Federal Shutdown

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

At this point in my life I'm really concerned about leaving our daughter in a good financial spot, because at the rate we are going future generations are really going to be screwed. They will end up paying tax rates similar to countries with more socialized health care and public systems in place, but they won't have those systems in place.... they will be forced to fund systems that still generate profit to the private companies.

---

Re this:
They will end up paying tax rates similar to countries with more socialized health care and public systems in place, but they won't have those systems in place....

I did a calculation based on my income for 2013/14 (we use a 1 Jul - 30 Jun tax year in Australia) and came up with the following figures:

Australia
Taxation: $8122.00
Medicare: $765.00
Total: $8887.00

United States
Taxation: $8673.77

Medicare in Australia is the publicly funded universal healthcare system. People pay 1.5% of their taxable income into the system and if they earn more than $70,000 a year but do not have private health insurance, they pay an additional 1%.
The thing is though, due to things like economies of scale and the fact that a single payer system is better able to negotiate on issues like price, the whole system is in fact cheaper than the United States; with better outcomes when compared to survival rates and life expectancy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

At the end of the day, it's supposed to make things easier and provide service to more people who can't afford it. I've seen nothing in terms of easier, nothing in terms of savings, and assume I'll get taxed more somehow to pay for everyone that qualifies for all the susidies and such and ends up with very cheap health care. Even those people with subsidies will pay part in most cases.... so it's another bill for those that struggle already.

---

The problem with health care in the United States is that marker power at this stage isn't controlled by either the government or the people who buy into the system. When it comes to negotiation on price, HMOs will pass on on-costs to their "patients" (customers) by way of higher premiums.
In addition to this and the main reason why the Republicans are so very very opposed to this, is that the lobby groups which push them, stand to lose out big time if market power shifts away from them. Obama faces a real problem in that its in the American people's interest not to be spending so much on health care when the system but not in the interests of the businesses which actually deliver the service.
I bet that in 1946 when Aneurin Bevan the then Minister for Health in the Attlee Government was busily setting up the NHS, he probably would have faced considerable opposition. Certainly in Australia, Whitlam's government had to force a double dissolution of parliament in 1974 over the issue and how to pay for it all were 3 of the 21 trigger bills that the Whitlam Government had prior to the 1975 double dissolution when the Governor-General sacked the government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShiftingGears

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spafranco

Webber,take all of you idiotic claptrap with references as to how our government works and what you [i]think[i]you know and go for a walk with some of those marsupials that genius from Australia :stareup: with the banana, Comfort who seems to be of the same ignorant mindset as you. You by your implication created the scenario that you were American not Australian.
It is now my turn to look in the direction at the putrid hogwash that you have wasted so much time writing when in fact it is just senseless words filling a space.
Van Dieman's is probably a place of honor for and you ancestors where you took the starving Irish away for stealing a loaf of bread while their child died with green mouth. You laugh! I cringe at worthless types who when making the voting statement would have done so with clarity ,that if they could vote" etc. A sad indictment of Australians. God help Aborigines.

---

Did not even mention Vegemite. Poor stereotyping, would not read again. 2/10.

---

What are you talking about? Left overs from brewing? 2/10 A date?

Rollo,

Great points. Here in the US we pay 2.9% Medicare split between the person and the employer. If self employed you pay the total 2.9%. Above 200K income you pay an additional .9%, regardless of having insurance or not.


It's interesting that you bring this point up, as the Obamacare as originally proposed relied heavily on Medicaid expansion. However, the courts ruled that the federal government can't force the states to do this, and a number of states certainly won't. Though the federal government will in theory pay much of the cost, the states still must generate more revenue, similar to the situation of the end users of the insurance. Due to this, it will force many more people into loopholes where they don't qualify for Medicare/Medicaid, yet also don't qualify for the subsidies under Obamacare.

In many of the states that don't expand Medicaid, it will affect a disproportionate number of minorities that fall into these voids, as well as many others in certain income ranges. In short it will often help those that have more, while still leaving the poor in the dark without help. Only in the US could they screw something up so well.




