Muzman on 28/7/2015 at 06:38
Quote Posted by bjack
The greatest share of the pot goes to income redistribution. I earn it, but it is taken from me and given to another that did not earn it. I can tell you that many of the "poor" in our country have far more luxuries than I do.
you wot mate? Social security is only 24% of the budget. I don't think it's ever cracked 5% of GDP. That's some of the lowest in the developed world.
Quote:
There is a lot of debate today about tax reform. I doubt much will be done about it, since there are too many that gain from the evil rigged current system. For many people making under $50K, they pay almost zero income tax.
under 30,000 would be more apt, but ok. But this is income tax we're talking about. As you point out around the place, there are loads of different charges and fees from sales tax on out at every level. So it's not as if these folks pay nothing.
Quote:
So what would be a really fair tax? %15 of income at the federal level, for incomes over... say... $50K. No write offs, unless you are running a business. No mortgage write off. No state, local, property tax, etc. write offs. This would put 10s of thousands of accountants out of business. It would also remove much of the fascist power the IRS holds.
and bankrupt the country, but who's counting.
Quote:
Our biggest issue in the USA is that most people do not pay any tax. The 1% pay about 90% of the tax burden. It is foolish to rely upon a tiny minority for all of your revenue. That money coming from the rich is being used in an extremely inefficient way. If the rich were allowed to keep that money, they would invest it in businesses that would provide jobs.
It is strangely apt that voodoo economics just keeps coming back, zombie-esque. But anyway...
It's far from most people, as I said before. Why you'd think this I don't know. But, leaving these highly questionable straw numbers aside for a moment, I'm somewhat at a loss as to how you think the government is going to recoup even a minimally appropriate amount by shifting the tax burden from the highest incomes to the lowest, which it seems you are suggesting.
Unless of course the only thing that matters is not the amount in question but that things are strictly individually applied. Which is... well, it's purist individualism, I'll have to give it that.
In any case, I tend to agree with the initial premise. I'm not expert, but despite having generally low or average tax rates, the US tax system(s) are a confusing morass where money disappears in all sorts of directions where the usage not at all obvious and can mount up as described.
But Libertarians tend to get confused by this thanks to a US-centric viewpoint and talk like they are in some tax heavy European welfare state that the US could not even resemble in bad light at a great distance.
The actual culprit, based on my hazy and cod examination of no academic value whatsoever, is basically the legal and economic historical structure of the USA itself. The deep traditional and legal attendance to local authority, independence, democracy, true federalism and the interrelationship between all these things etc etc is profoundly complex and expensive. Americanness is what is causing the crippling of America ( not that I really agree it's in any real way crippled, or going down or growing a kicked can to the size of a house, however that metaphor is supposed to work).
"Frreeedom" is expensive.
Gryzemuis on 28/7/2015 at 14:59
Quote Posted by bjack
California is well on its way to being just like Greece. Our left has made sure of that.
Pure FUD.
California has a GDP of 2.3 trillion usd.
If California was a country, it'd be number 8 on the list of countries in the world, ranked by GDP.
California, with 38 million people, has a GDP that is almost as big as India's with 1.3 billion people.
It's 50% bigger than Canada's, which has 36 million people.
Etc, etc,
But according to you, California is almost bankrupt, it's economy slinking, and the skies will fall soon.
The difference between "the right" and "the left" is that "the right" is many times more successful in robbing the rest of the country blind. Yeah, those poor, lazy, dumb, crippled, uneducated and old people cost a lot of money. But it is very little compared to the huge amounts of money the 1% is able to gather. And not just by "working hard".
The ironic thing is that most of the voters for "the right", have no clue that they are being robbed blind by the people they vote for, and their cronies. If you, as a Republican, vote for Bush, you allow that more of your money will go to oil companies. You vote that more of your tax-money will go to the military-industrial complex (via superfluous wars). You vote that you pay more taxes, while the rich pay less. The voters for "the right" are basically just screwing themselves over. Except if you belong to the "1 percent". As long as Republicans scream they will never allow stricter gun-laws, and scream that abortion is terrible, their voters let the 1% rob them blind.
