The Demise of the United States is Inevitable

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fred Sherman said:
Funny thing about that "world's bully" thing...

We also seem to be the first nation the world turns to for humanitarian relief too because of that same military. Lets recount...
Click to expand...

I was going to reply to the same post as well, but you did a much better job than I would have.

I took part in two of the Navy humanitarian missions you listed, and a few others that weren't. If I had to guess, I'd say at least 80% of my time deployed was spent providing aide to people of other nations affected by natural disasters, disease, poor living conditions, etc. Quite the bully I, and my fellow Sailors and Marines were, indeed.
 
Sorry, I thought your point was the poor overtaxed corporations. Please don't use that condescending "my friend" with me. More like a red herring when you state "52% of all Americans pay no tax whatsoever" and then claim that's not what you said. When a poor person buys a $8.00 pack of cigarettes they are paying almost $5.00 in Federal tax. When they buy gas they pay federal taxes, and a whole lot more than I do (as a percentage of their income). But that doesn't count? How about the taxes on their cell phone? While you may be upset at the poor who pay no income tax, I'm far more concerned with major corporations that get away with paying no income tax. And you want us to feel bad about the poor businessman faced with the "highest corporate tax rate in the developed world"?

G.E.’s Strategies Let It Avoid Taxes Altogether
 
schlacht.gif
 
Buffett: Raise Taxes on ‘Coddled’ Billionaires

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...s-to-raise-taxes-on-coddled-billionaires.html

Exactly what I was talking about. Raise taxes for the rich.

“My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress,” the chairman and chief executive officer of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRK/A) wrote in an opinion article published in the New York Times. “It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.”
Click to expand...
 
Jason said:
I was going to reply to the same post as well, but you did a much better job than I would have.

I took part in two of the Navy humanitarian missions you listed, and a few others that weren't. If I had to guess, I'd say at least 80% of my time deployed was spent providing aide to people of other nations affected by natural disasters, disease, poor living conditions, etc. Quite the bully I, and my fellow Sailors and Marines were, indeed.
Click to expand...
The problem is perceptions. The projection of democracy is what is the most obvious activity (and no doubt the most expensive). The 'good' acts, like you outline above don't get anywhere near as much recognition as they deserve.

But one thing is for sure, without Iraq your and my countries would be significantly better off. Afghanistan is a bit of a different kettle of fish unfortunately and US and UK forces would have ended up there in any case.

Anyway, I don't want this to turn into a Iraq / Middle East thread.

But the problem is more endemic than just wars, its spending more money than you have coming in.
 
Digital Doctor said:
Buffett: Raise Taxes on ‘Coddled’ Billionaires

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...s-to-raise-taxes-on-coddled-billionaires.html

Exactly what I was talking about. Raise taxes for the rich.
Click to expand...
There's just one problem, raising taxes on a small minority of taxpayers won't solve our budget problems... If you look at the numbers, and I'm using the President's figures here raising taxes on everyone earning over $200,000 a year, it would bring in $750 billion over ten years. That's, in round numbers, $75 billion a year -- that doesn't even begin to put a dent in the annual budget deficit much start to pay down our $14.2 trillion national debt.

No matter what you do on the revenue side you still have to cut spending -- significantly.

A more commonsense solution might be to follow Robert Samuelson's advice in the Washington Post: 10 ways to fix the budget.
 
jasetaro said:
There's just one problem, raising taxes on a small minority of taxpayers won't solve our budget problems... If you look at the numbers, and I'm using the President's figures here raising taxes on everyone earning over $200,000 a year, it would bring in $750 billion over ten years. That's, in round numbers, $75 billion a year -- that doesn't even begin to put a dent in the annual budget deficit much start to pay down our $14.2 trillion national debt.

No matter what you do on the revenue side you still have to cut spending -- significantly.

A more commonsense solution might be to follow Robert Samuelson's advice in the Washington Post: 10 ways to fix the budget.
Click to expand...
That is based on letting it go back up 3 percentage points. How about returning to the 90% marginal tax rate (for the rich) we had in the prosperous 50's? With all of the credits and deductions they still wouldn't pay much.
 
grant sarver said:
That is based on letting it go back up 3 percentage points. How about returning to the 90% marginal tax rate (for the rich) we had in the prosperous 50's? With all of the credits and deductions they still wouldn't pay much.
Click to expand...
First I'm not sure that's politically viable these days. Second, over the last 60 years revenues to federal government have averaged roughly 18% of GDP regardless of where tax rates have been. Frankly, I don't think a returning a 90% marginal rate on a very small minority of taxpayers would have a meaning impact on revenue.

What we need to do is stop worrying about marginal rates and starting looking at effective rates... If a guy like Warren Buffett has an effective tax rate of just 17.4% there's structural problem in the tax code, which needs to be fixed. I'm not sure simply raising marginal rates isn't going to do that.

Personally, I think we need fundamental tax and regulatory reform. The goal of the government should be creating an environment where 5% year over year GDP growth is the norm.

Anyway, back to taxes. I'm flat tax guy, I think we would be far better off scrapping the current tax and replacing with a no deductions, no loopholes 15% flat tax. Robert Samuelson's idea for a three tiered system looks interesting too. Personally, I think it's overly complex and frankly, I don't like progressive tax systems they're discriminatory and punish success.
 
jasetaro said:
There's just one problem, raising taxes on a small minority of taxpayers won't solve our budget problems...
Click to expand...
Well, talk to Warren Buffet about his crazy idea then.
I roughly calculated that the US has dropped 660 Billion in taxes since 2000.
The revenues have to come from somewhere.

