| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5 |
Timinator
Nomad
Posts: 242
Registered: 6-27-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
It's OK, facts are facts. I don't mind educating a few people, all you can do is tell them the truth.
Ask the EPA for the QA/QC data for the GW data set. You'll never see it or get it. It may even have been erased or destroyed because it will
completely disqualify the data. Of all the atmospheric data that can be taken, accurately measuring temperature is by far the hardest. So many
things affect temperature at any single location. It's practically impossible to measure it without affecting it, much less make sure nothing within
100's of yards every changes throughout the years. Not to mention, every station ever located by the EPA, or with EPA money, went to the lowest
bidder as did the company's who perform the QA/QC on the instruments. It's the nature of the game. If we can't do it here is the US, exactly who is
doing it accurately all over the world?
Oh, the Fair Tax would be the best thing that ever happened to the poor and the entire middle class. Actually, the ultra rich who have 100x more
stuff than everybody else would be paying 100x more in taxes for it. It's not a perfect tax, but it's better than what we have and, again, it's take
politicians out of the tax game. That's should be enough for every voting person in the country to back a candidate who's for it.
|
|
|
durrelllrobert
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7393
Registered: 11-22-2007
Location: Punta Banda BC
Member Is Offline
Mood: thriving in Baja
|
|
Isn't the 16% VAT that rich and poor alike pay on everything they buy in Mexico (including gas, water and electricity) sort of a flat tax? Yea, I
know it doesn't apply to earnings but ....
Bob Durrell
|
|
|
monoloco
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6667
Registered: 7-13-2009
Location: Pescadero BCS
Member Is Offline
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by durrelllrobert  | | Isn't the 16% VAT that rich and poor alike pay on everything they buy in Mexico (including gas, water and electricity) sort of a flat tax? Yea, I
know it doesn't apply to earnings but .... |
Yep, and it places a greater burden on the low and middle class
because they spend a much higher portion of their incomes on consumables (basically, every penny they earn that doesn't get spent on food) than the
wealthy, who can afford to hoard their wealth, or spend it abroad. A consumption tax is the least fair of all tax schemes.
"The future ain't what it used to be"
|
|
|
mtgoat666
Select Nomad
Posts: 17294
Registered: 9-16-2006
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hot n spicy
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by monoloco | | Quote: Originally posted by durrelllrobert | | Isn't the 16% VAT that rich and poor alike pay on everything they buy in Mexico (including gas, water and electricity) sort of a flat tax? Yea, I
know it doesn't apply to earnings but .... |
Yep, and it places a greater burden on the low and middle class
because they spend a much higher portion of their incomes on consumables (basically, every penny they earn that doesn't get spent on food) than the
wealthy, who can afford to hoard their wealth, or spend it abroad. A consumption tax is the least fair of all tax schemes. |
it is amusing that consumption tax advocates call their tax scxheme the "fair tax." fair? 
income tax is the only "fair" tax because it is based on ability to pay the tax. perhaps the progressive income tax is fairest of them all 
the consumption tax advocates argue for something like a 30% or more tax on goods. you baja ex pats would be ahead of the curve, because the
replacement of income tax with consumption tax would mean the middle class and rich would all start buying houses and luxuries overseas to avoid the
consumption tax at home. and overnight bartering would become king and a large black market would begin for most goods and services.
|
|
|
Mexitron
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3397
Registered: 9-21-2003
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Member Is Offline
Mood: Happy!
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by mtgoat666 | | most all of the western world has progressive income taxes, don't know why middle and upper class gringos are so selfish they continue to harp about
their lower class (their servants) paying a lower tax rate,... |
Not necessarily:
http://www.vox.com/2014/10/8/6946565/progressive-taxes-are-n...
How Sweden fights inequality — without soaking the rich
"There seems to be an obvious solution to rising inequality: higher taxes. But there's an inconvenient fact here. The way most advanced, industrial
countries have made real gains on inequality is through relatively regressive taxes that fund programs that reduce inequality. In fact, America's tax
system is already unusually progressive by international standards. Our ongoing research suggests that this unusual relationship is not a coincidence.
The countries in northern Europe that have made the biggest strides in reducing economic inequality do not fund their governments through
soak-the-rich, steeply progressive taxes. Instead, they have broad-based taxes that ask all workers to contribute to a generous welfare state.
Countries with highly progressive taxes that disproportionately hit the rich — like the United States — tend to have the stingiest welfare states.
