Airtime is the least of campaign expenses. There's travel, other advertising, spin doctors, aides, palm-greasing, polls, and a myriad of other expenses.rraley said:
Here's your Democratic alternative...
- Thread starter rraley
- Start date
ylexot
Super Genius
I don't think that's what rraley was saying. I think he was saying that income over $30k would be taxed. So if someone makes $31k, their taxes would be 0.3($31k-$30k)=$300.FromTexas said:
RRaley, just because someone went to Harvard, that doesn't make them all-knowing. How's this for a loophole...CEO lives on the expense account, but for tax purposes only makes...oh...$30k per year. I have really started to like the federal sales tax idea...
B
Bruzilla
Guest
rraley said:
I've given this some thought rr, and here's what my life experience tells me: companies can leave the US all they want, but to stay in business (even overseas) they have to sell to the US. Not many folks in India are going to pay $40,000 for an Expedition for example. What I think would happen if we raise corporate taxes would be a lot of screaming from companies and their lobbyists, and then threats to leave the US and move overseas. But then, given the current mood in the country, I think you would see a lot of boycotts of goods from companies who carried out that threat. The next phase would be an increase in retail prices of goods as businesses pass along the higher taxes, followed by a decrease in prices as market forces and competition come back into play. It would be painful for a brief period, then things would get better.
rraley said:
Price controls have been tried and were a disaster, and congressional investigations have become so overused and misused over the past three decades that nobody cares about them anymore. If you want to get more people covered, and do it fairly, lower the cost of coverage... don't throw more money at anyone. I work for Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and they are getting very proactive at tiering service, better assessing physician capabilities, and better prediciting costs so that they can lower the cost to provide coverage, not increase payouts. If the insurers can do their part, and the government can reign in the lawsuits/malpractice insurance issues, which are now the biggest expense after college that a physician deals with, we can lower the costs to cover just about everybody.
rraley said:
rr, you really do need to get a broader view of human existence. You feel that deterence doesn't work because you're only looking at America, and we have no real deterrence. Instead, look at countries like Saudi Arabia and Singapore where a real death penalty and other punishments exist. In these countries you can be tried, convicted, and executed in less than a week. There are no endless appeals, no commutations (except in Saudi Arabia a family member of a victim can forgive and spare you), no reporters who will spin your story. There is also little or no crime as the people have an excellent understanding of the consequences, and there are no repeat offenders. What crime there is comes from foreigners who think that the words "DEATH PENALTY FOR DRUG OFFENSES" in big red letters on their immigration form is a meaningless threat as in the US. In Singapore, if they find drugs in your luggage, you'll be dead in less than a week. This may sound draconian to you, but I gotta tell you this - you can't imagine how nice it is to be able to go out at night, or in the morning, or whenever and have absolutely no fear of crime, or how good it feels to be able to leave all your stuff at the hotel and have no fear that someone's going to break in an steal it.
Your theory also does not recognize the core fact that people have always, and will always, take the path of least resistance. No matter how hard you try to make things better for all people, there will always be a good number of them who will not sieze the opportunity because it's easier to sit back and do nothing. Look at all the crimes being committed by kids who have everything they could ask for. If they can't resist stealing, raping, battering, etc., what makes you think that someone with 1/10th what they have will? The rich kids do it because they know mom and dad will bail them out, i.e., they have no fear of punishment. That's why the death penalty in the US has no deterrent factor... criminals know it's a joke. In countries where the death penalty and other severe punishments are dealt out the criminals are few and far between as the cost of getting caught is too high.
rraley said:
Once again, you really do need to get out and see more of the World before believing you have a handle on things. Here's a story for you: in 1982 or so, I was based at Lajes, Azores, a little group of Portugese islands in the Atlantic. While we were there, a Portugese Air Force enlisted man's house burned down, so the squadron took up a collection during a couple of paydays to help the guy out. We collected about $5,500 or so, not much but enought to help him replace some items. When we went to give him the money, we were told by the Portugese government that we couldn't, and the reason was that while $5,500 was nothing to us it represented about a year of this guy's pay, and him that much money would disrupt the community too much. We thought that was insane, but after spending a lot of time in foreign countries I found that they were right.
Foreign economies are as delicately balanced as the US's. We sit in the US and feel that a worker must have a house, two cars, three TVs and a good stash of porn mags to be happy. They have to eat three squares a day and get X number of calories from protein, etc. That's the American ideal, but not the ideal in many other countries. Look at Mexico for example. Let's say that the average working income for a Mexican is $4,000 US per year. Is that a good working wage? Not in the US, but in Mexico it is, because the economy is based on an average income of $4,000. But all of the do-gooders in your club feel that it's outrageous that a Mexican is only making $4,000 while an American doing the same work is making $21,000, and insist that the Mexicans making goods for sale in the US make an average income of $21,000.
What happens then? Well, the first thing is inflation goes nuts because landlords and merchants who have been pricing their goods based on a $4,000 income now know that they can boost their prices by factor of up to five. So now the effected workers are making and spending more money, and the merchants are making and spending more money, but what about all the millions who aren't making that new minimum wage? They're screwed. Then you have to think about the costs of goods going up in the US to pay all those higher wages, now the lower classes in America are screwed.
People in most foreign lands aren't making as much as Americans do, but they aren't trying to live on the American economy either.
rraley said:
I really do wish you Dems would think a little bit more before drinking the koolaid.
Using your logic you could say that New York City, Washington DC, or Los Angeles is the biggest enemy of America because they produce the most criminals. Saudi Arabia has no terrorist training camps, no recruitment centers, no bomb making outfits. So why were most of the 9/11 hijackers Saudis? VERY INTERESTING QUESTION, and I'll answer it for you as it plays into something else we've discussed here. Since oil revenues flooded into Saudi Arabia, Saudis have really no responsibilities for themselves anymore. Their housing is paid for, school is paid for, and they make enough money so that just about evey family has a foreign maid, driver, etc. Most Saudi men do not even have to work. This has led to a society where there are a lot of young men who have grown up with no responsibilities and/or discipline, aside from religious ones. These guys are looking for something meaningful to do with their lives because they are bored with them, and make great recruits for Islamic fundamentalists. Plus they have lots of money to bring with them. The situation is excatly the opposite of the dirt poor breeding grounds the Palestinians use, but the results are the same. This is also why I argue that improving quality of life in America will not reduce crime.rraley said:
Once again, why can't we have congerssional districts based on counties? Figure up your state's population, and divie up the districts by grouping geological areas together. Of course, looking at all of those red counties out there, that would be bad news for Democrats.
Last edited by a moderator:
B
Bruzilla
Guest
rraley said:
It is now... but what about 30 years from now? Bush is taking the long view and warning us that the crap's going to hit the fan and nobody is wanting to say the truth, which is that benefits are going to get cut so get ready now. Too bad more people aren't listening.
rraley said:
WooHoo! When do I get my entitlement check in the mail? I'm running to the mail box now!
ylexot said:
There ya go ylexot...thank you for the explanation, you hit it dead on.
From Texas...you are incorrect about this new system I propose creating a "huge tax increase" over what the middle class currently pays in the progressive system. Here's a test case for you...we'll use the higher end of that range you provided me. Under the current tax code, a person who makes $80,000 and is the head of a household, pays $15,599.60 in federal income taxes. Under my plan, that person will pay $15,000. For those of you who don't like math, that is a $599.60 tax cut for this particular case. A liberal Democrat (as some have labeled me) offering a tax cut!!! Holy crap!!
For a head of household making $42,000 there is a $2,499.60 tax cut involved. A single filer with an income of $70,000 receives a $624.60 tax cut. So FromTexas had you done some research and compare my proposal to the current tax code, you would see that this actually decreases taxes for those middle income earners that you referenced. It is nowhere near a "huge tax increase."
