How are we going to pay for all this shit?

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

Before I would transition to what the Philipines does, I would fix the tax code.

Before? We're already there. The difference is that bureaucrats working for the tax authorities in the Philippines can unfairly bankrupt businesses all by themselves. In the USA, it's more often done by lawyers. That's my very limited experience anyway.

Originally Posted by adav8s28

The one percent simply do NOT pay enough in Tax. In the tax tables their tax rate percentage is between 35 - 39%. What they are actually paying (Effective tax rate is no where near this), due to loopholes.

See LustyLad's post. IRS statistics show the top 1% paying at a weighted effective average rate of 27%, while the bottom 99% pay at an average 15%. That of course doesn't include property taxes, sales taxes, death taxes, payroll contributions and state income taxes levied on both the top 1% and the bottom 99%.

https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-t...d-gross-income

The USA has the most progressive tax system in the developed world. "The rich don't pay their fair share" is an untrue political talking point.

Originally Posted by adav8s28

For example the effective tax rate for Mitt Romney is 15% in any given year( he said this in public). I would lower to the tax rate percentage to between 30 - 34% and eliminate all or most loopholes.

The 15% is now 23.8% as a result of tax increases under Obama. And why have fund managers historically been able to get away with paying 23.8% (formerly 15%) on their performance fees? Because of Chuck Schumer, that's why. Schumer's a crafty devil. He's done this while blaming other people, most recently Kyrsten Sinema, for Congress' failure to end this loophole. Texas Contrarian has written about his here.

Originally Posted by adav8s28

I would change the Corporate tax rate to go back to 25%. It was too high before the Trump tax cuts. However, it's too low now.

When you add in state income taxes, the current 21% federal rate puts us pretty close to the middle of the pack in the developed world. We're competitive. We're only quibbling about 4% though. We're definitely a lot better off than when the average federal + state rate was around 40%, the highest in the world.

Originally Posted by adav8s28

Most of the money saved went to stock buybacks instead of investment expand the business.

Another untrue political talking point. (Adav8s28, I'm not accusing you of spreading political talking points. Rather, I'm accusing you of watching too much MSNBC.)

The money went to increase investment, increase jobs, and pay higher dividends to shareholders who often reinvest said dividends (as well as funds received through buybacks) in ways that contribute more to economic growth than leaving the money in the companies.

This NBER paper may be instructive,https://conference.nber.org/conf_papers/f191672.pdf

From the paper, in the long run, going out past 4 years, even the United States Treasury benefits from the corporate tax cut, by collecting more revenues than it would otherwise.

Originally Posted by adav8s28

You knock social security and Obamacare. Social security would pay for itself if they would change the formula. You don't have as many people in the working now a days ( birth rate has decreased). People are still having sex, they just aren't having as many kids. The formulas for Social Security has not changed since the program was implemented.

As for Obamacare only 10 million people are on it. Over 285 million people get group health insurance thru their employer. BTW( A group health insurance policy from the employer is the cheapest health insurance one can get).

Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme. It would be so much better for people to have their own investment/savings accounts.

As to Obamacare, what I'm proposing, universal healthcare, is way more radical than what anyone except Bernie Sanders Progressives have proposed. The difference is that under the Tiny Healthcare Plan, physicians and hospitals and clinics would have to compete for health care dollars from the public, something they mostly don't do now. Obamacare is part of an outrageously expensive system. We spend something like 17% of GDP on healthcare, far more than the rest of the developed world. Singapore, whose system we'd copy, spends around 5% and has better outcomes. People live longer and they're healthier.

Originally Posted by adav8s28

We spend way to much on Military Spending. There is just no need to have troops stationed all over the world any more.

It's interesting that we both dislike Trump but agree with him on that.

Originally Posted by adav8s28

I say look at these things before adopting that what they do in the Philipines.

Like I said, I just really don't understand the analogy. Please explain.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Interesting: "We have failed."

Excellent exchange between McCain and Durbin. As you'd expect, I come down more on the side of McCain, but Durbin threw some good punches.

Paraphrasing the Hanson Brothers in Slap Shot, that's good old time politics! Our country in better days.

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Excellent exchange between McCain and Durbin. As you'd expect, I come down more on the side of McCain, but Durbin threw some good punches.

Paraphrasing the Hanson Brothers in Slap Shot, that's good old time politics! Our country in better days.

The civil way to bicker. I'm such a word need that I would watch congressional debates for the exchanges, as you put it.

I was, maybe, 14 years old. Fuckin' weirdo huh? Anyways, this thread is about government taxing and spending. Money.

Carry on. But first:

(I would watch this shit too; for fun.)

I couldn't find a roundtable debate on money and ethics.

[eyecu2]

We do need to move our taxation system towards one that captures some more consumption for our friends who don't like to pay any or a fair share due to the complex tax code. It seems as though the loopholes are more like sieve when it comes to doing taxes for the average joe these days.

Hell, I get a few bonuses a year, and it's so fuckin sad to see the actual net check that comes compared to the gross.

We need to start a thread on 401k's and Roths for those interested

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

The civil way to bicker. I'm such a word need that I would watch congressional debates for the exchanges, as you put it.

I was, maybe, 14 years old. Fuckin' weirdo huh? Anyways, this thread is about government taxing and spending. Money.

Carry on. But first:

(I would watch this shit too; for fun.)

I couldn't find a roundtable debate on money and ethics.

You should start a "political history through the camera" thread, like oeb's political cartoons thread. I didn't catch what country Wallace and Jennings were talking about. Maybe an imaginary place for the purpose of debate?

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by eyecu2

We do need to move our taxation system towards one that captures some more consumption for our friends who don't like to pay any or a fair share due to the complex tax code. It seems as though the loopholes are more like sieve when it comes to doing taxes for the average joe these days.

Hell, I get a few bonuses a year, and it's so fuckin sad to see the actual net check that comes compared to the gross.

We need to start a thread on 401k's and Roths for those interested

Yes, the tax system is far too complicated, and some kind of consumption tax in place of the income tax would be a lot easier to administer. And a lot easier for us to comply with. I spend about a month a year or more working on taxes. There are a lot of economic inefficiencies out there that come from people gaming our complex tax code.

Texas Contrarian, who knows more about this than the rest of us, has posted concerns about replacing the income tax with a consumption tax. One is that it probably wouldn't raise enough revenue to fund our spendthrift politicians' past boondoggles. The other I believe is fairness. You would go from the most progressive tax system in the developed world, being what we have now, to maybe the most regressive tax system.

A big plus, you would encourage savings over consumption, when you tax consumption instead of investment income. I believe our savings rate is very low by world standards.

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by Tiny

You should start a "political history through the camera" thread, like oeb's political cartoons thread. I didn't catch what country Wallace and Jennings were talking about. Maybe an imaginary place for the purpose of debate?

Yes. The country was imaginary for the purposes of debate. Alluding to media coverage of Viet Nam.

I'll consider your suggestion. That's a very good idea. Political history and current affairs through the lens. To make my own twist on the topic. Asking for only video and pictures. "A thousand words" and all.

Anyway, back to money. I remember one of these episodes where big Wall Street bankers and small town politicians were at the table with other movers and shakers in finance.

(Cough cough lusty)

Not sure if transportation personnel were a part of it. It was all interesting to be sure. Money, though, was not.


I found a good one.

Maybe a lite off topic. Not much about taxes.

[biomed1]

To Return to the Original Topic . . .

[eccieuser9500]

Like MAGAtards pay Dumpster's legal fees, I think the rich should pay mine and their share of taxes.

So "me" isn't going to pay for any shit.
Good?

[eccieuser9500]

[eyecu2]

I honestly think the biggest part of spend is on military projects that are perpetually in the design /R and D space. There is almost an unlimited pipeline of money going to the big firms like Ratheon, Lockhead, Northrop Grumman and AIC. I am certain a cut to spend would have a big negative effect on those entities, but they have been suckling off the Government TIT for so long, that its a bit ridiculous. Think about this.

