backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 114 comment(s) - last by inperfectdarkn.. on Jan 10 at 10:51 AM
Aided by cutting edge technologies, governments demonstrate little restraint in tracking their citizens

2006 and 2007 proved to be dismal years for privacy advocates, as governments the world over showed little restraint in their deployments of the latest surveillance technologies.

Privacy International released its 2007 annual International Privacy Rankings on December 28, and the results are chilling. The report is based on the Electronic Privacy Information Center’s September 2007 1,100-page “Privacy & Human Rights” report, which Privacy International called the “single most comprehensive single volume report in the human rights field.”

Among the survey’s 47 ranked countries, not a single nation improved its rating over 2006’s rankings; each country either maintained the previous year’s classification or fell further towards a “surveillance state.” Well over half of the ranked countries were ranked at or below a ranking of “systemic failure to uphold [privacy] safeguards,” with a significant number of countries featuring “extensive” or “endemic” surveillance societies.

The temptations of surveillance seduced even the most stalwart of privacy-supporting countries, with the “adequate safeguards against abuse” ranking dropping from five countries – Greece, Germany, Belgium, Austria, and Canada in 2006 – to just one: Greece.

Concerns over border control and threat of terrorism dominated surveillance-oriented initiatives, with “all citizens, regardless of legal status,” increasingly “under suspicion.” Globalization and technological progress are the biggest enablers, and 2007 saw the rise of a number of international agreements that allow for surveillance outside normal judicial limits.

Most notably, Privacy International named the United States as the “worst ranking country in the democratic world” in terms of statutory privacy protections and enforcement. The United States’ lack of constitutional privacy protections, plus the FTC’s inadequate attention towards privacy matters, the growth of biometric databases, and implementation of ever-more pervasive ID systems, led Privacy International to classify the US as an “endemic surveillance society” with rankings that placed it lower than both India and the Philippines.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Election
By Murst on 1/7/2008 2:12:47 PM , Rating: 4
This is one of the reasons I'll be voting for either Paul or Obama in the next elections...




RE: Election
By djcameron on 1/7/2008 2:22:24 PM , Rating: 3
Paul would be a good choice for privacy issues, but I'll betcha Obama turns out to be just like all the others.


RE: Election
By Wightout on 1/7/2008 4:17:57 PM , Rating: 2
Amen to that...


RE: Election
By Ryanman on 1/7/2008 6:26:03 PM , Rating: 4
Is this really anything of a surprise?
We constantly have FitCamaro and Mdoggs on here saying that they're willing to sacrifice freedom for security. And they're not the only ones either, just the ones I notice.
When are you all going to understand that you're LOSING more security than you're gaining? Are you really more scared of a religious fanatic with an AK than a power-hungry president? Which one has more power? The terrorist can kill a couple people, while the president can enslave you... tell you what you can and can't do on a wide scale. Those who dismiss an argument like this as conspiracy theories need to read a history book. And, time permitting, the report that's mentioned in the article.

Wake up Americans. Your rights are leaving. They're leaving slowly, they're leaving secretly, and while you have your money you won't care. But once that's gone what will you have left? Everyone needs to think about their priorities when we "elect" our officials, or we're all going to find ourselves singing Newspeak in no time.


RE: Election
By FITCamaro on 1/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: Election
By mdogs444 on 1/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Election
By FITCamaro on 1/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: Election
By Murst on 1/7/2008 3:35:26 PM , Rating: 2
In all honesty, I'd rather them tax us more and have a balanced budget, than have republicans spend money that didn't exist yesterday.

I hate taxes, but the policies of Bush are much more harmful to the economy / currency.


RE: Election
By mdogs444 on 1/7/2008 3:42:18 PM , Rating: 2
Bush is not a true conservative, or a fiscal conservative. Hes a republican by means of social policy (with the exception of trying to give amnesty to illegals), but he is by no means a fiscal conservative. In fact, he actually spends like a democrat.


RE: Election
By BMFPitt on 1/7/2008 4:05:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In fact, he actually spends like a democrat.
He couldn't help it... That huge Democratic majority in Congress from 2001-2006 kept sending him giant, pork-filled spending bills.


RE: Election
By ksuWildcat on 1/7/2008 4:12:09 PM , Rating: 3
LOL! I always find it ironic that Republicans complain about Democratic spending, while racking up a huge national debt themselves.


RE: Election
By murphyslabrat on 1/7/2008 4:53:15 PM , Rating: 2
The Republican's are right, the Democrats do spend a lot. However, it isn't their fault for being politicians, it really comes down to the United States citizens not being willing to cut expensive social programs. Though, Republican's are not innocent either, they too are politicians.


RE: Election
By Murst on 1/7/2008 4:13:36 PM , Rating: 3
Democratic majority? I think you need to look at who controlled congress before you post.