My other reply to your idea is that if raising taxes for billionaires won't help alot, then raise the taxes higher than that !
 
jasetaro said:
Anyway, back to taxes. I'm flat tax guy, I think we would be far better off scrapping the current tax and replacing with a no deductions, no loopholes 15% flat tax. Robert Samuelson's idea for a three tiered system looks interesting too. Personally, I think it's overly complex and frankly, I like progressive tax systems they're discriminatory and punish success.
Click to expand...

Flat taxes sound good until you start getting into the details. "No deductions, no loopholes" sounds great. But what if I'm an "S" corp (personal corporation), I can't deduct materials I buy? Or the purchase of product to sell? Some have 50% gross margins, some 10%. I'm a programmer, I can't deduct my new computer? I'm a salesman, I can't deduct my car? Or my fuel? I own a semi-truck and I spend $100,000.00 per year on fuel. Once the gates are open, it never ends.

Seems to me the "value-added" tax might be worth looking at. Easy to asses, easy to collect, no deductions. Maybe some of our members with some experience with it could enlighten us.
 
Its amusing that the entire irony and purpose for why S&P released this on a weekend to avoid the typical fallout and bounce nonsense, was completely a waste of time and effort, as the market dropped a maximum of 20%, yet after one week for people to take the information in, the market is now 1% up from its opening last Monday that started this recent bounce.

Overall, the market is still 16% down since April, as bounces are not counted in the average rise or fall. I expect to see that shift to 15% in the next week or so, as it seems the US economy has signs of actual positive growth, not inflated growth, but actual positivity, which is nice to see finally.

The experts project this will take a decade to recover from, being the US alone. Interesting...
 
John said:
That stingy old fart
Click to expand...
Stingy eh ?
In 2006, Buffett pledged most of his fortune to the Gates Foundation and to four charitable trusts created by his family—the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation, the Howard G. Buffett Foundation, the Susan A. Buffett Foundation, and the NoVo Foundation (led by Peter A. Buffett). His gift to the Gates Foundation of 10 million shares of Berkshire Hathaway stock, to be paid in annual installments, was worth approximately $31 billion in June 2006.

source: http://www.gatesfoundation.org/leadership/Pages/warren-buffett.aspx
Click to expand...

I think Stingy might not exactly be the best description of Warren Buffett.
 
I love the onion.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/ne...ing-obama-making,21113/?utm_source=recentnews

In order to make the president's next four years the worst of his life, GOP legislators are reportedly working on a new "Destroy Every Fiber of Barack Obama's Being" initiative, a plan that includes benchmarks such as making Obama look 10 years older than he is just six months into his second term; ruining his marriage before the 2014 midterm elections; and, by the time he leaves office, making him break down in front of the entire nation and say the words "I give up. Just please stop."
Click to expand...
 
John said:
Yep, the Gates Foundation...a non-tax paying non-profit. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
First he's "stingy", then he's just conniving to give the bulk of his assets to a vile "non-tax paying non-profit". You'd be happier if he gave the stock to Exxon-Mobile? His assets are not taxed anyway, why so upset where he chooses to put them? Maybe "someone" should be able tell him how he can use his assets? Geez John, grow some grey matter!
 
Anthony Parsons said:
Its amusing that the entire irony and purpose for why S&P released this on a weekend to avoid the typical fallout and bounce nonsense, was completely a waste of time and effort, as the market dropped a maximum of 20%, yet after one week for people to take the information in, the market is now 1% up from its opening last Monday that started this recent bounce.

Overall, the market is still 16% down since April, as bounces are not counted in the average rise or fall. I expect to see that shift to 15% in the next week or so, as it seems the US economy has signs of actual positive growth, not inflated growth, but actual positivity, which is nice to see finally.

The experts project this will take a decade to recover from, being the US alone. Interesting...
Click to expand...
People spent the first part of the week converting stock to U.S. Treasuries and then went: "Wait.............U.S. Treasuries.......Oops.........LOL!
 
grant sarver said:
First he's "stingy", then he's just conniving to give the bulk of his assets to a vile "non-tax paying non-profit". You'd be happier if he gave the stock to Exxon-Mobile? His assets are not taxed anyway, why so upset where he chooses to put them? Maybe "someone" should be able tell him how he can use his assets? Geez John, grow some grey matter!
Click to expand...
The point is about him complaining the government doesn't tax "his kind" enough yet he makes all kinds of efforts to shield his wealth from being taxed. All the man has to do is cut a check for what he feels he owes now doesn't he and spare us the liberal talking points lecture.

Here's a grey matter exercise for you, why doesn't he get all his billionaire buddies together and pool the money they "owe" the government, invest it and pay the government the total plus returns each year with the stipulation 100% of it goes towards paying down the debt? That is if he "really" wants to do something to help and not just lecture. ;)
 
Ah, I think I understand. If he's not willing to pay more than he's obligated to, then he should not be able to express an opinion on tax policy until he does so. The new "pay-as-you-go freedom of speech"? After all, you seem more upset with him expressing his opinion than with the opinion itself.

To H*ll with the message - kill the messenger!

John said:
Here's a grey matter exercise for you, why doesn't he get all his billionaire buddies together and pool the money they "owe" the government, invest it and pay the government the total plus returns each year with the stipulation 100% of it goes towards paying down the debt?
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, that's a whole lot more practical than his suggestions. Almost starting to sound like you agree that the rich should shoulder a larger share of the burden. Progress!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom