Even if that's true for some people, some other people are going to look past those issues to find good things to invest in.
I'd have no trouble investing in a company led by a woman, but I wouldn't invest in a company led by a mom with children in the home (and probably not a dad either).
That doesn't matter. The computer has to be in the child's home already. A kid who doesn't have a computer doesn't know that he wants to mess around with his computer. He has to have a computer, then be one of the few kids who would rather mess around with it than just play on it or do something else.
There are almost no black tech entrepreneurs for the same reason there are almost no black hockey players - black children and teens don't do either, and in any activity, the very top people in that activity are almost always the people who got involved in it before they were early teens.
A black person who goes to college for computers is not going to compete with a white kid who has been plastered to his computer monitor since he was 11, anymore than a black kid who starts playing hockey when he turns 18 is going to make an NHL team (or any kid who starts playing/doing/learning anything is going to make the Pro level of it if there are other people who have already been doing it 10 years - that counts musical instruments, sports, etc.)
The problem is twofold: Lack of access to computers for black children/teens, and a culture that doesn't support "wasting time" messing with technology. (Not that white culture was greatly supportive of my nerdy endeavors but at least my parents didn't stop me beyond demanding I go outside more.)
There are 100 times as many white teenagers plastered to their monitor messing around with their computer as there are black teenagers. Since successful tech entrepreneurs tend to be the kids who spent thousands of hours in front of their computer when they were kids, and the kids spending thousands of hours in front of their computer are almost all white (or asian), then of course almost all the tech entrepreneurs will be white.
It's got nothing to do with silicon valley. It's due to the comparative lack of computer availability to young black teens, and a cultural difference where American black culture has a much lower opinion on average of nerdy endeavors as opposed to American white culture.
I can't speak to scientists, but everyone I know who is an engineer is compensated very well. It's probably one of the best-compensated careers I can think of short of management, law, and doctors. And being a doctor requires quite the investment.
And while there are certainly underpaid teachers, there are also a whole lot of overpaid teachers out there. In fact, teaching is probably one of the most widely overpaid professions there is, especially in certain situations.
Teaching is, in fact, a magnet for the unqualified. No one agrees how to figure out if a teacher is good or not, you can't fire them, and they all get paid the same. That's the slacker dream job! And it's one of the reasons you can't pay teachers a lot - since you have to pay them all the same, and you have no way to figure out who the good ones are even if you could pay them differently, and you can't pay them all a lot, then they all get not much.
And since they all get not much, the kinds of people who really would make great teachers tend to get other jobs where they can be compensated for being better than others.
The reason the credit unions don't charge the account holder fees is because they still get to rape the merchant on the debit card transactions.
The law that cut the fees Bank of American and other large banks could charge does not apply to banks with less than $10 billion in assets. So while the feds capped what BoA can charge, your credit union can keep charging merchants whatever they want to process debit card transactions.
Let's assume for a second that, if you don't pay property taxes, the government doesn't do anything.
Do you not "own" your land because, if you go bankrupt, you can lose land to satisfy your debts?
Do you not "own" your land because it's collateral to a mortgage?
Nevermind that, in most places in the US, the government will NOT take your land due to non-payment of taxes. What they will do is put a LIEN on your land, which basically means you can't sell it until the back taxes are paid.
The reality is, ownership means you control the use of something, and, in the modern civilized world, it usually also means that the government will protect your rights to control the use of something. I.e., if I set up a tent on your lawn, and you don't want me there, you don't have to remove me yourself - you call the police and they'll get rid of me for you. That's an ownership right.
But just because you own something now doesn't mean you can't lose ownership of it against your will. Don't pay your income taxes and the government will come take it from your bank account. Default on a debt and the other party may sue you to seize your property to satisfy it.
So, do you "own" virtual goods? The problem with virtual goods is that their existence depends on someone else keeping the server alive. The bar mug club analogy is not a bad one - not only can you only use your virtual good in the context of someone else's property (the bar/server), your "property" ceases to exist should the other party decide to shut down their operation.
It's not like these "social" games would go away if someone invented effective, unobtrusive copy protection tomorrow.
As a former Facebook game addict, I can tell you that the "social" games speak to the completion/builder/collector in many people. What's really the difference between building a model replica ship and building a model farm? Or collecting something as meaningless as beanie babies vs. collecting something as meaningless as digital tokens? Or needing to finish, well, any task, and needing to master all your character's jobs?
