"think about the 55mph speed limit for example. How realistic is it to travel across the country at 55mph?"
Well thank goodness President Reagan did away with 55mph! Let's just hope Gore doesn't get elected, he'll bring it back (for everyone but himself of course).
Here in Texas we just raised the speed on Interstate 10 between San Antonio and El Paso to 80mph.
"I wouldn't be surprised if like so much we learn about ("our") 'Merkun culture Farragut's successes were inflated or even mythical.... Age 12. I, too, think he was the exception."
In the Navies of the world up until the first World War it was common for boys to join at the age of 9. If they were accepted as midshipmen by their Captain then they were considered officers. It was entirely possible and common for very young midshipmen to command ships taken as prizes.
For almost all of human history teenage boys were adults for all practical purposes.
Today's very long childhood is a very recent phenomena.
Everyone is locked on to VTOL, but that's not the real breakthrough here. The thing that is completely new is the idea of selling tickets to ride in an unpiloted vehicle of any sort.
There has never, ever, been a flying vehicle carrying humans that didn't have a pilot with at least some control of the craft onboard.
The big thing about this vehicle isn't that is VTOL, it is that will be the first ever passenger rated UAV.
"Thanks for your informative post, countries like England scare the shit out of me. Police state indeed, sounds like the whole country is one giant prison."
It's more like one giant nursery for slow children.
I guess every/. thread is about bashing America, no matter what the source article is.
As a Texan who had the happiness of owning a home in England for three years, I'd have to say I love the UK but it often disappoints.
The biggest difference between Americans and Brits is the sheep-like willingness of the average Brit to give up a lot of liberty for a little security. England really is a nation of girlie men. That's fine, but then they turn around and and join American moonbats in the ridiculous Bush-Hitler meme.
What would the average/.'er say if President Bush made the following proposals:
1) The police can issue 'control orders' which restrict an individual's rights to travel, own property, associate with others, or hold a passport. Persons under control orders can be electronically tagged. Person under a control act can be detained up to 14 without charges being filed.
2) Cameras will installed on all public roads with software to read license plates. A central database will record the travels of every car in the country.
3) Cars will be fitted with sealed GPS recorders which will send position data to the goverment. Tampering with the gps box will be a felony.
4)If a goverment employee is suspected of leaking goverment secrets, then senior police officers can authorize a search of that person's home without consulting a judge.
5) If a newspaper publishes classified information then the publisher is subject to up to 14 years in jail.
All of the above are in place in the United Kingdom today except for #3, which will happen in the next few years.
This would be the very first unpiloted passenger carrying air or space craft ever.
Getting the technology to the point where you would be willing to put your Mom into a craft and just sit back and watch it fly her around without a human pilot is really a much bigger accomplishment than going to 100km. Assuming you love your Mom of course.
This DC-X approach is very high risk compared to the much more conservative Scaled Composite X-15 style craft.
I'd let my Mom ride on Space Ship 2, but not New Shepard.
The exact same thing happened to a friend who was a hardware engineer for Motorola about 10 years ago. The only difference was that his replacement was in Singapore.
To get serverance he had to train his replacement.
You are incorrect. IF (and that's a big if) these individuals are being investigated, it is because they are suspected of participating in unauthorized releases of classified information. The kind of thing that the moonbats are screaming that Karl Rove might have done (he didn't, but that's another thread).
Ross and Esposito, IF they are being investigated, are being investigated in a normal law enforcement investigation. If the FBI has looked at their telephone records or conducted wiretaps, those activities will have the normal warrants.
Even if you believe the rumor, the NSA is not involved.
It is a crime to release classified information without authoritiy, or to assist criminals who do.
Remember, my loonie leftie friends, you asked for greater enforcement of these very laws in the Clark/Libby/Rove investigation. Don't start crying now because you are getting what you asked for.
"I doubt this has anything to do 'against' terrorists. Instead it is probably 'for' targeting politicing or some other more sinister purpose."
Lets say that this isn't useful for identifying terrorists.. Why would they do it then?"
This is typical of the kind of crazed moonbat thinking that we see here whenever the subject of intelligence collection comes up.
NAME ONE U.S. citizen who has "targeted" for a "sinister purpose" by the NSA. You can't.
