Tax receipts in 1957, per capita: $465. Correct for a 2013 dollar (multiply by $8.46) and you get about $3900 (the Federal Government also ran a real cash surplus and the national debt decreased).
Tax receipts in 2013, per capita: $8754. Or a bit more than double that 1957 per-capita after you adjust for inflation (deficit - pushing over $2000 per person).
Essentially, the Federal Government is taking about twice out of everybody's pocket as it did back in the "high tax" 50s. The difference is in the deductions allowed today versus then, so the actual, effective tax rate was dramatically different than what many suspect. And given that the overwhelming majority of tax receipts come from high income people (the top 10% pay more than 70% of all Federal income taxes, and when you include SSI/FICA - which they would all cap out - and capital gains, approximately 88% of individual, and 40% of ALL, Federal receipts comes from the income of these top 10%), we are witnessing a massive wealth redistribution at the hands of the Federal Government. The fact it's happening so poorly is not a reflection on the taxpayers, but the inefficiency and corrupt nature of the Federal Government.
Given that being in Congress makes one quite wealthy, perhaps a lot of that redistribution is strictly for the benefit of those IN Government. It's still a Federal Government by the people and of the people, but increasingly FOR Government, not for the people.
California does not have a water shortage problem; it has an overabundance of salt problem. Desalination is actually affordable, being quite competitive with what California charges now. It's just a lack of political will to take advantage of the near-limitless supply of water sitting right off our coast (about 300 meters from where I am currently sitting).
The FCC provides a nice breakdown and illustrates how these fees can change based upon your usage (local versus long distance) and some (such as the USF) are strictly mandated by the Government. I kind of like knowing how much is going to the various Governments in terms of taxes; often we hear people railing against some company making a certain amount of profit on their activities, but we find out that the Governments actually make even more profit (in the form of taxes)...
Actually, on an inflation-adjusted basis, we're transferring more wealth now than we did back in the 50s when the top marginal tax rate was 90%. The Federal Government receives over twice the tax, on a per-capita, constant dollar basis, as it did back in the 50s. Perhaps all that wealth transfer that's accelerated over the last 25 years is part of the reason the middle class is disappearing? It's harder to keep what you make so you either make a big jump to the ranks of high net worth, or you simply are mired in constant lower-middle-class status.
And the people who supply the resin, the teak, the brass fittings, the wiring, the lights, the upholstery, the stove, the engines for that yacht - they don't benefit at all, do they?
Breaking my AC rule here because what you spout is an oft-repeated but absolute lie. And it cannot be allowed to stand.
Take a look at the actual breakdown of taxpayers. The top 1% pay, on average, 24% in income tax alone. The top 5% average a 16% tax rate (top 5% being those who make around $150K+ a year - meaning a lot of people here at Slashdot, lots of tech workers). It's not until you get below that level that you find those who pay less than 15% tax rates.
Furthermore, those who have income outside of long-term capital gains will pay their 7.62% SS/FICA on their first $110K of salary; above that level they are exempt - but SS benefits are also capped. Since SS is nominally a "retirement plan" insurance package, capped benefits means capped contributions.
The vast majority who are paying less than 15% total taxes (income and SS/FICA) are the 75% of the population who earn under $67K per year; if you're earning more than that, then you are most likely paying well above 15% total taxes to the Federal Government. And in some States (like California), you can pay as high as 10.5% - meaning an income tax load of 40% or more is entirely realistic for a high earner.
For the record, I'm paying an effective 21% Federal income tax rate, I capped out my SS/FICA (meaning $16,700 - self-employed so I pay both halves), and my CA State income tax rate is 7.1%. Total taxes I'm paying this year are about 35% of my adjusted gross income (and about 30% of my gross income). A 15% tax rate? I'd gladly take it - provided everyone else also paid the same (which is how it should be - a flat tax rate for everyone).
We already tax a small bit of the wealth flowing through the country to fix roads and bridges. They're called "gasoline taxes" and "road use taxes".
And neither gasoline taxes nor road use taxes are sufficient to pay for the roads.
Per the Federal Bureau of Transportation Statistics, roads and cars more than pay their fair share; in fact, the taxes raised not only cover roads but also airplane and train passenger costs (the former being lightly subsidized per passenger mile; the latter being heavily subsidized per passenger mile).
Cars and trucks more than pay their way; it's just that tax dollars are fungible and the various Governments know people will NOT stop driving, so that's a fixed tax base that can be increasingly levied against - and the extra funds can be spent in other places where there can be more political gain as compared to economic gain.
