Enough Bitching, How Would You Fix "It?"

N

nasum

CAGiversary!
1.) Flat % income tax, no loopholes. Make it 10-15%. That's what you owe to the national and state government for the purpose they serve. Same for corporate tax with write-offs for self investment. Tax penalties for salaries paid to workers outside of the US.

2.) Minimum 1% interest rate on all interest bearing accounts (we're talking savings accounts at the local bank more than anything else here), and risk based investments (stocks and the like) have no safety net.

3.) No bailouts for anything. Operating any business involves risk.

4.) Accounting standards that safeguard individual retirement accounts, i.e. a company can't force you to invest only within the company for your 401(k) and such.

5.) All medical bills are automatically on a 24 month interest free term. After the 2 years we go to a 1% APR loan until the balance is paid in full. Either that or go with the Canadian system of free for everyone but better care available for those willing to pay.

6.) Across the board 20% cut in spending by the federal govt. This means either elective salary reduction or layoffs for employees, cuts in programs etc... until the national debt is at no more than 5% of GDP. The president makes no salary whatsoever, the Senate gets a 50% pay cut and the house gets a 25% paycut (since some of them are actual people). Civil service is service, not a job from which you should be allowed to become wealthy.
Unless the job is actually physically dangerous (i.e. military) no govt job should pay more than $100k per year.

7.) All govt contracts are to be publicly posted and audited on a yearly basis

8.) Flat 2% sales tax on any and all imported goods.

9.) Remove the social security cap (currently $92k I believe, could be wrong)

10.) Once again invest in infrastructure. Put solar panels on the top of big box retailers, offer tax incentives and interest free loans to get this going. Sudden demand will bring the price of the techonology down in the long run at which point places like apartment complexes and such can start getting in on the action until it reaches individual homes at an affordable level.

11.) Campaign reform; Presidential candidates can spend no more than $10 million on a campaign INCLUDING fuckING TV ADS. If your message isn't strong enough to reach the masses without assaulting them every ten minutes then you've got a shit message.

12.) Get the Fed. Govt out of your house by going back to a constitutional govt. State laws will be what you think about, the fed govt is only there to prevent attacks and to regulate interstate commerce.

13.) Tax incentives for hiring US Workers

14.) Tax Penalties for Outsourcing

15.) Get out of the Middle East entirely, they don't want us there and it's a waste of cash

16.) Enough with the Federal Government Spending Programs, they got us nowhere in the 70's and chances are they won't get us anywhere 30 years later.
 
[quote name='nasum']1.) Flat % income tax, no loopholes. Make it 10-15%. That's what you owe to the national and state government for the purpose they serve. Same for corporate tax with write-offs for self investment. Tax penalties for salaries paid to workers outside of the US.[/QUOTE]

I'll never understand the logic behind this one. The top 10% which holds 71.5% of the wealth in this country should pay the same low percent that the guy working at Burger King does?

[quote name='nasum']6.) (...) The president makes no salary whatsoever, the Senate gets a 50% pay cut and the house gets a 25% paycut (since some of them are actual people). Civil service is service, not a job from which you should be allowed to become wealthy.
Unless the job is actually physically dangerous (i.e. military) no govt job should pay more than $100k per year.[/QUOTE]

That is the worse idea ever. How do you expect the government to attract bright minds or represent the people who elected them (like they should be instead of being in lobbyists' pockets) if they make nothing compared to the private sector? It's the same problem the military is facing.

[quote name='nasum']12.) Get the Fed. Govt out of your house by going back to a constitutional govt. State laws will be what you think about, the fed govt is only there to prevent attacks and to regulate interstate commerce.[/QUOTE]

Alright, goodbye seatbelts/speed limits/desegregation! :lol:

----------

I'll post my list later when I have more time.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']I'll never understand the logic behind this one. The top 10% which holds 71.5% of the wealth in this country should pay the same low percent that the guy working at Burger King does?[/QUOTE]

I think what the gentleman is saying is that a flat tax without the loopholes would result in a net increase of taxation on the wealthy.

That is the worse idea ever. How do you expect the government to attract bright minds or represent the people who elected them (like they should be instead of being in lobbyists' pockets) if they make nothing compared to the private sector? It's the same problem the military is facing.
Click to expand...
When George Washington assumed control of the Continental Army, he announced that he wouldn't take a salary beyond what his expenses would be. Might you say that George Washington was more moral than our current crop of politicians?

And you can't really compare this to today's military because how many raw recruits are Harvard graduates or multi-millionaires? Obviously grunts need a salary to live on; what's not so obvious is that pay rates may have very little to do with leadership ability once you get up to the higher echelons.
 
[quote name='Indigo_Streetlight']When George Washington assumed control of the Continental Army, he announced that he wouldn't take a salary beyond what his expenses would be. Might you say that George Washington was more moral than our current crop of politicians?[/QUOTE]

I don't think he's talking about elected officials, I think he's talking about skilled professionals like engineers or scientists or something.

If you want to entice them to work for the government instead of the private sector you're going to want to pay them more. I'd think pensions & benefits and job security would be enough but whatev.
 
