As for military, cutting down to 500 billions, after all, there is no need to maintain such military if the country drops the "world police bullshit".
I achieved a surplus of 2.5 billion, mostly by slashing the defence budget by 35.2% and implementing a modest tax increase for those earning over 70k and above and trimming programs almost across the board. I cut farm subsidies for agribusiness entirely and moderately increased the corporate tax rate. I'd have had a higher surplus but I increased foreign aid and money for job retraining, education, and research.
I put a tax on soft drinks largely because those advertisements by the food industry lobby piss me off. Alcohol as well, since American beer is simply awful and deserves death.
I achieved a surplus of 2.5 billion, mostly by slashing the defence budget by 35.2% and implementing a modest tax increase for those earning over 70k and above and trimming programs almost across the board. I cut farm subsidies for agribusiness entirely and moderately increased the corporate tax rate. I'd have had a higher surplus but I increased foreign aid and money for job retraining, education, and research.
I put a tax on soft drinks largely because those advertisements by the food industry lobby piss me off. Alcohol as well, since American beer is simply awful and deserves death.
Why would you do such a thing to their defense budget?
I achieved a surplus of 2.5 billion, mostly by slashing the defence budget by 35.2% and implementing a modest tax increase for those earning over 70k and above and trimming programs almost across the board. I cut farm subsidies for agribusiness entirely and moderately increased the corporate tax rate. I'd have had a higher surplus but I increased foreign aid and money for job retraining, education, and research.
I put a tax on soft drinks largely because those advertisements by the food industry lobby piss me off. Alcohol as well, since American beer is simply awful and deserves death.
Why would you do such a thing to their defense budget?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/e28cfcc56891df08bf32a556eb9d6d90.png)
You could cut it in half and America would still be roughly equivalent to what Europe spends.
I achieved a surplus of 2.5 billion, mostly by slashing the defence budget by 35.2% and implementing a modest tax increase for those earning over 70k and above and trimming programs almost across the board. I cut farm subsidies for agribusiness entirely and moderately increased the corporate tax rate. I'd have had a higher surplus but I increased foreign aid and money for job retraining, education, and research.
I put a tax on soft drinks largely because those advertisements by the food industry lobby piss me off. Alcohol as well, since American beer is simply awful and deserves death.
Why would you do such a thing to their defense budget?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/e28cfcc56891df08bf32a556eb9d6d90.png)
You could cut it in half and America would still be roughly equivalent to what Europe spends.
But you forget that we go to war, have multiple fronts occupied, and in certain cases save others' asses. :-\
*Then I saw your sig and it hit me like a revelation.
I achieved a surplus of 2.5 billion, mostly by slashing the defence budget by 35.2% and implementing a modest tax increase for those earning over 70k and above and trimming programs almost across the board. I cut farm subsidies for agribusiness entirely and moderately increased the corporate tax rate. I'd have had a higher surplus but I increased foreign aid and money for job retraining, education, and research.
I put a tax on soft drinks largely because those advertisements by the food industry lobby piss me off. Alcohol as well, since American beer is simply awful and deserves death.
Why would you do such a thing to their defense budget?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/e28cfcc56891df08bf32a556eb9d6d90.png)
You could cut it in half and America would still be roughly equivalent to what Europe spends.
Weapon development is necessary to remain a dominant military power. 10 year of reduced r&d spending will render your military force incapable of any serious offensive action.So what? Which country do you want the US to invade? The only purpose I consider maintaining military forces legitimate for is to protect yourself from outer threats, but not to act as an aggressor. Diplomacy and a certain degree of intelligence operations generally seem much more cost-effective to me. Hell, everything seems to be more cost-effective to me than invading a country to spread democracy and civil war.
To me, it seems like maintaining world military dominance and control is important for the U.S. To maintain this control, they need to keep raising spending, now lowering it.You want to maintain military dominance while China keeps rushing towards you on the economical front? I don't consider China (or any other country) a real military threat, but even by halving the military budget, the US would spend a higher percentage of their GDP on it than China, and more money in absolute than the whole European Union.
Similar to the British empire, which declined after so many spending cuts.
Fighting fourth-rate armies in third world countries?
Well I'm going through it as we speak, so far I've actually increased spending on everything except the Military from which I've cut $201 Billion, so I'm sitting at a deficit of $506B.
wait, why can I only increase the top threshold to 30%?? That doesn't make any sense, why can't I increase it to more realistic options like 50%? Anyway I went 0 / 5 / 20 / 30 / 30 / 10 / 20 / 30. I've now got a deficit of $129.2B
Increased taxes on Corporations to 30%, now a deficit of $30.2B
Taxed the Hedge fund managers, deficit now sits at $28.7B.
