What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

joecct said:
Hey Kep!!

What is Dr. Mrs.'s opinion of this?

http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/the-decline-of-feminism/
Click to expand...

I'll pass it to her. My reaction is ho hum -- conservatives have been writing articles like that since the 1940s. You have the right to vote, shut up about working. You can work anywhere now, shut up about reproductive rights. You can have abortions now, shut up about rape. There are always self-styled concern trolls who want to "explain" to people when they should be satisfied. I think those people can figure it out for themselves, thanks.
 
Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

FreshFish said:
Another serious non-sectarian non-partisan question for the redistribution crowd: how does your math actually work in practice?

it sounds great (to some) in concept to say, "tax the rich more and give it to the poor." How do you implement it?

For example, let's say that for annual income above $5 million, the marginal federal rate is 80%. Is that "fair"?

So you implement that plan, and you don't raise nearly enough money.

So, for annual income above $1 million, say, the marginal federal rate is 60%.

So you implement that plan too, and you don't raise nearly enough money.

So, for annual income above $650,000, say, the marginal federal rate is 50%.

So you implement that plan too, and you don't raise nearly enough money.

How far down do you keep going? How high do you keep raising rates?


I did some rough and ready math using census data and IRS data found online and it looks like you have to raise taxes on annual income above $120,000 to about 45% AND have steeply-graduated rates and brackets above that level too.


We are left with a situation in which you cannot find a practical way to tax enough money away from the "rich" to reach your goals. Now what?
Click to expand...

Declare them enemies of the state and confiscate their wealth. It worked for Henry VIII and V. I. Lenin
 
Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

Why so we need a new bomber fleet? What additional capabilities are they trying to develop?

Dumb question.
 
Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

dxmnkd316 said:
Why so we need a new bomber fleet? What additional capabilities are they trying to develop?

Dumb question.
Click to expand...

In defense (no pun intended), the current bomber is older than dirt. Soon the grandsons of the original pilots will be flying the B-52.

-------------------------------
More drugs! Bigger drugs! More expensive drugs!! Allergan in merger talks with Pfizer
 
Last edited:
Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

Right, so why not just build new B-52s? Design is complete, airmen are trained. Why spend $80 billion?
 
Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

dxmnkd316 said:
Right, so why not just build new B-52s? Design is complete, airmen are trained. Why spend $80 billion?
Click to expand...

The B-52 is an old design and is no longer a penetration bomber. The North Vietnamese were shooting them down in the 70's with the (then) latest SAMS.
 
Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

dxmnkd316 said:
Right, so why not just build new B-52s? Design is complete, airmen are trained. Why spend $80 billion?
Click to expand...

I guess the argument would be that it's obsolete tech, but they continually retrofit them (the last B-52 retrofit looks like it took place as recently as 2013), and that means they also do continual design evaluations, so they could build improved ones. And, for that matter, they're making the B-3 a better sell by promising to use existing tech, so that means when the first ones roll off assembly in 2025 they'll be born obsolete.
 
Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

I'll be eager to read what Foxtrot Alpha over on Jalopnik says about this. Love that section of the site. Easily the best on all of the Gawker Media Network and it ain't close.

But alas, soccer calls. I volunteered to play as goalie for a team playing at 9:30 tonight because their normally goalie is gone.
 
Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

dxmnkd316 said:
Right, so why not just build new B-52s? Design is complete, airmen are trained. Why spend $80 billion?
Click to expand...

Probably new airframe tech to be exploited, especially in the stealth department. Granted, Russia and China will probably figure it out eventually, but I assume you read the part where the new bomber is supposed to be able to evade Chinese and Russian surveillance. And I know we're talking about the government :p, but there is always new tech to make aircraft perform better, and/or more efficiently, which may not necessarily work with the current B-52 design.
 
Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

Still doesn't make sense. If we get into a legit war with Russia or China, we aren't going to have bombing runs. It will all be over before the public even has a chance to wipe its azz.

A trident sub has enough nukes alone to level every major city I the northern hemisphere.
 
Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

dxmnkd316 said:
Still doesn't make sense. If we get into a legit war with Russia or China, we aren't going to have bombing runs. It will all be over before the public even has a chance to wipe its azz.

A trident sub has enough nukes alone to level every major city I the northern hemisphere.
Click to expand...

From a stategery point of view, you need redundancies built into your plans. Assume that the Chinese and Russians can hunt and kill our submarines before they can launch their missiles.

Besides that, no nation is dumb enough to engage their nukes again. We launched our attack against Japan before we understood the nature of nuclear fallout, while the tech was still a bunch of prenatal cells dividing within the womb.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top