http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?hp
YOU BALANCE THE BUDGET! Use this NYT interactive and choose the shit you would cut to make that mean 'ole budget deficit get blasted to smithereens!
AXES AT THE READY!
Hey, look at that, by reducing military spending (but not altering the non-com benefits), returning taxes to Clinton-era levels, and instating a carbon tax, a national sales tax, and a millionaire's tax, I balanced the budget. Whodathunkit?
Yes but how many countries did you invade?
Military cuts are not nearly as large as they should be.
Balancing for 2015 is easy enough, balancing for 2030 is a nightmare. On the other hand I have a 100billion+ surplus in the short term, so some serious paying down of the debt will at least make that less of a disaster.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on November 14, 2010, 09:37:20 PM
Yes but how many countries did you invade?
None, but I pulled troops out of Iraq, Afghanistan, AND Europe, and reduced the overall military strength of the country. I is a bad Amurrican. :lulz:
Quote from: Requia ☣ on November 14, 2010, 09:38:40 PM
Military cuts are not nearly as large as they should be.
Balancing for 2015 is easy enough, balancing for 2030 is a nightmare. On the other hand I have a 100billion+ surplus in the short term, so some serious paying down of the debt will at least make that less of a disaster.
It's only a nightmare if you keep the Bush Tax Cuts. But I agree, you should be able to reduce military spending to a greater degree. But I think most of those are proposals that are currently being talked up. Could be wrong though.
ETA: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=03t005yg
Actually., the bush tax cuts don't affect the long term as much (I rolled back all of those, except the capital gains, and raised numerous other taxes), they make it very easy for the 2015 projection though.
I also did a projection where I took every non military spending cut and no tax hike... 200 billion shortfall in 2015.
And yes, they are current proposals (which is why I kept the capital gains cuts, what *should* be done is raise the capital gains but not the short term capital gains tax that was also cut in the Bush plan).
Still, some cuts to the navy and air force would be appreciated, not to mention slowing down our weapons programs (seriously, until an F-15 gets shot down, we don't need new fighters).
Quote from: Requia ☣ on November 14, 2010, 09:54:40 PM
Actually., the bush tax cuts don't affect the long term as much (I rolled back all of those, except the capital gains, and raised numerous other taxes), they make it very easy for the 2015 projection though.
I also did a projection where I took every non military spending cut and no tax hike... 200 billion shortfall in 2015.
And yes, they are current proposals (which is why I kept the capital gains cuts, what *should* be done is raise the capital gains but not the short term capital gains tax that was also cut in the Bush plan).
Still, some cuts to the navy and air force would be appreciated, not to mention slowing down our weapons programs (seriously, until an F-15 gets shot down, we don't need new fighters).
Hmm. You are right about that. I did roll back the capital gains though. I suppose it is just a matter of perspective as to how we view the long term effects. But you are dead on about the military.
Quote from: Phox on November 14, 2010, 09:40:24 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on November 14, 2010, 09:37:20 PM
Yes but how many countries did you invade?
None, but I pulled troops out of Iraq, Afghanistan, AND Europe, and reduced the overall military strength of the country. I is a bad Amurrican. :lulz:
:amurrica: AMURRICA HATEN' HIPPIE
I crashed the budget, then sold the entire military to China as mercenaries. What do I win?
Quote from: Subetai on November 15, 2010, 03:45:39 PM
I crashed the budget, then sold the entire military to China as mercenaries. What do I win?
The screams of jingoists, to lull you to sleep at night.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 04:16:31 PM
Quote from: Subetai on November 15, 2010, 03:45:39 PM
I crashed the budget, then sold the entire military to China as mercenaries. What do I win?
The screams of jingoists, to lull you to sleep at night.
As well as dog and catburgers on the menu at McDonald's.
Quote from: Phox on November 14, 2010, 06:25:54 PM
Hey, look at that, by reducing military spending (but not altering the non-com benefits), returning taxes to Clinton-era levels, and instating a carbon tax, a national sales tax, and a millionaire's tax, I balanced the budget. Whodathunkit?
IWDYAFY. :argh!:
I slashed military spending, raised taxes, instituted a carbon and bank tax, eliminated farm subsidies, reduced troops in Iraq, and closed loopholes. Solved both deficits with some pretty good surplus numbers.
