To eliminate the deficit, every taxpayer will have to pay an additional $15,000 per year. Ready to do that? Or we could have Government scale back its spending... If you look at Hauser's Law, you'll see that for all the massive swings in the marginal tax rates over the last 70 years, the actual tax receipts are amazingly stable.
The reality is, if the Federal Government simply pegged the annual increases in its budget to no more than inflation plus population growth, in about 50 years our debt would be retired. The GDP - and thus, based on Hauser's Law, the share of GDP that the Federal Government receives as taxes - grows faster than inflation plus population growth. Peg growth - limit spending - and not a single tax needs to be raised. IF tax rates are adjusted, they should be done with an eye towards growing the GDP at a faster rate as that will increase the funds delivered to the Federal Government.
Imagine - slash no programs, and peg spending GROWTH (yes, growth - not cuts) to a rational level related to the consumption of services (inflation - cost of delivery - plus population growth - number of consumers). Democrats SHOULD be happy, they get to keep all their spending. And we implement no new taxes or any tax increases. Republicans SHOULD be happy, there is no new taxes. But sadly, neither side will want it because they lose their leverage...
No, it shows that upward mobility happens. People start out at the bottom, and over time tend to move upwards. VERY few are trapped in the bottom - or in poverty - for their entire life. The vast majority move up. It's why older people tend to have more, and younger people have less... And it also ignore the fact that it's NOT a zero-sum game; the sum can increase.
What data do you have to the contrary? I posted my sources... And what basic needs do we not take care of? We spend approximately $2.7 trillion a year on social services, for a population of 330 million. Assuming that the bottom 25% are the ones that need help, that's about $32,000 per person. If we're not getting our value's worth for the spending - then it's probably NOT the level of spending but how it's being spent and managed..
Your GoogleFuisweak. Pay attention to the Youtube video where you can watch Charles Bolden, NASA Chief under Obama, state unambiguously that he was directed to reach out to the Muslim world to make them feel good about their contributions to science and engineering.
All of the work that we have been doing is still being done," a White House official familiar with the matter told CBS News, adding that 35 staffers currently work across the OSTP
The summary/headline is #FakeNews. There are still 35 employees in the Office of Science and Technology POLICY who can focus on political machinations regarding science and tech. They will keep churning out political position papers related to tech, and sponsoring initiatives that cost lots of money - and do nothing to fund or advance basic science research. But hey, we can have more LGBTQWTFBBQ humans hired in "STEM" roles based upon their non-academic/professional successes but solely on those things we're not supposed to judge people by: race, religion, and gender.
Yes, we must completely politicize everything that happens or else we can't get anything done. It's all about politics, 24/7 - isn't it? After all - if you can't use politics, you can't foist your own world viewpoint on others. How about letting the science work, and scaling back the size and scope of the Federal Government? Or do you like adding $120 billion a month to our national debt, as we did in FY 2016? You like having that extra $4800 added debt per man, woman and child last year?
Newsflash: it's time the Federal Government backs the heck out of a lot of what it's doing, stop trying to politicize and run every little aspect of everyone's lives, and cuts way the heck back in spending before we go completely bankrupt - worse that Greece - as a society.
When it comes to shedding blood to export our system to other nations, we're rank amateurs compared to the old colonial powers of Europe. You know, the ones who instititionalized slavery in the Americas and most of the rest of the world, who set up Apartheid, genocide, and fanned the flames of two world wars (and the resulting communist revolutions) that killed hundreds of millions of people.
The US is either in first or second place in terms of genorosity and charitable giving. The top European country is the UK, in 8th. The US is actually quite generous, even going so far as to sacrifice thousands of soldier's lives to protect the oil supplies for Japan, China, India, and Europe by fighting wars in the Middle East.
Life is not a zero sum game, either... The pie grows. Does the CEO contribute 1000 times more to the valuation of a company than a janitor? Probably. It's not about work - it's about value. So again - why is income inequality a bad thing?
Exactly. Seems like redundancies are being eliminated. We have thousands and thousands of scientists at NASA, NOAA, EPA, DOE, etc. These nine were really "policy wonks" who were tasked with fusing political goals with desired science and research directives. And according to the source article, there are still 35 people working in that department, though it's been greatly downsized from the 100+ of the Obama Administration.
Someone (OP?) should research the author -- Environmental Progress. They are (were) founded by Shellenberger; and he and Environmental Progress have/are advocating Nuclear power.