Also, the republican party has turned away from being fiscally conservative. The only presidents who have had a balanced budget in recent history were all democrats. Record deficits were reached under the recent republicans.

BTW, I'm an independent.


RE: Election
By ksuWildcat on 1/7/2008 4:16:17 PM , Rating: 2
I believe that BMFPitt was being sarcastic...


RE: Election
By Murst on 1/7/2008 4:17:57 PM , Rating: 2
Doh... it sure does sound like it ;)

My bad.


RE: Election
By clovell on 1/7/2008 3:44:24 PM , Rating: 2
> In all honesty, I'd rather them tax us more and have a balanced budget, than have republicans spend money that didn't exist yesterday.


Ideally, we'd like to not have to choose between just those two options.


RE: Election
By FITCamaro on 1/7/2008 4:10:40 PM , Rating: 2
LMAO.

If you honestly think they'll balance the budget by taxing us more, you're sadly mistaken. Universal health care alone will cost hundreds of billions of dollars on top of what we're already spending. Then theres the whole "give a women who's just given birth $5000 for each baby" that Hillary wants to do.


RE: Election
By mdogs444 on 1/7/2008 4:15:14 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah the "baby bonds" - how stupid. So not only do the middle & upper class have to pay the health care and welfare costs for the poor - we always have to give them $5k for each of the 12 kids that they have in the ghetto? how stupid. Good thing that will never get enough mustard to pass.


RE: Election
By clovell on 1/7/2008 4:19:03 PM , Rating: 2
It's not an entirely bad idea - I mean that 5k would cover the per capita CO2 tax the UN is tossing around.

[obligatory monday /sarcasm tag]


RE: Election
By superkdogg on 1/7/2008 4:27:11 PM , Rating: 2
What do you think happens to the health care bills of the poor right now?

The premise of universal care is that prevention is cheaper than acute care. That and that medical professionals are paid way too much, largely because they in turn have to pay malpractice bills that are way too big. Universal care is cost-neutral at worst when compared to the % of GDP that the US currently spends on health care.

People hurt by universal care: those needing non-emergency and elective specialty procedures & insurance companies. Luckily for those opposed, there's enough lobbyists for insurance companies that you'll never have to wait 3 weeks to have that minor surgery in exchange for knowing you and your family will always have health insurance even if you got laid off.


RE: Election
By superkdogg on 1/7/2008 4:37:34 PM , Rating: 3
Just wanted to add really quick that a google revealed to me the "socialized" health care nations in Europe invested 9.1% of GDP in health care for the most recent finalized numbers which were 2006 iirc.

The US: 16% with 20% expected within 7 years.

So, would anyone care to argue the 'cost' of universal care?

The only valid argument against it that I've heard is waiting periods and the counter argument to that is that no nation has the number of doctors and modern facilities that US does. Do we really think that if health care were universal the poor would overrun clinics with demands for surgery?


RE: Election
By TheDoc9 on 1/7/2008 4:48:40 PM , Rating: 2
What those numbers say to me is that the U.S. already has Universal Health Care, we simply don't call it that.


RE: Election
By superkdogg on 1/9/2008 9:48:54 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know how figures on cost and % of GDP tell you anything about how health care is delivered. There's not nearly enough information to make that generalization.

I only stated that the US spends twice the percentage on care versus countries that have universal care.

Look at it this way: Health is more important than roads. Does America or any other nation seek to award driving privileges only to those who qualify? Should driver's licenses be a privilege and not a right of a law-abiding citizen with proper training? Presuming you're not arguing that poor people or laid off people, or people who simply were not born with the ability to hold a good job should not be allowed to drive, then you have to admit that roads should remain accessible to everyone.


RE: Election
By BMFPitt on 1/7/2008 4:58:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The only valid argument against it that I've heard is waiting periods
As far as I'm concerned, this should be an invalid argument because you could still buy (or get private insurance for) access to better care. There are certainly people who would want this to be illegal, but that would never actually happen.
quote:
Do we really think that if health care were universal the poor would overrun clinics with demands for surgery?
If by "we" you mean the average posters in this thread, probably.


RE: Election
By clovell on 1/7/2008 4:58:34 PM , Rating: 2
Doctors aren't paid too much. They work hard to get where they are. As for the poor, medicare and medicaid cover preventative medicine. While there are certianly some unfortunate folks that fall through the cracks in the middle class, the majority of those who don't qualify for government health care now need to get a job and make better decisions in life.


RE: Election
By Spuke on 1/7/2008 6:16:04 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder if we move to universal health care, if corporations will offer health insurance as part of the benefits package. If they don't, will we get that money back in our checks?


RE: Election
By Ringold on 1/7/2008 5:02:00 PM , Rating: 2
I think the point was, or at least I will make it in to, that there will always be a new government plan to spend revenue that the government does not even yet have. Always.