Quote from: Phox on November 14, 2010, 06:25:54 PM
Hey, look at that, by reducing military spending (but not altering the non-com benefits), returning taxes to Clinton-era levels, and instating a carbon tax, a national sales tax, and a millionaire's tax, I balanced the budget. Whodathunkit?
National sales tax is a bad idea, imo. Hurts poor people more than anyone else.
sales tax is the most regressive way of raising tax revenue that I can think of.
Quote from: Phox on November 14, 2010, 06:25:54 PM
a national sales tax,
ECONOMIC FATALITY.
SUB PHOX WINS.
Also, I don't know how to ballance a budget.
Might be able to BALANCE one, though.
Quote from: First City Hustle on November 15, 2010, 07:36:19 PM
sales tax is the most regressive way of raising tax revenue that I can think of.
Works ok in MA. No one complains about it too much, and we certainly never bothered to repeal it. Depends on the outlook of the public I suppose. You don't have to buy that thing, so you don't have to pay that tax on it. Voluntary taxation.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 15, 2010, 07:52:19 PM
Quote from: First City Hustle on November 15, 2010, 07:36:19 PM
sales tax is the most regressive way of raising tax revenue that I can think of.
Works ok in MA. No one complains about it too much, and we certainly never bothered to repeal it. Depends on the outlook of the public I suppose. You don't have to buy that thing, so you don't have to pay that tax on it. Voluntary taxation.
What percentage is it? We have a small sales tax in AZ. The federal one proposed by the teabaggers is 23% ( :lulz: ).
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 15, 2010, 07:52:19 PM
Quote from: First City Hustle on November 15, 2010, 07:36:19 PM
sales tax is the most regressive way of raising tax revenue that I can think of.
Works ok in MA. No one complains about it too much, and we certainly never bothered to repeal it. Depends on the outlook of the public I suppose. You don't have to buy that thing, so you don't have to pay that tax on it. Voluntary taxation.
Sure. You don't have to buy clothes, or toilet paper, or soap, or any of that stuff. Totally optional.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 15, 2010, 07:52:19 PM
Quote from: First City Hustle on November 15, 2010, 07:36:19 PM
sales tax is the most regressive way of raising tax revenue that I can think of.
Works ok in MA. No one complains about it too much, and we certainly never bothered to repeal it. Depends on the outlook of the public I suppose. You don't have to buy that thing, so you don't have to pay that tax on it. Voluntary taxation.
I'd expect this line of reasoning from anyone who's been indoctrinated by Taxachusetts. :lulz:
nah, srsly though, sales tax takes a higher percentage of a poor person's income than it does of a wealthy person's. Whether or not people complain about it, it's certainly hideously regressive.
and you have a funny idea of "optional".
I mean, your kid doesn't really NEED that computer for school, nor do you really NEED that car to drive him there or to go to work or get groceries. And we can all start making our own furniture and beds out of branches and pine boughs. And skinning animals for clothes.
National sales tax is not the same as a state sales tax. A national one would be on top of your state and local tax, and would hit things like rent.
Let's look at my locality + California + national sales tax (23% as per tea bagger desires).
My city: 10%
California: 7.25%
National: 23%
I buy $50 in groceries. Add $5, $3.63, $11.50 in taxes, and that's about $70.
We don't complain about it because we can't do anything about it, and we don't repeal it because nothing is offered to take it's place.
I don't think it's fair, but 1) I make enough that it doesn't affect my life too badly and 2) I'm not going to eliminate a sizable chunk of the state's revenues.
well, typically groceries (or at least staples) aren't included in sales tax.
but change that to a $500 computer for your kid that now costs $700.
Quote from: First City Hustle on November 15, 2010, 08:14:01 PM
well, typically groceries (or at least staples) aren't included in sales tax.
but change that to a $500 computer for your kid that now costs $700.
The teabagger's tax would apply to all goods and services.
Quote from: Hover Cat on November 15, 2010, 08:11:28 PM
National sales tax is not the same as a state sales tax. A national one would be on top of your state and local tax, and would hit things like rent.
Let's look at my locality + California + national sales tax (23% as per tea bagger desires).
My city: 10%
California: 7.25%
National: 23%
I buy $50 in groceries. Add $5, $3.63, $11.50 in taxes, and that's about $70.