Quite a few people that had insurance that fit their needs are already openly stating they will opt to pay the fines. With the regulations on what must be offered many are now faced with huge premium increases, even if they maintain high deductibles. This great plan seems to cater to the insurance companies rather well, but isn't going to do much to help the people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spafranco

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShiftingGears

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spafranco

Webber,take all of you idiotic claptrap with references as to how our government works and what you [i]think[i]you know and go for a walk with some of those marsupials that genius from Australia :stareup: with the banana, Comfort who seems to be of the same ignorant mindset as you. You by your implication created the scenario that you were American not Australian.
It is now my turn to look in the direction at the putrid hogwash that you have wasted so much time writing when in fact it is just senseless words filling a space.
Van Dieman's is probably a place of honor for and you ancestors where you took the starving Irish away for stealing a loaf of bread while their child died with green mouth. You laugh! I cringe at worthless types who when making the voting statement would have done so with clarity ,that if they could vote" etc. A sad indictment of Australians. God help Aborigines.

---

Did not even mention Vegemite. Poor stereotyping, would not read again. 2/10.

---

What are you talking about? Left overs from brewing? 2/10 A date?

---

Enough; neither of these posts are acceptable. The debate in this thread has been periodically good so lets not spoil it with personal stuff.

Apparently some House members have taken the time from the shutdown issues to break the law and get themselves arrested. What a great example for the people....

[url][/http://news.yahoo.com/police-arrest-8-house-members-immigration-rally-230332327--politics.htmlurl]

Dear America,

I work as an accountant in Australia. Our taxation year runs from 1 Jul to 30 Jun; American citizens living in Australia will naturally always ask for a 6 month extension to taxation because of the filing requirements here.

http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Reminde ... ions-Lapse
The Internal Revenue Service today reminded taxpayers that the Oct. 15 deadline remains in effect for people who requested a six-month extension to file their tax return.

Problem...
The IRS e-Services system is currently closed. I tried to ring the IRS but their overseas telephone lines are also closed. I've also tried to see if I could get consular assistance but the US Consulate in Sydney... is also closed?!!
Yet somehow... the IRS is still sending out demand notices and reminders to file by October 15.

What? Just because we're three million years into deep space and the human species is extinct? That means nothing to these people. They'll find us.
- Arnold J Rimmer, on the Outland Revenue - Red Dwarf: Better Than Life (1988)

Because the computer systems are often still running as to shut them down would cost more than to leave them up. In some cases web servers will actually serve the content, and *then* put up a banner saying the content is unavailable.

http://labtestproject.com/files/blc/...down_linux.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by odykas

http://labtestproject.com/files/blc/...down_linux.png

---

Stop using XP! :p

Hey if Americans don't want Obamacare then they can sign a recall petition against thier congressperson. The people voted for this sh!t so give it to them. The Repubs are stupid to shut down the Gov - they should be working on the last ditch save of the Rep Party. But just maybe we will get a strong 3rd party. The is no preventive maintanence for Gov. It either fails or it doesn't. 3 yrs from now the story will have set it own course. Print all the money you want. We are never going to pay it back anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roamy

Print all the money you want. We are never going to pay it back anyway.

---

Actually... you have to.

The Social Security Trust Fund and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund own about $2.764tn and the Office of Personnel Management (Federal Employees Retirement funds etc.) own $827bn. The Federal Reserve itself owns about $1.794 trillion and State & Local Government Pension funds, Mutual Funds and other Pension Funds own $2.105tn

I figure that roughly $7.490tn of the soon to be $17tn (so about 44%) will be owned by pension and retirement funds and the like, which means that at some point once the baby boomers start retiring en masse, it will need to be paid out for the oldies to live on; that's when the real fun begins.
The Knickerbocker Crisis of 1907 is going to look like a Sunday School Picnic compared to the six kinds of sheol which are set to be released. When Hades says "release the hounds" they're gunna be Cerberus' spawn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roamy

Print all the money you want. We are never going to pay it back anyway.

---

Actually... you have to.

The Social Security Trust Fund and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund own about $2.764tn and the Office of Personnel Management (Federal Employees Retirement funds etc.) own $827bn. The Federal Reserve itself owns about $1.794 trillion and State & Local Government Pension funds, Mutual Funds and other Pension Funds own $2.105tn

I figure that roughly $7.490tn of the soon to be $17tn (so about 44%) will be owned by pension and retirement funds and the like, which means that at some point once the baby boomers start retiring en masse, it will need to be paid out for the oldies to live on; that's when the real fun begins.
The Knickerbocker Crisis of 1907 is going to look like a Sunday School Picnic compared to the six kinds of sheol which are set to be released. When Hades says "release the hounds" they're gunna be Cerberus' spawn.

