FYI, most new jobs are created by small businesses.This is a simple fact, that most small businesses fail is irrelevant.
Of course it's relevant, if it's also the case that failed small businesses account for a non-trivial amount of job losses.
We do all understand that subtraction is the inverse of addition, don't we?
At the risk of bad taste, I'm going to cross post from the other thread on this topic. It should save time.
To me it's really quite simple: Our country has overspent. It doesn't matter why or how, or which party is more culpable -- it is done, and we're all on the hook for it. To fix it, we're all going to have to sacrifice. That means more taxes at the top, and fewer services at the bottom. Being the liberal I am, I happen to believe those most able to shoulder a larger burden should be asked to do so, but beliefs aside, it should be obvious to both sides that we're past the point where either spending cuts or increased revenue alone can get us out of this jam. Yet the majority of people seem to be sending a simple message to the representatives: Let the other guy pay, but don't touch mine. Don't raise *my* taxes. Don't cut the services *I* need. Bereft of a sense of national unity, we have no empathy for our fellow citizens. But like it or not, we're in this together, and unless we can rekindle those feelings somehow we'll run right off the cliff -- together.
Are the politicians complicit? Of course. But ultimately we're the ones who have used the ballot box (and our wallets) to make compromise a dirty word.
Now back to your regularly-scheduled ideological finger pointing.
Funny thing, at least as far as I understand it, what you proposed above is pretty much exactly what Obama has proposed, cuts that affect social programs and closing of tax loopholes and withdrawal of some tax cuts. Yet the GOP still won't have any of it.
The two schools of thought seem to be:
1) Spending should not continue as is.
2) Spending as is, is necessary.
Why is there no compromise? Because there is no room left. This has been talked to death, and the posturing has left each side with no ground to give.
When your position is "I should not be shot in the face" then any compromise is a losing proposition. Even more so when the other opinion is "Shooting you in the face is necessary." There is no compromise.
A compromise isn't simply when both parties feel pain, it has to make sense in the context of the difference and have some merit, or its not compromise.
|
The two schools of thought seem to be:
1) Spending should not continue as is.
2) Spending as is, is necessary.Why is there no compromise? Because there is no room left. This has been talked to death, and the posturing has left each side with no ground to give.
When your position is "I should not be shot in the face" then any compromise is a losing proposition. Even more so when the other opinion is "Shooting you in the face is necessary." There is no compromise.
A compromise isn't simply when both parties feel pain, it has to make sense in the context of the difference and have some merit, or its not compromise.
+1
Compromise is often the best solution, but it's not always the best solution. If one side is calling for killing six million Jews and the other is calling for killing no Jews, the best solution is not to kill three million Jews.
Which isn't to say the Republicans are Nazis, but...
I'm beginning to think our country may have reached an ideological impasse, and will not survive intact.I am seriously worried about the next election. If a Republican unseats Obama, then were really screwed. The Republicans have no idea what to do about the economy, and they've become so ideologically committed to slashing taxes and cutting spending I think they'll crash the economy and provoke an uprising in urban areas.
If Obama wins, and especially if Democrats sweep the Republicans out of power on the state and national levels, I think the right wing base could freak out dangerously.
I contest that the democrats won't do us any better then republicans will. We'll just die slower. Obama himself has done more to cut social services and move the political dialogue to the right farther then any other previous president - he is not a good president and not progressive in the slightest.
Our choices are a status quo party and a regressive party. Our choices are starving to death or cutting our throats.
Is there a solution that allows us to keep the incentive based spirit of capitalism, and also make sure that the ones in our country that need assistance get it without breaking the bank or relying on 1% of the populace to foot the bill?
Is there a solution that allows us to keep the incentive based spirit of capitalism, and also make sure that the ones in our country that need assistance get it without breaking the bank or relying on 1% of the populace to foot the bill?
Best thing I can think of off the top of my head is to install Comrade Anklebiter as Dictator-for-Life. Mr Fishy as Minister of Defense. Aberzombie as Minister of the Interior. Sebastian as Minister of State. Heathannson as Minister of Chow. Sharoth as Minister of the Treasury.
Once the mushroom clouds settle, we can start over ... ;)
Is there a solution that allows us to keep the incentive based spirit of capitalism, and also make sure that the ones in our country that need assistance get it without breaking the bank or relying on 1% of the populace to foot the bill?