What ECH said.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 08:15:52 PM
Quote from: First City Hustle on November 15, 2010, 08:14:01 PM
well, typically groceries (or at least staples) aren't included in sales tax.
but change that to a $500 computer for your kid that now costs $700.
The teabagger's tax would apply to all goods and services.
You're kidding?
:|
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on November 15, 2010, 08:17:12 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 08:15:52 PM
Quote from: First City Hustle on November 15, 2010, 08:14:01 PM
well, typically groceries (or at least staples) aren't included in sales tax.
but change that to a $500 computer for your kid that now costs $700.
The teabagger's tax would apply to all goods and services.
You're kidding?
:|
ALL goods and services. I shall provide a link tonight, if you remind me.
Quote from: Hover Cat on November 15, 2010, 08:11:28 PM
National sales tax is not the same as a state sales tax. A national one would be on top of your state and local tax, and would hit things like rent.
Let's look at my locality + California + national sales tax (23% as per tea bagger desires).
My city: 10%
California: 7.25%
National: 23%
I buy $50 in groceries. Add $5, $3.63, $11.50 in taxes, and that's about $70.
Jesus Christ. And I bitch about the sales tax here.
The one in the budget proposal is 5%. Though that still manages to total 22 and a quarter where hovercat is.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on November 15, 2010, 08:18:38 PM
Quote from: Hover Cat on November 15, 2010, 08:11:28 PM
National sales tax is not the same as a state sales tax. A national one would be on top of your state and local tax, and would hit things like rent.
Let's look at my locality + California + national sales tax (23% as per tea bagger desires).
My city: 10%
California: 7.25%
National: 23%
I buy $50 in groceries. Add $5, $3.63, $11.50 in taxes, and that's about $70.
Jesus Christ. And I bitch about the sales tax here.
The one in the budget proposal is 5%. Though that still manages to total 22 and a quarter where hovercat is.
6.6% in AZ, and we're going broke. It WAS 4.6%, and the increase was supposed to pay for schools and police, but they used the 2% - 1% at a time - to finance the retirement of state level legislators, even if they only served one term.
Then they blamed "the liberals" (We only have about 3), and everyone bought it. :lol:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 08:18:01 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on November 15, 2010, 08:17:12 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 08:15:52 PM
Quote from: First City Hustle on November 15, 2010, 08:14:01 PM
well, typically groceries (or at least staples) aren't included in sales tax.
but change that to a $500 computer for your kid that now costs $700.
The teabagger's tax would apply to all goods and services.
You're kidding?
:|
ALL goods and services. I shall provide a link tonight, if you remind me.
Ugh. I believe you, but I'll remind you anyway, because I want to read the article.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on November 15, 2010, 08:18:38 PM
The one in the budget proposal is 5%.
Yeah, and the one advanced by the new congress, which gets seated in January, is 23%.
Since they aren't seated yet, they haven't actually had a chance to submit a budget proposal.
they have to get money somewhere... it's not official but it seems Obama has buckled on the bush tax cuts
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/10/white-house-gives-in-on-bush-tax-cuts_n_781992.html
If the teabaggers actually push that through, I'm fucking out. I have somewhere to go that won't be affected, but I'll feel damn sorry for the rest of you.
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on November 15, 2010, 08:16:18 PM
Quote from: Hover Cat on November 15, 2010, 08:11:28 PM
National sales tax is not the same as a state sales tax. A national one would be on top of your state and local tax, and would hit things like rent.
Let's look at my locality + California + national sales tax (23% as per tea bagger desires).
My city: 10%
California: 7.25%
National: 23%
I buy $50 in groceries. Add $5, $3.63, $11.50 in taxes, and that's about $70.
What ECH said.
I just checked and my numbers are still (mostly) accurate. Stuff you can buy with WIC stamps are exempt from California and local taxes, but nothing else is. So assuming that I buy $30 in staples, that leaves $20 taxable ($2 and $1.45 plus the $11.50) which totals at $64.95.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on November 15, 2010, 08:24:25 PM
they have to get money somewhere...
Sure, so let's assrape everyone who makes less than $325K/yr.
:lulz:
That sounds like (insert buzzword of the week) talk to me.