---

There's no question that if serious steps are not taken soon, like right now, there will be a complete financial meltdown in the relatively near future. And, unfortunately for many of you, the rest of the world will be dragged into it. Spending is the politician's crack cocaine, they just can't stop.

there is no way to ever pay this back unless rampant inflation. So one way or the other it is just bullsh!t. Politician kool aide. The dems have created so many have nots they will be in office until the financial explosion. The wealthy and conservatives should figure out a way to buy the Baja and create a new country. Or divide this one up. AZ, UT, MT, ID and UT would be a good start. Probably the dakotas too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

There's no question that if serious steps are not taken soon, like right now, there will be a complete financial meltdown in the relatively near future. And, unfortunately for many of you, the rest of the world will be dragged into it. Spending is the politician's crack cocaine, they just can't stop.

---

This isn't a "spending" problem. It's a lack of foresight problem going back until at least the 1960s. I don't know if the government can actually opt out of paying pensions.
The US Government is faced with the realisation that it didn't put funds away to pay for future pensions in much the same way that GM also didn't. Basically you can play politics all you like but both sides have been negligent and asleep at the wheel for at least my lifetime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Basically you can play politics all you like but both sides have been negligent and asleep at the wheel for at least my lifetime.

---

Agree completely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

"The Tea Party is like UKIP with guns" - Ian Hislop. HIGNFY

---

I laughed at that when I heard it too :laugh:

Farage isn't in the position to hold the government at ransom over a democratically passed law he doesn't like though... yet ! :p

I'll predict a GFC II is coming... at least.

As some has pointed out it is not simply the last 5 years that has caused this problem, it has been developing for a very long time.

An opinion on why the healthcare website is having so many problems.

It seems that there were still a lot of people thinking this was a "free" thing. I had to laugh when government workers with reasonable incomes were excited thinking they would really get free health care. :D

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapoth...rtner=yahootix

http://www.gallup.com/poll/165392/perce ... -high.aspx
Amid the government shutdown, 60% of Americans say the Democratic and Republicans parties do such a poor job of representing the American people that a third major party is needed. That is the highest Gallup has measured in the 10-year history of this question. A new low of 26% believe the two major parties adequately represent Americans.
- Gallup, 14th Oct 2013

I have never voted 1 for a major political party in any election. In the Federal Election we've just had in Australia, we had 9 candidates for 9 parties in our local electorate and I voted the two majors in at 7 and 8.

I suppose that this is mainly directed at Americans, but given that Congress has collectively failed to do its job (ie government), how likely are you to vote for a third or fourth party at a future election?

If enough of you decide to vote for third and fourth parties, you can break the duopoly of selfishness that the two behemoths have. It would take a seismic shift though; is this enough of one?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

I suppose that this is mainly directed at Americans, but given that Congress has collectively failed to do its job (ie government), how likely are you to vote for a third or fourth party at a future election?

---

I can speak for no one but myself. I would most definitely vote for a third party if I thought it would take a more middle road in the direction of the country. I'd prefer slightly right of middle, but I'll take middle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

http://www.gallup.com/poll/165392/perceived-need-third-party-reaches-new-high.aspx
Amid the government shutdown, 60% of Americans say the Democratic and Republicans parties do such a poor job of representing the American people that a third major party is needed. That is the highest Gallup has measured in the 10-year history of this question. A new low of 26% believe the two major parties adequately represent Americans.
- Gallup, 14th Oct 2013

I have never voted 1 for a major political party in any election. In the Federal Election we've just had in Australia, we had 9 candidates for 9 parties in our local electorate and I voted the two majors in at 7 and 8.

I suppose that this is mainly directed at Americans, but given that Congress has collectively failed to do its job (ie government), how likely are you to vote for a third or fourth party at a future election?

If enough of you decide to vote for third and fourth parties, you can break the duopoly of selfishness that the two behemoths have. It would take a seismic shift though; is this enough of one?