Pyrian on 28/7/2015 at 16:39
The California budget crises of yesteryear were purely manufactured - an artifact of partisan intransigence and proposition 13 giving Republicans outsize influence. Once Republicans in the legislature dwindled below the 1/3 level at which they could hold everything up - thereby giving Democrats a "supermajority" - the California budget problems vanished. Anybody still describing California as relatively troubled is, at this point, several years out of date. Like everywhere, California took a hit from the financial and real estate crises, but nothing special. Nothing like Greece at all.
Still, there are instructive parallels between Greece and U.S. states. When a U.S. state takes an economic shock, the federal government steps in, often in a big way. And not with loans or loan guarantees, but with straight up transfers of money. Welfare, unemployment, bank guarantees (e.g. FDIC) all go up, effectively bailing out the state.
Meanwhile, all Greece gets for its continued compliance is more loans it cannot hope to pay off. Without any power over its currency, and austerity measures simply crippling what's left of its economy rather than generating more revenue, it is functionally bankrupt with no apparent way out.
I like to think of it as a question of power and responsibility. In the U.S., the federal government takes on most of the power and the corresponding responsibility (all under the auspice of regulating interstate commerce). With Greece and the EU, all the responsibility lies with Greece yet the power lies with the EU. The problem would be easily solved if either (A) Greece were allowed the power to solve its problems (such as through currency devaluation) or (B) the EU took responsibility for the problems of its member nations (as the U.S. federal government does routinely). But no, the EU insists that Greece must have the responsibility without the power, a recipe for continuing failure.
bjack on 28/7/2015 at 17:42
Muzman, Social Security is a different tax than regular income tax. The problem is SS money (and Medicare taxes) are pilfered by Congress. While the budget may only show 25% SS, a large part of the revenue comes from it. It runs a deficit. We have a whole stack of IOUs from Congress to pay back what they have been stealing for decades. How will this be paid back? The same way Obama ran the stimulus. They will print money. What are were at now? Something like 14 Trillion and counting in the hole? And how is this to be paid off?
Gryzemuis. Nope sorry, but you are mistaken. California is dead broke. Once the democrats took over completely, they simply shifted costs around, and borrowed more. They also did get an increase in revenue due to the temporary uptick in the local economy. However, take a look at our cities and towns. Our roads, our water supply. Our legislature is more concerned with deeming vapor sticks as tobacco products, than it is with realistic use of water.
A giant ticking time bomb, on the order of about $50K per person in CA, exists in the form of unfunded pension liabilities. Unlike the feds, CA cannot simply print more money. Yes, there is enough money to pay these 120% retirements (some are getting over $400K a year - but the real problem are the regular rank and file retirees… The $75K people. There are far too many of them and not enough young to pay into the scheme). So, while there is not enough revenue from workers to meet the retirement obligations, CA can supplement them with the general fund. And so it goes… something has to give. We give up firemen, police, school teachers, roads without pot holes, etc. just to pay inflated retirements. And yes, these are inflated. During the 1990s, government boosted the retirement payouts as an incentive to hire and keep people. OK, fine, but they expected the go-go 15% to 20% stock returns would stick around forever. They relied on that. Now that the investments return maybe 5%, they have to rob someone else to make up for the difference.
This is a huge subject in CA and everyone that is honest says it is a very serious matter; however, no one really does anything about it, and so the can get kicked. There are some people here that are trying to redo the pensions, but of course they are running into terrible opposition. Similar to Greece.
Fafhrd- what about our 100% private companies that still must be unionized? You are not allowed in the state of CA to tell a union to fuck off. There is a reason a lot of cars are now made in the south instead of Detroit.
Lastly, Vo-Doo Economics works. Revenue went up, not down after the 1984 tax changes. But then it crumbled because a leftist named Bush came in an mucked it all up with new taxes. Clinton made it even worse, but repaired a lot of the damage once he got is ass wiped by Congress in '94. By the end of his term, he looked more like Reagan than Jimmy Carter.