[quote name='IRHari']I don't think he's talking about elected officials, I think he's talking about skilled professionals like engineers or scientists or something.

If you want to entice them to work for the government instead of the private sector you're going to want to pay them more. I'd think pensions & benefits and job security would be enough but whatev.[/QUOTE]

I've got to agree.

Americans like to extol the virtues of the free market, but they also want to pay government employees shit wages to perform miracles.

Money talks and bullshit walks.

Not convinced? Just ask yourself - do you really want to drive over a bridge that was built by the lowest bidder?
 
[quote name='Indigo_Streetlight']I think what the gentleman is saying is that a flat tax without the loopholes would result in a net increase of taxation on the wealthy.[/QUOTE]

But let's say you did close all of the loopholes (how? I don't know...by threatening the wealthy with the death penalty if caught trying to skirt the rules and forfeiture of their entire estate to the government to be liquidated?), why would you tax the top 10% who holds 71.5% of the wealth in this country the same (very low) percentage that the rest of us pay? Wouldn't it be better for the country if the ultra-wealthy was taxed the current normal 35+% (with all loopholes closed) instead of 10%?

[quote name='IRHari']I don't think he's talking about elected officials, I think he's talking about skilled professionals like engineers or scientists or something.

If you want to entice them to work for the government instead of the private sector you're going to want to pay them more. I'd think pensions & benefits and job security would be enough but whatev.[/QUOTE]

I was talking about both.

Who would go for president if it paid nothing while Senate/House retained their salary? The president doesn't make that much to beginning with when you think the workload he take on. $400,000 a year with a $190,000 a year pension sounds about right.

It is a delicate balance. You don't want to give them too much power or make it where they are only in it for the money...but you also don't want to give them nothing and have everything hinge on their morals.

[quote name='Indigo_Streetlight']And you can't really compare this to today's military because how many raw recruits are Harvard graduates or multi-millionaires? Obviously grunts need a salary to live on; what's not so obvious is that pay rates may have very little to do with leadership ability once you get up to the higher echelons.[/QUOTE]

I absolutely can compare this to the current military.

It's fair to say that 90+% of people who join the military today have their backs against the wall (unable to get college education on their own, starting a family, need job training/a skill to move up/direction) and after they get what they need, instead of making a career in the military, most bail out and move to the private sector where they get top pay for their talents. Why would you continue a career in the Army when you can go to Blackwater and make triple your current salary?

And where are those top students from those top schools you mentioned going? Most are following the money right into Wall Street and these massive corporations.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']But let's say you did close all of the loopholes (how? I don't know...by threatening the wealthy with the death penalty if caught trying to skirt the rules and forfeiture of their entire estate to the government to be liquidated?), why would you tax the top 10% who holds 71.5% of the wealth in this country the same (very low) percentage that the rest of us pay? Wouldn't it be better for the country if the ultra-wealthy was taxed the current normal 35+% (with all loopholes closed) instead of 10%?

[/QUOTE]


Why? And what is the line for ultra wealthy? High taxation is the reason the ultra wealthy skirt them by using the loopholes.

Also 10% of $3,000,000,000 is $300,000,000, 10% of $3,000,000 dollars is $300,000, and 10% of $30,000 is $3,000. Notice they are still paying more.
 
I'm interested in all this talk about how putting low caps on employee wages will cause the employer to have a hard time getting top talent since the potential employers can go elsewhere and make more. I've heard this argument somewhere before...
 
[quote name='Sporadic']Who would go for president if it paid nothing while Senate/House retained their salary?[/QUOTE]

Someone that truly cared about this country and wanted to be its leader.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']
Who would go for president if it paid nothing while Senate/House retained their salary? The president doesn't make that much to beginning with when you think the workload he take on. $400,000 a year with a $190,000 a year pension sounds about right. [/QUOTE]

Valid point. I can't think of a single person in America who would be willing to be the president without large amounts of compensation.
 
[quote name='DarkSageRK']Valid point. I can't think of a single person in America who would be willing to be the president without large amounts of compensation.[/QUOTE]

If we want to get cynical, the book deals, speaking engagements, and appearances at the other end of the tunnel would more then make up for the lack of salary. For example - ex-President Bill Clinton earns about 7 to 9 million per year in speaking fees.
 
I'll try a point for point critique.

[quote name='nasum']1.) Flat % income tax, no loopholes. Make it 10-15%. That's what you owe to the national and state government for the purpose they serve. Same for corporate tax with write-offs for self investment. Tax penalties for salaries paid to workers outside of the US.[/QUOTE]

The first problem is who gets what. Does the state get 5% or 10%? Does the state and fed share funds? The second problem is every state is different and requires a different level of taxation for the services they provide (roads, welfare, education, etc.). The third problem is you're still letting corps buy goods and services tax free. If a business buys their CEO a car, there is a write-off because it is self investment. If an individual buys a car to go to work, too bad. The fourth problem is the IRS will have to be stronger to determine where every penny is going for salaries. Wide sweeping audits of every business expense cost money.

[quote name='nasum'] 2.) Minimum 1% interest rate on all interest bearing accounts (we're talking savings accounts at the local bank more than anything else here), and risk based investments (stocks and the like) have no safety net.[/QUOTE]

The first problem is you've artificially increased interest rates by 1% which depresses the economy or a bank simply won't allow savings accounts. The second problem is you're not offering a substantial change for stocks and bonds.