Flat tax. Everyone pays on everything no loopholes. Corporations are taxed as individuals since they enjoy their own rights and privileges. Everyone pays. Switch to a 'socialist' health care system (which relieves companies of involvement or expense of such systems from being directly on their books automatically making them more competitive with countries like Australia, Germany, China, Vietnam, and Japan) then nationalize the health care industry (one area the government has on a whole managed to succeed in when not forced to rely on private industry to do everything and charge them extra for doing it).
Please note that 1% of the populace doesn't foot the bill currently -- they might pay the highest percentage as a group of the tax bill, but that doesn't mean they are paying the highest percentage of their income as taxes.
|
|
Is there a solution that allows us to keep the incentive based spirit of capitalism, and also make sure that the ones in our country that need assistance get it without breaking the bank or relying on 1% of the populace to foot the bill?
If we want to address the long term instabilities in our markets, we need to begin moving towards a model of democratic workplaces.
The Mondragon Cooperative Corporation of Spain is a excellent model of a privately owned, democratic corporation.
Is there a solution that allows us to keep the incentive based spirit of capitalism, and also make sure that the ones in our country that need assistance get it without breaking the bank or relying on 1% of the populace to foot the bill?Flat tax. Everyone pays on everything no loopholes. Corporations are taxed as individuals since they enjoy their own rights and privileges. Everyone pays. Switch to a 'socialist' health care system (which relieves companies of involvement or expense of such systems from being directly on their books automatically making them more competitive with countries like Australia, Germany, China, Vietnam, and Japan) then nationalize the health care industry (one area the government has on a whole managed to succeed in when not forced to rely on private industry to do everything and charge them extra for doing it).
Please note that 1% of the populace doesn't foot the bill currently -- they might pay the highest percentage as a group of the tax bill, but that doesn't mean they are paying the highest percentage of their income as taxes.
If its that simple, why isn't that idea more popular? I am a conservative, and your idea sounds like it would work while both sides could sleep at night.
Why isn't that ever on the table from these people?
Is there a solution that allows us to keep the incentive based spirit of capitalism, and also make sure that the ones in our country that need assistance get it without breaking the bank or relying on 1% of the populace to foot the bill?Flat tax. Everyone pays on everything no loopholes. Corporations are taxed as individuals since they enjoy their own rights and privileges. Everyone pays. Switch to a 'socialist' health care system (which relieves companies of involvement or expense of such systems from being directly on their books automatically making them more competitive with countries like Australia, Germany, China, Vietnam, and Japan) then nationalize the health care industry (one area the government has on a whole managed to succeed in when not forced to rely on private industry to do everything and charge them extra for doing it).
Please note that 1% of the populace doesn't foot the bill currently -- they might pay the highest percentage as a group of the tax bill, but that doesn't mean they are paying the highest percentage of their income as taxes.
If its that simple, why isn't that idea more popular? I am a conservative, and your idea sounds like it would work while both sides could sleep at night.
Why isn't that ever on the table from these people?
Because then tax accountants and lawyers would be out of a job. :)
|
|
If its that simple, why isn't that idea more popular? I am a conservative, and your idea sounds like it would work while both sides could sleep at night.
Why isn't that ever on the table from these people?
Flat taxes don't work to fund a modern government. The tax has too be too high for working people to pay if its going to cover the cost of a real government. Furthermore, flat taxes are regressive - someone making $250k a year can give up 20% of his income far easier than someone making $25k a year.
Sales taxes (which is what some people mean by flat taxes) are even worse, because in a recession -- when the government needs revenue more than ever -- revenue plummets as people spend less. Here is Washington were having a major budget crises because retail sales have fallen and people are spending most of their money on things we don't tax, like food, rent and utilities.
Here is Washington were having a major budget crises because retail sales have fallen and people are spending most of their money on things we don't tax, like food, rent and utilities.
Taxes comprise something on the order of a third to half, or more, of the price of a loaf of bread. These taxes are spread out over the various phases of producing, packaging, delivering and selling that loaf of bread. This applies to pretty much every "common" foodstuff as far as I am aware.
Rent is taxed at the landord's end as income.