We life in a country which has a huge economy, and yet tons of people who are unemployed. And yet, our roads and bridges are falling apart. Just tax a small bit of the wealth flowing through the country and give people part-time jobs fixing potholes or whatever. When we run out of those they can fix bridges, dig trenches for municipal broadband, and so on.
Sure, we should do a lot more to repair our infrastructure - and we should hire more people to do it. However, the various Governments already take in over 20% of the GDP for taxes, surely that is enough to get the jobs done? More taxes isn't the answer - Government realizing it has a responsibility to actually maintain the infrastructure it taxed to build, and taxes to maintain (for example, the US Federal Government makes money - positive cash flow - on its gas taxes relative to its expenditures on road maintenance and highway construction)), is the key.
Landline sound quality in 1975 was better than any mobile phone sound quality in 2014.
The problem is, of course, that it's hard to take that landline with me to the grocery store, or to work, or on vacation - the cost of such a cable gets prohibitively expensive.
Personally I wish they would keep it the old way. I fly a lot (like 150,000+ miles a year, most of it internationally), and it's quite eye-opening to realize that round-trip flight from Los Angeles to Shanghai has a $450 ticket on Delta - but there are $600 worth of taxes and fees added to it. Makes you realize just who is making the money on my flight - and it's not Delta.
One reason is that by putting in these line items for things such as 911 fee and FCC fee, they make it appear as though they are not the ones charging you the fee and they should not be blamed for it.
Well, that is the case, is it not? Those fees are mandated taxes that they have to charge - much like sales taxes. Is the retailer/seller the one responsible for charging you the tax? No - they are simply acting as tax collectors for the various Governmental agencies that demand they collect said tax. I do not hold my motorcycle dealer responsible for the sales and license taxes that the State of California charges. He is not the one imposing the tax on me - it is the local and State Governments than do so, my dealer is simply the agent collecting the tax (and passing it along dutifully to the taxing authority).
The fees and taxes are not from the carriers - they are from the local, State, and Federal Governments.
So in what way is the Kindle Fire lower end than an iPad mini (other than price)? What are the low-end tablets from ASUS and Lenovo? Look at what the companies offer - they offer high-end solutions like Samsung. Are they as expensive as the iPads? No. But they are equal (or higher) resolution screens, more onboard storage, equivalent processors, etc. The product may sell at a lower price (like the Kindle Fire HDX compared to the iPad mini) but the hardware is definitely not low-end.
Half the Android tablets sold came from Samsung, ASUS, Amazon, and Lenovo. Those are not low-end, disposable products. The high end of Android tablets sells as well as iOS. Android just benefits from also having lower end products in the mix as well - which allows Android to double the volume of iOS.
Half the Android tablets sold came from Samsung, ASUS, Amazon, and Lenovo. I don't think they sell low-end tablets... It's not the price that is driving Android to double-up on iOS; it's a natural extension of Android dominating the cell phone world. If you have an Android phone, the natural OS to consider for a tablet is Android - you already know it, you have the apps. Since Android doubled up on iOS in terms of market share, it's only natural for tablets to end up the same way.
Samsung dominates Android tablet sales. ASUS, Amazon, and Lenovo are the next 3 leading brands of Android tablets (combined they are about half the Android tablet space - meaning on-par with Apple in total tablet sales). None of them sell low-end/cheap tablets. It's not price that is driving people to Android tablets - it is their familiarity with Android via their cell phones. Android dominates cell phones; it is only natural that people used to Android on their phone would look to use the same platform for their tablet.
I've got several of those $50, 5" Android tablets. They are perfectly suited for use as SONOS/Z Wave controllers around the home. Fast and responsive when doing that. Why buy a $300+ tablet for such a mundane task? I'd rather have 6 of these lower-end controllers rather than one - and I can leave them around in all the rooms of the house. Choice is wonderful!
Yes they do. And justice demands those laws are exercised evenly and uniformly for everyone. Including ones that relate to how the Government is to interact with you.
Slashdot Mirror
Cool, you like your keyboard in your lap?
Maybe if you spent 5 years being tortured and as a result cannot raise your arms above your chest from the damage done without pain, you wouldn't use a computer too much, either.
It should be fully expected, since after all, this is a Government where you have to pass a bill to find out what's in it.
Federal tax receipts, historical. In 1957 tax receipts were basically $80 billion. In 2013, tax receipts were $2,775 billion.
Population of the US, historical. In 1957, there were about 172 million people. In 2013 there are about 317 million.
