Jump to content

This Aint Packers Talk v69

CWood21

By CWood21
in Green Bay Packers

 Share

Recommended Posts

FinneasGage

FinneasGage

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, Cakeshoppe said:

Do we think the problem with this country is that there are too many people getting gender studies degrees when what they really want to do is spend their life as a barista making a dollar over minimum wage?

i got a sports management degree so i could make better posts on here. i did it for the forum. see where you idiots all have it wrong is you're concerned with problems of the country. i'm committed to the forum. maybe you all should reflect upon where you're focusing your energy. i see a lot of dog **** opinions on this sub. and a lot of people pretending to care about things going on societally that's merely a distraction from the real issue, which is a steady decline in the quality of content on this sub over the past ~5 years

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
EirePacker

EirePacker

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, HighCalebR said:

Honestly there should be more of a test for driving. IDC if it's 16 but make sure people actually know it's a big responsibility.

@HighCalebR do ye not have to pass a driving test before driving in the states.?

In ireland we have to do theory test at 17 to get a provisional licences which means you can drive but only accompanied by a full licenced driver and then we we have to do 10 lessons and pass an hour long driving test with an instructor before we get a novice licence and you have to put an N sticker on your car for 2 years which means you can drive alone but not on motorways etc before you get your full licence

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ThatJerkDave

ThatJerkDave

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, EirePacker said:

@HighCalebR do ye not have to pass a driving test before driving in the states.?

In ireland we have to do theory test at 17 to get a provisional licences which means you can drive but only accompanied by a full licenced driver and then we we have to do 10 lessons and pass an hour long driving test with an instructor before we get a novice licence and you have to put an N sticker on your car for 2 years which means you can drive alone but not on motorways etc before you get your full licence

The bigger issue is that you only have to pass the test once, if you don't royally screw up.  I am 37, and I have taken the driving portion of the test once, at 16.  I have taken the written part of the test twice, once for my learner's permit, and once before getting my actual license.  I am a better driver than when I was 16 years old.  But is my 80 something grandmother?

And for a license in the US (at least 20 years ago) all you have to do is take a written test of like 15 questions, many of which are can you identify a road sign from a picture; and pass a driving test making sure you can park your car, use your turn signals, wear your seat belt, stay in your lane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ThatJerkDave

ThatJerkDave

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, spilltray said:

See the thing is they don't need to take YOUR income. We need to go back to higher top marginal tax rates. One education proposal is actually funded by a transaction tax on Wall Street. We have slashed those top tax rates for decades under the lie of trickle down economics.

 

This country is better when more people are educated and healthy, even if that degree is "useless". More people will take advantage of it for useful education anyway.

I am in favor of a flat tax, no deductions.  I shouldn't pay a larger, or smaller, portion of my income to use the roads, police, etc than anyone else.  People who earn more pay more than those who earn less.  But you are not punishing the guy who made the right decisions, and worked harder, by taking more of his money and redistributing it to those who didn't.  If that guy wants to throw in a little more, or help the less fortunate, that should be his decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OneTwoSixFive

OneTwoSixFive

Posted
Posted
18 hours ago, ThatJerkDave said:

I am in favor of a flat tax, no deductions.  I shouldn't pay a larger, or smaller, portion of my income to use the roads, police, etc than anyone else.  People who earn more pay more than those who earn less.  But you are not punishing the guy who made the right decisions, and worked harder, by taking more of his money and redistributing it to those who didn't.  If that guy wants to throw in a little more, or help the less fortunate, that should be his decision.

It is a fundamental of government institutions that bureaucracy tends to grow and they will always, always, be looking for ways to increase revenue. Since you cannot constantly be altering a flat tax rate (which is very high profile, politically sensitive, and highly scrutinised)  there will always be a search for other ways of gaining revenue, chief of which is indirect taxation. Road tax, petrol tax, parking meters, permits for a variety of things, fees for using government land for functions, and so on. Even the way funding works encourages the various government institutions (like health, schools, agriculture, business development, industry, defence, etc) to raise money in their own department to be spent later within their own department.

Certain indirect taxes are geared to users. for example road hauliers and even taxis are much tougher on roads than an occasional  Sunday driver, so they pay more in road tax, fuel tax etc. Depending on the country or state, the level of tax on cars can be geared to exhaust emissions. That is the world we live in. Flat taxes (and little else) will never be. I wouldn't be surprised if the net gain from indirect taxation exceeds that of direct tax. The whole business of revenue is a huge, vastly complex web, and direct tax is just a part of something far, far bigger. Flat taxation sounds fair in the same way as Communism sounds fair in theory.............both are overly simplistic and do not work well in practice.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
AlexGreen#20

AlexGreen#20

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

It is a fundamental of government institutions that bureaucracy tends to grow and they will always, always, be looking for ways to increase revenue. Since you cannot constantly be altering a flat tax rate (which is very high profile, politically sensitive, and highly scrutinised)  there will always be a search for other ways of gaining revenue, chief of which is indirect taxation. Road tax, petrol tax, parking meters, permits for a variety of things, fees for using government land for functions, and so on. Even the way funding works encourages the various government institutions (like health, schools, agriculture, business development, industry, defence, etc) to raise money in their own department to be spent later within their own department.

Certain indirect taxes are geared to users. for example road hauliers and even taxis are much tougher on roads than an occasional  Sunday driver, so they pay more in road tax, fuel tax etc. Depending on the country or state, the level of tax on cars can be geared to exhaust emissions. That is the world we live in. Flat taxes (and little else) will never be. I wouldn't be surprised if the net gain from indirect taxation exceeds that of direct tax. The whole business of revenue is a huge, vastly complex web, and direct tax is just a part of something far, far bigger. Flat taxation sounds fair in the same way as Communism sounds fair in theory.............both are overly simplistic and do not work well in practice.

The idea of a flat tax is broken with our current wealth distribution.

Somebody who makes $5,000,000 per year pays an effective federal tax rate of 36.3%

Somebody who makes $75,000 per year pays an effective federal tax rate of 16.5%

Even if we make the flat tax rate 30% (an impossibly high number to place on the middle and lower classes) the guy making $5,000,000 per year sees his tax bill drop $314,987.50. the guy making $75,000 sees his tax bill go up by $10,141.50. 14 people would need to see their tax rate go up by 8% and their tax bill go up by 10k in order for one guy to see his tax bill go down 6%.

There's just no way to maintain the revenue stream without royally ******* anybody making less than like $1,000,000 per year.

Now if we're all of a sudden going to start counting capital gains and other stock related endeavors as an income stream, now we're talking about something else,  but short of an entire rewriting of our tax code, a flat tax is impossible. 

 

 

Edited by AlexGreen#20
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...