Utility bills have numerous taxes built into the final total.
|
|
Here is Washington were having a major budget crises because retail sales have fallen and people are spending most of their money on things we don't tax, like food, rent and utilities.Taxes comprise something on the order of a third to half, or more, of the price of a loaf of bread. These taxes are spread out over the various phases of producing, packaging, delivering and selling that loaf of bread. This applies to pretty much every "common" foodstuff as far as I am aware.
Great. In Washington the local sales tax that funds our government does not tax food.
Is there a solution that allows us to keep the incentive based spirit of capitalism, and also make sure that the ones in our country that need assistance get it without breaking the bank or relying on 1% of the populace to foot the bill?Best thing I can think of off the top of my head is to install Comrade Anklebiter as Dictator-for-Life. Mr Fishy as Minister of Defense. Aberzombie as Minister of the Interior. Sebastian as Minister of State. Heathannson as Minister of Chow. Sharoth as Minister of the Treasury.
Once the mushroom clouds settle, we can start over ... ;)
Thank you, thank you! In the name of the goblins of Galt I am happy and honored to accept your nomination for Dictator-for-Life!
Flat taxes and a single payer (read government run) health care would also kill the health insurance industry which is a huge bloated tick that is substantially raising the cost of health care.
Ok well...to me flat tax would be both a falt rate regardelss of income, and no deductions.
If everyone in america (400 million ppl)were making only minimum wage (7.25/hr) working 40 hours a week and the rate is 10% thats 23,200,000,000 every 2 weeeks of tax revenue. Yearly it would be 603,200,000,000. That's a huge chunk o cash, and that doesn't include income from other sources like tarrifs.
What's our yearly tax revenue now?
Well as it is, if you make any paycheck at all, 25-30% is removed due to taxes, SS and Medicare anyway...reducing this to 10% would help lower income earners, right?
And i know on the 400 million isnt an accurate number, but alot of folks make way more than minimum wage.
Also as it is, more than 40% of those taht do work pay 0 taxes after deductions and rebates.
|
|
There are 300 million people in America, of which 150 million work. The rest are either children, senior citizens, housewives, disabled or otherwise unemployable. The median income of a working American is about $25k.
A flat tax rate of 10% would generate about $2.5k per worker, for a grand total of $375 billion dollars. The total expenditures for the US government in 2011 is $3.82 trillion dollars.
Which means that to institute a flat tax you would need to reduce the budget by close to 90%. That's simply not possible - not unless we fundamentally change how we live as Americans.
Go spend a month or two living in Mexico, get a sense for how the government completely fails to accomplish anything down there, and then recognize that plans like this one would result in we Americans having a government that is worse than Mexico's.
The median income of a working American is about $25k. A flat tax rate of 10% would generate about $2.5k per worker, for a grand total of $375 billion dollars.
Very, very bad statistics.
Say there are 3 workers, earning 10K/year, 25K/year, and 1M/year, respectively. The median income is 25K/year.
According to you, the government would collect 2.5K * 3 = 7.5K.
In actuality, it collects 1K + 2.5K + 100K = 103.5K.
Notice how you've underestimated revenue by over a full order of magnitude?
HINT: Use the mean income, not the median, for this example.
Very, very bad statistics.
Say there are 3 workers, earning 10K/year, 25K/year, and 1M/year, respectively. The median income is 25K/year.
According to you, the government would collect 2.5K * 3 = 7.5K.
In actuality, it collects 1K + 2.5K + 100K = 103.5K.
Notice how you've underestimated revenue by over a full order of magnitude?HINT: Use the mean income, not the median, for this example.
Oh snap!
You're not wrong,though. Nice catch. I completely missed the "median."
Is there a solution that allows us to keep the incentive based spirit of capitalism, and also make sure that the ones in our country that need assistance get it without breaking the bank or relying on 1% of the populace to foot the bill?
Yes, one that doesn't use capitalism, as we've found that capitalism's "incentive based spirit" doesn't work.
|
|
The median income of a working American is about $25k. A flat tax rate of 10% would generate about $2.5k per worker, for a grand total of $375 billion dollars.Very, very bad statistics.
Say there are 3 workers, earning 10K/year, 25K/year, and 1M/year, respectively. The median income is 25K/year.
According to you, the government would collect 2.5K * 3 = 7.5K.