The social games offer a very powerful thing: Constant progress. No matter what you do, you will progress, but you will never win. There are lots and lots of people who want constant progress. There's also people who feel compelled to complete things (I was one of them).
The other problem with blaming this on piracy is that you can absolutely pirate these games! Most of where the publisher gets their money is getting you to pay to remove obstacles to your progress, like timers or "X friends must "help" you" stuff where X is more people than you want to annoy. So you can "pirate" by simply making fake accounts or finding a group of people who are die-hard players like you are but who you don't actually know to add as fake friends, effectively "robbing" the publisher of their revenue. So just like traditional games, you can, with some effort, get the stuff for free, but many people will still pay for it for the convenience. Actually, were piracy the issue, MMORPGs are the solution, as it's pretty much impossible to pirate a monthly subscription.
The problem with the social games though, like any drug dealer, is these game publishers have gotten too greedy. They have cut the product too many times so it is no longer any good. I USED to mostly have fun playing, but then the bean counters got too much control over the game development and it became impossible to progress without either annoying the piss out of my friends (or finding a pile of fake friends) or paying cash. And if you're trying to play for "free", you wouldn't be able to get most things unless you're devoting lots of time to the effort (complete task now, 8-hour timer starts. Are you going to be near a computer in 8 hours? Well, if not, you can accelerate the timer for only XX tokens!
Anyway, they've made it not fun. People don't pay for not fun. I suspect Zynga will ultimately go the way of Groupon.
That's a false assumption. Everyone has SOME money. Some people just don't have any money they'd rather spend on music than something else, even if that something else is food.
what do the original creators lose when you pirate something that they made? Does some of their money magically vanish? Their property? Their time? What exactly do they lose?
You're looking at this as a micro-decision without considering the macro effect.
Sure, if I'm not going to buy it anyway, and I download it instead, there's virtually no difference.
But if we change the system so that it's OK to just download things without compensating the creators, then there is no compensation for the creators.
The end result is when you download something without paying for it, you're really stealing from everyone else who does pay for it, by taking the benefits of a system which rewards content creators for creating the content, while refusing to pay into the system when you consume content. You're basically saying everyone else should pay to create what you're consuming but for some reason you should be treated differently.
Try telling the bus company that you're not stealing when you get on the bus without paying since you didn't have the money to pay the fare anyway and sitting in the seat that would otherwise be empty didn't cost them anything. It's exactly the same argument, and it's no less stupid just because the thing you're using without paying for it is digital.
Side note: This is a big reason that torture and indefinite detention and rendition are bad. It changes the choices from "Turn yourself in and you'll get a trial or don't and we'll hunt you down and kill you" to "We're going to hunt you down and kill you unless you let us lock you up forever without trial and torture you."
If we're going to kill people who won't participate in due process, we have to actually offer them due process to participate in.
Just because you have the right to something doesn't mean the government has to force you to exercise that right. All American citizens are entitled to due process. But, in order to have due process, both parties have to participate. If you know the government is looking for you, and you choose to hide out in a lawless foreign desert where you know the government can't come get you, you're clearly not interested in participating in due process, and the government isn't obligated to force you to do so.
So if Anwar al-Awlaki wanted to exercise his due process rights, all he had to do was hop a plane over to the US and turn himself in. I bet if he had shown up at any major airport in the world the US government would have even given him a free flight.
Now, if we had him in custody, and THEN killed him without trial, or we detained him indefinitely without access to the courts, that would absolutely be a violation of his due process rights.
This was not. Anwar al-Awlaki's due process rights were not taken away, they were given up.
I would actually be embarrassed to use a GroupOn coupon, knowing how much it was shafting the business in the process. They get what -- 25% -- of their normal price, while GroupOn keeps another 25% for themselves in the half-off price? I truly feel sorry for the businesses who have been convinced to go this route.
The problem is you (and many others) don't understand what a Groupon should be.
For example, I bought a groupon for 50% off a winery tour. The tour resulted in a purchase of a case of wine from the winery. While I'm sure not everyone on the tour bought that much wine, the groupon got the winery exactly what they wanted: Lots of people in the winery at an off-peak time that they could then up-sell to. For them the groupon worked very well.
Groupons are not right for every business, but they can work very well for businesses that have low marginal costs, especially if set up to bring in business during off-peak times.
I didn't say just ANY taxes were preventing job creation.
I said taxes ON JOBS were preventing job creation.
Bush didn't lower the tax on jobs at all - it's been 15.3% for over two decades.
