You can live "nicely" on $250K ANYWHERE. To pretend otherwise is just being a first world jack off.
Perhaps, but it goes further in some places...
Heck, the same money in Central America would go a LOT further, but I have no interest in living down there.:) I work from home, I could if I wanted to, the time zone is right... but I just... don't want to...
Almost no one here buys $5M houses based on a "salary".
:) I don't make a salary, I own my own business... I suspect a lot of those houses are bought the same way, by people who have money, but don't earn a lot of money, if that makes sense.
Would I work for someone? Sure, but my price is probably higher than is reasonable. Would I take a job for $250k in Dallas? Yes, I probably would, because running a business requires risk and keeping up with much more than just doing a "job".
But my work would pay perhaps half this much if I had a "job", so here I am...
You high minimum wage assumes the bottom of the labor market is static.
You gave a handful of people a raise; the ones that were apparently underpaid before; but took away the $10 and $12 and $14 jobs from all the rest.
No, of course not... In fact, I'm aware that raising the min wage won't do much, because people making $15/hr before will now want $20-25/hr.
In the end, the effective spending power of the poor won't change much, but they also don't understand this and you can't tell them because they are not educated enough to get it and they think the "rich" are just trying to trick them, so it is a waste of time.
Just give them a bigger number and they'll be happy for awhile. It may take 10-20 years before they catch on that nothing really changed other than a short term boost.
Let's see how it works out for Seattle.
It isn't even Seattle, just a very small part of town. It isn't a big enough area to have any effect, you have to do it across a broad area to notice anything.
I see now the brilliance of this plan: It makes any meaningful tax reform impossible.
Honestly that is not my goal...
It would amount to a 33% welfare cut in many cases. The simple flat(er) tax we crave (or insert any tax code that's not thousands of pages), would now be instantly and truly devastating to many poor.
That is why I tossed out the carrot of $15/hr min wage. Yes, I'm well aware that doesn't actually solve the problem, but poor people don't know that.
I'd promote it with "I'll raise your pay to a fair wage and make sure those wealthy pay their fair share of taxes!"
Meanwhile I'll quietly remind the rich that it is just moving the chess pieces around, they might pay a bit more, but not that much and they'll actually end up with lots of new customers with cash to spend, so it'll even out. Trickle up economics!:)
Nerds here on/. can discuss moving the EIC directly to Social Services, converting it to a check, etc., but I don't think our media would allow a reasoned discussion of options.
Yes, the media is indeed a problem... I don't have a solution to that problem I'm afraid...
Not at all, I totally support it, I think our tax code does nothing but support special interests and the wealthy. And while I don't consider myself "wealthy", I imagine the average person would.
If it helps, I'm in the 33% tax bracket, but my marginal tax rate is actually under 20% because I own my own business. I would pay more under this system and I'm ok with that.
But one, and only one, personal existence deduction would solve all of the flat tax issues.
That deduction is at the line between poor, and... less poor. Then everything after that is a flat tax. That way the poor pay no or trivial tax, and the rich get no or trivial deductions.
But you didn't mean the question sincerely in the first place did you?
I was quite serious... and no deductions means just that, everyone pays into the system, no free rides.
However, as a compromise, I'd be willing to raise the minimum wage to $15/hr the minute the flat tax was put into place. That more than compensates the poor for the 20% flat tax.
Also, keep in mind that this replaces FICA taxes which are horribly regressive for frankly anyone making under $40k or so won't really be paying much more in taxes.
SO a super regressive tax plan that would bankrupt most poor and lower middle class? No thank you. while I may benefit from the program it would be hard to argue the morality of it.
A flat tax is not regressive...
One of the problems we have in this country is that 47% of the people are paying NOTHING into the system...
How is it that they are allowed to not pay "their fair share", yet the wealthy is expected to do so?
I say EVERYONE pays their fair share, and the way to do that is with a flat tax.
While I don't believe in the concept of a minimum wage, I'd be willing to compromise and raise it to $15/hr the day we put into place a flat tax with no deductions.
That would more than make up the taxes to the poor.
