Bullshit yourself. Look it up. The rate is 35%. The existence of deductions is beside the fact.
If 'reality' is besides the fact, it's rather hard to have a substantive discussion.
Your other points are reasonable positions. Governments exist to change people's behavior, to deter stuff we don't like and by converse encourage stuff we don't. The tax code is but one way to do that. Deductions will always exist.
But a flatter slightly progressive tax code is certainly in everyone's interest (regardless of what that actual flat 'rate' is).
the 'point' is when you have 'tolls' that get paid if you only have one passenger and tolls that you're exempt from if you're HOV.
HOT lanes are being built in DC and exist in a number of other places. This device is tailor made for HOT lanes...and of course massive privacy invasion, but that's just icing on the cake I'm sure;-)
US corporate taxes are among the very highest in the world at 35%
This is complete and utter bullshit. The 'technical' rate might be 35% but *nobody* pays that rate in reality after deductions.
Heck, General Electric, you know that multi-billion dollar company, paid ZERO in taxes last year. They deducted their way out of paying a single cent to the government. So no, taxes are *not* too high, they are too low at this point in time.
You likely didn't pay the standard tax rate yourself because of the basic deduction given to all tax filers, even more if you deduct mortgage interest. My rate ends up being about 15% or so even though I'm in the 33-38% bracket.
One more thing. You are correct that we can't maintain deficits forever. No argument there.
However, we have at least a decade or more before the rest of the world stops clamoring hand over fist to buy our issuances of debt. Take the recent, credit downgrade...the result? People FLOCKING to US Treasuries....the very thing that was downgraded.
Why? because we still the best game in town and we got that way by investing in our country's infrastructure so corporations can cheaply transport goods and do business.
We have time to do this, not unlimited time, but time enough.
If you want to argue economic theory, explain how taking a trillion dollars OUT of the economy by cutting spending increases revenues?
The only concrete change is slightly less interest due on the not quite as big debt. That isn't an increase in revenue.
Without being expertly versed, yes I do believe Keynesian theory works. You can't cut your way out of recession. You can, however, grow your way out. And nobody is saying just spend with wild abandon. You target your spending on things that return you more money than you spent originally. Like unemployment insurance, food stamps and infrastructure. Some low to mid income tax cuts can play a roll (payroll for instance) as well. But corporate tax rates don't affect things on the grand scale until you're well outside of anything being discussed today. Obama is pushing a roughly 4% increase on high earners. Not exactly the end of the world...
Cutting will bring both types of pain. The type from discipline and the type from regret as the economy stays in the pits and our debt grows anyway.
Since we absolutely *have* to rebuild our infrastructure in the next 20-30 years AND we have a major need for economic growth...deficit spending on something we have to do anyway is how you get yourself a win-win situation. Infrastructure spending is a very good way to boost the economy last I checked.
Of course if you think we can let the infrastructure just continue to degrade without significant...well, enjoy your 2nd world status.
Yes we should let them utilize child labor because, hey, the market *knows* best.
-1 Out of context/straw man
If he gets to say 'no restrictions on corporations' which is itself a straw man, we get to point out how stupid that idea is if taken literally.
Better to spend money on stimulus and get money circulating through the economy and creating demand.
+1 insightful
Except that we're not really spending money anymore, we're so ridiculously far in debt we're spending our own and our kids' future/freedom.
If we *don't* start spending, we will spiral down hill and realize the debt onto our children. If we cut a trillion dollars out of the economy, that's actual money that isn't in the economy. Sure it isn't on the 'credit card', but when the tax revenues drop because you spent a trillion dollars less, you're still going to owe *more* than if you'd spent money on stimulus. Stimulus and growth are the only way out of this, cutting only deepens the debt (which is more than spending would deepen it since spending gives you return, but cutting does not).
It simply is not possible to cut spending as the GOP (and the sheeple) say AND keep the programs that the vast bulk of Americans also say they want and need. So yes something has to give, and if it's the programs like SocSec and Medicare that get axed, there will be serious economic ramifications down the road...decades down the road when it's far too late to fix with any reasonable cost.
