OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
EDIT: Enter'd 'cuz forums can't break words like a baws.
Ah, well. They'd been knocking this idea around for three years now. And for three years, Amazon's been telling them, "If you do this, we'll take our ball and go home." Welcome home, Amazon!
I wonder if we pay sells taxes here when we buy on the net.
Well, in California, the buyers were responsible for keeping track of how much sales tax they owed to the state. Nobody ever does, though.
Nicely done California, nicely done.
Sales tax in general is a stupid thing, there are several states that don't even have sales tax which is interesting when you think about it.
Two things.
First: what a stupid thing to do. Jerry you really screwed the pooch on this one.
Second: What happened to the formatting on this page?
It's the Pig's fault. Hi "NOooo..." messed it all up.
Sales tax in general is a stupid thing, there are several states that don't even have sales tax which is interesting when you think about it.
New Hampshire has neither sales tax nor income tax. And yet, they're not facing a crippling $20B+ in debt.
Two things.
First: what a stupid thing to do. Jerry you really screwed the pooch on this one.
Second: What happened to the formatting on this page?
Funfact: The forums abbitratily cut off part of my "NOOO...".
I bet if you delete that post it'll correct the formatting issues.
But it's the talk of the town.
Sales tax in general is a stupid thing, there are several states that don't even have sales tax which is interesting when you think about it.
New Hampshire has neither sales tax nor income tax. And yet, they're not facing a crippling $20B+ in debt.
It is worth pointing out however that 48 states are indebt. there are 4 (IIRC) that do not have sales tax. So several of the ones without it are also broke.
I wonder if these states have realized yet the stupidity of their ways.
Sales tax in general is a stupid thing, there are several states that don't even have sales tax which is interesting when you think about it.
No California hasn't and they wont. They like fixing economies by driving away businesses. It's their standard plan. Well it helps cuz things get cheaper when made in 3rd world countries but the those thousands of ex-employes tend to complain about losing jobs.
Sales tax in general is a stupid thing, there are several states that don't even have sales tax which is interesting when you think about it.
New Hampshire has neither sales tax nor income tax. And yet, they're not facing a crippling $20B+ in debt.
California has both of those and is facing a minor $350B+ debt.
That's what I don't get about CA, their economy is so large and yet it's so utterly worthless LOL.
Well business created economy and government revenue and government expenditures are all different things.
Yes cali has a huge economy but it would be huger if there weren't so many taxes cuz that stuff has done nothing but drive out businesses. Brown family is known for this so I'm surprised he got voted in to fix the economy when his family has ruined the cali econ a few times in the past. Anyways the other part of it is that the government likes to spend way more than they get. Partially cuz they plan to get xyz to pay for abc not realizing that the bill for doing such causes xyz to disappear cuz xyz doesn't like or can't exist with bill failzor. And so once that fails they don't end the program or find a good way of funding stuff. In short government doesn't plan for the future and because of that over expends. In this case their estimations are for if amazon and overstock don't leave. In reality though they will. Their proposed revenue from the bill of $300 mil will be more like $300 thous.
Part of the big problem as well for all of this government expenditures in cali is the initiatives. The thing where we the citizens can propose laws. They're often dumb and call for government bonds to pay for some project or program that will take a crud load of money to implement. Like a bullet train from north cal to socal. I forget if that one past but the state doesn't have the money for it regardless. So the initiative thing, which can be a good way for the people to be heard and keep the government from overriding the peoples' wishes, is a great way for the people to put their own government in debt by creating expensive laws without consequences.
In short it's all sad.
You can't tax and regulate a state into prosperity.
I believe piggles killed it.
No WotC killed it when they upgraded their forums to something that wasn't at least as good as PHPBB3...
No California hasn't and they wont. They like fixing economies by driving away businesses. It's their standard plan. Well it helps cuz things get cheaper when made in 3rd world countries but the those thousands of ex-employes tend to complain about losing jobs.
I remember reading in the OC Register abiut the results of business studies showing that, in terms of business-friendliness, out of 50 states CA ranked 51st. Even DC is more freindly to business.