In closing, I do wish to say that I really do not believe there is much of a difference in Washington today between parties. Oh, there are big ticket items like guns, abortions, gay rights, etc., but on economic terms, they are mostly left of center moderates. The Republicans took over both houses and have basically squandered that win. They have done little to make their campaign promises come to reality. This is one reason Trump is getting so much attention. While he is brash and rude, he at least has something to say that is not just PC pablum for the masses. He refuses to call Islamic terrorist activities in our country simply "workplace violence". I find him exceptionally dangerous though (I think he would push the button) and will never vote for him, but many of his points resonate quite strongly with the American people.
Fafhrd on 29/7/2015 at 05:06
Quote Posted by bjack
Fafhrd- what about our 100% private companies that still must be unionized? You are not allowed in the state of CA to tell a union to fuck off. There is a reason a lot of cars are now made in the south instead of Detroit.
You literally have no idea how unions and the laws regarding them work, do you?
THERE ARE NO 100% PRIVATE COMPANIES THAT ARE LEGALLY REQUIRED TO BE UNIONIZED. You can feel free to open a non-Union car factory in Detroit if you want. Good fucking luck actually finding any qualified non-Union auto workers in Detroit to staff it, and you're going to have the UAW picketing your factory 24/7 if you do. And if after being hired your workers decide to form their own union (they're most likely not going to be able to just join the UAW since there's no way your non-Union factory is going to align with the minimum UAW contract), you're not allowed to fire them for doing so, since, y'know, collective bargaining is a generally accepted right.
Basically, it's market forces reinforcing the unions, not force of law. Why would anyone who is in a union take a non-union job which would result in their expulsion from the union, thus losing the protections that the union provides (pay, benefits, retirement plans, and an enforceable contract guaranteeing those things)?
Also, in case you didn't realize, Detroit is not in California, so good job keeping a single coherent thought in your paragraph there.
bjack on 29/7/2015 at 19:14
Quote Posted by Fafhrd
...you're not allowed to fire them for doing so, since, y'know, collective bargaining is a generally accepted right.
You are allowed to fire them if it is a right to work state. Many companies in right to work states do not fire union organizers, since it would be a terrible PR move. However, in states like CA, it is illegal to hire non-union workers for a union shop, except as temporary "scabs". You seem to think union shops are governed purely by contracts and just be common law (civil courts). No, there are regulations and laws governing it too. Once the unions take over an industry (teachers) they draft legislation that ensures their monopoly. They subordinate parents and school districts. You say this is all by contract agreement. The unions own both sides of the isle in many cases. While in many cases it is not technically 100% correct to say the state forces union membership, the effects are exactly the same. Chicken and the egg.
Under no circumstances am I allowed to open a shop in CA and declare it is 100% non-union and get away with it. Not only will I be picketed, the government will force me to negotiate with the union (of whatever origin). Being an individualist, I find force collectivization to be coercive and not something a free society should strive for in every case. I know, I know, strength in numbers, and all that jazz. Sounds like mob rule and thuggery to me. "Do as we say, or we'll screw up your business." Seems very much like "the workers should own the means of production…" We know how that works out.
And so what if I used Detroit as an example? CA is losing hundreds of thousands of decent jobs, only to be replaced with burger flipping, yard maintenance, and food trucks. Thousands of IT people are being forced out - having their jobs sent to India, China, Bulgaria, etc. The middle class base is quickly dissolving before our eyes. We are quickly becoming a 2 class society here. Ultra rich people in $45 million coastal houses and throngs of exceptionally poor in the central valleys picking dried up crops (or collecting welfare, or both). Many middle class are leaving for other more "enlightened" western states. Sounds a lot like Detroit's exodus of middle class to me, or any deteriorating over regulated crumbling city or region.
