OT Are taxes killing us financially?
Ignoramus29973
While I do have to make a substantial additional tax payment for 2010,
due to underpayment of estimated taxes during the year, I calculated
that federal taxes are something like 16% of my gross income (not
adjusted gross income).
However much I would like to save an extra buck, I cannot even
REMOTELY begin to feel that this 16% amounts to a crushing financial
burden for me.
In fact, I am asking, WTF is going on, the country runs a trillion
dollar deficit, and yet the taxes are THIS low? What is wrong with
this picture?
To suggest that changing 16% to, say, 20% would somehow make me
unwilling to make money, is surely crazy. Whether I get 84 cents on
every dollar earned, or just 80 cents, should have more or less no
impact on me wanting to earn extra money.
i
Edward A. Falk
recall it bankrupting the country, crushing the economy, causing
food riots, or even seriously inconveniencing the super-rich who
were paying that much.
Someone else recently posted a list of countries with very low tax
rates. They didn't exactly strike me as utopias.
--
-Ed Falk, fa...@despams.r.us.com
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/
Ignoramus29973
> Marginal tax rate reached 90% when I was a child. I don't seem to
> recall it bankrupting the country, crushing the economy, causing
> food riots, or even seriously inconveniencing the super-rich who
> were paying that much.
Especially since they were not even paying this much, as a percentage
of their total income.
Marginal tax rate != average tax rate.
> Someone else recently posted a list of countries with very low tax
> rates. They didn't exactly strike me as utopias.
Exactly. I want to live in a stable society, which, as I realize,
costs money.
i
Existential Angst
news:YPidnZyZXo4tzRfQ...@giganews.com...
So Ig, how much do you make?
Heh, you can always pay MY taxes.... or better yet, feed my cats/pay the
vet bill.... holy shit....
--
EA
>
> i
Ed Huntress
"Existential Angst" <fit...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4d8a6b9d$0$10150$607e...@cv.net...
Eat the cats, screw the vet, and you'll have some steroid-free meals and
save money to pay your taxes, eh?
There's always a solution. (Tastes like chicken...)
--
Ed Huntress
Existential Angst
news:4d8a6c64$0$10144$607e...@cv.net...
Seem like everything "tastes like chicken".... people, snakes, dogs.....
I don't mind paying taxes. I do mind, tho, that my taxes are used, directly
and indirectly, to fuck me in the ass.
I think Congressional seats should be filled just like we fill jury boxes:
Bang, you get a letter in the mail,
Dear Citizen:
For the next 4 years you will be Senator of NYS.... please report to.....
Couldn't be any worse -- reminds me of monkeys picking stocks better than
effingStockbrokers
--
EA
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
>
Ed Huntress
Squirrel tastes more like turkey. And 'possum, if you use your imagination,
is a little like pork. Javelina tastes more like lamb.
<urrrpp!>
>
> I don't mind paying taxes. I do mind, tho, that my taxes are used,
> directly and indirectly, to fuck me in the ass.
> I think Congressional seats should be filled just like we fill jury
> boxes: Bang, you get a letter in the mail,
> Dear Citizen:
> For the next 4 years you will be Senator of NYS.... please report
> to.....
>
> Couldn't be any worse -- reminds me of monkeys picking stocks better than
> effingStockbrokers
> --
> EA
Limit campaign spending like the Brits so. That would fix it.
--
Ed Huntress
PrecisionmachinisT
Sounds like a good plan except nobody would want the puppies...
--
Too_Many_Tools
You are a smart guy Ig.
That is exactly the problem...spend and don't tax.
Warren Buffett admits to as much and says we need to tax MORE.
That is why I was so against the tax cuts that the Republicans shoved
down our throats at the end of last year.
TMT
Karl Townsend
IF they would use the money to pay off debt and learn to live within
their means, I also would support your position. But they won't. The
demo-publicans are unable to contain spending. Would you give money to
a relative that just pisses it away and is broke again next week?
Karl
Too_Many_Tools
> "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>
> news:4d8a6c64$0$10144$607e...@cv.net...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Existential Angst" <fit...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> >news:4d8a6b9d$0$10150$607e...@cv.net...
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Rumor has it that Republicans taste like shit.
Care to tell us how your taxes are being misused?
TMT
F. George McDuffee
<ignoram...@NOSPAM.29973.invalid> wrote:
==========
You are to be congratulated for asking good questions and
thinking logically. Unfortunately in this NG the general
result of this is flames, flames and more flames.
I do however suggest that your tax rate is higher, possibly
much higher than you are assuming. Sales taxes are above
10% in several areas, real estate taxes are being raised to
offset the drop in valuation [The ex mayor of Miami who was
just recalled will explain the logic of this] and many fees
such as vehicle registration are being steeply increased.
The basic cause seems to be wages/benefits and other sources
of apparent income have been falling for at least a
generation, the housing and dot com stock bubbles have
burst, most pension/retirement assets including 401ks have
evaporated, and huge numbers of people are now either
unemployed or underemployed, given their skill levels and
previous employment.
Because of the shift to the income and sales tax for a major
portion of revenue at all levels of government, the total
revenues have also steeply dropped, even as the demands for
safety net services has soared. This funding shortfall is
being greatly exacerbated by insulated/isolated politicians
and senior civil servants living in their own dream world
and their continued denial of any foundational change in the
US economy and/or shortage of funding. IMNSHO two critical
factors are the disappearance/distruction of domestic high
value added manufacturing and the rapid rise of a permanent
under class of tax consumers. For an example of this see
news items on Detroit population exodus. No city or country
can survive with this high a percentage of non contributors.
http://www.freep.com/article/20110323/COL06/103230448/Tom-Walsh-2010-census-may-be-final-thud-before-comeback?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|p
{watch wrap and be sure to scan comments}
-- Unka George (George McDuffee)
..............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).
Ignoramus29973
This is a good point, but, it is not a relative. It is us. Out of
control spending, as I see it, is a problem that is similar to
out of control tax breaks.
i
jim
On the other hand, nobody cares if
Washington wastes money
as long as taxes keep going down.
Tom Gardner
"Ignoramus29973" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.29973.invalid> wrote in
message news:YPidnZyZXo4tzRfQ...@giganews.com...
Do you have a single doubt that no matter WHAT the tax rate our
government will squander it and MORE? You do know that you CAN
volunteer to pay more? Just send an anonymous check every month.
(they will spend that and charge your kid's "credit card" thousands of
times that, plus interest.)
I once had a dog that would eat all his food and beg for more. I felt
sorry and kept giving him more and more food figuring that he would be
satisfied and happy. Guess what? He was nasty, got really, really
fat and DIED A HORRIBLE DEATH! ..and never WAS satisfied. So, the
next dog got fed according to his absolute needs and was HAPPY,
athletic and long-lived. (not a true story, I know better than to
over-feed stupid animals...but some people don't)
Do you want to kill the dog? It sure sounds that way! I think your
view is naive. Do you have a dog?
amdx
"Ignoramus29973" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.29973.invalid> wrote in message
news:YPidnZyZXo4tzRfQ...@giganews.com...
Ig,
I don't know if you are self employed, but I start with 15.2% for SS and
Medicare.
Then add on 16%, then if you live in a state that taxes say 6%.
That adds to 37.2% leaving you 62.8%. Now I go to the store and I have 7%
sales tax.
But that's 7% of the 62.8% I have left, that's 11.1% of the 100% I started
with, so now
my 62.8% becomes 51.7%.
And sometimes it's worse, look at taxes on your phone, cable bill,
gasoline. And don't forget
property taxes and fees you must pay to get any governmental action on a
property.
I think government can do with less.
The did ok from 1776 to 1920 with a lot less. And built the strongest
economic
and military power on earth.
Mikek
F. George McDuffee
<ignoram...@NOSPAM.29973.invalid> wrote:
>In fact, I am asking, WTF is going on, the country runs a trillion
>dollar deficit, and yet the taxes are THIS low? What is wrong with
>this picture?
>
>To suggest that changing 16% to, say, 20% would somehow make me
>unwilling to make money, is surely crazy. Whether I get 84 cents on
>every dollar earned, or just 80 cents, should have more or less no
>impact on me wanting to earn extra money.
=========
Everyone could get wiped out by this proposal. Now where
did I put that Sears catalog????
http://www.omaha.com/article/20110323/NEWS01/703239866
F. George McDuffee
<am...@knology.net> wrote:
<snip>
> I think government can do with less.
>The did ok from 1776 to 1920 with a lot less. And built the strongest
>economic
>and military power on earth.
> Mikek
While this sounds appealing and plausible, the historical
record does not totally support this assumption.
Two of the more important technologies for American
growth/development have been communications and
transportation.
Implementation of the US national telegraph network was
heavily subsidized,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Transcontinental_Telegraph
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/nonnenmacher.industry.telegraphic.us
http://www.telegraph-history.org/transcontinental-telegraph/index.html
and two areas of transportation, namely the canals, e.g.
Erie,
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2113882
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_turnpikes_and_canals_in_the_United_States
and even to a larger extent the railroads were heavenly
subsidized, albeit not directly with Federal funds, but with
grants of public land.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Transcontinental_Railroad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkerboarding_%28land%29
There was both direct payments for track laid for
intercontinental links, and huge amounts of land ceded to
the railroads by the Federal government, thus doing an end
run around the constitutional requirement that all such
transactions should be done only through the Treasury so
these could be recorded and tracked.
The railroads later sold much of this "free" land to
immigrant farmers, so realized a profit in two ways, first
from the land sales, and then from the shipment of
agricultural products. The huge [subsidized] expansion of
the railroads directly supported the establishment and
growth of the domestic US iron/steel industry [rails] and
heavy industry [locomotive & rail car construction].
oldjag
I think a war surcharge tax would be a good idea. If we are going to
get the debt down the two big ticket items have to be addressed;
Medicare and Defense, and it's going to take a combination of cuts and
taxes to do it. The military surcharge should cover current spending,
plus repaying debt incurred from recent previous war efforts, health
care for vets etc.
John
>
>
> -- Unka George (George McDuffee)
> ..............................
> The past is a foreign country;
> they do things differently there.
> L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
> The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).
You left out the part about the monopoly that the railroads had on the
farmers. They overcharged them for shipment of their crops to market.
Deja voo all over again.....with the oil prices. A good start on tax
reform is to bring back a high short term profits tax of about 35
percent on all short term gains under three months.
John
technomaNge
The Department of the Treasury welcomes donations. Just tell your
accountant to pay the 16% bill on one check and include another
check for 4%, marked "Donation". Then the IRS won't get confused.
technomaNge
--
Edward A. Falk
Ignoramus29973 <ignoram...@NOSPAM.29973.invalid> wrote:
>
>Exactly. I want to live in a stable society, which, as I realize,
>costs money.
That's something that bothers me. The Republicans are going
full steam ahead destroying education and health care for the
poor and middle class.
Do they *want* the majority of the population to be sick and
uneducated? That's in nobody's best interest.
Edward A. Falk
Karl Townsend <karltown...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
>
>IF they would use the money to pay off debt and learn to live within
>their means, I also would support your position. But they won't.
IIRC, we were doing just that under Clinton. The government was
running a surpluss and starting to pay down the debt.
People call the Democrats the "tax and spend" party. I guess
that makes the Republicans the "borrow and spend" party.
chaniarts
you may not be a typical taxpayer. there's also no rule that says you can't
send in more than what is required, so feel free to pony up another 4% (or
more) if it makes you happy.
Rich Grise
>
> In fact, I am asking, WTF is going on, the country runs a trillion
> dollar deficit, and yet the taxes are THIS low? What is wrong with
> this picture?
China hasn't foreclosed yet.
Hope This Helps!
Rich
Ed Huntress
"technomaNge" <cowp...@bullshit.net> wrote in message
news:ime7mg$hkq$1...@dont-email.me...
Why would anyone do that? So you can get a free ride?
We currently have the lowest total taxes since 1950 or 1954, depending on
how you count. That's ALL taxes -- federal, state, and local, based on the
total receipts of all government entities in the US.