GE announced fourth-quarter 2014 operating earnings of $5.6 billion, with operating earnings per share of $0.56, up 6% from the fourth quarter of 2013.
So in the 4th quarter of 2014, GE earned $5.6 billion. Great, 20% of that goes to the US government or $1.12 Billion.
Now wait a minute you say, not all of that was earned in the US. Fair enough, the only deduction they can take is actual taxes paid in other countries on that income. If they paid a total of $500 million in taxes oversea to various governments, then they owe the US government $620 Million.
No other deductions, simple accounting, it is the only way to do it, or the games get played to the point of silly.
Well, since they're not paying a fair wage to many of their employees, I'd say it would be whatever taxes they need to pay to fund the social net that picks up the slack for those low wages. Big corps like Walmart and McDonalds that give you brochures on how to apply for government assistance being an example of companies that don't pay a fair wage and don't pay their fair share.
Why you're posting as AC, I don't know. It is a fair point, if the pay of a job is such that the employees can get government assistance, then really tax dollars are subsidizing those cheap wages.
People with EARNED INCOME pay the highest tax rates.
While that is true, they pay far more in total dollars than you do.
If you were to try and tax their portfolio income at a higher rate, they'd just come up with ways around that, or run their businesses differently.
You could raise the capital gains tax to 40% if you like, but you wouldn't like the result in the economy and it wouldn't raise as much money as you think. Some of it would get moved offshore, some of it would be put into different investments to avoid the tax, and some of it would simply "disappear" into a black market of investments.
People of means generally won't pay such taxes if they can find any other option, and in today's global economy, they can.
Now if you're suggesting that we should lower "earned income tax rates", I'd agree with you. I personally think we should do a flat 20% tax on anything you earn, active or passive, with no deductions. It won't happen of course, but it would level the playing field and that is a low enough number that the wealthy would largely pay.
True, and the government is not my main concern with putting sensitive data, albeit encrypted, in the cloud. My main concern is that someday, the encryption might be broken. Once that happens any script kiddie with the right tools can to get to the data, and there's no sure way to remove it from the cloud.
Fair enough...
Then the question becomes... in 50 years, will anyone care? If you had open access to tax returns from 50 years ago, I'm not sure you could do much with it. Even having the SSN, the address and other contact details is out of date, and I honestly don't think SSNs are that secure anyway with all the data breaches...
As for encryption, AES-256 is either secure, or it isn't. If it is, it will never be broken via brute force (and I use the term "never" very rarely). If it isn't, then we have bigger problems since everyone and their mother uses it. If it turns out to have an easy to break flaw, the problems will extend way beyond your tax returns...
Finally, DropBox and OneDrive have no business reason to keep your files after you close your account. Keeping files costs money, and they aren't in the business to lose money.
And that's the biggest problem with the cloud. Once a single copy has been posted, you no longer have a sure way to delete every copy in existence.
While that is true, what is it that is so secret that you're protecting?
For most people, that is their tax returns, bank statements, etc. The government already has all that, they don't need to break into DropBox or OneDrive to read that stuff.
What else then? Honestly, I can't think of anything.
I have no concerns the NSA cares about me, I'm not important to them because I have no interest in harming the US Government or the USA itself. It may not be perfect, but it beats the crap out of what China and Russia have.
2) ok, innuendo aside, someone fired a few timeservers in the whitehouse. Bush started a war for no reason that killed 4,000 americans, cost well north of a trillion, and destabilized the mideast...
Whatever Bush did wrong does not make what Clinton did right.
Or did you never learn that two wrongs don't make a right?
I voted for Bush, twice, but I agree with you, he wasn't a good president. Clinton will be no better.
If you are going to blame Clinton (or Bush) for the GFC, then logically you must credit Obama with fixing it.
Ha!
So many people have views on the GFC without having any idea of what really happened.
Bush didn't cause it, Obama didn't fix it. Frankly, even Clinton isn't really at fault.
So who caused it? Congress and Wall Street.
The fixes were largely in motion when Obama was sworn in, he had little to do with it. Those fixes were put into place under Bush, but they weren't really his decisions, that was Treasury and the Fed.