Sales tax in general is a stupid thing, there are several states that don't even have sales tax which is interesting when you think about it.
New Hampshire has neither sales tax nor income tax. And yet, they're not facing a crippling $20B+ in debt.
California has both of those and is facing a minor $350B+ debt.
Sorry. I was thinking of last year's budget shortfall.
Part of the big problem as well for all of this government expenditures in cali is the initiatives. The thing where we the citizens can propose laws. They're often dumb and call for government bonds to pay for some project or program that will take a crud load of money to implement. Like a bullet train from north cal to socal. I forget if that one past but the state doesn't have the money for it regardless. So the initiative thing, which can be a good way for the people to be heard and keep the government from overriding the peoples' wishes, is a great way for the people to put their own government in debt by creating expensive laws without consequences.
In short it's all sad.
It did. Honestly, I voted for it. Seemed like a good idea at the time. Still would, except that airfare from SNA to SFO is CHEAP. And it's faster.
Like I've said before...
You can't tax and regulate a state into prosperity.
True, but you can't have an effective government without taxes, and without regulations you would get the corporate equivalent to raping and pillaging. It's a two edged blade, err to far either way and you cut yourself.
An example would be say the post office. Government run business in a sense. There are privately owned businesses that do the same exact thing as the US postal service and make a huge profit from it. The US postal service however is a huge drain. My point is that if the post office were to be or had been structured as these other companies it would to be successful and could be a huge income source for a government rather than a huge financial drain.
the reality of things is that anything government touches dies because government is the worst run business. It's the only business that can fail and not have to file bankruptcy or fold because they can always barrow money from thin air (aka china).
But yeah as far as taxes go it's a double edged sword and truth be told people in government should probably be running the country like a business or just be run by business owners, because a real business wouldn't be allowed to still be running with a multitrillion dollar debt and all business owners know that. Politicians haven't seemed to have gotten the clue yet.
I'm sure a government can be effective without taxes, ...
Military?
Highway system?
Three-letter agencies?
Who's going to pay these people? Who pays for the equipment? Who pays for materials? Taxes. Taxes, in effect, are a fee for services rendered. If you don't like it, you're free to leave for Somaia. I hear tell it's a libertarian paradise, no government since 1991.
Fines and fees can at least pay for some of it. I'm not sure it would be enough to go tax free.
Last I checked the US governemnt usually has enough tax income to pay for their whole budget, however every year they somehow find a way to spend way too much. It's all about miss management not about not enough taxes. Government needs to restructure itself and run more like a business because killing everything with taxes isn't the way to do it.
RE: Escef
IMO if the government was able to run some of its business like agencies halfway decently it could make enough extra money to support other parts of government allowing taxes to be as minimal as possible (no taxes is a possible minimum).
Last I checked the US governemnt usually has enough tax income to pay for their whole budget, however every year they somehow find a way to spend way too much.
Than I would posit that they, in fact, are NOT generating enough income.
IMO if the government was able to run some of its business like agencies halfway decently it could make enough extra money to support other parts of government allowing taxes to be as minimal as possible (no taxes is a possible minimum).
Your opinion does not align with reality. Our military alone gobbles up around $692,000,000,000 a year. That is greater than the combined income of BP and Shell oil companies (the 3rd and 4th largest companies in the world, as ranked by revenue). What, pray tell, do you expect the government to do to generate that kind of income? And how do you expect it to be done without confiscating private sources of wealth (i.e., businesses and material assets)? And do you really think officials appointed by popular vote would be qualified to manage such an endevour?
Than I would posit that they, in fact, are NOT generating enough income.
They just need to Eat the Rich.
Than I would posit that they, in fact, are NOT generating enough income.
They just need to Eat the Rich.
Wow, strawman central, there.
How about this instead...
In what way exactly?
"Protesting modest cuts to the nanny-state." Loaded language aside, no one considers the recent UK budget cuts to be "modest". It has been observed that they are the steepest budget cuts in the UK since WWII.
He says people were protesting to, "... get back at all of the people hoarding the money." Yeah, because simply not wanting massive government layoffs and cuts to unemployment, welfare, disability, et al is most definitely not their motivation.
