details need be disclosed in general use.
No more major identity theft... no more getting a state ID based on a forged Birth Certificate and stolen SS card.
No more cuckolded husbands or boyfriends paying child support for another man's child.
No more bad credit due to ID theft or clerical mistakes.
No more hiring of a person only to find out that they have a history of litigating nuisance law suits fishing for settlement money.
No more mistaken rape charges, murder charges, etc.
As long as the data, DNA in this case is available to you as well as the government... I don't see any problem. Transparent data is neutral.
Privacy laws need to be updated to be about transparency of data rather than protecting the data from the government. Private citizens should have the exact same access to data collected about them that the government has. They need to be updated to have very strict language regarding abuse of access to said information so that low level gov workers who might have access will never use it except in a lawful and on a necessary basis.
The problem with fighting this sort of eventual legislation is that DNA is already being collected and will in the future be collected more and more whether for state purposes or medical purposes or commercial purposes. It (DNA) is way too useful for a variety of reasons to not be collected.... and we have no laws in place to guarantee that this information about you will not be abused.
If your DNA was a part of your medical record THEN it could be protected by existing laws regarding use of that information. If it was collected at birth or as a part of a standard physical then law enforcement would have to get a court order for the information much like finding out your blood type.
In fact HIPPA already covers this as far as providing evidence to law enforcement after an accident or as part of an investigation.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
So donate to the government. Or to a charity.
that would be true if the money was stable. but you forget the rich have assets that inflate along with the currency. the poor do not.
the stealth tax of inflation tips the balance back the other way.
Those reports (revenue) only show one side of the story. They are only based on gross income but in this century that doesn't mean much anymore for how much one gets to put in pocket. Start to add in health care, child support, gas, import-export taxes, insurance, and etc and you get the disposable income. You'll probably find that the poor has a larger signal-to-noise gap between gross and disposable income than the rich typically have to deal about. It is why the poor stay poor and not because they want to stay poor. Funny, you'll probably see that gap of money going from the poor to the rich, which in turn gets further taxes on it as income to the rich, then goes to government revenue.
Outside the U.S., the government has taken up that signal-to-noise ratio and made it a bit more fair across the board. Those ideas typically get squashed under socialistic ideas and the typical nose-up perk by those that don't dare to look outside U.S. tradition.
In light of recent technological advancements, it seems that even the most naive among us are waking up to the realization of how deterministic the human machine and mind is.
Now, the question here is how do we progress in such an age? It's clear that government now has the power and resources to conduct investigations into our very pre-programmed natures on a massive scale. It is undeniable that, should a crime-preventing program such as this be put into place, that substantial research will be performed in later generations into the criminal dispositions of specific genetic markers. While I do appreciate the scientific endeavor, how do we as citizens prevent our society from denying the rights of the genetically "disadvantaged" through either procreative restriction or genetic engineering?
My personal belief is that we should shift the paradigm in government to focus on the "nurture," or lack thereof, in American society. Not the nature of its citizens! We cannot bitch about the criminal element while the educational and health systems are still crumbling, and so many lead such miserable lives. Before you berate me for having this cliche response to the existence of crime, consider that I am indeed including most of the middle class who have to put up with the hardships of standing in the shadow of the economic and power elite.
I suppose the single aspect of this story that has kept me calm and hopeful is that my genetic blueprint does not entirely predict my mental dispositions. While a scientificly-inclined government could easily find a disposition to bipolarism, they can not predict the sum total of my behaviors without witnessing themselves all that I have experienced. I for one hope that they do not begin full neural scans once that technology eventually comes around. Then we as citizens will have lost the last breath of individuality.
There was a similar discussion on another board I frequent. Part of the difficulty in defining 'Rich' is that many try to use income to define it, but in reality it's more a statement of wealth. For example, a sole proprietor of a business could have a gross annual income in the millions, yet not be 'rich' because 99% of that is immedietly spent as business expenses.
Still, one guy made a general rule of thumb that I liked:
Poor - Income at or below basic expenses; IE unable to save
Middle Class - Has the ability to save money/live better.
Rich - Independent of work; capable of living indefinitly off of assets. I agree that "Rich" is relative, which is why I get pissed off when someone says that tax cuts only benefit the rich and only the rich get tax cuts. I live check to check with absolutely no money left over. Trust me, I will benefit more from a tax cut than Bill Gates. Granted, he may get a few million more that I do, but what's a few million to a billionaire? Now, an extra $100 a month for me means that I can get that big credit card paid off four years sooner and/or be ready for when an "emergency", like my car breaking down happens! That is HUGE to me.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
My apologies that you found my post "high and mighty." However, it turns out that the minimum income needed to be in the top 5% is only ~$125K. If we define rich as income >= $200K, then the rich account for ~2% of the US population. (I don't have the exact percentage at my fingertips, but the cutoff for the top 1% is ~$300K.) I cut out the dollar definition because it did not jive with the top 5% definition, which was the definition I wanted to reply to. I then introduced the average income so that I could compare the top 5% to the bottom 20%. (These figures drawn from 2005 data, as published in Dec. 2007 by the CBO.)
Small tax cuts sometimes go to the "wealthy" (By which I mean, the professionals, as opposed to the CEOs), but these are the people who really get shafted by paying very, very high taxes, yet they don't have enough money to pay for really good tax evasion, which is what the rich (and major corporations) do. Honestly, it's some of the doctors and lawyers who are shafted the hardest by our tax codes. Now, it's more important not to shaft the people who can barely afford to eat, but that doesn't make it right to shaft the professionals.
Those numbers are for income tax only. Forgetting or omitting social security and medicare taxes in a discussion about tax regression makes your argument wildly inaccurate. That 15.3% of income isn't regressive, and is capped at 100,000. That money, at least in the case of social security, goes right back into general funds and is usually spent or borrowed against immediately, any arguments about it being a trust fund aren't really valid.
TaliFuckWit :"Mighty Binman , the end game begins.The Americans have started collecting DNA , just as you said they would." :"Excellent ( strokes white camel ), soon we will have our genetic profile and can launch our selective earth cleanser."
Mighty Binman
as a guy making 37k a year - capital gain tax cuts are great - like if i had to sell my house for example. or how about a death tax like we have in Ohio or the inheritance tax... why should the middle / lower class bust their asses their whole lives so some asshole politician in their home state and in D.C. get to steal from your surviving family. a lot of others in my income range invest what little money they can to get ahead. why should be again penalized to support the thugs of both parties. use you head - in a capitalist society such as ours, not only ubr rich have stock, iras, or 401ks, etc.
DHS spokesman Russ Knocke stated that "DNA is a proven law-enforcement tool."
Its also true that:
"Security cameras are a proven law-enforcement tool"
Perhaps DHS spokesman Russ Knocke would be ok with surveillance cameras being installed in his home. I mean, hey, its a proven law enforcement tool, so he should be happy to submit to it.
You've seen those people with your own two eyes? I'm pretty sure the idea of a 'welfare queen' is at best a gross exaggeration and at worst an urban legend.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
All DRIVERS are fingerprinted in Texas.
I don't think it is true that poor people pay a greater percentage in taxes than the rich. The lowest quintile has an effective tax rate of roughly 4% (down from 8% in 1979): Social insurance 8.3% + Corporate income 0.4% + Excise 2.1% + Income -6.5% = 4.3%.
The highest quintile has an effective tax rate of roughly 25% (down slightly from 27.5% in 1979).
Please do not construe this to suggest that I think we should increase the tax rate for the poor. I'm well into that top quintile, and I'm okay paying a much larger percentage than someone making $15K. I just felt the need to inject numbers from the CBO.
Also, these numbers do not include sales or property taxes because the federal government doesn't collect those. But, the gap between 4 and 25 is hard to close with these revenue sources.
maybe they ought to get minimum wage + commissions. Instead they get multimillion dollar pay packages, plus bonuses, plus the infamous golden parachute once they've leeched enough value out of a company. Give 'em minimum wage and commissions on their "sales," and maybe they could approach being worth what they're paid.
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
... until the day they start actively punishing the genetically disabled for reproducing either by litigation or making it a criminal act to "knowingly transfer" a poor genetic condition to a child. Now, instead of receiving medical assistance and supplemental income to raise such a child, they could simply sue you for putting unnecessary strain on the taxpayers and wait out the transition from poverty to death to solve the problem at a lower overall cost.
And if you think that could never happen in this country, guess again. We're already headed that direction with proper prescription medications becoming harder to obtain in through the government in favor of generic "equivalents" (and by equivalent, I mean dangerously inferior chemical abominations) of such poor quality that the side effects from using them are almost worse than the effects of not taking the medications at all. It's almost like they've got this planned out specifically so those of us needing these medications will die as soon as possible without it technically being "mass-murder".
8==8 Bones 8==8
Actually, yes, I have.
You tend to see stuff when your mom works for a business that handles subsidized housing.
Much of the difference between a poor person and a middle class person isn't necessarily their income. It's how they handle it.
Me, I'm shooting for early retirement, I'm socking relatively massive amounts of funds into investments. Meanwhile Joe Poor Guy is visiting the rent-to-own place for a 50" HDTV, is paying double the sticker price over one at walmart, not to mention effective interest over even that when he goes with the weekly or monthly payments. He got a newer used car from one of those 'no credit check' places. All this while I'm driving an older car and use an older TV.