They get paid to do scope of ideas
They get paid to do a mock up or prototype
They get paid to do analysis and updates to the prototype
They get awarded a contract
They get paid for the contracted planes or weapons upon delivery
they get paid for all the upkeep for that same device
They get paid for software and other updates on all the new fly by wire shit out there.

It's almost as if we decided to Tech ourselves into a never ending spend-a-thon on these next gen fighters etc. Hell the A-10 is a dinasaur for all intent, but is still a bad ass mofo. I know we need these new jets like the f22, f-35s, but at the price tag that tops 100 million a copy and a total cost of over 400 BILLION by 2023. Actually the total lifetime cost of that program is estimated at 1.7 trillion dollars- how bad do we really need that?

That's a shit ton of cash to devote to a plane that may or may not ever see a war mission. With all the drone tech out there nowadays, these seem like huge spend and could and should be pulled back. Add on top of that we have way older B-52s, from 1955 and are still planned to be in force till 2060. a plane that will be literally a 100 yrs old in design, but still a good investment- and well likely will spend 48 billion on the entire 76 bomber fleet. They were a bargain at purchase, and apparently still cheaper than designing a new LR- bomber.

In the words of Elton John- They're gonna kill the fatted calf tonight so stick around. Time for those fat Calfs of the military to be culled, and limited.- all the NEW tech is just so pricey= I don't think "the ends justify the means, or the juice isn't worth the sqeeeze" if you prefer. (and this is coming from a guy who loves air shows).

And of course that doesn't even touch the "skunk" projects that are not disclosed, but have a huge budget> I think at one time or another the GAO, governetn accountability office, said the pentagon, couldn't account for 220 billion in gear given to "contractors". That's incredible!

The government needs to find some forensic accountants to come in and see where that all went! Cue Ben Affleck and the accountant to get to the bottom of the this. Talk about ripe for corruption. If the coffers are that loose in any public company, they would be bankrupt indeed.


I'd likely not touch SSI, or medicare at this point. I do think there likely needs to be a transition period of when one is eligible to retire and move that to a minimum of 65. Today it's 63, but maybe we need to push that even further out. Sadly- there are a lot of american's who will not have anything other than SS to live off of. Some of which will have not contributed much to the actual quarters that move them out of the minimum payout,- and are burdensome to the actual system. The good news on that, if there is any, is they are usually the same ppl who are in poor health and won't be on the dole for very long. Our indigent members of society are growing - and are topic for another posting.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Huh? You think 45.8% of all income taxes isn't enough? Back in 1980, they paid less than 20%.

They now pay more than the bottom 95% do. And you want to squeeze them for more?

Ask any of our esteemed far-left class-warfare demagogues (Bernie, Fauxcahontas, AOC, etc.) to define exactly what they mean by "fair share". They won't do it.

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Like MAGAtards pay Dumpster's legal fees, I think the rich should pay mine and their share of taxes.

So "me" isn't going to pay for any shit.
Good?

I've got a great idea! How about if you get one vote for every dollar in tax you pay? It would be like corporations. If you own 10,000 shares, than you get 1000X more votes than the guy who has 10 shares. That's only fair. The people who are paying more for government should get more say in how the money is spent.

Pikers like Warren Buffet wouldn't get many votes. Since his secretary pays more tax than he does, she'd get more votes than Warren!

And Elon Musk would get a SHITLOAD more votes than Warren. Musk sold $40 billion in Tesla stock just in 2022. So at a 23.8% tax rate, that would be 9.52 billion tax. And 9.52 billion votes!!!

I believe Elon and other taxpayers should be able to do 5 year vote averaging, like 5 year income averaging. So if he took that option, he'd get 1.9 billion votes in each of 2023, 2024, 2025, 2026 and 2027.

And he should be able to sell his votes if he wants to. If a Libertarian like me believes you should be able to sell your kidney or part of your liver, then I figure you should damn well be able to sell your votes too. Maybe Elon could make a dent in the ton of money he's losing from his Twitter acquisition by selling his votes.

Anyway, with the new Tiny Voting Participation System, we'd finally be able to pay for all the shit! The people actually paying the bills wouldn't put up with all the wasteful spending.