That lawmakers refused to vote on legislation in Wisconsin because they were, "... going to lose a vote critical to their liege-lords and masters, the members of the public employee's unions." Too say that any one given lobbyist group, campaign backer, or special interest is the master of an entire voting block in a state senate is intellectually dishonest.
"... the left only wins when they can find one isolated sob story, and sell that." Really? I'd say America's political left won a certain election in 2008 because of more than one isolated sob story.
"Look, the only thing more evil than a rich person in the eyes of leftist is a rich corporation." Yes, because America's left has done so much to bankrupt corporations. A mean, they sure as hell didn't authorize massive corporate bailouts, right? Right? Oh... Well, none of them are personally rich either, right? Oh... Well...
Well, surely over the course of a 9 minute video you could expect a little partisan ship and editorializing, right? Oh, wait, we're only about three minutes into it.
Is it any wonder why I consider crap like this garbage. He can't make his point quickly, nor do so without massive editorializing or failing to keep his facts straight.
Than I would posit that they, in fact, are NOT generating enough income.
They just need to Eat the Rich.
I'll make A Modest Proposal of my own.
Than I would posit that they, in fact, are NOT generating enough income.
They just need to Eat the Rich.
They already do. Over 95% of all US Government income that is gained through taxes is from the wealthiest 50% of the country. Middle class pays collectively less than 5% of their taxes to government and the poor make of the rest of which a huge portion of them are not making enough to be taxed.
Overall the rich are already taxed at huge amounts (I forget the percentage of their income but for the richest of the rich I believe it would be around 35-40% or whatnot) where with the poor it's almost nil of their yearly income. If anybody should be rioting in the streets about taxes it should be the rich that keep the country (economy) afloat with their businesses (goods and jobs).
Last I checked the US governemnt usually has enough tax income to pay for their whole budget, however every year they somehow find a way to spend way too much.
Than I would posit that they, in fact, are NOT generating enough income.
or their needlessly spending. I'm sure they could find places where money is going that serve no purpose or is not productive. And when they make year Y's budget based upon X's spending and fall short in year Y and so something similar with projecting to year Z based upon spending in year X and Y and still fall short it just means they keep spending more not that they aren't getting enough money. If they get the money they are sure they need and fall short by like double of what they projected then either all our government needs to be replaced because they're just dumb, or they need to stop spending on useless things.
The US gets over $2 trillion in taxes each year. from 2000-2008 they doubled their debt to $10 trill. In the last two years it has increased by over $3 trill (almost 4) and at the current rate of increase by about 2014 the debt will have doubled from 2008.
IMO if the government was able to run some of its business like agencies halfway decently it could make enough extra money to support other parts of government allowing taxes to be as minimal as possible (no taxes is a possible minimum).
Your opinion does not align with reality. Our military alone gobbles up around $692,000,000,000 a year. That is greater than the combined income of BP and Shell oil companies (the 3rd and 4th largest companies in the world, as ranked by revenue). What, pray tell, do you expect the government to do to generate that kind of income? And how do you expect it to be done without confiscating private sources of wealth (i.e., businesses and material assets)? And do you really think officials appointed by popular vote would be qualified to manage such an endevour?
Medicare/Medicaid gobbles more!
and I don't know a solution. To tell the truth I'm not comfortable with government taxing everything. I'm also not comfortable with them controlling any industry. IMO if they can't pay for something they should let the private sector take care of it since they actually tend to find a way to profit off of anything.
----------
I looked at the consumption of medicare/medicaid + social security and it's nearly $2 trillion. Almost all of America's tax revenue. It isn't counting any other source of income but also isn't counting any other expenditure. If those things were cut back or restructured i don't see there being much of a money problem any longer. And the consumption of the military is less than both of those above programs and yes the military consumes a lot! >.<
As for what the government could cut. The Pig Book comes out every year (i think), and the government has its own accountability office that each year makes recommendations about redundant or ineffective programs, which the governement decides to ignore.
or their needlessly spending.