The "sinister purpose" I see is a lot of Bush Deranged left wingers who oppose anything that might might stop a terrorist attack, because a terrorist attack might somehow hurt Bush. I can hear them now if there is another 9/11: "Why didn't you connect the dots!!!"
Hatred of the President is their single prime directive. Anything that Bush proposes must be opposed! Anything that might help the country must be opposed because Bush might get some credit! Nothing else matters, all Bush hated all the time is their one note song.
You and Fox are in error. The goverment accused Rush of "doctor shopping" (a violation that has occured less than 3 times in history) to obtain less than 40 pills. Rush plead 'not guilty' and the goverment did not contest this plea.
"Prescription fraud" is what the Democrat hero did when she altered a prescription to get more medication than the doctor specified.
"The difference is that limbaugh was accused of prescription fraud, which is a felony and generally punished by serious jail time."
You are in error. Rush was NEVER charged with any such thing.
There was never even a hint of 'prescription fraud'.
Interestingly, the only case in Florida's history that was remotely similar was a Democrat elected offical who altered pain killer prescriptions. She was let off with no fine and no jail, and hailed as a hero by the Florida Democrat Party. Kind of like Congressman Kennedy, but at least this woman didn't endanger anyone but herself.
If liberals were capable of rational thought they would be outraged that the government had the nerve to ask a judge to force Rush's doctors to release all their patient records because without the records there was no crime, and by golly, we know he's gulity!
Nobody in the U.S. has been harmed by NSA intelligence gathering, because NSA collections are not used for criminal investigations. But a government lawyer can run roughshod over basic civil liberties of a private citizen based on his polticial views, and liberals are screeching with pleasure!??!!!
"are you implying that liberals cannot make effective national security policy? Where are the facts that say a more liberal (read progressive) government will ensure that bin laden remains free? It has been 5 years since 9/11, and our conservative government still has not been able to find the man."
Certainly the mindset of American's liberal community does not support effective national security. As President Bush pointed out to Kerry in one of the debates, we are not at war with OBL, we are at war with orgainized terrorists.
And of course when we do flush OBL out of his cave the moonbats will just scream that OBL didn't matter because all he was doing since 9/11 was hiding in a cave.
The fact is that this country has not had a major terror attack since 9/11. All the credit for this FACT goes to President Bush and the Republicans, none of it goes to the Kos/Kerry/Dean moonbat Democrats.
"Yet, they have managed to piss off the rest of the arab world and create a much larger problem than before 9/11, all in the name of democracy."
Hah! Look at this ports management issue. The Democrats irrational howling has pissed off an Arab country that is, by Arab standards, reasonably friendly to us. And they did it not because of any rational thought, just because they percieved that they could gain a short term political advantage by pretending to care about U.S. national security.
The left in the United States has stopped thinking. They have one hate-derived Prime Directive. "Anything that Bush does is evil". Gripped by massive Bush Derangement Syndrome, they wind up opposing each and every U.S. national security improvement just because Bush supports national security.
This is very reminiscent of the treatment received by Linda Tripp when she blew the whistle on Bill Clinton's habit of committing massive workplace sexual harassment and obstruction of justice.
Warrants are certainly required in the case of the FBI gathering evidience for a criminal investigation that might lead to a procescution.
Warrants are not required for military intelligence gathering operations targeted against people overseas.
Not only does the NSA and Department of Defense not need a warrent to monitor international telephone calls and email to and from overseas persons, they don't need a warrant to toss a JDAM into the overseas window.
That's because we are at war per declaration of Congress.
Based on your authority alone I'm supposed to deny the facts as presented by the IRS in an objective manner?
I provided an actual numerical example with a link to the appropriate tax table.
You provided a link to a collection of spreadsheets. You made a statement to the effect that the goverment would send our $12K 'taxpayer' a 'bill in Febuary'.
Our 'taxpayer' owes no taxes, and the goverment will not ever 'send him a bill'. The goverment doesn't 'send out bills' for taxes.
The fact is that I understanded the amount of the refund that our $12K 'taxpayer' would receive, because I left out the child tax credit to keep things simple and I used the 2004 tax rates. The Bush tax cuts give this 'taxpayer' and even better break in 2005.
The bottom line is that I gave accurate numbers, and you didn't give a single number, just your incorrect opinion.