No, there shouldn't be any requirements for private businesses
Yes we should let them utilize child labor because, hey, the market *knows* best.
Tax Cuts for staying on shore are *exactly* the same as penalties for going offshore. Seriously, how is it any different? The latter means you have more revenue available. The former means you have less revenue available. That's not a plan forward that's a plan to spiral downward.
the last decade has clearly shown that tax cuts do *not* stimulate the economy. If they did, why are we still in a recession? Why did we have the lowest job growth period in the last few decades during the time taxes were the lowest in 50 years?
Corporate Tax cuts do *not* work. Stimulus on the other hand actively puts money into the economy. Tax cuts just put it in companies pockets and then you *hope* they spend it. We've seen they aren't spending it, so why give them more?
Nobody is going to hire new workers until there is enough demand. It doesn't matter what the tax rate is. If there isn't enough demand, they'll just pocket that tax cut which doesn't help anyone and only adds to the deficit. Better to spend money on stimulus and get money circulating through the economy and creating demand.
UV is damaging in general. Sit out in the summer sun for an entire day without any protection and you'll be quite aware of how damaging it is:)
As for retina's isn't that what happens to high mountain climbers who don't wear proper eye protection?
Most people realized that people do want relationships more then just blind sex
if by 'most people' you mean female yes. Most men still want random gratuitous sex as often as they can get it for the better part of their teens and 20s. It's genetic mostly but also nicely reinforced by societal stereotypes.
What I believe will *really* launch the next sexual bonanza is a simple 5 minute 'blood test on a chip' for the various STDs. Don't have to cure it, just know if the person you're going to humpty-hump with is likely clean.
And that really can't be that far off in the future me thinks. Testing for the existence of a disease is infinitely simpler than curing it.
A friend of mine who is an *actual* doctor said the available documentation on the risk of transmission from female to male is about 3 in 1000. Which is pretty decent odds for completely unprotected sex.
Even throwing out the ridiculous concept that the 'male-to-male' doesn't include long term stable relationships, the heterosexual contact certainly contains a significant number of long term stable relationships.
Since people *do* cheat, you can't prevent what you don't know about, since cheating is quite frequently...secret. So all the long term stable partners of 'cheaters' who caught HIV couldn't do anything to prevent infection.
Injection drug use - insulin is a legal form of this and certainly has some placement in the numbers.
So unless you want to live in the fantasy world of Leave it to Beaver, no, 99.8% weren't preventable.
if you totally remove yourself the internet (from Facebook and similar places), then someone else is in charge of what shows up online about you
Well I'm not on any public sites via name except LinkedIn, which is mostly just a test page that has nothing at all on it. I don't post there or go there or anything, hell I don't even remember the password I used at the time...lol
And when I google myself, it's 4 pages of results before I find anything that's actually 'me'. And that is a single solitary notice of my college wrestling record.
So yes you can keep yourself nicely anonymous without too much effort.
Demand doesn't magically create the infrastructure to build something. China is massively subsidizing their solar industry, partially because they need it internally, but also to meet this 'new' demand of that last decade or so.
So now the Chinese are positioned to be the leader in this market while we aren't even a player. Great economic future in that model...just not for us.
The poster complained that the solar panels would be purchased from China. Why? Because we have not invested in a technology the entire world wants.
The GOP has prevented money that could have kick started the industry in this country, so yes they have forced people out of business. Just not the established entrenched monopolies that don't want to change.
Seriously, if people want something, you don't see the benefit in *you* building it for them? Or would you rather 'more' of our manufacturing jobs go overseas?
Waiting until it's 'profitable' just means somebody else will build up their industry first and then you have to both invest AND sell at lower prices because they can produce at scale prices but you are producing at high initial prices.
And you can thank the GOP for that great 'business' sense. They have consistently opposed any sort of 'green' technology here in the US.