As for vrai...
I wonder about you sometimes too...I think to put it best: you and I agree on Iraq and gun control. We are about halfway apart about budgetary and taxation items, but on Health Care we are on opposite poles. That is the one issue where I am a very hardcore liberal.
To Bru...
First off about your statement regarding what it costs for people in foreign nations to live off of...I know that in foreign nations it does not take as much money to make an adequate living as it does in the good ole US of A; I don't need to have been overseas to know that. I am not suggesting that the international minimum wage should be stagnant or universal for every nation. What I am suggesting is that there should be a minimum wage in each nation that allows people in foreign nations to work standard hours and to receive livable wages. That doesn't mean I want Mexican workers to receive the American equivalent of $20,000 a year when $10,000 gets them an adequate living. What I want is for them to get that $10,000 to get an adequate living, which, without a minimum wage in many nations, is not possible.
As for your deterrence remarks regarding the criminal justice system in America...I never, ever want to pattern our justice after the system in place in Singapore, Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, etc. To suggest that we do that is to suggest that we violate our greatest principles of due process and fairness. And how can you be naive enough to think that this "deterrence" makes crime less ramapant in these nations? Where is the proof? Furthermore, where is the American belief structure in your proposal regarding deterrence?
As for Saudi Arabia...according to documents seized by the Israeli government, 60-70% of Hamas budget is funded by the Saudi government. They fund the printing of extremist textbooks that promote jihad and embrace martyrdom. They are highly responsible for the creation of a state in which radical ideology is not only present but accepted and embraced. The government there is oppressive of its people and does not receive the consent of the governed. The Saudi Royal Family practices Wahhabism, which is a radical sect of the Islamic faith. Saudi clerics are out of control and their message of suicide bombing is prominently displayed within terrorist organizations. While many within the Saudi Royal Family have condemned the terrorist attacks against America, some have not and have rather said that they wish more to occur. This sort of a nation is not one that we should be overly friendly with. America should be thankful that the Saudi government has decided to pursue Al Qaeda within its own borders, but fault it for not doing it earlier and fault it for supporting other forms of terrorism.
As for the whole quality of life leads to crime idea you have presented...you are absolutely off base. Recall that during the 90s boom, crime dramatically decreased. During the increasing times of unemployment during the late 80s through early 1980s and the early 1990s, crime increased. If you look at the Middle East, a similar economic structure to the Saudi model is present in the UAE and Qatar and there is no terrorism problem there...the reason we find it in Saudi Arabia is we find a malevolent government that does not completely disavow terrorism. A higher quality of life leads to less crime; when people have a job, opportunity, a house, they do not turn to crime.
First off about your statement regarding what it costs for people in foreign nations to live off of...I know that in foreign nations it does not take as much money to make an adequate living as it does in the good ole US of A; I don't need to have been overseas to know that. I am not suggesting that the international minimum wage should be stagnant or universal for every nation. What I am suggesting is that there should be a minimum wage in each nation that allows people in foreign nations to work standard hours and to receive livable wages. That doesn't mean I want Mexican workers to receive the American equivalent of $20,000 a year when $10,000 gets them an adequate living. What I want is for them to get that $10,000 to get an adequate living, which, without a minimum wage in many nations, is not possible.
As for your deterrence remarks regarding the criminal justice system in America...I never, ever want to pattern our justice after the system in place in Singapore, Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, etc. To suggest that we do that is to suggest that we violate our greatest principles of due process and fairness. And how can you be naive enough to think that this "deterrence" makes crime less ramapant in these nations? Where is the proof? Furthermore, where is the American belief structure in your proposal regarding deterrence?