He's living better now because he's not keeping any safety margin, while I am. I'll eventually come out on top, but the system isn't designed to train people to live within their means, nor does it encourage it in many ways. Worst case, he declares bankruptcy and can't get any credit cards for a while. Me, I get to pay more taxes.
I don't read AC A human right
But when you take off the minimum expediture from the salary (because we can't live off the land any more: it's all owned now), the amount of tax taken off from the poor is MUCH higher (it's taken off before you spend it, not after).
If the top 5% have 50% of the money but pay 41% of the taxes, they are getting away with it.
Wrong. The moral of the parable is "Don't depend on someone else to pay your bar tab.", or There is no such thing as a free beer. TINSTAAFB.
The LOSS of the 10th man should not affect the other 9.
And that my friends, is whats wrong with the system. Congress and the Pres have spent more than we have. Their apprarent answer is to make more poor people to make up the difference.
They Live, We Sleep
I was blown away by the Bear Sterns buyout also.
They basically were given a TON of people's REAL ESTATE for less than (for example) YouTube cost Google... and YouTube is barely tangible.
Real estate is turning into the new airline industry.
Where do I sign up to be on their team?
Move all sig!
First, the "top 5% paying over half" quote has already been debunked above, so stop spreading it please.
Second, social security and medicare taxes total around 15% of income, until you earn more than 95,000 a year, then they go down, not up. Social Security goes all the way to zero on the additional income, and a very wealthy individual, even one that is describable as employed, may have social security taxes equal to something like 0.03% of his income. Just try calculating Warren Buffet's social security tax % some time.
Since the government borrows out of the Social Security fund to cover general fund debts it's certainly fair to count it.
Sales taxes vary from state to state, but go as high as 10% some places. Sales taxes on large single purchases are generally reduced (for example, my state stops charging local taxes after the first $3200 of a single large item, and takes only the statewide rate. So again, sales taxes usually go down (at least somewhat) for the wealthy.
Even for the income tax, actual rate payed counts for a whole lot more than the raw bracket. While the overall tax rate climbs fairly consistently with income, there are eddies, at least for anyone still making little enough to benefit from schedule "A". That extends all the way into the top quintile.
There are several 'credits' that the government has extended to extremely low income portions of the populace, and these in theory reduce projected tax rates from those people, but are in practice almost never significant. These numbers get widely (miss)quoted in some people's economic distribution tables and so are worth mentioning. I'm seeing some of those 'missunderestimations' in the thread above.
The 50% rate saver's credit lets people who are typically making 10,000 dollars less than the local poverty rate get a very nice deduction for starting a 401K at work, but of course most poor people don't have a job with a 401K available, nor can they throw 1,000 to 3,000 into an IRA. (Yes, some people live in areas where you literally can't start an IRA with any of the local banks without at least 3,000 initial, and some investment firms start at 5K.).
If you are really poor, and are willing to set up and manage your account in a distant location from a public library computer, and can save that first 1,000 in a conventional savings account over a couple of years while inflation is eating it at a faster rate than it grows from interest, and trust congress to extend the credit every year until you can actually buy in, then you too can take advantage of the 50% saver's credit.
The low capital gains tax (0% for really low income people), has similarly not induced them to put much into stock ownership.
Some tax advocacy groups have published adjusted figures that assume even the poorest people own stock with at least 25% of the frequency of the wealthy, or that conversely don't treat capital gains at all and assume that even the super rich are actually paying all tax at rates based on their salaries.
Third, government is all about making everyone think someone else will pay more of the costs while taking too much from everybody. Of course the middle class isn't paying for 'everything'. Everybody is paying more than their fair share simultanionsly. Inflation itself is a tax!
Who is John Cabal?
If that's true, then we could cut taxes on the poor to 0% and make the lost revenue up by raising taxes on the "rich" by less than a percent.
The cake is a pie
When you the FICA tax, the effective overall tax rate actually goes down at around $200k.
The cake is a pie
If it's taxes you're looking to avoid, and you haven't already, consider contributing to a traditional IRA. The contributions can be deducted come April.
And it's not the system 'training' anyone, it's the fact that it's nearly impossible for many people to live within their means in a lot of cases due to companies not paying living wages and making sure the poor STAY poor. (And unhealthy, since you can't get affordable health insurance unless your employer provides coverage, which they're under no obligation to do.) I agree that you can make smarter choices with your money, but if your choices are having a 'safety margin' and eating, well, you'll probably choose to eat.
It's a vicious circle as far as credit goes; if you have money, you can borrow money, but if you don't, you're subject to predatory lending practices like those employed at 'no credit check' car lots and check cashing businesses. The TV isn't the problem there, it's the fact that you need a car. Where you and I could probably borrow at around 7% for that two-year-old used car, the guy with no money has to pay 20% interest or more in a lot of cases.
It always seems like the financial system charges more to the people who can least afford it. You can't get a checking account if you don't make enough money, so you lose a chunk of your paycheck to a place that WILL cash it for you. You get charged service fees on your checking account if you don't have enough money in it. The whole setup is regressive. If you resent people getting assistance from the system whose taxes you fund, then IMHO the right thing to do is to help people to make a living wage either through free job training or pressure on companies to pay people what they're worth and not what they can get away with.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
The social security tax only applies to income under $100k. That's hugely regressive and one reason a person making over $200k actually pays a lower percentage in tax than someone making just under $200k.
The cake is a pie
If you read his comment a little more closely, he said nothing about them refusing income or anything, he mentioned them LEAVING THE COUNTRY. IE packing their bags, renouncing their citizenship and moving to someplace willing to take a lesser tax bite.
Arguably the rich are the ones most capable of doing something like this. It's even like a corporation, it can 'incorporate' in some location with favorable laws in place while leaving operations where they are. A legal fiction, if you will.
In times and areas of high taxes, historically the rich have simply shifted efforts from making money(ultimately good for the economy) to hiding/sheltering it(not so good for the economy).
Let the rich keep their money. What we really need is government that practices fiscal discipline.
I don't read AC A human right
Could this be copyright infringement? They are taking a copy of your DNA without your permission...
My employer. Exxon buys software, I make software... In the end, only the government comes out ahead.
You conclude correctly: those public services have to happen. It's anarchy otherwise. The poor cannot be expected to pay for them because they're poor, ultimately those that can afford to pay more do pay more.
When consumption of public services go down (say, government cuts some of those programs in that book Matthew Lesko keeps throwing around on TV about how to bilk government cash), the reduction of costs are going to be distributed in proportion to how they were taken. So the rich, the ones who paid the most, get the most back. Meanwhile everyone looks at their bit returned (which obviously would be nothing if they paid nothing in to the system) and gets all pissed off that the rich got such a huge break when they're already rich.
I find it amusing an observation on progressive taxes and human nature gets marked "troll" while a completely inaccurate post about the poor having to pay the rich's tax cuts gets "insightful".
More Twoson than Cupertino
In the distant future... When aliens come on the charred remains of earth, they salvage the digital remains of the human civilization.
Alien cultural scientists studies the record and analysed the DNA data recorded. They evaluated whether the species should be resuscitated thru cloning.
Unfortunately, this was finally rejected because they found that overwhelming number of the recorded DNA was found to contain anti-social genes and concluded that the humans were fundamentally flawed in that they were anti-social and when the society hit critical mass, they self-destructed
While, on the surface, it looks like the government is once again throwing all kinds of money at big business at the expense of the average American, if you look deeper, you'll see that this really isn't the case. The actions by the Fed and Treasury have really helped us dodge a bullet. The fallout from this whole credit crisis and the pain felt by average Americans is far less than it would have otherwise been.
Warren Buffett would disagree with you.
Replicating the DNA so it can be planted as evidence.
No hour on a horse is ever wasted. Winston Churchill
It's slashdot- I get modded into oblivion on a regular basis for reasons unknown.
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
That the means of genetically finger-printing are not entirely beyond the means of the concerned public? We often like to think that government officials are more virtuous or more protected than the rest of us, but they're not. Somewhere, somehow, they must leave DNA residue behind, be it at a diner or fundraiser or prostitute's bed.
If we citizens resolve to track and catalogue them the way they do us, I think that we'd all quickly discover that the meme of holier-than-thou, upon which a policy like this rests, is a double-edged sword.
Yes, the government has ostensibly more money than we average citizens do. But the gap is not so enormous that it cannot be overcome. If we, as citizens of democracies, undertake the same level of vigilence toward our leaders that they mandate over us, then I believe we shall quickly find that the balance tips in our favor.
But more than our come-uppance, it is our duty to control those who supposedly work for us. Let's, as citizens, assert our employer's right to correct and discipline our employees in the government.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
In some states in the USA execution is also a proven crime prevention tool.
Maybe DHS just should get all arrested people executed. It saves even all the court charges.
Police states have been using this proven method for thousands of years, it's much faster, cheaper and better than the painful, long process of proving guilt in court.
So what happens if you refuse to give a sample. Can that be used as evidence against you - can you be pinned down and have the DNA sucked out of you ?
DNA seems to be the final argument settler. The thing that no defense can be mounted against - your DNA at the scene - guilty ! It's going to take a few cases being overturned to lose that gloss and limit it's use in evidence.