As disgusting as the bailouts really were, had they not been done, it would have been much worse. Had GM and AIG not been bailed out, we wouldn't have had an economy, it would have come to a stop and it wouldn't have been pretty.
Now we can talk about why those companies were allowed to get into that position in the first place, but in October 2008, the damage was done.
I'm somewhat skeptical of the whole corrupt system, all the way through, but all the muck brought up on Clintonia is NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING compared to the death, destruction, global disruption actions of the war criminals Dubyah and Dick
So?
Lets say that we all agree with you... then what? Vote in Clinton because... of what Bush did?
Two wrongs make a right?
How about we get someone fresh and new in who hasn't been in Washington for 30 years?
Slashdot Mirror
You can live "nicely" on $250K ANYWHERE. To pretend otherwise is just being a first world jack off.
Perhaps, but it goes further in some places...
Heck, the same money in Central America would go a LOT further, but I have no interest in living down there. :) I work from home, I could if I wanted to, the time zone is right... but I just... don't want to...
Almost no one here buys $5M houses based on a "salary".
:) I don't make a salary, I own my own business... I suspect a lot of those houses are bought the same way, by people who have money, but don't earn a lot of money, if that makes sense.
Would I work for someone? Sure, but my price is probably higher than is reasonable. Would I take a job for $250k in Dallas? Yes, I probably would, because running a business requires risk and keeping up with much more than just doing a "job".
But my work would pay perhaps half this much if I had a "job", so here I am...
You high minimum wage assumes the bottom of the labor market is static.
You gave a handful of people a raise; the ones that were apparently underpaid before; but took away the $10 and $12 and $14 jobs from all the rest.
No, of course not... In fact, I'm aware that raising the min wage won't do much, because people making $15/hr before will now want $20-25/hr.
In the end, the effective spending power of the poor won't change much, but they also don't understand this and you can't tell them because they are not educated enough to get it and they think the "rich" are just trying to trick them, so it is a waste of time.
Just give them a bigger number and they'll be happy for awhile. It may take 10-20 years before they catch on that nothing really changed other than a short term boost.
Let's see how it works out for Seattle.
It isn't even Seattle, just a very small part of town. It isn't a big enough area to have any effect, you have to do it across a broad area to notice anything.
I see now the brilliance of this plan: It makes any meaningful tax reform impossible.
Honestly that is not my goal...
It would amount to a 33% welfare cut in many cases. The simple flat(er) tax we crave (or insert any tax code that's not thousands of pages), would now be instantly and truly devastating to many poor.
That is why I tossed out the carrot of $15/hr min wage. Yes, I'm well aware that doesn't actually solve the problem, but poor people don't know that.
I'd promote it with "I'll raise your pay to a fair wage and make sure those wealthy pay their fair share of taxes!"
Meanwhile I'll quietly remind the rich that it is just moving the chess pieces around, they might pay a bit more, but not that much and they'll actually end up with lots of new customers with cash to spend, so it'll even out. Trickle up economics! :)
Nerds here on /. can discuss moving the EIC directly to Social Services, converting it to a check, etc., but I don't think our media would allow a reasoned discussion of options.
Yes, the media is indeed a problem... I don't have a solution to that problem I'm afraid...
Raise the minimum wage and they are out of jobs.
I used to think that... I'm no longer so sure...
$15/hr is still only $30k per year for full time work, that frankly isn't that much money in 2015...
Almost no one would, and you know that.
Not at all, I totally support it, I think our tax code does nothing but support special interests and the wealthy. And while I don't consider myself "wealthy", I imagine the average person would.
If it helps, I'm in the 33% tax bracket, but my marginal tax rate is actually under 20% because I own my own business. I would pay more under this system and I'm ok with that.
But one, and only one, personal existence deduction would solve all of the flat tax issues.
That deduction is at the line between poor, and... less poor. Then everything after that is a flat tax. That way the poor pay no or trivial tax, and the rich get no or trivial deductions.
But you didn't mean the question sincerely in the first place did you?
I was quite serious... and no deductions means just that, everyone pays into the system, no free rides.
