Slashdot Mirror


US Scientific R&D Could Face Fiscal Cliff Doom

The tough economic times have had a huge effect on scientific research and development funding. The looming "fiscal cliff" may be the last straw for many programs. "The American science programs that landed the first man on the moon, found cures for deadly diseases and bred crops that feed the world now face the possibility of becoming relics in the story of human progress. American scientific research and development stands to lose thousands of jobs and face a starvation diet of reduced funding if politicians fail to compromise and halt the United States' march towards the fiscal cliff's sequestration of federal funds."

14 of 609 comments (clear)

  1. America's hand is being forced... by mrbluze · · Score: 2, Interesting

    into armed conflict by private banks, who, through their monetary policy are exerting undue political influence on the White House. It matters not which party sits in power, they have very little choice but to do what they are doing.

    --
    Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
    1. Re:America's hand is being forced... by Ironhandx · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Funny, Canada has a balanced budget and we have a more robust welfare system(that less people are forced to take advantage of prior to old-age because it is robust and includes education and sometimes FORCED education programs.

      We also spend 10% per capita on health care of what you spend and get LONGER life expectancies. Emergency treatment isn't as good(but only for SOME things, generally rarer things/situations that a country with 10% of your population base isn't going to have a very large absolute number of people needing attention for), but preventative measures are used in every possible case where they can have a strong benefit.

      Most americans are so fucking narrow minded its mind-boggling. Even some american friends who I would otherwise consider relatively intelligent just can't see the fucking forest because they get hung up on one or two trees.

    2. Re:America's hand is being forced... by Ironhandx · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "In the US, when tax rates were above 70%, we had some pretty good domestic growth. Please do not try to tell me that raising taxes is the death knell of innovation and business. As one small business owner told me recently, if taxes went up he would consider hiring to (1) expand his business because (2) instead of the Government getting his money from his profits, he would rather pay a worker. A tax cut would do nothing...nothing to inspire him to expand. He would just buy more goods, mostly made outside this country."

      This. 1000000x this. There is a comfort level for business owners. Once the comfort level is attained they strive for nothing more than acquiring more personal wealth to ensure they have some sort of legacy. When taxes go up, businesses are forced to do MORE. They're forced to grow, hire more employees, train staff and do whatever it takes to achieve this comfort level and then acquire more wealth.

      Taxes are on PROFIT, and a tiered tax system based on amount of profit encourages less massive companies that can monopolize or have massive industry-wide ramifications. The only companies that should be so large are manufacturers and R&D companies because there is simply no choice.

      If you make say 200k net profit before taxes this year and end up with say 170k of it in your pocket after tax, then you project you'll make 250k net profit before taxes next year and would end up with say 200k in your pocket because you've been bumped up another tax bracket. 170k is a comfortable place for you, and you could use some extra help. You hire an employee at 40k/yr(including benefit costs yada yada for simplicities sake) which gets you down to 210k profit before taxes, but drops you down a tax bracket(which for arguments sake we'll say the limit is at 220k) However since you're down the tax bracket you end up making 178.5k. Thus the total cost of that employee to you wasn't the 40k you're putting into the economy, it was the difference between 200k and 178.5k. Which is only 21.5k. You've hired yourself a mid-level employee at a total cost of something barely above minimum wage plus some minor benefits.

      40k/yr is a fairly solid middle class job in a lot of places. This tax scenario creates a situation where middle class jobs start piling up fast from a LOT of different businesses. You can apply the same(15% and 20% for increasing tax brackets) in many business areas and the exact same thing will happen. The government ends up with MORE money because the individuals tax rate is probably a few % higher than the business tax rate is. Even if they don't just from the income tax portion, they will end up with more tax money, and zounds more tax money from the transactions and other services this guy consumes that are also taxed.

      Yes, Higher taxes CAN STIMULATE an economy. They can be used to create an artificial pressure for companies to increase local expenses. Which puts more money back into the economy and the cycle continues. The largest periods of growth in the U.S. in particular vastly support this theory. Higher taxes = more growth. Bill Clinton raised taxes. Low and behold, middle class got stronger. Every country runs on its middle class. Without a strong middle class, the rest of the country is screwed.

  2. Re:Wow, 3% = doom? by Mitreya · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Um, there is a little detail you may have missed. The President doesn't have the AUTHORITY to change the tax structure. Congress does;

    Well, no, he does not -- but he was leading the negotiations between D and R earlier and the only reason these negotiations fell apart is because the ratio of 80% spending cuts and 20% tax increases was still not acceptable to the tea party.
    I think they were seriously hoping to negotiate to 100% and 0% compromise.

    yet - gee - the same electorate returned who returned Obama also returned a Republican majority in the all important House of Representatives.

    Not sure what your point is. Representatives are not a single unit (like the President). There is a significant ratio of incumbent retention, mostly due to gerrymandering. Barely 5% of the races tend to be competitive or even in doubt (unless the incumbent retires). I wouldn't read into this at all.

  3. Re:Isn't it ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You add the productive folks in with the working poor who do all the distasteful, oftentimes dangerous jobs and you start to wonder why exactly we keep the "managerial class" around

  4. Re:Big difference between US and Europe by rally2xs · · Score: 3, Interesting

    We just kicked the president of Egypt in the teeth by threatening his pipeline of money via "Foreign Aid" into doing the right thing in this war between Israel and the Palestinians, resulting in the continued existence of our only really friendly country in the middle east, and in our not having to get involved militarily ourselves to achieve that. Without "foreign aid", we'd either have to abandon Israel to annihilation by the Muslim Hordes, or come to their aid with troops.