It's that special 15.3% tax on WAGES that is the problem. If I hire a worker in the United states, there's a 15% tax on all the wages I pay to the worker, up to a cap of $106,000, ON TOP of their income taxes. That means that if I *FIRE* an American worker, I get those taxes back.
That means that, combined with income taxes, wage income is taxed at up to 43%, while PROFITS are taxed as low as 15%. When I pay you $100,000 and the federal government tacks on $43,000 in taxes, I pay $143,000 to give you a job. But if I fire you, the government only gets $20,000 or so instead of $43,000. So, the more people I hire, the more taxes I pay. THAT is the tax problem.
On the other hand, if I raise income taxes and lower wage taxes, I can fix that problem. If *ALL* income is taxed at 25%, then if I pay you $100,000, you pay the government $25k of that in taxes. If I fire you and keep the $100,000, then I pay $25,000 in taxes. And that's if you don't get $15k or so of free income.
So, under the current tax system, the more Americans you hire, the higher your tax burden is. If we fix the tax system, the more Americans you hire, the LOWER your tax burden should be. Or at least the same.
If we want to encourage job growth, we should get rid of the 15% tax on wages that penalizes employers for hiring people.
Actually, its a larger incentive to not even bother playing the game and relocate to china, russia, or anywhere else that provides less disincentives to operate.
Yeah, go ahead and relocate to Russia. See how well their CEO's are doing, the ones that haven't gotten shot for pissing off the russian mob or arrested for pissing off the russian government.
Then you're actually in favor of a tax decrease for the wealthy. With our current tiered system, they pay a higher percentage than us.
That's true, on AVERAGE, but not true for each taxpayer. A wealthy doctor, for example, has a marginal federal tax rate of about 33%, since he gets his income from working, most likely as profits out of their business.
A hedge fund manager, however, has most of his income as carried interest and pays 15%.
Now me personally, for example, depending how good of a year it is, my marginal tax rate is 40% to 43%, since I pay 25-28% income taxes and 15% payroll taxes. If I made MORE money working, that would go down to 33%. And if I happened to already have a few million dollars, I could get down to 15% federal taxes.
So, I am absolutely in favor of a tax decrease for SOME wealthy people - the ones who actually work for a living and/or actually create jobs. I'm also in favor of a very significant tax increase for the wealthy who are paying close to 15% taxes while I'm paying close to 43%.
The solution is simple: Repeal the 15% federal tax on jobs (FICA). Get rid of capital gains taxes, dividend taxes, and any other income-related tax other than the income tax.
Every adult gets $15,000 of income per year tax-free. $30k for couples, toss in another $5k for the first two kids (after that, you want more, you pay for 'em.) Once you are past your tax-free zone, you pay 25% on the rest of your income. All of it - wages, interest, capital gains, dividends, lottery winnings, 25%. 10% of that goes to social security and medicare, the other 15% covers the rest of the federal government and cutting down on the debt. No earned income tax credit, no mortgage interest deduction for the million dollar mortgage on your vacation home, no deduction for $30k healthcare plans, no lower rate for investment income.
Most Americans won't see their taxes change much. Except actual job creators will see their taxes go down a lot, and very rich people who pay 15% taxes on piles of income they get from not employing anybody will see their taxes go up a lot.
The biggest factor in our unemployment rate is the 15% extra tax on income from wages (jobs).
And once we get rid of that 15% tax on jobs, we'll get more jobs in the US, more Americans being productive and spending more money, and the rich will make more money as a result.
Some things are obvious and forseeable to anyone with a basic grasp of mathematics.
Alright, but what do we do about Republicans?
In all seriousness, Tea Partiers are actually an improvement over previous Republicans - at least they've gone from the Bush Republicans "Cut taxes and Spend More" to "Cut Taxes AND Spending". But if we're going to fix the deficit, we're going to have to get all the way to "Cut Spending and Restore Taxes (on the rich who are currently not paying them.)"
Slashdot Mirror
Comic Con.
Even if that's true for some people, some other people are going to look past those issues to find good things to invest in.
I'd have no trouble investing in a company led by a woman, but I wouldn't invest in a company led by a mom with children in the home (and probably not a dad either).
That doesn't matter. The computer has to be in the child's home already. A kid who doesn't have a computer doesn't know that he wants to mess around with his computer. He has to have a computer, then be one of the few kids who would rather mess around with it than just play on it or do something else.
A computer that can do more calculations per second, yes. Hell, my phone has more processing power than the computers I grew up using.