[quote name='nasum'] 3.) No bailouts for anything. Operating any business involves risk.[/QUOTE]

I agree in principle, but, in the last half of this double dip recession, allowing the auto industry to collapse in a month or two instead of a few years would have driven the country into a depression. Instead of wondering whether or not another recession would be coming next year, the focus would be on how to find any job so there would be a way to stop starving.

[quote name='nasum'] 4.) Accounting standards that safeguard individual retirement accounts, i.e. a company can't force you to invest only within the company for your 401(k) and such.[/QUOTE]

With only a handful of mutual funds offered by a company, a company keeps costs of a 401K program down. If you want employees to be able to invest in anything, it would be smarter for the company to simply hand over a second check that the employee can spend on investments or pay taxes on at the end of the year.

[quote name='nasum'] 5.) All medical bills are automatically on a 24 month interest free term. After the 2 years we go to a 1% APR loan until the balance is paid in full. Either that or go with the Canadian system of free for everyone but better care available for those willing to pay.[/QUOTE]

There are problems with half-assed solutions. Hospitals can't charge interest? Fair enough. They'll just charge more principal. Going with a single payer system would be the best direction if the desire is to keep costs down. Of course, putting a two-tier system of medical care isn't really fair and, without the strong arm of a bullying government, the lower tier's solution for cancer and broken bones would be aspirin and band-aids.

[quote name='nasum'] 6.) Across the board 20% cut in spending by the federal govt. This means either elective salary reduction or layoffs for employees, cuts in programs etc... until the national debt is at no more than 5% of GDP. The president makes no salary whatsoever, the Senate gets a 50% pay cut and the house gets a 25% paycut (since some of them are actual people). Civil service is service, not a job from which you should be allowed to become wealthy.
Unless the job is actually physically dangerous (i.e. military) no govt job should pay more than $100k per year.[/QUOTE]

Cutting spending during a recession tends to cause depressions and riots. Cutting elected official pay isn't going to stop them from leaving office and landing a cushy job and career. The Clintons made well over $100 million after leaving office and Bubba didn't have a steady gig. Anyways, making people work for free or very little is a dick move and will end up costing more money than it saves.

[quote name='nasum'] 7.) All govt contracts are to be publicly posted and audited on a yearly basis[/QUOTE]

Then what? How many cost plus contracts in Iraq were rescinded? Also, audits cost money unless the underpaid auditor accepts a bribe to do a half-assed job.

[quote name='nasum'] 8.) Flat 2% sales tax on any and all imported goods.[/QUOTE]

Not a bad idea. Of course, killing agricultural subsidies would help push local production of goods more.

[quote name='nasum'] 9.) Remove the social security cap (currently $92k I believe, could be wrong)[/QUOTE]

SS is a Ponzi scheme. The fundamental flaw with SS is fewer workers contributing to it. Stick the rich a little more will push off the day of the program's bankruptcy, but nothing else.

[quote name='nasum'] 10.) Once again invest in infrastructure. Put solar panels on the top of big box retailers, offer tax incentives and interest free loans to get this going. Sudden demand will bring the price of the techonology down in the long run at which point places like apartment complexes and such can start getting in on the action until it reaches individual homes at an affordable level.[/QUOTE]

How does this jive with no bailouts and reduced government spending? Why only the free loans and tax incentives for businesses? Why can't I as an individual get these goodies? Will I consume electricity the wrong way? Is there something wrong with my roof? What about allowing me to build a salt marsh so that algae that produce oil that can be harvested for use in diesel engines be deemed less viable than solar power? Is there no love for geothermal or wind?

[quote name='nasum'] 11.) Campaign reform; Presidential candidates can spend no more than $10 million on a campaign INCLUDING fuckING TV ADS. If your message isn't strong enough to reach the masses without assaulting them every ten minutes then you've got a shit message.[/QUOTE]

How about special interests? I may not be part of a campaign, but I can still post everywhere and buy ad space for a candidate I like, right? How about yellow journalism? O'Reilly and Olbermann can blab about candidates an hour every night, but counter via a TV ad is bad.

[quote name='nasum'] 12.) Get the Fed. Govt out of your house by going back to a constitutional govt. State laws will be what you think about, the fed govt is only there to prevent attacks and to regulate interstate commerce.[/QUOTE]

Don't forget their army of highly underpaid IRS folks auditing every company to determine where an employee lives, volunteer bureaucrats handing out interest free loans to big box retailers to put solar panels on roofs and some "in the cloud" government volunteers who verify those funds were actually used.

[quote name='nasum'] 13.) Tax incentives for hiring US Workers[/QUOTE]

Some states already offer that. Companies such as Charter Communications in Louisville will fire hundreds of workers per year so they can rehire people and collect a tax break on each head.

[quote name='nasum'] 14.) Tax Penalties for Outsourcing[/QUOTE]

Find all those nasty outsourcing companies. It'll require no government investigation of a business and the work can be performed by volunteers.

