I think out of all of the taxes, Flat tax is the most fair. Its what i chose for the debate but also i think its just the simplest and something i have the most understanding on. As far as clarity goes, its definitely the most clear in the sense that every tax rate is the same. In my own little scenario, i think a flat rate of 12% would be ideal because it even though the low-income tax payers have to give more of their money than the wealthier tax payers, its still a low enough rate that they wont need to worry about going broke over.
1. There are a lot of debates about the fairness of the Flat Tax but in retrospect, i think that it is the most fair. The main argument against this is that if you take the same rate from everyone, the low-income tax payers will be feeling it more than the wealthy citizens. Well, thats pretty much the truth for every tax rate so i dont think that is very liable argument. What the flat tax does is take the same percentage out of everyone's income. Yes, if you have a lower income then your paychecks will feel drastically smaller than before, but it will be equally as small as the wealthy. If that makes sense... The same amount is taken out of everyone. The end. I think it is the most fair out of all of the tax markets.
2. Along with being the most fair, its the most simple. There is a less likely chance for people to get away with cheating their taxes and much less loopholes. "Simplicity is considered a significant benefit of the flat tax system. One tax rate makes for easy computation by the Internal Revenue Service and straightforward payments from taxpayers. Because the flat tax taxes only one income, it is easier to understand and to report. Taxpayers save the financial cost of complying with current IRS regulations, which often includes lawyers, accountants and other resources." (http://smallbusiness.chron.com/pros-cons-flat-tax-4210.html)
3. The quote from above wraps up convience and clarity pretty well, i think. It just seems like with all of the taxes that are being eliminated from from the economy, filing taxes would bemuch easier becasue their is less to deal with. " It removes the section of the tax code that is biased against the formation of capital. It eliminates the death tax, capital gains tax and double taxation of savings and dividends. Families and individuals are not required to report dividends, interest or other business-related income; this income is taxed at the business level. The flat tax makes it unnecessary to pay interest, dividends and other business tax at the individual levels."
**not finished**
Thursday, June 6, 2013
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
Manifesto 2.0
1. I honestly think the Government needs to go back to how it was when the Constitution was first being written, for the most part. A lot of the old American beliefs are being over looked and changed and i think there is something very important about tradition. We aren't looking at the history enough and just always looking for new ways to improve and update and upgrade and we aren't taking a step back to look at us from perspective of our past. We are making the same mistakes we did last time the economy went down the drain. I think the government should stop getting so involved in peoples lives and stop meddling with things they shouldn't be getting into, such as certain foreign affairs. We need to start focusing on our own economy and people before we start working on other people and i think thats a main issue that we have. We are always getting into other people's business and trying to be the big super hero but what are we going to do when we build every country up around us and we are left weak and broken? I think we need to focus on building ourselves up and providing for our own people. We have millions of people who are homeless or close to it. We should be focusing on getting the unemployment rate down and getting people back on their feet so they can get jobs and contribute to making the economy a better place. We also need to keep our noses out of small buisnesses or projects that have no benifit to the people. If a company or research project provides no help to our economy or benefits the people in any way, and they begin to go under, i think we should let them. I get that everyone deserves a chance, and to an extent that is correct, but if you cant hold your own even a little bit, then its time to maybe reevaluate some finacial descicons and do whats best for your company but also our country.
2. Most of the government's money comes from the the income of hard working citizens and i think that should be an easy change. For one, if people are getting more out of their salary, they would be more willing to invest the money which in turn is even better for our economy. Two, it is only causing more hardships on citizens and what kind of country could we have if everyone is moving towards the boundary lines of poverty? I think we could take just a little more out of corporate income to where the people feel better about their paychecks but we arent destroying buisinesses i the process either. We have to keep in mind that if the corporates start losing their money, the people wont have anywhere to work and earn theirs. It all goes in full circle and thats why i dont think i could have a career in anything dealing with money, politics, or economics. I do, however, agree with the idea that most of our money should come out of social security and social services. Its a good thing to put money into and i cant see people getting more upset if we increased that percentage a little bit to go with reducing the amount of money taken out of the paychecks. All in all i think the numbers should be switched around a bit, but i wouldnt know how to make THAT big of a difference and keep everyone happy. You will never keep everyone happy.
3. First of all, what exactly falls under the discretionary category? But for the most part i like what im seeing with our spending. I like the amount spent on medicare, its important to take care of your citizens and if we reduced that percentage from 23% to say 15%, we would be feeling it big time and a lot of people would be out of luck and very ill. Mpstly older folk who cant take care of themselves. I think we could shave a couple percentages from the defense, but only a couple. I strongly believe we need to support our troops the best we can and give them all we can but i also think that making our defence department a primary goal we are encouraging and aggrovating wars to break out and go into battle with our fancy super army that we pushed so much money into. I think that a couple percentages left wont make that huge of a difference on the troops and we could put that little nudge to a department who is in more need for the money than defense. Also it would be nice to know what falls under those other two categories, ya know?
4. I did end up making a few more cuts than i thought i would so maybe dealing with our debt is harder than we can like to think. Its easier to critisize the president when our country is parishing than to accept that we are a big factor. I ended up cutting $213 B in medicare and health care but $673 B in overall spending so i would like to think that i would keep us some what on track. There are a few changes i made to some health care policies, i really think that raising medicare requirements from 65-67 is completely acceptable. Lets face it if you cant live past 65, the medicare isnt even worth it. I think the gradual shift is what we need to do in almost all aspects of our spending and cutting
2. Most of the government's money comes from the the income of hard working citizens and i think that should be an easy change. For one, if people are getting more out of their salary, they would be more willing to invest the money which in turn is even better for our economy. Two, it is only causing more hardships on citizens and what kind of country could we have if everyone is moving towards the boundary lines of poverty? I think we could take just a little more out of corporate income to where the people feel better about their paychecks but we arent destroying buisinesses i the process either. We have to keep in mind that if the corporates start losing their money, the people wont have anywhere to work and earn theirs. It all goes in full circle and thats why i dont think i could have a career in anything dealing with money, politics, or economics. I do, however, agree with the idea that most of our money should come out of social security and social services. Its a good thing to put money into and i cant see people getting more upset if we increased that percentage a little bit to go with reducing the amount of money taken out of the paychecks. All in all i think the numbers should be switched around a bit, but i wouldnt know how to make THAT big of a difference and keep everyone happy. You will never keep everyone happy.
3. First of all, what exactly falls under the discretionary category? But for the most part i like what im seeing with our spending. I like the amount spent on medicare, its important to take care of your citizens and if we reduced that percentage from 23% to say 15%, we would be feeling it big time and a lot of people would be out of luck and very ill. Mpstly older folk who cant take care of themselves. I think we could shave a couple percentages from the defense, but only a couple. I strongly believe we need to support our troops the best we can and give them all we can but i also think that making our defence department a primary goal we are encouraging and aggrovating wars to break out and go into battle with our fancy super army that we pushed so much money into. I think that a couple percentages left wont make that huge of a difference on the troops and we could put that little nudge to a department who is in more need for the money than defense. Also it would be nice to know what falls under those other two categories, ya know?
4. I did end up making a few more cuts than i thought i would so maybe dealing with our debt is harder than we can like to think. Its easier to critisize the president when our country is parishing than to accept that we are a big factor. I ended up cutting $213 B in medicare and health care but $673 B in overall spending so i would like to think that i would keep us some what on track. There are a few changes i made to some health care policies, i really think that raising medicare requirements from 65-67 is completely acceptable. Lets face it if you cant live past 65, the medicare isnt even worth it. I think the gradual shift is what we need to do in almost all aspects of our spending and cutting
Monday, June 3, 2013
The furious sequester
Once upon a time, in a magical kingdom far, far away, there was a little village that was about to be taken over by a furious dragon. The king named the dragon Sequester. The Sequester was kept in a cage in the kingdom's castle. He was held by the king as a threat to get his people to listen to him, but one day the threat had worn thin and no one was scared of the "fierce" dragon so the king did something a little ballsy...He released the Sequester....
