OGTEleven
-
Posts
2,013 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by OGTEleven
-
-
Basically a sales tax and no, it isn't fair. It sounds fair and it even sounds plausible but it is neither. A dollar to you may not be worth as much as a dollar to me. If all you have is a single dollar, that dollar is worth more to you than a person who has dollars to spare. This is a basic ecomonic principle, it is nothing new. Eat one candy bar and you are a happy camper, eat 50 candy bars and you end up vomiting away the afternoon in an emergency room somewhere. That last candy bar was not worth quite as much as the first.
Such taxes can spur the development of a large scale black market. Cigarette taxes are so high that there is great deal of cigarette smuggling going on. The generated revenues are very difficult to predict and so budgeting becomes even more difficult.
Why not just get rid of all deductions of every kind and retain the progressive system? Getting rid of deductions would mean increased revenues so the rates themselves could be lowered. All sources of income should be taxed at the same rate so that investment income is not favored over wage income. That would also lead to lower, albeit still progressive, tax rates. There are better ways to resolve the problems of our tax code than a sales tax.
I agree that a VAT, sales or consumption tax (call it what you like) is not very plausible at this point. Perhaps it will become more plausble over time through technology.
I don't really agree that it is unfair. The diminishing returns example you use, in my view, is not valid for two reasons. 1. I can 237.4 candy bars before I puke. 2. The whole point of a currency is that it levels the playing field between goods and services. Your 2nd dollar is no less valuable than your first. The products it can acquire may end up having a different mix. You may buy a soda or a stomach pump after you've had you're limit of candy, but it hasn't changed the value of the currency. I'm sure you wouldn't want to cap someone's total assets beacuse dollrs have ceased to have meaning.
There are "unfair" components of any tax system because A) They are designed by people and B ) they are "consumed" by people.
The design of today's code has certainly become broken. The fact that there are so many lines in a tax return and its adjunct forms is proof.
The comsumption of today's tax (and related) system is what tends to bug me the most. Here's an example: Take Mr. Jones and Mr. Smith. Each makes 100k a year in 1986 (right after college) and they get identical raises over time to 150k. Between 1986 and 2004, each has made an aggreagate of 2.25 million (average of 125k per). They both lost their job last month and took 50k positions. By coincidence, each started a family with twins in 86, and each have had identical, medical, income and necessity expenses over the last 18 years.
Mr. Jones likes fast cars, fancy dinners, expensive wine, HDTV, and season tickets to the 50 yard line of the fish (further proof of his stupidity). He decided he could do better in the market than any old 401k plan and he's going to start investing any day now. He's on his 3rd mortgage and has a very low net worth, but he has lived in a huge house since 87.
Mr. Smith started investing right away, lived below his means and has already paid the mortgage on his modest but comfortable house. His only indulgence is seasons to the Bills in the end zone.
Now that the twins are going to go to college, guess what? Mr. Smith has enough to pay their tuition despite his recent job woes. Mr. Jones is ok because his moderate income and lack of assets help him easily qualify for assistance which will be partially paid by Mr. Smith's tax bill.
When it's time to retire, it is probable that Mr. Smith's social security benefits will get hampered by "means testing" while Mr. Jones, who is poor, will receive increased benefits.
Long winded, I know, but my point is that no system can be completely fair without an in depth audit and value judgement of every transaction that every person ever makes. I doubt anyone is in favor of that. We should all be open to any system that closely mirrors its results without undue government oversight. At some levels a consumption tax might be able to do this, at least in theory. Implementation is another matter.
-
-
Two words: Courtesy flush
As for the travel plaza folks: Do you think you might want to keep a plunger closer than 40 miles away?
-
I agree that Gilbride was THE main cause and the story about the "I don't believe it" looks in the huddle is likely true. If that is the case, they should have thrown a mutiny and started calling their own plays. There is only so much time each player has and if all 11 knew what needed to be done.....
Maybe this year there will be no such need.
-
We get it. JK wants big bad Bush to tell the SBV's what not to say. Bush denounced all 527 ads. Kerry denounced the ones that are against him and is silent on those against Bush. Now he's going to pull a publicity stunt by showing up in Texas.
If I were a cynic I'd think Kerry is trying to make Vietnam and his service the entire campaign. If I were more of a cynic I'd probably think that's because his thought process was formed in the 60s and hasn't changed since. It might seem like he was less than open minded.
Bush has left Kerry many open doors to election. If he said one word about curbing illegal immigration he'd be up in the polls by 52%. There are others. Kerry won't take them because he is single minded. He has not said one specific thing on any topic other than Vietnam. Vietnam for God's sake. I'm too young to reallyremember Vietnam but I do remember the slogans the hippies threw around like "one day, we'll be the ones in charge". Sadly, from a look at Kerry's campaign it seems he's just been waiting to get older so that he can be in charge. It doesn't look like he knows what to do once he gets there.
OT: Hamm asked to return gold
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
I think he should give it back. Judgement errors, missed calls and "possible changed routines" are different than simple, straghtforward math errors. Winning on a technicality because someone was late filing a protest is lame. I'm sure it would be heartbreaking to have a gold in your hand and have to give it back, but if it is the right thing to do, it should be done. The saddest thing is that the guy should be IMMENSELY PROUD of the silver medal that he earned.
72 hoops, Roy Jones and other examples all fall into the category of "2 wrongs, don't make a right".
With all of that said the IOC is handling this terribly. They should either switch the official results or affirm them. They have no business shifting the pressure to Hamm or even the US organization. The mistake was theirs. They should correct it.