Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: MP-Ryan on September 07, 2012, 02:18:47 pm
-
An editorial piece that should be required reading: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/americas-flight-from-fiscal-reality/article4524658/
The flight from reality is easy to diagnose. Neither party wants to axe the sacred military budget. Neither wants to raise taxes. By definition, therefore, the restoration of fiscal health has to come exclusively from spending cuts to domestic programs.
U.S. taxes aren’t what they seem on paper – rather steep in some areas and redistributive in others. When you glance below the surface, however, the tax code is shot full of complications and loopholes, tilted to the rich and the very rich, producing less revenue than any other OECD country (except Mexico and Chile) as a share of the total economy and, critically, relying less on consumption taxes than other countries. Were the Americans to impose a 5-per-cent national sales tax on themselves (the Canadian rate, and the lowest among countries with national sales taxes), the country’s fiscal crisis would be on the way to resolution.
Such a tax is unthinkable in a climate where Americans feel themselves overtaxed, despite the evidence that, in 2009 (according to the OECD), Americans paid the third-lowest share of their national income in tax within that organization.
Republicans whine about high corporate taxes and, on paper, these taxes are high – a top rate of 39 per cent. Yet, so many exemptions, credits and other loopholes – many resulting from ubiquitous corporate lobbying on Capitol Hill – pockmark the corporate tax code that U.S. business pays one of the lowest effective tax rates in the advanced industrial world.
-
A 5% national sales tax would bump up most total sales taxes in the US to somewhere between 13 and 15%. Right now sales taxes are how states raise a not-insignificant amount of revenue for their governmental business. Here in Kansas, we'd be up to a 13.3% sales tax (5% national, 6.3% state, 1% county, and 1% city).
Closing income tax loopholes would be a much more effective and more universally popular option than increasing sales taxes, since that affects everyone who doesn't steal everything they use for a living.
-
A 5% national sales tax would bump up most total sales taxes in the US to somewhere between 13 and 15%. Right now sales taxes are how states raise a not-insignificant amount of revenue for their governmental business. Here in Kansas, we'd be up to a 13.3% sales tax (5% national, 6.3% state, 1% county, and 1% city).
Closing income tax loopholes would be a much more effective and more universally popular option than increasing sales taxes, since that affects everyone who doesn't steal everything they use for a living.
Countries that rely on VATs to a greater extent than the US use a tiering system where VATs are exempted off sustenance items and therefore do not disproportionately affected lower classes. But closing tax loopholes would be an excellent first step, particularly in the area of corporate taxes. I just wish you the best of luck with that - those loopholes exist because of corporate lobbying, and getting rid of them will be near-impossible.
-
/me shrugs.
I just know for a fact that sustenance items are taxed in Kansas. Milk is $3/gallon at the local Aldi's (the cheapest it is anywhere, even on the actually sales-tax free Commissary on Fort Leavenworth, fifteen minutes' drive away), but if you go in with $6 and expect to get two gallons, you'll come up short. Hell, even bottled water gets taxed here.
-
"Bottled water" shouldn't fall under the category of "sustenance". Unless there's something very wrong with the aquifers in your area, it's a luxury. Drink tap water.
Regarding loopholes: George W. Bush's "tax cuts" = elimination of the "capital gains tax" = the reason some of "the 1%" pay $0 in federal taxes. I've said this before and nobody acknowledged me; if this is wrong, correct me or I'll keep saying it.
Bring back the capital gains tax!
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax
A capital gains tax (CGT) is a tax on capital gains, the profit realized on the sale of a non-inventory asset that was purchased at a cost amount that was lower than the amount realized on the sale. The most common capital gains are realized from the sale of stocks, bonds, precious metals and property. Not all countries implement a capital gains tax and most have different rates of taxation for individuals and corporations.