That's why we're running huge deficits. Ronnie Reagan was a good guy in many
ways, but, as his budget director David Stockman has said many times somce,
they had no idea what they were doing economically, or what the meaning is
of the numbers they were dealing with. They were winging it on the basis of
some cockeyed theories that had never been tested. Laffer himself said of
the "Laffer Curve" that it was a theoretical device; he had no idea where
the US actually stood on that curve. Now we know. We were on the portion
that says less taxes equals less revenue. And now, thanks to them, cutting
taxes has become our new religion.
Let us prey...
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
"Edward A. Falk" <fa...@rahul.net> wrote in message
news:imeda8$j7k$2...@blue.rahul.net...
> In article <4cvko65i10e2q89gr...@4ax.com>,
> Karl Townsend <karltown...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>IF they would use the money to pay off debt and learn to live within
>>their means, I also would support your position. But they won't.
>
> IIRC, we were doing just that under Clinton. The government was
> running a surpluss and starting to pay down the debt.
>
> People call the Democrats the "tax and spend" party. I guess
> that makes the Republicans the "borrow and spend" party.
You've got it.
--
Ed Huntress
F. George McDuffee
<ignoram...@NOSPAM.29973.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
>unwilling to make money, is surely crazy. Whether I get 84 cents on
>every dollar earned, or just 80 cents, should have more or less no
>impact on me wanting to earn extra money.
A major problem is that from at least the end of WWII in the
US, $1.00 in additional governmental revenue has always been
matched by $1.10 to $1.25 additional governmental spending
at all levels. Very little was ever done to pay down
existing debt or establish a "rainy day fund" or surplus for
the down years which are sure to come.
IMNSHO until and unless Draconian spending and personnel
caps are enacted, it is futile to try to tax our way out of
the hole. The refusal by Congress to increase the national
debt limit will operationally impose a balanced budget
requirement by preventing any further increase in the
national debt, although it does nothing about forcing the
repayment of the existing c.14 trillion dollar debt.
John
> In article<4cvko65i10e2q89gr...@4ax.com>,
> Karl Townsend<karltown...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> IF they would use the money to pay off debt and learn to live within
>> their means, I also would support your position. But they won't.
>
> IIRC, we were doing just that under Clinton. The government was
> running a surpluss and starting to pay down the debt.
>
> People call the Democrats the "tax and spend" party. I guess
> that makes the Republicans the "borrow and spend" party.
>
The magic word is SPEND
john
.
and what, pray tell, outside of paying down debt, would you like done
with your taxes besides spend? I want my taxes spent - on paving roads,
on patrolling the air, on maintaining law and order, on public parks and
transportation - there is no value in taking the taxes and just holding
them for a rainy day
John
I guess a balanced budget is not in your vocabulary and you have your
credit cards charged to the max.
Ed Huntress
"F. George McDuffee" <gmcd...@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote in message
news:emjlo65tk4t92loba...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:57:36 -0500, Ignoramus29973
> <ignoram...@NOSPAM.29973.invalid> wrote:
> <snip>
>>To suggest that changing 16% to, say, 20% would somehow make me
>>unwilling to make money, is surely crazy. Whether I get 84 cents on
>>every dollar earned, or just 80 cents, should have more or less no
>>impact on me wanting to earn extra money.
> <snip>
> A major problem is that from at least the end of WWII in the
> US, $1.00 in additional governmental revenue has always been
> matched by $1.10 to $1.25 additional governmental spending
> at all levels. Very little was ever done to pay down
> existing debt or establish a "rainy day fund" or surplus for
> the down years which are sure to come.
George, just to avoid misimpressions, virtually all of that happened since
roughly 1980:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FYFSD?cid=5
'Ol Ronnie got us on that deficit path. It was nearly flat as a board before
that.
Take the revenues in 1947, compound them at 110% for 63 years and you come
up with something close to $14 trillion.. If you want to look at revenue and
spending separately, you can select them from the menu at:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/categories/5
--
Ed Huntress
Larry Jaques
<ignoram...@NOSPAM.29973.invalid> wrote:
>My accountant just got back to me with "the number" of my taxes.
>
>While I do have to make a substantial additional tax payment for 2010,
>due to underpayment of estimated taxes during the year, I calculated
>that federal taxes are something like 16% of my gross income (not
>adjusted gross income).
>
>However much I would like to save an extra buck, I cannot even
>REMOTELY begin to feel that this 16% amounts to a crushing financial
>burden for me.
>
>In fact, I am asking, WTF is going on, the country runs a trillion
>dollar deficit, and yet the taxes are THIS low? What is wrong with
>this picture?
>
>To suggest that changing 16% to, say, 20% would somehow make me
>unwilling to make money, is surely crazy. Whether I get 84 cents on
>every dollar earned, or just 80 cents, should have more or less no
>impact on me wanting to earn extra money.
Got too much money? Fine! I strongly urge you to donate half your
wealth, but only if you specify that it is to go toward the _federal
debt_. Atta boy!
--
You are today where your thoughts have brought you;
you will be tomorrow where your thoughts take you.
-- James Lane Allen
John R. Carroll
They aren't similar.
They are the same thing.
The difference is that unless you make enough to actually pay much tax, you
don't qualify for the deduction or exemption.
--
John R. Carroll
.
so, what part was it about "aside from paying down debt" that you didn't
understand?
Larry Jaques
<gmcd...@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote:
>On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:57:36 -0500, Ignoramus29973
><ignoram...@NOSPAM.29973.invalid> wrote:
><snip>
>>To suggest that changing 16% to, say, 20% would somehow make me
>>unwilling to make money, is surely crazy. Whether I get 84 cents on
>>every dollar earned, or just 80 cents, should have more or less no
>>impact on me wanting to earn extra money.
The problem is who that tax burden falls on.
><snip>
>A major problem is that from at least the end of WWII in the
>US, $1.00 in additional governmental revenue has always been
>matched by $1.10 to $1.25 additional governmental spending
>at all levels. Very little was ever done to pay down
>existing debt or establish a "rainy day fund" or surplus for
>the down years which are sure to come.
By reducing gov't by 50-75%, a lot of that would go away. Where to
start?
>IMNSHO until and unless Draconian spending and personnel
>caps are enacted, it is futile to try to tax our way out of
>the hole.
No, not "personnel caps", we need wholesale divestment of personnel by
pruning all the useless ABC agencies (yes, entire agencies) who are
sucking on the gov't teat and giving nothing back. That's gotta be a
full page or ten, in 6-point type.
>The refusal by Congress to increase the national
>debt limit will operationally impose a balanced budget
>requirement by preventing any further increase in the
>national debt,
Maybe we can get that to happen in 2012...but I'm not holding my
breath.
>although it does nothing about forcing the
>repayment of the existing c.14 trillion dollar debt.
True.
F. George McDuffee
<lja...@invalid.diversify.com> wrote:
<snip>
>>IMNSHO until and unless Draconian spending and personnel
>>caps are enacted, it is futile to try to tax our way out of
>>the hole.
>
>No, not "personnel caps", we need wholesale divestment of personnel by
>pruning all the useless ABC agencies (yes, entire agencies) who are
>sucking on the gov't teat and giving nothing back. That's gotta be a
>full page or ten, in 6-point type.
============
F. George McDuffee
>>caps are enacted, it is futile to try to tax our way out of
>>the hole.
>
>No, not "personnel caps", we need wholesale divestment of personnel by
>pruning all the useless ABC agencies (yes, entire agencies) who are
>sucking on the gov't teat and giving nothing back. That's gotta be a
>full page or ten, in 6-point type.
============
Nothing says that the personnel/spending caps must be as
high as current governmental employment/spending or that
these can/should not be reduced over time.
A more basic problem is a lack of "hard" data in the sense
there appears to be no "master" listing or database of all
current governmental activities/services at all levels with
the result that very considerable overlap exists in some
areas, e.g. training for the unemployed, while other vital
or at least highly helpful/cost effective activities are not
being accomplished, such as a database of medical treatments
and outcomes to identify what works and the cost
effectiveness. One problem is that almost all of the
existing governmental programs are "good things," but there
is simply no longer the revenue available to continue to
fund and indeed to introduce/implement new programs on the
"good thing" basis
It is suggested that each of the existing/proposed
governmental activities be entered into a database and
"coded" as to the probable effects on society if these were
withdrawn or not available by several categories such as
immediately life threatening (e.g. air traffic controllers),
short/long term effects (such as post secondary education
and medical research), impact on economic activity, and
amount of money required. There are several other
categories, such as the most appropriate level of government
to conduct the activity, but such coding/rating would allow
[more] logical/rational prioritization for periods of both
decreasing and increasing governmental revenues.
An even more basic and seperate failure is failing to
categorize governmental activities according to the scheme:
(1) Activities that must be done/provided by government in
order to be a government. The amount spent as well as the
activity is critical. Some basic level of spending may fall
into this category, while higher spending levels may fall
into the lower categories. Examples of this are the
criminal/civil courts, elections, basic protection of the
borders, military and law enforcement.
(2) Activities that the government should accomplish if at
all possible. Failure to perform these activities may not
result in the immediate collapse of government/society but
are important to a tolerable "quality of life" for the
majority. Activities such as enforcement of pure food, drug
and sanitation laws, adequate el-hi education and many of
the basic social safety net services, i.e. people not
allowed to starve in US streets.
(3) Activities which the government *MAY* engage in if there
is adequate funds available under the spending and personnel
caps. Examples of this are extensive post secondary
education, medical and basic research.
(4) Activities which IMNSHO the government should not engage
in such as the construction of multi billion dollar sports
facilities for professional sports teams. This may, and
most likely will be, different for different levels of
government.
(5) Activities which the government, which again may be
different at different levels, must *NOT* engage in.
The assumption is that that activities in categories (4) and
(5) will be quickly phased out or never implemented in the
first place.
When pigs fly…
amdx
Care to tell us how your taxes are being misused?
TMT
Here's just a small sample of taxes monies being misused.
Mikek.
Government auditors spent the past five years examining all federal programs
and found that 22 percent of them-costing taxpayers a total of $123 billion
annually-fail to show any positive impact on the populations they serve.
How about letting the states take care of education.
That will eliminate a one wasteful department.
The Department of Agriculture awarded the University of New Hampshire
$700,000 this year investigating methane gas emissions from dairy cows. The
conclusion? "Cows emit most of their methane through belching, only a small
fraction from flatulence,"
The National Science Foundation spent $216,000 to study the use of
"ambiguous" statements by politicians. Specifically, the grant description
says, the study exams whether candidates, "gain or lose support by taking
ambiguous positions."
The Census Bureau blew $2.5 million on a 30-second ad that ran during the
Super Bowl.
The federal government spends an estimated $930 million on unnecessary
printing, even thousands of unread copies of the mammoth budget of the
United States.
The government spends $28 million a year just to print "The Congressional
Record," a daily chronicle of every word uttered in Congress, The
Congressional Record, of course, is available online which is they way most
people who want to read it find it.
A report this year found that the Department of Energy could save $2.2
million with more efficient use of electricity in its own buildings.
Without authorization, for instance, the feds spent $19.6 million annually
on the International Fund for Ireland. Sounds like a noble cause, but the
money went for projects like pony-trekking centers and golf videos.
Congressional budget-cutters spared the $440,000 spent annually to have
attendants push buttons on the fully automated Capitol Hill elevators used
by Representatives and Senators.
Last year, the National Endowment for the Humanities spent $4.2 million to
conduct a nebulous "National Conversation on Pluralism and Identity."
The Pentagon and Central Intelligence Agency channeled some $11 million to
psychics who might provide special insights about various foreign threats.
The Department of Education spent $34 million supposedly helping Americans
become better shoppers and homemakers.
National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH) spent $77,826 to study "Coping
with Change in Czechoslovakia" . . . $100,271 to see if volunteering is good
for older people . . . $124,910 to reduce "School Phobia" in children . . .
$161,913 to study "Israeli reactions to SCUD Attacks during the Gulf War" .
. . and $187,042 to study the quality of life in Hawaii.