Added the Crisis fee, deficit now sits at $19.7B.
Put on the heaviest carbon tax, now have a Surplus of $94.3B
Heavy alcohol tax, surplus now $106.3B
Taxed Sugary drinks at the highest, surplus now $142.3B
Added VAT of 10%, surplus now $474.3B
Kept estate tax as is.
My Budget surplus for 2015 is $474B
That really wasn't hard....
Balanced Social Security by having all wages pay into it, tied the increases to prices not wages and adjusted it to include the items people bought and then increased the benefits, solving 100% of the Social Security deficit.
So the whole thing is now "solved" and I've put in a $474B surplus, in fact I could have even increased military spending and I would have still come out on top...... why are you yanks bitching again?
I achieved a surplus of 2.5 billion, mostly by slashing the defence budget by 35.2% and implementing a modest tax increase for those earning over 70k and above and trimming programs almost across the board. I cut farm subsidies for agribusiness entirely and moderately increased the corporate tax rate. I'd have had a higher surplus but I increased foreign aid and money for job retraining, education, and research.
I put a tax on soft drinks largely because those advertisements by the food industry lobby piss me off. Alcohol as well, since American beer is simply awful and deserves death.
Why would you do such a thing to their defense budget?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/e28cfcc56891df08bf32a556eb9d6d90.png)
You could cut it in half and America would still be roughly equivalent to what Europe spends.
You could cut it in half and America will lose it's global influence.
Exactly what happened to the British empire post WWII
Weapon development is necessary to remain a dominant military power. 10 year of reduced r&d spending will render your military force incapable of any serious offensive action.So what? Which country do you want the US to invade? The only purpose I consider maintaining military forces legitimate for is to protect yourself from outer threats, but not to act as an aggressor. Diplomacy and a certain degree of intelligence operations generally seem much more cost-effective to me. Hell, everything seems to be more cost-effective to me than invading a country to spread democracy and civil war.
To me, it seems like maintaining world military dominance and control is important for the U.S. To maintain this control, they need to keep raising spending, now lowering it.You want to maintain military dominance while China keeps rushing towards you on the economical front? I don't consider China (or any other country) a real military threat, but even by halving the military budget, the US would spend a higher percentage of their GDP on it than China, and more money in absolute than the whole European Union.
Similar to the British empire, which declined after so many spending cuts.
The British Empire also declined because their military presence around the globe led the country nearly into bankruptcy.
LOL, I set income taxes on max and it still wasn't even getting close to the ones we are paying here.
Yeah, higher taxes would immediately fix most problems there. If we can pay them, so can you.
The U.S should be able to invade an country which is acting in an aggresive manner and invading other countries. Or attacking themselves.Why do you think the USA should have such an exceptional role? And where are you from… Canada? :o
To maintain control, the U.S should spend twice as much as the next two largest political entities combined.The US don't have military control over the world, nor do they need it. Nobody believes that they could control the world anyway, or everybody would join up in the arms race.
To maintain control, the U.S should spend twice as much as the next two largest political entities combined.The two power standard... DOING IT WRONG
Didn't Canada invade USA once? ;D
Done. National military disbanded, states are now responsible for their own defense. CRISIS AVERTED! Where's my Nobel Prize?
Here's a fun question: without looking at Wikipedia, name the last time American soil was attacked by a conventional army.
To maintain control, the U.S should spend twice as much as the next two largest political entities combined.The two power standard... DOING IT WRONG
The U.S should be able to invade an country which is acting in an aggresive manner and invading other countries. Or attacking themselves.Why do you think the USA should have such an exceptional role? And where are you from… Canada? :o
To maintain control, the U.S should spend twice as much as the next two largest political entities combined.The US don't have military control over the world, nor do they need it. Nobody believes that they could control the world anyway, or everybody would join up in the arms race.
Here's a fun question: without looking at Wikipedia, name the last time American soil was attacked by a conventional army.
I'd like to add, Never...EVER was the USA helpless during WW2. Everyone (particularly the British empire) was begging them to help out, they just chose not to.
I'd like to add, Never...EVER was the USA helpless during WW2. Everyone (particularly the British empire) was begging them to help out, they just chose not to.
Err, let's go back to 1940. The U.S airforce is dating, with vastly inferior planes to the BF-109 of Germany. Her armored force consists of Lee tanks which are pieces of crap. her AT guns are old interwar models. Her navy dates back to WWI and is crippled by both the London naval treater and the Japanese attack a later in 1941.
Only their industrial capacity allowed them to rebuild so quickly. The French National Army was fielding better equiptment in 1940, and that says a lot.