Quote from: Hover Cat on November 15, 2010, 08:25:53 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on November 15, 2010, 08:16:18 PM
Quote from: Hover Cat on November 15, 2010, 08:11:28 PM
National sales tax is not the same as a state sales tax. A national one would be on top of your state and local tax, and would hit things like rent.
Let's look at my locality + California + national sales tax (23% as per tea bagger desires).
My city: 10%
California: 7.25%
National: 23%
I buy $50 in groceries. Add $5, $3.63, $11.50 in taxes, and that's about $70.
What ECH said.
I just checked and my numbers are still (mostly) accurate. Stuff you can buy with WIC stamps are exempt from California and local taxes, but nothing else is. So assuming that I buy $30 in staples, that leaves $20 taxable ($2 and $1.45 plus the $11.50) which totals at $64.95.
That's a whole lot of painful.
If they really put a 23% tax on everything, then I'm going to have very little in the way of reasons not to just shoot IRS agents for fun, its not like I'll be able to afford to stay out of jail anyway.
Of course, neither will most of the teabaggers responsible for this shit, so maybe I'll try to stay out long enough to get a good laugh in.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on November 15, 2010, 08:30:25 PM
That sounds like (insert buzzword of the week) talk to me.
wut
Quote from: Requia ☣ on November 15, 2010, 08:31:02 PM
If they really put a 23% tax on everything, then I'm going to have very little in the way of reasons not to just shoot IRS agents for fun, its not like I'll be able to afford to stay out of jail anyway.
Of course, neither will most of the teabaggers responsible for this shit, so maybe I'll try to stay out long enough to get a good laugh in.
You won't see IRS agents. You'll see the 18 year old girl clerking the register at the grocery store.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 08:32:14 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on November 15, 2010, 08:31:02 PM
If they really put a 23% tax on everything, then I'm going to have very little in the way of reasons not to just shoot IRS agents for fun, its not like I'll be able to afford to stay out of jail anyway.
Of course, neither will most of the teabaggers responsible for this shit, so maybe I'll try to stay out long enough to get a good laugh in.
You won't see IRS agents. You'll see the 18 year old girl clerking the register at the grocery store.
Yep. IIRC, this would replace the income tax, so fewer IRS agents will be running around.
Quote from: Hover Cat on November 15, 2010, 08:34:46 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 08:32:14 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on November 15, 2010, 08:31:02 PM
If they really put a 23% tax on everything, then I'm going to have very little in the way of reasons not to just shoot IRS agents for fun, its not like I'll be able to afford to stay out of jail anyway.
Of course, neither will most of the teabaggers responsible for this shit, so maybe I'll try to stay out long enough to get a good laugh in.
You won't see IRS agents. You'll see the 18 year old girl clerking the register at the grocery store.
Yep. IIRC, this would replace the income tax, so fewer IRS agents will be running around.
We have an inexhaustible supply of teenagers to shoot, so why the hell not? :lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 08:31:33 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on November 15, 2010, 08:30:25 PM
That sounds like (insert buzzword of the week) talk to me.
wut
I've lost track of all the scary buzzwords now days.
:sad:
There was the evil commi/nazis, socialists, hippies, liberals, atheists, Izlamists, Canadians... I don't even know anymore
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on November 15, 2010, 08:35:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 08:31:33 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on November 15, 2010, 08:30:25 PM
That sounds like (insert buzzword of the week) talk to me.
wut
I've lost track of all the scary buzzwords now days.
:sad:
There was the evil commi/nazis, socialists, hippies, liberals, atheists, Izlamists, Canadians... I don't even know anymore
I think the term nowadays is "scum".
PREDICTION: Even though they have what they want - or what they think they want - the teabagger rallies will continue. Ho ho! It's easier to use rallies to blame <insert group> for failed policies, rather than actually govern.
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Issues/The-Economy/2010/11/10/Tea-Party-Calls-for-Abolishing-the-Fed.aspx
On second thought, we might as well slap a 23% tax on everything. Inflation continues unabated while wages haven't gone up significantly since Carter was in office, we'll only be speeding up the inevitable.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on November 15, 2010, 08:54:29 PM
On second thought, we might as well slap a 23% tax on everything. Inflation continues unabated while wages haven't gone up significantly since Carter was in office, we'll only be speeding up the inevitable.
Do you have any kids, Requia?
Would I be suggesting that if I did?