15.) Get out of the Middle East entirely, they don't want us there and it's a waste of cash[/QUOTE]

Not a bad idea. We'll focus on buying our oil from Canada and Venezuela. Of course, oil is fungible.

16.) Enough with the Federal Government Spending Programs, they got us nowhere in the 70's and chances are they won't get us anywhere 30 years later.[/QUOTE]

But the welfare programs started from the 1929-1969 are cool, right?
 
[quote name='Knoell']High taxation is the reason the ultra wealthy skirt them by using the loopholes.[/QUOTE]

No, even if taxation was "low", the ultra wealthy would still try to skirt the law because they are insanely greedy. That's how most of them became ultra wealthy to begin with.

[quote name='perdition(troy']Someone that truly cared about this country and wanted to be its leader.[/QUOTE]

Sounds like the same problem that the free market and communism run into. It only works if the people involved have impeccable morals. You will most likely get somebody who wants the power and is thinking of a way to make their situation better at the expense of everybody else. That is the last type of person you want as president.

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']How does this jive with no bailouts and reduced government spending? Why only the free loans and tax incentives for businesses? Why can't I as an individual get these goodies? Will I consume electricity the wrong way? Is there something wrong with my roof? [/QUOTE]

This one he is actually right about, in theory. The idea would be to create a sudden demand/market, that would drive the prices down as more manufacturers get online/manufacture in bulk and than the technology would be affordable for most people. Only works if the manufacturers don't keep their prices artificially inflated to roll the government over for max profits.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
1) Fair Tax. Tax consumption and not people's work. It will encourage saving money, thrifty spending, and increase investments. Slowly decrease the income tax to help pay off dept.

2) Cut govt. spending, programs, waste, and corruption. Privatize different programs (like border security outside designated crossings). Allow people to opt out of SS with a 1 time fee and then end it. Decrease unemployment checks and/or the length of time to accept checks (currently 90 weeks?).

3) Allow economic freedom. No interest floors, price floors, price ceilings or rental ceilings. Also remove minimum wage all together.

4) Remove all subsidies including those for new technology and unemployment. Govt. grants for R&D are ok.

5) Streamline and clarify government forms (including tax forms).

6) Reverse/Repeal the Obamacare immediately. Take the $ that has already been taxed for it and use it to pay down the debt.

7) Extradite all illegal immigrants and offer work visas to the people through employers. Fine any company found with illegal immigrants. Allow highly trained, individuals in demand overseas to go through the legal immigration process quicker (like doctors). Don't bring in unskilled individuals.

8) Allow students to leave public schools if they don't want to learn or have schools kick them out. (we shouldn't waste money/time/etc. on kids who don't want to improve themselves.) Also make classrooms bigger with fewer, but better teachers, paid with improved salaries. Remove teaching tenure and Title 9.

9) Reform government Medicare and Medicaid. Increase personnel devoted to checking against fraud. Billions of dollars are stolen from these programs. I don't know enough about the inner workings of these programs but something has to happen now and possibly a new program all together would be best.

10) Decrease the combat personnel in Afghanistan and middle east.

11) Reduce the retirement pay for government employees or extend the time required to collect it. (fire fighters, cops, military people, govt. workers currently can retire from their work after 20 years with half pay. )
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm getting tired of the term 'double dip recession'. Did anyone ever feel the first recession end? Who says it did?

I'm pretty convinced it's a manufactured term to help the masses believe some of the stimulus did something.
 
1) Flat tax on a sliding scale based on income. The more you make the more you pay. Make under a certain amount and pay nothing.

2) Cut wasteful defense spending (space based missle defense systems, etc).

3) Tax religious organizations


# 2 & 3 alone would generate enough revenue to fix everything.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']No, even if taxation was "low", the ultra wealthy would still try to skirt the law because they are insanely greedy. That's how most of them became ultra wealthy to begin with.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, it's those damn wealthy people who cheat the system and don't pay their taxes...

Didn't we just have this topic about people cheating the system by not paying the proper taxes on Internet purchases?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I'm getting tired of the term 'double dip recession'. Did anyone ever feel the first recession end? Who says it did?

I'm pretty convinced it's a manufactured term to help the masses believe some of the stimulus did something.[/QUOTE]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38654.html

[quote name='Puffa469']1) Flat tax on a sliding scale based on income. The more you make the more you pay. Make under a certain amount and pay nothing.

2) Cut wasteful defense spending (space based missle defense systems, etc).

3) Tax religious organizations


# 2 & 3 alone would generate enough revenue to fix everything.[/QUOTE]

1) the system we have now works that way already for the most part? Also a flat tax would tax higher income people more without a sliding scale. Of course I personally would have no problem with having people that make under a certain amount pay no taxes.... it sure beats the heck out of the current system of them actually making a profit from filing taxes.

2) Why just defense spending?

3) So are you going to tax other "non profit" businesses that use a large portion of the money they take in to pay their executives? What is the difference in the church/whatever that runs a soup kitchen and a non religious "non profit" that runs a soup kitchen? Both feed people.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']This one he is actually right about, in theory. The idea would be to create a sudden demand/market, that would drive the prices down as more manufacturers get online/manufacture in bulk and than the technology would be affordable for most people. Only works if the manufacturers don't keep their prices artificially inflated to roll the government over for max profits.[/QUOTE]

If I buy 2,000 square feet of solar panels, they work exactly the same as the 2,000 square feet of solar panels a business would be and get a write-off for.