A computer a kid can have in his home and connect to the internet and mess around with the guts of, no.
There are almost no black tech entrepreneurs for the same reason there are almost no black hockey players - black children and teens don't do either, and in any activity, the very top people in that activity are almost always the people who got involved in it before they were early teens.
A black person who goes to college for computers is not going to compete with a white kid who has been plastered to his computer monitor since he was 11, anymore than a black kid who starts playing hockey when he turns 18 is going to make an NHL team (or any kid who starts playing/doing/learning anything is going to make the Pro level of it if there are other people who have already been doing it 10 years - that counts musical instruments, sports, etc.)
The problem is twofold: Lack of access to computers for black children/teens, and a culture that doesn't support "wasting time" messing with technology. (Not that white culture was greatly supportive of my nerdy endeavors but at least my parents didn't stop me beyond demanding I go outside more.)
There are 100 times as many white teenagers plastered to their monitor messing around with their computer as there are black teenagers. Since successful tech entrepreneurs tend to be the kids who spent thousands of hours in front of their computer when they were kids, and the kids spending thousands of hours in front of their computer are almost all white (or asian), then of course almost all the tech entrepreneurs will be white.
It's got nothing to do with silicon valley. It's due to the comparative lack of computer availability to young black teens, and a cultural difference where American black culture has a much lower opinion on average of nerdy endeavors as opposed to American white culture.
The type of cerebral palsy the child in the video had doesn't meet the statute's definition of disabled.
I can't speak to scientists, but everyone I know who is an engineer is compensated very well. It's probably one of the best-compensated careers I can think of short of management, law, and doctors. And being a doctor requires quite the investment.
And while there are certainly underpaid teachers, there are also a whole lot of overpaid teachers out there. In fact, teaching is probably one of the most widely overpaid professions there is, especially in certain situations.
Teaching is, in fact, a magnet for the unqualified. No one agrees how to figure out if a teacher is good or not, you can't fire them, and they all get paid the same. That's the slacker dream job! And it's one of the reasons you can't pay teachers a lot - since you have to pay them all the same, and you have no way to figure out who the good ones are even if you could pay them differently, and you can't pay them all a lot, then they all get not much.
And since they all get not much, the kinds of people who really would make great teachers tend to get other jobs where they can be compensated for being better than others.
The reason the credit unions don't charge the account holder fees is because they still get to rape the merchant on the debit card transactions.
The law that cut the fees Bank of American and other large banks could charge does not apply to banks with less than $10 billion in assets. So while the feds capped what BoA can charge, your credit union can keep charging merchants whatever they want to process debit card transactions.
So, problem not solved, just moved.
Your argument stinks.
Let's assume for a second that, if you don't pay property taxes, the government doesn't do anything.
Do you not "own" your land because, if you go bankrupt, you can lose land to satisfy your debts?
Do you not "own" your land because it's collateral to a mortgage?
Nevermind that, in most places in the US, the government will NOT take your land due to non-payment of taxes. What they will do is put a LIEN on your land, which basically means you can't sell it until the back taxes are paid.
The reality is, ownership means you control the use of something, and, in the modern civilized world, it usually also means that the government will protect your rights to control the use of something. I.e., if I set up a tent on your lawn, and you don't want me there, you don't have to remove me yourself - you call the police and they'll get rid of me for you. That's an ownership right.
But just because you own something now doesn't mean you can't lose ownership of it against your will. Don't pay your income taxes and the government will come take it from your bank account. Default on a debt and the other party may sue you to seize your property to satisfy it.
So, do you "own" virtual goods? The problem with virtual goods is that their existence depends on someone else keeping the server alive. The bar mug club analogy is not a bad one - not only can you only use your virtual good in the context of someone else's property (the bar/server), your "property" ceases to exist should the other party decide to shut down their operation.
...I would avoid hiring anyone known to sue other people for something so trivial. Makes you wonder what they might find to sue you for.
It's not like these "social" games would go away if someone invented effective, unobtrusive copy protection tomorrow.
As a former Facebook game addict, I can tell you that the "social" games speak to the completion/builder/collector in many people. What's really the difference between building a model replica ship and building a model farm? Or collecting something as meaningless as beanie babies vs. collecting something as meaningless as digital tokens? Or needing to finish, well, any task, and needing to master all your character's jobs?
The social games offer a very powerful thing: Constant progress. No matter what you do, you will progress, but you will never win. There are lots and lots of people who want constant progress. There's also people who feel compelled to complete things (I was one of them).