Quote from: Requia ☣ on November 15, 2010, 08:57:38 PM
Would I be suggesting that if I did?
Exactly. While it's fun to have a giggle at the teabaggers getting what they asked for good and hard, it's also worth remembering what the actual consequences are.
Taxes where I live:
4% state sales tax
1% city sales tax
0% income tax
169% tax on brain cells due to living so close to so many teabaggers.
Quote from: postvex™ on November 15, 2010, 09:03:18 PM
Taxes where I live:
4% state sales tax
1% city sales tax
0% income tax
169% tax on brain cells due to living so close to so many teabaggers.
Funny part is, I'm willing to guess that most of them don't make enough to actually pay income tax, at year's end.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 09:04:02 PM
Quote from: postvex™ on November 15, 2010, 09:03:18 PM
Taxes where I live:
4% state sales tax
1% city sales tax
0% income tax
169% tax on brain cells due to living so close to so many teabaggers.
Funny part is, I'm willing to guess that most of them don't make enough to actually pay income tax, at year's end.
Most people pay a federal income tax. I do, but it's small. The average income here is about equal to the average income nationally.
Quote from: postvex™ on November 15, 2010, 09:07:02 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 09:04:02 PM
Quote from: postvex™ on November 15, 2010, 09:03:18 PM
Taxes where I live:
4% state sales tax
1% city sales tax
0% income tax
169% tax on brain cells due to living so close to so many teabaggers.
Funny part is, I'm willing to guess that most of them don't make enough to actually pay income tax, at year's end.
Most people pay a federal income tax. I do, but it's small. The average income here is about equal to the average income nationally.
Then they don't actually pay any tax, other than SSI. I make a little more than $20K more than the national average, and I don't actually pay any income tax. Of course, I have kids. So do most teabaggers.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/03/tea-party-rand-paul-kentucky-senate
QuotePaul has also been an advocate of a flat tax, proposing that income tax be abolished and replaced with a single 23% rate of national sales tax.
There.
This thing is kind of cool, but it would be much more useful to me if it could also show the effects of repealing Obamacare, replacing income tax with a 23% National sales tax, and any other tea party proposals that didn't make the list. Not because I am in favor of any of those things, mind you, but because there seem to be many people out there who think that we can balance the budget while not touching Medicare, Social Security, or Military spending and while cutting taxes further.
Quote from: Pastor-Mullah Zappathruster on November 16, 2010, 02:24:28 AM
This thing is kind of cool, but it would be much more useful to me if it could also show the effects of repealing Obamacare, replacing income tax with a 23% National sales tax, and any other tea party proposals that didn't make the list. Not because I am in favor of any of those things, mind you, but because there seem to be many people out there who think that we can balance the budget while not touching Medicare, Social Security, or Military spending and while cutting taxes further.
Reality has a way of correcting these notions.
Once again, I refer to Kiplings
The Gods of the Copybook Headings (Public Domain).
QuoteAS I PASS through my incarnations in every age and race,
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.
We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn
That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.
We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place,
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.
With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.
When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."
On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "The Wages of Sin is Death."
In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."
Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
I like that poem.
Too tired to read whole thread in response to national sales tax: I was merely reporting the options I selected that ended up working. I do not actually advocate a national sales tax. Carry on.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 04:16:31 PM
Quote from: Subetai on November 15, 2010, 03:45:39 PM
I crashed the budget, then sold the entire military to China as mercenaries. What do I win?
The screams of jingoists, to lull you to sleep at night.
I consider that a victory. I'm also going to seize the assets of the Fortune 500, sell Wall Street's debt to a dummy corporation based in Costa Rica as part of a deliciously smart shell game which will involve an already doomed and sinking South Pacific microstate assuming the collateral debt of the entire world, and use the profits to distribute hookers and blow to the population at large.
Quote from: Subetai on November 16, 2010, 12:29:29 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 04:16:31 PM
Quote from: Subetai on November 15, 2010, 03:45:39 PM
I crashed the budget, then sold the entire military to China as mercenaries. What do I win?
The screams of jingoists, to lull you to sleep at night.
I consider that a victory. I'm also going to seize the assets of the Fortune 500, sell Wall Street's debt to a dummy corporation based in Costa Rica as part of a deliciously smart shell game which will involve an already doomed and sinking South Pacific microstate assuming the collateral debt of the entire world, and use the profits to distribute hookers and blow to the population at large.
