FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread
Your representatives are a supercomputer?
Your representatives are a supercomputer?
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
- Thread starter FreshFish
- Start date
- Status
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread
I've been thinking about how we run our military, and it seems to me we need a combination of seasonal business experience and 21st century logistics (have a bunch of UPS executives in the Army Reserves to draw upon as needed, for example.) With a seasonal business, sometimes you need a lot more employees than others. With a military, similar situation. I'd take advantage of some of our recent breakthroughs in management technology and have a much deeper reserve bench (I'm in favor of universal military training, everyone goes through it as part of our mandatory education system).
One of the reasons that France's army was the most feared in Europe at the end of the 18th century was that they had citizen soldiers while everyone else was using mercenaries. Rule number 1 for a mercenary is survival. When you are willing to die for your country, that changes everything.
I'm not at all comfortable with the imbalances we see these days. Our professional soldiers are over-worked while we have no second string players available to give them a breather now and then. If we had the ability easily to expand or contract our front line personnel, that would be quite different.
It also would change the politics substantially as well: on the spending front, less money for exotic weapons and more money for basic supplies and body armor. On the military front, no more dabbling around the edges: if we send in soldiers we fight to win, finish the job, and leave.
There are plenty of really bad people in this world who would gleefullly do us serious harm. We are far to naive and trusting and that will bite us big-time. You can't sit around in an Oval Office playing games with unmanned drones and think that's enough to qualify you as Commander in Chief.
I've been thinking about how we run our military, and it seems to me we need a combination of seasonal business experience and 21st century logistics (have a bunch of UPS executives in the Army Reserves to draw upon as needed, for example.) With a seasonal business, sometimes you need a lot more employees than others. With a military, similar situation. I'd take advantage of some of our recent breakthroughs in management technology and have a much deeper reserve bench (I'm in favor of universal military training, everyone goes through it as part of our mandatory education system).
One of the reasons that France's army was the most feared in Europe at the end of the 18th century was that they had citizen soldiers while everyone else was using mercenaries. Rule number 1 for a mercenary is survival. When you are willing to die for your country, that changes everything.
I'm not at all comfortable with the imbalances we see these days. Our professional soldiers are over-worked while we have no second string players available to give them a breather now and then. If we had the ability easily to expand or contract our front line personnel, that would be quite different.
It also would change the politics substantially as well: on the spending front, less money for exotic weapons and more money for basic supplies and body armor. On the military front, no more dabbling around the edges: if we send in soldiers we fight to win, finish the job, and leave.
There are plenty of really bad people in this world who would gleefullly do us serious harm. We are far to naive and trusting and that will bite us big-time. You can't sit around in an Oval Office playing games with unmanned drones and think that's enough to qualify you as Commander in Chief.
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to FlagDUDE08 again.Your representatives are a supercomputer?
Sounds good to me.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread
I gotta take a screenshot of this...
I gotta take a screenshot of this...
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread
The federal government should be required to follow GAAP when doing it's books.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread
In any case, the plan looks decent. There are two flaws that I see with the plan, though:
1. The part where the standard deduction changes from state to state. I don't think this is Constitutionally allowed, based upon Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:
Obviously I-9-4 does not apply to income taxes as per the 16th Amendment.
2. The definition of "Generally Accepted Accounting Practices" I foresee will create a number of disputes.
In any case, the plan looks decent. There are two flaws that I see with the plan, though:
1. The part where the standard deduction changes from state to state. I don't think this is Constitutionally allowed, based upon Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:
Obviously I-9-4 does not apply to income taxes as per the 16th Amendment.
2. The definition of "Generally Accepted Accounting Practices" I foresee will create a number of disputes.
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread
Um, there is already a Board who has responsibility for defining them and has been for decades. It's not a "definition" that just anyone can make up, there actually is an Official Certifying Body: The various rules and pronouncements come from the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) which is a non-profit organization that the accounting profession has created to promulgate the rules of GAAP reporting and to amend the rules of GAAP reporting as occasion requires.
and yes, it has been riven from time to time with considerable acrimony, given how much money is at stake. The change in accounting standards for financial institutions that required more "mark-to-market" valuation of their reserve assets made the financial crisis of 2008 much worse.
Um, there is already a Board who has responsibility for defining them and has been for decades. It's not a "definition" that just anyone can make up, there actually is an Official Certifying Body: The various rules and pronouncements come from the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) which is a non-profit organization that the accounting profession has created to promulgate the rules of GAAP reporting and to amend the rules of GAAP reporting as occasion requires.
and yes, it has been riven from time to time with considerable acrimony, given how much money is at stake. The change in accounting standards for financial institutions that required more "mark-to-market" valuation of their reserve assets made the financial crisis of 2008 much worse.