Small government fought first at Bull Run, suffered a fatal blow at Gettysburg, and finally died at Appomattox.

The only difference, now, is that at least there still exists a sizeable portion of small-government Republican's inside the Republican party, and several of the culprits of the big-spending years recently are either not running for re-election or removed from their leadership posts. Virtually no such wing exists in the Democrat party.

If it were not universal health care, it would assuredly be something else, something else, and then something else after that.


RE: Election
By Murst on 1/7/2008 4:16:31 PM , Rating: 2
I'd take your comment more seriously if the republicans had any sort of plans to have a balanced budget. Ironically, you have to look to the democrats or (not so ironically) libretarians for that (just look at the last 40 years in presidents, and the budget during those times).


RE: Election
By Ringold on 1/7/2008 5:06:48 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, the last projections I saw indicated, assuming the Bush Tax Cuts are not allowed to expire and spending grows at the rate of inflation (I believe), then 2013 or 2014 or so should achieve a balanced state, with surpluses for some time after that -- until the baby boomers start to devastate Social Security and Medicare, at which point, deficits off in to perpetuity. That, however, will be a problem of such a huge scale that the Democrat's have yet to propose a solution, nor are they likely to. It won't be just a tiny "lets stick it to 'em!" few percentage point increase to smooth over, it'll be a class-warfare size tax hike, and I don't think they're ready to completely go Bolshevik yet.


RE: Election
By Ringold on 1/7/2008 5:10:05 PM , Rating: 2
To be fair, too, I want to follow up and point out Europe faces a similar impending budget crisis with their aging, shrinking populations.

The difference is, with our smaller welfare state (comparatively speaking) and stronger economy, it may be possible to tackle it here. Their combination of low growth and already-huge government.. well, economists there appear to be sticking their heads under their pillow and hoping they don't hear or feel the fiscal explosion that'll kill them some decades down the road, or at the very least are content allowing the next generation to take care of it.


RE: Election
By clovell on 1/7/2008 5:08:12 PM , Rating: 2
Bush has plans to balance the budget, which have been executed - they simply won't be finished while he's in office.


RE: Election
By m1ldslide1 on 1/7/2008 6:18:14 PM , Rating: 3
quote:

By clovell on 1/7/2008 5:08:12 PM , Rating: 2

Bush has plans to balance the budget, which have been executed - they simply won't be finished while he's in office.


If by "plans" you mean humiliating the republican party and American people at large while trampling the constitution, creating a foreign policy crisis, helping perpetuate a corporate welfair state, and needlessly causing over 50x the casualties suffered in 9/11 so that the simpletons in this country could eventually elect a democratic congress and democratic president, then I'll have to agree that yes, he did have a plan, and it won't be executed until he's out of office.


RE: Election
By clovell on 1/8/2008 1:28:04 PM , Rating: 2
Nope, that's not what I meant. I was very clearly referring to budget plans. You might try taking another look, and take your trolling somewhere it belongs.


RE: Election
By CheesePoofs on 1/7/2008 2:41:20 PM , Rating: 2
I'll be voting for Obama, personally. I like what Paul is trying to do but I think by eliminating the income tax (or any tax for that matter) he will simply be speeding up the demise of America. Our economy is based primarily around government spending (just look at the economic boom that started in WWII) and without that spending our economy will enter a long-term recession.


RE: Election
By FITCamaro on 1/7/2008 2:54:21 PM , Rating: 1
Who says government spending will stop? His goal is to get rid of the unnecessary parts of the government which will save us billions. He supports a strong military. And would probably create thousands of jobs in border security and the like.

And his goal is not to eliminate the income tax but to eliminate the current system we have now and institute a flat tax. Everyone pays the same. Rich, middle class, and poor. We'll actually take in more in taxes because the wealthy won't be able to get out of it through crafty loopholes. Look at people like John Kerry. He's a multi-billionaire and pays less in taxes than Bush despite making more.

It was the same with Bush's tax cuts. We actually took in more in tax revenues after them than before.


RE: Election
By clovell on 1/7/2008 2:58:32 PM , Rating: 3
Not exactly, Paul's flat tax is progressive. Every American citizen can expect a monthly check from the government refunding their taxes up to the poverty level in their area.


RE: Election
By mdogs444 on 1/7/2008 3:01:50 PM , Rating: 1
Correct - Huckabee is the only one backing the "FairTax" - which I am all for. A high percentage sales tax, and more of my own money to invest as opposed to federal income tax. And everyone gets a "prebate" check up to the poverty level.


RE: Election
By mholler on 1/7/2008 3:18:42 PM , Rating: 2
A high sales tax in anything but a "fairtax". In fact a sales tax is a regressive tax since if a rich person and a poor person buy the same item the poor person pays more tax relative to income. I support a flat income tax rate, but to drop income tax in favor of sales tax would creative even greater disparity between classes than there is now.