You seem not to understand how American politics work. The unions own the democrats, buy their elections, draft their laws. Some corporations, large individual donors, and the Chamber of Commerce own the Republicans, buy their elections, and draft their laws. Politics is now all about which side gets to use the plunder on what special pet project of the day. Bridges to nowhere, Solyndra, Cash for Clunkers, Planned Parenthood. That last one should get some action :)
So since I brought it up, what do the non-American members here think of the recent videos about Planned Parenthood? Is it OK to sell baby parts the the highest bidder? It is OK to change the abortion procedure to "not crush" the living "useful" tissues? Your thoughts? And no, I am not an anti-abortion person; however, I wish it never had to take place.
Fafhrd on 29/7/2015 at 21:17
Quote Posted by bjack
You are allowed to fire them if it is a right to work state.
No you're not. "Right to work" laws only make it so that employees are no longer required to pay union dues. That's it. The entire point of them is to weaken the union by letting people work in union shops, with all the benefits of being a union member, but not contributing to the union.
Quote:
Many companies in right to work states do not fire union organizers, since it would be a terrible PR move. However, in states like CA, it is illegal to hire non-union workers for a union shop, except as temporary "scabs".
Again, not true. Taft-Hartley. Look it up.
Quote:
You seem to think union shops are governed purely by contracts and just be common law (civil courts). No, there are regulations and laws governing it too. Once the unions take over an industry (teachers) they draft legislation that ensures their monopoly. They subordinate parents and school districts. You say this is all by contract agreement.
You're going to need to start actually providing citations for this stuff, dude. If this were even remotely true (which it isn't), there wouldn't be non-union grocery stores, and yet Trader Joe's, Whole Foods, Lassen's, Bristol Farms, Smart & Final, Sprouts, and others all seem to be doing fine in California.
Gryzemuis on 29/7/2015 at 22:24
Quote Posted by bjack
Thousands of IT people are being forced out - having their jobs sent to India, China, Bulgaria, etc.
Yep, it's those Democrats in CA who do that. They're evil.
bjack on 29/7/2015 at 22:40
Quote Posted by Gryzemuis
Yep, it's those Democrats in CA who do that. They're evil.
No, it is both sides of the fence, but Democrats that head up Microsoft, Oracle, and the like tend to not make things better. They convince anyone that will listen that there is a shortage of skilled labor and we simply must import people that will work for 25 to 50 cents on the dollar. Offshore people make around $2 or $3 and hour, yet the contracting company charges $75.
Gryzemuis on 29/7/2015 at 23:17
You really think it's the Democrats who do all that ?
I could go make a list of all the big corporations in CA, and all their CEOs and past CEOs. And then I could go find out which of those hundreds is Democrats and which ones are Republicans. But I already know the outcome.
Most likely it averages out over both camps. With a slight larger number of Republicans. Even in California. Most of them will probably not speak out openly about their political convictions. Many of them will donate money, probably two both parties at the same time. Because it hardly makes a difference who is in charges.
It's the corporations who moves jobs abroad. Not politicians. The only way politicians are involved is because they allow it. They won't make laws to oppose it. They won't introduce restrictions, they will only try to make the world market more "open". Which doesn't mean more open, it only means "what companies are not allowed to do at home, they can now do somewhere else". US politicians won't do anything about, *because* both Republicans and Democrats are right of center. If they were leftish (or even in the center), they would do something about it. But the "american way" is to allow corporations to make money with no restrictions. They can go fuck their employees, their customers, their shareholders, the environment, other countries, fair competition, everything. It's the American way. And that, imho, is very right-wing.
Or are you telling me that the Republicans detest what is happening in California ? Do they think that the rights of the US workers are more important than the freedom of the large corporations ? Are they opposing offshore jobs ?
You don't see it, because everyone around you is very rightish, or is used to being in the middle of a very rightish society. Money is more important than compassion for other human beings. Unless it's a lion. Then suddenly people feel compassion.
Bukary (who used to post here) is from Poland. He, or his parent, must have lived in Poland when it was a socialist state. Maybe he can explain why Poland was socialist, and the Democrats in the US are not socialists. We must have a few more people here on TTLG who are from ex-EastBlock countries. Maybe they can explain what socialism is.