Spend the money on military R&D. It saves lives later. Or would you rather send soldiers out to battle like the old Soviets in WWII did, the Vietnamese during Tet, or just the modern Chinese way? Because quantity has a quality all its own??? We could never project power anywhere, except to try to bomb the next enemy into the stone age..Need I remind you who actually captured Berlin? Who won the Vietnam war? and who is about to become one of the biggest players in the international stage? You're just making battles out to be the whole war. The American army is over reliant on technology as it stands. heck they could stop R&D for 3 years and people would only JUST be catching up.
I'd like to add, Never...EVER was the USA helpless during WW2. Everyone (particularly the British empire) was begging them to help out, they just chose not to.
Err, let's go back to 1940. The U.S airforce is dating, with vastly inferior planes to the BF-109 of Germany. Her armored force consists of Lee tanks which are pieces of crap. her AT guns are old interwar models. Her navy dates back to WWI and is crippled by both the London naval treater and the Japanese attack a later in 1941.
Only their industrial capacity allowed them to rebuild so quickly. The French National Army was fielding better equiptment in 1940, and that says a lot.
America didn't need a beastly air force, Churchill promised Roosevelt that he'd do most of the air combat. Ok you got me on tanks, but even with a dated navy (unfortunately Britain couldn't back the Americans up much here) America was not helpless by any means. Their ground force was capable of... well... rape
Spend the money on military R&D. It saves lives later. Or would you rather send soldiers out to battle like the old Soviets in WWII did, the Vietnamese during Tet, or just the modern Chinese way? Because quantity has a quality all its own??? We could never project power anywhere, except to try to bomb the next enemy into the stone age..Need I remind you who actually captured Berlin? Who won the Vietnam war? and who is about to become one of the biggest players in the international stage? You're just making battles out to be the whole war. The American army is over reliant on technology as it stands. heck they could stop R&D for 3 years and people would only JUST be catching up.
Her armored force consists of Lee tanks which are pieces of crap.
What would Norway do if Brent North Sea crude dried up? Don't think they could tax themselves out of the mess they'd find themselves in.
The Eurofighter is actually far superior to the slow and cumbersome F-35, while European small arms are already superior to American ones.
What would Norway do if Brent North Sea crude dried up? Don't think they could tax themselves out of the mess they'd find themselves in.
Thank you for showing your blatant ignorance about Nordic economics system. With that sentence you revealed that you know absolutely nothing at how revenue from the oil is used.
Lesson:And thus you know why our politicians and economists are more competent than yours.(click to show/hide)
All this talk of WW2 is irrelevant, if the United States went to war with anyone that could remotely pose a threat to them, it would end in thermonuclear war - the jets are just lovely ornaments when you can destroy the whole world several times over.
LOL, I set income taxes on max and it still wasn't even getting close to the ones we are paying here.i went with it down to 100 something billion and like a 12% surplus in social security which i could use to bankroll my other 100 some billion in debt
Yeah, higher taxes would immediately fix most problems there. If we can pay them, so can you.
Also it seems that setting policy to isolatioanism really saves money for USA. Aid to foreign countries? Fuck them, a big fat zero.
Money on research for various things like renewable energy? Fuck that, a zero there as well, after all if that business is profitable, private companies will research everything themselves, if it's not profitable, then even government subsidiaries won't make much difference on a big scale.
But hey, I am not greedy. I am totally against shit like VAT and taxing alcohol and sugar drinks. A person should only be taxed once, in my opinion. Either income tax, or various taxes for products and services, not both.
As for military, cutting down to 500 billions, after all, there is no need to maintain such military if the country drops the "world police bullshit", however raising nuclear arsenal budget. Whatever it takes to keep M.A.D status, I say.
I must admit I stopped after a while there. I mean just changing numbers doesn't work. If I cut the budget to help those with disabilities, it will not solve anything, after all there is no option for me to tick off "start an eugenics program" so that there won't be so many people with disabilities to begin with.
huh, raising taxes (to what is still sub-European levels) balances the budget.
whoddathunkit?
huh, raising taxes (to what is still sub-European levels) balances the budget.
whoddathunkit?
how about raising income tax to 50% like in Canada... my parents are taxed 52.8% on income.
huh, raising taxes (to what is still sub-European levels) balances the budget.
whoddathunkit?
how about raising income tax to 50% like in Canada... my parents are taxed 52.8% on income.
I'm trying to see how.
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html#federal (http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html#federal)
huh, raising taxes (to what is still sub-European levels) balances the budget.
whoddathunkit?
how about raising income tax to 50% like in Canada... my parents are taxed 52.8% on income.
I'm trying to see how.
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html#federal (http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html#federal)
Use both federal and provincial values and use an amount in excess of 400k
Also other taxes come into play for different professions. Like businesses. Income from overseas is actually taxed differently, I believe.
huh, raising taxes (to what is still sub-European levels) balances the budget.
whoddathunkit?
how about raising income tax to 50% like in Canada... my parents are taxed 52.8% on income.
