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: Dead!!!!

Re: Dead!!!!

ScoobyDoo said:
And here's the new middle class retirement plan. Work until your dead or too sick.
Click to expand...

why would you be surprised at this outcome? it's the inevitable result of a government that confiscates too much money from people across the board and then squanders it on wasteful boondoggles. You and I certainly can agree that crony capitalism of all kinds is a cancer.

The federal government has 47 different jobs programs, while the number of people unemployed has hit a record high and more people than ever before in our history are receiving some kind of government benefit or other. There's no money left for anyone to save or invest, no matter how frugal they are.
 
FreshFish said:
why would you be surprised at this outcome? it's the inevitable result of a government that confiscates too much money from people across the board and then squanders it on wasteful boondoggles. You and I certainly can agree that crony capitalism of all kinds is a cancer.

The federal government has 47 different jobs programs, while the number of people unemployed has hit a record high and more people than ever before in our history are receiving some kind of government benefit or other. There's no money left for anyone to save or invest, no matter how frugal they are.
Click to expand...
You're kidding, right? High taxes isn't whats holding back the middle class.
Not even close.
 
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

ScoobyDoo said:
You're kidding, right? High taxes isn't whats holding back the middle class.
Not even close.
Click to expand...


Don't stop him. He's on a roll. Want to tell if you're dealing with a conservative living in la-la land? Ask them what the tax rate ought to be. When they say "zero" that's when you're dealing with a libertarian or a lunatic (two interchangeable terms ;))
 
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

ScoobyDoo said:
High taxes isn't whats holding back the middle class.
Click to expand...

Do you have any data at all to support this assertion? or is it more unsubstantiated opinion that springs full-blown from your imagination with no basis in the real world?

Payroll taxes
Unemployment insurance taxes
State Income taxes
Federal income taxes
Property taxes
Sales taxes
Utility taxes
User fees
Shifting of "corporate" income tax to consumers through higher prices
Tolls on the highway
Motel / Hotel room taxes

Go through all your bills, be it for your cell phone or each one of your utilities. You'll find taxes embedded in every one, probably adding 10% to the total.

Add them all up. The "middle" class is easily paying well over 50% of their income in taxes.

That's data. If more than half your income is taken away and there is little resulting gain to show for it, then we get a stagnant economy with high unemployment. What is the "tax" we all are paying for Quantitative Easing in the absence of yield on our savings accounts?

The politically well-connected are sitting pretty, riding on the backs of the rest of us. And you defend them? Why? How have any of them ever helped you in any way? They talk pretty and deliver nothing but misery. It doesn't matter what political affiliation they profess, across the board they take care of themselves and leave the rest of us dangling.
 
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

You do realize several of these taxes are redundant, right? As in you get to write off state income taxes or sales taxes, property taxes, and some excise taxes off of your federal income tax.
 
Rover said:
You do realize several of these taxes are redundant, right? As in you get to write off state income taxes or sales taxes, property taxes, and some excise taxes off of your federal income tax.
Click to expand...

Forget it. He's rolling.
 
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

Rover said:
You do realize several of these taxes are redundant, right? As in you get to write off state income taxes or sales taxes, property taxes, and some excise taxes off of your federal income tax.
Click to expand...
And you certainly have to love a system with so many taxes that we need to start deducting taxes that we pay from other taxes that we owe. Unless you're an accountant, kind of makes you long for the days when the King's men would ride out on horseback and just take what they want. :D
 
Re: Dead!!!!

Re: Dead!!!!

Priceless said:
What was the estate tax rate in NJ? The rate in Maine starts at $2,000,000. The federal now starts at $5,250,000. My mother was afraid of having to pay estate tax when my grandmother died and I just laughed. Even with the house, land and the accumulated "stuff" from 92 years of living, we weren't even close to that number.
Click to expand...
16% of anything over $675,000. One of the most expensive states to die in.

Here's a chart of USA State rates: http://wills.about.com/od/stateestatetaxes/a/2013-state-estate-tax-exemption-rate-chart.htm
 
Last edited:
Re: Dead!!!!

Re: Dead!!!!

Priceless said:
Yikes. Given the increase of real estate values the exemption really needs to be higher. Here in Maine it was raised from $1M to $2M. Chris Christie ought to use some of his popularity to get that changed.
Click to expand...
He's pushing for $1 million. Too late for us, but I hope he gets it.

And don't forget the inheritance tax. If I leave $$ to not a line relative (up and down, not sideways such as aunt, nephew, next door neighbor) it's 16%.
 
Last edited:
Re: Dead!!!!

Re: Dead!!!!

Today's civics lesson comes from a Nobel Prize winner in economics and a Professor at Stanford Business School:

Better than a debt-ceiling rule would be one that controls spending directly, not the debt that results from it. The specifics are less important than the general principle, which is that spending growth should be limited in a way that brings government outlays back down to historic ratios relative to GDP. This would place the attention where it belongs, on spending rather than on the difference between outlays and receipts. Increased spending, coupled with even larger increases in taxes, might bring the deficit down, but it would damage economic growth and well-being. [emphasis added]
Click to expand...
 
Re: Dead!!!!

Re: Dead!!!!

Priceless said:
Yikes. Given the increase of real estate values the exemption really needs to be higher. .... Chris Christie ought to use some of his popularity to get that changed.
Click to expand...


What's this? you find a tax to be too high? I'm shocked, shocked....
 
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

Hmmm...that sounds way too responsible and might prevent me from bringing pork back to my district some day, so forget it.

/Every Congressman, Ever.
 
Re: Dead!!!!

Re: Dead!!!!

Ummm...call me crazy, but the purpose of a budget is to match up outlays and receipts. Who gives a flying $%%^ what was done historically? Unless we are in similar economic times that's a pointless comparison.

For example, lets say we're in a depression. Getting spending to historical levels = disaster. Lets say we're in boom times. Instead of increasing spending accordingly up to some historical % of GDP, use those extra proceeds to pay down existing debt (Clintonomics) instead of gimmicky tax giveaways and spending (Dick "deficits don't matter" Cheney).
 
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

There is a strong possibility that the total federal debt will hit $22 TRILLION in the next year. I feel that is a bit high. We're talking 25 years to pay that off if the government runs a $1 trillion surplus for each of those years. If interest on the debt goes to what it probably should be (4%), the payoff becomes a lot longer.

What I need to find (if it exists) is how much of that debt was incurred building assets (buildings, ships, etc.) and how much was incurred to cover an operating shortfall. The former I can live with, the latter, except in a dire emergency (declared war comes to mind), is not good.

The pain involved in getting the debt down to whatever was used to buy assets is a painful process. Choices will have to be made on what government program will need to be eliminated. Not cutting the growth in spending a calling it a "cut" but a knife to reduce the amount spent to a level below what is currently being spent - even if it means zeroing out the line.

But, will the American public who for almost 80 years are conditioned to succor on the federal breast, allow themselves to be weaned without raising a fuss?? Past history says no, but something has to be done otherwise we're headed to a disaster.
 
Last edited:
Re: Dead!!!!

Re: Dead!!!!

joecct was assuming that Romney got elected and implemented his 5T tax breaks + 2T in additional defense spending. ;)

Regarding the debt, we need not pay it all off. Its okay for the govt to carry some level of debt. Most if not all developed nations do. Much like most people have a mortgage, and therefore collectively the whole home owning citizenry is in some sort of debt. What that exact # is I do not know for an acceptable level of national debt, but the point is we don't have to run 1T a year surpluses to pay it down to zero.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top