|
Another point that's not been discussed at all is the effect that the lack of job creation is having on social security. There are less people employed every year which is devastating for the balance books.
Also consider that the top 1% in the US earns more than the bottom 50% in the US. Then consider that there's also a 106,800 cap on earnings for the purpose of social security. Eliminating this cap alone would cover over 85% of the projected shortfall for the next 75 years.
I dont recall anywhere having said anything about a paranoid scheme, could you link or quote that? to my mind I was simply referencing the fact that privatizing social security would be tremendously profitable for certain firms, which would obviously then make it a priority to devote resources towards making that a reality, (whether through public endorsements, partisan interviews, research, what have you) this is standard corporate practice and has been well discussed for most of the past century.
|
I'm not sure if this is offtopic or not, but these discussions always remind me of Queensryche's "Operation Mindcrime".
And as for on-topic, I really can't understand why the US can't cut from some relatively unimportant things(army) and instead use it to pay off their debt. It reminds me of some young adult who gets his first credit card, buys a lot of stuff with it because it feels like a good idea at first, and paying for it for the rest of his life.
Then again what do I even know? =P
|
@Shikyo Heh. Beware the military industrial complex. You can't cut funding when they are so influential on policy. There have been some good arguments made on why the government is fairly hamstrung when it comes to trying to do things like this.
Dwight Eisenhower made a speech on this in 1961, it was pretty prescient.
"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. "
you can get the whole thing here: http://www.h-net.org/~hst306/documents/indust.html
|
On June 27 2011 01:11 Shikyo wrote:
I'm not sure if this is offtopic or not, but these discussions always remind me of Queensryche's "Operation Mindcrime".
And as for on-topic, I really can't understand why the US can't cut from some relatively unimportant things(army) and instead use it to pay off their debt. It reminds me of some young adult who gets his first credit card, buys a lot of stuff with it because it feels like a good idea at first, and paying for it for the rest of his life.
Then again what do I even know? =P
Cutting down on the military is an easy thing to talk about when we are sitting pretty with all of the advanced weapons and infrastructure that the past sixty years of heavy spending on the military have bought us. Remember that the only reason we are not being attacked right now is that no other armed force on the planet can hope to compete with our own. Squandering that advantage to get our finances in order would be a decision made without any foresight or common sense.
|
On June 27 2011 02:03 nemo14 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 01:11 Shikyo wrote:
I'm not sure if this is offtopic or not, but these discussions always remind me of Queensryche's "Operation Mindcrime".
And as for on-topic, I really can't understand why the US can't cut from some relatively unimportant things(army) and instead use it to pay off their debt. It reminds me of some young adult who gets his first credit card, buys a lot of stuff with it because it feels like a good idea at first, and paying for it for the rest of his life.
Then again what do I even know? =P Remember that the only reason we are not being attacked right now is that no other armed force on the planet can hope to compete with our own.
.
EDIT: edited out. Its sometimes hard to stay cogent in the midst of so much of what I perceive to be ignorance.
|
On June 27 2011 02:05 caradoc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 02:03 nemo14 wrote:On June 27 2011 01:11 Shikyo wrote:
I'm not sure if this is offtopic or not, but these discussions always remind me of Queensryche's "Operation Mindcrime".
And as for on-topic, I really can't understand why the US can't cut from some relatively unimportant things(army) and instead use it to pay off their debt. It reminds me of some young adult who gets his first credit card, buys a lot of stuff with it because it feels like a good idea at first, and paying for it for the rest of his life.
Then again what do I even know? =P Remember that the only reason we are not being attacked right now is that no other armed force on the planet can hope to compete with our own. . EDIT: edited out. Its sometimes hard to stay cogent in the midst of so much of what I perceive to be ignorance.
What is keeping us safe? Diplomacy? Economic heft? If I'm wrong, tell me why.
|
Remember that the only reason we are not being attacked right now is that no other armed force on the planet can hope to compete with our own.
