|
View Poll Results: How is Obama doing? (poll started 6/6) | |||
Great - above my expectations | 18 | 6.87% | |
Good - met most of my expectations | 66 | 25.19% | |
Average - so so, disappointed a little | 64 | 24.43% | |
Bad - sold us out | 101 | 38.55% | |
Trout - don't know yet | 13 | 4.96% | |
Voters: 262. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools |
02-03-2015, 12:57 PM | #24751 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
|
Sen. Tillis has had it with hand washing.
Quote:
Aside from the obvious whathefuckery, how can he not realize that requiring companies to advertise would be a more burdensome regulation than hand washing?
__________________
To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers Last edited by JPhillips : 02-03-2015 at 12:58 PM. |
|
02-03-2015, 01:04 PM | #24752 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Mays Landing, NJ USA
|
Quote:
Sarcasm... try looking it up.... |
|
02-03-2015, 01:10 PM | #24753 | |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Georgia
|
Quote:
SCOTUS!
__________________
Top 10 Songs of the Year 1955-Present (1976 Added) Franchise Portfolio Draft Winner Fictional Character Draft Winner Television Family Draft Winner Build Your Own Hollywood Studio Draft Winner |
|
02-03-2015, 01:19 PM | #24754 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: the yo'
|
Quote:
You don't seriously think he's going to relinquish power peacefully? Why do you think FEMA has been prepping so many body bags, yo. |
|
02-03-2015, 01:23 PM | #24755 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
I love how hard you are working for your side, but no. GOP senator: Let restaurants ‘opt out’ of handwashing after toilet to ‘reduce regulatory burden’ Quote:
So, no, it was sarcasm. It was something he'd be ok with, but it was more to illustrate a bigger point.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
|
02-03-2015, 01:25 PM | #24756 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
|
02-03-2015, 01:32 PM | #24757 |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Georgia
|
So he doesn't like mandatory regulations and his solution is to make them voluntary, except for this new mandatory regulation he came up with that forces businesses to disclose.
__________________
Top 10 Songs of the Year 1955-Present (1976 Added) Franchise Portfolio Draft Winner Fictional Character Draft Winner Television Family Draft Winner Build Your Own Hollywood Studio Draft Winner |
02-03-2015, 01:35 PM | #24758 |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Georgia
|
__________________
Top 10 Songs of the Year 1955-Present (1976 Added) Franchise Portfolio Draft Winner Fictional Character Draft Winner Television Family Draft Winner Build Your Own Hollywood Studio Draft Winner |
02-03-2015, 01:50 PM | #24759 |
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
I have a very smart PHD friend who has spoken a lot about vaccines and autism. He said the biggest issue is that a child's brain develops to where autism becomes detectable at around 18 months - which also coincides with numerous vaccines for most kids. His stance is that is mostly hereditary and the act of getting a vaccine doesn't seem to impact whether a kid is diagnosed with Autism. But, he also says that if people are concerned, they can space out those vaccines into the 24-32 month timeframe when more brain development has occurred.
|
02-03-2015, 01:52 PM | #24760 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Mays Landing, NJ USA
|
Quote:
"The Market Will Take Care of That" Sarcasm.... Here's a dollar, go buy a clue. |
|
02-03-2015, 01:52 PM | #24761 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Mays Landing, NJ USA
|
Basically saying that a business is not going to stay in business if they don't enforce it. Try reading between the lines a bit.
|
02-03-2015, 01:53 PM | #24762 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Mays Landing, NJ USA
|
IDIOTS trying to make something out of nothing.
|
02-03-2015, 01:53 PM | #24763 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Quote:
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
|
02-03-2015, 01:54 PM | #24764 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Mays Landing, NJ USA
|
D******** F****** M****
|
02-03-2015, 01:58 PM | #24765 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Mays Landing, NJ USA
|
Darwinism for companies. Don't enforce the rule and have to tell the market that you don't. You go out of business. Pretty easy to understand... What company is actually going to think this is a good idea and decide to not enforce the policy?