It seems to me that it's only a matter of time before governments have all the DNA they need, as someone pointed out. They don't need it from all of us, just enough to see who's related to whom.
So perhaps what's needed is not so much railing against the collection of DNA, but more imposition of rules to govern how that information can be used and collected and stored.
Nullius in verba
Two points: Your "not a bailout" arguments seem to center around the fact that the Fed did nothing to avoid the destruction of Bear Stearns as an entity and the fact that a lot of their employees lost their jobs in the transition... that doesn't change the fact that the government stepped in and provided a huge pile of cash to finance a private deal, which pretty much sounds like a bailout to me.
Also, perhaps things would have been touch and go for a while if the government let Bear Stearns collapse ungracefully instead of gracefully, if the government wasn't pumping huge sums of cash into the industry that it may never see again. So? All the government is teaching the financial industry is "feel free to take risky positions, we'll come bail you out by taking on your riskiest investments and lending you money at killer rates". In the long run, it is far more important that banks learn to only take positions that they have properly evaluated and that they can survive. If a dumb bank has to collapse every now and then, so be it.
The bottom 48% of wage earners pay no federal income tax (SS and medicare is another argument, but if you want to argue for their demise you won't hear any complaints from me). In fact, many of those receive "Earned Income Tax Credit." In other words, even if they didn't pay into the system, they still get rebates. Yes, it's income redistribution, for good or ill, that's what it is.
Since I'm no the subject, after the Bush tax cuts, more people on the low end of the scale were paying no taxes at all, the tax burden shifted UP, not down.
Since 2000, the tax burden of the bottom 40% of income earners dropped from 0% to NEGATIVE 4%. Conversely, the burden on the top 20% went UP to 85% from 81%.
I'm sick and tired of people claiming the tax cuts were for the rich; if the rich benefited the most it's because they were paying the most, but everyone got a piece of the pie. Moreover, our tax system is still highly progressive... the tax cuts actually made it MORE progressive (accounting for increasing the percentage of the tax burden for the wealthy and lowering it for the poor). If you still think it's not "fair," then I'd like to see some alternative that you think wouldn't destroy the economy beyond it's already dead in the water behavior.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
I think the 4th and 5th Amendments have a problem with this.
Not that the constitutionality of their actions has ever bothered this administration.
When someone says that the poor pay for everything, they are talking about more than just money. The main ingredient they are talking about is blood, sweat, and tears. In other words they pay for everything by working the longest, hardest, grueling hours. And if they don't work, then they are living a life of pure destitution being addicted to whatever it is they're addicted too. Any way you slice it, they do it all. They are the mignons that hold up your middle class, which hold up your upper class. Without them, there is chaos. I can tell that you have it infinitely better than them by the way you talk, and the only real problem I see here is that your too rich to realize their perspective.
So what's the perfect tax rate, then?
Everyone got a tax break, even the ones paying NOTHING. The bottom 40% of income earners went from 0% of the total tax burden in 2000 to NEGATIVE 4% via Earned Income Tax Credits in 2004. That's right - they got REFUNDS even though they didn't pay any taxes!
And, yet, here we are - with people still whining about the tax cuts only being for the wealthy when the tax burden shifted UP, not down.
So what's a satisfactory rate for you? How much are you willing to tax people? Have you ever played SIM City and taxed people at 20% and saw what happens? I realize it's only a game, but now imagine what happens at 35%. Is 35% not enough for you? How much of a persons earnings should the government be allowed to take?
Stupid sexy Flanders.
So while I did not get the big tax cut that the fat-cats got (in terms of dollars), I did get a pay raise and forwarded my career. With that new money, I bought a house, which means all the construction workers who built that house got paid to build it. The community I live in now gets my property taxes. They used that money to build two new schools which means more people working and paying more taxes.
Also, with that pay raise, I'm now paying more in taxes than I was when I was making 38k, meaning that the government is making more money from me than they were before the tax cuts. Same with everyone else here. Same with the construction workers. Same with the teachers and janitors at the new schools.
Are you starting to see how the economy works now? That tax cut for the rich means I make more money. Same with everyone around me, including the government itself. Funny how that works.
It's called Macro-economics. May I suggest you educate yourself before you make yourself look ignorant again.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
The more you cut taxes, the more the government will collapse.
Or they just print more money.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
The solution here is to not allow the psuedo-privatization of oil. There is no room for profit here because everyone is losing. Having a for profit oil industry doesn't fall in line with our ideology of democracy because it only allows a very very few individuals to overwhelmingly succeed. The outcome of the for-profit oil industry is an imbalance of power, and so not having a for profit oil industry means having a balance of power.
I agree with the gist of your argument, but let's keep in mind that the Fed didn't just 'give' Chase $29b.
It was a loan, and Chase will have to enter payments to Uncle Sam.
The government spends tons of money in really stupid ways, but I don't see a $29b loan to be a 'stupid way,' provided it prevented further financial meltdown.
This $600 stimulus package, however IS a dumb waste of money. Give my family $1200 in May so you can come at me in April for $1400. That money comes from somewhere...
Message contains 1 attachment: spam.gif
I've heard that sort of stuff as well. Asian peoples tend far more towards communal living('What's best for the community'), vs Western European types - who favor the individual far more.
I'd imagine that most people would rather be restricted yet fed rather than free but hungry.
Call it what you will, but in western/european society it's often the opposite. Probably has to do with a cultural heritage where being restricted also tended towards being hungry.
IE the local conditions were such that, on average you were more likely to be restricted and hungrey or free and fed. So it seems a false premise to us.
I don't read AC A human right
High Incomes != Rich
Most sociologists will tell you that the terms rich and poor are loose terms and largely relative. Take a $30k earner in the inner-city US and put them in some parts of Southeast Asia and they would be a high income earner.
Likewise, some recent medical doctors may graduate to receive a very high income. If they are up to their eyeballs in student loans, technically they are dirt poor.
And, economist will tell you ownership of income-producing assets (ie. wealth) fluctuates but normally grows over a lifetime. Income, on the other hand, fluctuates significantly over a lifetime.
Actually, the "real world" is more like this:
-On paper, the poor pay little in taxes and the rich pay a lot, in percentage terms.
-The tax code is so complicated that only the rich can afford to truly make use of all the intricacies, making their tax rates much lower.
-If you propose ANY massive simplification of the tax code, hordes of people will see that it makes the poor's "official" tax rate go up (even though it improves the *actual* tax distribution and makes it much harder to game even for the rich) and then make it their hill-to-die-on, thus locking us into the present system and regular worsenings of it as each session of congress makes it more complicated. (The EITC "encourages" work? Don't make me laugh. To most people who receive it, it is simply "free money at tax time. I guarantee you that very few of them actually sit down and work through how it affects their income when making plans.)
-Who truly pays a tax is a question of tax incidence, which is a complicated issue to work through, even for professional economists. But the underlying principle is, it is the shape of the supply and demand curves that determines who pays a tax not the entity the government assigns it to!!! (Simple example to convey the idea: Let's say consumers absolutely want purple sweaters over yellow. Then you tax the retailers for each purple sweater they sell. Does the retailer pay? No, he can pass it on. But then let's say consumers are indifferent across sweater color, and you impose the same tax. Does the retailer pay? Yes, he must cut the price of the purple sweaters enough to sell them, else people will switch to yellow. In layman's terms, the person with the least "power" to switch to an alternative will pay the tax.)
The rich and large corporations have wide lattitude in what they do, thus they are difficult to truly tax. Forming a tax policy in ignorance of this is dangerous.
Mod this post down because I'm UbuntuDupe.
To quote Office Space: Fuckin' A.
The middle class is always the group that gets crapped all over. Especially families with incomes in the $120k-$150k range.
The middle class generates most of the man-hours, are the largest consumers, generally (in my opinion formed of anecdotal experience) the most above-board group, and pay a majority of the taxes.
Yup, shaft. Sans lube, usually. Hell, Uncle Sam doesn't even typically kiss me first and tell me I'm pretty...
Message contains 1 attachment: spam.gif
Sure, no problem, add in FICA.
But if you add in FICA paid by employees, add in FICA paid by the employer, corporate income taxes (~35%), corporate property taxes, and everything else paid by the corporation. These have to come out of somebody's pocket - so the investor pays them directly (not likely for very long) -or- employees that are actually important to the corporation pay them indirectly as a SGA cost.
5 square cm makes sense, but your mention of a drawer 5 cm high seems a bit large for a sample. I'm picturing something more along the lines of 5mm high. I'm thinking glass slide.
Each sample would then be 2.5 cubic CM. If each cabinet is 2 meters high, 1 meter deep and wide, 50% usable, you'd only need 300 cabinets to store samples for the whole US population.
I don't read AC A human right
...that does NOTHING. It just moves money from the Government to another place. It doesn't change the fact that he doesn't have 25.5% of his money at the end of the day.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
Followed by...
You both came close. A considerable amount of Exxon's income (doesn't matter if it's moved to the CEO's pocket or part of a new drill bit or tanker) comes from what? -- selling gasoline, of course. And who is it that pays for that gasoline? The private citizen.
Corporations pay taxes, sure, but everything they pay is built into the price of the items they sell, and you should keep in mind who pays that: The consumer. Who also pays their own taxes.