So what you're saying is they are sane environmentalists, who understand everything is a compromise?
So McDonald's, where they pay minimum wage AND employs some people part time (meaning: you can make $600 a month there, working 15 hours a week at $10 per hour) would have a CEO who earns no more than $12,000 per month. Seriously?
Confiscate 100% of all income from the top 1%, and you'll find you get about $1800 per month for every household in the bottom 50%. Not a basic income (at least in the US - it is well below the poverty line) and pretty much kills those who provide angel and VC funding sources (who overwhelmingly are those in the top 1%).
Bootstrap? I've launched a few ideas - some of them succeeded, some of them didn't - by getting them to prototype/proof-of-concept stage on my own. It can be done, typically, for a few tens of thousands of dollars. If you really are serious about the business, then you'll invest that over a few years of time on your own. And then you can go and start seeking angel seed funding to not only validate your idea (if someone outside your family and friends wants to toss some cash at an idea - it probably has a good chance of success) but help you refine the existing problems in your current solution and make the next pitch up. Start small - the grow. Works really well!
FWIW, one idea is still in limbo (still actively pitching it), another is starting to grow, one raised $50 million in series A and is a growing concern, and three others crashed and burned.
I wish out here in California (State Motto: we haven't taxed enough until everyone is on the public teat), we're spending hundreds of billions on high speed rail with no plan for a route, ensuring that people here illegally get better benefits than legal State residents, and for every dollar you spend on roads we spend $4.70. Even though our gas tax is supposed to be used exclusively for roads, much of it is spent on non-transportation issues. So we also raised our gas taxes but I fear we'll see most of that go to the general fund and not to what it's supposed to support...
Slashdot Mirror
To eliminate the deficit, every taxpayer will have to pay an additional $15,000 per year. Ready to do that? Or we could have Government scale back its spending... If you look at Hauser's Law, you'll see that for all the massive swings in the marginal tax rates over the last 70 years, the actual tax receipts are amazingly stable.
The reality is, if the Federal Government simply pegged the annual increases in its budget to no more than inflation plus population growth, in about 50 years our debt would be retired. The GDP - and thus, based on Hauser's Law, the share of GDP that the Federal Government receives as taxes - grows faster than inflation plus population growth. Peg growth - limit spending - and not a single tax needs to be raised. IF tax rates are adjusted, they should be done with an eye towards growing the GDP at a faster rate as that will increase the funds delivered to the Federal Government.
Imagine - slash no programs, and peg spending GROWTH (yes, growth - not cuts) to a rational level related to the consumption of services (inflation - cost of delivery - plus population growth - number of consumers). Democrats SHOULD be happy, they get to keep all their spending. And we implement no new taxes or any tax increases. Republicans SHOULD be happy, there is no new taxes. But sadly, neither side will want it because they lose their leverage...
No, it shows that upward mobility happens. People start out at the bottom, and over time tend to move upwards. VERY few are trapped in the bottom - or in poverty - for their entire life. The vast majority move up. It's why older people tend to have more, and younger people have less... And it also ignore the fact that it's NOT a zero-sum game; the sum can increase.
What data do you have to the contrary? I posted my sources... And what basic needs do we not take care of? We spend approximately $2.7 trillion a year on social services, for a population of 330 million. Assuming that the bottom 25% are the ones that need help, that's about $32,000 per person. If we're not getting our value's worth for the spending - then it's probably NOT the level of spending but how it's being spent and managed..
Your Google Fu is weak. Pay attention to the Youtube video where you can watch Charles Bolden, NASA Chief under Obama, state unambiguously that he was directed to reach out to the Muslim world to make them feel good about their contributions to science and engineering.
At least he didn't try to learn Austrian...
FTFA
All of the work that we have been doing is still being done," a White House official familiar with the matter told CBS News, adding that 35 staffers currently work across the OSTP
The summary/headline is #FakeNews. There are still 35 employees in the Office of Science and Technology POLICY who can focus on political machinations regarding science and tech. They will keep churning out political position papers related to tech, and sponsoring initiatives that cost lots of money - and do nothing to fund or advance basic science research. But hey, we can have more LGBTQWTFBBQ humans hired in "STEM" roles based upon their non-academic/professional successes but solely on those things we're not supposed to judge people by: race, religion, and gender.