Here is what you can do if you would like to learn a little about the U.S. tax system:
Let's assume that you are single and have two children who are related to you and live with you all year. Assume you have an income earned by working for an employer of $12,000 during. You don't own a home, you have no other income, deductions, or adjustments to income. You followed my advice and told your payroll to not withhold taxes during 2005.
Your filing status is called 'head of household' because you have children, but don't have a spouse living in your home.
Now I know that math is hard, but follow me here:
Tet an IRS form 1040 ( http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040a.pdf ). Check the 'head of household' filing status in block 4. Put the number '2' into box 6d, for your two dependants.
Write the figure $12000 into box 7, 'wages, salaries, and tips'.
Write the figure $12000 into box 21, 'adjusted gross income'
On line 27, write the figure $7300. This is the standard deduction for HOH filers.
Here is the part that may be difficult for you.
Subtract $7300 from $12000, and put the result of $4700 into block 27. This is your taxable income.
If you want you can stop now, since you owe no taxes you are not required to file.
But wait, there's more!!!
Consult IRS Publication 596 ( http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p596.pdf )to calculate your Earned Income Tax Credit. You will wind up looking at page 48 where you will find that you are entitled to an Earned Income Tax Credit of $4,400.
Recall that tax rate is calculated as (tax paid) / (income);
So your tax rate is -4400 / 12000 = -36.67%
I will leave to the students the question of how large this 'taxpayers' child tax credit will be.
Those are the firm, accurate numbers.
Now go write a letter to President Bush and thank him.
"And when the employee does this, he gets a bill for the taxes owed to the gov't right around February that's due April 15 of the next year. Your post suggests you don't have any experience in the matter whatsoever."
What are you talking about, 'getting a bill right around February'???????????????????
The man ownes NO taxes. He is not required to file. The goverment doesn't 'send out a bill' even if you DO have taxable income. He will get a W-2 that shows $12000 of income, no tax due, and if he elects to file a return he will get a 'refund' of at least $4300 (probably more from child tax credit).
Hillary springs to mind because I heard her on TV the other day talking about how maybe the goverment should just take the profits of the oil companies.
Hillary has never made a secret of her love for an ever bigger nanny state. And this business about seizing all the profits of the oil companies shows she views all income as her property. Of course we knew that all along also.
I didn't say anything about the current administration, but you're right, they are spending way too much. The answer to that problem isn't raising taxes (that just cuts revenue to the goverment), it's to reduce entitlement programs.
I'm waiting for anyone in Washington, especially anyone whining about the deficit, to suggest reducing any entitlement.
Since a person with two kids and a $12,000/year income pays no income tax, all he has to do is ask his payroll clerk to adjust his W-4 so that no income tax is withheld. So no 'float' for the goverment.
Step 3: Annually, Employee gets a small percentage of the tax dollars paid in the last year back as a "refund." Employee has paid taxes and most of those are spent in gov't.
Our hypothedical employee has had zero income tax withheld from his paycheck. He has paid no taxes.
Your assertion does not stand up to even a simple test. Compare taxes collected annually for any individual earning less than 100K a year to their "refund" and see that gov't is still collecting taxes and the individual's tax burden is nowhere near "negative."
-4300 / 12000 * 100 = -$35%, i.e. a negative income tax rate.
I think the EITC is a good program, one of Richard Nixon's best ideas. I'd rather just send this taxpayer a check to help him pay his bills than have hire a building full of bureaucrats to make him jump through hoops and then give the 'taxpayer' the hundred dollars that would be left.
It is very sad that so many Americans (such as the poster quoted above) are innumerate. Our income tax system really only taxes the top half of all income earners ('the rich'). Therefore any tax cut is a 'tax cut for the rich'. In point of fact, when you let people spend their own money the goverment makes more total revenue than when you take it away from them before they ever even see it.
A simple thought experiement will show why this happens. Suppose the income rate was 100%. Every dollar you make goes to the goverment. Would you go out and get a job at all? What would be the point?
Goverment revenue at 100% tax rate: zero
Suppose there were no taxes. You get to keep every dollar you make. You'll probably go out and get a job. But the goverment won't get any of your money.
Goverment revenue at 0% tax rate: zero.
Somewhere between a tax rate of zero percent and a tax rate of 100% is the point of maximum goverment income. Careful study shows the income tax rate that maximizes revenue to the goverment is somewhere around a top tax rate of %20-25%.