RE: Election
By clovell on 1/7/2008 3:42:15 PM , Rating: 2
I understand your concerns, but if you'd been following what we're discussing or knew more a little more about Fair Tax, you'd have realized that a Fair Tax can be progressive, and that is exactly what's being proposed.

The Fair Tax camp claims to have data that shows shifting from a diverse tax scheme to a consupmtion tax would *not* crash our economy or cause riots in the streets. It would also give people incentive to save their money rather than spend it on all kinds of unnecessary stuff, which would decrease the average Debt to Income ratio of Americans.

My only question for Fair Tax proponents is how they plan to track what each person puts into social security. Since the Fair Tax is a consumption tax and only sales of new merchandise are taxed, how would you be able to properly track social security benefits without tracking an individual's purchases?


RE: Election
By mdogs444 on 1/7/2008 3:47:46 PM , Rating: 2
Social Security is taken out of your paycheck separately than Federal Income Tax under the new plan (in fact, i think it already exists this way today, no?).

Either way, the point of the FairTax is basic Reaganomics which are proven to work. The more money you have, the more money you spend. If everyone is taxed at 23% (the proposed FairTax rate) - the people who make $200,000/yr will spend much more than the person who makes $20,000/yr. SO dont start with this whole "progressive" tax system - because the point of the FairTax is to be just that, FAIR. Eliminate the redistribution of wealth, and tax brackets which punish successful people and benefit the low income by paying nothing.


RE: Election
By Murst on 1/7/2008 3:50:45 PM , Rating: 3
The proposed fair tax rate is 30%...

The tax turns out to be 23% of the entire purchase price, but it would be incorrect to state that 23% is the rate.


RE: Election
By mdogs444 on 1/7/2008 3:59:36 PM , Rating: 2
The "FairTax" itself i think is 23%, but coupled with the local Tax and what not, - your correct, the total tax will be closer to 30%.


RE: Election
By Murst on 1/7/2008 4:05:56 PM , Rating: 3
It has nothing to do w/ the local tax.

quote:
Say you buy a $1 pack of gum, and then pay 30% in tax, for a total price of $1.30. The extra 30 cents you paid is 23% of $1.30.

Sales tax supporters frequently cite the number as percentage of your spending. They say this makes it easier to compare the sales tax to the income tax.

Critics, including conservative commentator Bruce Bartlett, have argued that people generally think of sales taxes in terms of mark-ups - that's how state sales taxes are expressed - and that FairTaxers are just trying to come up with the lowest possible number to make their idea easier to sell.


From http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/05/pf/taxes/fair_tax....


RE: Election
By mdogs444 on 1/7/2008 4:08:00 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm interesting....I still support it whole heartedly. Because i want more of my own money - to spend or save however i want - instead of it going against my will to social welfare programs.


RE: Election
By Murst on 1/7/2008 4:19:57 PM , Rating: 2
I also would take the fair tax over the current mess. :) Its not perfect (far from it), but its also much better than what we have right now.


RE: Election
By superkdogg on 1/7/2008 4:21:34 PM , Rating: 2
"against my will to social welfare programs."

A. Do you think that a change in how revenue is generated will be at all related to a change in spending? No. Granted, if you don't purchase anything, you won't be contributing to anything, but as the Bush administration has proven, revenue and spending are independent of one another.

B. It might be worth your time to do some research on the value of taxpayer spending. I won't get any more involved than this; seriously, research the investment/return rates of various government-sponsored programs. Hands-on social welfare is one of the smarter things to invest in if you look at the numbers.


RE: Election
By clovell on 1/7/2008 5:02:15 PM , Rating: 2
A. Are you serious?

B. We're worried about individual rights, not the motherland.


RE: Election
By clovell on 1/7/2008 4:12:22 PM , Rating: 2
> Social Security is taken out of your paycheck separately than Federal Income Tax under the new plan (in fact, i think it already exists this way today, no?).

Really? So the Fair Tax plan would still track my income?

> Either way, the point of the FairTax is basic Reaganomics which are proven to work. The more money you have, the more money you spend. If everyone is taxed at 23% (the proposed FairTax rate) - the people who make $200,000/yr will spend much more than the person who makes $20,000/yr. SO dont start with this whole "progressive" tax system - because the point of the FairTax is to be just that, FAIR. Eliminate the redistribution of wealth, and tax brackets which punish successful people and benefit the low income by paying nothing.

I think you misunderstood. The 'prebate' that everyone gets up to the poverty line is considered to be 'progressive' in the sense that it is not regressive - which is what mholler was claiming the Fair Tax to be. In the conventional sense of the word, you're right, a Fair Tax is neither progressive nor regressive - it is what it is - Fair.