Over the years, political wrangling twists the most noble-sounding
government programs beyond recognition. For example, the Social Security
Administration's $25 billion a year Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
program. Almost 250,000 children qualify for SSI checks because they can't
participate in "age appropriate activities." Worse, thousands of prisoners
get SSI checks relating to their alleged disabilities-costing taxpayers
about $20 million a year.
Look at one of the most enduring legacies of Lyndon Johnson's "War on
Poverty": the Appalachian Regional Commission. It was billed as help for an
impoverished region. During the past three decades, this bureaucracy you've
probably never heard of has spent $6.2 billion, yet the region remains
impoverished.
I know you've been regaled about wasteful spending on agricultural
subsidies, so I'll just cite a single intriguing example: 1.6 million farm
subsidy checks for $1.3 billion, mailed to urban zip codes during the past
decade. New York City "farmers" pocketed $7 million during the past decade,
Washington, D.C., "farmers" $10 million, Los Angeles "farmers" $10.7
million, Minneapolis "farmers" $48 million, Miami "farmers" $54.5 million,
and Phoenix "farmers" $71.5 million. Among those on the take, to the tune of
$1.3 million: 47 "farmers" in Beverly Hills, California-one of America's
wealthiest cities.
$750,000 for the Baseball Hall of Fame
a.. $202,500 to the Suffolk Sports Hall of Fame, Sports Research Center in
Patchogue, New York for facilities renovations
b.. $405,000 to the Staten Island Soccer League of New York for facilities
construction
c.. $800,000 to the New York Olympic Regional Development Authority for
facilities construction for the Mount VanHoevenberg Olympic Sports Complex
d.. $90,000 for the City of Waterbury, Connecticut for an economic
feasibility study focused on construction of a multi-purpose sports facility
e.. $50,000 for "Pro Sports Outreach," whatever that is.
CASH FOR CLUNKERS
Washington spends $25 billion annually maintaining unused or vacant federal
properties.
Examples from multiple Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports of
wasteful duplication include 342 economic development programs; 130 programs
serving the disabled;130 programs serving at-risk youth; 90 early childhood
development programs; 75 programs funding international education, cultural,
and training exchange activities; and 72 safe water programs.
The Securities and Exchange Commission spent $3.9 millionrearranging desks
and offices at its Washington, D.C., headquarters.
The refusal of many federal employees to fly coach costs taxpayers $146
million annually in flight upgrades
Washington will spend $126 million in 2009 to enhance the Kennedy family
legacy in Massachusetts. Additionally, Senator John Kerry (D-MA) diverted
$20 million from the 2010 defense budget to subsidize a new Edward M.
Kennedy Institute.
a.. Federal investigators have launched more than 20 criminal fraud
investigations related to the TARP financial bailout.[17]
a.. Despite trillion-dollar deficits, last year's 10,160 earmarks included
$200,000 for a tattoo removal program in Mission Hills, California; $190,000
for the Buffalo Bill Historical Center in Cody, Wyoming; and $75,000 for the
Totally Teen Zone in Albany, Georgia.[18]
a.. The federal government owns more than 50,000 vacant homes.[19]
a.. The Federal Communications Commission spent $350,000 to sponsor NASCAR
driver David Gilliland.[20]
a.. Members of Congress have spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars
supplying their offices with popcorn machines, plasma televisions, DVD
equipment, ionic air fresheners, camcorders, and signature machines-plus
$24,730 leasing a Lexus, $1,434 on a digital camera, and $84,000 on
personalized calendars.[21]
a.. More than $13 billion in Iraq aid has been classified as wasted or
stolen. Another $7.8 billion cannot be accounted for.[22]
a.. Fraud related to Hurricane Katrina spending is estimated to top$2
billion. In addition, debit cards provided to hurricane victims were used to
pay for Caribbean vacations, NFL tickets, Dom Perignon champagne, "Girls
Gone Wild" videos, and at least one sex change operation.[23]
a.. Auditors discovered that 900,000 of the 2.5 million recipients of
emergency Katrina assistance provided false names, addresses, or Social
Security numbers or submitted multiple applications.[24]
a.. Congress recently gave Alaska Airlines $500,000 to paint a Chinook
salmon on a Boeing 737.[25]
a.. The Transportation Department will subsidize up to $2,000 per flight for
direct flights between Washington, D.C., and the small hometown of
Congressman Hal Rogers (R-KY)-but only on Monday mornings and Friday
evenings, when lawmakers, staff, and lobbyists usually fly. Rogers is a
member of the Appropriations Committee, which writes the Transportation
Department's budget.[26]
a.. Washington has spent $3 billion re-sanding beaches-even as this new sand
washes back into the ocean.[27]
a.. A Department of Agriculture report concedes that much of the$2.5 billion
in "stimulus" funding for broadband Internet will be wasted.[28]
a.. The Defense Department wasted $100 million on unused flight tickets and
never bothered to collect refunds even though the tickets were
refundable.[29]
a.. Washington spends $60,000 per hour shooting Air Force One photo-ops in
front of national landmarks.[30]
a.. Over one recent 18-month period, Air Force and Navy personnel used
government-funded credit cards to charge at least$102,400 on admission to
entertainment events, $48,250 on gambling, $69,300 on cruises, and $73,950
on exotic dance clubs and prostitutes.[31]
a.. Members of Congress are set to pay themselves $90 million to increase
their franked mailings for the 2010 election year.[32]
a.. Congress has ignored efficiency recommendations from the Department of
Health and Human Services that would save $9 billion annually.[33]
a.. Taxpayers are funding paintings of high-ranking government officials at
a cost of up to $50,000 apiece.[34]
a.. The state of Washington sent $1 food stamp checks to 250,000 households
in order to raise state caseload figures and trigger$43 million in
additional federal funds.[35]
a.. Suburban families are receiving large farm subsidies for the grass in
their backyards-subsidies that many of these families never requested and do
not want.[36]
a.. Congress appropriated $20 million for "commemoration of success"
celebrations related to Iraq and Afghanistan.[37]
a.. Homeland Security employee purchases include 63-inch plasma TVs, iPods,
and $230 for a beer brewing kit.[38]
a.. Two drafting errors in the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act resulted in a $2
billion taxpayer cost.[39]
a.. North Ridgeville, Ohio, received $800,000 in "stimulus" funds for a
project that its mayor described as "a long way from the top priority."[40]
a.. The National Institutes of Health spends $1.3 million per month to rent
a lab that it cannot use.[41]
a.. Congress recently spent $2.4 billion on 10 new jets that the Pentagon
insists it does not need and will not use.[42]
a.. Lawmakers diverted $13 million from Hurricane Katrina relief spending to
build a museum celebrating the Army Corps of Engineers-the agency partially
responsible for the failed levees that flooded New Orleans.[43]
a.. Medicare officials recently mailed $50 million in erroneous refunds to
230,000 Medicare recipients.[44]
a.. Audits showed $34 billion worth of Department of Homeland Security
contracts contained significant waste, fraud, and abuse.[45]
a.. Washington recently spent $1.8 million to help build a private golf
course in Atlanta, Georgia.[46]
a.. The Advanced Technology Program spends $150 millionannually subsidizing
private businesses; 40 percent of this funding goes to Fortune 500
companies.[47]
a.. Congressional investigators were able to receive $55,000 in federal
student loan funding for a fictional college they created to test the
Department of Education.[48]
a.. The Conservation Reserve program pays farmers $2 billionannually not to
farm their land.[49]
a.. The Commerce Department has lost 1,137 computers since 2001, many
containing Americans' personal data.[50]
http://www.billshrink.com/blog/5626/government-wastes/
amdx
"Too_Many_Tools" <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fe0d1da1-a6ab-440a...@z27g2000prz.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 23, 2:57 pm, Ignoramus29973 <ignoramus29...@NOSPAM.
29973.invalid> wrote:
> My accountant just got back to me with "the number" of my taxes.
>
> While I do have to make a substantial additional tax payment for 2010,
> due to underpayment of estimated taxes during the year, I calculated
> that federal taxes are something like 16% of my gross income (not
> adjusted gross income).
>
> However much I would like to save an extra buck, I cannot even
> REMOTELY begin to feel that this 16% amounts to a crushing financial
> burden for me.
>
> In fact, I am asking, WTF is going on, the country runs a trillion
> dollar deficit, and yet the taxes are THIS low? What is wrong with
> this picture?
>
> unwilling to make money, is surely crazy. Whether I get 84 cents on
> every dollar earned, or just 80 cents, should have more or less no
> impact on me wanting to earn extra money.
>
You are a smart guy Ig.
That is exactly the problem...spend and don't tax.
Warren Buffett admits to as much and says we need to tax MORE.
That is why I was so against the tax cuts that the Republicans shoved
down our throats at the end of last year.
TMT
The flaw in your thinking is; the more money you give the government the
more they will spend.
And they won't spend it on reducing the debt.
Mikek
Larry Jaques
What a WONDERFUL IDEA! Now watch a CONgresscritter suggest it, fund
it to the sum of a billion dollars, and then we can all watch it fail
to do the task.
<sigh> Indubitably.
If you're OK with it, I'll send this post to my CONgresscritter.
Maybe he can accidentally arranged to have a copy left somewhere in
the CBO offices. Or send copies to both RNC and DNC offices to see
which one attmepts to implement it as a scheme for the 2012 platform.
It just might get some airtime.
John R. Carroll
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:57:36 -0500, Ignoramus29973
> <ignoram...@NOSPAM.29973.invalid> wrote:
> <snip>
>> To suggest that changing 16% to, say, 20% would somehow make me
>> unwilling to make money, is surely crazy. Whether I get 84 cents on
>> every dollar earned, or just 80 cents, should have more or less no
>> impact on me wanting to earn extra money.
> <snip>
> A major problem is that from at least the end of WWII in the
> US, $1.00 in additional governmental revenue has always been
> matched by $1.10 to $1.25 additional governmental spending
> at all levels. Very little was ever done to pay down
> existing debt or establish a "rainy day fund" or surplus for
> the down years which are sure to come.
Big surplus accounts in the absense of debt or rainy day funds pose a big
challenge.
Where do you want to put the money?
Equities? Bonds?
Do you really want the Federal Government acting as a private investor as a
matter of policy?
I don't think so.
>
> IMNSHO until and unless Draconian spending and personnel
> caps are enacted, it is futile to try to tax our way out of
> the hole.
Employment at the Federal level is at an all time low right now, George.
You have to go all the way back to 1960 to have parity.
>The refusal by Congress to increase the national
> debt limit will operationally impose a balanced budget
> requirement by preventing any further increase in the
> national debt, although it does nothing about forcing the
> repayment of the existing c.14 trillion dollar debt.
It might also have the unintended consequence of imposing asset sales.
We got Louisianna and a bunch of other properties when the French capped
their debt.
Which State would you like to sell the Saudi's?
--
John R. Carroll
John R. Carroll
Or when voters elect representatives that will do the above without the need
to spell it out for them in a law.
The real problem is that there electoral results don't reflect the voter's
interests.
Just look at what's going on in Congress today as the result of the 2010
election cycle.
Nobody voted for this garbage - not even the teabaggers.
Any of those guys that aren't having buyers remorse soon will be.
The refrain we'll soon be hearing will be to the effect that "I didn't know
THAT was going to happen if we did this!".
--
John R. Carroll
John R. Carroll
Furtunately, that hasn't historically been the case.
Properly funding government has lead to a good balance between income and
spending throughout the years.
We didn't get into trouble until "Debt doesn't matter/Laffer Curve-Trickle
Down" government policy got into the mix.
Voodoo econ 101 is the real problem. That and the people that still believe
in it regardless the facts or result.
--
John R. Carroll
John R. Carroll
It's even worse than that, Ed.
Because of the way it's been done, we have a real capital missallocation
issue.
Encouraging capital investments at the expense of labor is a very bad idea
beyond a certain point.
You end up with a shrinking number of qualified purchasers with the majority
of new wealth transfering to those that don't consume what the earn.
IOW, less economic activity, internally.
--
John R. Carroll
Ignoramus24155
> The flaw in your thinking is; the more money you give the government the
> more they will spend.
> And they won't spend it on reducing the debt.
Just 11 years ago, the government was running surplus and used it to
pay down debt.
The flaw in your thinking is that the government is not an annoying,
overspending relative; it is us. It was voted in by us for our
benefit. Whether it lives up to the hope is a good question to ask.
So, I want expenses to match revenues.
i
F. George McDuffee
<lja...@invalid.diversify.com> wrote:
Anyone that wants to use this as a basis for a letter to
their congressional representatives, please feel free to do
so.
Identify yours at
http://www.house.gov and
http://www.senate.gov
Be sure to bookmark their webmail page for easy nagging.
One of the first steps in problem solving is the
identification of, and agreement on, what exactly is the
problem, and to do this requires accurate and reliable
records. Unfortunately, we as a nation have not even
started on this.
F. George McDuffee
This is the basic flaw in the Constitution, i.e. the
assumption that we have a government of honest men, albeit
with differing opinions, for honest men. Times change and
people change, and it is clear that laws Draconian civil and
criminal penalties are now required to enforce what has
generally in the past been controlled by ethics and social
acceptability.
>The real problem is that there electoral results don't reflect the voter's
>interests.
As you have frequently observed, the problems are far more
mental health than financial/fiscal. Behavioral Economics
is paralleled by Behavioral Politics exacerbated by
pathological levels of denial.
>Just look at what's going on in Congress today as the result of the 2010
>election cycle.
Move along folks, there is nothing to see here....
>Nobody voted for this garbage - not even the teabaggers.
>Any of those guys that aren't having buyers remorse soon will be.
>The refrain we'll soon be hearing will be to the effect that "I didn't know
>THAT was going to happen if we did this!".
IMNSHO the litmus test will be the attempted increase in, or
even the elimination of, the national debt limit.
If the debt limit is not increased a multitude of problems,
anomalies and contradictions will be forced to the surface
with large increases in social instability. If the debt
limit is increased or eliminated, then it's "Apres moi le
deluge" time to be followed by collapse ala the Ancien
Régime of France.
For a preview of what will occur in increasing numbers of
large metro areas see
http://www.freep.com/article/20110324/COL33/103240404
<snip>
Without a healthy middle class to spend the money that
supports small businesses and pay the taxes that provide
city services, revitalizing the city will be near
impossible.
<snip>
People with money and means are the ones who have left or
are planning their getaway. The people who are staying are
increasingly poor and isolated.
<snip>
But there's a far greater challenge in figuring out how to
aid an impoverished population as large as what's left in
Detroit. There's a need for the kinds of jobs that don't
exist anymore in this market and for the education to
compete for more advanced jobs. There's a need for better
city services than Detroit residents are getting now.
<SNIP>
For the immediate future, Detroit has substantial population
that cannot support itself and certainly cannot sustain the
city.
<SNIP>
F. George McDuffee
<nunyab...@dev.null> wrote:
<snip>
>It might also have the unintended consequence of imposing asset sales.
>We got Louisianna and a bunch of other properties when the French capped
>their debt.
>Which State would you like to sell the Saudi's?
Start with California, then Florida and Illinois. I doubt
the Saudi's would be interested in Michigan.
F. George McDuffee
<nunyab...@dev.null> wrote:
<snip>
>> existing debt or establish a "rainy day fund" or surplus for
>> the down years which are sure to come.
>
>Big surplus accounts in the absense of debt or rainy day funds pose a big
>challenge.
>Where do you want to put the money?
>Equities? Bonds?
Indeed these are in the absence of spending/personnel caps.
First pay off the debts and fund the pension plans, possibly
by purchase of annuities, then when this is done, after many
years, try gold, silver, investment in state owned LSTR
power plants or financing of municipal plants, investment in
coal liquefaction plants and thorium/REE recovery from coal
fly ash.
>Do you really want the Federal Government acting as a private investor as a
>matter of policy?
>I don't think so.
The bond market is many times bigger than the stock and/or
commodities market, and the US governmental bonds are the
largest chunk of the bond market, thus the government is not
only an investor, but the prime speculator and market
manipulator, e.g. FRB interest rates.
<snip>
John R. Carroll
The Fed is a private business George.
They don't issue US Government debt.
The Treasury Department does that.
What you are suggesting is more of the sort of investment we currently have
in GM rather than less.
The best thing to happen to GM, and by coincidence the US tas payer, was the
Toyota hubub.
Soemthing cause by a misstatement by the DOT Sec. in a fit of pique. You
wouldn't want to see that in the market on a permanent basis.
People would stop making investments in the US unless the US government was
a partner. We'd look like China.
It isn't necessary to have a rainy day fund if you can issue your own debt
and sell it.
I also isn't a good idea to do away with public debt completely.
What is a BAD idea is to think or act as if public debt is either good or
bad in and of itself. It isn't.
It's what you get that counts in the end.
Were that not the case, nobody would ever take on a mortgage.
--
John R. Carroll
Ignoramus24155
so) people. For the record, 1 million no longer qualifies as rich, in
my eyes.
There is quite a few of them, who think that they would become better
off, if they could reduce their taxes by a few extra bucks. "Starve
the government", "fuck the poor", "I need the money" and all.
I believe this to be shortsighted. First, they are on the flat part of
the utility curve, and extra money just does not add as much to their
happiness.
Second, any rich person wants to a) preserve his capital and b) live
in a stable society, in order to enjoy the capital and pass a part of
it to his heirs.
Preserving capital is difficult, if deficits turn into inflation.
Similarly, living in a stable society, where their wealth would not be
taken away or evaporate due to various social upheavals, etc, comes at
a cost. Stable and competitive society is not possible if the
government cannot keep expenses that are commensurate with the level
of expenses that is needed to live in a stable environment, fund the
military, education for working class, etc.
Lastly, "upward mobility", which is ability of people to become rich,
has a flip side, which is a "down mobility". Quite often, rich people
become poor, due to one mistake or another, or just loss of ability of
their business to make a profit.
It sucks to become poorer, but it sucks much worse if this newly poor
person cannot even find health insurance.
In light of this, for a rationally minded wealthy person, would gladly
trade a few percent of their income in exchange for social stability,
ability to find qualified workers, firm currency, and so on.
Warren Buffett is one of such rationally minded people.
i
Jon Elson
> My accountant just got back to me with "the number" of my taxes.
> However much I would like to save an extra buck, I cannot even
> REMOTELY begin to feel that this 16% amounts to a crushing financial
> burden for me.
Yeah! For years, I have paid almost NO taxes, and have been wondering WHY?
This year, business has been REAL good, some of my customers got a bundle of
ARRA money to spend, and sent some my way. So, I am only going to get a
little back this year. At least I didn't get caught under-paying.
But, many years I have losses in investments or Pico Systems doesn't make
much, then it offsets income from my "day job". The home office expense
and a large family help, too.
I can't say what the percentage is yet, still working on it. I use the
program "tax cut", it does what the accountant does, for less than 10% of
their fee. I still have to assemble all the records, then just type into
the right forms. I don't do their stupid "interview", it is a huge waste
of time, I just import last year's data and then enter all the new data.
At one time I had over 50 items on the depreciation schedule, now I just
have about 4. Automatically carrying just that data over from year to year
saved me many hours.
Jon
Ignoramus24155
I have a reason to have an accountant, and feel that the accountant
expense may be my best investment.
i
John R. Carroll
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 07:56:11 -0700, "John R. Carroll"
> <nunyab...@dev.null> wrote:
> <snip>
>> It might also have the unintended consequence of imposing asset
>> sales. We got Louisianna and a bunch of other properties when the
>> French capped their debt.
>> Which State would you like to sell the Saudi's?
> <snip>
> Start with California, then Florida and Illinois. I doubt
> the Saudi's would be interested in Michigan.
Well Ok but something very much like these sorts of sales has been underway
in the States for several years now.
BoneHead Kucinich is selling an $8.6 billion dollar revenue stream to Wall
Street to cover his deficit. Ohio will be getting around $800 million.
It's going to be done as a bond issue which means that if the bond is a 20
year note, somebody besides Ohio's tax payers will make a pile.
Furthermore, if the revenue stream doesn't materialize the bond still has to
be paid even without the cash flow.
That's a pretty good deal when you consider that the State of Ohio really
can't default. They shouldn't be discounting the cash flow beyond what the
Federal Treasury does by much.
--
John R. Carroll
chaniarts
> I have met a few rich (or at least well to do, say worth 5-10 mil or
> so) people. For the record, 1 million no longer qualifies as rich, in
> my eyes.
>
> There is quite a few of them, who think that they would become better
> off, if they could reduce their taxes by a few extra bucks. "Starve
> the government", "fuck the poor", "I need the money" and all.
anecdotal. i've met a lot who don't believe this. either way, neither
experiences count.
> I believe this to be shortsighted. First, they are on the flat part of
> the utility curve, and extra money just does not add as much to their
> happiness.
that's your opinion and why do you get to make this decision for the person
earning the money?
> Second, any rich person wants to a) preserve his capital and b) live
> in a stable society, in order to enjoy the capital and pass a part of
> it to his heirs.
>
> Preserving capital is difficult, if deficits turn into inflation.
>
> Similarly, living in a stable society, where their wealth would not be
> taken away or evaporate due to various social upheavals, etc, comes at
> a cost. Stable and competitive society is not possible if the
> government cannot keep expenses that are commensurate with the level
> of expenses that is needed to live in a stable environment, fund the
> military, education for working class, etc.
>
> Lastly, "upward mobility", which is ability of people to become rich,
> has a flip side, which is a "down mobility". Quite often, rich people
> become poor, due to one mistake or another, or just loss of ability of
> their business to make a profit.
>
> It sucks to become poorer, but it sucks much worse if this newly poor
> person cannot even find health insurance.
>
> In light of this, for a rationally minded wealthy person, would gladly
> trade a few percent of their income in exchange for social stability,
> ability to find qualified workers, firm currency, and so on.
again, opinion. there are a host of other alternative and rational
decisions. for one example, look at money flight out of Great Britain or
Scandinavia due to tax reasons. and again, who decides what that few percent
may be, and what guarantees that it would remain a few percent?
Jon Elson
>
> I have a reason to have an accountant, and feel that the accountant
> expense may be my best investment.
OK, I had one some years ago, and was NOT impressed with what she did
for me. It took a lot of time to prepare info and go back several times
with more info. She WAS a great help in SETTING UP my business,
however, and getting me through all the procedures the first time.
Jon
Ignoramus24155
I had one like that too, she only cared about getting a check from me.
This one, though, is very good, I had him for 10 years and I am very
happy.
i
Larry Jaques
<ignoram...@NOSPAM.24155.invalid> wrote:
>I have met a few rich (or at least well to do, say worth 5-10 mil or
>so) people. For the record, 1 million no longer qualifies as rich, in
>my eyes.
>
>There is quite a few of them, who think that they would become better
>off, if they could reduce their taxes by a few extra bucks. "Starve
>the government", "fuck the poor", "I need the money" and all.
"Starve the government"? Christ on a crutch, Ig. The gov't could
reduce spending on worthless projects and agencies, then start paying
down the debt, balancing the budget, ending warfare, and still help
the poor IF THEY WANTED TO. Please ask them why they don't want to.
>In light of this, for a rationally minded wealthy person, would gladly
>trade a few percent of their income in exchange for social stability,
>ability to find qualified workers, firm currency, and so on.
>
>Warren Buffett is one of such rationally minded people.
Warren Buffett has just a -few- more rubles than you or I do, Ig. He
can afford to do anything he wants to do, twice, including giving away
a billion of them each time. I'm not in your class and you're not in
his.
--
Make up your mind to act decidedly and take the consequences.
No good is ever done in this world by hesitation.
-- Thomas H. Huxley
Ed Huntress
"Larry Jaques" <lja...@invalid.diversify.com> wrote in message
news:r17no65df0mioeinh...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 12:20:13 -0500, Ignoramus24155
> <ignoram...@NOSPAM.24155.invalid> wrote:
>
>>I have met a few rich (or at least well to do, say worth 5-10 mil or
>>so) people. For the record, 1 million no longer qualifies as rich, in
>>my eyes.
>>
>>There is quite a few of them, who think that they would become better
>>off, if they could reduce their taxes by a few extra bucks. "Starve
>>the government", "fuck the poor", "I need the money" and all.
