On average you get back in 7 years everything you paid into social security (with interest) over your life. After that your getting what someone else paid in! SS was never a retirement savings plan, it was ALWAYS about the current working class paying for retirees.
As the Wall Street Journal’s Stephen Moore illuminates in his 2008 book “The End of Prosperity” (Threshold Editions), Mr. Bush’s 2001 tax cuts failed to revive an economy still staggering from the bursting of the dot-com bubble. Mr. Bush’s strategy had been to adopt a demand-side, Keynesian stimulus, hoping that putting a few extra dollars in Americans’ pockets would jump-start the economy through increased consumption. This approach faltered, not just because Americans opted to save their rebates, but because it neglected the importance of business investment to overall growth. Predictably, the economy lagged and government revenues stagnated. What the United States needed then (and needs now) was to stimulate investment, not consumption.
By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.
But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to theNew York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a “surprise windfall.”
Unfortunately, Mr. Bush allowed Congress to spend away those additional tax revenues. The fact is that the increase in tax revenues that flowed from the ‘03 tax cuts could have paid for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and then some but for rampant discretionary domestic spending.
Back in 1981 the top 5% paid 36.84% of all income tax collected, in 2008 (the most recent year data is available) the top 5% paid 58.72% of all taxes. In the same period the bottom 50% dropped in share of federal taxes from 7.05% to 2.70%
There is also a maximum monthly payout for social security, it's not like the guy making a million dollars a year is going to get $70,000 a month from social security when he retires, he will still get the same $674 ($1,011 if a couple) that I will. That maximum taxable earning for SS is in theory the point at which what comes in balances what goes out.
... How come now in 2011 they pay less taxes than people making 1/10th their yearly earnings?...
1. They don't pay less, they pay more.
2. Even if you raised the top marginal tax rate to 100%, it would be insignificant to the ridiculous, unsustainable level of spending the government has had for the last two years.
Back in 1981 the top 5% paid 20.78% of all income tax collected, in 2008 (the most recent year data is available) the top 5% paid 34.73% of all taxes. In the same period the bottom 50% dropped in share of federal taxes from 17.75% to 12.75%
You are in the top 5% if you make $159,619 or more
You are in the bottom 50% if you make less than $33,048.
In 2008 the top 5% paid an AVERAGE tax rate of 20.70%, the bottom 50% paid an AVERAGE rate of 2.59%.
Curious what the effect of launching a stream of hot air a half mile up will have on local weather patterns. Would suck big time if this upwelling of hot air caused a localized artificial high pressure zone that shifted the natural weather patterns. Just say'n
Didn't the summary say so and provide a link to the previous story.
Of course, in addition to the drives getting bigger they changed a couple other things (MB, memory, CPU, SATA cards, SATA multipliers, wiring), but it is the same case so sure it's the same.
Ugh, I already hate going to downtown even briefly. Even in Omaha, it is too crowded, I have a hard time imagining wanting to live in the kind of world you suggest.
Every time I've been to their site there were no answers no mater how far down you scrolled. Based on some of the other comments down further I assume it has changed recently because Google caught them.
"I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democrat Party has adopted our platform." -- Norman M Thomas, 6 time Presidential candidate on the Socialist Party ticket.
Did you really just say that? You understand that in this context "laws" is used like natural laws like the law of gravity? Not laws as in something decided on by a group of people. "Laws" of economics are observations about the world and how it works not laws like those passed by a government. If you try to make "laws" that meddle with economic "laws" then what generally happens is resources get allocated MORE inefficiently rather than less. See also the "law" of unintended consequences.
So if a potential employer is trying to keep their corporate healthcare costs down and they had the opportunity to screen DNA for potential for future illness they wouldn't take the opportunity?
Slashdot Mirror
I think what he is saying is if TARP is done, why are we budgeting to spend that money again?
On average you get back in 7 years everything you paid into social security (with interest) over your life. After that your getting what someone else paid in! SS was never a retirement savings plan, it was ALWAYS about the current working class paying for retirees.
As the Wall Street Journal’s Stephen Moore illuminates in his 2008 book “The End of Prosperity” (Threshold Editions), Mr. Bush’s 2001 tax cuts failed to revive an economy still staggering from the bursting of the dot-com bubble. Mr. Bush’s strategy had been to adopt a demand-side, Keynesian stimulus, hoping that putting a few extra dollars in Americans’ pockets would jump-start the economy through increased consumption. This approach faltered, not just because Americans opted to save their rebates, but because it neglected the importance of business investment to overall growth. Predictably, the economy lagged and government revenues stagnated. What the United States needed then (and needs now) was to stimulate investment, not consumption.