On June 27 2011 02:21 nemo14 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 02:05 caradoc wrote:On June 27 2011 02:03 nemo14 wrote:On June 27 2011 01:11 Shikyo wrote:
I'm not sure if this is offtopic or not, but these discussions always remind me of Queensryche's "Operation Mindcrime".
And as for on-topic, I really can't understand why the US can't cut from some relatively unimportant things(army) and instead use it to pay off their debt. It reminds me of some young adult who gets his first credit card, buys a lot of stuff with it because it feels like a good idea at first, and paying for it for the rest of his life.
Then again what do I even know? =P Remember that the only reason we are not being attacked right now is that no other armed force on the planet can hope to compete with our own. . EDIT: edited out. Its sometimes hard to stay cogent in the midst of so much of what I perceive to be ignorance. What is keeping us safe? Diplomacy? Economic heft? If I'm wrong, tell me why.
I will make an analogy. There are two farmers that live next to each other in a small rural town. Farmer A and Farmer B. Farmer A spends half of his money on a gun and weapon collection. Sometimes he sends his sons to visit nearby townships, brandishing big and fancy weapons, to make sure that nobody grows the same variety of bean as he does-- too much special beans and the price goes down! Sometimes, when neighbouring farmers wouldn't cooperate, they would all of a sudden go on vacation, and a new farmer would take their place that did cooperate. This isn't important for the analogy though, sometimes coincidences happen.
Anyways, farmer A talks to farmer B one day. this is their discussion
Farmer A: Its a good thing I have all these weapons, otherwise you would steal all of my food!
Farmer B: ???
Farmer A: What is keeping me safe then? is it my superior communication skills with the neighbouring townships' farmers? Is it my vast bean fields? If I'm wrong, tell me why.
Now instead of farmers, lets pretend that these are countries, and instead of farmer A spending half of his money on a gun and weapon collection, farmer A is spending half of the budget on military spending, and instead of saying 'otherwise you would steal all of my food!', it is someone on TL saying 'the only reason we aren't being attacked right now'.
and that is why I felt that it was hard to stay cogent in the midst of a lot of ignorance.
|
On June 27 2011 02:21 nemo14 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 02:05 caradoc wrote:On June 27 2011 02:03 nemo14 wrote:On June 27 2011 01:11 Shikyo wrote:
I'm not sure if this is offtopic or not, but these discussions always remind me of Queensryche's "Operation Mindcrime".
And as for on-topic, I really can't understand why the US can't cut from some relatively unimportant things(army) and instead use it to pay off their debt. It reminds me of some young adult who gets his first credit card, buys a lot of stuff with it because it feels like a good idea at first, and paying for it for the rest of his life.
Then again what do I even know? =P Remember that the only reason we are not being attacked right now is that no other armed force on the planet can hope to compete with our own. . EDIT: edited out. Its sometimes hard to stay cogent in the midst of so much of what I perceive to be ignorance. What is keeping us safe? Diplomacy? Economic heft? If I'm wrong, tell me why.
Nukes.
|
On June 27 2011 02:03 nemo14 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 01:11 Shikyo wrote:
I'm not sure if this is offtopic or not, but these discussions always remind me of Queensryche's "Operation Mindcrime".
And as for on-topic, I really can't understand why the US can't cut from some relatively unimportant things(army) and instead use it to pay off their debt. It reminds me of some young adult who gets his first credit card, buys a lot of stuff with it because it feels like a good idea at first, and paying for it for the rest of his life.
Then again what do I even know? =P Cutting down on the military is an easy thing to talk about when we are sitting pretty with all of the advanced weapons and infrastructure that the past sixty years of heavy spending on the military have bought us. Remember that the only reason we are not being attacked right now is that no other armed force on the planet can hope to compete with our own. Squandering that advantage to get our finances in order would be a decision made without any foresight or common sense.
I disagree... There is a big difference between having the means to defend yourself and having the means to invade and bomb multiple nations at once on the other side of the planet. We can very certainly use a cut in military spending, and this is coming from someone who was in the Army.
|
I think the current debt is as natural as GMOs.