Cain for President, 20-whenever.
Quote from: Freeky on November 16, 2010, 07:57:02 PMCain for President, 20-whenever.
I like this, but we have to work around that whole not being born in the US bit. I understand that Hawaii Vital Records will create an official birth certificate for anyone who asks for one, and also that it is notoriously easy to get backdated birth announcements inserted into old Hawaiian newspapers, so maybe we can go that route.
Did Britain ever formally declare it recognized the sovereignty of the USA? We could argue it did de facto, for sure, but de jure? In which case, all Americans are British citizens, and any Commonwealth citizen may run to become Prime Minister of the USA. Since the USA has no MPs currently, that makes my position a rather easy one to acquire.
YAY!
I for one welcome our new genius overlord. :D
All we have to do is arrange for someone I know to become Governor-General of the USA and you can technically appoint me Prime Minister. Perfectly constitutionally legal move, incidentally. One Australian government was deposed that way.
Quote
Domestic Programs and Foreign Aid
-Cut foreign aid in half
-Eliminate earmarks
-Eliminate farm subsidies
-Reduce the federal workforce by 10 percent
-Cut 250,000 government contractors
-Cut aid to states by 5 percent
Military
-Reduce noncombat military compensation and overhead
-Reduce the number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to 60,000 by 2015
Health Care
-Increase the Medicare eligibility age to 68
-Reduce the tax break for employer-provided health insurance
-Cap Medicare growth starting in 2013
Social Security
-Reduce Social Security benefits for those with high incomes
-Tighten eligibility for disability
-Use an alternate measure for inflation
Existing Taxes
-The Lincoln-Kyl proposal
-President Obama's proposal
-Allow expiration for income above $250,000 a year
-Payroll tax: Subject some incomes above $106,000 to tax
New Taxes and Tax Reform
-Millionaire's tax on income above $1 million
-Eliminate loopholes, reduce rates (Bowles-Simpson plan)
-National sales tax
-Carbon Tax
-Bank Tax
The above is the only correct way to balance the budget: keep the military strong, tax the rich, tax the middle class, and tax polluting industries.
ALL HAIL THE GOD EMPEROR!
Anyone who would institute a national sales tax should have their toenails pulled out slowly by hungry street children.
As should anyone who wants to raise taxes on the middle class.
We (Canada) have a national sales tax. Personally, I don't notice it much.
At 23%, on top of province level sales taxes?
I'm not sure what sort of national sales tax is being proposed here, or what it's like elsewhere, but here in MA, sales tax does apply to food, clothes, etc...
However, your unnecessary electronic gizmo will be an extra 5%. I don't really see a problem with that.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 02, 2010, 02:26:20 AM
I'm not sure what sort of national sales tax is being proposed here, or what it's like elsewhere, but here in MA, sales tax does apply to food, clothes, etc...
However, your unnecessary electronic gizmo will be an extra 5%. I don't really see a problem with that.
This is what we have in Canada. 5% Federal sales tax, with varying Provincial sales taxes (usually 6-7%, so 12% overall). It doesn't apply to food.
Quote from: Remington on December 02, 2010, 04:59:03 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 02, 2010, 02:26:20 AM
I'm not sure what sort of national sales tax is being proposed here, or what it's like elsewhere, but here in MA, sales tax does apply to food, clothes, etc...
However, your unnecessary electronic gizmo will be an extra 5%. I don't really see a problem with that.
This is what we have in Canada. 5% Federal sales tax, with varying Provincial sales taxes (usually 6-7%, so 12% overall). It doesn't apply to food.
Whoops. Doesn't apply to food and other essential items here either. Missed typing the negative.
12% sales tax is negligible. Again, I really don't see what the big deal about it is. Plus, MA has tax free weekend, when the sales tax is suspended. It's like a second Black Friday, but far less frenzied. Pretty good actually, if you remember that it's coming up.
It does apply to that in Illinois. And at least here it's 8-10% most places. The county I live in has the lowest in the area (6.5%), and refuses to raise it 1% so we could afford to keep our fucking ambulance service. :roll:
Reddit explains 21st century economics:
Mary is the proprietor of a bar in Dublin . She realises that virtually all of her customers are unemployed alcoholics and, as such, can no longer afford to patronise her bar. To solve this problem, she comes up with new marketing plan that allows her customers to drink now, but pay later. She keeps track of the drinks consumed on a ledger (thereby granting the customers loans).