So rational people (as opposed to liberals) want to see lower tax rates because lower tax rates generate more income for the goverment!
Even if you think, as does Hillary, that the goverment is entitled to 100% of everyone's income it makes no sense to set the rate that high. Even big goverment proponents like Hillary should want a top income rate below 30% if they want to have the biggest possible goverment.
Only idiots babble about 'tax cuts for the rich' with respect to our present income tax system.
It's Bush's fault!!!!!! The draft dodging chimp!!!!
Clearly he has reaimed his evil weather machine from the Gulf to the West Coast!!!
Damn him, this can only be because his Halliburton puppet masters plan to profit from the reconstruction after they explode Oregon!!
It's Bush and Rove who cut bulge funding!! When we had President Clinton he tried to control bulging in the White House, but the Evil Newt kept pushing interns at him.
We need to elect Hillary. With her on TV everyday there will be an end to all bulging in this country.
"if you're poor, black, and in new orleans, not really"
If you are poor, black, and in New Orleans you are better off than 99% of the people in the world. Poor people in the U.S. are poor mostly with respect to other Americans. They are rich with respect to most of the world.
Slashdot Mirror
"think about the 55mph speed limit for example. How realistic is it to travel across the country at 55mph?"
Well thank goodness President Reagan did away with 55mph! Let's just hope Gore doesn't get elected, he'll bring it back (for everyone but himself of course).
Here in Texas we just raised the speed on Interstate 10 between San Antonio and El Paso to 80mph.
"I wouldn't be surprised if like so much we learn about ("our") 'Merkun culture Farragut's successes were inflated or even mythical. ... Age 12. I, too, think he was the exception."
In the Navies of the world up until the first World War it was common for boys to join at the age of 9. If they were accepted as midshipmen by their Captain then they were considered officers. It was entirely possible and common for very young midshipmen to command ships taken as prizes.
For almost all of human history teenage boys were adults for all practical purposes.
Today's very long childhood is a very recent phenomena.
Everyone is locked on to VTOL, but that's not the real breakthrough here. The thing that is completely new is the idea of selling tickets to ride in an unpiloted vehicle of any sort.
There has never, ever, been a flying vehicle carrying humans that didn't have a pilot with at least some control of the craft onboard.
The big thing about this vehicle isn't that is VTOL, it is that will be the first ever passenger rated UAV.
"Thanks for your informative post, countries like England scare the shit out of me. Police state indeed, sounds like the whole country is one giant prison."
It's more like one giant nursery for slow children.
I guess every /. thread is about bashing America, no matter what the source article is.
/.'er say if President Bush made the following proposals:
As a Texan who had the happiness of owning a home in England for three years, I'd have to say I love the UK but it often disappoints.
The biggest difference between Americans and Brits is the sheep-like willingness of the average Brit to give up a lot of liberty for a little security. England really is a nation of girlie men. That's fine, but then they turn around and and join American moonbats in the ridiculous Bush-Hitler meme.
What would the average
1) The police can issue 'control orders' which restrict an individual's rights to travel, own property, associate with others, or hold a passport. Persons under control orders can be electronically tagged. Person under a control act can be detained up to 14 without charges being filed.
2) Cameras will installed on all public roads with software to read license plates. A central database will record the travels of every car in the country.
3) Cars will be fitted with sealed GPS recorders which will send position data to the goverment. Tampering with the gps box will be a felony.
4)If a goverment employee is suspected of leaking goverment secrets, then senior police officers can authorize a search of that person's home without consulting a judge.
5) If a newspaper publishes classified information then the publisher is subject to up to 14 years in jail.
All of the above are in place in the United Kingdom today except for #3, which will happen in the next few years.
This would be the very first unpiloted passenger carrying air or space craft ever.
Getting the technology to the point where you would be willing to put your Mom into a craft and just sit back and watch it fly her around without a human pilot is really a much bigger accomplishment than going to 100km. Assuming you love your Mom of course.
This DC-X approach is very high risk compared to the much more conservative Scaled Composite X-15 style craft.
I'd let my Mom ride on Space Ship 2, but not New Shepard.
The exact same thing happened to a friend who was a hardware engineer for Motorola about 10 years ago. The only difference was that his replacement was in Singapore.
