The United States government is currently considering the idea of making major changes to the current tax system. Taxes are a complicated issue. It’s hard to wrap our heads around how a progressive tax rate system works, which is what we use here in the United States. We have to remember that people in higher tax brackets don’t start paying higher rates until they hit the higher earnings marks. In other words, if one person makes $50,000 a year and the other makes $70,000, they both get charged the same tax rate on the first $50,000. So the higher tax rate is only applied on $20,000 of the higher earner’s income. With that, we need to take into account that taxes are collected on the local, state, and federal level. The United States, in effect, has a flat tax system (when you consider the taxes paid on the state and local level).
Taxes are used to pay for a TON of things. The Military expenses are multifaceted and cover anything from equipment such as computers and fighter jets to benefits for retired service people. Taxes are used to provide health care to the elderly population in the form of Medicare and for other needy people in the form of Medicaid. Taxes help pay for scientific research, housing, unemployment benefits, debt interest payments, transportation, education, agriculture. These things often seem like broad concepts but if a person gets a scholarship to attend college that is provided thru a federal program then it is paid for with tax dollars. If I get medical treatment that was developed thru a research grant, then I benefited from that contribution. Even debt payments keep our nation from getting a low credit rating, which helps many Americans in a variety of ways. The list goes on forever. I do not agree with all the expenses on the list, but the point is, taxes pay for a lot of things.
Candidates for political office often make outrageous promises. Bernie Sanders suggested government cover the costs of education and health care for everyone. This is not an impossible task, it’s just a long way off from where we currently are. Donald Trump proposed huge tax cuts. Again, this not an impossible task it’s just a major shift from the current status. It will be interesting to see how well president Trump can fulfill his campaign promises in regards taxes and what solutions our politicians can find for keeping us too far out of the red.
Here’s how the current proposals breakdown. They are aiming to have things sorted out by T-day, which would be record breaking. In the meantime, hang on to your wallets.
0 Comments
Money!
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are poised to spend about $1,000,000,000 each on this year's election. Yes, that's nine zeros, otherwise known as a billion dollars each!!! Here's how the breakdown looked in 2012:
Another way to win an election is to just get the most votes!
You might want to view the chart below in fullscreen mode (or download it), as it is filled with information. The main point is, there are specific sub-groups of US citizens that have a lot of clout, and it's probably wise to appeal to as many of them as you can. Some argue that Donald Trump has ignored many of these demographic personalities and will thus lose the election, but as hope to his supporters, my prediction of who will win the presidential contest has been incorrect since 1988, and this year I am thinking Hillary Clinton will win. Good luck to everyone!
A Macho mindset often pervades American society, so when the discussion of home protection comes up, I am often fascinated by the lack of alternative options in regards to self-defense. The answer most often seems to be guns, guns, guns. People argue that the 2nd Amendment allows us to posses guns, but they don't argue why we are limited to ownership of chintzy handguns. Why can't I buy an RPG style grenade launcher or a landmine? To bring it down a step, why is illegal for me to purchase a taser gun or pepper spray in states where I can still purchase a gun?
The concept of protecting oneself in a "home invasion" situation is often used to describe the importance of arming oneself, but statistics on the likelihood of being a victim of such an event are practically non-existent. I feel a person entering my home without permission is more likely to be a confused drunk neighbor or a person with a metal disability than a rapist murderer who is acting randomly. Because I do think it's a crime to take justice into my own hands, a shoot first ask questions later doesn't seem like the best way to handle every threating situation. Alternative tools for defense are worth considering such as: taser guns, rubber bullets/buckshot, pepper spray, sword/knife, crossbow, karate, tranquilizer gun, baseball bat, etc. Either way, it's legal to use lethal force in these states, so don't hesitate to use it!
Recent political advertisements have put the United States into a threat level not seen since 1983 - DEFCON 2! For those of us who loved the movie "War Games", we know what that means. It means we need a pimple faced geek to save our country and the world. I'm not sure what these advertisements are telling us, but I think they are saying if we vote for the wrong person, the our nation is doomed.
