Project 1999

Go Back   Project 1999 > General Community > Off Topic

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 11-30-2011, 12:28 PM
Aadill Aadill is offline
Planar Protector

Aadill's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,137
Default

vay, I think you're missing the overall point:

Frankly I don't mind defense spending when it's spent on defense. You know, like research (the same research that brought us superplastics, internet, etc), and general security (CIA, FBI) and even terrorist extraction/eradication... but just like every other department they are mismanaged.

Furthermore, all of those projected lines on your graph are pretty much following the same path as the ones on this graph:

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]



Coupled with this, what else would you expect? Some people want to remove all of this mandatory spending but still be covered under magic age-cutoff point of Medicaid/Medicare/Obamacare. The very people that are clamoring for the shutdown of the government in exchange for their private funds? It's self defeating, in my opinion.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Last edited by Aadill; 11-30-2011 at 12:31 PM..
  #42  
Old 11-30-2011, 12:41 PM
pickled_heretic pickled_heretic is offline
Fire Giant


Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 982
Default

vay is saying that mandatory spending should be on the table? absolutely, defense spending is under that "mandatory spending" umbrella. nobody is disagreeing that i can see.
  #43  
Old 11-30-2011, 12:45 PM
gloinz gloinz is offline
Planar Protector

gloinz's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,003
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vaylorie [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Also.. something that will probably garner disagreement but should be said re: raising the taxes on the highest end....

We already have a very progressive tax structure in which the top 10% of Income earners pay 70%+ of the revenue and bottom 50% (income between $0 and $33K) literally paid less than 3% overall.

Top 1% Income @ $380K+ (38% of total income taxes paid)
2%-5% Income @ $159K - $380K (20% of total income taxes paid)
6%-10% Income @ $113K - $159K (11% of total income taxes paid)
11%-25% Income @ $67K - $113K (16% of total income taxes paid)
26%-50% Income @ $33K - $66K (10% of total income taxes paid)
Bottom 50% Income @ < 3$3K (3% of total income taxes paid)

Again.. how much is enough is an opinion but 1) we already have a very progressive tax structure and 2) our problem is a spending problem and not a income problem.


[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
income has risen for the 1% far more then the other brackets have in the past 30 years thus they should be paying more

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

not progressive enough
__________________
Griefer of Greenie, 1999-2003
PvP Champ, 2003-2005
Senior Vice President, <PvP Champs> 2006-Present
  #44  
Old 11-30-2011, 12:46 PM
vaylorie vaylorie is offline
Large Bat


Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 13
Default

Look, the point is... if you want to have a discussion around federal spending and sustainability of US financials, then you have to look at mandatory spending programs. I'm not asserting that defense doesn't need cuts, but the common rhetoric that defense spending and not enough taxes on the wealthy is the root of the problem is a misnomer.

Mandatory spending needs REFORM (read: not cut completely) as does defense and health care. People frame the discussion as discretionary spending (calling out defense) is the only consideration here.

Defense spending is not under the mandatory spending umbrella based on government budget terminology. Congress has no ability to control mandatory spending during the normal budget process and only with new legislation to reign it in and provide reform.
  #45  
Old 11-30-2011, 12:47 PM
vaylorie vaylorie is offline
Large Bat


Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pickled_heretic [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
stopped reading, we're talking about federal budgets not GDP, thanks.
GDP is a measuring stick that scales (roughly) with population increase. GDP is not the point here.
  #46  
Old 11-30-2011, 12:50 PM
vaylorie vaylorie is offline
Large Bat


Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gloinz [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
income has risen for the 1% far more then the other brackets have in the past 30 years thus they should be paying more
Great, the system is working as expected. The top 1% of income earners are paying 27% of the nations income tax.

A note here... We are talking in percentage and not dollars. They are paying both a higher percentage of their income and obviously much more in terms of actual dollars.


Quote:
Originally Posted by gloinz [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
not progressive enough
As I said earlier.. this is an opinion point where everyone will have a thought.
  #47  
Old 11-30-2011, 12:56 PM
gloinz gloinz is offline
Planar Protector

gloinz's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,003
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vaylorie [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Look, the point is... if you want to have a discussion around federal spending and sustainability of US financials, then you have to look at mandatory spending programs. I'm not asserting that defense doesn't need cuts, but the common rhetoric that defense spending and not enough taxes on the wealthy is the root of the problem is a misnomer.

Mandatory spending needs REFORM (read: not cut completely) as does defense and health care. People frame the discussion as discretionary spending (calling out defense) is the only consideration here.

Defense spending is not under the mandatory spending umbrella based on government budget terminology. Congress has no ability to control mandatory spending during the normal budget process and only with new legislation to reign it in and provide reform.
Buffett has been talking about this for a while, but the debt ceiling negotiations have given him another chance to point out a fact: tax rates for the rich have been declining for over two decades. As rates have dropped, the super-rich have done quite well -- from 1980 to 2005, more than 80 percent of total increase in Americans' income went to the top 1 percent of taxpayers.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

tax the rich then see wut needs to be cut imo
the best years of our country when we created the interstate system went to space bla bla bla were when we taxed rich people proportionally to how much money they make in our country. problem

however with a global economy if you are getting taxed out your ass here you are likely to go somewhere else... so in the end we lose either way imo
__________________
Griefer of Greenie, 1999-2003
PvP Champ, 2003-2005
Senior Vice President, <PvP Champs> 2006-Present
  #48  
Old 11-30-2011, 01:00 PM
gloinz gloinz is offline
Planar Protector

gloinz's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,003
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vaylorie [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Great, the system is working as expected. The top 1% of income earners are paying 27% of the nations income tax.
not enough to keep our country floating when their income rises 250~% and they only are charged 10% more
__________________
Griefer of Greenie, 1999-2003
PvP Champ, 2003-2005
Senior Vice President, <PvP Champs> 2006-Present
  #49  
Old 11-30-2011, 01:07 PM
Aadill Aadill is offline
Planar Protector

Aadill's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,137
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gloinz [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
not enough to keep our country floating when their income rises 250~% and they only are charged 10% more
the simplest way to define the problem: as inflation and possible earnings increased the tax brackets did not follow.

If the top bracket doesn't go above $379,000 then any money over that is only taxed at 35%. With the right deductions that becomes next to nothing. No extra taxes paid on monies above $379,000 when there are people making $6+ mil a year. This goes for corporations as well as individuals.

At the low end, if you accidentally make a few more bucks a year ($34,500 vs $40,000, 15% vs 25% respectively) you can end up getting taxed at a much higher rate on those few thousand extra you made... Why isn't this happening at the top end? Because no one expected $12mil in stock options and $6-8mil in annual income.
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:45 PM.


Everquest is a registered trademark of Daybreak Game Company LLC.
Project 1999 is not associated or affiliated in any way with Daybreak Game Company LLC.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.