|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 24, 2017 23:35:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Nov 25, 2017 1:55:07 GMT
EXACTLY what my 17-year old says. And he's the END of the Millennials. I've offered him my musket and tri-cornered hat.
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Nov 25, 2017 4:12:28 GMT
My 15 year old would just shake her head MB
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Nov 25, 2017 5:09:51 GMT
I'm hoping that we are starting to see a 'new turning' at the end of the Millennial generation. He and his computer science geek buddies seem to have arrived at their assessment of the assault on net neutrality all on their own. When I query them on these opinions they seem to have naturally grasped the obvious facts that this is a moneyed interest assault on the 'free' flow of information AND opportunity, which they seem to view as a great danger. I told them I was proud to stand in the presence of a new group of reflective rebels WITH a cause.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 25, 2017 12:23:01 GMT
A must read.... "......An elderly woman grabbed me. She had only Arabic for language. She grabbed me by both arms; wrong hair, wrong face, wrong face, wrong place; she was worried for me. She's a kind lady. I was the only white woman, the only woman, the only white in the whole of the area of Sweden that I was in, where people no longer go, and she was worried for my safety. No‑go Sweden has fallen to the migrants, and the Somalis still battle the Eritreans, who still battle the Afghanis, just like they did in the camp at Calais, and once I was there, two hand grenades were found just in a bin outside the police station, and a week later a Muslim took a truck and rammed it into pedestrians in the shopping arcade, as you will recall. One was an 11-year-old girl. It's a curious thing, you know, how the bodies of our daughters slain by Islamist terror never make the front pages of any of the press........"www.truthrevolt.org/news/katie-hopkins-get-furious-and-fight-back
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 25, 2017 15:29:59 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 26, 2017 14:30:48 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 27, 2017 13:31:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 27, 2017 14:06:34 GMT
One can only hope!
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Nov 27, 2017 15:18:41 GMT
Yep. Works fine. I just spent a half hour composing a letter and sending to ALL my State and Federal represenatives AND the Govnor. Bombard them with concern. Some staff bot will be making tallies on constituent issues. Make his/her eyes bug out.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 28, 2017 1:54:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 28, 2017 2:51:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Nov 28, 2017 3:24:02 GMT
Sig the proposals are likely to be far more revenue neutral. Tax revenue is not defined by some simple proportion of the current income but much more as the proportion of the income that will be earned with the new tax rate.
Simple mind experiment and it works on friends who claim its just a simple percentage discussion. Runs as follows.
If income is $100 million and tax rate is 1% we can all agree that tax will be around but very close to $1 million If the same Income was subject to 10% we can all agree that the tax will be around $10 million and 20% will yield $20m etc. so what will the revenue be at 100% tax rate?
and the solution is simple zero no body will go. So the income and the rate are linked even on a short time frame, image how it is impacted on the 10 year time frame.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 28, 2017 10:41:54 GMT
Look at the Laffer curve - named after Arthur Laffer. "The Laffer Curve is a theory developed by supply-side economist Arthur Laffer to show the relationship between tax rates and the amount of tax revenue collected by governments. The curve is used to illustrate Laffer's main premise that the more an activity such as production is taxed, the less of it is generated."www.investopedia.com/terms/l/laffercurve.aspThis becomes more complicated when there is a low tax area where business or individuals can move to. That may be to another country or to another state. So New York and California are losing 'rich' people to states like Florida and Texas which do not have income tax. The rust belt states were losing jobs to Canada and Mexico and the computer industry is decamping en-masse to India and the far east where the company tax rates are a lot lower. Each time someone with high taxes moves their income from the high tax country/state to the low tax regime a huge amount is lost by the high tax country/state as generally the top 5 - 10% of earners (companies and individuals) pay the majority of the tax. The simplistic zero sum calculations will not show this loss of taxable income nor will it show loss of productivity and jobs. The zero sum politicians then increase taxes even further and try to legislate to stop people 'taking money' out of their country/state - actually increasing the loss of capital, jobs and tax revenue.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 28, 2017 13:18:33 GMT
Sig the proposals are likely to be far more revenue neutral. Tax revenue is not defined by some simple proportion of the current income but much more as the proportion of the income that will be earned with the new tax rate. Simple mind experiment and it works on friends who claim its just a simple percentage discussion. Runs as follows. If income is $100 million and tax rate is 1% we can all agree that tax will be around but very close to $1 million If the same Income was subject to 10% we can all agree that the tax will be around $10 million and 20% will yield $20m etc. so what will the revenue be at 100% tax rate? and the solution is simple zero no body will go. So the income and the rate are linked even on a short time frame, image how it is impacted on the 10 year time frame. Using history as a guide. The tax reduction of the 1980's resulted in an almost tripling of the National Debt. The tax reduction of the 2000's resulted in an almost quadruple of the National Debt. 5 Trillion to 20 Trillion. Forecasts showing the reduction in taxes would result in an increased revenue growth rate didn't pan out. The USA is fiscally broke. Further revenue reduction will only accelerate our demise.
|
|