It creates the same demand/market and etc.

I don't see why a business gets the special treatment for the same action an individual can take.
 
[quote name='nasum']1.) Flat % income tax, no loopholes. Make it 10-15%. That's what you owe to the national and state government for the purpose they serve. Same for corporate tax with write-offs for self investment. Tax penalties for salaries paid to workers outside of the US.[/quote]
1. I highly doubt that would be enough money to fund the government, even with large cuts.
2. Why are we taxing the person who makes $15,000 a year at the same rate as the person who makes 15 million a year? Because it's "fair"?
2.) Minimum 1% interest rate on all interest bearing accounts (we're talking savings accounts at the local bank more than anything else here), and risk based investments (stocks and the like) have no safety net.
Click to expand...
That's not going to work. Why?
1. Inflation is almost always above 1%
2. That would require writing a law that forced the Fed to keep a certain interest rate. I can not imagine that going well.
3.) No bailouts for anything. Operating any business involves risk.
Click to expand...
Absolutely.


6.) Across the board 20% cut in spending by the federal govt. This means either elective salary reduction or layoffs for employees, cuts in programs etc... until the national debt is at no more than 5% of GDP.
Click to expand...
If the national debt was 5% of GDP, our economy would collapse. All money in our current system is government debt, or based off government debt and if there was such a drastic reduction in the debt, there would also be a drastic reduction in the monetary base.

8.) Flat 2% sales tax on any and all imported goods.
Click to expand...
Or we could just bring back tariffs.

12.) Get the Fed. Govt out of your house by going back to a constitutional govt. State laws will be what you think about, the fed govt is only there to prevent attacks and to regulate interstate commerce.
Click to expand...
Yes.

15.) Get out of the Middle East entirely, they don't want us there and it's a waste of cash
Click to expand...
Yes.
 
Looks like someone needs to run for office instead of making long posts on the internet and I mean that in the best possible way.

You have some good ideas but they're not doing any good on a video game forum.

You went through a lot of effort and time to put all that in writing. Now act on it.
 
[quote name='Afflicted']http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38654.html



1) the system we have now works that way already for the most part? Also a flat tax would tax higher income people more without a sliding scale. Of course I personally would have no problem with having people that make under a certain amount pay no taxes.... it sure beats the heck out of the current system of them actually making a profit from filing taxes.

2) Why just defense spending?

3) So are you going to tax other "non profit" businesses that use a large portion of the money they take in to pay their executives? What is the difference in the church/whatever that runs a soup kitchen and a non religious "non profit" that runs a soup kitchen? Both feed people.[/QUOTE]


1 - A sliding scale so ultra rich people pay a much higher % of their earnings as tax. This would help curb excesses of extreme greed. If your paying 50% tax on earning over xx million dollars, maybe you wont screw everyone and their mother to make another few million. A flat % for everyone doesn't do much to stop greed and corruption.

2- Defense is the biggest portion of our budget. One less Aircraft Carrier battle group (we have seven) for the Navy invested at 4% can pay for higher education for the entire country. It's a big and easy target. Contrary to simplistic conservative beliefs, cutting military spending does not mean taking armor off of Humvees and taking bullets out of soldiers rifles.

3 - I'm not talking about soup kitchens, I'm talking about rich beyond belief FOR PROFIT televangelists and organizations like the Catholic church, who earn billions tax free every year.


And while I'm at it...

4) Legalize, regulate and tax marijuana production. The demand is there, the product is there, time to face facts, it's not going away so the government may as well profit from it.
 
[quote name='Puffa469']1 - A sliding scale so ultra rich people pay a much higher % of their earnings as tax. This would help curb excesses of extreme greed. If your paying 50% tax on earning over xx million dollars, maybe you wont screw everyone and their mother to make another few million. A flat % for everyone doesn't do much to stop greed and corruption.
[/QUOTE]

Greed and Corruption are not the same thing. Greed is relative and can't be policed. Greed doesn't inherently hurt anyone. Everyone is Greedy by someone else's standard. Who's place is it to decide what a person deserves?

If I want to work hard so I can sit on a pile of billions of dollars naked and masturbate, what's wrong with that? Who does it hurt? Why do I deserve to be punished more than someone who doesn't?

It's fine to tax various things I could do with that billions of dollars, but it's pretty lame to say I should be taxed higher than anyone else just for having it.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']If I buy 2,000 square feet of solar panels, they work exactly the same as the 2,000 square feet of solar panels a business would be and get a write-off for.

It creates the same demand/market and etc.

I don't see why a business gets the special treatment for the same action an individual can take.[/QUOTE]

You own (I would imagine) 1 house. Walmart alone owns 4000+ stores in America. Again, the idea would be for these businesses to buy enough of solar panels where bulk production for manufacturers becomes viable, driving the price down and making it affordable for normal people like us.