>
> "Starve the government"? Christ on a crutch, Ig. The gov't could
> reduce spending on worthless projects and agencies, then start paying
> down the debt, balancing the budget, ending warfare, and still help
> the poor IF THEY WANTED TO. Please ask them why they don't want to.
Because the poor, and the middle class, aren't the ones who pay the big
chunks of money for their re-election campaigns, or provide lobbying jobs
for them when they leave Congress.
--
Ed Huntress
John R. Carroll
> "Larry Jaques" <lja...@invalid.diversify.com> wrote in message
> news:r17no65df0mioeinh...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 12:20:13 -0500, Ignoramus24155
>> <ignoram...@NOSPAM.24155.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> I have met a few rich (or at least well to do, say worth 5-10 mil or
>>> so) people. For the record, 1 million no longer qualifies as rich,
>>> in my eyes.
>>>
>>> There is quite a few of them, who think that they would become
>>> better off, if they could reduce their taxes by a few extra bucks.
>>> "Starve the government", "fuck the poor", "I need the money" and
>>> all.
>>
>> "Starve the government"? Christ on a crutch, Ig. The gov't could
>> reduce spending on worthless projects and agencies, then start paying
>> down the debt, balancing the budget, ending warfare, and still help
>> the poor IF THEY WANTED TO. Please ask them why they don't want to.
>
> Because the poor, and the middle class, aren't the ones who pay the
> big chunks of money for their re-election campaigns, or provide
> lobbying jobs for them when they leave Congress.
You can't explain a voting record like Chuck Schumer's or Chris Dodd's any
other way.
They aren't alone, of course, but well known examples of exactly how things
work.
--
John R. Carroll
Ed Huntress
"John R. Carroll" <nunyab...@dev.null> wrote in message
news:u7KdnQSy9rwbOhbQ...@giganews.com...
Yeah, I'm still trying to imagine Chris Dodd as the head of the Motion
Pictures Association. It should be funny.
--
Ed Huntress
F. George McDuffee
<nunyab...@dev.null> wrote:
============
Indeed, and this seems to be a rampant and rapidly
increasing problem, and a development/variant of the banned
SILO/LILO abusive tax shelters.
For years the clamor has been for "government" to be run
more like business, which in many cases is not a bad thing,
but not when the businesses being emulated are Enron,
General Motors, Global Crossing or IndyMac/Countrywide.
For example the city of Chicago sold the rights to its
parking meter revenues.
http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/11/24/chicagos-parking-deal-revisited/
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/11/04/chicagoparkingmeters-debt-notes-idUSN0455874120101104
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2008/12/aldermen-deba-1.html
Wisconsin, with its recent public employees labor relations
problems is another government that is seeking to sell off
vital assets, AKA "eating the seed corn."
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/wisconsins-walker-joins-government-asset-giveaway-club-and-is-rahm-soon-to-follow.html
<snip>
16.896 Sale or contractual operation of state-owned heating,
cooling, and power plants. (1) Notwithstanding ss. 13.48
(14) (am) and 16.705 (1), the department may sell any
state-owned heating, cooling, and power plant or may
contract with a private entity for the operation of any such
plant, with or without solicitation of bids, for any amount
that the department determines to be in the best interest of
the state. Notwithstanding ss. 196.49 and 196.80, no
approval or certification of the public service commission
is necessary for a public utility to purchase, or contract
for the operation of, such a plant, and any such purchase is
considered to be in the public interest and to comply with
the criteria for certification of a project under s. 196.49
(3) (b).
<snip>
also see
http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/the-less-discussed-part-of-walkers-wisconsin-plan-no-bid-energy-assets-firesales/
While the distinction is seldom made in the US, this problem
appears to be based on the failure to clearly differentiate
between "government" and "state" in that the governments are
selling what belongs to the state,as the government is
technically the "administrator" for the state, with no clear
title or mandate to sell or otherwise dispose of, i.e.
fraudulent conveyance, and is yet another example of why it
is no longer safe to rely on "ethics" and "social control"
to limit our politicians actions, but detailed laws with
severe criminal/civil penalties are now required.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraudulent_conveyance
and/or
"SALE OR RECEIPT OF STOLEN PROPERTY"
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s001.htm
FYI
http://www.istockanalyst.com/finance/story/5007318/another-voice-us-will-go-bankrupt
Hawke
> "Existential Angst"<fit...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:4d8a70ee$0$10108$607e...@cv.net...
>> "Ed Huntress"<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>> news:4d8a6c64$0$10144$607e...@cv.net...
>>>
>>> "Existential Angst"<fit...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>>> news:4d8a6b9d$0$10150$607e...@cv.net...
>>>> "Ignoramus29973"<ignoram...@NOSPAM.29973.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:YPidnZyZXo4tzRfQ...@giganews.com...
>>>>> My accountant just got back to me with "the number" of my taxes.
>>>>>
>>>>> due to underpayment of estimated taxes during the year, I calculated
>>>>> that federal taxes are something like 16% of my gross income (not
>>>>> adjusted gross income).
>>>>>
>>>>> REMOTELY begin to feel that this 16% amounts to a crushing financial
>>>>> burden for me.
>>>>>
>>>>> dollar deficit, and yet the taxes are THIS low? What is wrong with
>>>>> this picture?
>>>>>
>>>>> To suggest that changing 16% to, say, 20% would somehow make me
>>>>> unwilling to make money, is surely crazy. Whether I get 84 cents on
>>>>> every dollar earned, or just 80 cents, should have more or less no
>>>>> impact on me wanting to earn extra money.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Heh, you can always pay MY taxes.... or better yet, feed my cats/pay
>>>> the vet bill.... holy shit....
>>>
>>> Eat the cats, screw the vet, and you'll have some steroid-free meals and
>>> save money to pay your taxes, eh?
>>>
>>> There's always a solution. (Tastes like chicken...)
>>
>> Seem like everything "tastes like chicken".... people, snakes, dogs.....
>
> Squirrel tastes more like turkey. And 'possum, if you use your imagination,
> is a little like pork. Javelina tastes more like lamb.
>
> <urrrpp!>
>
>>
>> I don't mind paying taxes. I do mind, tho, that my taxes are used,
>> directly and indirectly, to fuck me in the ass.
>> I think Congressional seats should be filled just like we fill jury
>> boxes: Bang, you get a letter in the mail,
>> Dear Citizen:
>> For the next 4 years you will be Senator of NYS.... please report
>> to.....
>>
>> Couldn't be any worse -- reminds me of monkeys picking stocks better than
>> effingStockbrokers
>> --
>> EA
>
> Limit campaign spending like the Brits so. That would fix it.
>
Yeah, but then the rich wouldn't have any more influence over the
government than the rest of us do. So why would they do that when right
now they own the government?
Hawke
Hawke
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:57:36 -0500, Ignoramus29973
> <ignoram...@NOSPAM.29973.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>> While I do have to make a substantial additional tax payment for 2010,
>> due to underpayment of estimated taxes during the year, I calculated
>> that federal taxes are something like 16% of my gross income (not
>> adjusted gross income).
>>
>> However much I would like to save an extra buck, I cannot even
>> REMOTELY begin to feel that this 16% amounts to a crushing financial
>> burden for me.
>>
>> In fact, I am asking, WTF is going on, the country runs a trillion
>> dollar deficit, and yet the taxes are THIS low? What is wrong with
>> this picture?
>>
>> To suggest that changing 16% to, say, 20% would somehow make me
>> unwilling to make money, is surely crazy. Whether I get 84 cents on
>> every dollar earned, or just 80 cents, should have more or less no
>> impact on me wanting to earn extra money.
>>
>
> IF they would use the money to pay off debt and learn to live within
> their means, I also would support your position. But they won't. The
> demo-publicans are unable to contain spending. Would you give money to
> a relative that just pisses it away and is broke again next week?
>
> Karl
Some day you people are going to have to learn the facts, believe me it
will change how you think. A lot of people seem to think that the
politicians are just spending our money like drunken sailors and are
just plain irresponsible with our tax money. That's really not true. Why?
Because most of the money we give the government goes for health care
for seniors, the military, interest on the debt we owe, and for social
security. Now, pretty much everybody thinks we should be paying for
these things. If you got rid of all spending except for those things we
would still be in the hole. So it's not stupid, wasteful, spending that
is the problem.
The problem is we are not taxing enough, especially on the richest
people and on corporations, and we are spending too much on war. If we
quit fighting wars, and payed down some of the debt, there would be more
than enough money to pay our expenses.
Then there is one other factor and that's the business cycle, which we
happen to be near the bottom of. In time the economy will get back to
what we consider normal. At that point we will also have far more money
coming into the treasury. There are 15 million people out there who are
not working. When they eventually get jobs again we won't be in a
financial pickle. The path to fiscal soundness is not that difficult.
But we do have to have the guts to do what we know is the right thing.
But with the government captive to wealth and corporations I don't know
if we will ever take the steps necessary to get back to fiscal
soundness. Becausse it's more a matter of politics than it is of knowing
how we should do it.
Hawke
Hawke
> "Edward A. Falk"<fa...@rahul.net> wrote in message
> news:imeda8$j7k$2...@blue.rahul.net...
>> In article<4cvko65i10e2q89gr...@4ax.com>,
>> Karl Townsend<karltown...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> IF they would use the money to pay off debt and learn to live within
>>> their means, I also would support your position. But they won't.
>>
>> running a surpluss and starting to pay down the debt.
>>
>> People call the Democrats the "tax and spend" party. I guess
>> that makes the Republicans the "borrow and spend" party.
>
> You've got it.
>
Not quite. For the republicans it's the borrow and spend "more" party.
Hawke
Hawke
> "Ignoramus29973"<ignoram...@NOSPAM.29973.invalid> wrote in message
> news:YPidnZyZXo4tzRfQ...@giganews.com...
>>
>> While I do have to make a substantial additional tax payment for 2010,
>> due to underpayment of estimated taxes during the year, I calculated
>> that federal taxes are something like 16% of my gross income (not
>> adjusted gross income).
>>
>> However much I would like to save an extra buck, I cannot even
>> REMOTELY begin to feel that this 16% amounts to a crushing financial
>> burden for me.
>>
>> In fact, I am asking, WTF is going on, the country runs a trillion
>> dollar deficit, and yet the taxes are THIS low? What is wrong with
>> this picture?
>>
>> To suggest that changing 16% to, say, 20% would somehow make me
>> unwilling to make money, is surely crazy. Whether I get 84 cents on
>> every dollar earned, or just 80 cents, should have more or less no
>> impact on me wanting to earn extra money.
>>
>> i
>
> I don't know if you are self employed, but I start with 15.2% for SS and
> Medicare.
> Then add on 16%, then if you live in a state that taxes say 6%.
> That adds to 37.2% leaving you 62.8%. Now I go to the store and I have 7%
> sales tax.
> But that's 7% of the 62.8% I have left, that's 11.1% of the 100% I started
> with, so now
> my 62.8% becomes 51.7%.
> And sometimes it's worse, look at taxes on your phone, cable bill,
> gasoline. And don't forget
> property taxes and fees you must pay to get any governmental action on a
> property.
> I think government can do with less.
> The did ok from 1776 to 1920 with a lot less. And built the strongest
> economic
> and military power on earth.
> Mikek
>
>
This points to what I've said over and over. I don't know what this
poster's income is but lets just say it's like most people and it's
around 50 thousand. When he is through paying all his taxes, both the
ones you see clearly and all the hidden ones as well, he is giving the
government half of his 50 thousand dollars he makes in a year. To me
this is astronomically high for someone making this amount of money. The
point being that after taxes the man has only 25 thousand to live on for
the year, and that's not easy.
Now suppose he made a million a year. If he paid the same rate he'd
still have 500,000 left to live on. That's pretty easy to live on. But
as Ig pointed out, the guy making the million is probably not going to
cough up a full half of his income whereas the guy making 50K a year
does have to.
That's the crux of it. People making a lot of money are not really
paying half of it to the government but the ordinary guy is. That means
we have an unjust system of taxes. Nothing new there though. The system
is set up to benefit those on top and fleece those on the bottom. Just
like everything else in this country. Is it any wonder why people are
mad? This is just another example of the cards being stacked against you
if you're a regular working person. That's bad enough to take on its
own. But when you're getting a lousy deal and then you see the richest
people getting treated like royalty that just tears it. I'm really
surprised people are not taking drastic action. But then, it seems like
Americans just don't have the cojones to stand up for themselves anymore.
Hawke
Hawke
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 19:46:12 -0500, "amdx"
===========
> While this sounds appealing and plausible, the historical
> record does not totally support this assumption.
>
> Two of the more important technologies for American
> growth/development have been communications and
> transportation.
>
> Implementation of the US national telegraph network was
> heavily subsidized,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Transcontinental_Telegraph
> http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/nonnenmacher.industry.telegraphic.us
> http://www.telegraph-history.org/transcontinental-telegraph/index.html
> and two areas of transportation, namely the canals, e.g.
> Erie,
> http://www.jstor.org/pss/2113882
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_turnpikes_and_canals_in_the_United_States
> and even to a larger extent the railroads were heavenly
> subsidized, albeit not directly with Federal funds, but with
> grants of public land.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Transcontinental_Railroad
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkerboarding_%28land%29
>
> There was both direct payments for track laid for
> intercontinental links, and huge amounts of land ceded to
> the railroads by the Federal government, thus doing an end
> run around the constitutional requirement that all such
> transactions should be done only through the Treasury so
> these could be recorded and tracked.
>
> The railroads later sold much of this "free" land to
> immigrant farmers, so realized a profit in two ways, first
> from the land sales, and then from the shipment of
> agricultural products. The huge [subsidized] expansion of
> the railroads directly supported the establishment and
> growth of the domestic US iron/steel industry [rails] and
> heavy industry [locomotive& rail car construction].
Just like always. Private business can't do anything without the help of
the government.
Hawke
Too_Many_Tools
I like Buffett.
He gets exactly what you just discussed.
Now I am not naive and think that he is completely for the "good of
the many" but I from what I see and hear he lives the life that backs
up his talk.
In my opinion those who advocate for tax cuts in today's fiscal
environment are fools...greedy fools. They will not be happy until
they have every last cent...at the cost of everyone and everything.
It reminds me of the slaughter of the American Bison...tens of
millions were slaughtered for little good reason and only because a
few people stood up and said "Enough" are they still around.
TMT
John R. Carroll
Government being run as a business isn't just a bad idea, it contravenes the
purpose of government in a modern society. You end up destroying that which
any government's are established to create, stable and broadly prosperous
societies.
This is by design. "Cutting the Fat" in the corporate world equals the most
inhumane disenfranchisement of the "unproductive" poor. Upward mobility
wouldn't exist.
You wouldn't want to take such an approach to its logical conclusion.
Not even "business" would be interested in investing in a country governed
by corporate rules or driven by corporate purpose as policy.
What people hear is that business executives are somehow better at
governance. History leaves absolutely no doubt whatsoever that this is
patently false.
For one thing, CEO's that end up in elected office quickly learn that they
need the cooperation not just of their like minded fellows but a certain
willingness on the part of their political adversary's.
Very few are able to cope or adjust to that reality. A recent and notable
example is Gov. Ahnahld here in California. The guy is one of the most
astute players in the business world but didn't get a great deal done as
Governor.
He's a wealthy, succesful, square head that resented the
Legistlatures failure to march to his well orchestrated directives.
The few things accomplished had the overwhelming support of his political
opposites. There were a couple of exceptions but it's just a couple, as in
maybe 2. Ahnald as deply offended that the rest of the world didn't percieve
his genius.
Professional politicians, on the other hand, promising to bring the
boardroom to office
are promoting a deliberate misconception.
They are intending to bring privatization and not the discipline that voters
believe they are casting ballots for.
In the end, what ends up being privatized are the big fat profits to be had.
What is public remains public and that is the losses. That is exactly what
you'd want if your name was Blankfein, Dimon, or Pandit.
A CDS without premium payments.
The generation that preceded what has been called the "Greatest Generation"
is very different than their sons and daughters. Truman, Marshall, FDR and
even the likes of pols such as Rankin
watched as prosperity in the land turned to ash in front of their eyes.
Homes and farms were repossed right and left en mass. One third ogf the
adult population roamed the country looking for work.
"Big Government" picked up the pieces under their legistlative guidance in
the form of Acts like the Serviceman's Readjustment Act of 1944, the
creation of the TVA and Rural electrification projects. Most people don't
know it but Herbert Hoover created what became Fannie Mae. The generation of
Truman, Rankin, George Marshall and FDR believed in government and were
highly suspect of business.
They rightly saw the results of the market's gone wild and appreciated that
reality.
Their successors, on the other hand, knew their government largely through
experiences in the armed forces.
Endless attacks that weren't either explained to them and seemed pointless
in many instances.
Supply chain management that sent men into combat in the dead of winter
without even basic necessities such as winter shoe packs.
That generation saw their success not as the result of government efforts
but in spite of same.
This is the great contraction of our times. A financial bounty the likes of
which the world had never seen and hasn't seen since enabled a nation of
renters to become homeowners. People with no hope whatever of furthering
their educations went to college
by the millions and entered the work force to build upon the inventions of
war.
They created the greatest, most prosperous culture the world has ever known
on the basis of huge government investments in them while nurturing a
profound distrust not of the corporate world but of their own government.
They knew the poverty of the 30's and had no experience beyond the "nobody
had any money" culture.
The knew nothing of the "Roaring 20's" and lost prosperity. They were too
young to have such memories.
The "Greatest Generation" instilled this distrust of government in their
children and it also pervaded their peer group. The result was Ronald Reagan
first as Governor of California and then President of the United States.
Then in their progeny in the visage of George W. Bush. Neither man reduced
either the size or scope of government and the mess W. left behind is truly
a wonder to behold.
Think about that for a minute.
American's elected a man to lead their national government whose philosophy
espoused the following:
Reagan famously declared at his 1981 inauguration that "in the present
crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the
problem."
Reagan then went on to prove exactly that during the course of his two terms
in office, not by fixing anything but with a huge demanstration that he was
just correct.
His governance was poor at best and a disgraceful failure of leadership at
worst.
The less said about Bush, the better but results count and America will be
living with the fallout of the result George W. Bush delivered for a
generation or more.
There you have it George.
--
John R. Carroll
F. George McDuffee
<nunyab...@dev.null> wrote:
<snip>
>The Fed is a private business George.
>They don't issue US Government debt.
>The Treasury Department does that.
=========
While technically correct, it is also a huge dodge to avoid
the constitutional requirement than "money" issued by the
government *MUST* be backed by gold or silver.
As the government no longer issues paper money, and the FRB
is not officially part of government their notes don't have
to be backed by anything.
I do question how the government is avoiding the gold/silver
backed requirement for the coins they churn out at the mint.
At this point they are attempting to get rid of the penny as
the metal content, now mainly zinc, is at or above the
nominal value of the coin. Solid copper pennies were
withdrawn years ago. Compressed chicken $**t would seem to
be a suitable and appropriate replacement material.
John R. Carroll
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 10:38:33 -0700, "John R. Carroll"
> <nunyab...@dev.null> wrote:
> <snip>
>> The Fed is a private business George.
>> They don't issue US Government debt.
>> The Treasury Department does that.
> <snip>
> =========
> While technically correct, it is also a huge dodge to avoid
> the constitutional requirement than "money" issued by the
> government *MUST* be backed by gold or silver.
>
> As the government no longer issues paper money, and the FRB
> is not officially part of government their notes don't have
> to be backed by anything.
I would simply argue that the FRB is actually a fourth branch of government,
George, and it's an argument I'd win.
>
> I do question how the government is avoiding the gold/silver
> backed requirement for the coins they churn out at the mint.
The Congress passes laws allowing it.
They just don't get much attention since we are no longer on a metallic
standard and haven't been for some time.
> At this point they are attempting to get rid of the penny as
> the metal content, now mainly zinc, is at or above the
> nominal value of the coin. Solid copper pennies were
> withdrawn years ago. Compressed chicken $**t would seem to
> be a suitable and appropriate replacement material.
Works for me!
--
John R. Carroll
John R. Carroll
Funny like an old fool with a young wife.
He's perfect for Lindsay Lohan.
LOL
--
John R. Carroll
GeoLane at PTD dot NET
<ignoram...@NOSPAM.29973.invalid> wrote:
>My accountant just got back to me with "the number" of my taxes.
>
>While I do have to make a substantial additional tax payment for 2010,
>due to underpayment of estimated taxes during the year, I calculated
>that federal taxes are something like 16% of my gross income (not
>adjusted gross income).
Funny you should bring up this topic. The other week I added up all
the federal, state, and local taxes, Social Security, Medicare, etc
witheld from my pay check last year and divided that by my gross
income. All those witholds cost me 34%, and I never qualify for a
refund. and no I didn' t make a mistake in my taxes; they're done by
an accountant.
Ed Huntress
"F. George McDuffee" <gmcd...@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote in message
news:du1oo6tthgvqnqq6k...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 10:38:33 -0700, "John R. Carroll"
> <nunyab...@dev.null> wrote:
> <snip>
>>The Fed is a private business George.
>>They don't issue US Government debt.
>>The Treasury Department does that.
> <snip>
> =========
> While technically correct, it is also a huge dodge to avoid
> the constitutional requirement than "money" issued by the
> government *MUST* be backed by gold or silver.
That's not in the Constitution, George. All it says is "coin," and Congress
has the power to set the value of any coin. The gold and silver business
applies to the states.
As for paper, that was settled in the "Legal Tender Cases": Knox v. Lee,
(1871), and Julliard v. Greenman (1884). They were based largely on
Congress's power to borrow "money" and to coin it. It's considered an
inherent power.
--
Ed Huntress
John R. Carroll
Clearly you don't make enough money to get beyond regressive payroll taxes.
G.E.'s Strategies Let It Avoid Taxes Altogether
By DAVID KOCIENIEWSKI
General Electric, the nation's largest corporation, had a very good year in
2010.
The company reported worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, and said $5.1
billion of the total came from its operations in the United States.
Its American tax bill? None. In fact, G.E. claimed a tax benefit of $3.2
billion.
That may be hard to fathom for the millions of American business owners and
households now preparing their own returns, but low taxes are nothing new
for G.E. The company has been cutting the percentage of its American profits
paid to the Internal Revenue Service for years, resulting in a far lower
rate than at most multinational companies.
Its extraordinary success is based on an aggressive strategy that mixes
fierce lobbying for tax breaks and innovative accounting that enables it to
concentrate its profits offshore. G.E.'s giant tax department, led by a
bow-tied former Treasury official named John Samuels, is often referred to
as the world's best tax law firm. Indeed, the company's slogan "Imagination
at Work" fits this department well. The team includes former officials not
just from the Treasury, but also from the I.R.S. and virtually all the
tax-writing committees in Congress.
While General Electric is one of the most skilled at reducing its tax
burden, many other companies have become better at this as well. Although
the top corporate tax rate in the United States is 35 percent, one of the
highest in the world, companies have been increasingly using a maze of
shelters, tax credits and subsidies to pay far less.
In a regulatory filing just a week before the Japanese disaster put a
spotlight on the company's nuclear reactor business, G.E. reported that its
tax burden was 7.4 percent of its American profits, about a third of the
average reported by other American multinationals. Even those figures are
overstated, because they include taxes that will be paid only if the company
brings its overseas profits back to the United States. With those profits
still offshore, G.E. is effectively getting money back.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?_r=1&hp
--
John R. Carroll
F. George McDuffee
<nunyab...@dev.null> wrote:
<snip>
>Government being run as a business isn't just a bad idea, it contravenes the
>purpose of government in a modern society. You end up destroying that which
>any government's are established to create, stable and broadly prosperous
>societies.
>
>This is by design. "Cutting the Fat" in the corporate world equals the most
>inhumane disenfranchisement of the "unproductive" poor. Upward mobility
>wouldn't exist.
>You wouldn't want to take such an approach to its logical conclusion.