Even if you don't believe in something, if the entire world is clamoring for a product, why not build it for them? Yet the GOP fought it on purely political grounds. The party of 'business' my ass....more like the party of 'currently entrenched monopoly businesses who give us money'...
According to Huffington Post & Bob Cavnar it isn't likely. Think about that. A very left leaning publication and the expert that most left leaning sources went to during the crisis are saying this isn't really a likely scenario. And he provides some plausible explanations for the oil.
And still criticizes BP for not providing video of the site to diffuse the internet rumors, so he's hardly in BP pocket on this.
where the 'two second rule' was bashed into pretty much everyone
You assume that we actually 'train' people how to drive in the US. Mostly we make them do stupid 3 pt turns and think they're ready for the Indy 500. Teaching people *when* to do a 3 pt turn is far more important than 'how' to do it. But we don't really care about that type of thing.
Nor do we enforce traffic laws without any sense of consistency, so nobody even tries to follow the rules anyway.
If the Postal Service fails, a lot of people out in the country will suddenly find that ordering a $5 replacement wiper blade from Amazon is gonna cost them $100 in shipping, or won't be available to their location at all.
The sad part is those same people seem to elect the politicians who want to cut government services to the bone....
Indeed:) I conflated the emissions of the sources in my typing.
Nuclear does not release CO2 obviously. It does however have significant waste issues in that are not reflected in the costs of the electricity. The Government picks up the tab for that, as well as the loan guarantee's that get the plants build in the first place. The costs associated with keeping waste safe for 1000 years aren't exactly cheap.
Then there's the failure issue with nuclear. Nothing else has the potential to render 100s of square miles uninhabitable for decades when it fails. As Fukushima showed us, 'safe' is a very relative term.
Slashdot Mirror
Bullshit yourself. Look it up. The rate is 35%. The existence of deductions is beside the fact.
If 'reality' is besides the fact, it's rather hard to have a substantive discussion.
Your other points are reasonable positions. Governments exist to change people's behavior, to deter stuff we don't like and by converse encourage stuff we don't. The tax code is but one way to do that. Deductions will always exist.
But a flatter slightly progressive tax code is certainly in everyone's interest (regardless of what that actual flat 'rate' is).
Any toll plaza already has this ability. Point A at 9:12, Point B at 9:15, wait they are 6 miles apart....
the 'point' is when you have 'tolls' that get paid if you only have one passenger and tolls that you're exempt from if you're HOV.
;-)
HOT lanes are being built in DC and exist in a number of other places. This device is tailor made for HOT lanes...and of course massive privacy invasion, but that's just icing on the cake I'm sure
US corporate taxes are among the very highest in the world at 35%
This is complete and utter bullshit. The 'technical' rate might be 35% but *nobody* pays that rate in reality after deductions.
Heck, General Electric, you know that multi-billion dollar company, paid ZERO in taxes last year. They deducted their way out of paying a single cent to the government. So no, taxes are *not* too high, they are too low at this point in time.
You likely didn't pay the standard tax rate yourself because of the basic deduction given to all tax filers, even more if you deduct mortgage interest. My rate ends up being about 15% or so even though I'm in the 33-38% bracket.
One more thing. You are correct that we can't maintain deficits forever. No argument there.
However, we have at least a decade or more before the rest of the world stops clamoring hand over fist to buy our issuances of debt. Take the recent, credit downgrade...the result? People FLOCKING to US Treasuries....the very thing that was downgraded.
Why? because we still the best game in town and we got that way by investing in our country's infrastructure so corporations can cheaply transport goods and do business.
We have time to do this, not unlimited time, but time enough.
If you want to argue economic theory, explain how taking a trillion dollars OUT of the economy by cutting spending increases revenues?
The only concrete change is slightly less interest due on the not quite as big debt. That isn't an increase in revenue.