As for Social Security, I don't think you're seeing what I'm driving at. The problem, though, with 'Reaganomics', is that its a macro policy:

Let's suppose we have 2 guys who are twins. Each makes the same amount of money over his lifetime, but one lives on a shoestring, and the other likes to spend money. The first guy puts in 20k over his lifetime into Social Security, while the second guy put in 200k - because the Fair Tax is a consumption based tax.

Now, if they both start drawing benefits at age 65, you think they should get the same benefits? That doesn't seem fair to me.

The only way to level it out is to somehow track what each person puts in - which works now because Social Security is an income tax. But a Fair Tax is a consumption-based tax, so to accomplish the same thing, consumption would have to be tracked. The catch is that people have become accepting of the feds knowing how much money they make - I'm not so sure they'd be so accepting of the feds knowing what they spend their money on.


RE: Election
By Murst on 1/7/2008 4:22:22 PM , Rating: 2
When they're both 65, there won't be any social security left from them to draw from...


RE: Election
By drebo on 1/7/2008 4:34:18 PM , Rating: 2
Simple solution: abolish Social Security. It was a bad idea to begin with.

I'd prefer to manage my own retirement funds.


RE: Election
By clovell on 1/7/2008 5:09:58 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, but I don't think it'll happen - not until it's absolutely necessary.


RE: Election
By Christopher1 on 1/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Election
By PedroDaGr8 on 1/7/2008 8:26:58 PM , Rating: 2
So which libertarian view did you buy into? Since you aren't a fiscal conservate or social liberal?


RE: Election
By barclay on 1/7/2008 9:33:58 PM , Rating: 2
> "Social Security was NOT a bad idea, in fact it was one of the BEST ideas ever!"

The program was fundamentally flawed from the beginning. It requires geometric population growth to remain solvent. Its 'success' so far has been the result of having 3 to 4 paying for every retiree. Once the baby boomers retire, this ratio will drop to 2 employed people paying for each person retired. If life expectancy continues to rise and birth rate remains stationary at replacement rate (2.1/female), the ratio will continue to get worse.

> "The problem is that the government never passed laws saying that Social Security could never be raided for ANY reason"

1) The money has not been "raided." The government borrows from the fund, just like it borrows from individuals, banks, and countries. As such, the fund still owns the money. Whether or not the government will always be able to pay back the fund is the serious issue.
2) Even if the government is able to repay the system, Social Security would still be insolvent in the long term due to the demographic changes I mentioned.
3) The only serious guarantee to stop the government from "raiding" the fund is to switch to individual retirement accounts.

Please listen to this lecture from Duke University -- "The Future of Social Security." It discusses many of problems and misconceptions surrounding Social Security and potential solutions
http://www.learnoutloud.com/Free-Audio-Video/Educa...


RE: Election
By clovell on 1/8/2008 1:37:16 PM , Rating: 2
> You guys are idiots

You are a pedophile. Moving on.

> Social Security was NOT a bad idea, in fact it was one of the BEST ideas ever!

Usually people support ideas like this with facts or reasons.

> The problem is that the government never passed laws saying that Social Security could never be raided for ANY reason, even if our economy was crashing, and that is where the problems came from!

A good idea that is poorly executed is just as useless as a bad idea. Since we haven't yet figured out how to travel back in time, this entire statement of yours is also useless - even if it were valid.

> I swear, either you people are braindead (which I honestly think is the case)

I don't honestly care what a pedophile honestly thinks about me.

> you have bought into the libertarian tax bullshit (which I buy into the other libertarian stuff, but realize that their social policies and taxation plans are braindead, to put it MILDLY!).

You've had the entire article to address specific points of the fair tax idea, and with one sweeping statement you declare it braindead, along with its proponents who have laid out logical arguments. I'll leave it to you to figure out who looks to be 'braindead' now.


RE: Election
By BMFPitt on 1/7/2008 4:14:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Either way, the point of the FairTax is basic Reaganomics which are proven to work. The more money you have, the more money you spend.
I've got a really nice bridge in San Francisco I'd like to sell you...


RE: Election
By Ringold on 1/7/2008 5:24:14 PM , Rating: 2
Reaganomics is an imprecise way to sum up a whole set of theories that tries to attribute it to the man who brought America under its sway.. but that said, whether you like it or not, supply-side economics is essentially the established modern view of how the macroeconomy works and grows. The alternative, Keynesian garbage, has consistently been shown to be as much, not just in America but globally. It's no mistake or fluke that China pursues the form of capitalism that it does, nor a mistake that some Eastern European nations have chosen Reaganomics 2.0 as a way to try to catch up to their Western European neighbors.

As for "The more money you have, the more money you spend" generally holds true.. The income effect that housing prices increasing provided, for example, is spoken of daily on CNBC. Of course, at some point, while spending continues to go up with income investment also takes place -- but that simply drives further growth in the economy.


RE: Election
By Murst on 1/7/2008 3:45:11 PM , Rating: 2
Although I'm not exactly in favor of the fair tax, its a pretty decent idea (much better than our current tax laws, anyways).

Your argument doesn't really work, since everyone who has made money would automatically get a tax credit at the end of the year (based on the poverty level). Therefore, the poor would actually end up not paying any taxes, or very little taxes.

The fair tax has no way of becoming the law, unless something drastic changes. There's too much influence on congressmen from special interests, who usually tend to get very nice tax breaks. There's no tax breaks in a fair tax. Also, in order for the fair tax to work, it would have to apply to everything, and that's not something that congress is willing to adopt (unless its bundled with a bunch of spending cuts, and that's never going to happen). Finally, congress likes to give tax breaks to different groups of people. They would lose that power if there was a fair tax.


RE: Election
By clovell on 1/7/2008 3:49:40 PM , Rating: 2
> Finally, congress likes to give tax breaks to different groups of people. They would lose that power if there was a fair tax.

That's the nail in the coffin.


RE: Election
By clovell on 1/7/2008 3:30:10 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, did I just confuse Huckabee and Paul? It's not even 3pm yet... o.0


RE: Election
By FITCamaro on 1/7/2008 4:14:15 PM , Rating: 2
Glad someone finally realized it.


RE: Election
By Noya on 1/8/2008 5:38:56 AM , Rating: 2
Huckabee is a cross-eyed religious zealot.

"So, you believe the Eath was created in 6 days?"

"Blah, blah , blah" avoiding answering the question going for the retarded religious vote.


RE: Election
By CheesePoofs on 1/7/2008 3:26:35 PM , Rating: 2
However, despite the fact that much of that spending seems unnecessary, it's still going straight into our economy. In a sense, I think the waste is almost helpful.

Personally I'm in favor of an income tax on a sliding scale where the poor pay almost nothing or a very small percentage of their income and the rich pay a large percentage. After all, they're the people who can most afford it.


RE: Election
By clovell on 1/7/2008 3:46:42 PM , Rating: 2
> Personally I'm in favor of an income tax on a sliding scale where the poor pay almost nothing or a very small percentage of their income and the rich pay a large percentage. After all, they're the people who can most afford it.
Though I disagree with your philosophy, what you're proposing is actually in place right now.


RE: Election
By Murst on 1/7/2008 3:54:02 PM , Rating: 2
There's actually another alternative... don't pay any taxes on the first 50k of your income, or something to that effect. Everything else is a flat tax (no deductions)..

Its just amazing... there's been so many better ways of taxation proposed, and somehow we get stuck with the crappiest one.


RE: Election
By clovell on 1/7/2008 4:13:43 PM , Rating: 2
I thought that's called a Fair Tax?


RE: Election
By Murst on 1/7/2008 4:24:50 PM , Rating: 2
The fair tax is a sales tax. The thing I described is a flat rate income tax w/ a threashold.


RE: Election
By clovell on 1/7/2008 5:14:31 PM , Rating: 2
Oh. I wonder what the universal rate would need to be to cover our budget...


RE: Election
By Rugar on 1/7/2008 6:01:31 PM , Rating: 2
This is a very old set of numbers (1995, http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/), but it's what I found quickly and it remains true today (with minor shifts). In the current tax system, the top 60% of wage earners pay roughly 94% of all Federal taxes. Having a flat income tax rate without any exemptions and with an income threshold of ~$30k would most likely reduce the effective tax rate for everyone except the statistically few who have enough wealth to take advantage of all of the exemption loopholes.

That said, I still believe in a consumptive tax rather than an income tax.


RE: Election
By mdogs444 on 1/7/2008 3:52:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
After all, they're the people who can most afford it.

So because they "can afford it" - it gives you the right to take more of their money than someone else? How do you know the guy who "can afford it" works 3x harder than the joe who works at Burger King 30hrs per week, collects a welfare check, and pays no taxes.

All you are doing is punishing people for being successful - and then when they get successful, you take it away from them. So in essence, its like teasing a small child by taking them in a toy store, letting them hold a toy, then rip it out of his hands at the exit door, and give it to the boy behind him.


RE: Election
By ksuWildcat on 1/7/2008 4:09:11 PM , Rating: 2
Or the flip-side of that argument, what about the average Joe working hard 60 hours per week making $45,000/year while the company CEO who contributes less makes $10 million/year? No CEO is worth more than 10x that of the company's most productive/valuable worker.

That being said, the current tax code is just plain goofy. I'm in favor of a flat tax for everyone. I'd also like to see no sales tax on "needed" or essential goods, like groceries for example.


RE: Election
By clovell on 1/7/2008 4:16:25 PM , Rating: 2
Lots of states don't tax food items or prescriptions.


RE: Election
By ksuWildcat on 1/7/2008 4:21:27 PM , Rating: 2
I know, but many still do tax food/prescriptions. Hence, I'd like to see that prevented at a Federal level.


RE: Election
By mdogs444 on 1/7/2008 4:19:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
while the company CEO who contributes less makes $10 million/year? No CEO is worth more than 10x that of the company's most productive/valuable worker.

Chances are the CEO put in much hard time for education, and probably has and does work much more than 40hrs per week as well. In my history, and the few companies ive worked at, CEO's work more hours than the average salaried employee at his/her company.

WHen we get hired at a company, our goal is to move up and make more money - exactly what the CEO did over his career. He put in the hard work and time - and deserves what the company decides to pay him. I wouldnt give it back, would you?


RE: Election
By ksuWildcat on 1/7/2008 4:28:56 PM , Rating: 2
Most CEOs of major companies did not work their way up the ladder in the same company, most are hired from outside. And from what I have seen, executives generally get their jobs because of "good 'ol boy" networks by being in the right place at the right time, rather than possessing any actual skill or knowledge.


RE: Election
By Ringold on 1/7/2008 5:31:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No CEO is worth more than 10x that of the company's most productive/valuable worker.


I'm so tired of hearing this crap.

There was a decent example brought to my attention the other day. Jack Welch. When to took over GE, it was worth less than $10 billion. When he retired from it, it was worth around $500 billion. Instead of the few hundred million he was paid, if he were given just half of one percent of the extra value that the strategic decisions he had to make, day in day out, helped to create, he'd of got a nice $2.5 billion dollar parting gift -- and I for one think that'd be a perfectly valid bounty for what he was able to accomplish.


RE: Election
By ksuWildcat on 1/8/2008 8:17:08 AM , Rating: 2
For each instance of an executive or CEO turning a company around, there are 10 examples of executives either running a company into the ground and/or taking huge bonuses while the company suffers under their "guidance". Just look at major events at various corporations over the last 10 years or so: Enron, MCI Worldcom, Dell, HP, AT&T, Oracle, Micron Tech, Sun, Lexmark, ALCOA, and Kohls. All had highly paid executives/CEOs that were either incompetent and/or crooks, and as a result, the companies suffered and real people lost everything. And this is just the short list.

The vast majority of CEOs and company executives at major corporations are highly overpaid for their work. The employees are the backbone of the company, just as the middle-class is the backbone of U.S. economy and tax-base, not the wealthiest 1%.


RE: Election
By BMFPitt on 1/7/2008 4:18:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
All you are doing is punishing people for being successful - and then when they get successful, you take it away from them. So in essence, its like teasing a small child by taking them in a toy store, letting them hold a toy, then rip it out of his hands at the exit door, and give it to the boy behind him.
Or like taking a child into a toy store, letting him hold an XBox Elite, and only giving him a Pro. The kid behind him gets a PS2, and the one behind him gets a paddle game to share with his siblings.

Can you please let me know at what income should I start refusing money because I'll be punished for it? Seems based on my math that such a point does not exist.


RE: Election
By FITCamaro on 1/7/2008 4:27:05 PM , Rating: 2
Your "analogy" didn't even make sense or apply.

Now maybe "it'd be like buying an Xbox 360, then having someone take it, sell it, buy a PS2, give it to someone else, and keep the difference" then yes.

It doesn't make people want to turn down more money. But that doesn't mean it isn't punishing those who are successful. Why should one have to pay 35% of ones income to taxes merely because they can afford it while another gets to pay practically nothing because they can't afford to pay as much and they're the one who actually uses the programs that those who pay 35% are actually paying for?

Who is getting the better side of the deal here? Be successful, pay more, get less back than those who aren't successful and pay less. And I'm sorry but the "But they're poor" argument doesn't work on me. I have no pity for those who don't make something of themselves. Sure if you're actually disabled its understandable. Otherwise, you had all the opportunities growing up I did.


RE: Election
By BMFPitt on 1/7/2008 4:52:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now maybe "it'd be like buying an Xbox 360, then having someone take it, sell it, buy a PS2, give it to someone else, and keep the difference" then yes.
It would be like that if your imagination were reality. In actual reality, the kid got the Pro because his parents earned their money and aren't wasteful - he would have gotten the same regardless of taxes. The second kid's parents make less, but have enough to get the PS2. The kid with the paddle game only has food on the table because his parents aren't being taxed 25% on their poverty-level wages.
quote:
It doesn't make people want to turn down more money. But that doesn't mean it isn't punishing those who are successful. Why should one have to pay 35% of ones income to taxes merely because they can afford it while another gets to pay practically nothing because they can't afford to pay as much and they're the one who actually uses the programs that those who pay 35% are actually paying for?
Because if minimum wage earners were taxed 35%, there would be no incentive to work as you'd barely make up costs. Crime would be a far more attractive option to starvation.
quote:
Who is getting the better side of the deal here? Be successful, pay more, get less back than those who aren't successful and pay less.
Seems to be a pretty good deal all around. Nobody lives in isolation. For every social program you complain about, I could name 2 egregious tax breaks tailored to specific companies that used the money to outsource jobs.
quote:
And I'm sorry but the "But they're poor" argument doesn't work on me. I have no pity for those who don't make something of themselves. Sure if you're actually disabled its understandable. Otherwise, you had all the opportunities growing up I did.
I agree that "But they're poor" isn't a good argument. If you see someone making it, feel free to challenge them on it. But since you're replying to me, you'll have to explain why investing in a minimum standard of living wouldn't have benefits for every member of society relative to the cost to them. It may be difficult for you to understand, but most see a benefit to living in a society with 99% literacy, etc.


RE: Election
By Ringold on 1/7/2008 5:51:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I could name 2 egregious tax breaks tailored to specific companies that used the money to outsource jobs.


The long term economic benefit of moving low-value added jobs overseas and forcing unproductive workers to move up the value chain in what ultimately will be a knowledge based economy, like Englands, shouldn't have to be explained. We're rewarded with lower inflation / lower prices, and incentive to add skills.

quote:
you'll have to explain why investing in a minimum standard of living wouldn't have benefits for every member of society relative to the cost to them. It may be difficult for you to understand, but most see a benefit to living in a society with 99% literacy, etc.


I'll turn it around on you then. You'll have to explain how the Republican-led assault on Welfare in the mid-90s led to a reduction in poverty and higher standards of livings, and you'll have to explain how Hong Kong, for example, has 93% literacy when it has vastly lower taxes and is surrounded by China, with a much lower real literacy rate, and has to deal with uneducated immigrant workers. It may not sound as nice as 99%, but impressive nonetheless.

Incentives are powerful, and many social goals can be achieved without a nanny state. Particularly education; while it's probably necessary to be pushed along with government spending and control early on, once you get to the developed stage (is America a third world impoverished nation?) there are vast amounts of room for privatization and minimalist government.


RE: Election
By BMFPitt on 1/7/2008 7:24:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The long term economic benefit of moving low-value added jobs overseas and forcing unproductive workers to move up the value chain in what ultimately will be a knowledge based economy, like Englands, shouldn't have to be explained. We're rewarded with lower inflation / lower prices, and incentive to add skills.
No argument there. I just don't want to subsidize it as we currently do.
quote:
I'll turn it around on you then. You'll have to explain how the Republican-led assault on Welfare in the mid-90s led to a reduction in poverty and higher standards of livings
Because the system in place at the time was an epic failure, much more so than the current one.
quote:
and you'll have to explain how Hong Kong, for example, has 93% literacy when it has vastly lower taxes and is surrounded by China, with a much lower real literacy rate, and has to deal with uneducated immigrant workers. It may not sound as nice as 99%, but impressive nonetheless.
I don't get where you're going with that. That 100% of our taxes go into literacy/education?
quote:
Incentives are powerful, and many social goals can be achieved without a nanny state.
Yes, water is in fact wet.
quote:
Particularly education; while it's probably necessary to be pushed along with government spending and control early on, once you get to the developed stage (is America a third world impoverished nation?) there are vast amounts of room for privatization and minimalist government.
I'd have to hear your proposals out a little more to respond to that. I would be in favor of some sort of voucher system providing that the school in question held to some academic standard (turns out my Catholic grade school lied about a ton of stuff they were required to teach.) But if I were in charge I would scrap the current system in its entirety and rebuild into something that would take way too long to post here.


RE: Election
By Ringold on 1/7/2008 10:21:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No argument there. I just don't want to subsidize it as we currently do.


Okay, no problem then, though I doubt that's exactly widespread..

quote:
Because the system in place at the time was an epic failure, much more so than the current one.


I was just pointing out that large cuts can take place, and instead of additional people falling through the "gaps", incentive is simply created that spurs people to rise above the situation where they were before.

quote:
I don't get where you're going with that. That 100% of our taxes go into literacy/education?


There seemed to be an argument developing that our "investments" in society were necessary to achieve high literacy, the example you used. I simply countered that a large tax cut with a large spending cut could still in theory achieve socially desireable goals because others have done well with much less. One way would be to introduce competition in to school with some vouchers, like you pointed out. In some places in the US it works great, in some places internationally it works great; we need to look at why it worked where it did and why it didn't where it failed, but competition drives prices lower in the free market.. it can for government as well.

Whatever your idea of scrapping education and starting over would be.. well, you had me onboard at "scrap".

That was just my entire slant. FIT was taking the low-spending road, and I hopped on. :)