<snip>
============
Ah the English as she is spoke...
This is correct assuming that the transnational "bad seed"
spawned from corporate aberrations such as Gulf+Western [aka
Engulf+Devour] with their "buy, ruin, sell" business plan
represent "business," which most unfortunately they
increasingly appear to do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf%2BWestern
I was referring to an earlier era where US companies made
money by manufacturing things that people wanted/needed at a
cost they could afford and developed/invested significant
amounts in accurate cost accounting, inventory control
[anyone remember MRP?], and methods/manufacturing
engineering, not to eliminate employees, but rather to make
them available for additional operations and expanded
production as there was a skilled and unskilled labor
shortage in the 1960 and early 1970s.
As I indicated in other postings, accurate data on
governmental operations and spending is critical if any
progress is to be made in resolving the current and
continuing crisis. It was in the sense of collecting and
collating data w/ accurate and timely reports that I
suggested that government could be more like business.
Additionally government needs to examine their operations,
simplify these where possible, and introduce much greater
use of computers/automation. The quill pens and parchment
used to transcribe the same date over and over again have
got to go. General Motors is a prime example of what occurs
when an organization attempts to operate w/o accurate and
reliable cost accounting and simply "wings it."
F. George McDuffee
<nunyab...@dev.null> wrote:
<snip>
>I would simply argue that the FRB is actually a fourth branch of government,
>George, and it's an argument I'd win.
Operationally yes, and now probably the most powerful of the
4. Legally no, which shields them from several pesky
requirements such as FOIA requests unless you are prepared
[translation: have the money] to fight all the way to the
SCOTUS.
F. George McDuffee
=========
Another excellent argument for an AMCT [alternative minimum
corporate tax] possibly based on total domestic gross sales
rather than net domestic profit.
Another "buzz phrase" that resonates is "unitary taxation."
http://www.jrank.org/finance/pages/13376/unitary-taxation.html
http://www.caltax.org/issues/legislation/WatersEdgeUnitaryTax.pdf
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1079/is_v84/ai_3329237/
and many more
Too_Many_Tools
>
> - Show quoted text -
Take a look at GE health interests. ;<)
Their credit arm is good for laughs too.
TMT
PrecisionmachinisT
"Ignoramus29973" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.29973.invalid> wrote in message
news:YPidnZyZXo4tzRfQ...@giganews.com...
>
> While I do have to make a substantial additional tax payment for 2010,
> due to underpayment of estimated taxes during the year, I calculated
> that federal taxes are something like 16% of my gross income (not
> adjusted gross income).
>
> REMOTELY begin to feel that this 16% amounts to a crushing financial
> burden for me.
>
> In fact, I am asking, WTF is going on, the country runs a trillion
> dollar deficit, and yet the taxes are THIS low? What is wrong with
> this picture?
>
> To suggest that changing 16% to, say, 20% would somehow make me
> unwilling to make money, is surely crazy. Whether I get 84 cents on
> every dollar earned, or just 80 cents, should have more or less no
> impact on me wanting to earn extra money.
>
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/new-civil-war-erupts-led-by-super-rich-gop-2011-03-22
"Now we know with certainty that the budget crises in the 50 states were
"created on Wall Street then moved to Main Street, deepened by the policy
decisions to bail out banks instead of bailing out homeowners, instead of
bailing out workers. And that means your tax base collapses."
"We know Wall Street greed was the fuel igniting America's current economic
problems. And now, unfortunately, average Americans have "to pay for the
crisis again. First, with a bailout. And now, people are paying with it
again, with budget cuts."
"And underneath all is the GOP's free-market Reaganomics ideology. Wake up
America, you're losing the new Civil War to a rich class that's lost its
moral compass."
"Bottom line, Klein warns: "What this fight is really about is not unions
versus taxpayers . It's a fight about who's going to pay for the crisis that
was created by the wealthiest elite in this country."
"Actually, it's even worse. Because while we averted total collapse, it was
only delayed, destined to return soon and finally overwhelm America.
Remember Uncle Warren's battle cry: "The rich class is winning."
--
KD7HB
> =========
> Another excellent argument for an AMCT [alternative minimum
> corporate tax] possibly based on total domestic gross sales
> rather than net domestic profit.
>
We have that right now in Oregon and it taxes "C" corps on their gross sales in Oregon. This is the second year in force because the legislature back dated the law! "S" corps and others pay a minimum of $150. I have had to borrow that amount because my company lost money.
As many "C" corps as possible have changed to "S" corps. Many co-ops have gone out of business. Many large wheat ranches, etc. have been sold to out of state corporations. They would have NO in state sales.
Of course, the lawyers, the "PC" professional corporations, are exempt!
What a screwed up mess.
Paul
John R. Carroll
Perhaps but this doesn't look especially onerous to me.
You can't get a business license in most California cities at the rates
Oregon charges.
Revised Minimum Tax - Prior to the law change, Oregon imposed a $10 minimum
tax on all C
corporations subject to the corporate excise tax as well as all S
corporations, but partnerships were
not subject to a minimum tax. For C corporations or affiliated groups filing
a return under Or. Rev.
Stat. § 317.710, the new law revises the minimum tax by applying a sliding
scale based on Oregon
sales as determined under Oregon's sales factor rules (Or. Rev. Stat. §
314.665).3 The applicable
minimum tax amounts, based on Oregon sales, are as follows:
. Less than $500,000 $150
. $500,000 or more, but less than $1 million $500
. $1 million or more, but less than $2 million $1,000
. $2 million or more, but less than $3 million $1,500
. $3 million or more, but less than $5 million $2,000
. $5 million or more, but less than $7 million $4,000
. $7 million or more, but less than $10 million $7,500
. $10 million or more, but less than $25 million $15,000
. $25 million or more, but less than $50 million $30,000
. $50 million or more, but less than $75 million $50,000
. $75 million or more, but less than $100 million $75,000
. $100 million or more: $100,0004
The revised law also imposes a minimum tax of $150 on S corporations and on
partnerships
transacting business in Oregon.5 These law changes are effective for tax
years beginning on or
after January 1, 2009.
--
John R. Carroll
Rich Grise
corporate tax, at least not the way the politics of envy sees it. To
a corporation, no matter how much you tax them, from their point of
view, it's just part of the cost of doing business, and the only place
they get the money to pay it is from their customers. When you raise
corporate taxes, all you're doing is raising the price you pay for
products.
Thanks,
Rich
Too_Many_Tools
<precisionmachin...@notmail.com> wrote:
> "Ignoramus29973" <ignoramus29...@NOSPAM.29973.invalid> wrote in message
>
> news:YPidnZyZXo4tzRfQ...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > My accountant just got back to me with "the number" of my taxes.
>
> > While I do have to make a substantial additional tax payment for 2010,
> > due to underpayment of estimated taxes during the year, I calculated
> > that federal taxes are something like 16% of my gross income (not
> > adjusted gross income).
>
> > However much I would like to save an extra buck, I cannot even
> > REMOTELY begin to feel that this 16% amounts to a crushing financial
> > burden for me.
>
> > In fact, I am asking, WTF is going on, the country runs a trillion
> > dollar deficit, and yet the taxes are THIS low? What is wrong with
> > this picture?
>
> > To suggest that changing 16% to, say, 20% would somehow make me
> > unwilling to make money, is surely crazy. Whether I get 84 cents on
> > every dollar earned, or just 80 cents, should have more or less no
> > impact on me wanting to earn extra money.
>
>
> "Now we know with certainty that the budget crises in the 50 states were
> "created on Wall Street then moved to Main Street, deepened by the policy
> decisions to bail out banks instead of bailing out homeowners, instead of
> bailing out workers. And that means your tax base collapses."
>
> "We know Wall Street greed was the fuel igniting America's current economic
> problems. And now, unfortunately, average Americans have "to pay for the
> crisis again. First, with a bailout. And now, people are paying with it
> again, with budget cuts."
>
> "And underneath all is the GOP's free-market Reaganomics ideology. Wake up
> America, you're losing the new Civil War to a rich class that's lost its
> moral compass."
>
> "Bottom line, Klein warns: "What this fight is really about is not unions
> versus taxpayers . It's a fight about who's going to pay for the crisis that
> was created by the wealthiest elite in this country."
>
> "Actually, it's even worse. Because while we averted total collapse, it was
> only delayed, destined to return soon and finally overwhelm America.
> Remember Uncle Warren's battle cry: "The rich class is winning."
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Good post.
We are living the results of "don't need any stinking regulation".
I am still waiting to see what they are going to do about the "too big
to fail" problem.
TMT
Hawke
> F. George McDuffee wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:57:36 -0500, Ignoramus29973
>> <snip>
>>> To suggest that changing 16% to, say, 20% would somehow make me
>>> unwilling to make money, is surely crazy. Whether I get 84 cents on
>>> every dollar earned, or just 80 cents, should have more or less no
>>> impact on me wanting to earn extra money.
>> A major problem is that from at least the end of WWII in the
>> US, $1.00 in additional governmental revenue has always been
>> matched by $1.10 to $1.25 additional governmental spending
>> at all levels. Very little was ever done to pay down
>> existing debt or establish a "rainy day fund" or surplus for
>> the down years which are sure to come.
>
> Big surplus accounts in the absense of debt or rainy day funds pose a big
> challenge.
> Where do you want to put the money?
> Equities? Bonds?
> Do you really want the Federal Government acting as a private investor as a
> matter of policy?
> I don't think so.
>
>>
>> IMNSHO until and unless Draconian spending and personnel
>> caps are enacted, it is futile to try to tax our way out of
>> the hole.
>
> Employment at the Federal level is at an all time low right now, George.
> You have to go all the way back to 1960 to have parity.
>
>> The refusal by Congress to increase the national
>> debt limit will operationally impose a balanced budget
>> requirement by preventing any further increase in the
>> national debt, although it does nothing about forcing the
>> repayment of the existing c.14 trillion dollar debt.
>
> It might also have the unintended consequence of imposing asset sales.
> We got Louisianna and a bunch of other properties when the French capped
> their debt.
> Which State would you like to sell the Saudi's?
Texas.
Hawke
Jon Elson
> On 2011-03-24, Jon Elson<jme...@wustl.edu> wrote:
>> On 03/24/2011 01:36 PM, Ignoramus24155 wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I have a reason to have an accountant, and feel that the accountant
>>> expense may be my best investment.
>>
>> OK, I had one some years ago, and was NOT impressed with what she did
>> for me. It took a lot of time to prepare info and go back several times
>> with more info. She WAS a great help in SETTING UP my business,
>> however, and getting me through all the procedures the first time.
>
> I had one like that too, she only cared about getting a check from me.
No, its not like that. The real problem was that once I had the records
together, and that was the largest effort, filling out the forms, even
manually, was quite straightforward. With a computer program, it is
almost trivial, and also checks a bunch of things for inconsistency.
For a long time I kept my ledger on paper, and now I have been using a
spreadsheet that makes it easier to total everything up. I tried out a
cheapie ledger program but didn't like it.
Jon
Jon Elson
Of course, if you can't take advantage of the mortgage benefit, child
benefit, business deductions, home office benefit, etc. then you may not
be able to do much better. But, if you can set things up to use some of
those benefits, they can be ENORMOUSLY helpful in lowering your taxes.
After entering all the stuff and fixing some quibbles the tax program
found, again, this year, even though the business made money, and my
investments made money, I ended up with a very small tax burden!
I don't understand it, but I LOVE it! Thanks, uncle Sam!
I still have to see what the state will do to me, they often don't give
the same benefits, so I get a HUGE refund on the federal and then have
to pay a thousand $ or more to the state.