Yes, we must completely politicize everything that happens or else we can't get anything done. It's all about politics, 24/7 - isn't it? After all - if you can't use politics, you can't foist your own world viewpoint on others. How about letting the science work, and scaling back the size and scope of the Federal Government? Or do you like adding $120 billion a month to our national debt, as we did in FY 2016? You like having that extra $4800 added debt per man, woman and child last year?
Newsflash: it's time the Federal Government backs the heck out of a lot of what it's doing, stop trying to politicize and run every little aspect of everyone's lives, and cuts way the heck back in spending before we go completely bankrupt - worse that Greece - as a society.
When it comes to shedding blood to export our system to other nations, we're rank amateurs compared to the old colonial powers of Europe. You know, the ones who instititionalized slavery in the Americas and most of the rest of the world, who set up Apartheid, genocide, and fanned the flames of two world wars (and the resulting communist revolutions) that killed hundreds of millions of people.
The US is either in first or second place in terms of genorosity and charitable giving. The top European country is the UK, in 8th. The US is actually quite generous, even going so far as to sacrifice thousands of soldier's lives to protect the oil supplies for Japan, China, India, and Europe by fighting wars in the Middle East.
Life is not a zero sum game, either... The pie grows. Does the CEO contribute 1000 times more to the valuation of a company than a janitor? Probably. It's not about work - it's about value. So again - why is income inequality a bad thing?
OK, so we cap income. And that helps - how? Why is income inequality bad?
Exactly. Seems like redundancies are being eliminated. We have thousands and thousands of scientists at NASA, NOAA, EPA, DOE, etc. These nine were really "policy wonks" who were tasked with fusing political goals with desired science and research directives. And according to the source article, there are still 35 people working in that department, though it's been greatly downsized from the 100+ of the Obama Administration.
RoHS exempts photovoltaic panels.
Photovoltaic panels are exempt from RoHS. Consider yourself better informed now...
CdTe panels are 5.1% of the global market and growing rapidly.
Ok, I have PV solar at home. However, it contains none of the bad things described in the report.
Apparently, it does. And the higher performing cells (like Gallium Arsenide) have even more bad stuff in them...
Someone (OP?) should research the author -- Environmental Progress. They are (were) founded by Shellenberger; and he and Environmental Progress have/are advocating Nuclear power.
So what you're saying is they are sane environmentalists, who understand everything is a compromise?
New Jersey or the Sun? I can understand New Jersey, but what has the Sun ever done to you?
So McDonald's, where they pay minimum wage AND employs some people part time (meaning: you can make $600 a month there, working 15 hours a week at $10 per hour) would have a CEO who earns no more than $12,000 per month. Seriously?
Confiscate 100% of all income from the top 1%, and you'll find you get about $1800 per month for every household in the bottom 50%. Not a basic income (at least in the US - it is well below the poverty line) and pretty much kills those who provide angel and VC funding sources (who overwhelmingly are those in the top 1%).
Bootstrap? I've launched a few ideas - some of them succeeded, some of them didn't - by getting them to prototype/proof-of-concept stage on my own. It can be done, typically, for a few tens of thousands of dollars. If you really are serious about the business, then you'll invest that over a few years of time on your own. And then you can go and start seeking angel seed funding to not only validate your idea (if someone outside your family and friends wants to toss some cash at an idea - it probably has a good chance of success) but help you refine the existing problems in your current solution and make the next pitch up. Start small - the grow. Works really well!
FWIW, one idea is still in limbo (still actively pitching it), another is starting to grow, one raised $50 million in series A and is a growing concern, and three others crashed and burned.
So: what should the income cap be? How wealthy is a person allowed to be? Please - just give a ballpark number.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.. At least at the Federal level, the Constitution IS the be-all AND the end-all (explicitly so - see above) of what the Federal Government should - and can - do.
I wish out here in California (State Motto: we haven't taxed enough until everyone is on the public teat), we're spending hundreds of billions on high speed rail with no plan for a route, ensuring that people here illegally get better benefits than legal State residents, and for every dollar you spend on roads we spend $4.70. Even though our gas tax is supposed to be used exclusively for roads, much of it is spent on non-transportation issues. So we also raised our gas taxes but I fear we'll see most of that go to the general fund and not to what it's supposed to support...
Nah, be asian, at least graduate high school, and realize you'll start to get way ahead the older you get. Median income is well above the poverty rate, and I don't think most people would consider $4700 per month as "rich".