When someone says "corporations pay XXX and the consumer doesn't have it so bad because they only pay X", they're blowing smoke. Those corporations got a good proportion of that money from the consumer.
For every item you buy, you're paying built-in costs for income tax (and other taxes in some cases) that went into the materials, manufacture, transport, marketing, retailing, etc... of that item. This is with the money you have left over after paying for your own income taxes.
The bottom line is that the tax load on the average consumer is much higher than you think it is.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
But it's so easy to use that old "let's close tax loopholes!" canard to win elections! Let's just ignore the fact that there really aren't any tax loopholes left to close. (Notice that when they say this, they're never really specific about what the loophole is, or how much tax revenue is lost to it. It's always just vague "tax loopholes!")
Comment of the year
Those numbers reflect taxes before tax breaks are taken out. Figure in the tax reductions due to breaks and whatever else and your "rich" actually pay a lot less by per capita then your bottom 50% who are just trying to survive. Besides corporate america are the biggest non-payers.
The actual tax burden on the lowest income group will never drop to 0%, much less to a negative number, because the income taxes (and other taxes) of all the people involved in producing everything they consume are 100% built into the prices of those things they consume. From natural gas to a loaf of bread, everything carries a built-in tax burden.
Furthermore -- for instance in the case of natural gas or electricity -- where the utility company has a health care plan in place for its employees, anyone paying for natural gas is forced to pay for that health care plan before they can address their own health care needs, unless they're willing to live in the cold. This is true for all benefits that accrue to workers supplying low income people with services or goods for money.
Painting low-income people as a tax-free or contribution-free group is either naive, or disingenuous. It just isn't so. Less than the middle class? Sure. The middle class carries a huge load.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Ok, you pass your income tax bill along to Exxon. and where did they get their money, in the final analysis? From the consumer, of course. From the money they have left after paying their own taxes. So guess who pays your income taxes, really?
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Got a link or three to back any of that up or are we in Limbaughland? Oh, and as long as you are looking, dig up actual income of the bottom 40% to the top 20% if it is less then double you can come cry on my shoulder.
If it's taxes you're looking to avoid, and you haven't already, consider contributing to a traditional IRA.
;)
Already have a 401k. The 'more taxes' part comes in that because I'm looking to retire early I can't put all my money into tax deferred accounts. Because I'm looking to have the same or more income when I retire, I'm maxing out a roth first.
companies not paying living wages and making sure the poor STAY poor.
You know, I find it sad that here we've been exporting jobs to china and india to save wages, yet people still aren't making 'living wages'.
I agree that you can make smarter choices with your money, but if your choices are having a 'safety margin' and eating, well, you'll probably choose to eat.
I have an interesting view on life, especially what minimum income levels it takes to survive on, what's critical and what's luxury, but yes, I agree that eating comes first. If you're having trouble making food bills, then you're poor(and probably qualify for assistance). I once, on a challange, drew up a budget for somebody making the old minimum wage because somebody said it's impossible to live on it. It can be done. It's just not nice.
Still, I only worked for minumum wage for about 3 months when I was still in HS. Ever since then, I've exceeded that wage by varying amounts.
Part of that is that I DO have knowledge, specifically money management skills. I don't keep track quite like I could if I wanted to, and my budget is fairly flexible, but it's that way because I can afford to be that way. I could probably save some money if I started clipping coupons more, but it just isn't worth the time to me for the moment.
Where you and I could probably borrow at around 7% for that two-year-old used car, the guy with no money has to pay 20% interest or more in a lot of cases.
Unavoidable consequence in that the poor guy with no money is far less likely to pay his loan back on time. Some poor people have good credit, many don't. Many can't handle it, viewing a credit card as 'free money'. For the poor guy who's likely to haul himself out of that category, a $500 decade old car out of the paper is probably a better option. Heck, my car is now 5 years old and still works fine. I really enjoy not having that car payment, but it's getting socked into investments for the eventual purchase of another car, as I know it won't last forever. Of course, I've never had 'bad' credit. I got my first CC back when I was 18, unsecured even. Still have that account*. Use it almost like a debit card; paying it off in full each month.
I've also said that any company that wants to pay that little shouldn't expect employees with cars. Works best in a labor-tight economy, of course, but I've heard of businesses in the past doing stuff like send out a van to pick up their cheap labor. Heck, over in China many factories provide dormatories and dining facilities for their workers.
You can't get a checking account if you don't make enough money, so you lose a chunk of your paycheck to a place that WILL cash it for you. You get charged service fees on your checking account if you don't have enough money in it. The whole setup is regressive.
If there's one business type that I'd throw a brick through the window on just general principal, it's the payday loan/check cashing businesses.
In reality, I've found that a little shopping around will get you a bank account without all that stuff. I've had a no-minimum, no fee** checking acount since I was 14-15. Heck, even a $5-10 montly fee would be cheaper than many check cashing places. Heck, last year I 'upgraded' it to a new plan that also gives me interest*** and 2 free foreign ATM withdrawals. Not bad, huh?
*Well, it's changed numbers because I got a bad/fradulent charge on it once; turned out the company handed a CC number off one line than what they should have. I wrote a letter and got it straightened out. Haven't had any problems since.
**As long as I don't go bouncing checks.
***On average, about 18 cents a month
I don't read AC A human right
You feel like it, but that math says it's not true.
So, you're shocked that people less likely to USE Medicare or NEED social security are the same people that get to pay LESS (proportionally) for it?
Despite the fact that they actually still pay more for those services they won't use / don't need? (Lower %, but still a higher amount taken.)
Are the rich supposed to support the poor? Why? It may be nice, but there's no logical justification for it. Maybe I hate people. That's my right.
I'm not rich, but I at least take responsibility for my own life.
California has for years (a decade, at least..) been collecting a DNA sample from anyone charged with a felony.
This was instituted during the 'Megans Law' period, when the legislators decided that it might be a good idea to have offenders registered.
So, kiddies, who can say Commie-fornia?
It's You and I against the World... When do we attack?
More likely you will just increase your expenditure to absorb the increase. Having a large credit card debt in the first place is a hint you are not careful with your money.
Not exactly. The government is at risk for as much as 29bn should the losses on the Bear assets acquired by JP Morgan (not Morgan Chase, a different company) reach 30bn. However, 1) losses are calculated against a price that is already substantially marked down, not the face price, and 2) JP Morgan absorbs the first 1bn of losses. Since they don't really want to lose another billion, they have a strong interest in preserving the government's money too.
Since these Fed loans are collateralized, they are not lending YOUR money but the bank's money, in more liquid form. The purpose of this is to allow the bank to lend YOU money. You know, just in case you wanted to own a house or have a job?
"The good reader is a rarer swan than the good writer."
Privacy - HA! You'll all be changing your tune when your place gets robbed and the repeat offender just happens to leave a test tube filled with his own blood.
They also recieve 99% of government payouts through their shell companies like Haliburton, KBR etc etc.
One day, about six years ago, when I was figuring my income tax I decided to see how much total taxes I was paying. I paid %17 income tax at the time but after I added all the other taxes I paid it came to a whopping %45. I wasn't married and had no kids, an average year for expenses. I wanted to find out why I had few expenses(working hard, no life) and still couldn't save diddly.
Look at the whole picture you idiots!! Otherwise you're just spouting BS!!
Forget wikipedia, its information/pages are too easily manipulated by anyone with a self-serving point to make.
Of course you TOTALLY miss the fundamental point, and the concept that taxes and tax reformers either don't understand or purposefully misrepresent.
99% of the wealth is held by 2% of the population, but they only pay about 40% of the taxes. So, 60% of the taxes are paid from the group of people holding 1% of the wealth. Does that sound fair?
There should absolutely be a flat tax, but not on income, but accrued wealth.
Poor - Income at or below basic expenses; IE unable to save
Middle Class - Has the ability to save money/live better.
Rich - Independent of work; capable of living indefinitly off of assets.
By these fairly reasonable definitions, it is quite possible to be "worth" millions, yet be economically poor. In fact, this is the situation most independent farmers and many independent businessmen find themselves in.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Keeping the databases separate will be like keeping promiscuous teenage kids apart after a night booze and drugs. A disaster waiting to happen. People who think not must not have been alive back during the Bush administration.
Oh rich folks need soc sec and medicare, you just don't realize it until the hordes of plague carrying homeless folks decide to storm your McMansion.
"Where do I sign up to be on their team?"
Sorry, but along with the application, you must provide proof that you own assets exceeding $500 million. Once you have the money, they will let you play the game.
In America, in 2005:
the richest 1% paid 39% of the income taxes
the richest 5% paid 60%
the richest 10% paid 70%
the bottom 50% of households paid ONLY 3% of total income taxes
you are WRONG.
(source: Wall Street Journal Dec 17, 2007)
"bailout?" => Semantics aside, what the fed really did by engineering JPM's take over of BSC is keep the financial system from collapsing. Without this "bailout" Bear would have had no recourse but to declare bankruptcy monday morning.
So What?