    IOW, we're getting a lot of bang for our "foreign aid" buck, or more properly renamed, our "bribe to behave" which is what foreign aid really is.

  5. Actually, he doesn't need the power by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The whole "fiscal cliff" doom the fox network is spreading (check who owns redneck eh discovery) just means that if congress digs in its heels and does nothing the President gets his way by default because tax breaks that the repubicans want to extend and increase for the rich will END!

    Obama can just sit back and relax if he has the balls, he can get far more taxes by simply waiting out the republicans then trying to bargain with them. The smarter republicans know this (both of them) and are not at all please with their redneck counterparts trying to create a crisis that only exist in republican eyes.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  6. Stop giving tax benefits to religion. by Going_Digital · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How about withdrawing tax benefits given to religious groups and instead tax Churches like any other business and use the money to fund tax breaks for science. As far as I can see science has done many things to make our lives better in recent years where as religion has just stood in the way of the progress of science.

  7. Re:Big difference between US and Europe by Lisias · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Oh, and only about $700 billion is military, and much of that is spent in the U.S., so cutting it means less industry, less employed people, etc.

    The GP is right. You must be blinded by "imperialism syndrome" to address 700 BILLIONS of Dollars with the adverb "just".

    A lot of the problems USA faces today is the result of the very same policy you're defending as if means "more industries, more employed people, etc".

    We must talking about efficiency. USA took 10 years and 2 TRILLION Dollars and something just to kill a single man. USA is clearly holding, I mean, doing something very wrong.

    Granted, I'm not saying everything is wrong, neither that all the military expenses are unnecessary...

    --
    Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
  8. Re:Wow, 3% = doom? by Weezul · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm happy if we tax the rich more, but our real problems are :

    (1) Spending money on wasteful harmful shit, i.e. warfare (DoD, CIA, etc.), police state (FBI, NSA, etc.), drug war (DEA, etc.), etc.

    (2) Permitting the financial industry to extract such insane rents on everything by not regulating them.

    (3) Subsidizing established industries, especially oil, nuclear, and agricultural subsidies.

    We could cut taxes by massive amounts if we halted all that waste, corruption, and exploitation.

    --
    The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
  9. Only Medicare and Defense matter by sjbe · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It needs to cut its budget by 50% or more. Many programs and federal departments need eliminated entirely.

    The only programs that truly matter as far as the deficit is concerned are Medicare/Medicaid, Defense and Social Security. Those three together account for about two-thirds of the US budget. Get those programs under control and the problem is solved. All other discretionary spending combined accounts for less than 20% of the budget. Either we need to raise taxes to fully fund the programs we seem to want or we need to cut those programs to a level of taxation we are willing to accept. Either way will work but any argument about anything beyond Medicare and Defense (Social Security is easy to fix and self funding) is either naive or political pandering.

    That's only some $650,000 per person that the government has borrowed on behalf of each and every one of you. No problem, right?

    A meaningless statistic. As big as the debt is as a percent of GDP, we've had larger debts in our past that have been dealt with just fine, most notably after WWII. That doesn't mean it isn't serious but your attempt to frame the issue doesn't really address how the debt would be dealt with. Corporations pay quite a lot of tax and can be made to pay more if need be. A relatively small percentage of the population has a vast portion of the nation's wealth. Furthermore all the debt the US government has is denominated in US dollars which can be created at will (with some fairly serious negative effects).

  10. We already fell off by Charliemopps · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We jumped off this cliff in 1971 in order to pay for the the Vietnam war. We've been falling ever since. It just hasn't looked like we're falling because we're all boxed up inside a Fiat currency. Now that we're nearing the bottom and bouncing off a few jagged boulders, people are starting to realize we might be screwed. I love how this "Fiscal cliff" they've invented is designed to scare everyone, even scientists, into letting them raise taxes and reduce services even more. Hilarious.

  11. Re:Big difference between US and Europe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    > resulting in the continued existence of our only really friendly country in the middle east, and in our not having to
    > get involved militarily ourselves to achieve that. Without "foreign aid", we'd either have to abandon Israel to
    > annihilation by the Muslim Hordes, or come to their aid with troops.

    So lets cut them loose. Honestly, Isreal has done nearly everything they reasonably could to deserve it. They build settlements in areas that are internationally recognized as Palestinian, then, in the rare occasion when they do have to leave, demolish all of the buildings, extra effort and cost, just so as to leave nothing behind for the people whose land they were trying to steal? Fuck them. Let them get pushed into the sea they are asking for it with some of the shit they have been pulling.

    Honestly, we don't need them, we could normalize relations with Iran a lot more easily than I think most people realize. We have a long history of cross cultural exposure with them, they are very westernized, and only through accident of revolution and some seriously bad policy on our part that really put us in the situation we are in now.

    Few things are as useful to the "towel heads" (as one of my Iranian friends so affectionately calls the clerics) as sanctions and a general adversarial posture.

  12. Re:Wow, 3% = doom? by TheSync · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Here is the deal: According to the Tax Policy Center, if we cap itemized deductions at $50,000 and keep tax rates as they are today, we would raise $749 billion in tax revenue over ten years.

    Moreover, according to the TPC's distribution table, 96.2% of the extra revenue would come from the top quintile, with 79.9% from the top one percent.