---

I've voted for other parties in past elections, and will continue to do so if I feel it's the best option. Unfortunately most in the US will cling to their badge of Democrat or Republican IMO. Shocking since when you talk to people very few really lean entirely one direction or the other, and quite a few in both parties are most center in views rather than left or right.

I think until we clean house and get people away from the "Us Party" vs "Them Party" attitude not much will change.

The current situation is a prime example of both parties spending a lot of time pointing fingers and placing blame, yet neither side will do much to resolve the situation. And to be honest at this point I hope neither side gives until the people in the US are really pissed off and see the truth for once. We need people that will say the things that the US voters don't want to hear, that being that we need to get our debt under control and quit screwing future generations.

Overall the US debt can be managed.... we have all the time in the world to fix it if we get it headed in the right direction. But politicians are too busy making false promises to buy votes, and voters are stupid enough to fall for it.... just like the "free" health care we are getting! :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

I've voted for other parties in past elections, and will continue to do so if I feel it's the best option. Unfortunately most in the US will cling to their badge of Democrat or Republican IMO. Shocking since when you talk to people very few really lean entirely one direction or the other, and quite a few in both parties are most center in views rather than left or right.

I think until we clean house and get people away from the "Us Party" vs "Them Party" attitude not much will change.

The current situation is a prime example of both parties spending a lot of time pointing fingers and placing blame, yet neither side will do much to resolve the situation. And to be honest at this point I hope neither side gives until the people in the US are really pissed off and see the truth for once. We need people that will say the things that the US voters don't want to hear, that being that we need to get our debt under control and quit screwing future generations.

Overall the US debt can be managed.... we have all the time in the world to fix it if we get it headed in the right direction. But politicians are too busy making false promises to buy votes, and voters are stupid enough to fall for it.... just like the "free" health care we are getting! :rolleyes:

---

The problem you have, as we all do in democratic countries, is the majority of people are idiots...irrefutable fact sadly...hence there will never be any major changes. No matter what really happens on the ground, voters will fall for the same old tricks, politicians will tell the same old lies, everyone will point fingers because once again nothing is being achieved after the election, you'll have another election and start all over again...and again...and again...

I can't claim that I know more about the US political and financial situation than say someone who lives there, but what I can see from my seat is the US has so many fingers in so many pies, it has made so many commitments and promises, that in reality, I doubt anything major will actually change in the next few decades.

I'm afraid it's just more of the same at the moment, just with a new head of state and the same old idiotic, gullible voters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 555-04Q2

The problem you have, as we all do in democratic countries, is the majority of people are idiots...irrefutable fact sadly...hence there will never be any major changes. No matter what really happens on the ground, voters will fall for the same old tricks, politicians will tell the same old lies, everyone will point fingers because once again nothing is being achieved after the election, you'll have another election and start all over again...and again...and again...

---

I don't agree that a majority of people are idiots, though we certainly have our share. It's that most people are too involved in their daily lives to follow the political arena. So long as their personal ox isn't gored, they pretty much ignore it. Politicians count on this.

Quote:

---

I can't claim that I know more about the US political and financial situation than say someone who lives there, but what I can see from my seat is the US has so many fingers in so many pies, it has made so many commitments and promises, that in reality, I doubt anything major will actually change in the next few decades.

---

That's a pretty accurate observation. We went from somewhat isolationist pre WWll to the (currently) remaining superpower. We have our fingers in most every county's business. That is IMO a bad thing. We should be engaged in the world, but not "running" it.

THINGY THING ALERT:
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/s ... ml?hp=t1_s
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell are finalizing a deal to avert a debt default and reopen the government, capping a frantic day that had Washington bracing for an economic crisis of its own making.
The deal is essentially done, sources say, as aides for the two leaders finish drafting the legislative language Tuesday night.

- via Politico, 15th Oct 2013

There was movement in the Congress, for the word had passed around
That the time to fault the debt had got away...
Therefore, send not to know for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee.

I think a credible third party for the USA would be a healthy thing. The two sides seem so entrenched that it sometimes needs a 'third way' to shake things up a bit. People deride the Lib Dems in the UK, but they've changed the direction of the Tory dominated government from what it would have otherwise been.