Based on my understanding of the situation, a Bear bankruptcy would have resulted in all Bear creditors ( pretty much every other bank ) having to line up to get their money back from a bankruptcy court. Bear assets would have been liquidated at any available price to raise cash. This not only cause markets to sell off across the board, but also provides a "mark", a value to the assets owned by other banks. All that esoteric crap that is "hard to price" ( level 3 ), suddenly has a price ( could be pennies on the dollar ). Such a poor value drastically increases the leverage ratio of the banks that own these assets. This results in automatic credit downgrades and margin calls. In a situation where the credit crunch was already making it hard for banks to borrow, margin calls would pretty much force further asset sales and eventual bankruptcy for other banks. There is no way to predict how this would have ended. Suffice to say, it would have been very very ugly for you, me and everyone else.
If the glove does not fit, you must acquit.
The Gospel according to lolcat
I have to throw my towel in with you... and to nay-sayers, he (assuming 'he' because of 'guy' in username) is talking about Federal Income Tax, not all tax burden.
/.
Plain and simple: the lower-income earners pay no Federal Income Tax. Any Federal Income Tax cuts, by definition, must come out of higher-income earners. Talk that tax cuts are for "the rich" don't tell the whole story; tax cuts are for the folks who pay the most taxes.
Now, to discuss other taxes... yes, (most) everyone pays them (e.g. gas taxes, sales taxes). As a total (but at the individual level), the middle-, upper-middle, and higher-class folks will pay more. They have more, they spend more, they're taxed more. However, as a proportion, these taxes burden the poorer person more - a greater proportion of their income is dedicated to meeting basic needs; a greater portion of their basic-needs income is spent on these taxes.
Shameless plug: want fair? Try the FairTax (http://www.fairtax.org). Make sure you understand before you criticize - every criticism I've heard is actually addressed by the actual bill in a 'favorable' manner and is really unwarranted.
Oh, wait... what does this have to do with collecting DNA? Darn! Forgot I was on
So we should probably lower the corporate tax rate, right?
The pensions and 401k's of the "working class" are all tied up in the market. If the government doesn't bail out these companies, you'd complain that they did nothing while the retirement funds were being wiped out.
That's why the number of millionaires is increasing at an increasing rate. 1 out of 10 households earn over six figures. This is upward mobility.
If you really think that, you need to actually look at the tax laws. They are full of loopholes. Hell, you need a post-doctorate degree to practice tax law. Luckily, fixing them would be fairly simple.
1)Get rid of capital gains tax- tax it at income level
2)Get rid of all deductions except the following
*Mortgage interest on a primary residence
*Dependents
*The standard deduction
3)Alter the tax rates so the average taxpayer in each bracket will pay the same amount under the new rules as he did under the old.
There you go, all loopholes removed.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Full disclosure: I am a conservative.
Your post is accurate, and is a perfect description of how the Bush tax cuts screwed the poor and, especially, the Middle Class. It is also a good step at explaining why trickle-down economics (which most of us who bother to learn anything about economics already dismiss) is an absolute fallacy, and why Reagan and all those who've followed were not conservative.
When you get your economic knowledge from Glen Beck (as gp apparently does), you tend to know lots of numbers, but not how they deceive.
So instead of revealing the actual leverage ratios of these banks - and keep in mind, this would not CHANGE the ratios but simply reveal what they are - we are happy to coddle the financial industry, to let banks continue to take risks and overextend themselves, ensuring that the NEXT collapse will be bigger, perhaps too big for another government bailout to fix. Does that sound ugly?
I suggest you study history. Trickle-down economics like you discuss are proven not to work. Its been tried three times in US history, and at the end of each time was a major stock crash and a recession or depression. The first time was under Harding/Coolidge/Hoover which led to the Depression. The second was under Regan/Bush 1, which ended with the single greatest 1 day loss in stock market history, and a fairly nasty recession in the late 80s/early 90s. We're hitting #3 right now, and it will get much worse before it gets better.
In reality, money doesn't actually trickle down. If it did, the middle ages would have been the most prosperous time in history- the rich didn't pay any taxes and owned everything. The greatest boom periods in history have all been a result of increasing the wealth of the lower and middle classes- the end of serfdom, the industrial revolution, etc. Its well proven- if you want to create wealth you don't give the rich more of it, you make sure the lower classes get it directly.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
No, 2% of the population holding 99% of the wealth does not sound fair.
Software Inventor
Next, healthy economies are cyclical. They do really good for a while, then they do really bad for a while. The bad part is called a "correction". In general, they do better than they do worse. You mentioned Reagan. When Reagan took office, the economy was a mess. Taxes were as high as 75%, interest rates were around 19% and inflation was around 10%. When all that is combined with high unemployment, you have the makings for an economic disaster! Then Reagan took office in 1981. We had eight years of prosperity before one year of a minor recession in Bush's third year, right after taxes were raised (just enough to lose his reelection... well, Perot helped). With Clinton, taxes were cut under a Republican led congress and we had 6 years of economic boom, of course, followed by a correction. Same thing happened with W. Bush. Bush cut taxes, the recession (Clinton's correction) ended until 9-11. Then we suffered a slight recession followed by 6 years of non-stop economic growth. Hardly what I would call an economic failure. Right now, we are headed for a recession, possibly. Regardless of what you hear on TV, we are NOT in one now. A recession is two consecutive quarters of economic shrinkage. So far, we have not had one single quarter of shrinkage, much less two!
I noticed you didn't mention Carter in your little history lesson. He raised taxes, which led to stagflation. That's a shrinking GDP and inflation at the same time. BAD BAD BAD thing for economics. What solved it? Reagan and his tax cuts. Although, Reagan wasn't the first. JFK stimulated the economy by cutting taxes in 1963.
So, yeah, supply side economics (it's real name, not "trickle down economics" as you call it) WORKS, and history has shown that, regardless of how you try to rewrite it. In reality, money doesn't actually trickle down. If it did, the middle ages would have been the most prosperous time in history- the rich didn't pay any taxes and owned everything. The greatest boom periods in history have all been a result of increasing the wealth of the lower and middle classes- the end of serfdom, the industrial revolution, etc. Its well proven- if you want to create wealth you don't give the rich more of it, you make sure the lower classes get it directly. That's AWESOME, but your reasoning is all wrong. Of course, you don't mention that those in the middle ages did not get to elect their government like those in say Rome or Greece, which had booming economies and a healthy upper, middle and lower classes.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
note, red blood cells don't have DNA
Exactly, but that's where the 'tax cuts for the rich' rhetoric is coming from. They get the tax cuts because they are the only ones paying.
Now, imagine what would have happened if taxes were high enough so that the people who built and paid for those factories had no money? That's right! No industrial revolution!
So, it's well proven. If you want to create wealth, you allow the wealthy to invest it by NOT taking it away from them. That investment means more jobs, more production, more ECONOMY! That is proven using YOUR own example.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
While upper wage earners pay more tax (and keep in mind their income has sky-rocketed whereas the middle class and poor have incomes that are flat), when you include sales and property taxes it effects a greater portion of the the income of low wage earners. You can't just look at federal income tax and call it a day because it's hardly the whole picture.
Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
All of the above definitely had an impact- such things never have a single cause. Its also widely accepted by everyone but neocon mouth pieces that trickle down economics factored into it. Yes, it was a cause.
Pedantry. If the next two quarters post shrinkages, in a decade we'll talk about the recession in early 2008. The fact that we can't show measures to prove that we're in a recession doesn't mean we aren't in one- it means that its not official yet. And while I definitely don't think we're heading for the end of the world or a depression, there's not really a lot of doubters that we're in recession.
The Carter clusterfuck was a factor of mismanagement by the FED (who should have moved much more aggressively to cut inflation) and OPEC. Other than diplomacy with OPEC to reduce rates, nothing he could do would have helped things. Carter was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Reagan likewise gets far too much credit for the recovery. The recovery was caused by the FED starting an aggressive policy of disinflation (not deflation, they're different) and by debt spending to stimulate the economy. Regan racked up the second largest debt of any president in history (G.W.B. being the largest) to the tune of trillions of dollars. Debt we still haven't paid off, and that we're forced to pay billions per year on interest on. A little bit of debt spending for stimulus isn't bad, but you need to pay off the debt next boom- we haven't. Reagan's mismanagament of the economy will continue to fuck the country over for the net several decades, any harm Carter did to it pales in comparison.
Nope, it doesn't. It makes the rich richer, grows the number of poor, and shrinks the middle class, as it has every time its been tried. You can cherry pick all the parts of Reagan's administration you want, it doesn't change facts.
Rome and Greece, outside of small isolated portions of their history, didn't elect leaders either. Of course that doesn't really matter- the type of government you have is unrelated to the type of economic system you have.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
By these fairly reasonable definitions, it is quite possible to be "worth" millions, yet be economically poor. In fact, this is the situation most independent farmers and many independent businessmen find themselves in.
Very true. Note that I did indeed mention the 'sole proprietor', does millions in business each year, but because his margins end up being only 1% or so, is actually only middle class.
It's part of the reason I like the definition. If you merely say 'worth a million', you catch a lot of these types of people in your net.
I'll also note that by these definitions the middle class expands quite a bit. It depends on area and local cost of living, but it'd remove most lawyers and doctors from the 'rich' category, as they still have to work even though they DO live quite comfortably and are on the path to becoming rich.
I don't read AC A human right
...that, once the DNA is collect, that it *will* be processed and catalogued. Or not.
You can't overcome Good Ol' Bureaucracy, no matter how much you shred the Constitution.
