Author Topic: YOU try to balance the US budget with this website!  (Read 7289 times)

Offline jaybug

  • Member
  • Posts: 5631
  • Go Ducks!
Re: YOU try to balance the US budget with this website!
« Reply #100 on: August 02, 2011, 12:29:31 AM »
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.
Timing is everything in comedy!

Offline mgz

  • Box Fansubs
  • Member
  • Posts: 10564
Re: YOU try to balance the US budget with this website!
« Reply #101 on: August 02, 2011, 12:57:53 AM »
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.
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.

If you dont see a problem with just take more money from the people then something is a bit off in your logic

Online Burkingam

  • Member
  • Posts: 8688
  • Love, Science & Dubstep
Re: YOU try to balance the US budget with this website!
« Reply #102 on: August 02, 2011, 02:50:43 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2011, 03:02:32 AM by Burkingam »
Spacetime tells matter how to move and matter tells spacetime how to curve.

Offline vicious796

  • Box Fansubs
  • Member
  • Posts: 5392
  • Little by little I'm going crazy
Re: YOU try to balance the US budget with this website!
« Reply #103 on: August 02, 2011, 11:31:51 AM »
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.

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).


It's not me - it's you.

Offline AceHigh

  • Member
  • Posts: 12840
Re: YOU try to balance the US budget with this website!
« Reply #104 on: August 02, 2011, 11:46:23 AM »
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.

Real men live in a country with conscription!  ;D

Israel tops other countries for being manly as fuck, because they conscript women as well.

For one thing, Tiff is not on any level what I would call a typical American.  She's not what I would consider a typical person.  I don't know any other genius geneticist anime-fan martial artist marksman model-level beauties, do you?

Offline jaybug

  • Member
  • Posts: 5631
  • Go Ducks!
Re: YOU try to balance the US budget with this website!
« Reply #105 on: August 02, 2011, 02:10:07 PM »
Real men join anyway, even if no conscription. Like me.

Quote
Israel tops other countries for being manly as fuck, because they conscript women as well.

Can you say that without adding, "and the sheep run scared."?
Timing is everything in comedy!

Offline Nikkoru

  • Member
  • Posts: 5076
  • Onward, to victory!
Re: YOU try to balance the US budget with this website!
« Reply #106 on: August 02, 2011, 02:36:32 PM »
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).

I was thinking this as well, cutting public spending means less circulation of capital inevitably. All social policy is a web of intricate cause/effect relationships which aren't obvious or immediately considered by simply looking at the issue as though it were a personal or family budget. It's similar to epidemiology in that regard, actually.

Real men join anyway, even if no conscription. Like me.

I personally prefer unrepentant cowards. Though, I suppose if you really need Real Men there are always Gay Pride parades.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2011, 03:01:34 PM by Nikkoru »
Peace, Love, and Tranquility

Offline jaybug

  • Member
  • Posts: 5631
  • Go Ducks!
Re: YOU try to balance the US budget with this website!
« Reply #107 on: August 02, 2011, 10:00:31 PM »
How can you stand anime if you actually prefer unrepentant cowards? lol

You need to make it "real men" Because the womyn in those are myn too. And they have a package bigger than any man of woman born.

I almost called in to a talk radio program today. I heard another stupid caller and I wanted to bitch slap him on air, as I couldn't hit him in person. He was ranting about how the government should make a 10% cut in all agencies.

At least the host corrected him by suggesting that we need to make it a 40% "cut" just to get a balanced budget.

From, the ridiculous to the slime.
Timing is everything in comedy!

Online Burkingam

  • Member
  • Posts: 8688
  • Love, Science & Dubstep
Re: YOU try to balance the US budget with this website!
« Reply #108 on: August 03, 2011, 01:45:27 AM »
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.
Spacetime tells matter how to move and matter tells spacetime how to curve.

Offline jaybug

  • Member
  • Posts: 5631
  • Go Ducks!
Re: YOU try to balance the US budget with this website!
« Reply #109 on: August 03, 2011, 04:09:42 AM »
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.

Burk, if that was true, would we still have over 9% unemployment two years after the Great Recession ended? And the stimulus package finally coughed up the cash sometime last year?

Everyone needs to stop thinking of all the various federal bureaus and agencies etc. as monolithic. I think the analogy would be a monolith made of wrist watches, the kind that has a whole shitload of moving parts.

Had this thought today. Does anyone at home make a 10% across the board cut when times get tough? Do you cut 10% on food, clothing, gas, utilities? Or do you cut out going to movies, buying anime/manga, drive through coffee? You cut out the luxuries first right?

Now, tell me that everything in the federall budget is a necessity and not a luxury.
Timing is everything in comedy!

Online Burkingam

  • Member
  • Posts: 8688
  • Love, Science & Dubstep
Re: YOU try to balance the US budget with this website!
« Reply #110 on: August 03, 2011, 04:14:07 AM »
^I agree, 3/4 of your military spending is pure waste. I don't see how your intervention contradict what I say in any way.
Spacetime tells matter how to move and matter tells spacetime how to curve.