For equities, an example of a popular and liquid asset, national and state legislation often has a large array of fiscal obligations that must be respected regarding capital gains. Taxes are charged by the state over the transactions, dividends and capital gains on the stock market. However, these fiscal obligations may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
United States
Main article: Capital gains tax in the United States
In the United States, with certain exceptions, individuals and corporations pay income tax on the net total of all their capital gains. Short-term capital gains are taxed at a higher rate: the ordinary income tax rate. The tax rate for individuals on "long-term capital gains", which are gains on assets that have been held for over one year before being sold, is lower than the ordinary income tax rate, and in some tax brackets there is no tax due on such gains. The tax rate on long-term gains was reduced in 2003 from 20% to 15% (for individuals, whose highest tax bracket is 15% or more), or from 10% to 5% for individuals in the lowest two income tax brackets (whose highest tax bracket is less than 15%) (See progressive tax). The reduced 15% tax rate on eligible dividends and capital gains, previously scheduled to expire in 2008, was extended through 2010 as a result of the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act signed into law by President Bush on May 17, 2006, which also reduced the 5% rate to 0%.[23] Toward the end of 2010, President Obama signed a law extending the reduced rate on eligible dividends until the end of 2012.
The law allows for individuals to defer capital gains taxes with tax planning strategies such as the structured sale (ensured installment sale), charitable trust (CRT), installment sale, private annuity trust, and a 1031 exchange. The United States is unlike other countries in that, with some exceptions,[24] its citizens are subject to U.S. tax on their worldwide income no matter where in the world they reside. U.S. citizens therefore find it difficult to take advantage of personal tax havens. Although there are some offshore bank accounts that advertise as tax havens, U.S. law requires reporting of income from those accounts, and willful failure to do so constitutes tax evasion.
[edit]Deferring or reducing capital gains tax
The examples and perspective in this section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (September 2009)
This section may contain original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding references. Statements consisting only of original research may be removed. (October 2010)
Capital gains tax can be deferred or reduced if a seller utilizes the proper sales method and/or deferral technique. There are many such sales techniques and methods, each of which has its benefits and drawbacks. See some ways to defer and/or reduce capital gains tax below.
(US Only) - Tax Loss Harvesting - Realized tax losses can carry forward forever and can be applied to offset capital gains months or years in the future. Discretionary Overlay managers have developed new trading methodologies that have evolved tax loss harvesting into a year-round strategy, as opposed to year-end, which is standard to most financial advisors, and is paramount in reducing the capital gains tax burden on affluent investors.[25]
Charitable trust - Defer and reduce capital gains by giving equity to a charity.
Installment Sale - Defer capital gains by taking payments from a buyer over a period of years. No protection from buyer default.
(US only) Deferred Sales Trust- Allows the seller of property to defer capital gains tax due at the time of sale over a period of time.
(US only) 1031 exchange - Defer tax by exchanging for "like kind" property—however, generally available only for real estate and tangible property, both of which must be business-related. Pay capital gains when they are realized (i.e. when subsequently sold).
(US only) Roth IRA - Transactions inside an account (including capital gains, dividends, and interest) do not incur a current tax liability.
(US only) Structured sale annuity (aka Ensured Installment Sale) - Defer and reduce capital gains tax while gaining safety and a stream of guaranteed income.
(US only) Self Directed Installment Sale (SDIS) Allows for the deferral of capital gains taxes while removing the risks from buyer default under a traditional installment sale.
(US only) (historical) Private annuity trust - No longer a valid tax deferral tool.
(Canada only) - Utilize a Tax-Free Savings Account
-
some places have horrible tap water that is unfit for human consumption. the tap water in phoenix was horrible. not like here where you can get better water that what the store sells by dipping your glass into a creek and the tap water tastes about the same.
-
Eh, yeah, the tap in my town (I live 10 miles out at the edge of town and have well water, not town water, but I have lived in town before) will reduce the filtering rate of those brita / pur water filters to a tiny trickle after 3-4 weeks of use, instead of the normal use of a few months before replacing. Any machinery in town that relies on water (washing machines, water heaters, coffee machines, etc) gets dirty and breaks down faster due to the deposits left by the water. I refuse to drink it, it's just nasty tasting. Cause? Apparently the town wells were drilled in a bad spot. All 10 of them. Why they haven't been moved, I don't know. I guess because it's not quite considered toxic, and is still (supposedly) potable (drinkable).
-
Two words: carbon filters (as already noted). You can apparently re-process those if you like as well, but you'd need to look that up. It's like a water filtration plant on a small scale, and they too need to clean out the filter media every once in a while.