In actuality, it collects 1K + 2.5K + 100K = 103.5K.
Notice how you've underestimated revenue by over a full order of magnitude?HINT: Use the mean income, not the median, for this example.
You're right, I mixed up mean and median.
The mean income is $40k, so it reality you would collect a whopping extra $225 billion dollars, and only fall short of funding the government by a factor of six, rather than 10.
Still doesn't work.
Great. In Washington the local sales tax that funds our government does not tax food.Here is Washington were having a major budget crises because retail sales have fallen and people are spending most of their money on things we don't tax, like food, rent and utilities.Taxes comprise something on the order of a third to half, or more, of the price of a loaf of bread. These taxes are spread out over the various phases of producing, packaging, delivering and selling that loaf of bread. This applies to pretty much every "common" foodstuff as far as I am aware.
I wasn't referring to the Washington state sales tax that you are referring to. I live outside Washington D.C. - when references are made to Washington, like most everyone else on the eastern seaboard I mistakenly assumed you were referring to the District.
There may or may not be state sales taxes that you see on the receipts for groceries, the monthly payment slip for rent or on the various utility bills. I would be genuinely surprised that there are no taxes / fees / other state money collected on all of these things.
If there is no sales tax in Washington state on food et al and the lack of such a tax is causing a fiscal crisis, it would be a safe bet that you'll see such a tax implemented very soon. Or doubled property taxes or ...
Is there a solution that allows us to keep the incentive based spirit of capitalism, and also make sure that the ones in our country that need assistance get it without breaking the bank or relying on 1% of the populace to foot the bill?Yes, one that doesn't use capitalism, as we've found that capitalism's "incentive based spirit" doesn't work.
You missed this comment apparently:
"All you guys who say he's trying to make people do something for nothing clearly didn't listen. He says several times that- you pay the workers enough to get money out of the equation, you make the workers not have to worry about next months rent, if they can eat lunch out or their loans. Only then does this video apply."So it already assumes financial stability, which is the incentive with capitalism.
Well as it is, if you make any paycheck at all, 25-30% is removed due to taxes, SS and Medicare anyway...reducing this to 10% would help lower income earners, right?
And i know on the 400 million isnt an accurate number, but alot of folks make way more than minimum wage.
Also as it is, more than 40% of those taht do work pay 0 taxes after deductions and rebates.
Think about this. 30% of gross pay is scarfed off the top. For many their employer pays this same amount. For the self-employed this means we pay twice this amount (60%).
If the average income of 150M workers is 6 trillion annually, this means the worker and employer combine to pay 3.6 trillion off the top. This only leaves, what, 0.3 trillion short? That shortfall is more than made up for by vice & sin taxes, utilities taxes, estate taxes, property taxes, fuel taxes, food taxes, luxury taxes ad nauseam.
Is there a chart somewhere the summarizes the averaged per-worker tax burden? I'd be surprised if the per-worker tax load was anything less than 50% when all the taxes and deductions are factored in, if not quite a bit higher. No wonder no one can really get ahead - we're taxed to death.
Didn't the Revolutionary War start over taxation that was a *much* lower percentage?
Is there a solution that allows us to keep the incentive based spirit of capitalism, and also make sure that the ones in our country that need assistance get it without breaking the bank or relying on 1% of the populace to foot the bill?Yes, one that doesn't use capitalism, as we've found that capitalism's "incentive based spirit" doesn't work.You missed this comment apparently:
"All you guys who say he's trying to make people do something for nothing clearly didn't listen. He says several times that- you pay the workers enough to get money out of the equation, you make the workers not have to worry about next months rent, if they can eat lunch out or their loans. Only then does this video apply."So it already assumes financial stability, which is the incentive with capitalism.
And you're missing that if being able to feed your family constitutes as "incentive" and not the desired norm, then Capitalism is already morally bankrupt in every way.
And you're missing that if being able to feed your family constitutes as "incentive" and not the desired norm, then Capitalism is already morally bankrupt in every way.
I'm not missing anything. I don't have children becasue I can't afford to feed them. It's called being responsible, living within your means, etc. I don't think that's too much to ask.
I'm not missing anything. I don't have children becasue I can't afford to feed them. It's called being responsible, living within your means, etc. I don't think that's too much to ask.