However, as a compromise, I'd be willing to raise the minimum wage to $15/hr the minute the flat tax was put into place. That more than compensates the poor for the 20% flat tax.
Also, keep in mind that this replaces FICA taxes which are horribly regressive for frankly anyone making under $40k or so won't really be paying much more in taxes.
SO a super regressive tax plan that would bankrupt most poor and lower middle class? No thank you. while I may benefit from the program it would be hard to argue the morality of it.
A flat tax is not regressive...
One of the problems we have in this country is that 47% of the people are paying NOTHING into the system...
How is it that they are allowed to not pay "their fair share", yet the wealthy is expected to do so?
I say EVERYONE pays their fair share, and the way to do that is with a flat tax.
While I don't believe in the concept of a minimum wage, I'd be willing to compromise and raise it to $15/hr the day we put into place a flat tax with no deductions.
That would more than make up the taxes to the poor.
So then all you have to do is funnel all your expenses through your business and not get a paycheck of greater than 20k per year.
Clearly that needs some reform as well...
It isn't quite 90%, but I get your point...
Companies hide income all the time, look at Apple, Microsoft, GE, etc.
That being said, they go to such lengths because the tax rate for them is 35% and they just aren't going to pay it if they can avoid it.
Lower it to 20% and many of those companies will bring that cash back to America and pay tax on it.
As for what is "income" for a company?
Example: GE
http://www.ge.com/investor-rel...
GE announced fourth-quarter 2014 operating earnings of $5.6 billion, with operating earnings per share of $0.56, up 6% from the fourth quarter of 2013.
So in the 4th quarter of 2014, GE earned $5.6 billion. Great, 20% of that goes to the US government or $1.12 Billion.
Now wait a minute you say, not all of that was earned in the US. Fair enough, the only deduction they can take is actual taxes paid in other countries on that income. If they paid a total of $500 million in taxes oversea to various governments, then they owe the US government $620 Million.
No other deductions, simple accounting, it is the only way to do it, or the games get played to the point of silly.
Example of silly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
Well, since they're not paying a fair wage to many of their employees, I'd say it would be whatever taxes they need to pay to fund the social net that picks up the slack for those low wages. Big corps like Walmart and McDonalds that give you brochures on how to apply for government assistance being an example of companies that don't pay a fair wage and don't pay their fair share.
Why you're posting as AC, I don't know. It is a fair point, if the pay of a job is such that the employees can get government assistance, then really tax dollars are subsidizing those cheap wages.
So the question becomes, do you believe in a flat tax rate?
Everyone pays the same percentage, 20% without deductions?
Ok, so would you support a flat 20% tax rate on all income across the board with no deductions?
People with EARNED INCOME pay the highest tax rates.
While that is true, they pay far more in total dollars than you do.
If you were to try and tax their portfolio income at a higher rate, they'd just come up with ways around that, or run their businesses differently.
You could raise the capital gains tax to 40% if you like, but you wouldn't like the result in the economy and it wouldn't raise as much money as you think. Some of it would get moved offshore, some of it would be put into different investments to avoid the tax, and some of it would simply "disappear" into a black market of investments.
People of means generally won't pay such taxes if they can find any other option, and in today's global economy, they can.
Now if you're suggesting that we should lower "earned income tax rates", I'd agree with you. I personally think we should do a flat 20% tax on anything you earn, active or passive, with no deductions. It won't happen of course, but it would level the playing field and that is a low enough number that the wealthy would largely pay.
Their fair share is obviously whatever things cost and I don't feel like paying for myself.
That is one of the most honest answers I've ever read... cudos to you... :)
You could modify the tax code such that wealthy people and corporations have to pay their fair share of taxes.
What exactly... is "their fair share"?
I keep hearing people say that without defining what that really is.
Did you know the wealthy already pay most of the taxes? How much more would *you* like them to pay?
True, and the government is not my main concern with putting sensitive data, albeit encrypted, in the cloud. My main concern is that someday, the encryption might be broken. Once that happens any script kiddie with the right tools can to get to the data, and there's no sure way to remove it from the cloud.
Fair enough...