I'm trying to see how.
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html#federal (http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html#federal)
Use both federal and provincial values and use an amount in excess of 400k
Also other taxes come into play for different professions. Like businesses. Income from overseas is actually taxed differently, I believe.
I hadn't considered business taxes, I suppose they live in Quebec?
Anybody willing to spend $250k on a watch will spend $1 million.Uhm, yeah, right.
it is easy as long you raise tax.
It's like trying to imagine life before toilet paper. You knew that they had to be doing something, but mostly you don't want to know how.
and with the extra like 20% i was taxed i was able to pay for better health insurance then canada could give mehuh, raising taxes (to what is still sub-European levels) balances the budget.
whoddathunkit?
how about raising income tax to 50% like in Canada... my parents are taxed 52.8% on income.
it is easy as long you raise tax.
But that assumes that the people or businesses do not leave. The US got a lot of British Rock and Roll stars as the UK had a top rate of 90%. See the Beatles song Taxman for further reference. And why Yoko Ono lives in a giant hotel she owns in NYC.
Can anyone imagine what things must have been like when the US only had excise taxes and import tariffs to pay for government? Before the Constitutional amendment that gave birth to income taxes? It's like trying to imagine life before toilet paper. You knew that they had to be doing something, but mostly you don't want to know how.
I'd rather just have a very simple tax code. You ear, you pay. No deductions, no exemptions, no loopholes. No credits, no write-offs.
you can work through things that arent tax codes to make it so they break even on tax bullshit, make anything they currently use as credits in other ways to refund people so it can be capped easierI'd rather just have a very simple tax code. You ear, you pay. No deductions, no exemptions, no loopholes. No credits, no write-offs.
That's a little extreme, there have to be exemptions in a few select cases, for instance for companies that research in alternate energy. You can't leave that kind of thing completely in the hands of the government.
Agreed that the tax code must be fixed though. Google's 2.4% tax rate still amazes me.
Obama said something about fixing the tax code, but looks like he's added it to his list of forgotten promises.
Every Country that has a budget like the US is doing it wrong. The fact that they spend ~50% of their stuff in defence is utter shit while 50% of the population lives in a Shack next the Missippi river. Instead of helping the people that really need it, they boast those who are already high up.
Neither Full Capitalism is good,
Neither Full Communism is good,
Find that balance. And if you fix that third world country called the USA, you might actually get that defence budget back up after that (if you like REAAAAALLLY want it)
Every Country that has a budget like the US is doing it wrong. The fact that they spend ~50% of their stuff in defence is utter shit while 50% of the population lives in a Shack next the Missippi river. Instead of helping the people that really need it, they boast those who are already high up.
Neither Full Capitalism is good,
Neither Full Communism is good,
Find that balance. And if you fix that third world country called the USA, you might actually get that defence budget back up after that (if you like REAAAAALLLY want it)
Honestly, you'd provide far greater value to the human race by jumping off a cliff. At least it would provide sadists like myself with some short-lived, but really high quality comedy.
Less than 25% of fiscal year 2011's budget is allocated to defense.
13% - 17% of Americans earn below the Federal poverty line. Significantly less than half the US population lives next to the Mississippi river. So yeah.
You fail.
Less than 25% of fiscal year 2011's budget is allocated to defense.
13% - 17% of Americans earn below the Federal poverty line. Significantly less than half the US population lives next to the Mississippi river. So yeah.
You fail.
The fact that you took that Mississippi analogy serious only shows your failure.
I would rather "see" Adam Smith's "invisible hand" at work, rather than have congressmen trying to pick winners. I don't think lawyers make good scientists, or businessmen. And yo can get experts to tell you anything you want to hear. I think a business fighting for its' very life will do a lot better job at finding a winner.
But a while back it was decided that they didn't want to do so much R&D. So they spun off Bell Labs, and renamed it Lucent. I don't even know if they exist or not anymore. Trying to make an R&D unit a profitable concern was nuts. It was just a bunch of shareholders who wanted cash now, not later. Short term greed won out over long term profitability.
Neither Full Capitalism is good,The US is neither of them. It's a mixed economy.
Neither Full Communism is good,
Find that balance.
I would rather "see" Adam Smith's "invisible hand" at work, rather than have congressmen trying to pick winners. I don't think lawyers make good scientists, or businessmen. And yo can get experts to tell you anything you want to hear. I think a business fighting for its' very life will do a lot better job at finding a winner.
But Adam Smith hates your guts. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AdamSmithHatesYourGuts)
Also increase tax on corporate income 30%.
Also increase tax on corporate income 30%.
That would help boost China's economy.