Inflation calculator. A 1957 dollar is worth about $8.46 in 2013
Tax receipts in 1957, per capita: $465. Correct for a 2013 dollar (multiply by $8.46) and you get about $3900 (the Federal Government also ran a real cash surplus and the national debt decreased).
Tax receipts in 2013, per capita: $8754. Or a bit more than double that 1957 per-capita after you adjust for inflation (deficit - pushing over $2000 per person).
Essentially, the Federal Government is taking about twice out of everybody's pocket as it did back in the "high tax" 50s. The difference is in the deductions allowed today versus then, so the actual, effective tax rate was dramatically different than what many suspect. And given that the overwhelming majority of tax receipts come from high income people (the top 10% pay more than 70% of all Federal income taxes, and when you include SSI/FICA - which they would all cap out - and capital gains, approximately 88% of individual, and 40% of ALL, Federal receipts comes from the income of these top 10%), we are witnessing a massive wealth redistribution at the hands of the Federal Government. The fact it's happening so poorly is not a reflection on the taxpayers, but the inefficiency and corrupt nature of the Federal Government.
Given that being in Congress makes one quite wealthy, perhaps a lot of that redistribution is strictly for the benefit of those IN Government. It's still a Federal Government by the people and of the people, but increasingly FOR Government, not for the people.
California does not have a water shortage problem; it has an overabundance of salt problem. Desalination is actually affordable, being quite competitive with what California charges now. It's just a lack of political will to take advantage of the near-limitless supply of water sitting right off our coast (about 300 meters from where I am currently sitting).
The FCC provides a nice breakdown and illustrates how these fees can change based upon your usage (local versus long distance) and some (such as the USF) are strictly mandated by the Government. I kind of like knowing how much is going to the various Governments in terms of taxes; often we hear people railing against some company making a certain amount of profit on their activities, but we find out that the Governments actually make even more profit (in the form of taxes)...
Actually, on an inflation-adjusted basis, we're transferring more wealth now than we did back in the 50s when the top marginal tax rate was 90%. The Federal Government receives over twice the tax, on a per-capita, constant dollar basis, as it did back in the 50s. Perhaps all that wealth transfer that's accelerated over the last 25 years is part of the reason the middle class is disappearing? It's harder to keep what you make so you either make a big jump to the ranks of high net worth, or you simply are mired in constant lower-middle-class status.
And the people who supply the resin, the teak, the brass fittings, the wiring, the lights, the upholstery, the stove, the engines for that yacht - they don't benefit at all, do they?
Breaking my AC rule here because what you spout is an oft-repeated but absolute lie. And it cannot be allowed to stand.
Take a look at the actual breakdown of taxpayers. The top 1% pay, on average, 24% in income tax alone. The top 5% average a 16% tax rate (top 5% being those who make around $150K+ a year - meaning a lot of people here at Slashdot, lots of tech workers). It's not until you get below that level that you find those who pay less than 15% tax rates.
Furthermore, those who have income outside of long-term capital gains will pay their 7.62% SS/FICA on their first $110K of salary; above that level they are exempt - but SS benefits are also capped. Since SS is nominally a "retirement plan" insurance package, capped benefits means capped contributions.
The vast majority who are paying less than 15% total taxes (income and SS/FICA) are the 75% of the population who earn under $67K per year; if you're earning more than that, then you are most likely paying well above 15% total taxes to the Federal Government. And in some States (like California), you can pay as high as 10.5% - meaning an income tax load of 40% or more is entirely realistic for a high earner.
For the record, I'm paying an effective 21% Federal income tax rate, I capped out my SS/FICA (meaning $16,700 - self-employed so I pay both halves), and my CA State income tax rate is 7.1%. Total taxes I'm paying this year are about 35% of my adjusted gross income (and about 30% of my gross income). A 15% tax rate? I'd gladly take it - provided everyone else also paid the same (which is how it should be - a flat tax rate for everyone).
We already tax a small bit of the wealth flowing through the country to fix roads and bridges. They're called "gasoline taxes" and "road use taxes".
And neither gasoline taxes nor road use taxes are sufficient to pay for the roads.
Per the Federal Bureau of Transportation Statistics, roads and cars more than pay their fair share; in fact, the taxes raised not only cover roads but also airplane and train passenger costs (the former being lightly subsidized per passenger mile; the latter being heavily subsidized per passenger mile).