The figure below makes this point clearly, showing that the more progressive a country's taxes, the less the country does to reduce inequality.
In this chart, redistributive effort refers to percent reduction in the market Gini coefficient — a useful measure of inequality. Household tax
progressivity measures how much more (or less) of the tax burden falls on the wealthiest households, compared to households at the middle and the
bottom. Both measures are from the OECD.
There's a reason governments in nations with highly progressive taxes end up spending less to combat inequality — those taxes raise relatively little
revenue for both economic and political reasons. For instance, the highly progressive taxes in the United States have fostered intense backlash from
powerful economic elites, pushing high-earning individuals and firms to find loopholes and lobby for top-end cuts.
The reason Northern European countries with more regressive taxes achieve such high levels of labor market equality, despite less progressive tax
systems, is that they spend money on increasing the skills and earning power of low-end wage earners. Countries with the lowest levels of inequality
have learned that policies to cultivate skills for all workers and to achieve full employment policies can accelerate economic growth while also
reducing inequality. Large investments in human capital reduce societal conflicts over the distribution of resources, even while expanding the
economic pie......." --more of the article at the link--
|
|
|
monoloco
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6667
Registered: 7-13-2009
Location: Pescadero BCS
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Alan | | Quote: Originally posted by monoloco | | Quote: Originally posted by Alan | | Quote: Originally posted by monoloco | | Quote: Originally posted by Timinator | Wow, you guys have been busy! Lot's and lot's of innuendo and what if's passed on as facts.
As far as a "progressive" tax, that's exactly what shouldn't be. I believe in just the opposite; a regressive tax. The more you make, the less the
percentage of what you make get's taxed. I make the money, why should the government get more of it because I may have worked harder and longer than
others around me, or moved to where jobs were, or struggled and got myself an advanced degree. Why would that ENTITLE the government to more of what
I make? I believe there should be limit to what they can take. Again, I believe in the Fair Tax which would end this. Taxed only when you buy
goods or services. Everybody, even the poor need to "feel" the tax, we don't bring up our kids any differently we teach them responsibility. Paying
a fair share is a responsibility.
The "rich get richer" that's complete crap. Maybe the ultra rich, those .02%, but everybody else is just trying to keep what they have. You don't
like all the poor around? Quit voting for Democrats. Besides, the US "poor" aren't poor at all, they're the most spoiled, pampered bunch of
moochers in all of history. They have MORE THAN 98% of the people on earth, all provided to them for free from that PROGRESSIVE tax you Democrats
keep pushing for "equality". You should be ashamed of yourselves. |
You do realize that income inequality
is the highest since the robber baron era? It certainly doesn't seem like the high tax burden is negatively affecting the 1%. |
You are correct. It is not negatively affecting the 1%. It is negatively affecting the 99%. It is keeping jobs and investment
overseas. I would prefer a Flat Tax. Allow each state to specify a subsistence level based on cost of living for each area and that would be the
standard deduction for all in that area. Anyone who's income is at or below that level would not be subject to taxation. A flat rate would be
incurred on any and all income above that level regardless of the source of that income. A 10% tax will impact me just as much as a 10% tax would
impact a Bill Gates or a Warren Buffet.
I am sickened by the Democratic Party selling their platform of "soft bigotry" that people are too stupid to care for themselves and must be taken
care of by the government. We now have generations of Americans that have come to believe this and as a result see no future for themselves and
believe they don't have the ability to better their station in life. This soft bigotry has robbed Americans of their aspirations.
Why do we continue to fight over how to divide up the pie when our focus should be, "How can we bake a BIGGER pie"?
A rising tide raises ALL ships. |
Do you really think that a 10% tax will affect a guy making 20 million a
year the same as a guy making 20K? You don't have to look too deep into economic figures to see that the increase of wealth at the top hasn't
translated into more jobs or a rising income for the middle class, because while incomes of the 1% have risen dramatically, the real incomes of
everyone else have actually declined. So the idea of the "rising tide lifting all boats" has proven to be a failure. As to your point about business
moving offshore, I agree, and that's why we should eliminate corporate taxes, and capture the tax from the shareholders.
