Jump to content

Bullneck

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    15949
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by Bullneck

  1. 5 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

    Do you believe the level of taxing and spending that preceded the tax cuts was sustainable?

    as far as homeless in other countries, I think they do a better job of dealing with mental illness and substance dependence, and have a more robust social safety net. All things I am for, but things that should be paid for by cuts in other areas rather than more borrowing. 

    From Forbes:

    How much did the total deficit rise by each President since Reagan

    Again using data from the St. Louis Federal Reserve, these are starting and ending federal debt numbers since President Reagan. I’ve computed the total percentage increase and the compounded yearly rate.

    What the numbers show is that the total debt increased the most at 184% over 8 years and at the fastest rate under President Reagan at almost 14% per year. In fact, the three Republican presidents had the fastest growing debt on a yearly basis.

    Reagan

    • Started Presidency: $965 billion
    • Ended Presidency: $2.74 trillion
    • Increased 184% or 13.9% per year

    H.W. Bush

    • Started Presidency: $2.74 trillion
    • Ended Presidency: $4.23 trillion
    • Increased 54% or 11.5% per year (only in office for four years)

    Clinton

    • Started Presidency: $4.23 trillion
    • Ended Presidency: $5.77 trillion
    • Increased 36% or 4.0% per year

    W. Bush

    • Started Presidency: $5.77 trillion
    • Ended Presidency: $11.1 trillion
    • Increased 93% or 8.5% per year

    Obama

    • Started Presidency: $11.1 trillion
    • Ended Presidency: $19.85 trillion
    • Increased 78% or 7.5% per year

    President Obama’s debt actually grew at a slower annual rate than any of the Republican presidents even though there were events that negatively impacted the deficit that started before he became President. The Great Recession is probably the biggest of them as can be seen in the yearly deficit numbers. While all politicians use data to support their positions, the sound bite that the debt doubled under Obama is very misleading.

    • Like 3
  2. 11 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

    I didn’t cry about anything. I just don’t need some jerk off who pays a  fraction of what I pay and uses more government services than I do wagging their finger at me and saying I don’t pay my fair share. Fuck off. 

    Again, this argument isn't solely about money.  I noticed that you didn't list whatever service for others you've ever done.  Citizenship to you appears to be just one thing: paying taxes.  

    Surely you realize that many, many very poor people have served this country in ways that is priceless.  They are more important than you.

  3. 30 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

    I read what you quoted. It doesn’t address my comments 

    Explain how our level of spending is sustainable 

    Actually, things are going to get quite interesting with the new Republican tax code.  The deficit will get much larger because of a massive reduction of taxes on those who need it least.  Whether the Democrats are able regain control of Congress in time to fix things remains to be seen.

    Running a government is a bit like driving a car.  All sorts of things happen.  Good things, bad things, unexpected things.  The Republicans have done everything they can at the behest of the lobbyists to whom they owe fealty to adopt as short-sighted and destructive policies they can in order keep those campaign contributions coming.  "Republicans say government doesn't work.  Then they get elected and prove it."

    If you read the article on homelessness, why do you think some countries have low homelessness and others don't.  And by the way, I don't think that any human problem can be eradicated completely.  

  4. 8 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

    No I do not think homelessness can be solved. We can do better than we do, but a large percentage (close to 40%) of homeless people are dependent on alcohol and other substances, and many also suffer from mental disorders. Of course spending money on treatment will help, but there will be lost causes even under the best circumstances. Many of those will never agree to abide by the rules required to be housed, so unless you want to lock them away or force non mentally ill and non substance dependent poor people to house near them then they will remain out of doors. 

    As far as your graph, if we keep borrowing, the interest on the debt will keep growing as a percentage of the budget. And it has to be paid first, if we want to be able to keep borrowing. It is not sustainable. You can increase taxes to a point, but at a certain marginal rate people will just quit working. For me it’s 50%. If that rate comes back, I’ll just start taking days /weeks off when I hit it. Which not only means less revenue, it means I let staff go.  I doubt I’m the only one who thinks that way. We’ve got to get spending under control, and reprioritize where the money goes  

     

     

    1. I take it you didn't read the article I posted.  

    2.  You didn't say exactly how you arrived at your economic conclusions.  I suspect there may be some holes in your math.  They would be easy to find.  

    BUT, I won't argue.  A man cannot be reasons out of a position he wasn't reasoned into.  

  5. 1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

    You could take all Johnny’s money, all mine, and throw in yours and not solve homelessness.  

    Interesting.  Do you think homelessness can be solved at all?  I guess if you don't, then no amount of money will help.  

    But why would that be the case?   Here are some examples of places where things appear to be working:

    Quote

    ThinkProgress has dedicated a portion of our coverage on Wednesday, June 29th to reporting on the state of homelessness in Washington, D.C. This story is part of that series.

    Homelessness is an issue for nearly every country. In recent years, the United States has increased efforts to end homelessness around the country. As the U.S. looks for new methods of handling the homelessness issue, here’s a few examples of how other countries have lowered homelessness rates.

    Japan
    In August 2014, homelessness in Tokyo hit record lows.

    “Hiroki Motoda, a metropolitan government official, said support for the homeless offered by the city, including temporary housing provision and employment advice, had contributed to lowering the figure over the years,” the Wall Street Journal reported at the time.

    Advertisement

    While Japan’s homelessness issue is less racially charged, major American cities can take the lead from Tokyo — a metropolis with a population larger than New York and Los Angeles combined. The homeless population Tokyo is less than 700 according to government reports. Tokyo’s population is over 13 million (the greater Tokyo area has over 36 million residents) but in the Washington D.C. — where the population is 672,000 — there are more than 7,000 homeless people.

    Denmark
    The percentage of homeless people in Denmark is less than 0.1 percent. Denmark’s ‘housing first’ policy helps keep people — and particularly the youth — off the streets. It also matches a strategy that certain communities in the U.S. are advocating for after initial success in Utah. “[T]he public housing sector is about twenty percent of the total housing stock in Denmark,” an essay published by the University of Maryland says.

    The country also prioritizes policies and funding for homeless people. Denmark gave the homeless their own cemetery and in the third largest city of Odense, researchers track volunteers to try and figure out how to place infrastructure that benefits the homeless.

    Singapore
    Singapore has “virtually no homelessness,” according to the Solutions Journal. In 1960, Lee Kuan Yew and the People’s Action Party (PAP) put together a Housing and Development Board to build 51,031 new housing units over a five year period. That legacy has lived on in modern Singapore, as government build houses were affordable enough for many residents to buy over the years.

    Advertisement

    “According to Statistics Singapore, 90 percent of Singaporeans own their own homes today and more than 80 percent live in government-built residential units,” City Lab reported.

    The U.S. population could prove a stumbling block in repeating such a task but providing housing and supportive services for more than a half-million homeless Americans would still be less expensive than doing nothing.

    Canada
    In the city of Medicine Hat in Alberta, no person living without shelter goes more than 10 days before the government provides them with permanent housing. This project was started in 2009 and as of 2015 the city’s residents were almost entirely living in permanent housing. “We want to see if it’s sustainable before we announce that we’ve ended homelessness,” Mayor Ted Clugston told the Calgary Herald.

    Clugston is a fiscal conservative, according to the Herald, and while he was skeptical of the plan at first, results have changed his mind.

     

  6. 1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

    Man you really don’t have a clue. A big chunk of everyone’s tax payment goes to debt service. It’s unsustainable not because we have almost always run a deficit, but because it has grown so much. Just the interest on the debt will equal gdp if nothing is done. It will happen much faster if folks like johnny weren’t paying in

    6%.  Say, where did you get your public policy education?

     

    10-4-17bud-f1.png?itok=fkoeTcFK

  7. 1 hour ago, BabaYaga said:

    May Deficit: $147 Billion, Highest since Great Recession....

    Bad Trump. Bad Congress. Bad every President and Congress for the past 30 years....The left will continue to ignore the difference between tax rates and tax base and claim a fall in receipts is to blame.  The right will claim an increased tax base at lower rates is not done forming forming.  Both are correct to an extent.  The economy isn't done growing.  The tax base isn't done expanding.  But F-ing Congress won't stop spending....when GDP to interest on federal debt equal 100%.  Lights out....

    This is not a very well written post, even for someone as ill informed as you.  

  8. 10 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

    This is a strange statement. The taxes he has paid in have done a tremendous amount of good despite the govt spending twice what it takes in. The taxes paid by the top 1% allow us to make interest payments on the debt and to keep borrowing at our current (unsustainable) rate if nothing else. That literally keeps people from starving and dying of disease and exposure. And pays to safeguard our borders and interests here and abroad. Many more people than you help unless you are close to their tax bracket. Oh but you clamor for more of their money, I guess that counts for something.

    Also he doesn’t have to justify his income to you or anyone else. Why should anyone care that you think they should be happy with the amount of money the govt lets them keep?

    This is a strange statement.  

    I'm glad you think his money has done a tremendous amount of good.  I have faith in my tax dollars as well.  