I'm not saying that it would work but it's nowhere near as crazy as some of the ideas in this thread. (Like get rid of the minimum wage? Hope you enjoy being WalMart's serf for the rest of your life)

[quote name='thrustbucket']If I want to work hard so I can sit on a pile of billions of dollars naked and masturbate, what's wrong with that? Who does it hurt? Why do I deserve to be punished more than someone who doesn't?[/QUOTE]

lol

It hurts the economy (notice how they are trying to get everybody [consumers & companies] back out there instead of hoarding cash so the whole shithouse doesn't go up in flames?) and taxes aren't a punishment, you dummy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='thrustbucket']Greed and Corruption are not the same thing. Greed is relative and can't be policed. Greed doesn't inherently hurt anyone. Everyone is Greedy by someone else's standard. Who's place is it to decide what a person deserves?

If I want to work hard so I can sit on a pile of billions of dollars naked and masturbate, what's wrong with that? Who does it hurt? Why do I deserve to be punished more than someone who doesn't?

It's fine to tax various things I could do with that billions of dollars, but it's pretty lame to say I should be taxed higher than anyone else just for having it.[/QUOTE]

This. Pretty good couple posts thrust. I get frustrated when people don;t know basic terms like "greed"
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']If I want to work hard so I can sit on a pile of billions of dollars naked and masturbate, what's wrong with that? Who does it hurt? Why do I deserve to be punished more than someone who doesn't.[/QUOTE]

I have no problem with you wanting to do all that. I want to do eerily similar things. But I dont view paying taxes as punishment. If you want to sit on 10 billion dollars make 20, and let people who don't, won't, or can't have good schools and housing and yada yada yada.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']It hurts the economy (notice how they are trying to get everybody [consumers & companies] back out there instead of hoarding cash so the whole shithouse doesn't go up in flames?) and taxes aren't a punishment, you dummy.[/QUOTE]

Umm... a large part in what hurt the economy - and what has continued to play a big role in making it so bad - is the absolute opposite of what you're saying here - no one had any savings. Everyone spent every dime they made, then spent more on credit cards, cars and houses with no plan of paying it back (short of winning the lotto).
 
[quote name='Sporadic']You own (I would imagine) 1 house. Walmart alone owns 4000+ stores in America. Again, the idea would be for these businesses to buy enough of solar panels where bulk production for manufacturers becomes viable, driving the price down and making it affordable for normal people like us. [/QUOTE]

I'm sure I'm not the only person willing to buy solar panels at a huge discount out of 300 million Americans.

If I lived in CA or CO, I would probably have a solar panel roof. Those are the states where the incentives are the best.

If one percent of the population went for solar panels, you would have your demand.

There is nothing special about the consumption habits of a business and they should receive no preferential treatment.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']
2. Why are we taxing the person who makes $15,000 a year at the same rate as the person who makes 15 million a year? Because it's "fair"?

[/QUOTE]

Still curious how someone making $15,000,000 a year getting taxed $1,500,000 million dollars is unfair to someone making $15,000 paying $1,500.
 
Not many people make $15 million a year without screwing someone over. At the very least you're making money off offshoring of jobs.
Also, you can't get blood out of a stone. If you're decreasing the amount of money the rich pay in taxes, you're increasing the amount of money the poor and middle class have to pay in taxes.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']Not many people make $15 million a year without screwing someone over. At the very least you're making money off offshoring of jobs.
Also, you can't get blood out of a stone. If you're decreasing the amount of money the rich pay in taxes, you're increasing the amount of money the poor and middle class have to pay in taxes.[/QUOTE]

If someone is breaking the law, then punish them for the law they are breaking.

I can't imagine any other situation where it would be considered normal to be in favor of the government assuming groups of people are breaking the law and therefore should be punished without due process.

And no, you don't have to increase the amount the poor/middle class pay in. You can decrease spending.
 
[quote name='IRHari']What was the upper income tax rate under that socialist named Ronald Reagan?[/QUOTE]

What was the upper income tax rate when the national debt was $0?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Umm... a large part in what hurt the economy - and what has continued to play a big role in making it so bad - is the absolute opposite of what you're saying here - no one had any savings. Everyone spent every dime they made, then spent more on credit cards, cars and houses with no plan of paying it back (short of winning the lotto).[/QUOTE]

Again, it's a balancing act. People shouldn't spend what they don't have...but they also shouldn't withdraw completely from spending. Both are extremely bad.

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I'm sure I'm not the only person willing to buy solar panels at a huge discount out of 300 million Americans.

If I lived in CA or CO, I would probably have a solar panel roof. Those are the states where the incentives are the best.

If one percent of the population went for solar panels, you would have your demand.

There is nothing special about the consumption habits of a business and they should receive no preferential treatment.[/QUOTE]

You aren't really getting it. The point is to take advantage of current business real estate to drive the prices on the solar panels down when manufacturers ramp up to mass production so it becomes affordable for normal people like me and you.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']What was the upper income tax rate when the national debt was $0?[/QUOTE]

When Andrew Jackson was president we had tariffs and bimetalism. Please don't try and tell me our economy in the 1830s was at all similar to today's.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']If someone is breaking the law, then punish them for the law they are breaking.[/quote]
There isn't a law that says you have to hire American workers.