To get serverance he had to train his replacement.
"Brian Ross and Richard Esposito"
You are incorrect. IF (and that's a big if) these individuals are being investigated, it is because they are suspected of participating in unauthorized releases of classified information. The kind of thing that the moonbats are screaming that Karl Rove might have done (he didn't, but that's another thread).
Ross and Esposito, IF they are being investigated, are being investigated in a normal law enforcement investigation. If the FBI has looked at their telephone records or conducted wiretaps, those activities will have the normal warrants.
Even if you believe the rumor, the NSA is not involved.
It is a crime to release classified information without authoritiy, or to assist criminals who do.
Remember, my loonie leftie friends, you asked for greater enforcement of these very laws in the Clark/Libby/Rove investigation. Don't start crying now because you are getting what you asked for.
"I doubt this has anything to do 'against' terrorists. Instead it is probably 'for' targeting politicing or some other more sinister purpose."
Lets say that this isn't useful for identifying terrorists.. Why would they do it then?"
This is typical of the kind of crazed moonbat thinking that we see here whenever the subject of intelligence collection comes up.
NAME ONE U.S. citizen who has "targeted" for a "sinister purpose" by the NSA. You can't.
The "sinister purpose" I see is a lot of Bush Deranged left wingers who oppose anything that might might stop a terrorist attack, because a terrorist attack might somehow hurt Bush. I can hear them now if there is another 9/11: "Why didn't you connect the dots!!!"
Hatred of the President is their single prime directive. Anything that Bush proposes must be opposed! Anything that might help the country must be opposed because Bush might get some credit! Nothing else matters, all Bush hated all the time is their one note song.
You and Fox are in error. The goverment accused Rush of "doctor shopping" (a violation that has occured less than 3 times in history) to obtain less than 40 pills. Rush plead 'not guilty' and the goverment did not contest this plea.
"Prescription fraud" is what the Democrat hero did when she altered a prescription to get more medication than the doctor specified.
"The difference is that limbaugh was accused of prescription fraud, which is a felony and generally punished by serious jail time."
You are in error. Rush was NEVER charged with any such thing.
There was never even a hint of 'prescription fraud'.
Interestingly, the only case in Florida's history that was remotely similar was a Democrat elected offical who altered pain killer prescriptions. She was let off with no fine and no jail, and hailed as a hero by the Florida Democrat Party. Kind of like Congressman Kennedy, but at least this woman didn't endanger anyone but herself.
If liberals were capable of rational thought they would be outraged that the government had the nerve to ask a judge to force Rush's doctors to release all their patient records because without the records there was no crime, and by golly, we know he's gulity!
Nobody in the U.S. has been harmed by NSA intelligence gathering, because NSA collections are not used for criminal investigations. But a government lawyer can run roughshod over basic civil liberties of a private citizen based on his polticial views, and liberals are screeching with pleasure!??!!!
Liberals are idiots.
PS: Who need karma?
As soon as I saw the topic I knew that it would be yet another chance for victims of Bush Derangement Syndrome to spew their venom.
In the mind of the BDS sufferer not a sparrow falls that wasn't murdered by President Bush.
Pathetic losers.
On a positive note, there are some excellent pictures of the White Knight and X-37 at Alan's Mojave Weblog.
"are you implying that liberals cannot make effective national security policy? Where are the facts that say a more liberal (read progressive) government will ensure that bin laden remains free? It has been 5 years since 9/11, and our conservative government still has not been able to find the man."
Certainly the mindset of American's liberal community does not support effective national security. As President Bush pointed out to Kerry in one of the debates, we are not at war with OBL, we are at war with orgainized terrorists.
And of course when we do flush OBL out of his cave the moonbats will just scream that OBL didn't matter because all he was doing since 9/11 was hiding in a cave.
The fact is that this country has not had a major terror attack since 9/11. All the credit for this FACT goes to President Bush and the Republicans, none of it goes to the Kos/Kerry/Dean moonbat Democrats.
"Yet, they have managed to piss off the rest of the arab world and create a much larger problem than before 9/11, all in the name of democracy."
Hah! Look at this ports management issue. The Democrats irrational howling has pissed off an Arab country that is, by Arab standards, reasonably friendly to us. And they did it not because of any rational thought, just because they percieved that they could gain a short term political advantage by pretending to care about U.S. national security.