Last edited:
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread
I have no qualms with a simpler but still progressive tax code that captures more income. I take it from joecct's postings that we be eliminating all tax shelters, Romneyesque offshore loopholes, carry forward provisions, etc. I can live with a 40-50K deduction limit too. Only changes I'd make are around the fringes, particularly in the case of high medical bills you could go over that amount and I'm curious where he'd fall on capital gains.
I have no qualms with a simpler but still progressive tax code that captures more income. I take it from joecct's postings that we be eliminating all tax shelters, Romneyesque offshore loopholes, carry forward provisions, etc. I can live with a 40-50K deduction limit too. Only changes I'd make are around the fringes, particularly in the case of high medical bills you could go over that amount and I'm curious where he'd fall on capital gains.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread
Those changes defeat the purpose. If you anticipate a high medical bill, save up for it. 40 grand is MORE than enough to survive on; heck I could get by on half that! As for capital gains, the change in amount is still income. The one where I'd be curious is if with this, you eliminate the double tax on dividends, since it's already paid on the corporate side.
Those changes defeat the purpose. If you anticipate a high medical bill, save up for it. 40 grand is MORE than enough to survive on; heck I could get by on half that! As for capital gains, the change in amount is still income. The one where I'd be curious is if with this, you eliminate the double tax on dividends, since it's already paid on the corporate side.
mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
???? You passed Obama care, yet still expect to have high medical bills?? These would be obamasured!! No?
Does this fall under "Passed before worked out?"
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread
Would those rules hold up in a court of law? I just want to make sure we're not throwing ourselves into another Bear Trapp.
Would those rules hold up in a court of law? I just want to make sure we're not throwing ourselves into another Bear Trapp.
unofan
Well-known member
What if it's an unanticipated medical bill, as most of them tend to be.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread
I think Rover just proved that he doesn't agree with the premise behind the creation of this simplified code: elimination of "goodies". He suggested adding "goodies".
I think Rover just proved that he doesn't agree with the premise behind the creation of this simplified code: elimination of "goodies". He suggested adding "goodies".
unofan
Well-known member
What does sacred heart hockey have to do with this?
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread
I know I've been talking about how dividends are a double tax under the current system. Also, there have been some concerns about corporate taxes and the whole notion of corporations not being people. Here's what I propose to clarify this point:
1. Eliminate federal corporate taxes. Transfer all corporate tax liability to the individual shareholders.
2. The individual investor is liable if he/she is a shareholder on record on the last day of the according fiscal quarter, as reported on numerous SEC filings.
3. For shares owned on record, whether private or public, report any company gains, as a factor of earnings per share, as personal income.
4. Any capital gain is personal income, as your money was made on the appreciated value of the asset.
I know I've been talking about how dividends are a double tax under the current system. Also, there have been some concerns about corporate taxes and the whole notion of corporations not being people. Here's what I propose to clarify this point:
1. Eliminate federal corporate taxes. Transfer all corporate tax liability to the individual shareholders.
2. The individual investor is liable if he/she is a shareholder on record on the last day of the according fiscal quarter, as reported on numerous SEC filings.
3. For shares owned on record, whether private or public, report any company gains, as a factor of earnings per share, as personal income.
4. Any capital gain is personal income, as your money was made on the appreciated value of the asset.
That's what I had in mind, but also if you have someone in long term care now that I think about it. It shouldn't have to be used by too much of the population, but if you had several major medical issues in a year and had a decent income you and not the gubmint would be responsible for those, and they could run well into the tens of thousands of dollars. I don't think upping the deduction in that instance is govt welfare.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread
Prepare for every possible contingency. This is why long term disability insurance exists. If you're trying to get the gubmint to pay for your unwillingness to prepare in this simplified means, you're in for a rude awakening.
Prepare for every possible contingency. This is why long term disability insurance exists. If you're trying to get the gubmint to pay for your unwillingness to prepare in this simplified means, you're in for a rude awakening.
unofan
Well-known member
Since I don't wish serious harm on my fellow man, I won't hope you get a painful lesson in reality on this. I'll just say that only a fool thinks he can plan for every contingency and that life won't take you in unexpected directions at the most inconvenient of times.
Also, we've gone back and forth on your libertarian paradise where people die in the streets because they wasted their chances. I'll just reiterate, good luck getting the rest of society to agree with that.
- Status