Offline vicious796

  • Box Fansubs
  • Member
  • Posts: 5392
  • Little by little I'm going crazy
Re: YOU try to balance the US budget with this website!
« Reply #111 on: August 03, 2011, 01:29:14 PM »
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.


It's not me - it's you.

Offline Nikkoru

  • Member
  • Posts: 5076
  • Onward, to victory!
Re: YOU try to balance the US budget with this website!
« Reply #112 on: August 03, 2011, 02:03:15 PM »
One could point out that the Chicago school of economics has uniformly proven itself a solipsistic construct for the extremely wealthy which merely shifts wealth to the top while decreasing the general quality of life for the majority of people.

One could also point out that America has experienced greater economic prosperity and instances of social mobility when taxes have been - well  - significantly higher on the wealthiest percentile.

One only need glance at the cosmic ineffectiveness of the Bush tax cuts in stimulated economic growth or in promoting general prosperity beyond that of an extremely small but excessively influential minority as compared to just a decade before to have some insight in the false salvation of the apparent Republican religion of "tax relief" for "job creators".

Furthermore, I must point out, that even with only a slighter heavier tax burden, many in the industrialized world have a reasonably higher standard of living than that of the United States - as far as these things can be judged.

The insistence that the wealthy are unduly burdened by the current American tax system, as it stands, is akin to saying the pharaohs of Egypt were clearly deprived because their pyramids were not constructed of solid gold.

-------

I think the point being that the only clear trajectory of lower taxes in a society is the ones who most depend on a functioning and funded government are disproportionately affected - the economic common sense among the wealthy appears to be to pocket the extra cash for posterity sake.     
Peace, Love, and Tranquility

Online Burkingam

  • Member
  • Posts: 8688
  • Love, Science & Dubstep
Re: YOU try to balance the US budget with this website!
« Reply #113 on: August 03, 2011, 04:59:45 PM »
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.
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.

Lets use an example so that you undestand the difference.

Company A is owned by bob
A's revenue $10,000,000
A's Spending $9,000,000
$400,000 is kept in the company for future spending
Bob receive $600,000 of Dividend

So according to you, 10% taxes represent 10,000,000*10%=1,000,000$ which would make the company no longer profitable
but actually, 10% taxes is 600,000*10=60,000$.
You see a reason to lay out people? not me. On the contrary, it might be a better idea to lower the money spent in dividend for now and reinvest it in the company for when their will be a taxe cut.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2011, 05:11:47 PM by Burkingam »
Spacetime tells matter how to move and matter tells spacetime how to curve.

Offline jaybug

  • Member
  • Posts: 5631
  • Go Ducks!
Re: YOU try to balance the US budget with this website!
« Reply #114 on: August 04, 2011, 12:31:51 AM »
Nik, I can't believe what you say. You been watching Harold and Kumarr movies, again?

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.

Timing is everything in comedy!

Online Burkingam

  • Member
  • Posts: 8688
  • Love, Science & Dubstep
Re: YOU try to balance the US budget with this website!
« Reply #115 on: August 04, 2011, 01:55:57 AM »
Nik, I can't believe what you say. You been watching Harold and Kumarr movies, again?

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.
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.
Spacetime tells matter how to move and matter tells spacetime how to curve.

Offline jaybug

  • Member
  • Posts: 5631
  • Go Ducks!
Re: YOU try to balance the US budget with this website!
« Reply #116 on: August 04, 2011, 02:43:41 AM »
But sole proprietors are taxed as if the company and the individual were one entity. Corporate rates and individual rates are not always the same. Nor are their loopholes.

But yes, that's what EBITDA means, in part.
Timing is everything in comedy!

Offline vicious796

  • Box Fansubs
  • Member
  • Posts: 5392
  • Little by little I'm going crazy
Re: YOU try to balance the US budget with this website!
« Reply #117 on: August 04, 2011, 04:17:58 PM »
How ridiculously simple. Let's take a real practical look and cover the things you didn't.

First, let's use Bob and his company 'A'. A is a massive producer of rubber gaskets. For simplicity sake, let's say it costs 'A' 2c in raw materials for a pack of 5 gaskets and 'A' manufacturers 100 million gaskets a year. In raw materials alone that bill comes out to $2m.

No big deal, though, since we're selling those 5-packs for a dollar each to retail stores. That 2m seems like NOTHING when compared to the 100m we just made, right?

Except, that 100m is taxable income for the company. What's the corporate tax rate for a company with 98m in taxable profit? 35% is the answer. So we lost 35m right off the bat to taxes on top of the 2m in raw materials. That's cool, though, because 'A' still has a cool 63m in gross. What's next? Oh, state taxes? Well we set up in Delaware - one of the lowest in the country for tax rates on businesses - and it's a cool 8.7%. Let's go ahead and round that up to 9 for simplicity sake. Another 9m gone.

So, in corporate taxes and raw materials alone, 'A' has gone from 100m to 54m.

'A' has a few locations around the country - let's say 3. 1 production plant and 2 customer service offices. 'A' has to pay property taxes on all 3 of them. Let's just call the property taxes on the 3 buildings 1m a year with the largest chunk being the production plant. We're down to 53m.