    But that money is commingled with the taxes of poor people who pay a much larger proportionate share of income.  

    I'm not sure why Johnny Sack's money goes toward debt service and not something else.  Or why you think the national debt is unsustainable: 

    Quote

    How long has the U.S. run fiscal deficits? By Investopedia

     Answer: The United States began its history indebted, owing more than $70 million to the French and Dutch after the end of the Revolutionary War in 1783. However, the first actual fiscal deficit in the federal ledger was not run until the end of that decade. In September 1789, Alexander Hamilton, then Secretary of the Treasury, negotiated terms with the Bank of New York and the Bank of North America to borrow $19,608.81 to address shortfalls within the U.S. budget.

    If you spend much time in any major urban area you'll see people living on the street.  It doesn't appear to be doing much for them.  

     

    And I do clamor for more of their money.  What I don't understand is why you can't see why.

  9. 8 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

    I think Americans should follow the law and report their income.  You apparently disagree.

    Since you have an annual income above $1 million, you are not doubt aware of this:

     

    Quote

    What is the 'Double Irish With A Dutch Sandwich'
    The double Irish with a Dutch sandwich is a tax avoidance technique employed by certain large corporations, involving the use of a combination of Irish and Dutch subsidiary companies to shift profits to low or no tax jurisdictions. The double Irish with a Dutch sandwich technique involves sending profits first through one Irish company, then to a Dutch company and finally to a second Irish company headquartered in a tax haven. This technique has allowed certain corporations to reduce their overall corporate tax rates dramatically.

    Next Up
    IEP (IRISH POUND)
    GUILDER SHARE - NEW YORK SHARE
    DUTCH DISEASE
    TAX RATE
    BREAKING DOWN 'Double Irish With A Dutch Sandwich'
    This technique is just one of a class of similar international tax avoidance schemes. Each involves arranging transactions between subsidiary companies to take advantage of the idiosyncrasies of varied national tax codes. These techniques are most prominently used by tech companies, because these firms can easily shift large portions of profits to other countries by assigning intellectual property rights to subsidiaries abroad.
    The double Irish with a Dutch sandwich is generally considered to be a very aggressive tax planning strategy. It is, however, famously used by some of the world's largest corporations, such as Google, Apple and Microsoft. In 2014, it came under heavy scrutiny, especially from the United States and the European Union, when it was discovered that this technique made it possible to send several billion dollars annually tax-free to tax havens.

    How it Works
    The technique involves two Irish companies, a Dutch company and an offshore company located in a tax haven. The first Irish company is used to receive large royalties on goods, such as iPhones sold to U.S. consumers. The U.S. profits, and therefore taxes, are dramatically lowered, and the Irish taxes on the royalties are very low. Due to a loophole in Irish laws, the company can then transfer its profits tax-free to the offshore company, where they can remain untaxed for years.

    The second Irish company is used for sales to European customers. It is also taxed at a low rate and can send its profits to the first Irish company using a Dutch company as an intermediary. If done right, there is no tax paid anywhere. The first Irish company now has all the money and can again send it onward to the tax haven company.

    The End of the Double Irish With a Dutch Sandwich
    Due largely to international pressure and the publicity surrounding Google's and Apple's uses of the double Irish with a Dutch sandwich, the Irish finance minister, in the 2015 budget, passed measures to close the loopholes and effectively end the use of the double Irish with a Dutch sandwich for new tax plans. Companies with established structures will continue to benefit from the old system until 2020.


    Compare Popular Online Brokers
    Provider
    Name
    Description

    Advertiser Disclosure
    RELATED TERMS
    IEP (Irish Pound)
    IEP (Irish Pound) was the currency of Ireland until 2002.
    Guilder Share - New York Share
    An ownership stake in a Dutch company that can be traded in the ...
    Dutch Disease
    Dutch disease refers to the negative consequences arising from ...
    Tax Rate
    A tax rate is the percentage at which an individual or corporation ...
    Taxes
    An involuntary fee levied on corporations or individuals that ...
    Income Tax
    A tax that governments impose on financial income generated by ...
    RELATED ARTICLES

    INSIGHTS
    Tim Cook Calls EU Ruling 'Political Crap' (AAPL)
    Apple has been ordered to pay $14.5 billion in back taxes by the European Commission.
    How to find happiness at work
    SPONSORED CONTENT
    How to find happiness at work
    By Fidelity - Learn how to appreciate the people and places you see every day.

    INVESTING
    Google Sheltered $19.2B With Tax Maneuvers: Report
    The search engine giant’s use of tax shelters reportedly saved it as much as $3.7 billion.