The spending being needless or no, the simple fact remains that revenue collected does not cover expenditures.
and I don't know a solution.
Yeah, that was painfully obvious.
To tell the truth I'm not comfortable with government taxing everything. I'm also not comfortable with them controlling any industry.
Do you really think anyone likes taxes? The tax-loving politician is just the adult flavor of cartoon super-villainy. And I don't want the government controlling industries any more than you do. But I do want them to regulate them. Not that I trust the government to do a good job of it, but I sure as hell don't trust industries to police themselves. Something about letting the fox guard the henhouse.
IMO if they can't pay for something they should let the private sector take care of it since they actually tend to find a way to profit off of anything.
I thought you said you didn't have solutions? What's funny is that the lion's share is owed to domestic entities. Handing the issue off to industry is basically the government turning to private companies and asking them to bilk the public. Would you really trust that?
To tell the truth I'm not comfortable with government taxing everything. I'm also not comfortable with them controlling any industry.
Do you really think anyone likes taxes? The tax-loving politician is just the adult flavor of cartoon super-villainy.
Isn't that the implement of "spread[ing] the wealth around", as Obama put it to Joe the Plumber? So... yeah, I'm pretty sure that politicians LOVE taxes, since it's a way of getting other people to pay for bridges with your name on them.
IMO if they can't pay for something they should let the private sector take care of it since they actually tend to find a way to profit off of anything.
I thought you said you didn't have solutions? What's funny is that the lion's share is owed to domestic entities. Handing the issue off to industry is basically the government turning to private companies and asking them to bilk the public. Would you really trust that?
Nope. It's why I won't buy a GM or Chrysler.
Do you really think anyone likes taxes? The tax-loving politician is just the adult flavor of cartoon super-villainy.
Isn't that the implement of "spread[ing] the wealth around", as Obama put it to Joe the Plumber? So... yeah, I'm pretty sure that politicians LOVE taxes, since it's a way of getting other people to pay for bridges with your name on them.
Politicians love taking credit for cutting taxes. It lets them brag about it at re-election time. Especially senators and representatives. They love getting re-elected. Because it means more money in their pockets from lobbyists. Truth of the matter is, most of these guys have interns and assistants read legislation and brief them on it. They don't have time to read these bills that are thousands of pages long, they're too busy raising funds for their re-election and doing public relations (a certain amount of hanging out with constituants is needed for their jobs, of course).
Are you saying the US has a spending problem or a revenue problem?
So escef...
Are you saying the US has a spending problem or a revenue problem?
Yes.
It was a bit of a joke frank. I realize that the government over spends, and can't just eat the rich. (although your figures for income tax are incorrect, well at least part of them).
As for what the government could cut. The Pig Book comes out every year (i think), and the government has its own accountability office that each year makes recommendations about redundant or ineffective programs, which the governement decides to ignore.
I'm not going to say that I wrote the Pig Book, but if I said I would it would make a level of sense. Am I rite?
So escef...
Are you saying the US has a spending problem or a revenue problem?
Yes.
Which one is it?
Which one is it?
The implication seems to be that he thinks both?
So escef...
Are you saying the US has a spending problem or a revenue problem?
Yes.
Which one is it?
Why must it be one or the other? It seems to me that Escef was saying we have both problems.
No, my friends (and I use the word loosely), the US has a SPENDING problem, with an entitlement problem to boot!
Raising taxes does not increase economic activity.
So raising taxes is the answer?
No, because that would not help the spending problem, but allow it to grow worse and can even lower revenue.
So raising taxes is the answer?
No, my friends (and I use the word loosely), the US has a SPENDING problem, with an entitlement problem to boot!
Raising taxes does not increase economic activity.
Lowering does not necessarily increase it either. I agree that the US has a spending problem. I also think we have been instituting too many tax cuts during the past decade. You can't cut your income and increase your spending and expect not to be in debt. We have large corporations that pay no federal income taxes at all, does that strike you as ok? Even if we cut down a lot of the wasteful government spending (and there is a LOT, our system seems to encourage it), funding wars (especially with a volunteer army that we have to actually protect because we can't just draft more cannon fodder) is expensive.
