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.

Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

dxmnkd316 said:
I love that people whine and ***** for a flat tax and when you propose a truly flat tax they whine and ***** about the flat tax.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with a flat tax and would highly encourage it to replace the current income tax. Social Security is a different beast which is why it has a seperate revenue source using a flat tax with capped income limits.

Now, if you are talking about rolling SS into the overall budget and having a flat tax across the board (or better the fair tax) I'd be more than willing to listen.
 
Last edited:
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

unofan said:
Taxes are not theft. They're the cost of running a Western society.
Click to expand...

Taxes are theft in the United States. Grover said so.

I can't believe Flaggy and MinnFan are whining about regressive taxes that placate the rich. It truly shows they know zero about taxes.
 
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

Grover is losing his grip on the Republicans. Slowly, but it's happening.
 
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

Dumb question that I could probably Google if I thought it would be easier than asking here: It seems that they're not going to get a deal done at this point, so tax rates will automatically go up for the 2013 tax year starting on Jan 1. If they come to a deal that changes the tax rates in mid-January, are we going to have to document what income we had before and after that change? Or are they able to change the rates retroactively at that point? Seems like, in general, retroactive tax changes would be something you'd want to avoid - can you imagine if on Dec 31 Congress said, "Just kidding, THESE were the tax rates for this year - sorry we didn't let you know ahead of time so you could plan ahead." Chaos and hilarity would no doubt ensue...
 
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

LynahFan said:
Dumb question that I could probably Google if I thought it would be easier than asking here: It seems that they're not going to get a deal done at this point, so tax rates will automatically go up for the 2013 tax year starting on Jan 1. If they come to a deal that changes the tax rates in mid-January, are we going to have to document what income we had before and after that change? Or are they able to change the rates retroactively at that point? Seems like, in general, retroactive tax changes would be something you'd want to avoid - can you imagine if on Dec 31 Congress said, "Just kidding, THESE were the tax rates for this year - sorry we didn't let you know ahead of time so you could plan ahead." Chaos and hilarity would no doubt ensue...
Click to expand...

If I had to cut a deficit and because of the way government works I'd have to do it in the short term (I still don't understand why everyone talks about cuts across 10 years; it must be to make themselves look good, because the chances of five Congress sessions keeping that are about as good as me hooking up with Emma Watson), I'd probably do exactly what you described, and write it so it was only applicable for that one year. As for the mid-rate change, has this ever happened in the 100-year American history of income taxes?
 
LynahFan said:
Dumb question that I could probably Google if I thought it would be easier than asking here: It seems that they're not going to get a deal done at this point, so tax rates will automatically go up for the 2013 tax year starting on Jan 1. If they come to a deal that changes the tax rates in mid-January, are we going to have to document what income we had before and after that change? Or are they able to change the rates retroactively at that point? Seems like, in general, retroactive tax changes would be something you'd want to avoid - can you imagine if on Dec 31 Congress said, "Just kidding, THESE were the tax rates for this year - sorry we didn't let you know ahead of time so you could plan ahead." Chaos and hilarity would no doubt ensue...
Click to expand...

Congress can, and most likely will, apply the change retroactively to the 1st of the year if a deal is struck.
 
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

FlagDUDE08 said:
Sometimes I just hate being right... especially when it comes to alternative energy...
Click to expand...

You're not right, article title is completely misleading. All it is saying is that as the fraction of intermittent renewable electricity increases, the reserve power threshold may need to increase. You will still be using less fossil fuels. 33% renewable with 15% excess would require fossil fuel plants to be able to meet 82% of demand (with 15% of that demand as low energy reserve power), 20% renewable with a 7% excess would require 87% capacity from the fossil fuel plants, 0% renewable would require 103% capacity from fossil fuels (you still have to have a cushion so that demand does not exceed supply to prevent blackouts). 82% is less than 87% which is less than 103%. The increase in the fraction of renewable sources will decrease the fraction of the total energy produced by fossil fuels (even if it may only be a 0.5% decrease in fossil for every 1% increase in the renewable fraction.
 
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

The 2012 tax forms have been released. They look like a half-assed copy of last year's.
 
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

FlagDUDE08 said:
The 2012 tax forms have been released. They look like a half-assed copy of last year's.
Click to expand...
How do you mean? I guess I'm not ensconced in tax form usage enough to know fully-assed versions versus half-assed versions.
 
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

St. Clown said:
How do you mean? I guess I'm not ensconced in tax form usage enough to know fully-assed versions versus half-assed versions.
Click to expand...

They changed references to 2012 and gave the 2012 standard deduction numbers. However, all the lines are the same as 2011, despite the fact that they removed some lines. The instructions are fully-assed, though, because they're still from 2011.
 
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

So, fully-assed. Half-assed was too kind and not a clear reflection of reality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top