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
The investments don't do jack squat unless there's people who can buy the finished products. That means money in the hands of the people. There's existing methods for getting excess money into the hands of people with the vision to make new products- its called banks and loans, and both are great ideas. Giving money to the already wealthy is actually a horrible source for new investment capital- they're far more likely to buy stock in existing companies, which doesn't stimulate the economy at all. They also tend to buy overpriced luxury items and high priced real estate. The first of those is a small stimulus at best, employing few to no people. The second is no stimulus, as nothing has been created, wealth is just redistributed. Putting the money in the hands of the people will lead that money to being used, which will help businesses reinvest and allow some of those people to start their own small business- or put it in the bank to be loaned to those with business ideas. The multiplier from giving the money to the middle class is far higher than giving it to the rich.
The idea of trickle down is just asinine. If you want to get money to the people, but you're going to do it through a middle man. Who won't skim too much off the top- honest! And he'll use it in ways that will help the average person, not waste it on overpiced luxury items- really! And by the way, I have this great bridge in New York for sale...
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
The investments don't do jack squat unless there's people who can buy the finished products. That means money in the hands of the people. There's existing methods for getting excess money into the hands of people with the vision to make new products- its called banks and loans, and both are great ideas. Giving money to the already wealthy is actually a horrible source for new investment capital- they're far more likely to buy stock in existing companies, which doesn't stimulate the economy at all.
First, buying stock in a company DOES stimulate the economy, more than any thing else! Also, I never said to give money to already wealthy people. I said to take less of it from them. Also, as I mentioned many posts up, when people, rich or otherwise, invest in a company, that company does something with that money to get a return on that investment. In the example I gave, it built a new data center, which I and many other people work at. We make the company money, that they use to pay back investors who turn around and invest the money further, and the company pays us money, which use to survive and invest that which is left over.
They also tend to buy overpriced luxury items and high priced real estate. The first of those is a small stimulus at best, employing few to no people.
So, who made those overpriced luxury items? Why are they overpriced? Where does the EXTRA money go? If they are overpriced, that means they are priced much more the cost to produce such an item. The money doesn't disappear. It goes somewhere!
The second is no stimulus, as nothing has been created, wealth is just redistributed.
Really? Why buy a piece of property? To build on it! Who does the building? Who pays them? What do they do with their money?
Putting the money in the hands of the people will lead that money to being used, which will help businesses reinvest and allow some of those people to start their own small business- or put it in the bank to be loaned to those with business ideas.
Why would anyone want to start a business if the government is just going to take the money away from them as soon as they turn a profit? You seem to think that people start businesses as a hobby. The first purpose of a business is to make money for the investors. That is done by turning a profit. If you take that profit, why would anyone start a business?
or put it in the bank to be loaned to those with business ideas.
And where do banks get their money? From people saving it! Who saves money? Rich people who haven't decided where to invest yet. Why is this so hard to understand?
The idea of trickle down is just asinine.
I've shown over and over how it works. I've also shown that without it, capitalism fails. If no one has disposable income (rich people as you call them), no one invests money. No investment, no new business, no new growth. That is called recession! Sorry, but that is fact.
If you want to get money to the people, but you're going to do it through a middle man. Who won't skim too much off the top- honest!
No, cutting taxes for everyone, including the wealthy allows Michael Dell to build a plant that makes more computers and it allows the families in America to be able to afford them! It doesn't give money to the middle man, it gives the middlemen a fuckin' job!
not waste it on overpiced luxury items- really!
Again, someone got paid to make that luxury item. The money just didn't disappear. That seems to be the big flaw in your thinking. You think that if someone wastes their extra money by spending it on themselves, that the money just disappears. That is not the case and it is where your argument falls apart. So what if Bill Gates decides to buy a yacht with his tax return. Many people get paid to build that yacht and those people are not "rich". Many people are paid to maintain and store t
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Exactly. Corporations, ultimately, do not pay taxes. Which is why it makes sense to drastically *lower* the tax rate for corporations (currently the US has by far the highest corporate tax rate in the world). That would at least reduce the incentive for corporations to offshore and seek tax havens, increasing their investments in Americans and American infrastructure.
Of course this will never happen, because most people don't understand the concept, they'll just hew and cry "No - you must make teh wealthy corporations pay!!".
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
and found that his secretary was being taxed at a final rate (comparing final amount of taxes to gross income) that was three times his own,
That's because the anti-tax zealots don't talk in terms of RATE when they say that the Rich pay all the taxes. They talk in terms of AMOUNT.
It's a simple-math boondoggle. And because people are stupid, they fall for it, and vote for Repbulicans, who do cut the taxes, but then they raise spending; which forces more borrowing, which taxes EVERYONE again, by increasing inflation.
(then they change how inflation is calculated; by eliminating silly things like energy and food costs, and housing prices - so that they can claim there's low or nominal inflation).
So yeah; maybe the secretary was paying 3 times the rate, but probably a far lesser amount. Never mind that the WAR her taxes (and consequent loss of earning power due to the falling dollar) are financing has done nothing to benefit her, but the bosses stock portfolio probably benefited a whole bunch.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
"Hey, Bob, can you go ahead and sell that that mutual fund? The bank is breathing down my neck and I just need to liquidate some stuff to catch up."
"Oh, gee, sorry, Jim. Since we're bankrupt now, we can't do any buying and selling - have to wait for it all to get settled in court. I'm sure you'll get a letter in a few months telling you who is managing your stuff now."
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Umm. How do you give the poor an income tax cut when they already pay no income tax? In fact, they tend to pay negative income tax.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
And as someone who has worked his way out of the lower class to just above the middle of the middle class, I have to say that my own life proves that the whole "rich get richer/poor get poorer" thing is bullshit! We've been doing this for 28 years and yet we still have a middle class. Hell, the only class that is shrinking has been the lower class. In other words, the rich have gotten richer, the middle class has gotten richer and the poor have entered the middle class! Rome and Greece, outside of small isolated portions of their history, didn't elect leaders either. Of course that doesn't really matter- the type of government you have is unrelated to the type of economic system you have. Greece was the world's first recorded Democracy and Rome had the first elected Senate (Republic).
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
I glad you're all for income redistribution. Are you also a registered member of the Communist party?
Terrorists that are going to do something big (like hijack a plane? sept11 blow up a building? apr19 burn down the whitehouse? 1814) can't really be stopped via security increase or lack thereof, if they are determined to blowing something up or killing someone, it will happen. I really don't think that stressing out the entire population or giving them a false sense of hope for catching some random joe criminal will do anything productive. It seems like this kind of information ( DNA log ) would just be useful for incriminating good people the most in the end =/
Have fun supposedly trying to hijack that plane JasterBobaMereel! After all, they did have your DNA on file!
I am also a conservative, but I fail to see what you are advocating...
But I'm sure we can both agree that the government needs to spend less in any case.
Money is the root of all evil?
A lot of people would argue that. Perhaps you'll find this video entertaining:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=GvvuHREm5jg
I wonder where your *real* world is? In the US, the poor get more from the government than they pay in taxes. And everyone got a tax cut.
(BTW, the top 20% pay 63% of the taxes. http://www.factcheck.org/article280.html)
You're arguing, implicitly by your objecting even if not outright by your argumentation, that even if the top 5% paying ~58% of all taxes is unacceptable, the top 5% paying only 41% of all taxes is both small and acceptable. You're just using that to detract from his argument on a technicality, and that's disingenuous.
Worse, the whole concept over which you're arguing is a red herring. What you should be interested in is whether the 5% in question (or any other demographic) pay more or less than the fraction of income they earn. If the richest 5% earn 40% of the income earned in the country, they should pay 40% of the tax revenue. If you want a progressive tax system, then they pay more.
You compared someone to "so many tax critics" (almost pejoratively), and in the midst of a rather adversarial rebuttal. There are plenty of people who think a progressive tax system is unfair. It's not that they think it "overburdens" the rich; it clearly doesn't, and income tax burdens the poor less than sales/use taxes anyway.
Those who make more should pay more, but it is perverse to think they should pay a higher percent. The progressive system doesn't tax to keep the government running; it taxes to punish what some self-righteous people think is gluttonous or excessive.
So they find my DNA at a crime scene. The prosecutor states "the DNA evidence places you at the scene of the crime!".....um, no it doesn't.
My DNA could have arrived at any given location via contact transfers or deliberate action. Like most humans, I am constantly shedding hair, saliva, blood, skin, etc. I also donate blood regularly, so someone else may be walking around right this moment with at least some of my DNA flowing in them.
So the only thing DNA evidence "proves", is that my DNA came in contact with someone/something that eventually transferred it to the crime scene at some time after I was born and before the police collected their sample. The rest of his case better be some actual evidence.
TSA demands shoe removal and wanding/search arbitrarily. Feds demand your DNA and put you in CODIS even if you have not been convicted. There is a bill being pushed right now to monitor all internet traffic for illegal P2P ($1B taxpayer cost) and you can bet it'll monitor more than just P2P. FBI lies to support its need for National Security Letters to bypass warrants for wiretapping. Police pull you over to ask you if you have your proof of car insurance and are your papers in order Comrade?