The other problem with blaming this on piracy is that you can absolutely pirate these games! Most of where the publisher gets their money is getting you to pay to remove obstacles to your progress, like timers or "X friends must "help" you" stuff where X is more people than you want to annoy. So you can "pirate" by simply making fake accounts or finding a group of people who are die-hard players like you are but who you don't actually know to add as fake friends, effectively "robbing" the publisher of their revenue. So just like traditional games, you can, with some effort, get the stuff for free, but many people will still pay for it for the convenience. Actually, were piracy the issue, MMORPGs are the solution, as it's pretty much impossible to pirate a monthly subscription.
The problem with the social games though, like any drug dealer, is these game publishers have gotten too greedy. They have cut the product too many times so it is no longer any good. I USED to mostly have fun playing, but then the bean counters got too much control over the game development and it became impossible to progress without either annoying the piss out of my friends (or finding a pile of fake friends) or paying cash. And if you're trying to play for "free", you wouldn't be able to get most things unless you're devoting lots of time to the effort (complete task now, 8-hour timer starts. Are you going to be near a computer in 8 hours? Well, if not, you can accelerate the timer for only XX tokens!
Anyway, they've made it not fun. People don't pay for not fun. I suspect Zynga will ultimately go the way of Groupon.
Assuming you have no money,
That's a false assumption. Everyone has SOME money. Some people just don't have any money they'd rather spend on music than something else, even if that something else is food.
what do the original creators lose when you pirate something that they made? Does some of their money magically vanish? Their property? Their time? What exactly do they lose?
You're looking at this as a micro-decision without considering the macro effect.
Sure, if I'm not going to buy it anyway, and I download it instead, there's virtually no difference.
But if we change the system so that it's OK to just download things without compensating the creators, then there is no compensation for the creators.
The end result is when you download something without paying for it, you're really stealing from everyone else who does pay for it, by taking the benefits of a system which rewards content creators for creating the content, while refusing to pay into the system when you consume content. You're basically saying everyone else should pay to create what you're consuming but for some reason you should be treated differently.
Try telling the bus company that you're not stealing when you get on the bus without paying since you didn't have the money to pay the fare anyway and sitting in the seat that would otherwise be empty didn't cost them anything. It's exactly the same argument, and it's no less stupid just because the thing you're using without paying for it is digital.
For the iPhone, retail price is likely essentially equal to the price Sprint pays. Phones are loss-leaders, not profit centers.
Side note: This is a big reason that torture and indefinite detention and rendition are bad. It changes the choices from "Turn yourself in and you'll get a trial or don't and we'll hunt you down and kill you" to "We're going to hunt you down and kill you unless you let us lock you up forever without trial and torture you."
If we're going to kill people who won't participate in due process, we have to actually offer them due process to participate in.
Just because you have the right to something doesn't mean the government has to force you to exercise that right. All American citizens are entitled to due process. But, in order to have due process, both parties have to participate. If you know the government is looking for you, and you choose to hide out in a lawless foreign desert where you know the government can't come get you, you're clearly not interested in participating in due process, and the government isn't obligated to force you to do so.
So if Anwar al-Awlaki wanted to exercise his due process rights, all he had to do was hop a plane over to the US and turn himself in. I bet if he had shown up at any major airport in the world the US government would have even given him a free flight.
Now, if we had him in custody, and THEN killed him without trial, or we detained him indefinitely without access to the courts, that would absolutely be a violation of his due process rights.
This was not. Anwar al-Awlaki's due process rights were not taken away, they were given up.
I would actually be embarrassed to use a GroupOn coupon, knowing how much it was shafting the business in the process. They get what -- 25% -- of their normal price, while GroupOn keeps another 25% for themselves in the half-off price? I truly feel sorry for the businesses who have been convinced to go this route.
The problem is you (and many others) don't understand what a Groupon should be.
For example, I bought a groupon for 50% off a winery tour. The tour resulted in a purchase of a case of wine from the winery. While I'm sure not everyone on the tour bought that much wine, the groupon got the winery exactly what they wanted: Lots of people in the winery at an off-peak time that they could then up-sell to. For them the groupon worked very well.
Groupons are not right for every business, but they can work very well for businesses that have low marginal costs, especially if set up to bring in business during off-peak times.
The net dollar amounts are the same. All they changed was whether an item was put in a category that reduced initial revenue, or increased a cost.
It's not like they said they had a smaller loss than they actually did.
She.
And apparently she just didn't get along with the other top-level execs.