As ever the problem is money; sure in the UK you need money to start a political party, but in America the amounts are off the scale!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

That's a pretty accurate observation. We went from somewhat isolationist pre WWll to the (currently) remaining superpower. We have our fingers in most every county's business. That is IMO a bad thing. We should be engaged in the world, but not "running" it.

---

Indeed. The problem is, where do you draw the line? It seems the current and past cabinets have not known where to stop or step back and say to themselves, "we shouldn't do this". Even the mighty US has limited resources which it needs to protect/respect. This has not happened.

I've been amazed to see how the US has gone from being a creditor pre 80's / 90's to a massive debtor in the 21st century.

There are parallels I think between the situation the USA has in the world now and the situation of the UK in the past, pre-WW2 and certainly pre-WW1, as the UK at the time was a superpower, involved in everyone's business. Worked out well for a long while, but it gets unsustainable.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24557469
Republican and Democratic leaders of the US Senate have struck a cross-party deal to end a partial government shutdown and raise the US debt limit.

Somehow I suspect that this whole affair is going to do three things:

1. Polarise dyed in the wool supporters of both sides even further.
2. Alienate people who might have been swinging voters.
3. Create even more people who in future will disengage from the political process.

If these three things happen, then it seems to me that the marginal and wackier fringes will make their voices even stronger because more moderate voices will have left the building. Basically this whole crisis hasn't really done much to either solve the debt crisis or the underlying toxicity of American politics other than to kick the can further down the road.

You don't need to put up with this. Change the game, vote for someone else!

C'mon, go the Whigs!*

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ty_owl.svg.png

*Other other parties like the Libertarian, Objectivist and Constitution Parties are available.

The problem the US has (and this affects the whole world economy as well) is that whatever solution/agreement they come up with now, just delays the reality that they are in trouble, they've just put it back another year or so before the process starts all over again.

What is the current US debt level, like 13 trillion or something I believe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 555-04Q2

The problem the US has (and this affects the whole world economy as well) is that whatever solution/agreement they come up with now, just delays the reality that they are in trouble, they've just put it back another year or so before the process starts all over again.

What is the current US debt level, like 13 trillion or something I believe?

---

Exactly how would the US ever repay this debt? If the $ wasn't the globally referenced currency, they'd really be in the doo doo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 555-04Q2

The problem the US has (and this affects the whole world economy as well) is that whatever solution/agreement they come up with now, just delays the reality that they are in trouble, they've just put it back another year or so before the process starts all over again.

What is the current US debt level, like 13 trillion or something I believe?

---

Exactly how would the US ever repay this debt? If the $ wasn't the globally referenced currency, they'd really be in the doo doo.

---

The reality is, this debt will probably never be repaid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 555-04Q2

The problem the US has (and this affects the whole world economy as well) is that whatever solution/agreement they come up with now, just delays the reality that they are in trouble, they've just put it back another year or so before the process starts all over again.

What is the current US debt level, like 13 trillion or something I believe?

---

Exactly how would the US ever repay this debt? ....

---

Well, for starters, raise the effective corporate tax rate. Have companies such as IBM, Chevron, Apple, etc. contribute their share.
Just saying...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Exactly how would the US ever repay this debt? If the $ wasn't the globally referenced currency, they'd really be in the doo doo.

---

You mean we're not now??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by schmenke

Well, for starters, raise the effective corporate tax rate. Have companies such as IBM, Chevron, Apple, etc. contribute their share.
Just saying...

---

The US corporate rate is already higher than many places in the world. That's one of the reasons so many companies have transferred operations elsewhere. Lower the corporate rate enough to be competitive and close the loopholes and special perks which congress has given to many (campaign contributing) companies over the years. We'd see a net increase in revenue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by schmenke

Well, for starters, raise the effective corporate tax rate. Have companies such as IBM, Chevron, Apple, etc. contribute their share.
Just saying...

---

The US corporate rate is already higher than many places in the world. ....

---

Yes, but tax breaks and shelters lower the effective tax rate to one of the lowest in the western world. Some US companies are paying next to nothing now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 555-04Q2

The problem the US has (and this affects the whole world economy as well) is that whatever solution/agreement they come up with now, just delays the reality that they are in trouble, they've just put it back another year or so before the process starts all over again.

What is the current US debt level, like 13 trillion or something I believe?