Okay so basically, the Sequester is "A series of automatic, across-the-board cuts to government agencies, totaling $1.2 trillion over 10 years. The cuts would be split 50-50 between defense and domestic discretionary spending"(CNN). The Sequester was only supposed to scare congress into making a decision but it didnt work and now it is being implemented. Way to go, Mr. President. According to the Washington Post, the sequester isnt ALL bad. "Social security checks wont shrink, medicare and veteran programs won't be spared and food stamp programs will be saved." I'm thinking if anything, i'll feel the effects of the sequester only when im on my way to Ireland, or Thailand, or some adventurous foreign country and the lines at the airport are a mile long. Looking at it as a big picture, it could be worse.. "The cuts were originally slated for $109 billion this year, but after the fiscal-cliff deal postponed the sequester for two months by finding alternate savings, the sequester will amount to $85 billion over the next 10 months. In 2013, non-defense programs will be cut by nine percent, and defense programs will be cut by 13 percent" So i mean really, who is scared of a little flying lizard anyways?
Okay so basically, the Sequester is "A series of automatic, across-the-board cuts to government agencies, totaling $1.2 trillion over 10 years. The cuts would be split 50-50 between defense and domestic discretionary spending"(CNN). The Sequester was only supposed to scare congress into making a decision but it didnt work and now it is being implemented. Way to go, Mr. President. According to the Washington Post, the sequester isnt ALL bad. "Social security checks wont shrink, medicare and veteran programs won't be spared and food stamp programs will be saved." I'm thinking if anything, i'll feel the effects of the sequester only when im on my way to Ireland, or Thailand, or some adventurous foreign country and the lines at the airport are a mile long. Looking at it as a big picture, it could be worse.. "The cuts were originally slated for $109 billion this year, but after the fiscal-cliff deal postponed the sequester for two months by finding alternate savings, the sequester will amount to $85 billion over the next 10 months. In 2013, non-defense programs will be cut by nine percent, and defense programs will be cut by 13 percent" So i mean really, who is scared of a little flying lizard anyways?
taxes, yo
FLAT TAX
"A flat tax (short for flat tax rate) is a tax system with a constant marginal rate, usually applied to individual or corporate income."
Pro: "Only a person's wage income would be taxed, so investment income, such as capital gains, dividends and interest, would be tax free." This would make taxes so much easier and much more simple each year. There would be no exemptions or deductions granted except to the lowest incomes so all of the loopholes in tax codes would be eliminated. The flat tax would eliminate global taxation and would allow the U.S. to compete more evenly in global markets. Basically the who theme of flat taxes in that they are fair and simple. Just like that.
Cons: It is believed that flat taxing is penalizing the low-income citizens. With the rates being the same, it is obvious that taxing 10% of a high income would affect the citizens much less than a 10% on a lower income. "Low-income individuals and families must spend money on the same necessities required by higher-income people. However, after the necessities are purchased, the poorer taxpayers, because they earn less, will have less money left over to pay taxes, at the same rate as those earning higher income amounts."
National Sales tax:
Pros: A sales tax could increase worker productivity. Also, having a national sales tax would eliminate the need for IRS by getting rid of the need for federal income. "Currently, we have an income tax that gets progressively more burdensome the more money you make. This reduces the incentive to work harder and be productive the higher you move up the ladder. Taxing consumption makes a lot more sense than taxing production." (geekpolitics.come) Another positive look is that illegal aliens and people who normally escape taxes would then be taxed as well, making it fair for everyone.
