Look for massive tax increases by the states if that happens. Originally Posted by BoothPossibly, but the states would have to justify the need for each program and the people would have the say (can you see Texans voting to pay for the national endowment of the arts?). Most likely a net gain for the people. The closer the office is to the people, the more responsive it is (i.e., at the national level, what the people want hardly matters, but at the local level, it matters a lot more).
- rCoder
- 06-30-2011, 08:58 PM
- F-Sharp
- 07-01-2011, 08:37 AM
Possibly, but the states would have to justify the need for each program and the people would have the say (can you see Texans voting to pay for the national endowment of the arts?). Most likely a net gain for the people. The closer the office is to the people, the more responsive it is (i.e., at the national level, what the people want hardly matters, but at the local level, it matters a lot more). Originally Posted by rCoderI get where you're coming from, but you're missing the point. National Endowment for the Arts equates to about three hundredths of one percent of our national budget. You're sounding like Boehner and the rest of the GOP numbskulls in thinking that cutting hundredths of percent off our budget at a time will make any difference at all. It wont. Our problem not so much spending as it is revenue, and cutting these financially insignificant programs will never change that fact.
- F-Sharp
- 07-01-2011, 09:02 AM
For the text challenged among us, with pictures and everything!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTzMq...layer_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTzMq...layer_embedded
- rCoder
- 07-02-2011, 03:14 PM
I get where you're coming from, but you're missing the point. National Endowment for the Arts equates to about three hundredths of one percent of our national budget. You're sounding like Boehner and the rest of the GOP numbskulls in thinking that cutting hundredths of percent off our budget at a time will make any difference at all. It wont. Our problem not so much spending as it is revenue, and cutting these financially insignificant programs will never change that fact. Originally Posted by F-SharpThere's a lot (IMO, most) items that the feds spend our money on that would not survive a vote at the state or local levels, especially today where the states are already borderline on finances. That's how 50% (or more) is cut. Remove the programs from the national scene where they are not authorized, then let the people decide if they want to fund them at the state or local level.
Everything not explicitly authorized by the Constitution should be on the chopping block, including, but not limited to: social security (ponzi scheme), disaster relief (that's what insurance is for), FDA, USPS (yes that one is authorized, but not required, by the Constitution), FCC, welfare, national education, DHS, ...
Can you really see Texans voting for a Texas Constitutional amendment to increase the sales tax to fund most of these items?
If you want my real opinion, then I believe Texas really ought to grow a pair and just succeed. Hell, I'd even vote for King Perry I (or any other hypocritical, lying megalomaniac) if that's what it took...
- Munchmasterman
- 07-03-2011, 04:18 PM
First off, the tax increase on people who have $250,000 in income is 3%. If someone's taxable income is $350,000, they would pay an additional $3000. Their taxes go up $3000 for every $100,000 (above $250,000) in taxable income. If someone made $1,000,000, the additional tax would be $22,500 (.03 X 750,000 = 22,500) This is 1 mill of taxable income, after all deductions, credits, mortgage interest, etc. (they have a lot more deductions than you).
That's right, if they make $350,000, they pay an extra three thousand dollars. The increase is 3% on the amount above $250,000. If they made $260,000 they would pay an extra $300.
The tax savings from $1,000,000 ($1,250,000) is $30,000. So 10 people making $350,000 would pay for 1 new $30,000 a year job...if 10 people would get together and create a job for someone. Don't hold your breath.
So how do these jobs get created? Salaries paid by a company reduce their taxable income (and their taxes). A company that makes 1 Billion dollars in profit could make $200,000,000 less in profit and create 8000 $25,000 a year jobs. But why would they?
Here is the bullshit they spew. Taxes reduce profits (which is true). Reduced profits keeps them from hiring (which is false). An employee should make money for the company. Adding more employees should increase profits....if there is additional market demand for increased product. If a company doesn't need more workers to meet projected goals or sales, they won't hire any. They will claim it is because of high taxes, but it is because they don't need people. Lower taxes puts more money in the company's pocket.