I had a conversation with my mom a few years back about rock n' roll music. She mentioned that when she was a teen in the 1950's many parental figures were offended by the music that the younger generation was listening to. She pointed out that parents had NO IDEA what they in for. By the 1970's, female artists were posing half-naked on their album covers, and by the 1980's, rap artists were spewing out fervent misogynistic lyrics in the name of humor.
The same can be said for political campaigns. The chart below describes strategies of negative campaigning compared to positive campaigning during the 2012 primary election for the Republican Party.candidate. It appears the playbook for the hopeful nominees is negative messaging. At the Republican convention in 2008 the delegates chanted “drill baby drill” (a positive message about the need to be self-sufficient with our resources), but by 2016 they were chanting “lock her up” (a request to put the other party’s prospective nominee in jail). So far, every commercial that I’ve seen “for” Hillary Clinton has been a negative advertisement about how fearful we should be of a Donald Trump presidency.
Politicians like to blame the media for their own failures, but this complaint has more validity than others. As the 2016 primary election season has moved forward, I've have consistently seen Hillary Clinton's delegate status listed with a substantial lead. The problem is, when USA Today gives us the delegate count, they include the pledged super-delegates. They don't indicate that a good portion of those votes are unbound, meaning they could and probably would switch to Bernie Sanders, if he started winning the majority of the primary vote. This is media manipulation at it's very best. Also notice the Republican delegate status from BBC. Why is Kaisich even included? I know when I screenshot this, he was still in the race, but he certainly doesn't have a large portion of delegates, not compared to Ted Cruz. Why not include Ted Cruz's delegates in the chart?
USA Today - Left / CNN - Right
I typically don't just simply reprint articles (without analysis), but the one below does an excellent job describing changes to American values. It describes our citizen's desires for isolationism and protectionism and it counters Republican vs. Democrat focus on nativism vs. socialism. Both parties often place their attention on the "Good Old Days" of the 1950's in respect to the booming economy (Democrats) and family values (Republicans), but they ignore facts to paint a pretty picture of the past. The 1960's brought on a polychromatic and multicultural time period that moved the country from the restrictive safety of conformity to enervated hyperindividualism, and thus as a result, candidates like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have arrived.
With the death of Antonin Scalia, the president nominated a justice to the Supreme Court (Merrick Garland) knowing full well that members of the Republican Party in The House were going to stonewall the confirmation process. What I don't understand is why Mr. Obama didn't nominate a justice to the court who has already been confirmed? Three people are alive today who have already been confirmed for the job: Sandra Day O'Connor, John Paul Stevens, and David Souter. Sandra Day O'Connor and John Paul Stevens are most certainly too old to keep up with the workload, but David Souter is a viable option. By electing a justice who has already been confirmed (and possibly doesn't need to undergo another conformation hearing), Obama would bypass the Republican Party's effort to blockade his nomination, and thus have a lopsided amount of justices sitting on the bench for the upcoming season of hearings and litigations, therefore allowing the court to do it's job to the fullest extent with the proper uneven representation.
When news came out in regards to the terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13, 2015, I had a discussion with a friend who was under the impression that the world was experiencing an increase in terrorist activity. I had doubts about the validity of his statement, as many factors could make it seem as though this was happening, mainly increased media coverage of world events and how per-capita terrorism statistics compared, after considering world population growth. I have found plenty of information to back up my argument, but I must confess it is a bit outdated, and his statement has a level of truth to it, in light of recent studies. We just need time to sort out our current situation and analyze the data. Nonetheless, I found some research by a few statisticians who claim that terrorism has not increased when per capita populations are taken into account. Below is a link to download a PDF of the article.
My real point is not about terrorism, but it's about how off-target the American public is when it comes to various threats. Terrorism is a threat that could grow to extreme proportions (in the case of a world war), but it is currently only a blip on the radar, compared to other things that threaten our existence.
Our politicians just passed a budget deal for 2015-2016 without endless negotiations or a government shutdown. It's easy to put the blame for our debt on zinger-one-liner expenses, which I agree misses the overall point, but this does seem like a lot of money to move a few people around the world.
|
AuthorPersuasive Graffiti Archives
October 2017
Categories
All
|