...Truth of the matter is, most of these guys have interns and assistants read legislation and brief them on it. They don't have time to read these bills that are thousands of pages long...
A) "We have to pass this bill so that we can find out what's in it..." is a bass-ackwards way of thinking, but it WAS said. By former SotH Pelosi. While she was SotH.
B) Don't write bills that are thousands of pages long.
IMO if they can't pay for something they should let the private sector take care of it since they actually tend to find a way to profit off of anything.
I thought you said you didn't have solutions? What's funny is that the lion's share is owed to domestic entities. Handing the issue off to industry is basically the government turning to private companies and asking them to bilk the public. Would you really trust that?
I don't have solutions but I do think that there are things they can do that are obviously better than things that they have been doing. Things that have failed for many decades.
Repeatedly trying the same thing expecting results is insanity. It's time they try something different for a change. Will what I said work? Who knows, but it is something different than our proven tried and true failures.
...Truth of the matter is, most of these guys have interns and assistants read legislation and brief them on it. They don't have time to read these bills that are thousands of pages long...
A) "We have to pass this bill so that we can find out what's in it..." is a bass-ackwards way of thinking, but it WAS said. By former SotH Pelosi. While she was SotH.
B) Don't write bills that are thousands of pages long.
Like this guy pledges?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=WN5AZsfpH40
...Truth of the matter is, most of these guys have interns and assistants read legislation and brief them on it. They don't have time to read these bills that are thousands of pages long...
A) "We have to pass this bill so that we can find out what's in it..." is a bass-ackwards way of thinking, but it WAS said. By former SotH Pelosi. While she was SotH.
B) Don't write bills that are thousands of pages long.
Like this guy pledges?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=WN5AZsfpH40
That guy is pretty funny. Does he actually think our wind-bag politicians can actually limit themselves to three pages?
We have large corporations that pay no federal taxes at all
Name one corporation that doesn't pay a single federal tax. They may not all pay a federal INCOME tax, but there are still payroll taxes, customs duties, and about a dozen others.
We have large corporations that pay no federal taxes at all
Name one corporation that doesn't pay a single federal tax. They may not all pay a federal INCOME tax, but there are still payroll taxes, customs duties, and about a dozen others.
You are correct, that's what I meant to say. Edited.
So escef...
Are you saying the US has a spending problem or a revenue problem?
Yes.
Which one is it?
Why must it be one or the other? It seems to me that Escef was saying we have both problems.
Exactly.
Can taxes alone fix the deficit? Maybe, if the tax burden doesn't upset the economy. Right now, taxes are the lowest they have been since the 1950's. Unfortunately, the economy is in one of the shakiest states it has been in for a long time. I don't think the economy can handle that kind of taxation right now.
Spending cuts, or at least realistic spending cuts, CANNOT close the gap by themselves. Anyone who tells you it can be done without more taxes is either naive or a liar.
Ideally, politicians would put rhetoric and slavish adherence to questionable ideologies aside and work together to create a solution. ... Yeah, I don't expect that to happen either.
@draco1119: I think we should load Palin and Pelosi into that damnable bus and push it into the ocean. If we're feeling froggy we can throw Hillary in there with them.
As for Herman Cain, from what I've heard about his approach to business, I like him. (Though I wonder if he might have an unhealthy micro-managing streak.) But, I detest a lot of his stances on social issues. He may just be the best of the Republicans who have announced a candidacy. Too bad that means he probably doesn't have a shot in hell of actually winning the nomination.
@draco1119: I think we should load Palin and Pelosi into that damnable bus and push it into the ocean. If we're feeling froggy we can throw Hillary in there with them.
As for Herman Cain, from what I've heard about his approach to business, I like him. (Though I wonder if he might have an unhealthy micro-managing streak.) But, I detest a lot of his stances on social issues. He may just be the best of the Republicans who have announced a candidacy. Too bad that means he probably doesn't have a shot in hell of actually winning the nomination.
Oh, the SoS DEFINITELY goes in there!
I'll have to read up on the guy.