, but basically, tax the rich, and tax things like alcohol, tobacco and sugar drinks. Tax, then tax some more, then tax some more just to be safe.
You still have your freedom, drinking alcohol & sugar drinks and smoking just becomes more expensive. In Norway you're taxed 30% of your total if you make more than 7.000$ a year. A 30% increase in taxes in America means that if you make 1mill$+ you're only taxed 24% of your total, half of what you'd be taxed in Norway for the same pay. Like I said: for people making 30.000$ a 30% increase is only 150$ extra per year. So you still have 1/15 of our tax on small wages, 1/2 of our tax on high wages and 2/5 of our tax on alcohol. Not sure about sugar drinks & tobacco, I know that 10 cigarettes cost 13$ here, though.Quote, but basically, tax the rich, and tax things like alcohol, tobacco and sugar drinks. Tax, then tax some more, then tax some more just to be safe.
Safe from what? Freedom?
Maybe we really don't need so much government. It doesn't work as well as it should, and costs far too much for what we do get. Mostly a bunch of NO, You Can't Do That and plenty of You Need to File the Proper Form Before We Will Even Think of Doing Anything, like help you, you miserable piece of shit.
Maybe what we ought to be doing is giving some people a bazillion bucks. But... we only let them have it for ten years. They can do whatever they want. But at the end of ten years, the last of the bazillion must go back. However, any money earned from investing any portion of the bazillion, you get to keep after the ten years. We should probably start with a bazillion people having a bazillion bucks.
This sounds as good to me as tax the shit out of everyone making more than minimum wage.
You still have your freedom, drinking alcohol & sugar drinks and smoking just becomes more expensive. In Norway you're taxed 30% of your total if you make more than 7.000$ a year. A 30% increase in taxes in America means that if you make 1mill$+ you're only taxed 24% of your total, half of what you'd be taxed in Norway for the same pay. Like I said: for people making 30.000$ a 30% increase is only 150$ extra per year. So you still have 1/15 of our tax on small wages, 1/2 of our tax on high wages and 2/5 of our tax on alcohol. Not sure about sugar drinks & tobacco, I know that 10 cigarettes cost 13$ here, though.
Government has to make money, Taxing alcohol and soft drinks isn't to "Punish evildoers" it's to make money because alcohol and soft drinks are bloody popular. Would you tax chocolate heavily if nobody wanted it? It's just good business sense tax popular shit to make more money; it juts so happens that things that are "bad for you" are in demand.
Government has to make money, Taxing alcohol and soft drinks isn't to "Punish evildoers" it's to make money because alcohol and soft drinks are bloody popular. Would you tax chocolate heavily if nobody wanted it? It's just good business sense tax popular shit to make more money; it juts so happens that things that are "bad for you" are in demand.
No, government has to live within their means - just like its citizens.
Extra taxes applied to things that are "bad for you" is social engineering and has little to do with upkeep of the sovereign state.Problem is that sometimes those things end up costing the government a lot of money. Especially if the government takes over health care.
And yes, I know that we have a much cheaper healthcare, and that we get a lot more from our government, but still, your taxes seem damn low, even with the increase. Sorry for talking so much about Norway, but, you know, it's the place I know most about.Just got this off Wikipedia, and wow!
30% of the labour force are employed by the government, the highest in the OECD. 22% are on welfare and 13% are too disabled to work, the highest proportions in the world.No wonder you like taxes so much. ;D
Government has to make money, Taxing alcohol and soft drinks isn't to "Punish evildoers" it's to make money because alcohol and soft drinks are bloody popular. Would you tax chocolate heavily if nobody wanted it? It's just good business sense tax popular shit to make more money; it juts so happens that things that are "bad for you" are in demand.It's not that it's bad for you! It's called luxury tax for a reason, and that's because you don't need it. Things like milk, fruit and bread have close to no tax, things like smokes, alcohol and chocolate have a very high tax. It's cheap to live, expensive to have something special.
It's not that it's bad for you! It's called luxury tax for a reason, and that's because you don't need it. Things like milk, fruit and bread have close to no tax, things like smokes, alcohol and chocolate have a very high tax. It's cheap to live, expensive to have something special.
Also cars are a taxed as "luxury" when majority of people need cars to get to work. Not to mention that outside the capital, public transportation is so scarce, that it is often not a viable alternative to having a car.Only the most expensive cars have luxury tax, because you don't need an expensive car. It's true that Alcohol and tobacco are taxes more than other luxuries because they're bad for you, though, meaning you absolutely don't need them. But complaining about it just pathetic. Sure, you can talk about freedom and principles, but in reality it's more of a protection from overconsumption.