Jon
F. George McDuffee
================
see
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/g-e-paid-no-taxes-on-5-1-billion-in-profits;_ylt=Aj26RLD_CUNbGUfQax5Ykgys0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTR0cjMybmt1BGFzc2V0A3libG9nX3RoZWxvb2tvdXQvMjAxMTAzMjUvZy1lLXBhaWQtbm8tdGF4ZXMtb24tNS0xLWJpbGxpb24taW4tcHJvZml0cwRjY29kZQNtb3N0cG9wdWxhcgRjcG9zAzYEcG9zAzMEcHQDaG9tZV9jb2tlBHNlYwN5bl9oZWFkbGluZV9saXN0BHNsawNnZXBhaWRub3RheGU-
<snip>
As Washington worries about the United States' growing
deficit problem, there's mounting evidence the government is
failing to collect taxes from wealthy individuals and
corporations. A piece in today's New York Times by David
Kocieniewski outlines how G.E. skirted paying any taxes on
$5.1 billion in profits in 2010--in addition to claiming a
$3.2 billion tax credit.
<snip>
------------
The general rule must be "if you're gonna' play then you
gotta' pay."
Particularly at the municipal and state levels, corporations
expect/demand governmental services such as law enforcement,
civil/criminal courts, emergency services such as fire and
medical, and obtain the benefits of universal education in
their work force. It seems only reasonable that part of
their normal business expenses include reasonable taxes to
help pay for these benefits.
Too_Many_Tools
associates.us> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 09:55:10 -0700 (PDT), KD7HB
>
>
>
>
>
> <co_far...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Thursday, March 24, 2011 10:04:12 PM UTC-7, F. George McDuffee wrote:
>
> >> =========
> >> Another excellent argument for an AMCT [alternative minimum
> >> corporate tax] possibly based on total domestic gross sales
> >> rather than net domestic profit.
>
> >We have that right now in Oregon and it taxes "C" corps on their gross sales in Oregon. This is the second year in force because the legislature back dated the law! "S" corps and others pay a minimum of $150. I have had to borrow that amount because my company lost money.
>
> >As many "C" corps as possible have changed to "S" corps. Many co-ops have gone out of business. Many large wheat ranches, etc. have been sold to out of state corporations. They would have NO in state sales.
>
> >Of course, the lawyers, the "PC" professional corporations, are exempt!
>
> >What a screwed up mess.
>
> >Paul
>
> ================
> <snip>
> As Washington worries about the United States' growing
> deficit problem, there's mounting evidence the government is
> failing to collect taxes from wealthy individuals and
> corporations. A piece in today's New York Times by David
> Kocieniewski outlines how G.E. skirted paying any taxes on
> $5.1 billion in profits in 2010--in addition to claiming a
> $3.2 billion tax credit.
> <snip>
> ------------
> The general rule must be "if you're gonna' play then you
> gotta' pay."
>
> Particularly at the municipal and state levels, corporations
> expect/demand governmental services such as law enforcement,
> civil/criminal courts, emergency services such as fire and
> medical, and obtain the benefits of universal education in
> their work force. It seems only reasonable that part of
> their normal business expenses include reasonable taxes to
> help pay for these benefits.
>
> -- Unka George (George McDuffee)
> ..............................
> The past is a foreign country;
> they do things differently there.
> L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
>
> - Show quoted text -
I strongly agree.
TMT
F. George McDuffee
===========
This is another argument which seems plausible and appealing
on the surface.
The problem is that if corporations are [largely] exempted
from taxes this introduces severe economic distortions in
the free market which depends on transparent pricing to
operate.
Consider corporation A and propriatorship/partnership B,
where A is largely exempt from taxes, and may indeed get
subsidies and B which pays taxes and most likely does not
get a tax abatement or tax increment financing. If this
flows through A will always be able to under price B ==>at
the register<==, although the consumer (and even B) must
make up the shortfall in the amount of taxes paid.
A major problem is that most of the tax savings enjoyed by
corporation A are not passed along to the consumer, but
rather are pocketed by the corporation and its management.
<snip>
As Washington worries about the United States' growing
deficit problem, there's mounting evidence the government is
failing to collect taxes from wealthy individuals and
corporations. A piece in today's New York Times by David
Kocieniewski outlines how G.E. skirted paying any taxes on
$5.1 billion in profits in 2010--in addition to claiming a
$3.2 billion tax credit.
<snip>
In a regulatory filing just a week before the Japanese
disaster put a spotlight on the company's nuclear reactor
business, G.E. reported that its tax burden was 7.4 percent
of its American profits, about a third of the average
reported by other American multinationals. ==>Even those
figures are overstated, because they include taxes that will
be paid only if the company brings its overseas profits back
to the United States.<== With those profits still offshore,
G.E. is effectively getting money back.
==>Such strategies, as well as changes in tax laws that
encouraged some businesses and professionals to file as
individuals, have pushed down the corporate share of the
nation's tax receipts — from 30 percent of all federal
revenue in the mid-1950s to 6.6 percent in 2009.<==
<snip>
----------
If corporations were paying taxes at the same rate as the
1950s the national deficit/debt crisis would be
significantly reduced if not eliminated. I see no reason
why any for profit corporation, which is defined as a person
at law, should receive all the benefits of the US government
and not expect to pay their full and fair share of the
costs. The rule should be "if you do business here, you pay
taxes here, based on the amount of that business."
In the case of GE it is even more of a thumb in the
taxpayers' eye than usual in that defense contracting is a
significant part of their income stream, and they received
significant amounts of TARP (taxpayer) "rescue" money.
http://www.corpwatch.org/section.php?id=16
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=7846
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/industry/top100.htm
http://defensenews-updates.blogspot.com/2011/03/dtn-news-us-department-of-defense_22.html
http://noir.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a64taNc.df2c
http://www.tdtnews.com/story/2009/06/30/58963
Too_Many_Tools
>
> - Show quoted text -
And your (conservative pro-business) point IS?
What is the problem for requiring those who use public services to pay
for them?
And businesses use all of them.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
>
> http://noir.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a64taNc.df2chttp://www.tdtnews.com/story/2009/06/30/58963
>
> -- Unka George (George McDuffee)
> ..............................
> The past is a foreign country;
> they do things differently there.
> L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
>
> - Show quoted text -
The defense industry is very, very good at not paying their way.
TMT
F. George McDuffee
<ignoram...@NOSPAM.29973.invalid> wrote:
>My accountant just got back to me with "the number" of my taxes.
>
>While I do have to make a substantial additional tax payment for 2010,
>due to underpayment of estimated taxes during the year, I calculated
>that federal taxes are something like 16% of my gross income (not
>adjusted gross income).
>
>However much I would like to save an extra buck, I cannot even
>REMOTELY begin to feel that this 16% amounts to a crushing financial
>burden for me.
>
>In fact, I am asking, WTF is going on, the country runs a trillion
>dollar deficit, and yet the taxes are THIS low? What is wrong with
>this picture?
<snip>
=========
If you are following this thread the following article
should be of interest.
http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/recession-families-net-worth-fell-fed-survey-1276.php
Fed: Recession robbed net worth of 6 in 10 American families
==>Credit card debt fell, too, but mainly because of
charge-offs<==
By Martin Merzer
Nearly two of every three American families endured
financial damage during the Great Recession. The median
American family lost around one-fifth of its net worth.
Households that had stock holdings typically saw a third of
those investments vaporize.
<snip>
Median net worth of all American families plunged from
$125,400 in 2007 to $96,000 in late 2009. Net worth was
determined by subtracting the value of liabilities such as
mortgages, credit card debts and car loans from the value of
assets such as stock portfolios, retirement and other
savings accounts, vehicles and remaining home values.
<snip>
With so many people out of work and so much competition for
the remaining jobs, earned income actually declined, along
with pretty much everything else. Real median household
income fell from $50,100 to $49,800.
<snip>
Ignoramus31983
This is interesting, but not surprising.
Average household net worth is the total value of all assets (lhomes,
stocks, bash and bonds), divided by the number of families.
My own household wealth, increased about 50% since 2007, partly due to
old fashioned saving money, and partly due to trying to not do
anything stupid (such as would be staying out of stocks at P/E of 7).
i
dca...@krl.org
>
> The defense industry is very, very good at not paying their way.
>
> TMT
From the Lockheed Martin 2009 annual report.
$4,284,000,000 earnings before taxes
1,267,000,000 Federal Income Taxes.
Doing the math I get 29.58 % as the percentage of Federal Taxes.
Did you pay as high a percentage of your income in taxes? Or are you
much better than Lockheed Martin at not paying your way?
Dan
Ed Huntress
<dca...@krl.org> wrote in message
news:c24061ed-e9d8-48e2...@w21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
$4,284,000,000 earnings before taxes
1,267,000,000 Federal Income Taxes.
Dan
=====================================================
Lockheed Martin's business is 74% defense contracts. We pay them for what
they make, and they build their taxes into their bids -- so we pay them on
top of what they make for the taxes they pay back to us.
Nice work if you can get it.
--
Ed Huntress
jim
>
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:57:36 -0500, Ignoramus29973
> <ignoram...@NOSPAM.29973.invalid> wrote:
>
> >My accountant just got back to me with "the number" of my taxes.
> >
> >While I do have to make a substantial additional tax payment for 2010,
> >due to underpayment of estimated taxes during the year, I calculated
> >that federal taxes are something like 16% of my gross income (not
> >adjusted gross income).
> >
> >However much I would like to save an extra buck, I cannot even
> >REMOTELY begin to feel that this 16% amounts to a crushing financial
> >burden for me.
> >
> >In fact, I am asking, WTF is going on, the country runs a trillion
> >dollar deficit, and yet the taxes are THIS low? What is wrong with
> >this picture?
> <snip>
> =========
> If you are following this thread the following article
> should be of interest.
>
> http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/recession-families-net-worth-fell-fed-survey-1276.php
> Fed: Recession robbed net worth of 6 in 10 American families
> ==>Credit card debt fell, too, but mainly because of
> charge-offs<==
>
>
This is the real story down at the bottom of the article:
*******************************************************
Utterly terrified by the worst economic downturn since the Great
Depression, their faith in a better future significantly shaken, vast
numbers of Americans finally began taking matters into their own hands
by saving for that future.
The U.S. personal savings rate, around 2 percent when the recession
began and barely 1 percent in 2005, rose to more than 5 percent at the
end of last year, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.
That's a good thing, on the personal level, but it could complicate the
current, nascent economic recovery.
The reason: Money sacked away in savings accounts, certificates of
deposit and so on cannot be used -- putting it crassly -- to buy stuff.
Stuff that people can be hired to make and sell.
The report noted "the perceived desire for additional savings" but also
noted this: "The data show signs that families' behavior may act in some
ways as a brake on reviving the economy in the short run."
Outside economists agreed.
"As with all economic activity, we need to strike a balance," deRitis
said. "Too much consumption can lead to an unsustainable economic
bubble. Too much saving can lead to the 'Paradox of Threat,' wherein
virtuous individuals create a lack of aggregate demand."
One of many lingering questions: If we stipulate that many Americans
learned their lesson and are now saving more, how long will the lesson
be remembered?
"Did people learn something from the meltdown that will change their
behavior over the medium- or long-haul?" Zinman asked. "If not learning,
per se, maybe people are now more attentive to their finances? These are
all open questions and areas of very active and exciting research."
*******************************************************
Think about it - that's actually kinda funny.
The Fed pours Billion$ into one end of the economy and it leaks out the
other end into people's savings accounts. If savings are up 3% of
personal income, that is $800 billion saved (by my calculation) in the
last 30 mos that would have been spent before. How much has the Fed let
loose in the last 30 mos?
This is the Fed's worst nightmare - people are saving.
dca...@krl.org
>
> Lockheed Martin's business is 74% defense contracts. We pay them for what
> they make, and they build their taxes into their bids -- so we pay them on
> top of what they make for the taxes they pay back to us.
>
> Nice work if you can get it.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
As far as I know, every company gets paid for what they make. And
every company build taxes into their bids. So every time you buy
something you are paying for the taxes on top of what the item costs.
So I do not understand what you are trying to say.
Dan
Ed Huntress
<dca...@krl.org> wrote in message
news:7673d143-1ac6-4020...@y26g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Most of Lockheed Martin's defense work is sole-sourced, no-bid,
fixed-price-incentive, cost-plus-incentive-fee, and/or cost-plus-fixed-fee.
You remarked about the high percentage -- 29.58% -- of profits they pay in
taxes. The reason they pay high taxes is that they don't care. They just
tack it on to their fees.
As I said, nice work if you can get it.
--
Ed Huntress