The left in the United States has stopped thinking. They have one hate-derived Prime Directive. "Anything that Bush does is evil". Gripped by massive Bush Derangement Syndrome, they wind up opposing each and every U.S. national security improvement just because Bush supports national security.
This is very reminiscent of the treatment received by Linda Tripp when she blew the whistle on Bill Clinton's habit of committing massive workplace sexual harassment and obstruction of justice.
Warrants are certainly required in the case of the FBI gathering evidience for a criminal investigation that might lead to a procescution.
Warrants are not required for military intelligence gathering operations targeted against people overseas.
Not only does the NSA and Department of Defense not need a warrent to monitor international telephone calls and email to and from overseas persons, they don't need a warrant to toss a JDAM into the overseas window.
That's because we are at war per declaration of Congress.
Based on your authority alone I'm supposed to deny the facts as presented by the IRS in an objective manner?
h old/ ) the tax you must pay and place the number zero next to the word tax in box 28.
I provided an actual numerical example with a link to the appropriate tax table.
You provided a link to a collection of spreadsheets. You made a statement to the effect that the goverment would send our $12K 'taxpayer' a 'bill in Febuary'.
Our 'taxpayer' owes no taxes, and the goverment will not ever 'send him a bill'. The goverment doesn't 'send out bills' for taxes.
The fact is that I understanded the amount of the refund that our $12K 'taxpayer' would receive, because I left out the child tax credit to keep things simple and I used the 2004 tax rates. The Bush tax cuts give this 'taxpayer' and even better break in 2005.
The bottom line is that I gave accurate numbers, and you didn't give a single number, just your incorrect opinion.
Here is what you can do if you would like to learn a little about the U.S. tax system:
Let's assume that you are single and have two children who are related to you and live with you all year. Assume you have an income earned by working for an employer of $12,000 during. You don't own a home, you have no other income, deductions, or adjustments to income. You followed my advice and told your payroll to not withhold taxes during 2005.
Your filing status is called 'head of household' because you have children, but don't have a spouse living in your home.
Now I know that math is hard, but follow me here:
Tet an IRS form 1040 ( http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040a.pdf ). Check the 'head of household' filing status in block 4. Put the number '2' into box 6d, for your two dependants.
Write the figure $12000 into box 7, 'wages, salaries, and tips'.
Write the figure $12000 into box 21, 'adjusted gross income'
On line 27, write the figure $7300. This is the standard deduction for HOH filers.
Here is the part that may be difficult for you.
Subtract $7300 from $12000, and put the result of $4700 into block 27. This is your taxable income.
Now look up in your tax tables ( http://www.savewealth.com/taxes/rates/headofhouse
If you want you can stop now, since you owe no taxes you are not required to file.
But wait, there's more!!!
Consult IRS Publication 596 ( http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p596.pdf )to calculate your Earned Income Tax Credit. You will wind up looking at page 48 where you will find that you are entitled to an Earned Income Tax Credit of $4,400.
Recall that tax rate is calculated as (tax paid) / (income);
So your tax rate is -4400 / 12000 = -36.67%
I will leave to the students the question of how large this 'taxpayers' child tax credit will be.
Those are the firm, accurate numbers.
Now go write a letter to President Bush and thank him.
"And when the employee does this, he gets a bill for the taxes owed to the gov't right around February that's due April 15 of the next year. Your post suggests you don't have any experience in the matter whatsoever."
What are you talking about, 'getting a bill right around February'???????????????????
The man ownes NO taxes. He is not required to file. The goverment doesn't 'send out a bill' even if you DO have taxable income. He will get a W-2 that shows $12000 of income, no tax due, and if he elects to file a return he will get a 'refund' of at least $4300 (probably more from child tax credit).
Those are the QUANTATIVE FACTS.
I've forgotten more about taxes than you'll ever know. My example is 100% correct and typical for millions of EITC 'taxpayers'.
Hillary springs to mind because I heard her on TV the other day talking about how maybe the goverment should just take the profits of the oil companies.
Hillary has never made a secret of her love for an ever bigger nanny state. And this business about seizing all the profits of the oil companies shows she views all income as her property. Of course we knew that all along also.