If the motive would be "something special", then all commodities under that designation would have equally high tax. Alcohol and tobacco however are higher than everything else because it is deemed as "unhealthy", so you are literally fined for consuming things that are bad for you.
Only the most expensive cars have luxury tax, because you don't need an expensive car.
no luxury tax is used quite liberally.Also cars are a taxed as "luxury" when majority of people need cars to get to work. Not to mention that outside the capital, public transportation is so scarce, that it is often not a viable alternative to having a car.Only the most expensive cars have luxury tax, because you don't need an expensive car. It's true that Alcohol and tobacco are taxes more than other luxuries because they're bad for you, though, meaning you absolutely don't need them. But complaining about it just pathetic. Sure, you can talk about freedom and principles, but in reality it's more of a protection from overconsumption.
If the motive would be "something special", then all commodities under that designation would have equally high tax. Alcohol and tobacco however are higher than everything else because it is deemed as "unhealthy", so you are literally fined for consuming things that are bad for you.
Yet, this morning, all they could talk about was the nightmare about to fall upon our blessed city (Washington D.C.) as the possibility of the government shutting down tomorrow looms. With no government workers to come to the city for an unknown amount of time - the lack of trickle down cashflow from the rich that would usually spend their money to boost the city's economy could be devastating!
Imagine that. The poor fear even the thought of the rich not being there with their buckets of money.
Yet, this morning, all they could talk about was the nightmare about to fall upon our blessed city (Washington D.C.) as the possibility of the government shutting down tomorrow looms. With no government workers to come to the city for an unknown amount of time - the lack of trickle down cashflow from the rich that would usually spend their money to boost the city's economy could be devastating!
Imagine that. The poor fear even the thought of the rich not being there with their buckets of money.
What happens to Washington D.C. when the Government shuts down? I'm not entirely familiar with the American political system, but doesn't the Federal Government have jurisdiction over the area?
Yet, this morning, all they could talk about was the nightmare about to fall upon our blessed city (Washington D.C.) as the possibility of the government shutting down tomorrow looms. With no government workers to come to the city for an unknown amount of time - the lack of trickle down cashflow from the rich that would usually spend their money to boost the city's economy could be devastating!
Imagine that. The poor fear even the thought of the rich not being there with their buckets of money.
What happens to Washington D.C. when the Government shuts down? I'm not entirely familiar with the American political system, but doesn't the Federal Government have jurisdiction over the area?
Technically, yes, but they tend to ignore it. DC was never meant to be a city for people to reside in, so there's no real political structure. We really need to assign the city to Maryland or Virginia and establish a local government. Only the federal component of the city should be administered at the federal level. It's incredibly embarrassing for the center of American politics to be the shittiest town in the country.
Yet, this morning, all they could talk about was the nightmare about to fall upon our blessed city (Washington D.C.) as the possibility of the government shutting down tomorrow looms. With no government workers to come to the city for an unknown amount of time - the lack of trickle down cashflow from the rich that would usually spend their money to boost the city's economy could be devastating!
Imagine that. The poor fear even the thought of the rich not being there with their buckets of money.
What happens to Washington D.C. when the Government shuts down? I'm not entirely familiar with the American political system, but doesn't the Federal Government have jurisdiction over the area?
Technically, yes, but they tend to ignore it. DC was never meant to be a city for people to reside in, so there's no real political structure. We really need to assign the city to Maryland or Virginia and establish a local government. Only the federal component of the city should be administered at the federal level. It's incredibly embarrassing for the center of American politics to be the shittiest town in the country.
More shitty than Detroit?
"Årsavgift" is to cover the damages you do when you use the car, "luksusskatt"(only on the expensive cars) is because it's unnecessary.Only the most expensive cars have luxury tax, because you don't need an expensive car.
Lol, "Årsavgift" is a renamed "luksusskatt", as far as I know, ALL cars need to pay årsavgift.
Yet, this morning, all they could talk about was the nightmare about to fall upon our blessed city (Washington D.C.) as the possibility of the government shutting down tomorrow looms. With no government workers to come to the city for an unknown amount of time - the lack of trickle down cashflow from the rich that would usually spend their money to boost the city's economy could be devastating!
Imagine that. The poor fear even the thought of the rich not being there with their buckets of money.
What happens to Washington D.C. when the Government shuts down? I'm not entirely familiar with the American political system, but doesn't the Federal Government have jurisdiction over the area?
Renewable energy research: 3 -> 30 B
Medical research: 36 -> 75 B
Scientific research: 17 > 50 B
Space program... 19 B to 1 B... Honestly, we have problems here on Earth before we need to worry about space.
Renewable energy research: 3 -> 30 B
Medical research: 36 -> 75 B
Scientific research: 17 > 50 B
Space program... 19 B to 1 B... Honestly, we have problems here on Earth before we need to worry about space.