    INSIGHTS
    Tax Wars: U.S. Companies Are Targets (AMZN, SBUX)
    The EU is targeting Amazon, McDonald's, Starbucks and others. Tax avoidance is big business, pitting governments, the EU and companies against each other.

    RETIREMENT
    How Much Money Do You Need to Retire in Ireland?
    After the Celtic Tiger's boom and bust, retiring in Ireland may be more affordable than you think. Here's an overview of what to expect.

    INVESTING
    The Story Behind The Irish Meltdown
    Once a lesson in national renewal, Ireland is learning that success can be fleeting. Learn the story behind Ireland's crumbling economy.

    INVESTING
    How Royal Dutch Shell Makes Money (RDS-A)
    How does an oil company dominate the world? Following Royal Dutch Shell's business model probably wouldn't hurt.

    TAXES
    All You Need to Know About Tax Havens
    These tax-free zones might sound appealing, but the consequences often aren't.

    INVESTING
    Royal Dutch Shell Strategy Update
    Royal Dutch Shell held its twice a year strategy update and is well along in meeting goals set out in 2010.

    TAXES
    Tax Haven Vs. Tax Shelters: Is There a Difference?
    Learn about the difference between tax havens and tax shelters, and how both are used to reduce tax liability or avoid paying taxes altogether.

    INVESTING
    Explaining Dutch Auction
    A Dutch auction is a public offering auction.
    RELATED FAQS
    Why is Andorra considered a tax haven?
    Find out why Andorra is considered a tax haven and how developments have lessened its appeal due to increased taxation and ... Read Answer >>
    How does the marginal tax rate system work?
    The marginal tax rate is the rate of tax that income earners incur on each additional dollar of income. Read Answer >>


    Read more: Double Irish With A Dutch Sandwich https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/double-irish-with-a-dutch-sandwich.asp#ixzz5ILdV8bTO
    Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

     

  10. Just now, David Dennison said:

    Oh, that's right. You pretend you earned it all by yourself. You are a real life Horatio Alger story.

     

    Is Johnny Sack actually Trump?  I thought he was one of the Koch brothers.

     

  11. 4 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

    So we agree you just want to give orher people’s money away. How noble. 

    Do you know what I find weird about you?  Your avatar.  That's not you, really.  This is you:

     

    maxresdefault.jpg

    • Like 2
  12. 1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

    And you?

    I pay plenty every year. Just want to know what people who bitch about me pay?  If it’s similar, then respect.  

    I'm not bitching about you paying.  I think you should pay more.  I'm bitching about the fact you're not happy to pay and be part of this wonderful country.  

  13. Just now, Johnny Sack said:

    How much do you pay?  How much do you give to charity?  Or are you one of those big mouth liberals who can only give away someone else’s cash.  

    You completely missed the point.  You want to talk about how rich you are.  Not me.  I have much less money than you.  You're a big shot.  The system works for you.  It's outrageous how all these other people who participate in the economy aren't as rich as you.  

    • Like 1
  14. 2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

    I have no idea what taxes you pay.  But what is a taker?  I’ve scratched 7 figure checks to the US Treasury.  Have you?

     I know people who pay a lot more than me.  But I feel I’ve paid a lot. And I’m certainly not receiving transfer payments and am phased out of tax welfare.

    There are people who pay more than me.  But I’m guessing I pay more than 95 percent and consume less  

     

    You live in America, right?  What have you done to serve this country?  What have you done for anyone but yourself?  I'd like to know.  There are places you could live and pay far less taxes but I doubt you'd like them.

    So if you're so rich why complain?  Why can't you be happy?  Happy knowing that poor people with fewer options will see to it that our way of life continues.  That's more than I can say for you.  You want to enjoy the benefits of other people's sacrifices and complain about not having enough money.  

    • Like 1
  15. 19 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

    I think because the tax cuts are going to kill so many poor people, we are going to be in better shape.  Less welfare.  Less takers.  All those deaths should help. 

    Gotta thin the herd.  Maybe drown those deformed babies from now on.  You know, like the Spartans used to do.  Damn, Johnny, you aren't just wrong about every fucking thing possible, you were just born at the wrong time.

  16. 3 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

    Your posts ?

    C'mon. Here's your chance.  Impress use with some facts.  Drop some knowledge bombs.  Gravitas, you haz it.  Come on, Sgt. Schultz.  You can do it.  Think hard.  You know the answers.  They will come to you.  You're smart.  Those people that think they're better than you . . . well, they're not.  Here's your chance.

×
×
  • Create New...