I didn't say anything about the current administration, but you're right, they are spending way too much. The answer to that problem isn't raising taxes (that just cuts revenue to the goverment), it's to reduce entitlement programs.
I'm waiting for anyone in Washington, especially anyone whining about the deficit, to suggest reducing any entitlement.
I'm waiting......still waiting....wait..........
Negative tax rate is magical thinking on your part.
Step 1: Employee is paid. Paycheck has deductions for taxes. Some gov't entitity collects this money from the employer.
Ok, our 'taxpayer' is single and has two kids. He has a taxable income of $12000.
Step 2: Gov't entity floats tax payments and collects simple interest.(Profit)
Since a person with two kids and a $12,000/year income pays no income tax, all he has to do is ask his payroll clerk to adjust his W-4 so that no income tax is withheld. So no 'float' for the goverment.
Step 3: Annually, Employee gets a small percentage of the tax dollars paid in the last year back as a "refund." Employee has paid taxes and most of those are spent in gov't.
Our hypothedical employee has had zero income tax withheld from his paycheck. He has paid no taxes.
Your assertion does not stand up to even a simple test. Compare taxes collected annually for any individual earning less than 100K a year to their "refund" and see that gov't is still collecting taxes and the individual's tax burden is nowhere near "negative."
Our taxpayer files an IRS Form 1040. He pays no taxes, but receives a 'refund' of $4300 (see the tax table at http://www.unclefed.com/Tax-Help/1040Instrs/i1040
Income tax rates are calculated as follows:
rate = tax paid / taxable income * 100;
In this case our taxpayer's income tax rate is:
-4300 / 12000 * 100 = -$35%, i.e. a negative income tax rate.
I think the EITC is a good program, one of Richard Nixon's best ideas. I'd rather just send this taxpayer a check to help him pay his bills than have hire a building full of bureaucrats to make him jump through hoops and then give the 'taxpayer' the hundred dollars that would be left.
It is very sad that so many Americans (such as the poster quoted above) are innumerate. Our income tax system really only taxes the top half of all income earners ('the rich'). Therefore any tax cut is a 'tax cut for the rich'. In point of fact, when you let people spend their own money the goverment makes more total revenue than when you take it away from them before they ever even see it.
A simple thought experiement will show why this happens. Suppose the income rate was 100%. Every dollar you make goes to the goverment. Would you go out and get a job at all? What would be the point?
Goverment revenue at 100% tax rate: zero
Suppose there were no taxes. You get to keep every dollar you make. You'll probably go out and get a job. But the goverment won't get any of your money.
Goverment revenue at 0% tax rate: zero.
Somewhere between a tax rate of zero percent and a tax rate of 100% is the point of maximum goverment income. Careful study shows the income tax rate that maximizes revenue to the goverment is somewhere around a top tax rate of %20-25%.
So rational people (as opposed to liberals) want to see lower tax rates because lower tax rates generate more income for the goverment!
Even if you think, as does Hillary, that the goverment is entitled to 100% of everyone's income it makes no sense to set the rate that high. Even big goverment proponents like Hillary should want a top income rate below 30% if they want to have the biggest possible goverment.
Only idiots babble about 'tax cuts for the rich' with respect to our present income tax system.
The entire bottom 50% now pay less than 3% of the tax burden, and most of them are at the upper part of the 50%. The bottom 35% pay nothing.
That's not correct. The bottom 35% have a negative tax rate.
Not only do they pay no income tax, they receive "refunds" of several thousand dollars in the form of earned income credit payments.
Sounds like just the power source for the Moller Aircar.
It's Bush's fault!!!!!! The draft dodging chimp!!!!
Clearly he has reaimed his evil weather machine from the Gulf to the West Coast!!!
Damn him, this can only be because his Halliburton puppet masters plan to profit from the reconstruction after they explode Oregon!!
It's Bush and Rove who cut bulge funding!! When we had President Clinton he tried to control bulging in the White House, but the Evil Newt kept pushing interns at him.
We need to elect Hillary. With her on TV everyday there will be an end to all bulging in this country.
"if you're poor, black, and in new orleans, not really"
If you are poor, black, and in New Orleans you are better off than 99% of the people in the world. Poor people in the U.S. are poor mostly with respect to other Americans. They are rich with respect to most of the world.