Military spending is an entitlement.
Nor am I. I think however that tax structure for corporations is at least partly based on operations. I’d be interested in getting the take from beans or another accountant.
We do agree on the premise certainly.
Ok, I am following better now, for some reason the way I read it got me confused. I don’t think that’s realistic frankly, because that’s not the case now–even with the much higher nominal tax rate here we still have many US corporations with multinational presence that choose to stay headquartered here.
Thus, the view that a much SMALLER nominal tax disparity than currently exists would induce companies to jump ship wholesale and “corner the market” is far-fetched at best to me. The discrepancy is ~15-20% to Europe, 35/39% - 20% ish, our most direct competitor for many areas. Were that discrepancy narrowed to say, 2% or even 6%, something like 20% USA rate to 15% foreign rate, I do not see it resulting in wholesale exodus.
There are other factors at play here that preclude a banana republic: distribution channels, location, transport, infrastructure, etc. These are key reasons why a lot of smaller countries are not pulling corporations from us now. A smaller gap would make that pull even less likely.
Okay?
Again, never said that. Never even came close to saying that. It’s like you’re arguing a point I never made
On my phone so data will have to wait. I am not well informed enough currently to make a decision on specific program cuts and financing so I don’t think I can do that for you.
Ramifications are fuzzy, but one near certain ramification of military cuts is that the soldier on the ground suffers while the contracts are preserved. We’ve seen this several times already–ready has to be a solution for it but I don’t know what it is
1 Like
Okay, my bad…
Gays were separated from the law.
Disagree on multiple grounds. First and foremost it is not understood to be such from the common lexicon’s point of view–when people say “entitlements” they don’t mean “military spending”. It is commonly used to denote SS, healthcare, etc. Secondly, military spending is one of the very few things explicitly mentioned as being in the federal governments’ power. It is therefore not an entitlement but an obligation, although that doesn’t mean by any stretch that military spending has to be as much as it is now
It’s an entitlement program for contractors.
No they weren’t. They just didn’t like the law. They same laws applied.
They took it to court and they won, so I don’t see the complaint…
So gays could always get married?
1 Like
It’s commonly thought of in this way, like it’s a defined contribution plan, but it’s not - it’s pay as you go. Your dollars are being spent on someone else, and when it’s your turn to collect, someone else is paying. And, an important point - people get out far more than they individually contribute.
3 Likes
You are just plainly wrong here. Gay people COULD NOT GET MARRIED. That means that they were not given the benefits of the legal definition of marriage as recognized by the government. How is that not separate from the law?
1 Like
Some people do. Some people die when they hit the age of distribution and dont get a penny.
And therein lines the current problem… (and TB can correct me).
- The ratio of current workers to retirees is lessening (there are more and more retirees relative to workers AND 2) those workers overall incomes have either been stagnant or decreasing, leading to even less funds being collected.
The current mantra?
“The Boomers will Bust Social Security”.
2 Likes
This is where the rub is for me. Cost of living and average income haven’t come close to scaling the same (much like cost of living and min wage). So the cost of continue to LIVE is going up for these seniors in a system that’s able to keep them alive longer. Add in that we’re not collecting the correct ratio and you get a financial disaster.
1 Like
Merriam-Webster authoritative enough for you?
You sure about that? Because I’m pretty sure there have been.
That’s not true! My wife would care very, very much.
So you regard religion-based discrimination against blacks as lacking some sort of validity that adheres to religion-based discrimination against gays?
Ok??
This is it - the demographic math simply will not work, regardless of politics. And as you mention, stagnant incomes are slowing the funding as well.
And it only makes sense to reform now and make the generation who got us into this mess be the ones to feel the inevitable pain of these very tough choices.
3 Likes
Unfortunately that will never happen. Generally what does is that they build expiration dates into these changes so that they phase out after the people currently benefitting from it die
1 Like
Absolutely right. It’s my generation, X, that’s going to take it in the shorts first.