Never forget what a corporation's main goal is. It is not to save our country. If making more profits helps the country, fine.
If not.............cut back on medicare or something.
My profession is the semiconductor field. In the 29 years I have been working in a fab I have seen the number of people needed reduced by a factor of 10. 1 person easily does the work of 10 now with all of the automated equipment found in the clean room. Fewer human touches means fewer defects, fewer mistakes, higher yields, higher profits. The number of equipment maintenance jobs has not increased because the equipment is much more reliable. They need more engineers but the US doesn't produce enough of them. That why they hire foreigners.
In many cases, eliminating a federal org and letting the states handle it could cause state gov to expand. We would have an income tax, higher fees for everything, new fees, etc. Texas would do a quick nosedive economically.
Just raising taxes won't solve our problems. Just cutting spending won't either. We should end tax breaks for sending jobs overseas and other tax breaks that only help a special few.
That's right, if they make $350,000, they pay an extra three thousand dollars. The increase is 3% on the amount above $250,000. If they made $260,000 they would pay an extra $300.
The tax savings from $1,000,000 ($1,250,000) is $30,000. So 10 people making $350,000 would pay for 1 new $30,000 a year job...if 10 people would get together and create a job for someone. Don't hold your breath.
So how do these jobs get created? Salaries paid by a company reduce their taxable income (and their taxes). A company that makes 1 Billion dollars in profit could make $200,000,000 less in profit and create 8000 $25,000 a year jobs. But why would they?
Here is the bullshit they spew. Taxes reduce profits (which is true). Reduced profits keeps them from hiring (which is false). An employee should make money for the company. Adding more employees should increase profits....if there is additional market demand for increased product. If a company doesn't need more workers to meet projected goals or sales, they won't hire any. They will claim it is because of high taxes, but it is because they don't need people. Lower taxes puts more money in the company's pocket.
Never forget what a corporation's main goal is. It is not to save our country. If making more profits helps the country, fine.
If not.............cut back on medicare or something.
My profession is the semiconductor field. In the 29 years I have been working in a fab I have seen the number of people needed reduced by a factor of 10. 1 person easily does the work of 10 now with all of the automated equipment found in the clean room. Fewer human touches means fewer defects, fewer mistakes, higher yields, higher profits. The number of equipment maintenance jobs has not increased because the equipment is much more reliable. They need more engineers but the US doesn't produce enough of them. That why they hire foreigners.
There's a lot (IMO, most) items that the feds spend our money on that would not survive a vote at the state or local levels, especially today where the states are already borderline on finances. That's how 50% (or more) is cut. Remove the programs from the national scene where they are not authorized, then let the people decide if they want to fund them at the state or local level. Sorry. I don't see enough people who know enough about what is truly needed or long term effects of poor choices. I don't have the time to become a knowledgeable enough person to start chopping programs without fucking something up.
Everything not explicitly authorized by the Constitution should be on the chopping block, including, but not limited to: social security Is funded if they didn't spend it on something else (ponzi scheme), disaster relief rebuilds infrastructure, not homes (that's what insurance is for), FDA look at how few dangerous drugs get out or keep salmonella cases (example) minimized, USPS (yes that one is authorized, but not required, by the Constitution), FCC very much needed, welfare other than extended unemployment, welfare is state, national education states already have too much wiggle room in what they teach. We need national standards if we want a chance to keep up with rest of the world. We produce fewer engineers and other science degreed people each year, DHS Sorry. Too many states wouldn't take up there part of the load. Originally Posted by rCoder
In many cases, eliminating a federal org and letting the states handle it could cause state gov to expand. We would have an income tax, higher fees for everything, new fees, etc. Texas would do a quick nosedive economically.
Just raising taxes won't solve our problems. Just cutting spending won't either. We should end tax breaks for sending jobs overseas and other tax breaks that only help a special few.