Word gets around about Mary's "drink now, pay later" marketing strategy and, as a result, increasing numbers of customers flood into Mary's bar. Soon she has the largest sales volume for any bar in Dublin .
By providing her customers' freedom from immediate payment demands, Mary gets no resistance when, at regular intervals, she substantially increases her prices for wine and beer, the most consumed beverages. Consequently, Mary's gross sales volume increases massively. A young and dynamic vice-president at the local bank recognises that these customer debts constitute valuable future assets and increases Mary's borrowing limit. He sees no reason for any undue concern, since he has the debts of the unemployed alcoholics as collateral.
At the bank's corporate headquarters, expert traders figure a way to make huge commissions, and transform these customer loans into DRINKBONDS, ALKIBONDS and PUKEBONDS. These securities are then bundled and traded on international security markets. Naive investors don't really understand that the securities being sold to them as AAA secured bonds are really the debts of unemployed alcoholics. Nevertheless, the bond prices continuously climb, and the securities soon become the hottest-selling items for some of the nation's leading brokerage houses.
One day, even though the bond prices are still climbing, a risk manager at the original local bank decides that the time has come to demand payment on the debts incurred by the drinkers at Mary's bar. He so informs Mary.
Mary then demands payment from her alcoholic patrons, but being unemployed alcoholics they cannot pay back their drinking debts.Since, Mary cannot fulfil her loan obligations she is forced into bankruptcy. The bar closes and the eleven employees lose their jobs.
Overnight, DRINKBONDS, ALKIBONDS and PUKEBONDS drop in price by 90%. The collapsed bond asset value destroys the banks liquidity and prevents it from issuing new loans, thus freezing credit and economic activity in the community.
The suppliers of Mary's bar had granted her generous payment extensions and had invested their firms' pension funds in the various BOND securities. They find they are now faced with having to write off her bad debt and with losing over 90% of the presumed value of the bonds. Her wine supplier also claims bankruptcy, closing the doors on a family business that had endured for three generations, her beer supplier is taken over by a competitor, who immediately closes the local plant and lays off 150 workers.
Fortunately though, the bank, the brokerage houses and their respective executives are saved and bailed out by a multi-billion euro no-strings attached cash infusion from their cronies in Government. The funds required for this bailout are obtained by new taxes levied on employed, middle-class, non-drinkers who have never been in Mary's bar.
Quote from: Phox on December 02, 2010, 05:43:57 AM
It does apply to that in Illinois. And at least here it's 8-10% most places. The county I live in has the lowest in the area (6.5%), and refuses to raise it 1% so we could afford to keep our fucking ambulance service. :roll:
Well, sure. I mean, it's not like anyone is using that ambulance or anything. I've never used an ambulance. So why should my taxes support ambulance services? :lulz:
They could also do something like increase income or property tax to cover such things. But quibbling over 1% is silly, especially where, I imagine, goods are less expensive in Illinois County about to give up its ambulance service.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 02, 2010, 05:52:18 AM
Quote from: Phox on December 02, 2010, 05:43:57 AM
It does apply to that in Illinois. And at least here it's 8-10% most places. The county I live in has the lowest in the area (6.5%), and refuses to raise it 1% so we could afford to keep our fucking ambulance service. :roll:
Well, sure. I mean, it's not like anyone is using that ambulance or anything. I've never used an ambulance. So why should my taxes support ambulance services? :lulz:
They could also do something like increase income or property tax to cover such things. But quibbling over 1% is silly, especially where, I imagine, goods are less expensive in Illinois County about to give up its ambulance service.
Any tax increase would get voted down. And that does prevent me from getting a job working for that service, and I refuse to work for the next closest for reasons I will not share. So, yea,h i'm a little bit upset by the outcome of that measure.
You guys really don't get it about sales tax, do you? It's the single most regressive way of raising tax revenue there is, short of just sending the king's goons around to strongarm people. Sales tax costs the same on a product whether the person buying that product makes $250K a year or $15K a year, so in terms of percentage of income it is VASTLY disproportionate. If you need to raise tax revenues, do it by raising the income tax or property tax, not by instituting a tax that the well-off will barely notice but that will ensure that a family below the poverty line probably has to choose between food and diapers during the lean times.