Then the question becomes... in 50 years, will anyone care? If you had open access to tax returns from 50 years ago, I'm not sure you could do much with it. Even having the SSN, the address and other contact details is out of date, and I honestly don't think SSNs are that secure anyway with all the data breaches...
As for encryption, AES-256 is either secure, or it isn't. If it is, it will never be broken via brute force (and I use the term "never" very rarely). If it isn't, then we have bigger problems since everyone and their mother uses it. If it turns out to have an easy to break flaw, the problems will extend way beyond your tax returns...
Finally, DropBox and OneDrive have no business reason to keep your files after you close your account. Keeping files costs money, and they aren't in the business to lose money.
That is my logic and reasoning anyway.
Just because two wrongs don't make a right doesn't mean that all wrongs are equal.
Starting two pointless wars is not in the same ballpark as getting a blow job.
True, but I wasn't talking about Bill.
His wife is much worse... I'd rather have him back than her, if those were my only two choices...
Democrats and Republicans agree that their candidate is a little less bad than the candidate of the other party.
I used to be a Republican, until I opened my eyes and saw they were just the other side of the Democrat coin.
Now I dislike both sides, we have a nasty two party system that gives the illusion of choice.
That is fine, you're welcome to your opinion. Just so long as you don't try and impose it on others. But express away, freedom of speech and all that.
And that's the biggest problem with the cloud. Once a single copy has been posted, you no longer have a sure way to delete every copy in existence.
While that is true, what is it that is so secret that you're protecting?
For most people, that is their tax returns, bank statements, etc. The government already has all that, they don't need to break into DropBox or OneDrive to read that stuff.
What else then? Honestly, I can't think of anything.
I have no concerns the NSA cares about me, I'm not important to them because I have no interest in harming the US Government or the USA itself. It may not be perfect, but it beats the crap out of what China and Russia have.
That's the thing - they don't need to be "forever secure". For tax data, all you need is seven years
This is true... and this isn't something to be concerned about from the NSA, they already can read your tax data... at the IRS... :)
2) ok, innuendo aside, someone fired a few timeservers in the whitehouse. Bush started a war for no reason that killed 4,000 americans, cost well north of a trillion, and destabilized the mideast...
Whatever Bush did wrong does not make what Clinton did right.
Or did you never learn that two wrongs don't make a right?
I voted for Bush, twice, but I agree with you, he wasn't a good president. Clinton will be no better.
If you are going to blame Clinton (or Bush) for the GFC, then logically you must credit Obama with fixing it.
Ha!
So many people have views on the GFC without having any idea of what really happened.
Bush didn't cause it, Obama didn't fix it. Frankly, even Clinton isn't really at fault.
So who caused it? Congress and Wall Street.
The fixes were largely in motion when Obama was sworn in, he had little to do with it. Those fixes were put into place under Bush, but they weren't really his decisions, that was Treasury and the Fed.
As disgusting as the bailouts really were, had they not been done, it would have been much worse. Had GM and AIG not been bailed out, we wouldn't have had an economy, it would have come to a stop and it wouldn't have been pretty.
Now we can talk about why those companies were allowed to get into that position in the first place, but in October 2008, the damage was done.
I'm somewhat skeptical of the whole corrupt system, all the way through, but all the muck brought up on Clintonia is NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING compared to the death, destruction, global disruption actions of the war criminals Dubyah and Dick
So?
Lets say that we all agree with you... then what? Vote in Clinton because... of what Bush did?
Two wrongs make a right?
How about we get someone fresh and new in who hasn't been in Washington for 30 years?
Please don't vote for Hillary just because she is a woman. We can't continue the oligarchy that is the US government leadership.
If the Republicans had any brains at all, they would run a reasonable woman for President.
Not someone like Palin, but more to the center than her.
That would remove the whole "vote for a woman" thing and even the tables.
Right. And it's the environmentalists that are screaming about the Ivanpah facility killing birds.
The environmentalists seem to scream about everything...
Are they actually FOR anything?
This is why I've really tuned them out. They might have a point from time to time, but it gets lost in the "cry wolf" they keep doing.