Back on subject, neither the Republicon (many thanks to Norman Goldman for that one) or Democrat (another slyr would be completely called for here, too...) candidates offer a plausible economic position for the upcoming election. The solution is not more taxes, it's a balanced budget and kicking the so-called "Defence" spending in the balls. If you want change, start investigating who your local politicians are, and very much consider voting third-party.
-
Democrack? Democrap? Repubican? :lol:
-
/me shrugs.
I just know for a fact that sustenance items are taxed in Kansas. Milk is $3/gallon at the local Aldi's (the cheapest it is anywhere, even on the actually sales-tax free Commissary on Fort Leavenworth, fifteen minutes' drive away), but if you go in with $6 and expect to get two gallons, you'll come up short. Hell, even bottled water gets taxed here.
Count yourself lucky you're in Kansas; in California, it's about $6 a gallon in many places.
-
i agree that out war machine should turn a profit. we need to start invading other countries and horking their stuff.
-
So apparently what I was thinking of when I was all "Bush 2 eliminated the capital gains tax", was: "Bush 2 reduced the capital gains tax from ~28% to ~15%".
-
Who's that other guy? George something? He's running as a Republican or ex-liberalist. I can't remember. He seems like a decent guy, I'll probably vote for him (definitely not voting for Obomney).
-
Gary Johnson! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson)
-
i agree that out war machine should turn a profit. we need to start invading other countries and horking their stuff.
Oh, it's turning a profit alright. It's just doing so in a slightly unusual way - extracting wealth not from the nation being invaded, but from the invaders.
-
i agree that out war machine should turn a profit. we need to start invading other countries and horking their stuff.
Oh, it's turning a profit alright. It's just doing so in a slightly unusual way - extracting wealth not from the nation being invaded, but from the invaders.
yea, we need to fix that.
Gary Johnson! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson)
the more i read about the guy the more i want to vote for him. but i also know that the only hope i have at helping to dethroning obama is to go with the republican nominee. so thats what im gonna do.
-
Given the political field, the insanity prevalent in the Republican Party, and the fact that the only nominee with a snowball's chance in hell is either the Republican or Democrat, I'm genuinely curious why I see so many people saying they'll vote libertarian or against Obama.
Say what you will about Obama, but the Republican party has no fiscal credibility right now. They're worse than the Democrats. They also have a social/scientific agenda that makes the Pope looking positively progressive. So what on Earth makes any of you who will be voting in this US election think a Romney win (because you folks planning to vote Libertarian are contributing to it, like it or not) is going to improve your lives or those of the average American citizen in any meaningful way?
I know as far as Canada is concerned I'm a Red Tory, but I look at the Republicans and see fiscal+social disaster lately. How is that better than the status quo?
-
Actually, nevermind, ignore this. Kudos to Obama for pulling our troops out from everywhere.
-
I...
...Don't think that's the right recourse of action. I have been maintaining for quite a while that by voting third-party this year, you're not throwing your vote away. Seriously, Romney and Obama are just the same on all important matters, and they're not going to make matters any better while in office. At least try to make a difference by voting for someone who actually has a reputable history.
*Edit: wow, that was a weird ninja. Care to explain that one, stinkyFeet?
-
ive always found that voting third party sends a message to the main parties that their candidates arent quite up to snuff. but i wouldn't vote and expect your guy to win, your just sending a message. and if you cant find anything at fault with the current administration, but you want to voice with your vote that you think an independant is what you need that works fine. but if you do not like the current administration and want someone else, then you are better off just voting for the other party, even if you dont like them.
neither party produces good candidates. you always get the same hippies vs bible thumpers election. none of the candidates have a clue how to fix the current issues. they just keep reciting the mantras their party has hammered into them. and even if they did figure out what to do, it would probibly result in decreased popularity and their chances for re-election would be slightly lessened. if they do make any hard decisions ,anything they do in their first term doesnt go into effect till their second (obamacare). the way i see it if a president's first term doesnt shine, i dont want them for a second.