Cars and trucks more than pay their way; it's just that tax dollars are fungible and the various Governments know people will NOT stop driving, so that's a fixed tax base that can be increasingly levied against - and the extra funds can be spent in other places where there can be more political gain as compared to economic gain.
We life in a country which has a huge economy, and yet tons of people who are unemployed. And yet, our roads and bridges are falling apart. Just tax a small bit of the wealth flowing through the country and give people part-time jobs fixing potholes or whatever. When we run out of those they can fix bridges, dig trenches for municipal broadband, and so on.
Sure, we should do a lot more to repair our infrastructure - and we should hire more people to do it. However, the various Governments already take in over 20% of the GDP for taxes, surely that is enough to get the jobs done? More taxes isn't the answer - Government realizing it has a responsibility to actually maintain the infrastructure it taxed to build, and taxes to maintain (for example, the US Federal Government makes money - positive cash flow - on its gas taxes relative to its expenditures on road maintenance and highway construction)), is the key.
Landline sound quality in 1975 was better than any mobile phone sound quality in 2014.
The problem is, of course, that it's hard to take that landline with me to the grocery store, or to work, or on vacation - the cost of such a cable gets prohibitively expensive.
Personally I wish they would keep it the old way. I fly a lot (like 150,000+ miles a year, most of it internationally), and it's quite eye-opening to realize that round-trip flight from Los Angeles to Shanghai has a $450 ticket on Delta - but there are $600 worth of taxes and fees added to it. Makes you realize just who is making the money on my flight - and it's not Delta.
One reason is that by putting in these line items for things such as 911 fee and FCC fee, they make it appear as though they are not the ones charging you the fee and they should not be blamed for it.
Well, that is the case, is it not? Those fees are mandated taxes that they have to charge - much like sales taxes. Is the retailer/seller the one responsible for charging you the tax? No - they are simply acting as tax collectors for the various Governmental agencies that demand they collect said tax. I do not hold my motorcycle dealer responsible for the sales and license taxes that the State of California charges. He is not the one imposing the tax on me - it is the local and State Governments than do so, my dealer is simply the agent collecting the tax (and passing it along dutifully to the taxing authority).
The fees and taxes are not from the carriers - they are from the local, State, and Federal Governments.
Tanks, er, ah... I got nuthin...
Yeah - remind me to never split the bill with you!
So in that case, the Vertu phones are highest of the high end, the best phones you can get. Everything else is spyware riddled crap...
So in what way is the Kindle Fire lower end than an iPad mini (other than price)? What are the low-end tablets from ASUS and Lenovo? Look at what the companies offer - they offer high-end solutions like Samsung. Are they as expensive as the iPads? No. But they are equal (or higher) resolution screens, more onboard storage, equivalent processors, etc. The product may sell at a lower price (like the Kindle Fire HDX compared to the iPad mini) but the hardware is definitely not low-end.
Did you see the photo of the author, Cynthia Than? She's freaking hot!
Possibly, but if it follows the phone market, about half the Android tablets will be high-end; the other half will be lower end product.
Half the Android tablets sold came from Samsung, ASUS, Amazon, and Lenovo. Those are not low-end, disposable products. The high end of Android tablets sells as well as iOS. Android just benefits from also having lower end products in the mix as well - which allows Android to double the volume of iOS.
Half the Android tablets sold came from Samsung, ASUS, Amazon, and Lenovo. I don't think they sell low-end tablets... It's not the price that is driving Android to double-up on iOS; it's a natural extension of Android dominating the cell phone world. If you have an Android phone, the natural OS to consider for a tablet is Android - you already know it, you have the apps. Since Android doubled up on iOS in terms of market share, it's only natural for tablets to end up the same way.
Samsung dominates Android tablet sales. ASUS, Amazon, and Lenovo are the next 3 leading brands of Android tablets (combined they are about half the Android tablet space - meaning on-par with Apple in total tablet sales). None of them sell low-end/cheap tablets. It's not price that is driving people to Android tablets - it is their familiarity with Android via their cell phones. Android dominates cell phones; it is only natural that people used to Android on their phone would look to use the same platform for their tablet.
I've got several of those $50, 5" Android tablets. They are perfectly suited for use as SONOS/Z Wave controllers around the home. Fast and responsive when doing that. Why buy a $300+ tablet for such a mundane task? I'd rather have 6 of these lower-end controllers rather than one - and I can leave them around in all the rooms of the house. Choice is wonderful!
Yes they do. And justice demands those laws are exercised evenly and uniformly for everyone. Including ones that relate to how the Government is to interact with you.