What about the cost of doing business? We have to buy stationary, staples, mandatory random repairs and replacements of things like desks and computers, as well as pay the utilities in all 3 buildings. Let's also call that a cool mil (though I'm probably short changing significantly and this will vary year to year). 52m.

'A' proudly employs 100 people. We're not that big but big enough. That includes customer service reps to answer angry phone calls, secretaries to handle the day-to-day, a couple of lawyers to handle law suits and audits, a couple of engineers to look over the plant and make sure things run smoothly, and the various other positions I can't think to list. On average, they're taking 75k a year - each. Remember, lawyers are expensive and so are engineers so they're boosting the pile. 100 workers at 75k each comes out to another 7.5m. This time we'll round down to 7m since we rounded up before. Now we're at 45m.

BUT WAIT! We have to provide healthcare to our employees and pay for most of it. All my google searches have shown me it's about 9.5k per employee per year on average. That comes up to 950k, let's call it a mil. 44m. We've also got to pay the payroll taxes which will vary from 10-15% (from all I've found) of our total expense on payroll. That's about another million and we're down to 43m.

Now let's say that once a month we find ourselves in a bit of legal trouble because some jackass didn't know what he was doing and hurt himself working on an engine of some sort and blamed it on gasket failure. We settle all of those cases out of court for an average of 500k each (in payments and additional legal fees). That's another 6m gone and we're at 37m.

The company also offers a 401k plan for all of its employees and it puts in a pretty standard 5% of their salaries a year while matching their additional contributions by 100%. Once again, let's round up to a million or so. 36m.

So, with just the mandatory minimum expenses paid, we're at 36m from 100m. That includes NO expansion, NO company sponsored events, NO company owned vehicles... nothing special at all. 'A' is the most basic of basic companies in the world. Bob now has 36m to play with. How much does he pay himself and how much does he invest in the company and/or the company's stocks?

Well, judging by how Bob doesn't do any company events or anything we're going to call him a greedy little bastard. Greedy, sure, but also not an idiot. He's going to make sure that his little cash cow keeps feeding him every year for the rest of his life and hopefully the lives of his children. He puts a quarter of it into a company savings account every year in case of emergencies (that we didn't see this year) as well as a regular increase in pay to his employees (which will also cause an increase in his payroll taxes, etc.). He puts another quarter of it into the various investment accounts he has set up for the company. The remaining 50% he takes for himself - that bastard - and pulled in a salary of 18m. Score!

That's another 2m paid in payroll tax - but from the company's money (that bastard!). Bob now has to pay his own income taxes, bummer. So, for the fed he's looking at 110k + 35% of the excess over ~350k. That's about 6.5m in federal income taxes. Fortunately for Bob, he lives in Virginia which has one of the lowest income tax rates for people of extreme wealth - a mere 6% - which comes out to another million or so. So, this year at least, Bob Paid some $7.5m in personal income taxes at one of the lowest income tax rates in the country and his 18m becomes 10.5m.

Bob took home about 10% of his company's total "profits". Let's also not forget his company is "based" at the lowest of all corporate tax rates as well. Bob, the creator and owner of 'A', essentially pays 50 million dollars a year in income/corporate taxes.

Of course, since you're not Bob and you didn't take the risk and make the investment in creating a company, your opinion is "what's another couple of million from his pocket". Despite the fact that the top - what, 5%? - already pay 95% of all federal personal income taxes and our federal corporate taxes are the highest in the developed world - bar none. I'm not even sure I wrote them down right, that's how high they are.

If Bob is determined to have 10m a year - he will have it. Increase his taxes and he'll take it from the company and that means laying off people.


It's not me - it's you.

Offline Sosseres

  • Member
  • Posts: 6701
  • A problem well stated is a problem half solved.
Re: YOU try to balance the US budget with this website!
« Reply #118 on: August 04, 2011, 05:35:06 PM »
You need insurance as well. Those are one of the reasons ISO certificates exist for companies.

I also agree that it is better to tax at the personal than at the corporate level. The corporations will just use any and all loopholes, they even pay people to find/implement them.

Offline Saras

  • Member
  • Posts: 2095
  • How might I assist you?
Re: YOU try to balance the US budget with this website!
« Reply #119 on: August 04, 2011, 06:14:17 PM »
Kill the defense budget to 100 bil, increase the nuke budget to 100 bil and increase the foreign "we help you, you help us" budget to 300 bil.

If America did that, you'd lower the defence costs by 200 bil. and you'd probably gain both influence and be in a position were people actually like you. Not like fighting a contemporary war against anyone that actually required that level of r&d would essentially be two nations going to kingdom come.

Do you really need 500 mil planes to fight 3rd and 2nd world countries? Fuck it, Get five thousand 50 year old cessnas, put some C4 on it and just radio control zerg rush the target. Would cost less than two or three of these here raptors and be a lot more effective and fun. Plus, you'd recycle old cargo, the green guys would love you for it.

Oh right, legalize pot and by doing that you could cut out your border patrols, anti-drug missions in columbia, reduce your prisoner count by like 60%, that shit would probably net you the other 300 bil.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2011, 06:20:23 PM by Saras »