As for Saudi Arabia...according to documents seized by the Israeli government, 60-70% of Hamas budget is funded by the Saudi government. They fund the printing of extremist textbooks that promote jihad and embrace martyrdom. They are highly responsible for the creation of a state in which radical ideology is not only present but accepted and embraced. The government there is oppressive of its people and does not receive the consent of the governed. The Saudi Royal Family practices Wahhabism, which is a radical sect of the Islamic faith. Saudi clerics are out of control and their message of suicide bombing is prominently displayed within terrorist organizations. While many within the Saudi Royal Family have condemned the terrorist attacks against America, some have not and have rather said that they wish more to occur. This sort of a nation is not one that we should be overly friendly with. America should be thankful that the Saudi government has decided to pursue Al Qaeda within its own borders, but fault it for not doing it earlier and fault it for supporting other forms of terrorism.
As for the whole quality of life leads to crime idea you have presented...you are absolutely off base. Recall that during the 90s boom, crime dramatically decreased. During the increasing times of unemployment during the late 80s through early 1980s and the early 1990s, crime increased. If you look at the Middle East, a similar economic structure to the Saudi model is present in the UAE and Qatar and there is no terrorism problem there...the reason we find it in Saudi Arabia is we find a malevolent government that does not completely disavow terrorism. A higher quality of life leads to less crime; when people have a job, opportunity, a house, they do not turn to crime.
FromTexas
This Space for Rent
Here, I will help you out. When my wife and I first year working in the schools we had approximately $62,000 in earned income that year. However, after all was said and done, we had a taxable income of only about $42,000. After tax credits, we had essentially about $600 in taxes.
Under you system, that would have been $31,000 taxable with approximately a $9,000 payment to the government (by your own math above). Thank god you are looking out for the middle class!!
That $80,000 income earner in actuality would only be paying about $3,000-$6,000. Go go liberal tax cuts!
Sorry Rraley, when are you going to realize not to question your professors!
edit: Had to correct my salary figures... found the old form and my memory was a little off.
Under you system, that would have been $31,000 taxable with approximately a $9,000 payment to the government (by your own math above). Thank god you are looking out for the middle class!!
That $80,000 income earner in actuality would only be paying about $3,000-$6,000. Go go liberal tax cuts!
Sorry Rraley, when are you going to realize not to question your professors!
edit: Had to correct my salary figures... found the old form and my memory was a little off.
Last edited:
FromTexas
This Space for Rent
Here, I got one for a single income, single tax filer to show your comparison on a one for one basis. To be fair, you didn't really specify married, you specified head of household.
He made approx. $54,000. His taxable income was approx. $41,000. He paid approx. $2,000 in taxes after credits (the reason I say after credits is credits come out of tax, not as adjustments to income like deductions). Under your system, that would have been $8,000. I am sure others here can continue to give you many similar examples.
Even at the standard self-deduction for a single earner with nothing else, the $80,000 example would still beat your $15,000 figure. Even if you added deductions for children and charitable contributions, this same earner gets them under this system and would still be less than yours unless you made exorbant deductions for those items, which you can't without really breaking your system (i.e. can't give 2 for 1 deductions for charity, etc..)
He made approx. $54,000. His taxable income was approx. $41,000. He paid approx. $2,000 in taxes after credits (the reason I say after credits is credits come out of tax, not as adjustments to income like deductions). Under your system, that would have been $8,000. I am sure others here can continue to give you many similar examples.
Even at the standard self-deduction for a single earner with nothing else, the $80,000 example would still beat your $15,000 figure. Even if you added deductions for children and charitable contributions, this same earner gets them under this system and would still be less than yours unless you made exorbant deductions for those items, which you can't without really breaking your system (i.e. can't give 2 for 1 deductions for charity, etc..)
Rraley, in regard to your tax plan, how are those that think like you going to sell this to the people once they get by the what looks nice $30,000 across the board deduction?
Mill these numbers about using the following assumptions; 2004 tax code, no itemizing taking standard deductions, just short form to keep it simple, no tax credits or anything else. TI = taxable income, TO = tax obligation, Difference = current system versus the Rraley plan.
