Rep Alan Grayson Introduces the War Is Making You Poor Act
- Thread starter SocialNumb
- Start date
TheDriller
Member
roy22341
Member
His math is very bad. Or maybe I grossly misunderstood something?
90% of $159 billion is: $143 billion
If you make $35,000 a year, it is taxed at 25%, so you would pay $8750.
Lets take a rough estimate and say 60% of Americans pay taxes, so 60% of 310 million is 186 million.
So to make the first 35000$ of single taxpayers money tax free would cost:
186 million * $8750 = $1627500000000, orrrr 11 times that 143$ billion.
Why not save $549 billion and bring our fucking troops home.
90% of $159 billion is: $143 billion
If you make $35,000 a year, it is taxed at 25%, so you would pay $8750.
Lets take a rough estimate and say 60% of Americans pay taxes, so 60% of 310 million is 186 million.
So to make the first 35000$ of single taxpayers money tax free would cost:
186 million * $8750 = $1627500000000, orrrr 11 times that 143$ billion.
Why not save $549 billion and bring our fucking troops home.
John_C
formerly Skeksis268
How about saving all the money and putting it into other public services? Woops sorry wrong continent 
edit: not that I can really talk any more, what with the current state of things here........
edit: not that I can really talk any more, what with the current state of things here........
drew_drummer
Dancefap
How can US make some money?
1) Get rid of welfare.
2) Legalize marijuana + tax it.
3) ??????
4)
Getting rid of welfare is only half of the solution. The other half is lining up anyone who doesn't make any money, have a job, or any legs... and putting them in a gas chamber, and turning the heat up to 10.
Line666
Fendurr
- Sep 2, 2006
- 3,342
- 1
- 36
Yeah whenever a countries in trouble the first to get fucked over have to be the poor - see welfare claimants. Despite the top 1% holding more wealth than about 95% of the populus.
Capitalism and democracy aren't synonymous.
Edit: Heres to celebrating 2,700 posts of facetious and scathing remarks.
Capitalism and democracy aren't synonymous.
Edit: Heres to celebrating 2,700 posts of facetious and scathing remarks.
JeffTD
Senhor Testiculo
While I'm not sure his math is super accurate, 95% of income tax revenue is from 3% of the population on top of your stated 40% of the country that doesn't pay federal income tax at all, so I don't think the 11x 143$ billion figure is super accurate, either.
JeffTD
Senhor Testiculo
Öwen;9112544 said:
No, but they're pretty damn congruent. What would you suggest instead of either?
John_C
formerly Skeksis268
Although they are linked, they don't vary together. The more democratic a country is doesn't make it more capitalist, and vice versa.
Line666
Fendurr
- Sep 2, 2006
- 3,342
- 1
- 36
Whats congruent about a system where several people effectively own the whole country, Goldman Sachs was the top funder for your presidents campaign and they're the very same bank that is still paying their own obscene bonuses with taxpayers money.
And what would I suggest? Probably that other -ism most Americans seem so petrified by, but that's a debate for an other day.
And what would I suggest? Probably that other -ism most Americans seem so petrified by, but that's a debate for an other day.
spioraid
Fancy a pint? Or two?
Wow. A lot of angles I need to hit at.
1) I'm a bit sketchy on the math, but as far the principle he brings forth I'm intrigued. This isn't the first time a piece of legislation as come up with the proposal for "Save money here, do good elsewhere" and probably won't go as smoothly as planned should it pass. Regardless though, I like the effort.
2) The pie chart comparing our spending against other countries is COMPLETELY subjective. We are the largest, most free peopled nation in the world. Say what you will about other kinds of slavery and just how free are we (well, you're probably right) but again we're more so than other countries. Yes spend more on our military with or without wars than most of the world. We have more to protect and to offer - period. Showing numbers about money without context is way too common in the political system and hardly ever works. He had a much stronger argument before he brought out the chart.
3) We need to bring our debt/deficit with every piece of legislation we do. Every law that gets passed has to keep in mind our debt. If we have to pull more money, pull money to complete the job whatever it may be and have a way to get that money back. Even if it's long term, improbable or anything, just find a way to recoup those expenses.
4) This is my biggest point right here - Why? Nothing was said as to where this money would go in our military. Not one word. And since this is bill proposed to be passed into law and then enforced on our troops, guess who decides where the money gets taken away from? The politicians. Same politicians who took away kevlar body armor some years back. The ones who cut down overall military size to save money. I foresee a lot of stupid things being passed because it sounds good on capitol hill but kills the guy in the sandbox because his armor is gone or because he doesn't have the air support he needs because the Air Force is down on budget. And trust me, the Air Force will get hit first. I know this isn't what the bill is proposing but this is the kind of thing that's the effect of bills like this that try to save money for the sake of saving money.
1) I'm a bit sketchy on the math, but as far the principle he brings forth I'm intrigued. This isn't the first time a piece of legislation as come up with the proposal for "Save money here, do good elsewhere" and probably won't go as smoothly as planned should it pass. Regardless though, I like the effort.
2) The pie chart comparing our spending against other countries is COMPLETELY subjective. We are the largest, most free peopled nation in the world. Say what you will about other kinds of slavery and just how free are we (well, you're probably right) but again we're more so than other countries. Yes spend more on our military with or without wars than most of the world. We have more to protect and to offer - period. Showing numbers about money without context is way too common in the political system and hardly ever works. He had a much stronger argument before he brought out the chart.
3) We need to bring our debt/deficit with every piece of legislation we do. Every law that gets passed has to keep in mind our debt. If we have to pull more money, pull money to complete the job whatever it may be and have a way to get that money back. Even if it's long term, improbable or anything, just find a way to recoup those expenses.
4) This is my biggest point right here - Why? Nothing was said as to where this money would go in our military. Not one word. And since this is bill proposed to be passed into law and then enforced on our troops, guess who decides where the money gets taken away from? The politicians. Same politicians who took away kevlar body armor some years back. The ones who cut down overall military size to save money. I foresee a lot of stupid things being passed because it sounds good on capitol hill but kills the guy in the sandbox because his armor is gone or because he doesn't have the air support he needs because the Air Force is down on budget. And trust me, the Air Force will get hit first. I know this isn't what the bill is proposing but this is the kind of thing that's the effect of bills like this that try to save money for the sake of saving money.
roy22341
Member
Yeh I'm not saying my numbers are super accurate - its a very rough estimate without doing much research at all - I admit that. Long story short, even at first glance these numbers don't seem to add up. The 2011 budget is about $3.8 trillion - $3,800,000,000,000.
$143,000,000,000 / $3,800,000,000,000 = 0.038
I have a hard time believing that if we were to reduce the total budget for 2011 by 3.8% that it would be enough to let everyone keep their first $35,000 in income tax free. But then again we do have a heinously complicated tax code...so who knows.
PostMortem1666
Ocean Planet is on burn
Similar threads