Those feels strange to me. I would cut scientific to fund NASA myself.
not to mention instead of cutting spending you just obscenely increased taxing of slightly wealthy and wealthy individuals and businesses, and caused a flat nationwide sales tax in addition to taxing half the shit people buy already.Renewable energy research: 3 -> 30 B
Medical research: 36 -> 75 B
Scientific research: 17 > 50 B
Space program... 19 B to 1 B... Honestly, we have problems here on Earth before we need to worry about space.
Those feels strange to me. I would cut scientific to fund NASA myself.
With a surplus of $196.8 B, cutting Science would not be necessary.
Also, interestingly... just with some tax increases and no other changes whatsoever, we can get the deficit into a surplus...(click to show/hide)
Of course, this route is just for show... Obviously that won't work very well with the carbon tax unless we also invest in renewable energy, but if we, say, cut the war in Afgan/Iraq off entirely, there's $50B free that we can put into that research.
So easy...
Of course... I'd be bitching about the tax increase, but... there's no reason the wealthy should live so comfortably when others in the country are suffering. We can make some sacrifices so the middle and lower classes have it easier.
But still... Even doing that, I think I'd probably cut military spending by about $50B or so, and split it into medical and science research.
Not as pretty as my attempt above, but... I think that would go a great way to improving our country without anything too incredibly sweeping. And investing $50B into renewable energy... we would quickly become the world leader in renewable energy, and once we come up with a great solution (which would be inevitable pumping in that much money), then we'd look to make a great deal of money selling it to other countries as well.
then we'd look to make a great deal of money selling it to other countries as well.For that you will have to compete with Canadians who has some of the cheapest renewable energy (mainly hydro). But at least you will no longer import billions in fossil fuel. That's a fuck load of cash going out of your economy.
then we'd look to make a great deal of money selling it to other countries as well.For that you will have to compete with Canadians who has some of the cheapest renewable energy (mainly hydro). But at least you will no longer import billions in fossil fuel. That's a fuck load of cash going out of your economy.
BTW, happy to see you back Tiffanys. It's been a long time.
@jaybug you think people are joining the military just for the benefit? Look at the size of your army and look at everyone else. Less soldier isn't a big problem.
@mgz If you look at wealth repartition in USA, I don't think rising taxes for the richest will make them miserable anytime soon.
Yo Tiff, just surrender now, because you are not going to get anyone to join your piece of shit military with those benefits for having some asshole shooting at us.
But it's amazing how similar to Jimmy Carter your response was.
Israel tops other countries for being manly as fuck, because they conscript women as well.
Less soldiers + higher taxes on the wealthy who own companies = larger unemployment. I liked the little java game for what it was but it certainly didn't encompass everything (not that it possibly could).
Real men join anyway, even if no conscription. Like me.
Less soldiers* + higher taxes on the wealthy who own companies** = larger unemployment. I liked the little java game for what it was but it certainly didn't encompass everything (not that it possibly could).*Spending almost anywhere inside the country is gonna create jobs. There is no reason for it to be in the military specifically. Once again, republican BS
Less soldiers* + higher taxes on the wealthy who own companies** = larger unemployment. I liked the little java game for what it was but it certainly didn't encompass everything (not that it possibly could).*Spending almost anywhere inside the country is gonna create jobs. There is no reason for it to be in the military specifically. Once again, republican BS
**That's republican BS. Try do demonstrate that without slippery slope.
Less soldiers* + higher taxes on the wealthy who own companies** = larger unemployment. I liked the little java game for what it was but it certainly didn't encompass everything (not that it possibly could).*Spending almost anywhere inside the country is gonna create jobs. There is no reason for it to be in the military specifically. Once again, republican BS
**That's republican BS. Try do demonstrate that without slippery slope.
We were talking about taxing the richest I think, not the companies. What will be reduced is a percentage of their personal revenue, not their revenue. So the 10% of population owning 71% of the country will make a little bit less. They are not gonna loose money, just make less of it. Yea sure, totally the best reason to lay out people! No actually it's Republican BS.Less soldiers* + higher taxes on the wealthy who own companies** = larger unemployment. I liked the little java game for what it was but it certainly didn't encompass everything (not that it possibly could).*Spending almost anywhere inside the country is gonna create jobs. There is no reason for it to be in the military specifically. Once again, republican BS
**That's republican BS. Try do demonstrate that without slippery slope.
Try using your own head for a change and see where that gets you. Say you're rich and own a large company and you're smart with your money. You have a set percentage of what you're willing to put into your company and what you're planning on investing personally. Let's say you're generous and it's a 75-25 split, just for argument's sake. I mean, you want to keep gaining customers, don't you?
Your taxes increase, significantly - what are you going to do?