|
02-03-2015, 02:00 PM | #24766 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Once again,
Quote:
That's not sarcasm.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
|
02-03-2015, 02:29 PM | #24767 |
Retired
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Fantasyland
|
You're right. It's stupidity. Let's reduce the "burden" on the side of the equation that has all the money, power, "personhood", can set the legal barriers and conditions on every transaction, uses the patent office like fuck doll, so on and so forth. Reducing the "burden" on big business will just fuck over the little guy even more, if that's even possible. The first moves before I'm willing to reduce any burdens for business requires (1) no more forced arbitration; (2) consumer bill of rights; (3) eliminating the concept of corporate personhood. Once the little guy is protected from big business, then I'm more than willing to try to protect big business from the Government. Until then fuck corporate stooges like Thom Tillis. Last edited by Blackadar : 02-03-2015 at 02:31 PM. |
02-03-2015, 02:34 PM | #24768 |
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: SF
|
|
02-03-2015, 02:50 PM | #24769 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: the yo'
|
|
02-03-2015, 02:53 PM | #24770 |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Fresno, CA
|
|
02-03-2015, 02:54 PM | #24771 |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Fresno, CA
|
|
02-03-2015, 03:28 PM | #24772 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
|
Quote:
I agree.
__________________
To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers |
|
02-03-2015, 03:30 PM | #24773 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Quote:
So you're a fan of burdensome regulation now? Sarcasm or not, Tillis is proposing a mentality where you remove one regulation and replace it with another regulation. And, critically, this other regulation, being a one-size-fits-all solution, is to require overcommunication of every business rule said business decides to enforce or not. Where does that mentality end, exactly? Conservatives have whined about new food labeling laws (with calorie counts and whatnot). The regulatory regime Tillis suggests would require that a company clearly delineate the entire supply chain for each component of a food they create and sell. He's saying we have to change mentality. Instead of setting rules and having people follow them, we just require full and complete disclosure of pretty much everything and ask that people make up their own minds. Sounds great in theory, likely grinds to a halt in practice. |
|
02-03-2015, 05:35 PM | #24774 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Oct 2000
|
|
02-03-2015, 08:36 PM | #24775 |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2005
|
|
02-03-2015, 09:19 PM | #24776 | ||
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
Quote:
Remember, the tax brackets in the old days used to be much more granular than they are today. The top tax bracket today is $450K in 2015 money, the top bracket in 1921 (for instance) was $12.1M in today's money. They did have a bracket for people making $450K (in 2015 money!) and perhaps that will clue us in a little better on who's getting taxed more. THE HISTORY OF TAXES: Here's How High Today's Rates Really Are - Business Insider This graph CLEARLY shows that it was in "fact" the rich people of 1921 who were getting hammered. But were they really? In 1921, reaching that 73% barrier meant you had to make $12.1M in today's money. Very, very view people ever made that much money in 1921. We're talking only the richest oil and industrial age baron's. Here's an article that describes the type's of people that make a million dollars in today's day and age --> Quote:
In 1921, the top tax bracket was indeed 73%. As stated, you had to be making $12.1 million dollars a year (in today's money to reach that bracket). How do you calculate this? Use a simple inflation calculator to help out, of course--> DollarTimes.com | Inflation Calculator In 1921, the 40% bracket was intended for people who were making $800,000 per year. In 1921, for people making $450,000 a year (in 1921 dollars), the taxes was actually around 25-26%. The jump from 35% to 40% for people making $450K a year is actually moving away from 1921 levels, not towards them, as the chart suggests. Although this graph does a great job of guiding us to the conclusion that we have plenty of room for growth in taxes, I find it a bit misleading for the argument being made. |
||
02-03-2015, 09:35 PM | #24777 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
|
That's been part of the plan of the wealthy. The fewer tax brackets there are the more people get caught in the top bracket. There's no reason why we couldn't add a bracket at 1mil or 5mil or 100mil, other than that would make it more difficult to build a coalition against that taxation.
For example, when Reagan took office there were seventeen tax brackets and now there are seven. edit: In the early sixties there were over twenty brackets. And in 1940 there were thirty-one brackets!
__________________
To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers Last edited by JPhillips : 02-03-2015 at 09:42 PM. |
02-03-2015, 10:23 PM | #24778 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
I will note it is somewhat telling that Dutch compares 1921 tax brackets with todays. What about the 1963 tax brackets when taxes were at 90%? Then (using Dutch's Business Insider link), $200,000 would hit 90% - that's $1,547,294.12 today. So anything made over $1.5mil today would be taxed at 90%.
What about the 40% barrier in 1963.... anything over $14,000 dollars in 1963 was charged at 43%. $14,000 in 1963 equals $108,310.59 today. So moving the top tax bracket from 35% to 40% actually moves us closer to 1963 tax rates but not nearly close enough. 43% taxes in 1953 tax tables was anything over $12,000, which is $106,398.20 today. I dunno about you, but I think the 1950s/60s economy is a better model to model than the 1920s economy. I'd argue that solely comparing tax rates to 1921 rates is the solely misleading argument here. (All inflation numbers calculated through CPI Calculator: CPI Inflation Calculator )
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams Last edited by ISiddiqui : 02-03-2015 at 10:24 PM. |
02-04-2015, 03:04 AM | #24779 |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Georgia
|
About that Obama vaccines comment...
News Outlets Drive Out-Of-Context Obama Comment On Vaccines Into 2016 Conversation
__________________
Top 10 Songs of the Year 1955-Present (1976 Added) Franchise Portfolio Draft Winner Fictional Character Draft Winner Television Family Draft Winner Build Your Own Hollywood Studio Draft Winner |
02-04-2015, 06:24 AM | #24780 | |
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
Quote:
Sure, and then the 70's happened... |
|
02-04-2015, 07:15 AM | #24781 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Quote:
Great post, Dutch. I don't necessarily agree with the entirety of your argument (and don't have the time to refute/argue it now), but I definitely appreciate the thought that went into it. |
|
02-04-2015, 07:41 AM | #24782 |
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
|
02-04-2015, 08:28 AM | #24783 |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Seven miles up
|
I think all that goes to show is that the overall top brackets have been capped to a much lower income level than they were historically. I might say that we need to look at the percentage of actual people captured by each tax bracket in order to compare it historically and to find the effectiveness of the rates. Cross check it to the percent of overall revenue generated from each bracket and then you might get a better view of comparative rates and where they really ought to be.
__________________
He's just like if Snow White was competitive, horny, and capable of beating the shit out of anyone that called her Pops. Like Steam? Join the FOFC Steam group here: http://steamcommunity.com/groups/FOFConSteam |
02-04-2015, 08:56 AM | #24784 | |
Retired
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Fantasyland
|
Quote:
It's interesting but not that useful. In 1921 the modern income tax had only been around for 8 years (there had been income taxes prior to this, but they were ruled unconstitutional). In 1921, the US wasn't a modern nation yet. Things like the highway system hadn't been established yet. 35% of homes had electricity. The percentage of people who lived in cities had JUST exceeded the percentage of people living on farms. So comparing today's rates to an agrarian, pre-electricity, pre-highway society isn't very useful. Let's look at the tax brackets from something post-WW2, considered the "golden age" of the USA. The brackets were quite stable from 1950 to 1960, so we can generalize over that decade and compare it to now. The top bracket in 1950 is $400,000 and over - about $4,000,000 today - and is at 85%. That's not very useful though and I don't recommend going back to that. But the upper-middle class brackets were quite stiff back then. $28,000 in 1950 was taxed at whopping 42% and that's only the equivalent of $279,000 today (33% and with more deductions). That's a massive difference and it only goes up from there. If you earned the equivalent of $400k in 1950 your top marginal rate was 50%. Now I would argue that's too high. The Laffer curve is a real thing at higher tax brackets. While it's laughable to hear Republicans spout off about how reducing taxes from 30% to 25% somehow equals more total tax collection - there's not an independent economist in the world who believes that shit - it does work at rates above 60% or so. I'd just like a return to something approximating Reagan's 1981 taxes. Someone making $16,000 in 1981 (about $44k in today's world) would be on the hook for a maximum of 22%. Someone making $35,200 (about $95k today) is on the hook for a maximum of 39%. $60k in 1981 ($163k today) is looking at a maximum rate of 49%. When you compare those rates versus what we have today, you can see why the government runs such a large deficit. There's simply not enough money coming in. Last edited by Blackadar : 02-04-2015 at 08:57 AM. |
|
02-04-2015, 09:06 AM | #24785 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
After quite a bit of tax cuts on the upper bracket during the 60s, driving it down to 70%... did you not even read your link? And as Blackadar stated, even in Reagan's 1981 taxes, the rate was basically the same in middle values - and only after the recovery was in full swing did taxes drop even further (in 1986 and 1988)
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams Last edited by ISiddiqui : 02-04-2015 at 09:13 AM. |
02-04-2015, 09:21 AM | #24786 | |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: St. Louis
|
Quote:
Well the entire Congress (OK maybe 95%) are in that bracket, have friends in that bracket, and have most of their big contributors in that bracket. Don't see them working too hard to add brackets to make any of them pay more. My disdain would be aimed at everyone involved though I will give the Democrats credit for creating the illusion that they are aghast that those additional brackets don't exist and can't be created when they have actually had the power to do so fairly recently if they really wanted. |
|
02-04-2015, 09:21 AM | #24787 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
I may also add that in 1987, the first year after the Tax Reform Act of 1986, the top rate was slashed to 38.5%, which is higher than today's top tax rate, and applied to all income made over $45,000 - which in today's money would be $93,777.46.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
02-04-2015, 12:03 PM | #24788 |
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: SF
|
So looking at 2013 federal tax spending (Your 2013 Federal Taxpayer Receipt | The White House) 25% to defense and 25% to health. it seems that most of our tax money is being used on people who have been or are contributing to the economy.
It seems most of the people receiving government money in some way give a lot of it back in their own payroll and sales tax. I wonder what is the net gain/loss of this massive government spending? |
02-04-2015, 12:16 PM | #24789 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
|
Quote:
If your point is that government is captured by wealthy interests that fund campaigns, you'll get no argument from me.
__________________
To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers |
|
02-04-2015, 12:25 PM | #24790 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
And yet we still have a $2,400 annual limit on individual contributions to individual candidates.
|
02-04-2015, 02:35 PM | #24791 | |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: St. Louis
|
Quote:
Yes that was my point. And in my opinion Congress has around 5 members with integrity/character and of those 3 of them feel like their should be less taxes so that leaves 2 for your coalition. Which means you would need 217 more votes in the House, 50 more in the senate, and that doesn't even count Obama's veto. |
|
02-04-2015, 02:53 PM | #24792 | |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Green Bay, WI
|
Quote:
The mistake you make is that all Democrats share(d) the same policy goals. That's true of Republicans, as well. To a lesser extent, but still true. On the other hand, tax increases are anathema to Republicans. Voting to raise taxes would get any Republican Senator primaried out by the temporarily embarrassed millionaires that make up the primary voting base. To the extent that the Democrats had any real power to raise taxes since January, 2009, it was in allowing the Bush cuts to sunset. They briefly had 60 votes in the Senate, but the key word there is "briefly." Coleman litigated the Minnesota seat, leaving the state without a Representative until Franken prevailed in court and assumed office in July 2009; between January and July, the Democrats had only 59 Senate votes. In August, Senator Kennedy passed away, and was replaced ultimately by Scott Brown, albeit with a Democratic appointee keeping the seat warm for Brown in the interim between August and January. That was their window. Six weeks of a 60-seat majority before Senator Kennedy passed. The period between August 25, 2009 and February 2010, when Scott Brown took Kennedy's seat from the Democratic-appointed placeholder. In the middle of the Great Recession. That would have required either the political will by all 60 Democrats to raise taxes in the midst of high unemployment - recall the drumbeat by the opposition that raising taxes, ever, will cost millions of jobs and leave us all homeless and starving - or else serious horse trading to ensure no Democrats defected, or threatened to. Ben Nelson used that to his advantage, if you'll recall. Being the 60th Democrat enabled him to extract concesions (later rolled back) that enabled Nebraska and Nebraska alone to accept the Medicaid expansion without it costing them a dime, ever (as opposed to the 10% contributions which would have been required of the other 49 states after three years). They lost the House in 2010, and taxation bills must originate from the House. That means no matter what their majority in the Senate going forward, increased taxes were a non-starter. So that's your argument - that if the Democrats wanted to raise taxes, they should have done so when the economy was fragile, and that it's just too damn bad if now that the economy is recovering, they don't actually control the purse strings anymore. Whatever you think of the efficacy of tax increases, the notion that they could have done anything, given the political realities that existed during the brief time they had that power, is a spurious one. |
|
02-05-2015, 02:12 PM | #24793 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Apr 2005
|
Quote:
If the GOP base was just millionaires, then half of the votes from the last election-and on average-are millionaires? I'm not in favor of more taxes. I'm in favor of less spending (quite a bit at the federal level), going back to giving states more control instead of the federal government, and implementing a flat or fair/VAT/consumption-based tax system federally. I'm confused--didn't the previous congress raised taxes already (capital gains tax increasing from 15% to 20%; ACA tax on unearned income on incomes over $250,000 (?)? I'm waiting for the day for a constitutional challenge to the US tax/fee system in regards to citizens and corporations that live abroad or give up their citizenship. The discussion of tax brackets are better when looking at effective tax rates. Last edited by Galaxy : 02-05-2015 at 02:38 PM. |
|
02-05-2015, 02:36 PM | #24794 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Apr 2005
|
Quote:
US earned income is taxed...it's money earned outside of the country that isn't being brought in. |
|
02-05-2015, 03:46 PM | #24795 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Bay Area
|
Quote:
The process is being abused by moving IP to low tax jurisdictions before the IP generates revenues (and thus the tax associated with the move is minimal). The US parent then pays the foreign subsidiary a royalty for use of the IP. The royalty is an expense for the US parent which lowers there taxable income. The end result is a portion of the income that is earned from U.S. revenues is moved to the foreign entity where it is not taxed by the U.S. (until the income is repatriated). |
|
02-05-2015, 04:40 PM | #24796 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Apr 2005
|
Quote:
I don't blame companies for doing it since as long as it's legal, but I have no problem with closing this tactic. It's a complex problem. Last edited by Galaxy : 02-05-2015 at 04:43 PM. |
|
02-05-2015, 04:40 PM | #24797 | |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2005
|
I agree with Obama but he probably could have worded the high horse statement better.
Obama at Prayer Event: Christians did terrible things, too | Fox News Quote:
|
|
02-06-2015, 09:11 AM | #24798 |
Retired
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Fantasyland
|
Last edited by Blackadar : 02-06-2015 at 09:11 AM. |
02-06-2015, 09:15 AM | #24799 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Yep.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
02-06-2015, 10:07 AM | #24800 |
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
I think this chart provides even more data, although it's a bit dated now. (EDIT: Can you find the cherry-picked data that the liberals are presenting to their web-sites and journalists and has subsequently now been posted here as unbiased information?)
Last edited by Dutch : 02-06-2015 at 05:13 PM. |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 19 (0 members and 19 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|