Without being expertly versed, yes I do believe Keynesian theory works. You can't cut your way out of recession. You can, however, grow your way out. And nobody is saying just spend with wild abandon. You target your spending on things that return you more money than you spent originally. Like unemployment insurance, food stamps and infrastructure. Some low to mid income tax cuts can play a roll (payroll for instance) as well. But corporate tax rates don't affect things on the grand scale until you're well outside of anything being discussed today. Obama is pushing a roughly 4% increase on high earners. Not exactly the end of the world...
Cutting will bring both types of pain. The type from discipline and the type from regret as the economy stays in the pits and our debt grows anyway.
Since we absolutely *have* to rebuild our infrastructure in the next 20-30 years AND we have a major need for economic growth...deficit spending on something we have to do anyway is how you get yourself a win-win situation. Infrastructure spending is a very good way to boost the economy last I checked.
Of course if you think we can let the infrastructure just continue to degrade without significant...well, enjoy your 2nd world status.
Yes we should let them utilize child labor because, hey, the market *knows* best.
-1 Out of context/straw man
If he gets to say 'no restrictions on corporations' which is itself a straw man, we get to point out how stupid that idea is if taken literally.
Better to spend money on stimulus and get money circulating through the economy and creating demand.
+1 insightful
Except that we're not really spending money anymore, we're so ridiculously far in debt we're spending our own and our kids' future/freedom.
If we *don't* start spending, we will spiral down hill and realize the debt onto our children. If we cut a trillion dollars out of the economy, that's actual money that isn't in the economy. Sure it isn't on the 'credit card', but when the tax revenues drop because you spent a trillion dollars less, you're still going to owe *more* than if you'd spent money on stimulus. Stimulus and growth are the only way out of this, cutting only deepens the debt (which is more than spending would deepen it since spending gives you return, but cutting does not).
It simply is not possible to cut spending as the GOP (and the sheeple) say AND keep the programs that the vast bulk of Americans also say they want and need. So yes something has to give, and if it's the programs like SocSec and Medicare that get axed, there will be serious economic ramifications down the road...decades down the road when it's far too late to fix with any reasonable cost.
No, there shouldn't be any requirements for private businesses
Yes we should let them utilize child labor because, hey, the market *knows* best.
Tax Cuts for staying on shore are *exactly* the same as penalties for going offshore. Seriously, how is it any different? The latter means you have more revenue available. The former means you have less revenue available. That's not a plan forward that's a plan to spiral downward.
the last decade has clearly shown that tax cuts do *not* stimulate the economy. If they did, why are we still in a recession? Why did we have the lowest job growth period in the last few decades during the time taxes were the lowest in 50 years?
Corporate Tax cuts do *not* work. Stimulus on the other hand actively puts money into the economy. Tax cuts just put it in companies pockets and then you *hope* they spend it. We've seen they aren't spending it, so why give them more?
Nobody is going to hire new workers until there is enough demand. It doesn't matter what the tax rate is. If there isn't enough demand, they'll just pocket that tax cut which doesn't help anyone and only adds to the deficit. Better to spend money on stimulus and get money circulating through the economy and creating demand.
UV is damaging in general. Sit out in the summer sun for an entire day without any protection and you'll be quite aware of how damaging it is :)
As for retina's isn't that what happens to high mountain climbers who don't wear proper eye protection?
Most people realized that people do want relationships more then just blind sex
if by 'most people' you mean female yes. Most men still want random gratuitous sex as often as they can get it for the better part of their teens and 20s. It's genetic mostly but also nicely reinforced by societal stereotypes.
I'm sure there will be some affect on behavior.
What I believe will *really* launch the next sexual bonanza is a simple 5 minute 'blood test on a chip' for the various STDs. Don't have to cure it, just know if the person you're going to humpty-hump with is likely clean.
And that really can't be that far off in the future me thinks. Testing for the existence of a disease is infinitely simpler than curing it.
Yes. Oh and your mom will be home a little late tonight...