If our founding fathers saw how much of our freedoms and liberties we have voluntarily surrendered, they would be ashamed of us. Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington would never have surrendered their toe-clippers in order to board a plane. Citizens today are a very pale shadow of the heroes who formed this nation. The citizens are steadily moving toward the tyranny they so richly deserve.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Franklin
Note: For the slow crowd, that's Ben Franklin saying lazy cowards who are willing to compromise on their rights do not DESERVE liberty or safety.
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution is a *better* freedom-enforcement tool -- *and* it has been used a lot longer than this new-fangled DNA stuff.
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
I'm going to collectively answer everybody who responded to my post by answering yours.
Yes, I realize that. I am specifically talking about what the federal government calls "Federal Income Tax," because those are what was cut, and those are what is claimed to be a "tax cut for the rich." If you want to argue about how taxes work, and how sow many are hidden (see tungstencoil's post above yours), then we can all agree the whole system sucks. What I'm specifically saying is that a cross the board tax cut that actually gives those paying no federal income taxes a refund is not "a tax cut for the rich."
The whole system sucks, if you want to make if fair, support the FairTax. Preemptively: I can mathematically prove that someone living at the poverty level has more spending power under the FairTax than under the current system even if prices do not drop, as most FairTax supporters claim they will (although I'm not naive enough to believe it'll be the 22% average embedded tax they claim it will be).
In order to have a "fair" system, the first thing you need is clarity. It's as clear as mud under the current system, and that's the way the politicians like it.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
If they're so concerned with safety and potential criminals they should probably protect themselves from rogue agents and catalog themselves.
These biometric and other ID systems are basically creating DRM for humans. Take all the problems we have with doing this with music and now apply them to us.
I don't want my music DRM'ed and I sure as heck don't want my body DRM'ed.
You haven't factored in sales tax, gas tax, liquor tax, license tabs, taxes on cell phones, taxes on cable TV, tobacco taxes, property taxes (yes, even renters pay property taxes), and probably countless other taxes. Even unemployed, homeless, beggars pay taxes. The burdon of sales taxes skew overwhelmingly to the poor.
1. I never said I was shocked about it or anything else.
2. The 'lower% but a higher amount taken' is a whineing leech's special arguement. The only way to take less total cash from richer people than poor and not just similar overall amounts based on a lower overall percentage, is to selectively tax the poor at a higher base rate than the wealthy. Now you're argueing for a tax on poverty itself, which is so vicious I can well agree with your assessment that you hate people.
"Whaaaahhh! I'm so wealthy I shouldn't have to pay anything at all. It's not good enough that I should pay the same rate, I should pay less than those lousy poor people." Don't you see how tragic, how ultimately sub-human the philosophy you are supporting is?
3. Are the poor supposed to support the rich then? You've been making it an either/or issue. Great red herring. If you are not a communist, why are you insisting that there's a class structure and one class must parasitize the other, either way?
I've been pointing out what taxes everyone pays, including very poor people. A self employed contract roofer pays that 12.4% SSA and Medicare B, even if he makes only 4,000 or 5,000 a year. Any person below the poverty level is probably spending very close to 100% of net income on items that have a sales tax, with the possible exception of doctor bills, so that's typically at least 5% more. A certain percent, the ones with minor children, get some of that back or even more when they file their income tax. The rest don't.
So, we have typically at least 18% tax on the lowest paid working people out there before we even get to the income tax itself, all that comes from what nobody here has defied as a progressive tax, I've pointed out how all those other taxes have their regressive aspects, and you want to argue that one group is being abused by the system and another isn't?
You don't want to support the poor? I don't want to support Iraq, the Justice Dept. putting drapes on statues, or higher education grants for Art-History majors that can't get work afterwards anyways. So what's the logical justification for saying you are taking responsibility and anyone else is not? Oh, that's right, its a gratuitous insult, either to all the poor you're lumping into that category or to me because you just lost the debate on its merits.
Who is John Cabal?
This is the government we're talking about. Who do you think decides what bankruptcy entails? If what you're describing were actually the issue congress could have addressed the issue by changing the bankruptcy law rather than handing out billions of dollars to bail out an irresponsible organization.
What really bothers me aren't even the idiots who don't realize that some of that medical care they are bitching about helps keep them too from being exposed to a plague or whatever. It's not even the supra-idiots that think they could continue to buy for the same prices at stores when no clerk could afford to work for them at the wages some pay without government assistance. It's the supra-ne-plus-ultra-idiots who think that if all these pesky poor people get near simultaniously Darwined as fast as political action could do it, nature will make the starving, diseased, homeless automagically disappear neatly, none of them will starve slowly enough to rampage about, and the rich wouldn't have to pay any extra bills to keep society functioning, or even to cremate the dead. My ghod, even the Nazis knew you had to pay your camp guards something. Even nutcase survivalists know that if you shoot the masses when they cross the edge of your property, the corpses will soon start to stink.
Who is John Cabal?
That's not how it works. The government will borrow that $1200 and come at you every April for the rest of your life for $60.
"Corporations, ultimately, do not pay taxes. Which is why it makes sense to drastically *lower* the tax rate for corporations"
Only if they can pass the cost to the consumer. Not all companies can effectively do this (if there is much competition). And lowering rates does not mean goods will become cheaper-the company may just pocket the difference, pay less attention to efficiency, etc.
"That would at least reduce the incentive for corporations to offshore and seek tax havens, increasing their investments in Americans and American infrastructure."
So would punitive measures and enforcement. Won't happen. In any case, if a corporation is considered a person, it is reasonable to tax it. Now if corporations didn't have essentially the same rights as a person, I wouldn't have an issue if it didn't pay taxes.
Unlike anyone else, except citizens of the Phillipines or Eritrea, United States citizens who leave the country still have to pay taxes.
Renouncing one's US citizenship is an extremely difficult process, thanks to legislation intended to combat rich tax dodgers. If one successfully does it, one may be forever afterward denied entry into the United States.
The middle class has the ability to shop at Walmart? Or just to believe in their ads?
Yeah, nobody wants to be rich because they wouldn't be able to afford the taxes. Wait a minute...
Sarcasm doesn't make an argument. Facts do.
Here's an interesting snippet for all you whiny libs out there that think corporations are EVIL:
Over the last three years, Exxon Mobil has paid an average of $27 billion annually in taxes. That's $27,000,000,000 per year, a number so large it's hard to comprehend. Here's one way to put Exxon's taxes into perspective.
According to IRS data for 2004, the most recent year available:
Total number of tax returns: 130 million
Number of Tax Returns for the Bottom 50%: 65 million
Adjusted Gross Income for the Bottom 50%: $922 billion
Total Income Tax Paid by the Bottom 50%: $27.4 billion
Conclusion: In other words, just one corporation (Exxon Mobil) pays as much in taxes ($27 billion) annually as the entire bottom 50% of individual taxpayers, which is 65,000,000 people! Further, the tax rate for the bottom 50% is only 3% of adjusted gross income ($27.4 billion / $922 billion), and the tax rate for Exxon was 41% in 2006 ($67.4 billion in taxable income, $27.9 billion in taxes).
This dude makes a great point.
So they made about 10 billion in profit last year. Microsoft made around 6 billion.
OMG EVIL! If you still think they are evil, consider that they are supporting roads, housing for people too lazy to work, social programs for the 18 year-old unwed mothers who have 3 kids and no job (and are about to have their 4th by any number of daddies). They support dirtbags like my neighbor who sit home and drink beer all day in their bathrobe while the working-class go out and actually produce. If you want to vilify anyone, it should be the government. What right do they have to take your money, and my money and give it to people who do jack shit.
If Exxon Mobile or Microsoft decided they had enough and just closed up shop or moved out of the country--you can bet it would seriously impact the government. On the flip side, if my neighbor moved out of the country, it would impact exactly dick.
There's no place like
This logic is flawed. You can extend this argument to prove that waiters, for example, support the entire economy. You haven't explained how a corporation is able to just "pass on" an expense while "consumers" (meaning, I think, individuals) are not able to.
All individuals and corporations incur expenses. Taxes are just one expense. All of us would love to "pass on" our expenses to our customers/employers. Unfortunately, our customers/employers don't care about our expenses. We charge what the market will bear, and hope that it's well above our expenses.
Bear Stearns would not have collapsed completely: "JPMorgan Chase said Sunday it will acquire rival Bear Stearns for a bargain-basement $236.2 million â" or $2 a share"
But shareholders were not happy with that so: "On March 16, JP Morgan Chase agreed to buy Bear Stearns for $2 a share and guarantee the stricken bankâ(TM)s trading positions supported by US Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which agreed to provide $30bn in financing backed by a portfolio of assets. A week later the offer was increased to $10 per share."
Handout to Bear Stearns stockholders or providing stability to markets? You decide.
Not necessarily. A family member had their two cars paid off and all debts except mortgage and made a nice living ~$100k. Then, a major medical expense came up. The credit card debts began to climb, loans against the house equity, cashing on retirement accounts to pay for these things... left them 15 years or so paying it off an even today, they are still trying to pay it off. It had nothing to do with finance control but everything to do with poor circumstance.