Cons: The biggest argument against a national sales tax is that it would be "regressive," meaning it would place a heavier burden on poor people.The entire tax industry would be destroyed, and thousands of accountants, IRS workers and other people in the tax business would lose their jobs. "A national sales tax is essentially a tax on consumption. Since low income families spend almost every penny they earn on subsistence items, they would pay a higher percentage of their earnings in taxes. Higher income families could afford to put a portion of their earnings into savings investments."
Overall i think national sales tax is one of the best options. It isnt my favorite, but its fair and its a close second.
Progressive:
Progressive tax levies a higher tax rate on those earning larger amounts of money than on those who earn less money. Your income determines which tax bracket you qualify for, and the wealthier members of society bear more of the overall tax burden than the poorer citizens. Progressive taxation helps protect people during a recession because if their income drops, they fall into a lower tax bracket. This means they will owe less money to the government. A highly progressive taxation system may discourage people from entering high-paying professions because so much of their potential income would be taken away in taxes.
Cons: Many people who do not favor progressive taxation argue that taxing one group at a greater rate than another group does not constitute strictly equal treatment. It encourages the wealthier citizens to find loopholes and cheat the system. Many critics also argue that the system is far too complicated.
Vat (Valued Added Tax):
Pros: The largest benefit of any new taxes would be an increase in federal revenue. Currently, only state and local government agencies charge taxes on purchases, but by instituting a VAT the federal government could benefit from consumer spending as well. Supporters of a VAT suggest that it would make taxes more efficient and easier for taxpayers to understand."Online stores such as Amazon.com, often get out of charging consumers sales taxes because of a 1992 Supreme Court ruling that retailers must have a physical presence in the state to collect excise taxes. However, some experts claim that a VAT could solve this problem of lost online sales taxes by levying taxes on all sales, even online sales."
Cons: Compared to our current tax system a VAT would be considered significantly regressive, meaning they benefit higher income taxpayers more so than those living closer to poverty. Additionally, the change from our current tax system to one with a VAT would be very difficult and time consuming, with lots of opportunities for fraud.
From what i'm getting out of the articles, the Value Added Tax provides too many opportunities for loopholes and those who obey the law pay more than necessary.
"A flat tax (short for flat tax rate) is a tax system with a constant marginal rate, usually applied to individual or corporate income."
Pro: "Only a person's wage income would be taxed, so investment income, such as capital gains, dividends and interest, would be tax free." This would make taxes so much easier and much more simple each year. There would be no exemptions or deductions granted except to the lowest incomes so all of the loopholes in tax codes would be eliminated. The flat tax would eliminate global taxation and would allow the U.S. to compete more evenly in global markets. Basically the who theme of flat taxes in that they are fair and simple. Just like that.
Cons: It is believed that flat taxing is penalizing the low-income citizens. With the rates being the same, it is obvious that taxing 10% of a high income would affect the citizens much less than a 10% on a lower income. "Low-income individuals and families must spend money on the same necessities required by higher-income people. However, after the necessities are purchased, the poorer taxpayers, because they earn less, will have less money left over to pay taxes, at the same rate as those earning higher income amounts."
National Sales tax:
Pros: A sales tax could increase worker productivity. Also, having a national sales tax would eliminate the need for IRS by getting rid of the need for federal income. "Currently, we have an income tax that gets progressively more burdensome the more money you make. This reduces the incentive to work harder and be productive the higher you move up the ladder. Taxing consumption makes a lot more sense than taxing production." (geekpolitics.come) Another positive look is that illegal aliens and people who normally escape taxes would then be taxed as well, making it fair for everyone.
Cons: The biggest argument against a national sales tax is that it would be "regressive," meaning it would place a heavier burden on poor people.The entire tax industry would be destroyed, and thousands of accountants, IRS workers and other people in the tax business would lose their jobs. "A national sales tax is essentially a tax on consumption. Since low income families spend almost every penny they earn on subsistence items, they would pay a higher percentage of their earnings in taxes. Higher income families could afford to put a portion of their earnings into savings investments."