1. Salary – 80,000, Married filing joint (one works and one doesn’t) – 9,700, Exemptions – 6,200, TI – 64,100, TO – 9,494. Difference – (-5,506) LOSS
2. Salary – 80,000, SHOH (single parent, one child) – 7,150, Exemptions – 6,200, TI – 66,650, TO – 12,256, Difference – (-2,744) LOSS
3. Salary (X2) – 40,000, Married file separate (both earn the same) – 4,850 each, Exemptions – 3,100 each, TI – 32,050 each, TO – 4,744 each, Difference each – +1,744, Total benefit combined (X2) - +3,488 GAIN
4. Salary – 50,000 (1) and 30,000 (2), Married file separate (one makes less then the other that falls at the no RRaley tax point) – 4,850 each, Exemptions – 3,100 each, TI(1)- 42,050, TI(2) – 22,050, TO(1) – 7,244, TO(2) – 2946, Difference - +4,190 GAIN
5. Salary – 80,000, Single – 4,850, Exemption – 3,100, TI – 72,050, TO – 14,794, Difference – (-206) LOSS
I would say for the most part it's a screwing. Is the goal of your plan to make us want to earn less?
Mill these numbers about using the following assumptions; 2004 tax code, no itemizing taking standard deductions, just short form to keep it simple, no tax credits or anything else. TI = taxable income, TO = tax obligation, Difference = current system versus the Rraley plan.
1. Salary – 80,000, Married filing joint (one works and one doesn’t) – 9,700, Exemptions – 6,200, TI – 64,100, TO – 9,494. Difference – (-5,506) LOSS
2. Salary – 80,000, SHOH (single parent, one child) – 7,150, Exemptions – 6,200, TI – 66,650, TO – 12,256, Difference – (-2,744) LOSS
3. Salary (X2) – 40,000, Married file separate (both earn the same) – 4,850 each, Exemptions – 3,100 each, TI – 32,050 each, TO – 4,744 each, Difference each – +1,744, Total benefit combined (X2) - +3,488 GAIN
4. Salary – 50,000 (1) and 30,000 (2), Married file separate (one makes less then the other that falls at the no RRaley tax point) – 4,850 each, Exemptions – 3,100 each, TI(1)- 42,050, TI(2) – 22,050, TO(1) – 7,244, TO(2) – 2946, Difference - +4,190 GAIN
5. Salary – 80,000, Single – 4,850, Exemption – 3,100, TI – 72,050, TO – 14,794, Difference – (-206) LOSS
I would say for the most part it's a screwing. Is the goal of your plan to make us want to earn less?
B
Bruzilla
Guest
rraley said:
Yes, I think you do need to spend some time in these countries. You really need a first-hand look at what's happening out there. For example, when I was in Turkey, I worked with Turkish military people who for their first four years in service received no pay, only room, board, uniforms, meals, and a ration of cigarettes. After four years of service they started to get a small salary. In Greece there really are no set working hours. Companies operate at various times of the day, and employees are expected to get "X" amount of work done. If they're done in an hour, they're off for the week. In Taiwan and many parts of China, service industry employees have to pool the money they make during the day and then the people get paid from the pool based on seniority. So a waitress who is junior, but works twice as many tables as a senior waitress, gets very little out of the pool while the senior gets the most. All of these business practices would be unthinkable in the US, but are completely natural and acceptable in the home country. They look upon our business practices as being as insane as we view theirs. It's a lot more than minimum wage and working hours. Many of these countries have caste and heirarchy systems that would not condone what you would like to see done.
rraley said:
The rate of violent crime in Singapore is historically less than 10% of that in the United States. Looking at the latest available comparable statistical data for Washington DC, there were 80 murders for every 100,000 people, in Singapore the number was 1.8; there were 36 rapes pre/100,000 in DC, Singapore had 1.7. Robberies were 1,215/per 100,000 vs. 3.9 per/100,000 in Singapore. See a difference there?