I can't imagine any other situation where it would be considered normal to be in favor of the government assuming groups of people are breaking the law and therefore should be punished without due process.
Click to expand...
oh noes. Now Joe Multimillionare can't afford his private jet.
Saying that someone who is rich should pay a higher tax rate than a poorer person, when that rich person not only can afford more, and is also able to make that money because they are afforded the opportunities created by having a government, and they are at least 95% of the time at least supporting the offshoring of our jobs, or supporting not paying a living wage.

And no, you don't have to increase the amount the poor/middle class pay in. You can decrease spending.
Click to expand...
So, drastically cut taxes for the rich, while doing nothing for the poor or middle class, right?
 
Some people seriously believe that taxing the wealthiest people more will somehow discourage people from accumulating wealth. Now if it was somehow incredibly high rate (like say 90%), that might be true, but if you can be taxed at a high rate and still be an *aire, you can take the hit. If they want to pay less of it to the government, they can make some large charitable donations.
 
I still fail to see how the simple act of earning lots of money some how should make you owe the gov a higher percentage. Purposful unequal treatment is a form of punishment.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']There isn't a law that says you have to hire American workers.[/quote]

Do you think there should be?
Do you think there should be some kind of punishment for a company that doesn't?


Saying that someone who is rich should pay a higher tax rate than a poorer person, when that rich person not only can afford more, and is also able to make that money because they are afforded the opportunities created by having a government, and they are at least 95% of the time at least supporting the offshoring of our jobs, or supporting not paying a living wage.
Click to expand...

*IF* we had a proper, just government that wasn't full of corruption, backroom deals and such, then I would say that everyone has the same opportunities given to them, therefore it would make sense to tax them the same. Since we don't have that government, your answer is to tax, tax, tax. I'd rather fix that government.

Define "living wage", please.


So, drastically cut taxes for the rich, while doing nothing for the poor or middle class, right?
Click to expand...

How about, instead of phrasing it of "us" vs. "them", what say we phrase it this way: "Let's treat everyone equal, regardless of age, race, income, gender, etc., etc." Equality.

It'd be like if the Federal government decided to give homosexuals the same rights and protections given to heterosexuals upon marriage. What do the heterosexuals get from the government out of it? If someone argued "So, give a bunch of perks to the gays, while doing nothing for the straights, right?" you'd look at them like they were crazy.

[quote name='fullmetalfan720']When Andrew Jackson was president we had tariffs and bimetalism. Please don't try and tell me our economy in the 1830s was at all similar to today's.[/QUOTE]

Don't try and pretend that the economy in the 80's is the same as it is today either.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']But let's say you did close all of the loopholes (how? I don't know...by threatening the wealthy with the death penalty if caught trying to skirt the rules and forfeiture of their entire estate to the government to be liquidated?), why would you tax the top 10% who holds 71.5% of the wealth in this country the same (very low) percentage that the rest of us pay? Wouldn't it be better for the country if the ultra-wealthy was taxed the current normal 35+% (with all loopholes closed) instead of 10%?[/QUOTE]

Well yeah, you would think 35% with closed loopholes on the wealthy would garner more tax revenue than 10% with closed loopholes. Of course you never know http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703977004575393882112674598.html (see the part about the team of lawyers used to put off paying one's taxes).

I suppose it would be easiest to change what what the IRS does and does not consider a write-off, keeping in mind what the wealthy do to hide money and figure out ways to make that behavior less destructive to the economy. I personally think it's more of a problem when wealth is either A) tied up in assets that aren't doing anything B) leaving the country. For instance, if you wish to reward a company for investments, why not limit that reward to domestic growth as opposed to overseas?

[quote name='IRHari']I don't think he's talking about elected officials, I think he's talking about skilled professionals like engineers or scientists or something.

If you want to entice them to work for the government instead of the private sector you're going to want to pay them more. I'd think pensions & benefits and job security would be enough but whatev.[/QUOTE]

Engineers and scientists do work for the government. A corporate job may net you higher pay in the short term, but you're also more likely to lose your job in something like R&D if it doesn't show results (whereas at a University, you might just be able to screw around for years and years and years).

[quote name='Sporadic']I absolutely can compare this to the current military.

It's fair to say that 90+% of people who join the military today have their backs against the wall (unable to get college education on their own, starting a family, need job training/a skill to move up/direction) and after they get what they need, instead of making a career in the military, most bail out and move to the private sector where they get top pay for their talents. Why would you continue a career in the Army when you can go to Blackwater and make triple your current salary?

And where are those top students from those top schools you mentioned going? Most are following the money right into Wall Street and these massive corporations.[/QUOTE]

You've got to ask yourself if it's a priority of our society for people to make careers in the military. ;) Right now it's like a pyramid, with only a few people getting locked in to the rank, the promotions, the higher pay grades. Generally the people who get paid the most and have the cushiest positions are in their least productive years--so does it really make sense for the military to want to retain more of them? No, they rather keep a fresh flow of young, hungry bodies.