A friend of mine who is an *actual* doctor said the available documentation on the risk of transmission from female to male is about 3 in 1000. Which is pretty decent odds for completely unprotected sex.
or is it that the 'little sore' is why they are unwillingly abstinent? ;-)
Even throwing out the ridiculous concept that the 'male-to-male' doesn't include long term stable relationships, the heterosexual contact certainly contains a significant number of long term stable relationships.
Since people *do* cheat, you can't prevent what you don't know about, since cheating is quite frequently...secret. So all the long term stable partners of 'cheaters' who caught HIV couldn't do anything to prevent infection.
Injection drug use - insulin is a legal form of this and certainly has some placement in the numbers. So unless you want to live in the fantasy world of Leave it to Beaver, no, 99.8% weren't preventable.
golf-clap...kudos to you sir for going where only 1 man had gone before
if you totally remove yourself the internet (from Facebook and similar places), then someone else is in charge of what shows up online about you
Well I'm not on any public sites via name except LinkedIn, which is mostly just a test page that has nothing at all on it. I don't post there or go there or anything, hell I don't even remember the password I used at the time...lol
And when I google myself, it's 4 pages of results before I find anything that's actually 'me'. And that is a single solitary notice of my college wrestling record.
So yes you can keep yourself nicely anonymous without too much effort.
Demand doesn't magically create the infrastructure to build something. China is massively subsidizing their solar industry, partially because they need it internally, but also to meet this 'new' demand of that last decade or so.
So now the Chinese are positioned to be the leader in this market while we aren't even a player. Great economic future in that model...just not for us.
The poster complained that the solar panels would be purchased from China. Why? Because we have not invested in a technology the entire world wants.
The GOP has prevented money that could have kick started the industry in this country, so yes they have forced people out of business. Just not the established entrenched monopolies that don't want to change.
Seriously, if people want something, you don't see the benefit in *you* building it for them? Or would you rather 'more' of our manufacturing jobs go overseas?
Waiting until it's 'profitable' just means somebody else will build up their industry first and then you have to both invest AND sell at lower prices because they can produce at scale prices but you are producing at high initial prices.
And you can thank the GOP for that great 'business' sense. They have consistently opposed any sort of 'green' technology here in the US.
Even if you don't believe in something, if the entire world is clamoring for a product, why not build it for them? Yet the GOP fought it on purely political grounds. The party of 'business' my ass....more like the party of 'currently entrenched monopoly businesses who give us money'...
Sources beyond the fringes?
According to Huffington Post & Bob Cavnar it isn't likely. Think about that. A very left leaning publication and the expert that most left leaning sources went to during the crisis are saying this isn't really a likely scenario. And he provides some plausible explanations for the oil.
And still criticizes BP for not providing video of the site to diffuse the internet rumors, so he's hardly in BP pocket on this.
where the 'two second rule' was bashed into pretty much everyone
You assume that we actually 'train' people how to drive in the US. Mostly we make them do stupid 3 pt turns and think they're ready for the Indy 500. Teaching people *when* to do a 3 pt turn is far more important than 'how' to do it. But we don't really care about that type of thing.
Nor do we enforce traffic laws without any sense of consistency, so nobody even tries to follow the rules anyway.
If the Postal Service fails, a lot of people out in the country will suddenly find that ordering a $5 replacement wiper blade from Amazon is gonna cost them $100 in shipping, or won't be available to their location at all.
The sad part is those same people seem to elect the politicians who want to cut government services to the bone....
They'll have to charge the true cost of delivery if they want to actually solve the problem.
But then we'd never hear of the 'great' Sarah Palin...oh wait, maybe that isn't so bad...
Indeed :) I conflated the emissions of the sources in my typing.
Nuclear does not release CO2 obviously. It does however have significant waste issues in that are not reflected in the costs of the electricity. The Government picks up the tab for that, as well as the loan guarantee's that get the plants build in the first place. The costs associated with keeping waste safe for 1000 years aren't exactly cheap.
Then there's the failure issue with nuclear. Nothing else has the potential to render 100s of square miles uninhabitable for decades when it fails. As Fukushima showed us, 'safe' is a very relative term.