[Edited on 3-31-2015 by monoloco] |
It's a lot fairer than our current tax structure. Everyone should have
some skin in the game. Why should Warren Buffet be taxed at a lower rate than his secretary because our system forces him to manipulate his income
sources in the most advantageous means available. Our current structure is killing the lower and middle income class and even worse by it's very
nature it is setup to punish success and reward failure by simply increasing taxes on the wealthy to provide benefits to the poor. It sounds good in
theory but it isn't working. Herman Cain's proposal of 9/9/9 had a lot of merit unfortunately his silly slogan made it sound like he was running a
special on his pizzas. |
It's not the progressive income tax that is the problem, it's the thousands of pages
of deductions, subsidies, and loopholes, which predominately favor the rich because they are the ones with the lobbyists to get them inserted in the
tax code.
"The future ain't what it used to be"
|
|
|
wessongroup
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21152
Registered: 8-9-2009
Location: Mission Viejo
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suicide Hot line ... please hold
|
|
It is pretty simple ... just saying 
[Edited on 3-31-2015 by wessongroup]
|
|
|
Timinator
Nomad
Posts: 242
Registered: 6-27-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Mexitron | | Quote: Originally posted by mtgoat666 | | most all of the western world has progressive income taxes, don't know why middle and upper class gringos are so selfish they continue to harp about
their lower class (their servants) paying a lower tax rate,... |
Not necessarily:
http://www.vox.com/2014/10/8/6946565/progressive-taxes-are-n...
How Sweden fights inequality — without soaking the rich
"There seems to be an obvious solution to rising inequality: higher taxes. But there's an inconvenient fact here. The way most advanced, industrial
countries have made real gains on inequality is through relatively regressive taxes that fund programs that reduce inequality. In fact, America's tax
system is already unusually progressive by international standards. Our ongoing research suggests that this unusual relationship is not a coincidence.
The countries in northern Europe that have made the biggest strides in reducing economic inequality do not fund their governments through
soak-the-rich, steeply progressive taxes. Instead, they have broad-based taxes that ask all workers to contribute to a generous welfare state.
Countries with highly progressive taxes that disproportionately hit the rich — like the United States — tend to have the stingiest welfare states.
The figure below makes this point clearly, showing that the more progressive a country's taxes, the less the country does to reduce inequality.
In this chart, redistributive effort refers to percent reduction in the market Gini coefficient — a useful measure of inequality. Household tax
progressivity measures how much more (or less) of the tax burden falls on the wealthiest households, compared to households at the middle and the
bottom. Both measures are from the OECD.
There's a reason governments in nations with highly progressive taxes end up spending less to combat inequality — those taxes raise relatively little
revenue for both economic and political reasons. For instance, the highly progressive taxes in the United States have fostered intense backlash from
powerful economic elites, pushing high-earning individuals and firms to find loopholes and lobby for top-end cuts.
The reason Northern European countries with more regressive taxes achieve such high levels of labor market equality, despite less progressive tax
systems, is that they spend money on increasing the skills and earning power of low-end wage earners. Countries with the lowest levels of inequality
have learned that policies to cultivate skills for all workers and to achieve full employment policies can accelerate economic growth while also
reducing inequality. Large investments in human capital reduce societal conflicts over the distribution of resources, even while expanding the
economic pie......." --more of the article at the link-- |
Good article and write up. I've always thought a regressive tax was much more fair. Coupled with strides to educate workers and not welfare
recipients is always a good thing.
|
|
|
JoeJustJoe
Banned
Posts: 21045
Registered: 9-9-2010
Location: Occupied Aztlan
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mad as hell
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Alan | [/rquote]You are correct. It is not negatively affecting the 1%. It is negatively affecting the 99%. It is keeping jobs and investment
overseas. I would prefer a Flat Tax. Allow each state to specify a subsistence level based on cost of living for each area and that would be the
standard deduction for all in that area. Anyone who's income is at or below that level would not be subject to taxation. A flat rate would be
incurred on any and all income above that level regardless of the source of that income. A 10% tax will impact me just as much as a 10% tax would
impact a Bill Gates or a Warren Buffet.
I am sickened by the Democratic Party selling their platform of "soft bigotry" that people are too stupid to care for themselves and must be taken
care of by the government. We now have generations of Americans that have come to believe this and as a result see no future for themselves and
believe they don't have the ability to better their station in life. This soft bigotry has robbed Americans of their aspirations.
Why do we continue to fight over how to divide up the pie when our focus should be, "How can we bake a BIGGER pie"?
A rising tide raises ALL ships. |
Oh my God, a "flat tax!" You hear about flat taxes in every republican primary, since ultra rich fat cat, Steve Forbes was pushing for a flat tax
since he ran in the GOP primary and lost.
