Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I thnik our tax system needs to be change to broasen the tax base while at the same time lowerig the rates and simplifying. We basuicall y hacwe too few paying in federal income tax.That is about the only way we are going to cut deficit with cutting spendins at the same time.That alos will make conditions for investment i the economy instead of wasted money dished out by governamnt.
To say "so and so" needs to pay more tax is either calling for a shift in who pays the taxes (flat tax for example) or an increase in taxes in general. Based on past history, which scenario is more likely?
There are only three basic budgetary possibilities...1) Increase taxes. 2) Decrease spending. 3) Some combination of 1 and 3.
It appears that option 1) is the plan our government most agressively takes though plenty of government benefits (see education) are being cut also.
That is why I love Nassim Talebs description of the difference between natural bell curves and financial.
Take 1,000 people of all different weights from all over the world and plot them on a bell curve, next add in the fattest man in the world. Even in a bell curve he would hardly show up as a percentage of the total.
Now take 1,000 random people of all different net-worths and plot them on a bell curve, next add in Bill Gates. He would make up over 99% of the total and the rest would be rounding errors.
Our financial and government systems use bell curve models and assume everything is like the first example, when the reality is we see outliers such as example two all the time.
As an accountant by trade, often working alongside other financial personnel, I am quite familiar with the creative use of statistics. After all, four out of five dentists (600 were polled only seen in small print) prefer Dentyne.
As an accountant by trade, often working alongside other financial personnel, I am quite familiar with the creative use of statistics. After all, four out of five dentists (600 were polled only seen in small print) prefer Dentyne.
I am sure you have seen your share of "Nobel Prize winning" Modern Portfolio theories. Those are fun.
I am sure you have seen your share of "Nobel Prize winning" Modern Portfolio theories. Those are fun.
Yes. I have seen different accountants at the same company present completely different pictures with almost completely different balance sheets. That's creativity in a sense. And finance can be simplified theoretically to a balance between risk and return. Analysts throw out terms like diversity and such. But getting solid returns with less risk is quite challenging. And did you know the secret to making money in the stock market is to buy low and sell high which is the extent of my stock expertise.
If you include state, local, sales, real estate, excise, etc.. taxes. Middle class people pay a much bigger percentage.
What kind of idiot claims that state, real estate, sales, and local taxes are not considered taxes?
Limbaugh of course. A tax is a tax, doesn't matter what level of government it comes from.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.