You have to determine where to make your own cuts to keep your business and yourself afloat. You can either lower the quality of your product - if you are a producer of goods - or let employees go. You're letting employees go.
I can't point to a recent time in history that it's happened because, well, there hasn't been a recent time in history that corporate and high income taxes have been increased. However, it's not "Republican" logic - it's normal human thinking. You should give it a shot and put yourself in that situation.
Nik, I can't believe what you say. You been watching Harold and Kumarr movies, again?Doesn't Mather. That was just a generic example. In any cases, taxes are based on the companies profit, not its revenue. Taxing the personal income of the richest will not suddenly change a profit to a deficit.
Burk, gawd, please take some accounting classes, so that I can at least show you where you went wrong. Because you example went belly up. Is Bob's company a sole proprietor ship, an S-corporation, a C-corporation, a joint venture, a Limited Liability Partnership? The taxes paid will all be different depending upon your answer.
@vicious796 That's BS. Company A has employees because they all contribute to its profit in a way or another. Bob is gonna lay off a useless employee whether he has to pay taxes or not. Thanks for providing us a typical example of a slippery slope.
@jaybug I agree. Stupid laws and fucking lawyers is a big problem in USA and elsewhere. The government who can find a practical solution to this problem would probably fix the deficit at the same time.however why should we burden the citizens of the country further when we arent fixing the problems that are causing the deficit. There have been times in history when there wasnt a huge amount of deficit all of the times where when there was less tax money to go around.
@vicious796 I never said that rich peoples are bastard or that they don't deserve anything although I do think that they owe their success partly to the society they live in and so contributing to it through taxation is justified. But what is sure is that taxing rich people will have a less harmful effect over their quality of life than taxing the poor, while giving a lot more money back. 71% of the country is owned by 10% of the population after all. But I'm not saying the "burn all the riches , we are poor because they are rich" BS. Business is business. There is nothing wrong with making money. But the government need money and it just so happen that the easiest way to get it is by taxing people who have money (I feel like Captain Obvious saying that). Sure, they can cut at a few place. Cutting the military budget alone, to a reasonable level (say to about 150 billions) could solve most of the problem.
As for your scenario I have already stated the problem, if an employee doesn't contribute to the companies profit in some way, he is gonna be fired whether the owner pay taxes or not. Your idea the a rich men who pay to much taxes will just go on a rampage an fire peoples randomly is completely ridiculous. If Bob has a brain, he will fire useless employees. That's not evil. He is just doing his job. Nothing to do with making 7 millions instead of 10.
Squeezing more blood from the rock is one way to address the issues. A deficit is when the revenue is less than the expense. Reducing the expense is not necessarily better or worst than raising the revenue depending of the context. If you think it's better right now, please give some arguments. Saying it's obviously better because that's what we have done at some point of history isn't gonna convince me. You are just trying to appeal to tradition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition). Beside, the most efficient way to fix the problem would be to do both: to raise taxes AND reduce expenses. On what ground should do you say that the deficit most be solved with cuts alone?@jaybug I agree. Stupid laws and fucking lawyers is a big problem in USA and elsewhere. The government who can find a practical solution to this problem would probably fix the deficit at the same time.however why should we burden the citizens of the country further when we arent fixing the problems that are causing the deficit. There have been times in history when there wasnt a huge amount of deficit all of the times where when there was less tax money to go around.
@vicious796 I never said that rich peoples are bastard or that they don't deserve anything although I do think that they owe their success partly to the society they live in and so contributing to it through taxation is justified. But what is sure is that taxing rich people will have a less harmful effect over their quality of life than taxing the poor, while giving a lot more money back. 71% of the country is owned by 10% of the population after all. But I'm not saying the "burn all the riches , we are poor because they are rich" BS. Business is business. There is nothing wrong with making money. But the government need money and it just so happen that the easiest way to get it is by taxing people who have money (I feel like Captain Obvious saying that). Sure, they can cut at a few place. Cutting the military budget alone, to a reasonable level (say to about 150 billions) could solve most of the problem.
As for your scenario I have already stated the problem, if an employee doesn't contribute to the companies profit in some way, he is gonna be fired whether the owner pay taxes or not. Your idea the a rich men who pay to much taxes will just go on a rampage an fire peoples randomly is completely ridiculous. If Bob has a brain, he will fire useless employees. That's not evil. He is just doing his job. Nothing to do with making 7 millions instead of 10.
Moral of the story is address the issues instead of just squeezing more blood from the rock
Moral of the story is address the issues instead of just squeezing more blood from the rock
The federal government today is about twice the sizxe it was when Clinton was president. Is this necessary? How is that increase in bureaucracy helping the poor? How many bureaucrats does it take to send a check? Electronically???