A flat tax, and a flat Earth, is the same type of thinking, it's backyard thinking, and only favors the rich, especially the ultra rich. There is a
reason why Steve Forbes, and republicans push the "flat tax,' because it allows the rich fat cats to really make out like bandits.
Already a rich fat cat like Mitt Romney pays less income taxes than a ditch-digger or his secretary. If the secretary makes about $50,000 dollars, she
pays taxes at a 25% tax rate. Mitt Romney who makes most of his money from investments and capital gains, for years has been getting away with only
paying a 15% capital gains rate! I think finally now if you're very rich, capital gains will be taxed at 20% but that's only for the ultra rich.
With a flat tax, Mitt Romney would pay zero capital gains tax. How fair is that?
Of course if Romney goes to "Home Depot" and buys a bag of fertilizer, he will pay the same 10% on taxes as the ditch-digger, when he also buys that
bag of fertilizer, but as it is, already, the ditch-digger pays more in taxes as a percentage basis, than a fat cat like Romney.
What happens to the home deduction that middle class tax payer really likes? It goes away, just like charity deductions goes away. This is why GOP
Presidential candidates that push the flat tax, also just goes away, because they usually lose early in the GOP primaries.
A flat tax will never happen in the USA, it's so unfair to the middle class and poor it's not even funny!
There are also about 20 countries around the world that do have a flat tax, and I don't think, even one of those countries is successful with a flat
tax.
__________________________________________
Flat Tax Will Benefit Only the Rich
Conservative politicians support tax increases. Not for their wealthy donors, but for the poor and middle-class Americans who would pay more under the
so-called "flat tax" proposals that were touted by Dick Army and Steve Forbes in the 1990s and are gaining currency again.
America has a progressive personal income tax, meaning it applies higher tax rates to the well-off and lower tax rates to the less well-off. Any
proposal to adopt a single tax rate somewhere in between the existing highest and lowest rates would result in tax cuts for the rich and tax increases
for the poor.
It gets worse. Flat tax proposals would exempt investment income, which largely goes to the rich. Our personal income tax already taxes capital gains
and stock dividends at lower rates than wages, which mostly benefits the richest 1 percent of taxpayers. Rather than eliminating these and other
special breaks, the flat tax proposals would expand them into one big exemption for investment income.
Some wealthy people already disguise their income as capital gains in order to benefit from the lower tax rates. These shenanigans would be even more
common if the tax rate on capital gains and dividends was reduced to zero percent.
read the rest here:
http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/is-a-flat-tax-a-good-idea/...
[Edited on 3-31-2015 by JoeJustJoe]
|
|
|
Alan
Super Nomad
Posts: 1617
Registered: 4-6-2005
Location: Yucaipa, CA/La Paz
Member Is Offline
|
|
Why would you suggest that investment income would be exempt? What I suggested was a flat rate on ALL income regardless of source and a 10% corporate
tax would bring money and jobs back home which would provide opportunity once again.
In Memory of E-57
|
|
|
SFandH
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6925
Registered: 8-5-2011
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Alan | | and a 10% corporate tax would bring money and jobs back home which would provide opportunity once again. |
seems like we're almost there:
big profitable U.S. companies paid just 12.6% of their reported worldwide profits in federal income taxes in 2010, a study released today by
Congress’ Government Accountability Office shows.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2013/07/01/gao-big-c...
|
|
|
SFandH
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6925
Registered: 8-5-2011
Member Is Offline
|
|
Steve Forbes flat tax plan:
"In 1996 he supported a flat tax of 17% on all personal and corporate earned income (unearned income such as capital gains, pensions, inheritance, and
savings would be exempt.) However, he supported keeping the first $33,000 of income exempt."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Forbes
One issue I see with plans like these is that if you're making 33K then no taxes but if you make 34K you pay 17%. That doesn't make sense. A
progressive tax rate schedule really is the only system that makes sense to me. Details of course are debatable.