And you're missing that if being able to feed your family constitutes as "incentive" and not the desired norm, then Capitalism is already morally bankrupt in every way.
Ah, so when making minimum wage (well below what it actually costs to simply live anywhere in the USA) I should just live within that right? No matter how many such jobs I need to hold to do so (takes 2 such jobs to break the individual poverty line)?
The people without jobs -- just live within their means right?
That phrase ignores one key point -- it's easy to say when you are making 50k+ a year... not so easy to do when you make less than that -- 'responsibility' only goes as far as what you can control. You can't control that drunk driver that just put you in the hospital for 7 months and left you crippled. You can't control the company you work for firing you because they are moving out of county -- you can't control them deciding to pay you less in order for you to keep your job. You can't control the fire or tornado that just wiped out everything you've worked to build, save and keep.
Considering the amount of living that is completely uncontrolled it's absolutely idiotic to assume someone can take responsibility for it.
]A single worker needs to earn 30k a year (or about 14 dollars an hour) to manage a basic standard of living including savings and retirement planning *luxuries for many US citizens) a family of four (2 parents and 2 children) needs about 67k. 14.3 percent of US citizens are below the poverty line (Census Bureau)
Simply put your statement "Live within your means" is a slap in the face to a greater portion of the US population who -- through no malice of fault of their own in many cases -- are not making it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not missing anything. I don't have children becasue I can't afford to feed them. It's called being responsible, living within your means, etc. I don't think that's too much to ask.'responsibility' only goes as far as what you can control. You can't control that drunk driver that just put you in the hospital for 7 months and left you crippled. You can't control the company you work for firing you because they are moving out of county -- you can't control them deciding to pay you less in order for you to keep your job. You can't control the fire or tornado that just wiped out everything you've worked to build, save and keep.
Abraham makes many good points, but I think that every man and woman should have the right to blow a month's wages on intoxicants and copulation every now and then.
Here's a philosopher, backing me up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not missing anything. I don't have children becasue I can't afford to feed them. It's called being responsible, living within your means, etc. I don't think that's too much to ask.
And you're missing that if being able to feed your family constitutes as "incentive" and not the desired norm, then Capitalism is already morally bankrupt in every way.
If some people must live within their means by going hungry and having no family, then the system that fosters this is inherently wrong.
It isn't a matter of responsibility. Any society is rated by the lowest, not the highest.
Abraham makes many good points, but I think that every man and woman should have the right to blow a month's wages on intoxicants and copulation every now and then.Here's a philosopher, backing me up.
Careful -- you sound a bit like Heinlein with that statement... ;D
|
|
If there is no sales tax in Washington state on food et al and the lack of such a tax is causing a fiscal crisis, it would be a safe bet that you'll see such a tax implemented very soon. Or doubled property taxes or ...
We actually just voted down a tax the state put on carbonated beverages and candy, just voted down a 1% income tax on the top 2% of earners. and we're considering a referendum that would make any tax raises a 2/3rds majority vote.
We're really screwed up here.
If you don't want a debt ceiling, if you want the US government to keep borrowing money, then you clearly don't care about the US government defaulting.Of course we could also restore them to their original funding levels too -- making more money helps with paying off debts.Currently the US government tax revenue is roughly 16% of US GDP. In the past, they have not been able to collect more than 19% of US GDP.
US budget notes that it has been as high as 20.4% since WWII. During WWII it got up to around 25%. Many western industrialized states have rates up above 25%. The main way to do that is through the use of a VATT style tax.
And even if the US government could cut spending by 20%(politically impossible right now), that is just enough to tread water, with the US debt sitting there untouched and collecting interest payments.
Which does not matter so long as the state keeps averaging a nice 2% growth rate. So long as their is a balanced budget the percentage of the debt compared to the economy as a whole just gets smaller and smaller. This is precisely how Canada pulled back from a debt burden that threatened the state.
Specifically we went ahead and ran a budget surplus by implementing a VATT tax, the line was held on government programs, the army was seriously gutted (and I mean really gutted - by 2000 we barely had an army and every piece of equipment was at least 15 years old and most stuff was 30+ years old). These measures meant that the government could put some small amount into paying down the national debt but in reality it was not so much that the debt got smaller but that over the course of 15 years the economy got larger to the point where the national debt just was not that notable anymore.