That said, I don't think there's any large percentage of young adults in the U.S. right now getting top pay for their "talents." As a society, we're trapping people in higher education for longer and longer spans of time before allowing them to work, essentially robbing their families of wealth or enslaving them with debt after they graduate. Right now we're living in a dipole, between competition that is made ever more vicious and made-man positions which are all gravy. You've got to ask yourself why we aren't living in a golden age right now with bachelor's degrees being the requirement for many entry-level high tech jobs...and how is it that in the past we had a stronger middle class with lesser educated people in stable manufacturing jobs, hmm?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Do you think there should be?
Do you think there should be some kind of punishment for a company that doesn't?[/QUOTE]

I think there should be! If you're a company that sticks your customer service in India, you should be taxed so hard that there would no advantage to having Indian workers over American ones. If a company lays off its workers here, closes a plant and moves the whole operation offshore, tariff their products in an amount equal to the American wages eliminated. Say if it was 600 workers laid off. By taxing the import, you can pay all of those workers to do something else! And if the company doesn't want to ship its products here, they lose the American market--the hell with them. We can always back a new, American-friendly company to satisfy the domestic market.
 
[quote name='Indigo_Streetlight']I think there should be! If you're a company that sticks your customer service in India, you should be taxed so hard that there would no advantage to having Indian workers over American ones. If a company lays off its workers here, closes a plant and moves the whole operation offshore, tariff their products in an amount equal to the American wages eliminated. Say if it was 600 workers laid off. By taxing the import, you can pay all of those workers to do something else! And if the company doesn't want to ship its products here, they lose the American market--the hell with them. We can always back a new, American-friendly company to satisfy the domestic market.[/QUOTE]

What's your suggestion when every country we export to decides to do the same?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']What's your suggestion when every country we export to decides to do the same?[/QUOTE]
Most of them already do, which is why we're losing big currently. You can compete to make whatever it is you do better. Secondarily, not every country specializes in making everything that they need/want. For example, You cant grow everything in every climate. Whatever raw materials come from there are going to differ, which is going to make for a differential advantage in manufacturing whatever can be made with them.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']

And no, you don't have to increase the amount the poor/middle class pay in. You can decrease spending.[/QUOTE]

Thats impossible, how would we ever get by without the government spending huge amounts of our wealth for us.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Thats impossible, how would we ever get by without the government spending huge amounts of our wealth for us.[/QUOTE]

Knoell, have you ever even taken one economics class?
 
[quote name='Sporadic']You aren't really getting it. The point is to take advantage of current business real estate to drive the prices on the solar panels down when manufacturers ramp up to mass production so it becomes affordable for normal people like me and you.[/QUOTE]

If there is more residential space than commercial space in the United States, it would as much if not more sense to offer a complete write-off to individuals.

If the gubmint would give me 1/3 the cost of solar panel and the other incentive, I'd take a loan out on Monday and I would whore myself out to the solar panel companies as a salesman to get other people in my town to do the same thing.

Of course, there isn't really a need to offer an incentive when demand already exceeds supply.

http://www.takepart.com/news/2010/06/07/solar-panel-shortage-finally-some-good-green-news

EDIT: That's why I suggested incentive for geothermal and wind, too.
 
Solar was just an example, I'm all for geothermal as well, not such a big fan of wind though. Also, I get what you're going after with the Res vs Com/Ind zoning and such. I think the benefit in going to big box retailers would be more of an installation cost as well. The roof space of the Target nearby is equal to what, 50-60 homes? That's one installation compared to 50-60 installations, one place to hook up all the wires etc... Basically, let the fuckups get ironed out before you have dudes on your house that might fall off the slanted roof.

I did mean elected officials when I was speaking of cutting government salary. The guy hired by the city or county that makes sure my water doesn't have feces in it? Yeah, he can have a raise. If you want to counter that with "isn't that increased spending?" well fine, but that's spending that needs to be done. That, in my view, should be the role of the government.

To the person that said I should run for office? I have to live in my city for five years before I can go for city council, three more years and you're welcome to bribe me, er, I mean donate to my campaign fund... The only problem is, I can't run as either party because they both suck. Thing of it is, I have no desire to go beyond my state.

FoC, I think it was you that mentioned O'Reily and such when you countered my campaign funding reform suggestion. I don't mean to belittle people, but if your news comes from that guy, then you're fucked in the head. There's a major difference between news and opinion/commentary, unfortunately with the advent of the golden microphone the line has blurred considerably. There's little to no journalistic integrity left in this country anyways.

I don't want to come off as one of those weirdoes that you hear on the radio that thinks we need to bring the country back 200 years in terms of laws and such. Things change and we need to evolve with the times. On the other hand, something I think we've really lost in the US is a sense of rugged individualism. The notion that one had to work to "get theirs" that came with a sense of pride. We've also lost the sense of community in some ways. For instance, a few weeks ago we had a storm come through the block that knocked over a couple of big trees. The owner of the house was out there first thing in the morning working his ass off to clean up the tree. Within 20 minutes there were about ten of us out there working on it with him. I have no idea why this really surprised me when we were out there. I just figured that sort of thing was gone.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Knoell, have you ever even taken one economics class?[/QUOTE]

Yep, quite a few actually. Not sure where it says a government needs to spend massive (and record) amounts of money though, guess I should look it up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top