[Edited on 3-31-2015 by SFandH]
|
|
|
Lee
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3455
Registered: 10-2-2006
Location: High in the Colorado Rockies
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by monoloco | The fact is both parties spend like drunken sailors, I kind of remember a lot of Republicans also voting for TARP and the other bank welfare programs,
sure Republicans talk about cutting the deficit and smaller government, but they'll put every dime they save and more, into more military spending,
more war, and other ill conceived crap like a double border fence thousands of miles long, and all of it while lowering taxes on the 1%. Wait until
interest rates inevitably rise, the interest on all that debt will go through the roof. I'm not going to defend Democrats, many of them also voted for
Bush's wars, DHS, corporate welfare, and lots of other things we don't need, but the idea that it is only the Democrat's fault that we are so far in
debt, is just absurd. They should all be held accountable, but as long as the corporate media and the politicians can keep convincing the voters that
it is all the other side's fault, we will never move forward. Gridlock is what they want, it insures that the moneyed interests who own the
politicians and write the legislation will continue to control the agenda. Oh, and by the way, much of the debt expansion is due to the continuing
costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as other programs started under Bush, like the medicare prescription drug benefit, DHS, and the
costs of taking care of the 70% of veterans from those wars who are claiming some sort of disability. The US budget doesn't get reset every time a new
party takes office.
[Edited on 3-29-2015 by monoloco] |
24 years divided by Clinton, Bush and Obama and no one can fix the border? But it's still a great country, right? Looks like a country as F'd
up as Mexico.
US Marines: providing enemies of America an opportunity to die for their country since 1775.
What I say before any important decision.
F*ck it.
|
|
|
Alan
Super Nomad
Posts: 1617
Registered: 4-6-2005
Location: Yucaipa, CA/La Paz
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by SFandH | Steve Forbes flat tax plan:
"In 1996 he supported a flat tax of 17% on all personal and corporate earned income (unearned income such as capital gains, pensions, inheritance, and
savings would be exempt.) However, he supported keeping the first $33,000 of income exempt."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Forbes
One issue I see with plans like these is that if you're making 33K then no taxes but if you make 34K you pay 17%. That doesn't make sense. A
progressive tax rate schedule really is the only system that makes sense to me. Details of course are debatable.
[Edited on 3-31-2015 by SFandH] |
$33,000 is a deduction for all. A person making $34K would only pay 17% on
the $1,000 over the 33K
[Edited on 3-31-2015 by Alan]
In Memory of E-57
|
|
|
SFandH
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6925
Registered: 8-5-2011
Member Is Offline
|
|
Oh!! OK. Of course. Thanks for clearing that up for me. duh!
|
|
|
motoged
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6481
Registered: 7-31-2006
Location: Kamloops, BC
Member Is Offline
Mood: Gettin' Better
|
|
DK, I hope you have a good vacation....You should chill and relax a bit .....and trust there are plenty here to continue presenting views compatible
with yours.
It must be a huge sense of responsibility thinking you alone would need to shine a light on the only path to freedom, your "rights", and keeping your
constitution in sight.
Air down when you need to, eh....
Don't believe everything you think....
|
|
|
Phil S
Super Nomad
Posts: 1205
Registered: 10-28-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: After 34 years. Still in love w/ my wife
|
|
Timinator. Because you have 'credentials', what is the effect world wide on the stuff the volcano's throw out into the atmosphere every time they
erupt? And isn't the pollution from them far greater than the auto pollution.? And the particulates that return to the earth? Anyone working on
putting diapers & filter screens on them?????????????????
Here's to the liberals that puts diapers on the bottom of the ocean, to keep it's bottom dry. (unquote)
[Edited on 4-1-2015 by Phil S]
|
|
|
Mexitron
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3397
Registered: 9-21-2003
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Member Is Offline
Mood: Happy!
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Phil S | Timinator. Because you have 'credentials', what is the effect world wide on the stuff the volcano's throw out into the atmosphere every time they
erupt? And isn't the pollution from them far greater than the auto pollution.? And the particulates that return to the earth? Anyone working on
putting diapers & filter screens on them?????????????????
Here's to the liberals that puts diapers on the bottom of the ocean, to keep it's bottom dry. (unquote)
[Edited on 4-1-2015 by Phil S] |
For the umpteenth time:
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php
"Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear
and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et
al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach,
2011)."
The first part of the article explains the difference between what humanity vaporizes and what volcanoes belch. Volcanoes generally cool the climate.
|
|
|
wessongroup
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21152
Registered: 8-9-2009
Location: Mission Viejo
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suicide Hot line ... please hold
|
|
Its a tough one to get through ... Mex ..
|
|
|
wessongroup
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21152
Registered: 8-9-2009
Location: Mission Viejo
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suicide Hot line ... please hold
|
|
And if one wishes documents from ANY Federal Agency .. some restrictions MAY apply
http://www.foia.gov/how-to.html
[Edited on 4-1-2015 by wessongroup]
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