id love to see an independent come in, get elected, and show everyone else how its done. if there was another candidate that i thought had a snowballs chance in hell for winning id throw my vote in that direction, but as it stands, there is no one that i think has a better shot at winning, especially because there is an incumbent in this election. so im gonna vote republican, because thats my best bet for dethroning obama.
how i would solve things is id hack the military budget in half. we would still have the most expensive military on the planet. of that half would go to domestic use, and the other half to reducing our debts without having to hike taxes (i would still tweak the tax code to not have so many loopholes). we shouldn't be stomping on our own people to help everyone else. we can go back to being the world police once were out of debt. thats what needs to be done. also i kinda think were falling behind in space tech, and need to give nasa moar money, but thats a tiny bit of the budget and really isnt worth mentioning.
-
Sorry about that, I wanted to erase what I said before anybody noticed.
I was going on about how they both sucked, but now that I think about it, Obama did accomplish one thing that may be more important than all the other issues combined: Our withdrawal from the war in Iraq and the our partial withdrawal from the war in Afghanistan.
For all the faults that republicans should love about him, that one thing does more for taking us off the path for things like the Patriot Act and Gitmo than any single bill could of. Not to mention the $$$.
-
well i figure we made our point with the war on terror, and all the other crap that popped up as a result of 911. that was neccisary at the time. im not going to give obama any credit for ending the wars though. they were spiraling down anyway. we made our point that if you **** with us we **** with you. id like to think were done with that, and can move on. im also not giving obama any credit for the op that fragged bin laden, as that was bush's project and was only a carry over. obama certainly didnt fly in the stealth choppers and put a bullet in his head. he probibly didnt even have a say in planning the op. at most he just gave the go ahead.
thats not what i call a shiny first term. thats just following through with party doctrine and carrying on the legacy of the last president. nothing has changed. its the same old **** over and over. he may have done a good enough job, or even a good job. but i dont want a good job, i want an epic job. he is president after all.
-
Cut defense spending, close down a good chunk of your bases in Europe(they can defend themselves), adopt Simpson Bowles and return to Clinton era taxes. Short term fiscal sustainability solved.
End Sarbanes-Oaxley, reinstate Glass Steagal, cut the over regulatory parts of Dodd-Frank.
Change the corporate tax to 18%(still higher than what they pay), close loopholes.
Introduce a visa for entrepreneurs, offer students graduating in US universities green cards on graduation day, allocate 20% of visas for economic purposes.
-
crap double post
-
those bases arent about protecting you guys, its about maintaining a strategic position in europe. :D
really we need to stop being the world police and work on internal issues for awhile. as much as i like constantly being at war. i guess all things in moderation (except booze dope and whores).
-
The figure for maintaining America's overseas bases are around a trillion if the figure is recalled correctly. If the US went back to its pre-ww2 isolationist attitude, it would see a lot of it's problems solved while a whole lot of problems pop up for everyone else
-
The figure for maintaining America's overseas bases are around a trillion if the figure is recalled correctly. If the US went back to its pre-ww2 isolationist attitude, it would see a lot of it's problems solved while a whole lot of problems pop up for everyone else
The problems that would pop up from doing so aren't nearly as bad as what the media might tell you. Both Russia and China are well equipped both military and economically for dealing with a supposed nuclear Iran - it's just that the only reason why they haven't intervened themselves is that they are happy to sit back while the US does so, occasional grumblings aside.
Foreign terrorists? Oh please, our oceans are doing a good job of keeping us safe. European countries are the ones that are much more vulnerable in that regard.
The war in Afghanistan is going nowhere (and yes, the US still has troops there last I checked.) Considering that the old Soviet Union had the same problems fighting in Afghanistan as we are currently, keeping our troops there will not accomplish anything productive.
Meanwhile, back home, corrupt politicians use the nonstop wars as a distraction from domestic issues. I suspect the politicians won't be able to get away with half the stuff they do if people would stop blindly repeating "Support our troops" over and over again.
-
The problems that would pop up from doing so aren't nearly as bad as what the media might tell you. Both Russia and China are well equipped both military and economically for dealing with a supposed nuclear Iran - it's just that the only reason why they haven't intervened themselves is that they are happy to sit back while the US does so, occasional grumblings aside.