I mean, really, anyone advocating an increase in ANY sales tax should be fucking ashamed of themselves.
Yeah, but from a realpolitik point of view, right now, if I needed to raise money and I was in government (and I was feeling especially cynical that day), I'd seriously think about screwing the working and middle class.
I mean, they created a mob to defend the banks when the government gave away billions, whereas actual rich people have powerful friends and political connections and take away campaign spending money and move jobs overseas and such. Given the choice between picking on people who fight back, and picking on people who are morons, pick the latter every time.
From the POV of actually being a middle or working class person it sucks. But how many of those are in government? Jared Diamond made a good point about societies where massive inequalities exist and the ruling cadre are insulated from the effects of their decisions in his book Collapse, and it seems this point is going to proved yet again.
Quote from: Abraxas on December 02, 2010, 06:32:19 AM
You guys really don't get it about sales tax, do you? It's the single most regressive way of raising tax revenue there is, short of just sending the king's goons around to strongarm people. Sales tax costs the same on a product whether the person buying that product makes $250K a year or $15K a year, so in terms of percentage of income it is VASTLY disproportionate. If you need to raise tax revenues, do it by raising the income tax or property tax, not by instituting a tax that the well-off will barely notice but that will ensure that a family below the poverty line probably has to choose between food and diapers during the lean times.
I'm just saying that I've dealt with a sales tax for as long as I've been purchasing things and I really never even noticed it. And MA voters haven't seen fit to do away with it everytime Carla Howell comes around and tries to cut out portions of the state's income. It may be a flat tax, but it's a flat tax on non-essentials. It's an optional tax. You don't have to buy anything you don't need.
That said, apparently we consider booze necessary since we repealed the recently passed liquor tax.
Quote from: Cain on December 02, 2010, 07:31:14 AM
Yeah, but from a realpolitik point of view, right now, if I needed to raise money and I was in government (and I was feeling especially cynical that day), I'd seriously think about screwing the working and middle class.
I mean, they created a mob to defend the banks when the government gave away billions, whereas actual rich people have powerful friends and political connections and take away campaign spending money and move jobs overseas and such. Given the choice between picking on people who fight back, and picking on people who are morons, pick the latter every time.
From the POV of actually being a middle or working class person it sucks. But how many of those are in government? Jared Diamond made a good point about societies where massive inequalities exist and the ruling cadre are insulated from the effects of their decisions in his book Collapse, and it seems this point is going to proved yet again.
This is sad, but true. While the working class may be the majority in actual votes, it's the rich who pay for the campaign. Who are the politicians going to try to make happy? Follow the money trail.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 02, 2010, 02:53:32 PM
Quote from: Abraxas on December 02, 2010, 06:32:19 AM
You guys really don't get it about sales tax, do you? It's the single most regressive way of raising tax revenue there is, short of just sending the king's goons around to strongarm people. Sales tax costs the same on a product whether the person buying that product makes $250K a year or $15K a year, so in terms of percentage of income it is VASTLY disproportionate. If you need to raise tax revenues, do it by raising the income tax or property tax, not by instituting a tax that the well-off will barely notice but that will ensure that a family below the poverty line probably has to choose between food and diapers during the lean times.
I'm just saying that I've dealt with a sales tax for as long as I've been purchasing things and I really never even noticed it. And MA voters haven't seen fit to do away with it everytime Carla Howell comes around and tries to cut out portions of the state's income. It may be a flat tax, but it's a flat tax on non-essentials. It's an optional tax. You don't have to buy anything you don't need.
That said, apparently we consider booze necessary since we repealed the recently passed liquor tax.
so, you're saying that
nothing besides food is an essential purchase? People don't need cars or computers? Or clothes? If you'll pardon my indelicate turn of phrase, that's total bullshit.
Also, please remember not to use personal experience as your anchor when making decisions regarding people who earn substantially less than you or your family does.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 02, 2010, 06:40:58 PM
Also, please remember not to use personal experience as your anchor when making decisions regarding people who earn substantially less than you or your family does.
I don't make a whole lot of money. My family was the same while I was growing up. But, I'll bear that in mind then.