I didn't say just ANY taxes were preventing job creation.
I said taxes ON JOBS were preventing job creation.
Bush didn't lower the tax on jobs at all - it's been 15.3% for over two decades.
It's that special 15.3% tax on WAGES that is the problem. If I hire a worker in the United states, there's a 15% tax on all the wages I pay to the worker, up to a cap of $106,000, ON TOP of their income taxes. That means that if I *FIRE* an American worker, I get those taxes back.
That means that, combined with income taxes, wage income is taxed at up to 43%, while PROFITS are taxed as low as 15%. When I pay you $100,000 and the federal government tacks on $43,000 in taxes, I pay $143,000 to give you a job. But if I fire you, the government only gets $20,000 or so instead of $43,000. So, the more people I hire, the more taxes I pay. THAT is the tax problem.
On the other hand, if I raise income taxes and lower wage taxes, I can fix that problem. If *ALL* income is taxed at 25%, then if I pay you $100,000, you pay the government $25k of that in taxes. If I fire you and keep the $100,000, then I pay $25,000 in taxes. And that's if you don't get $15k or so of free income.
So, under the current tax system, the more Americans you hire, the higher your tax burden is. If we fix the tax system, the more Americans you hire, the LOWER your tax burden should be. Or at least the same.
If we want to encourage job growth, we should get rid of the 15% tax on wages that penalizes employers for hiring people.
Then why does the US tax every dollar you make overseas, even if you are overseas for the entire year?
Because you are a US citizen.
If you do not like that deal, go to your local US consulate, renounce your citizenship, and turn in your passport. You'll never pay US taxes again.
Just remember, if you get arrested abroad, or anything else happens to you, you're on your own.
Actually, its a larger incentive to not even bother playing the game and relocate to china, russia, or anywhere else that provides less disincentives to operate.
Yeah, go ahead and relocate to Russia. See how well their CEO's are doing, the ones that haven't gotten shot for pissing off the russian mob or arrested for pissing off the russian government.
Defense budget.
Then you're actually in favor of a tax decrease for the wealthy. With our current tiered system, they pay a higher percentage than us.
That's true, on AVERAGE, but not true for each taxpayer. A wealthy doctor, for example, has a marginal federal tax rate of about 33%, since he gets his income from working, most likely as profits out of their business.
A hedge fund manager, however, has most of his income as carried interest and pays 15%.
Now me personally, for example, depending how good of a year it is, my marginal tax rate is 40% to 43%, since I pay 25-28% income taxes and 15% payroll taxes. If I made MORE money working, that would go down to 33%. And if I happened to already have a few million dollars, I could get down to 15% federal taxes.
So, I am absolutely in favor of a tax decrease for SOME wealthy people - the ones who actually work for a living and/or actually create jobs. I'm also in favor of a very significant tax increase for the wealthy who are paying close to 15% taxes while I'm paying close to 43%.
The solution is simple: Repeal the 15% federal tax on jobs (FICA). Get rid of capital gains taxes, dividend taxes, and any other income-related tax other than the income tax.
Every adult gets $15,000 of income per year tax-free. $30k for couples, toss in another $5k for the first two kids (after that, you want more, you pay for 'em.) Once you are past your tax-free zone, you pay 25% on the rest of your income. All of it - wages, interest, capital gains, dividends, lottery winnings, 25%. 10% of that goes to social security and medicare, the other 15% covers the rest of the federal government and cutting down on the debt. No earned income tax credit, no mortgage interest deduction for the million dollar mortgage on your vacation home, no deduction for $30k healthcare plans, no lower rate for investment income.
Most Americans won't see their taxes change much. Except actual job creators will see their taxes go down a lot, and very rich people who pay 15% taxes on piles of income they get from not employing anybody will see their taxes go up a lot.
The biggest factor in our unemployment rate is the 15% extra tax on income from wages (jobs).
And once we get rid of that 15% tax on jobs, we'll get more jobs in the US, more Americans being productive and spending more money, and the rich will make more money as a result.
Trickle-up economics.
Some things are obvious and forseeable to anyone with a basic grasp of mathematics.
Alright, but what do we do about Republicans?
In all seriousness, Tea Partiers are actually an improvement over previous Republicans - at least they've gone from the Bush Republicans "Cut taxes and Spend More" to "Cut Taxes AND Spending". But if we're going to fix the deficit, we're going to have to get all the way to "Cut Spending and Restore Taxes (on the rich who are currently not paying them.)"