Or the fact they don't want to.
-
... or the fact that Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program. :nervous:
RE: elections, lesser of two evils, etc.:
We need a (can't remember the correct name for this thing) "priority ballot"... where you put 1 for the guy you want, 2 for the guy you want if that guy doesn't get anywhere near enough votes, etc....
Also, we need direct elections instead of this electoral crap.
Also, we need to vote on weekends like just about every other civilized country has.
-
We need a (can't remember the correct name for this thing) "priority ballot"... where you put 1 for the guy you want, 2 for the guy you want if that guy doesn't get anywhere near enough votes, etc....
I believe it's called the alternative vote, and unfortunately both major parties have a huge interest in blocking its adoption.
Also, we need direct elections instead of this electoral crap.
That one might actually happen at some point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact)
-
...it's just that the only reason why they haven't intervened themselves is that they are happy to sit back while the US does so, occasional grumblings aside.
or the fact they don't want to.
Why would they need to intervene themselves when another nation is doing so for them? Both China and Russia have interests in the region, and absolutely dwarf Iran in terms of economic power.
... or the fact that Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program. :nervous:
You are right, they don't have any, but that is not the point I am currently trying to make. The US government in currently involved in other questionable wars, ones where nuclear weapons are not used as a justification.
Rogue states tend to upset their neighbors, some of which possess the resources for dealing with the problem themselves. The supposed terrorist threat seems to me the sort of threat that can well enough be dealt with using a bunch of spies and other covert cloak-and-dagger stuff. And if an attack does slip through, well, it's not worth giving up liberties for a bit of added security. Public shootings have been a thing ever since the invention of the Tommy Gun. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Valentine%27s_Day_Massacre)
-
Why would they need to intervene themselves when another nation is doing so for them?
Assumption: they care about Iran being nuclear-armed or not-nuclear-armed.
-
Assumption: they care about Iran being nuclear-armed or not-nuclear-armed.
Either way, the US are the ones currently intervening. This means that if other nations do care about a nuclear Iran, they won't have to intervene. And if they don't care about a nuclear-armed Iran, then they don't have to intervene!
-
Except that the nation in the area most likely to intervene on its own, namely Israel, probably wouldn't mind dropping a crapload of cluster bombs and guided missiles on Iran's nuclear program and then asking Iran exactly what they plan to do about it. U.S. and European influence is probably the only thing stopping Israel from handling the situation its own way.
-
Either way, the US are the ones currently intervening. This means that if other nations do care about a nuclear Iran, they won't have to intervene. And if they don't care about a nuclear-armed Iran, then they don't have to intervene!
Interesting case of tunnel vision to leave out the fact that the EU and even Canada are on the bandwagon and would probably be there without us, but do continue.
And Israeli intervention.
And your assumption that because they don't care they won't intervene. (China doesn't give a **** about the nuclear aspect, but they do care about their oil supply and they buy a lot of it from nations in that part of the world.)
And your assumption that it's even a reasonable option for the US to drop out. Let's face it: we buy oil from the guys to our north far more than the Gulf. But there are many secondary effects beyond that, economic, military, and political, that make it an issue of importance.
-
It's a kind of a "between hammer and anvil" situation. US can't afford a war with Iran, but it also can't afford not intervening. All for economical, political and military reasons. The only solution would be to defuse the situation diplomatically, but Iran doesn't seem eager to embrace such a solution, and Israeli aren't going to be easy to talk down either. The situation in the Middle East is now very difficult, and changes are needed. The trick is agreeing on what those changes should be, and implementing them with words and not with missiles.
-
... or the fact that Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program. :nervous:
Iran does to have a nuclear weapons program. It just happens to consist solely of foreign agents trying to sabotage it. :P
-
Stopping Iran from obtaining nukes isn't to prevent Iran from getting nukes but to make sure the rest of the Middle East doesn't decide to join in the Nuclear Party. Iran doesn't get along well with it's neighbours. The removal of US power would also see a build up in the Asia Pacific because of everyone would start being scared of China, particularly Japan, Taiwan and probably South Korea. The Asia Pacific will be the 21st century equivalent of the Balkans in the 20th Century knocked down a few notches