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by Tiny

I've got a great idea! How about if you get one vote for every dollar in tax you pay? It would be like corporations. If you own 10,000 shares, than you get 1000X more votes than the guy who has 10 shares. That's only fair. The people who are paying more for government should get more say in how the money is spent.

Pikers like Warren Buffet wouldn't get many votes. Since his secretary pays more tax than he does, she'd get more votes than Warren!

And Elon Musk would get a SHITLOAD more votes than Warren. Musk sold $40 billion in Tesla stock just in 2022. So at a 23.8% tax rate, that would be 9.52 billion tax. And 9.52 billion votes!!!

I believe Elon and other taxpayers should be able to do 5 year vote averaging, like 5 year income averaging. So if he took that option, he'd get 1.9 billion votes in each of 2023, 2024, 2025, 2026 and 2027.

And he should be able to sell his votes if he wants to. If a Libertarian like me believes you should be able to sell your kidney or part of your liver, then I figure you should damn well be able to sell your votes too. Maybe Elon could make a dent in the ton of money he's losing from his Twitter acquisition by selling his votes.

Anyway, with the new Tiny Voting Participation System, we'd finally be able to pay for all the shit! The people actually paying the bills wouldn't put up with all the wasteful spending.

Modesty aside, I have so many takes on this; funny, interesting, outrageous, and even scary.

A market for buying and selling votes?

If you only knew. I have 40,000 votes in my pocket.

I will have to re-read this again and again later.

I like your style Chiquito.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Modesty aside, I have so many takes on this; funny, interesting, outrageous, and even scary.

A market for buying and selling votes?

If you only knew. I have 40,000 votes in my pocket.

I will have to re-read this again and again later.

I like your style Chiquito.

I'm going to do it Eccieuser! Everybody said I'd never be able to start my own religion. And now there's the Church of Tiny! Well, I'm going to go to Elon Musk and get him to buy an island from some Caribbean country. And we're going to found the Republic of Tiny! One dollar, one vote! And the only shit taxpayers will be buying will be Golden Shit!

We're going to have a retirement system like Australia's! Healthcare like Singapore's! We'll model our military on Botswana. The budget will be balanced. Other than founding citizens like ourselves, immigration will be limited to large-breasted Cubans and Venezuelans. Females only. It will be a democracy of course. My campaign slogan will be "Vote for Tiny - A balanced budget and a Cubana in every pot." Kind of like "a chicken in every pot" only updated for the 21st century.

Hot damn!

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Anyway, with the new Tiny Voting Participation System, we'd finally be able to pay for all the shit! The people actually paying the bills wouldn't put up with all the wasteful spending.

Hey, I'm all-in on the Tiny plan. Sign me up!

For now, though, why worry? Some people say we have 10 years, maybe even 20, before some catastrophe occurs. And maybe we are. Maybe we can roll on like we have been for longer than most think.

But what if we're the metaphorical equivalent of the 45-year-old guy who started letting himself go 15 or more years ago? He now has the "dad bod" thing going on, having put on 20+ pounds since his skool daze. Blood pressure, triglyceride, and LDL cholesterol levels are a bit too high, and he gets out of breath climbing two flights of stairs or walking briskly for 500 feet through an airport terminal to catch a connecting flight. Not good trends.

Of course, he could go to the Cooper Clinic in Dallas where competent doctors might advise him to cut way back on sugar and processed high-carb foods, saturated fats, and excessive alcohol, and to get in 2 hours (minimum) of zone 2 cardio per week.

But to hell with that! Why not just let the family doc prescribe blood pressure and cholesterol meds and rock on enjoying the typical American diet and uber-couch potato-style inactivity? I mean, he probably has 20 or so more years, and can put on at least 25 more pounds, before the probability of falling over from a stroke or heart attack becomes frighteningly high, right?

I'm afraid we're a nation that's been on a perilous path for years, adrift with no serious leadership.

I'm a lot more boring than Tiny, but may return later or tomorrow to scattershoot a few thoughts about what action I believe needs to be undertaken, and why I think there's virtually no chance that today's political "leaders" are going to do a damned thing about the unsustainable fiscal path we're on until forced by an eventual, very ugly reality.