Even myself, when I was debt free 100%, dropped $10k on breand new SCUBA gear for my wife and $14k loan on a new car (put $16k cash down). I would have paid off the SCUBA the next month as I always cleared my debts at least within 90 days, except an unprecedented oppurtunity to purchase a house in a very nice area in the forest just outseide the concrete slab of Orange County, CA... I took it and purchase the house. That left me now, 2 years later, just paying off the SCUBA debt last month, the car in about 18 months from now, and still 8 months to go on other debts that racked up while too busy paying the mortgage to pay cash. Since I don't watch TV, none of that had to do with 500 watt plasmas and BluRay players (or PS3's) but much more to do with putting a fridge in the house and a washer and a dryer, and a modest BBQ in the backyard as well as a vacuum and some curtains/drapes for my windows around the house since the downpayment on the house depleted my reserves. Even so, I still have enough money to pay for my BS in Electrical Engineering and an MBA for my wife in cash every month for the last 2 years or so.
That said, the tax refund I received along with the tax money back that GW will be sending me later along with a pay increase and a bonus for our company performang 15% growth this fiscal year (we're a ~billion $$$ annualy company) just went to pay off my debts all that much quicker and it will not be replaced with increased spending to compensate. I much prefer to be back in a situation where I can drop cash on whatever I want and set a sizeable amount aside for various profitable but riskier investments. I generally try to be the kind of person that, if I can't pay cash, I shouldn't have it (within reason -- not everything can be purchased in cash), but within 90 days is fine by me. It's a great rule to live by when possible, and more people should observe it, it produces a much less stressful life.
My only real point here is that having debut isn't a reflection of poor financial handling but can become a victim of circumstance. But I do believe the majority of high debt is indeed bad financial management. Just not all.
Thanks,
Leabre
If you're not being a criminal, then you're not being a criminal. It's a well-defined term.
If only it were so. Three points:
First you have overly-broad laws which can be interpreted to implicate nearly anybody, given motivation, even against the original intent. It can cost a fortune to defend against these, yet the cost for misapplication of these laws to the government is minimal. That's an asymmetrical problem to have to defend against.
Second, new laws can be easily created, but the tools can't easily taken away. So a tool that isn't used for abuses now, even if abuses are possible, may be in the future.
Third, not all laws are just nor reflect the values of society - frequently they reflect the values of lobbyists and campaign donors.
I'd rather live in the world where the above don't apply and we can count on laws being just and applied fairly. But we don't.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Is that you leave DNA around everywhere you go all day and this can be spread elsewhere by third parties.
That guy you passed on the street 6 hours ago... a strand of your hair that was on your shoulder was blown onto his coat by a slight breeze. He went home and murdered his wife, and in the struggle the hair found its way onto his wifes body.
Now youre being charged with murder because a hair on the victims body had a hit in the database.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
No. You can't. That's absurd. You didn't understand what I wrote. Read it again until you do; I'm not going to try to defend things I didn't say or mean.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Since all the deregulations, none of those old rules applied. They're playing with their own money now. That's why people were able to buy stock in Bear Stearns.
What we've now done is remove the risk from the equation, but just for the richest folks.
You are welcome on my lawn.
You can't have both, you know. If there's no risk, it isn't "free". If by "us" you mean "the richest of us".
You are welcome on my lawn.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The harder you make it, the better chance people will be caught committing a crime.
The problem I was getting at is that if you concentrate too much on the 'silver bullet' system, you waste so much resources that you end up unable to pursue the criminal - even if you know who he or she is.
Setting this system up is going to cost money. Serious amounts of it.
The way I look at it - $X put towards traditional police methods catches Y% of crimes. If $(X-Z) traditional police methods + $Z new technology/methodology catches > Y%, then it's worth it. Yes, there are privacy concerns and such in there. Like preventing false convictions, preferably even arrests of the innocent. I look at those as a more messy yet harder to assess issue.
Heck, if there's an expedient way to purge DNA of those who aren't convicted, whether simply never charged or found not guilty, then this isn't as big of a deal to me.
Take the ballistics database in Maryland - $2.5 million spent, not cases solved or even expedited by it. Turns out a gun's 'fingerprint' changes over time and wear and the ammunition used, especially when new. $2.5 million could have been another 25 or more officers on the street during that time.
Even with only 792 guns, the correct gun was only in the top 15 less than 50% for multiple characteristics(considered essential for further investigation).
DNA isn't necessarily a big deal. If I was being a cautious criminal I'd already be wearing gloves to prevent fingerprints, as long as I don't cut myself or get scratched up or whatever I'm not going to leave enough DNA for the police to find it. Especially for something as simple as a home burglary.
All this makes me wonder how many mystery DNA samples the police have for 'cold cases'. Theoretically this could give you an idea of how many crimes you might be able to solve with this system in place.
I don't read AC A human right
Renouncing one's US citizenship is an extremely difficult process, thanks to legislation intended to combat rich tax dodgers. If one successfully does it, one may be forever afterward denied entry into the United States.
I know, which is why I pointed out dodging/shaping/evading more. The rich can afford to hire a legion of accountants to utilize tax shelters and such to lower their taxes. A doctor making a 'mere' $250k a year can afford a good accountant part time, but not a group of them. Or lobbyists to adjust laws to keep the shelters open.
Leaving the country is the last option, but it's still there.
I don't read AC A human right
I have to agree, debt is not necessarily bad or unavoidable. What you shouldn't have debt for is transitory things, if at all possible. Non-essential is another. Going into debt for that visit to disney is bad. Going into debt for a house, especially when the interest + maintenance - appreciation is less than what renting would be, is good. A car can help you make money, plus it at least builds equity(eventually). I had a 5 year loan for my car(0% interest), I still have the car, and it still has value.
Furnishing a house is marginal*, in my opinion, but even if you borrow to purchase a furniture set, as long as you're not being stupid about it, it's okay. Furniture is necessary. So isn't cookware, etc... Let's say a 'marginal' used furniture set is $500, while the 'good' furniture set is $5k**. The marginal furniture set is just that, and I'm assuming that the $5k set is pretty much 'lifetime'. If the total amount of interest you'd pay between obtaining the marginal set and replacing it with the good set is less than $500, you're financially better off paying the interest and getting the good set now.
BTW, by the sound of it you're firmly in the 'middle class' by my rule of thumb definition. You have money for extras, you could have saved that $10k. Part of the benefits of being middle class, of earning more money, is a better life.
* By 'marginal' I more mean deserves a close look before saying whether it's good or bad.
** I have no real idea how much furniture sets cost.
I don't read AC A human right
So you're logic is:
It's ok for rich people to pay for poor people, because they benefit from the poor people not spreading disease and crime.
Poor people DON'T pay for rich people, and they get the same benefits.
Poor people STILL spread disease and crime - if you support the poor more, there will be more poor people, needing more support.
Sounds like a winning plan.
What?
I'm saying there's no reason for one group of people to disproportinally support another.
You call me a communist, but you support wealth redistribution at the control of the state?
Do you know what a communist is?
I don't want to support the war, people in Iraq, education grants or any of that crap. But the law says I have to, so I'll oblige. There's still no justification that rich people should support those things more than poor people do. But the fact is, the rich pay more, and disproportionally so.
Just because poor people are in a shitty situation doesn't make it unfair. They have handouts and tax breaks that the rich ultimately pay for. ($600 for everyone, even if you didn't pay taxes!!!) All that has caused, and all it will ever cause, is the poor population increasing, the rich population decreasing, some rich people skirting the tax laws, and an apparent (and false) need for more social programs and tax breaks for the poor.
There is no math in the universe that will support the social programs we have in place and plan to implement. No amount of taxing the rich will fix it, and no degree of disproportionate taxing of the rich is fair. If poor people want to succeed, they can put some effort into it. It's not easy, and they may have been born into poverty, but guess what - life's not easy or fair.
Taxes aren't easy either, but they should, as with all areas of law and government, be fair.
To claim that something is fair or unfair by using an arbitrary measure of humanity or kindness is asinine. To claim that it's not fair that poor people are poor and rich people are rich is idiotic.
What is easy is a flat tax of $x per person, per year.
What is fair is a flat tax of x% per person, per category - housing, income, sales, etc.
Will the poor die off? Doubtful, they breed a lot.
They have more dollars to start with? They earned those dollars didn't they? Unless they inherited the money, which happens but is rare in comparison most of these folks actually did whatever it took to earn the money in the first place. Usually they are taxed on the years earnings, money that they did not have to start with. This talk of punishing folks for earning more than the slackers is downright pinko.
Gotta love the Internet sometimes. The post which generated a 10-page discussion also got modded down to -1. This is yet another reason to have a "spam" modifier. Offtopic to some may not be offtopic to others. But spam is always offtopic. If there was a spam modifier, at least, you'd be able to set up your options to ignore "offtopic" mods and not ignore "spam" mods.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
That's very nice and all, but making money isn't what makes them evil.
No, my logic is that there are costs to clean up any mess. Your 'logic' seems to rely on a little blue capitalism fairy who will automagically keep one class from paying the costs and defer them to another class, without simultaneously making the mess into a Marxist style class struggle.
Here's a hint - you can't lump whole classes into monolithic imperatives ("Poor people STILL spread disease and crime") without fundamentally being a Marxist. You've just bought 100% into the Marxian paradigm but then chosen to support the side Marx said ultimately loses.
Who is John Cabal?
You, and Marx, are idiots.
I can lump whatever I want into whatever I want, and either way, that's not what I was doing.
Costs to clean up any mess?
The more we spend, the worse it gets.
Go read "If You Give a Mouse a Cookie".