By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.
But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to theNew York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a “surprise windfall.”
Unfortunately, Mr. Bush allowed Congress to spend away those additional tax revenues. The fact is that the increase in tax revenues that flowed from the ‘03 tax cuts could have paid for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and then some but for rampant discretionary domestic spending.
It needs to be population growth AND jobs for that new population! Population growth sans jobs makes it worse.
Ooops! copy pasted from the wrong table.
Back in 1981 the top 5% paid 36.84% of all income tax collected, in 2008 (the most recent year data is available) the top 5% paid 58.72% of all taxes. In the same period the bottom 50% dropped in share of federal taxes from 7.05% to 2.70%
There is also a maximum monthly payout for social security, it's not like the guy making a million dollars a year is going to get $70,000 a month from social security when he retires, he will still get the same $674 ($1,011 if a couple) that I will. That maximum taxable earning for SS is in theory the point at which what comes in balances what goes out.
... How come now in 2011 they pay less taxes than people making 1/10th their yearly earnings? ...
1. They don't pay less, they pay more.
2. Even if you raised the top marginal tax rate to 100%, it would be insignificant to the ridiculous, unsustainable level of spending the government has had for the last two years.
Back in 1981 the top 5% paid 20.78% of all income tax collected, in 2008 (the most recent year data is available) the top 5% paid 34.73% of all taxes. In the same period the bottom 50% dropped in share of federal taxes from 17.75% to 12.75%
You are in the top 5% if you make $159,619 or more
You are in the bottom 50% if you make less than $33,048.
In 2008 the top 5% paid an AVERAGE tax rate of 20.70%, the bottom 50% paid an AVERAGE rate of 2.59%.
*source: http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
At those temperatures, we can just put pigs in the bottom to get bacon strips.
Yep, they cook then get drawn into the turbine, it'll be raining bacon strips for mile downwind.
Curious what the effect of launching a stream of hot air a half mile up will have on local weather patterns. Would suck big time if this upwelling of hot air caused a localized artificial high pressure zone that shifted the natural weather patterns. Just say'n
Didn't the summary say so and provide a link to the previous story. Of course, in addition to the drives getting bigger they changed a couple other things (MB, memory, CPU, SATA cards, SATA multipliers, wiring), but it is the same case so sure it's the same.
You would be surprised that there is a piece of foam between the top of the case and the drives if you RTFA!
“Title Of The Song” by Da Vinci's Notebook http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=734wnHnnNR4
Who me? I think both parties are oposite sides of the same counterfeit coin.
As it stands this sounds like the typical right wing rhetoric, "give us money and we will look after you."
No no, that's left wing rhetoric!, Right wing rhetoric is simply "give us money."
I already "skin" gmail and iGoogle with a fairly dark theme and have a fairly dark "persona" on firefox. The new dark color looks better for me.
I only used it to transfer files from my college unix account to my Apple //e
Ugh, I already hate going to downtown even briefly. Even in Omaha, it is too crowded, I have a hard time imagining wanting to live in the kind of world you suggest.
Every time I've been to their site there were no answers no mater how far down you scrolled. Based on some of the other comments down further I assume it has changed recently because Google caught them.
"I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democrat Party has adopted our platform." -- Norman M Thomas, 6 time Presidential candidate on the Socialist Party ticket.
Did you really just say that? You understand that in this context "laws" is used like natural laws like the law of gravity? Not laws as in something decided on by a group of people. "Laws" of economics are observations about the world and how it works not laws like those passed by a government. If you try to make "laws" that meddle with economic "laws" then what generally happens is resources get allocated MORE inefficiently rather than less. See also the "law" of unintended consequences.
Are you suggesting that he has actually created a product using those patented genes?
There is already an existing fork with 19 changes and a pending pull request. Why not contribute there. https://github.com/msporny/dna/pull/1
Oh and gattaca http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/
Heck, before I was married my mother was nagging me to get married and create derivative works.
...We'd have more tax income coming in, and everyone would likely end up paying less in total taxes.
suggests that math is not your strong suit. If more taxes are coming in somebody is not paying less.