When i was younger i thought that we lean money to make projects that enhance our society, nowadays its quite obvious that nearly every nation is in debt that they never be able to pay back.
I think its kind of perverted that most "first world countries" have to pay billions just for the interest, not paying a single dime back. While that is the case, our precious politicians argue about millions wheather they should be in education or social care or -insert random resort-.
Its not happening yet, but in theory you can be hold responsible for your nations dept.
Time to go to vote! (sorry for sarcasm)
ignorance is a pity
|
On June 27 2011 02:34 caradoc wrote:Show nested quote +
Remember that the only reason we are not being attacked right now is that no other armed force on the planet can hope to compete with our own.
Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 02:21 nemo14 wrote:On June 27 2011 02:05 caradoc wrote:On June 27 2011 02:03 nemo14 wrote:On June 27 2011 01:11 Shikyo wrote:
I'm not sure if this is offtopic or not, but these discussions always remind me of Queensryche's "Operation Mindcrime".
And as for on-topic, I really can't understand why the US can't cut from some relatively unimportant things(army) and instead use it to pay off their debt. It reminds me of some young adult who gets his first credit card, buys a lot of stuff with it because it feels like a good idea at first, and paying for it for the rest of his life.
Then again what do I even know? =P Remember that the only reason we are not being attacked right now is that no other armed force on the planet can hope to compete with our own. . EDIT: edited out. Its sometimes hard to stay cogent in the midst of so much of what I perceive to be ignorance. What is keeping us safe? Diplomacy? Economic heft? If I'm wrong, tell me why. I will make an analogy. There are two farmers that live next to each other in a small rural town. Farmer A and Farmer B. Farmer A spends half of his money on a gun and weapon collection. Sometimes he sends his sons to visit nearby townships, brandishing big and fancy weapons, to make sure that nobody grows the same variety of bean as he does-- too much special beans and the price goes down! Sometimes, when neighbouring farmers wouldn't cooperate, they would all of a sudden go on vacation, and a new farmer would take their place that did cooperate. This isn't important for the analogy though, sometimes coincidences happen. Anyways, farmer A talks to farmer B one day. this is their discussion Farmer A: Its a good thing I have all these weapons, otherwise you would steal all of my food! Farmer B: ??? Farmer A: What is keeping me safe then? is it my superior communication skills with the neighbouring townships' farmers? Is it my vast bean fields? If I'm wrong, tell me why. Now instead of farmers, lets pretend that these are countries, and instead of farmer A spending half of his money on a gun and weapon collection, farmer A is spending half of the budget on military spending, and instead of saying 'otherwise you would steal all of my food!', it is someone on TL saying 'the only reason we aren't being attacked right now'. and that is why I felt that it was hard to stay cogent in the midst of a lot of ignorance.
Good analogy. Good post.
On June 27 2011 02:48 Tor wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 02:21 nemo14 wrote:On June 27 2011 02:05 caradoc wrote:On June 27 2011 02:03 nemo14 wrote:On June 27 2011 01:11 Shikyo wrote:
I'm not sure if this is offtopic or not, but these discussions always remind me of Queensryche's "Operation Mindcrime".
And as for on-topic, I really can't understand why the US can't cut from some relatively unimportant things(army) and instead use it to pay off their debt. It reminds me of some young adult who gets his first credit card, buys a lot of stuff with it because it feels like a good idea at first, and paying for it for the rest of his life.
Then again what do I even know? =P Remember that the only reason we are not being attacked right now is that no other armed force on the planet can hope to compete with our own. . EDIT: edited out. Its sometimes hard to stay cogent in the midst of so much of what I perceive to be ignorance. What is keeping us safe? Diplomacy? Economic heft? If I'm wrong, tell me why. Nukes.
Meh, I'm not sure I buy the nuclear peace. I'd rather subscribe to the democratic peace.
|
On June 27 2011 02:34 caradoc wrote:Show nested quote +
Remember that the only reason we are not being attacked right now is that no other armed force on the planet can hope to compete with our own.
Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 02:21 nemo14 wrote:On June 27 2011 02:05 caradoc wrote:On June 27 2011 02:03 nemo14 wrote:On June 27 2011 01:11 Shikyo wrote:
I'm not sure if this is offtopic or not, but these discussions always remind me of Queensryche's "Operation Mindcrime".
And as for on-topic, I really can't understand why the US can't cut from some relatively unimportant things(army) and instead use it to pay off their debt. It reminds me of some young adult who gets his first credit card, buys a lot of stuff with it because it feels like a good idea at first, and paying for it for the rest of his life.
Then again what do I even know? =P Remember that the only reason we are not being attacked right now is that no other armed force on the planet can hope to compete with our own. . EDIT: edited out. Its sometimes hard to stay cogent in the midst of so much of what I perceive to be ignorance. What is keeping us safe? Diplomacy? Economic heft? If I'm wrong, tell me why. I will make an analogy. There are two farmers that live next to each other in a small rural town. Farmer A and Farmer B. Farmer A spends half of his money on a gun and weapon collection. Sometimes he sends his sons to visit nearby townships, brandishing big and fancy weapons, to make sure that nobody grows the same variety of bean as he does-- too much special beans and the price goes down! Sometimes, when neighbouring farmers wouldn't cooperate, they would all of a sudden go on vacation, and a new farmer would take their place that did cooperate. This isn't important for the analogy though, sometimes coincidences happen. Anyways, farmer A talks to farmer B one day. this is their discussion Farmer A: Its a good thing I have all these weapons, otherwise you would steal all of my food! Farmer B: ??? Farmer A: What is keeping me safe then? is it my superior communication skills with the neighbouring townships' farmers? Is it my vast bean fields? If I'm wrong, tell me why. Now instead of farmers, lets pretend that these are countries, and instead of farmer A spending half of his money on a gun and weapon collection, farmer A is spending half of the budget on military spending, and instead of saying 'otherwise you would steal all of my food!', it is someone on TL saying 'the only reason we aren't being attacked right now'. and that is why I felt that it was hard to stay cogent in the midst of a lot of ignorance.
I don't understand how your analogy works. It doesn't seem to apply very well because you mentioned nothing at all about the bandits who roll through every once in a while and demand a daughter from each farmer to sell into slavery.
On June 27 2011 03:02 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 02:03 nemo14 wrote:On June 27 2011 01:11 Shikyo wrote:
I'm not sure if this is offtopic or not, but these discussions always remind me of Queensryche's "Operation Mindcrime".
And as for on-topic, I really can't understand why the US can't cut from some relatively unimportant things(army) and instead use it to pay off their debt. It reminds me of some young adult who gets his first credit card, buys a lot of stuff with it because it feels like a good idea at first, and paying for it for the rest of his life.
Then again what do I even know? =P Cutting down on the military is an easy thing to talk about when we are sitting pretty with all of the advanced weapons and infrastructure that the past sixty years of heavy spending on the military have bought us. Remember that the only reason we are not being attacked right now is that no other armed force on the planet can hope to compete with our own. Squandering that advantage to get our finances in order would be a decision made without any foresight or common sense. I disagree... There is a big difference between having the means to defend yourself and having the means to invade and bomb multiple nations at once on the other side of the planet. We can very certainly use a cut in military spending, and this is coming from someone who was in the Army.
You raise a good point. I have always thought that the three (THREE?) wars we are involved in at the moment were ridiculous in that we only have a ghost of a reasonable excuse for participating in one of them. The United States has no business sending its men to die just because yet another group of people in a faraway land decided it was time to get with the killing once more.
On June 27 2011 02:48 Tor wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 02:21 nemo14 wrote:On June 27 2011 02:05 caradoc wrote:On June 27 2011 02:03 nemo14 wrote:On June 27 2011 01:11 Shikyo wrote:
I'm not sure if this is offtopic or not, but these discussions always remind me of Queensryche's "Operation Mindcrime".
And as for on-topic, I really can't understand why the US can't cut from some relatively unimportant things(army) and instead use it to pay off their debt. It reminds me of some young adult who gets his first credit card, buys a lot of stuff with it because it feels like a good idea at first, and paying for it for the rest of his life.
Then again what do I even know? =P Remember that the only reason we are not being attacked right now is that no other armed force on the planet can hope to compete with our own. . EDIT: edited out. Its sometimes hard to stay cogent in the midst of so much of what I perceive to be ignorance. What is keeping us safe? Diplomacy? Economic heft? If I'm wrong, tell me why. Nukes.
Those aren't civilians in those silos.
|
Hey nemo, we're not arguing against having an army. We're suggesting that the US is spending too much money on the military. You'd still have military personnel in the missile silos, and you'd still have an army, just a smaller one.
|
On June 27 2011 08:42 HellRoxYa wrote:
Hey nemo, we're not arguing against having an army. We're suggesting that the US is spending too much money on the military. You'd still have military personnel in the missile silos, and you'd still have an army, just a smaller one.
I know. Honest to God, I don't know why I even posted in the first place. The general forum is not kind to me. I say something, come off as too extreme, get flamed, ask why, and receive condescension. Every time, the same pattern.
|
On June 27 2011 08:50 nemo14 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 08:42 HellRoxYa wrote:
Hey nemo, we're not arguing against having an army. We're suggesting that the US is spending too much money on the military. You'd still have military personnel in the missile silos, and you'd still have an army, just a smaller one. I know. Honest to God, I don't know why I even posted in the first place. The general forum is not kind to me. I say something, come off as too extreme, get flamed, ask why, and receive condescension. Every time, the same pattern.
I laughed, but not at you-- you seemed to find the pattern funny, which it kinda is. My analogy wasn't meant to be condescending to you in specific, more in regards to a mentality. Its a little bit like when you make jokes that are ostensibly racist, because racism is so ridiculous/absurd-- you're making fun of racism, not being racism.
you're fine.
re: the bandits. Farmer A is scared of bandits too, but the other farmers think its kinda funny but also alarming and obsessive. The other farmers have never had bandit troubles. Farmer A thinks that its because he has so many weapons, which weirds out the rest of the farmers.
|
Off of the top of my head the only reason I want a Federal Government is for military purposes such as: defense from other nations/hostile groups(like Moslem jihadists) and border security. Oh and the Feds are good for interstates for traveling across the country. Beyond that I want the Federal Government out of my life. It is completely unfair when certain people have to pay 36%+ of their wages to Uncle Same to pay for someone elses grandmothers prescription drugs. That tax number basically means that out of a 5 day work week you are working 2 of those days for the government, that is bullcrap.
I can't stand entitlement programs. If I wanted to help people out I would give my money to a charity that would put it to good use and not waste it. Basically, the Federal government is requiring you to make "charity" donations to these entitlement programs if you earn over a certain amount a year(I'm talking about taxes).
Speaking of taxes, about 50% of Americans pay no Federal income tax. This isn't how the ballgame should be played, if certain people have to pay because they make X amount of money, those that makes Y and Z should also contribute. Personally, I am for a "scale percentage model"(I guess you could call it that?). Say those that make $0-$100,000 have to pay 5%, $100,001-$250,000 pay 10%, $250,001-$1,000,000 pay 15%, and $1,000,001+ pay 20%. And then if you decide to raise taxes you raise it for all based on the percentages. So if the top earners tax is increased by 25%, of the current tax value, then everyones tax was increased by 25% of the current value. This makes it fair and much simpler to follow, in my opinion.