Overall i think national sales tax is one of the best options. It isnt my favorite, but its fair and its a close second.
Progressive:
Progressive tax levies a higher tax rate on those earning larger amounts of money than on those who earn less money. Your income determines which tax bracket you qualify for, and the wealthier members of society bear more of the overall tax burden than the poorer citizens. Progressive taxation helps protect people during a recession because if their income drops, they fall into a lower tax bracket. This means they will owe less money to the government. A highly progressive taxation system may discourage people from entering high-paying professions because so much of their potential income would be taken away in taxes.
Cons: Many people who do not favor progressive taxation argue that taxing one group at a greater rate than another group does not constitute strictly equal treatment. It encourages the wealthier citizens to find loopholes and cheat the system. Many critics also argue that the system is far too complicated.
Vat (Valued Added Tax):
Pros: The largest benefit of any new taxes would be an increase in federal revenue. Currently, only state and local government agencies charge taxes on purchases, but by instituting a VAT the federal government could benefit from consumer spending as well. Supporters of a VAT suggest that it would make taxes more efficient and easier for taxpayers to understand."Online stores such as Amazon.com, often get out of charging consumers sales taxes because of a 1992 Supreme Court ruling that retailers must have a physical presence in the state to collect excise taxes. However, some experts claim that a VAT could solve this problem of lost online sales taxes by levying taxes on all sales, even online sales."
Cons: Compared to our current tax system a VAT would be considered significantly regressive, meaning they benefit higher income taxpayers more so than those living closer to poverty. Additionally, the change from our current tax system to one with a VAT would be very difficult and time consuming, with lots of opportunities for fraud.
From what i'm getting out of the articles, the Value Added Tax provides too many opportunities for loopholes and those who obey the law pay more than necessary.
Investing 101
Stock:
This slice of pizza represents stock because each individual is owning a piece of the whole thing
Bond:
This picture shows a girl borrowing a book from a library, which represents someone lending something important that they need back and, just like over due fees from the library, there is a fee for not returning the money borrowed.
Underwrite/Underwriter:
Just like newspapers, underwriters make everything known to the public.
Primary Market:
This Nintendo 64 represents Primary Market because it set up the market for 3D gaming, starting the revolution for gaming.
Secondary Market:
The different models of the Nintendo Playstations represent the secondary market in the sense that they are all upgrades from the primary markets
Bulls:
This picture represents Bulls because they are the optimists in the economy, they look at the stock markets through rose colored glasses
Bears:
The Bears are the pessimistic ones in the economy. They are always looking to see the market fall.
Selling Short:
This picture represents selling short because its a gamble to count on the stock falling short and selling the money borrowed
Franchise:
i chose the picture of Jamba Juice because most jamba's in oregon are just part of a franchise. We are broken off of corporate, even though they still cant dictate some of the things we can and can not do.
This slice of pizza represents stock because each individual is owning a piece of the whole thing
Bond:
This picture shows a girl borrowing a book from a library, which represents someone lending something important that they need back and, just like over due fees from the library, there is a fee for not returning the money borrowed.
Underwrite/Underwriter:
Just like newspapers, underwriters make everything known to the public.
Primary Market:
This Nintendo 64 represents Primary Market because it set up the market for 3D gaming, starting the revolution for gaming.
Secondary Market:
The different models of the Nintendo Playstations represent the secondary market in the sense that they are all upgrades from the primary markets
Bulls:
This picture represents Bulls because they are the optimists in the economy, they look at the stock markets through rose colored glasses
Bears:
The Bears are the pessimistic ones in the economy. They are always looking to see the market fall.
Selling Short:
This picture represents selling short because its a gamble to count on the stock falling short and selling the money borrowed
Franchise:
i chose the picture of Jamba Juice because most jamba's in oregon are just part of a franchise. We are broken off of corporate, even though they still cant dictate some of the things we can and can not do.