Also, in your narrow view of Singapore you might expect to visit some totolitarian police state, but the opposite is true. I spent close to a month there, and the only times that I saw the police was when someone was having an ATM machine serviced (if the machine was left open a police officer would guard it); the one time that I saw a man mugged (the mugger was set upon by other shoppers and beaten until the police came and arrested him); and once when I called them because a drunk was saying nasty things about some young ladies I was with (being rude to women is against the law out there. I told them what he had said, and the nice police officers arrested the guy... I loved it!)
As for due process and fairness, Singapore has the exact same legal system in place as in England. The difference is in speed of the process. A woman was arrested at the airport, the same day that I arrived, after the police found a package of hash in her suitcase. She was executed five days later. The rules are, and they make them perfectly clear before you get there, that if you get caught with any amount of illegal drugs, for any reason, you're getting whacked. So once again, you either have rules or you don't, and you either enforce those rules or you don't. In counties like Singapore and Saudi Arabia they have rules and they are enforced, hence the low crime rates. In the US we make rules, then come with 100 ways not to enforce them or 100 reasons why it was understandable to break them. This is why you can walk anywhere in Singapore at 3:00 in the morning with no fear of criminals. Try that in DC.
Lastly, IRT my deterent plans, what I propose does not fall into the current state of due process and fairness, however, I think that the needs for the current state are no longer valid. For example, brain fingerprinting is an involuntary reflex that the criminal has no control over. If a criminal committed a crime, and is shown a picture of the crimescene, the weapon, etc., he/she is going to remember it and their brain is going to show that they remember it. So the criminal's brain is giving away their guilt, thereby indicting the criminal. Does this constitute self-incrimination, yes. But the rules against self-incrimination were put into place to deter forced confessions, beatings, torture, etc. This process is none of those practices of the past, and you can tell with about 100% certainty if a suspect is innocent or guilty of a crime just by hooking him/her up to a box that measures brainwaves. As for using DNA to convict people who were acquitted of a crime, if DNA measurements are accurate enough to go back to old cases and apply the technology to free convicted people, then it's accurate enough to be applied to old cases to convict. This is a violation of double jeopardy, but that law's in place to prevent prosecuters from continually bringing up questionable cases. These technology could be used for the same purpose, preventing questionable cases, by ruling out or determining guilt with near 100% accuracy.
rraley said:
Once again... you're trying to view another country's moral standards as an American, and you just don't understand their value system. You remind me of Jimmy Carter when he got booed of the stage at a human rights conference for condeming Islamic nations for not granting women more rights, and the women were booing him as much as the men, and he couldn't understand how they could possibly do that.
You also can't compare Saudi Arabia to the UAE, Qatar, etc. They are in a whole different league. Mecca is in the kingdon, and the importance of Islamic law is several magnitudes greater there than in any other Islamic country. You state that "A higher quality of life leads to less crime; when people have a job, opportunity, a house, they do not turn to crime," and I will once again tell you that your lack of life experience is letting you down again. Your statement would be true if you modified it to read "People who work hard to achieve a higher quality of life, who have earned what they have, do not turn to crime." But those aren't the people we're talking about here. Remember that Saudi men do just about nothing as they are growing up. Everything is given to them, which results in a severe lack of personal initiative and responsibility. That's a far cry different than someone who works hard and earns a nice house.
I think that the best way to equate the lives of Saudi males to you is to suggest you look at the case of Patrica Hurst. She was a do-nothing socialite heirous with no direction in life. The minute she was exposed to a radical fringe group, one that was 180 degrees out from what her life was, she was easily set on the direction they wanted her to go in, and in no time she's out shooting up banks like the best of them. Whenever you hear about some teenager who's got the world by the ass getting into serious trouble, the story is nearly always the same: they were bored and hating life, and they fell in with the "wrong" people and voila - hello Johnny Walker Lind.
Did I miss something? Surely you are not suggesting that the US impose its values on sovreign nations by insisting that they pay their workers a minimum wage that is to our liking?rraley said:
