Yes, but the GPS is a Military system. All the launches (60) were from Air Force launch facilities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_GPS_satellite_launches
Yes, I know. Not sure what I was thinking there, I came back to edit the post, and saw you had replied. LANDSAT - which started under NASA and was later moved to NOAA is a far better example.
So Texas would pay based on it's percent of land area as a percent of the US? That would really hurt low density states like the Dakotas and Alaska. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population_density The Senators from those low density states would then start voting against any such satellites. Which is just one reason why it's a bad idea. Arthur
:shrugs: Not what I'm suggesting in the slightest. I don't have a problem with Texas, as of 2004 Texas was one of the states that generated more federal money than it spent. From each [state] according to their ability, To each [state] according to their need.
And growth - which Cain claims will explode quickly under his plan. Hence the claim that he can balance the budget. Why on earth are you pursuing this approach where we have to read every statement Cain makes with some laser-like exclusivity of anything he didn't explicitly say in that same sentence? Even when he's talking in general terms about the overall effect of his policies? It's silly on its face, and I'm unclear on what stake you have in pretending that Cain isn't suggesting exactly what he is obviously suggesting. The web site doesn't say that it's revenue neutral at all. That comes from other statements by Cain. We know these things to be true: Cain contends that his plan is revenue neutral and that it will immediately result in explosive economic growth. Your Tax Policy Center link states that the 999 plan, under static analysis, would result in a revenue shortfall of $300 Billion dollars compared to present tax law - the claim of revenue neutrality requires current tax law to be changed to extend certain temporary tax cuts currently in effect. So there's only two ways that Cain's plan can achieve revenue neutrality - either they're counting on growth to make up that $300 Billion shortfall, or they're counting on Congress to change the tax code to reduce revenues by $300 Billion. They're either predicting what the plan would do to the economy, or predicting what Congress would do to tax law in the case that his plan isn't adopted. Either way, it involves a prediction - actually, more than one, since the baseline numbers of what the economy will be doing in 2013 that are used to estimate the revenue, are themselves predictions in the first place. No, they claim that it would be revenue neutral if Congress were to extend the current tax cuts past 2013. If Congress does nothing to amend the tax codes, statis analysis puts Cain's plan $300 Billion in the red. Read your link more carefully. That would be why I phrased that as a question, there, wouldn't it? That happens to be more or less exactly how we got to our present tax code, in point of fact. But anyway, I see no point in replacing loopholes for the very rich with a system that openly caters to the very rich. Cain proposes eliminating the capital gains tax and estate tax, and imposing a low, flat income tax. It's an open give-away to the very rich. So the very first thing we'd have to do, would be to gut the basic elements of Cain's plan (income tax needs to be strongly progressive, capital gains tax needs to be substantial - and preferably, progressive, sales tax is regressive, estate tax needs to be boosted not eliminated, deductions for mortgage interest and other stuff need to be retained to avoid wrecking the entire middle class, etc.). Basically, such a program would work out to starting at the current tax code, and getting rid of various loopholes and complications. Probably a value added tax (like pretty much every other developed countries uses) would be a better alternative. But progressive income taxation (and things like estate tax and capital gains tax) is a vital check on inequality. Unchecked inequality is incompatible with democracy.
Because if you're going to pursue that path, a user-pays system would be the ideal. Does Rhode Island need to use Landsat for urban planning or mineral exploitation? If costs must be apportioned, then would it not be far fairer to apportion those costs according to usage?
The 999 Plan in Graph Form The 999 Plan, in Graph Form When a picture is worth that many words, sometimes visual aids are all that are needed: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Economist Jared Bernstein notes that when he tried to graph Herman Cain's 999 Plan, he couldn't fit the outcome into one graph. "But," he adds, "my CBPP colleague Brian Highsmith could. So here you have it: the change in tax liabilities, compared to current tax policy, under 9-9-9, for different income groups, in one incredibly unsettling graph." ____________________ Notes: Bernstein, Jared. "9-9-9 in One (Really Long) Graph". October 18, 2011. JaredBernsteinBlog.com. October 21, 2011. http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/9-9-9-in-one-really-long-graph/ —————. "9-9-9: The Most Massively Regressive Redistribution of Taxes Ever Seriously Considered". October 18, 2011. JaredBernsteinBlog.com. October 21, 2011. http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/9-9-9...tribution-of-taxes-ever-seriously-considered/
is it just me , or has politics boiled down to a sales pitch ? Maybe it has always been . Reagen was an actor as most of you know . Actors are sales people extraordinaire
So what you are really suggesting is the creation of the Department of Fed Cost Apportionment, staffed with thousands apportioning costs based on value and all the lawyers that defend it when it's challenged. NO NO NO We DON'T need another department in the Federal Govt. SIMPLE is what we need. Arthur
You mean how much social security, healthcare and special projects do they use. I would wager it easier and cheaper to determine how much 50 states owe you then 320 million people owe you.
Not particularly. The States don't keep track of that stuff today and so they would have to track all those people and since people move from state to state, even live in one state and make money in another, as do businesses. The feds don't particularly care which state you live in though. Makes it much simpler. A Sales tax, collected essentially without needing to tie it to a specific taxpayer is simpler yet. You spend the money you pay the tax. Arthur
Actually most states do keep track of that stuff, under state taxes, why have both federal and state taxes that require most the same bureaucracy but now in duplicate? The only reason they care is because of federal facilitates, federal social security, federal health care, if the states were required to come up with there own solutions to though problems the federal government wouldn't have to. What your asking for is a centralized system where all the states must be bound to a increasingly corrupt and increasingly more power federal government. Its also highly regressive and leads to black markets, at the very least a VAT would be better, better yet would be to let the states figure it out and find what works best not simply guess based on ideology and human bias.
Except for cash transactions. But never fear; the government will solve that problem as well. ==================== Law Bans Cash for Second Hand Transactions Posted: Oct 18, 2011 2:58 AM PDT Cold hard cash. It's good everywhere you go, right? You can use it to pay for anything. But that's not the case here in Louisiana now. It's a law that was passed during this year's busy legislative session. House bill 195 basically says those who buy and sell second hand goods cannot use cash to make those transactions, and it flew so far under the radar most businesses don't even know about it. "We're gonna lose a lot of business," says Danny Guidry, who owns the Pioneer Trading Post in Lafayette. He deals in buying and selling unique second hand items. "We don't want this cash transaction to be taken away from us. It's an everyday transaction," Guidry explains. ======================== Make it even simpler. 40% on anything you make above $40,000, period. Call it the 40-40 plan. Or adjust those numbers up or down as desired. One tax bracket.
Not the Fed. Only applies in Louisianna. Except it doesn't tax people who don't report income which is why I think we should get a substantial portion of our tax via sales tax, not just income tax. Arthur
Nope, "that stuff" was how much social security, healthcare and special projects do they use , and no the states don't need to track that. As far as Income tax two of the states I lived in relied primarily on data feeds from the Federal system for income tax data (you report your line 3X on your Federal Tax form to the State) and of course the State's income tax systems are far simpler than the Federal one. The States tax system is focused mainly on Sales and Property taxes, and that would continue under a Federal sales tax. None of that supports the contention that the Feds care what state you live in. They don't. Nope. Not if you leave off sales tax on food, housing and medicine, then it's not regressive at all. Couple that with a few basic exemptions on the income side, first X thousand $s, dependents and large medical bills and poof, very progressive. Arthur
No, that's not what I'm suggesting at all. It's not even a good interpretation of what I'm suggesting. What I'm suggesting would (for example) see NOAA set up as a State Owned Enterprise (Although, in the US it would be owned by the Federal Government, because ultimately it's their responsibility) and the various states would, in essence, buy the data from NOAA. No need to set up a new department in Federal Government, that's not what user pays means. NOAA remains funded by the government, and monies earned are returned to the government. Quite simple really. Personally, though, I prefer the status quo, I think it works better, people just need to get over their self centered delusions of grandure, and realize that living in a civilization, where you have things that are owned by the collective, and maintained for the good of the collective, means that occasionally things that individuals disagree with are going to be funded.
They don't need to because they let the federal government do it, which is part of the problem: states should manage the details on social services. Far simpler, how? Quantify this and remember when comparing states to the federal government you got the multiple everything by 50. A federal sales taxes on top of state taxes would grow the black market to titanic proportions, would harm the middle and poor class by forcing them to pay more for food and cloths while the rich don't get taxed a cent on saving and stock. I wasn't arguing that the fed should care, they shouldn't, by the way though the states automatically do have to care. Does Cain specify this? Gee that not what the charts shows, perhaps your talking about something other then Cain's Plan.