Friday, May 24, 2013
30th birthday
i'll probably be dead by then.
just kidding!
So its my 30th birthday, and i'm starting to really feel old. I graduated high school a little over 10 years ago, and the economy is getting worst. Who's fault is it, that's up to you, but thousands of citizens have been laid off. Its harder and harder for citizens to find jobs, i have been very fortunate though to have two at the moment. Although most days it doesn't feel like its helping very much at all, being a single mother of two and all. Our government has tried to keep going with the same plan since i graduated, and our revenue hasnt gotten any better. I graduated with the economy 16.8 billion dollars in debt, and we are up to 19 billion today.
Hopefully with the newly elected president, it will turn around. We are all so hopeful. There are 40 kids in my son's 2nd grade class, and only a handful of teachers in the entire school. The music and art programs have been cut entirely, which is a major influence on my daughter. Although she is only 5, she knows that we need art and music in society to make it though. Life is rough for everyone, i can only hope that these hard times and cuts will make it worth it in the end.
just kidding!
So its my 30th birthday, and i'm starting to really feel old. I graduated high school a little over 10 years ago, and the economy is getting worst. Who's fault is it, that's up to you, but thousands of citizens have been laid off. Its harder and harder for citizens to find jobs, i have been very fortunate though to have two at the moment. Although most days it doesn't feel like its helping very much at all, being a single mother of two and all. Our government has tried to keep going with the same plan since i graduated, and our revenue hasnt gotten any better. I graduated with the economy 16.8 billion dollars in debt, and we are up to 19 billion today.
Hopefully with the newly elected president, it will turn around. We are all so hopeful. There are 40 kids in my son's 2nd grade class, and only a handful of teachers in the entire school. The music and art programs have been cut entirely, which is a major influence on my daughter. Although she is only 5, she knows that we need art and music in society to make it though. Life is rough for everyone, i can only hope that these hard times and cuts will make it worth it in the end.
Thursday, May 9, 2013
Demand Headlines
1. Complimentary- "Tim Tebow sponsors new local Hobby Town shop, model car and airplane sales skyrocket!"
2. Substitute- "Taco Bell wraps up more and more customers after the Mcdonalds E coli scare!"
3. Elastic- "As Oreo dunk in quality, sale prices crumble"
4. Inelastic- "Tire prices are rolling higher and higher, revving up angry costumers and empty wallets"
With tires being the only way that cars are even remotely useful, no matter how high the cost, people will always be needing to buy them. Without tires people would have no way of getting to and from places, besides walking, and its sad to say but in today's society, no one is trying to walk anywhere.There is no substitution for tires either. Even buses need tires, and we cant just take the train everywhere. Do trains need tires too? Basically everything that moves needs tires.. I feel like i should stop saying "need tires" so much. But all in all, tires are the perfect inelastic item. If they get eliminated, then so do cars, and a lot of people would not be able to live their lives without a car or mode of transportation. When you really think about it, tires are what make the world go round. ;)
2. Substitute- "Taco Bell wraps up more and more customers after the Mcdonalds E coli scare!"
3. Elastic- "As Oreo dunk in quality, sale prices crumble"
4. Inelastic- "Tire prices are rolling higher and higher, revving up angry costumers and empty wallets"
With tires being the only way that cars are even remotely useful, no matter how high the cost, people will always be needing to buy them. Without tires people would have no way of getting to and from places, besides walking, and its sad to say but in today's society, no one is trying to walk anywhere.There is no substitution for tires either. Even buses need tires, and we cant just take the train everywhere. Do trains need tires too? Basically everything that moves needs tires.. I feel like i should stop saying "need tires" so much. But all in all, tires are the perfect inelastic item. If they get eliminated, then so do cars, and a lot of people would not be able to live their lives without a car or mode of transportation. When you really think about it, tires are what make the world go round. ;)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)