He felt he had to get involved in attacking a non threatening foreign nation because of his campaign positions?!? Hunh I dont remember him saying " George Bush is right! Lets kick the crap out of the middle East! They got oil and its not like they could threaten us, amirite?" while on the campaign trail. I call BS.I honestly think President Obama didn't actually want to be involved at all. I think he felt he had to get involved due to his campaign positions and the position he wants to portray the USA in. I believe this is the reason he didn't approach Congress. He knew that if he didn't they would shut down our active involvement while not leaving our troops out on a limb -- putting us in a support position instead of lead position. Notice he didn't even fight to try and get on going funding for a lead position in the conflict
The British where keen to get into Libya and called in a debt from America as the British have been a very good dance partner for a long time and in particular in the last 10 or so years. America has otherwise done pretty much everything they can to keep their involvement as low key as they reasonably can.
You don't recall correctly. Greece went into bankruptcy because the global recession reduced their tax revenues below the point where they can afford to maintain their current government, which is magnified by their poor tax collection and rampant tax fraud.
Ireland has similar problems. The "Green Tiger" had an economic boom for several years, including excess tax revenues that got piled back into community investments, thanks to very low corporate taxation as incentives. Unfortunately, when economies went down, it meant the taxation was too low to bring in sufficient revenue.
My understanding with Greece is that they tried to have a Nordic style social program heavy state but pretty much without a tax base. Technically a tax base existed but, as anyone that has been to Greece knows, no one actually pays their taxes pretty much ever (OK an exaggeration but not all that much of one). Massive tax evasion meant that the government could not possible afford the programs they had set up. The recession both uncovered the issue (along with a change of government that exposed the crooked books) and made attempts to do something about the issue extremely difficult. This would have been something of a nightmare in good economic times and this recession does not make things easier at all.
Ireland is a different case. They are much more like an American scenario - massive expansion turned out to be a huge bubble that sent the economy into tailspin when it burst...but what really screwed them was that they tried to bail out their banks and once teh banks defaulted they, pretty much overnight, where saddled with a debt larger then their GDP. Imagine, for a moment, that the US bank bailout had not been the 3 trillion or whatever it actually was but much larger. SO that on Monday morning the US national debt was 11 trillion and by Monday night all the banks had defaulted - and the state had picked up the tab resulting in the debt jumping to 26 trillion...that is more or less what happens to Ireland. They went from being reasonable to being insolvent really fast. Really the rest of us have it pretty lucky compared to them - their children as yet unborn will probably still be paying off this debt.
Correct me if Im wrong. It seems that we are far more aggressive than the Chinese are.The Dalai Lama called, he asked if he could have Tibet back yet.Never. Do you know how much tax revenue Tibet provides?
** spoiler omitted **
Tibet has generally been a net loss. You can't get much out of the population - to poor - and you have to garrison heavily and pay for all kinds of infrastructure through some of the most rugged terrain on earth. China is not there for the money - well unless they were doing some seriously long term planning back in the 1950s...its resources may mean it'll turn them a profit in another half century or so.
Is there a chart somewhere the summarizes the averaged per-worker tax burden? I'd be surprised if the per-worker tax load was anything less than 50% when all the taxes and deductions are factored in, if not quite a bit higher. No wonder no one can really get ahead - we're taxed to death.
There are many such charts. Here is a particularly innovative one.
There are many such charts. Here is a particularly innovative one.
Is there a chart somewhere the summarizes the averaged per-worker tax burden? I'd be surprised if the per-worker tax load was anything less than 50% when all the taxes and deductions are factored in, if not quite a bit higher. No wonder no one can really get ahead - we're taxed to death.On which you will note that not only is it much less than 50%, but it's one of the lowest in the world.
I would be interested in seeing a good source of that data broken out by income level, especially if it included a more detailed breakdown on the high end than top 20% or even top 5%.
Its worth noting that that chart does not include all the countries in the world. Some one, usually in said country, needs to work out the tax freedom day so the chart is highly biased to western industrialized countries. Taken as part of the industrialized west America is rock bottom low, taken as part of the whole world and they are middle of the pack. Third world nations usually have low taxes.
Your right that a version showing income levels would be nice. The article argues that most systems are progressive and therefore the wealthier you are the later your tax freedom day.