---

Exactly how would the US ever repay this debt? If the $ wasn't the globally referenced currency, they'd really be in the doo doo.

---

As with any budget, controlling spending and increasing revenue is the answer. Unlike a personal budget, it doesn't matter if the plan takes 100 years as the country won't reach "retirement" age with income ending.

The bottom line is we have to control spending more. I can think of many ways to do so beyond the obvious that are often stated. Just closing loopholes in personal and corporate taxes would make a huge difference. There are also massive loopholes in entitlement programs that allow people to legally cheat the system.

As an example of said loopholes I'll give one that applies to my family. Both myself and my wife are eligible for VA health care do to our military service. We are in one of the lesser eligibility categories as we didn't retire from the military or have any major service related injuries or disabilities. Under the current system we pay copays and such based on income and liquid assets. A fair deal right? But the loophole exists in how they determine assets. We live debt free and our home, cars, etc are not considered.... just our liquid assets and income. Simply by moving regular bank funds to retirement accounts or material investments would affect how much we pay. The reality is that we have sufficient assets to pay more, yet the loopholes say we don't have to do so.

The same applies to many federal and state agencies. There are people getting food assistance money and such that drive $70,000 cars. The reality is that if you want food you should sell or get a loan against your expensive car and buy food. Certainly there is a difference between someone making XX dollars per year with no assets and one making an equal amount that owns two homes outright.


Another example is the tax system in general leaving way too much illegal not taxed trade going on. If they got rid of income tax and made it all sales taxes, people couldn't cheat. You have to pay tax to buy products. All under the table trade, drug money, anything eventually has to be spent or it is of no use to anyone. This also allows for lower taxes on basics, and higher taxes as items move towards wants and luxuries vs basic needs.



The major problem as I see it is politicians trying to buy votes, and voters willing to vote for someone that promises them tax breaks, something for nothing, etc. I would personally have no problem voting for someone that raises my taxes within reason in relationship to my income and assets if in fact they were going towards good long term solutions that future generations would benefit from. As it is these days, it seems they take more taxes and we get crap in return.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by schmenke

Yes, but tax breaks and shelters lower the effective tax rate to one of the lowest in the western world. Some US companies are paying next to nothing now.

---

Thought I covered that - "close the loopholes and special perks which congress has given to many". :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

I would personally have no problem voting for someone that raises my taxes within reason in relationship to my income and assets if in fact they were going towards good long term solutions that future generations would benefit from. As it is these days, it seems they take more taxes and we get crap in return.

---

Nor, in principle, would I. In reality I doubt I'd support such a move. The reason being that I do not trust the politicians to honor the other half of the bargain - cutting spending. They are still going to try and buy votes with giveaways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by schmenke

Yes, but tax breaks and shelters lower the effective tax rate to one of the lowest in the western world. Some US companies are paying next to nothing now.

---

Thought I covered that - "close the loopholes and special perks which congress has given to many". :p

---

Yeah, sorry, I guess we're saying the same thing :p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

The US corporate rate is already higher than many places in the world. That's one of the reasons so many companies have transferred operations elsewhere. Lower the corporate rate enough to be competitive and close the loopholes and special perks which congress has given to many (campaign contributing) companies over the years. We'd see a net increase in revenue.

---

If we saw the IRS given proper teeth and with the ability to put most of Wall St in prison, we'd see companies change their ways. The problem is that Wall St pretty well much owns football clubs playing in the Congress Bowl. Mind you, that was spotted more than 140 years ago.

For the first time since the creation of these enormous corporate bodies, one of them has shown its power for mischief, and has proved itself able to override and trample on law, custom, decency, and every restraint known to society, without scruple, and as yet without check. The belief is common in America that the day is at hand when corporations far greater than the Erie; swaying power such as has never in the world's history been trusted in the hands of mere private citizens will ultimately succeed in directing government itself. Under the American form of society, there is now no authority capable of effective resistance.
- Henry Adams, "The New York Gold Conspiracy", Westminster Review magazine October 1870.

If someone had thrown the entire board of Lehmann Brothers in prison in 2008 instead of condoning their actions by rewarding their grift; along with most of the boards of the companies in the Fortune 500, then maybe things might change but until the day that something similar happens, America is condemned to keep on raising the debt ceiling through a series of rolling deficits ad nauseum.