|
On June 27 2011 09:01 caradoc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 08:50 nemo14 wrote:On June 27 2011 08:42 HellRoxYa wrote:
Hey nemo, we're not arguing against having an army. We're suggesting that the US is spending too much money on the military. You'd still have military personnel in the missile silos, and you'd still have an army, just a smaller one. I know. Honest to God, I don't know why I even posted in the first place. The general forum is not kind to me. I say something, come off as too extreme, get flamed, ask why, and receive condescension. Every time, the same pattern. I laughed, but not at you-- you seemed to find the pattern funny, which it kinda is. My analogy wasn't meant to be condescending to you in specific, more in regards to a mentality. Its a little bit like when you make jokes that are ostensibly racist, because racism is so ridiculous/absurd-- you're making fun of racism, not being racism. you're fine. re: the bandits. Farmer A is scared of bandits too, but the other farmers think its kinda funny but also alarming and obsessive. The other farmers have never had bandit troubles. Farmer A thinks that its because he has so many weapons, which weirds out the rest of the farmers.
Thanks for clearing that up. I was almost as upset as a black guy with a job. Also, I forgot to add the sixth and most hilarious part of the cycle; I get drawn back into the discussion.
The other farmers just don't remember their bandit troubles because they haven't seen anyone more dangerous to them than a few serial killers with clotheslines since 1945.
|
@Stress,
I agree with the top 2 paragraph. most of everything the gov does can be substituted by the private sector and by donation to charities.
tax rates dont work out as you claim but the system does have alot of free riders. but for most part the problem with US isn't taxation, its spending.
|
On June 27 2011 09:44 dybydx wrote:
@Stress,
I agree with the top 2 paragraph. most of everything the gov does can be substituted by the private sector and by donation to charities.
tax rates dont work out as you claim but the system does have alot of free riders. but for most part the problem with US isn't taxation, its spending.
the problem with this is that the prime directive of any corporation is profit, therefore donations, regardless of whether they are socially beneficial or not, will only be given if they increase profit. If not, the board of directors or the CEO gets replaced since shareholders won't tolerate a management that doesn't put profit first. If government is controlling the switch, at least they are selected by the public, and their mandate is to improve society directly. Yes-- government is currently heavily compromised by private interests, but it is still marginally better than handing the reins over entirely to corporations.
but @caradoc, I can hear some of you say, if the public respects socially beneficial endeavours, then the companies will donate to them in order to promote a positive brand image. This is true, but donations aren't given to maximize social benefit, but to maximize brand image. As a citizen, I would rather maximize social benefit. I dont give a crap about company X's brand image, so why structure a society in a way that maximizes brand value? If you think about it, its pretty deceitful-- maximum positive PR for an unrelated amount of social benefit? Nope. Next.
Starbuck's 'green' bottled water line comes to mind. WTF is that? they donate .5% of profits from selling bottled water to water treatment initiatives in africa? all the while undermining water supply in N.A, and engaging in ridiculously unsustainable practices along the way? (but great photo OPs)
Somehow some people think that if you let market forces take care of themselves, everything will be all rosy, but history proves time and time again that this is just not the case.
|
On June 27 2011 09:33 Stress wrote:
Speaking of taxes, about 50% of Americans pay no Federal income tax. This isn't how the ballgame should be played, if certain people have to pay because they make X amount of money, those that makes Y and Z should also contribute. Personally, I am for a "scale percentage model"(I guess you could call it that?). Say those that make $0-$100,000 have to pay 5%, $100,001-$250,000 pay 10%, $250,001-$1,000,000 pay 15%, and $1,000,001+ pay 20%. And then if you decide to raise taxes you raise it for all based on the percentages. So if the top earners tax is increased by 25%, of the current tax value, then everyones tax was increased by 25% of the current value. This makes it fair and much simpler to follow, in my opinion.
It can't work that way. Otherwise if you got a raise from $99000 to $100000 then you would lose money. Instead, income tax is broken down into tax brackets. You are taxed only for the income above that bracket. Let me show an example.
Suppose you have only three tax brackets:
$0-50000: 0%
50000-100000: 10%
100001+: 20%
Someone who makes $50k would pay $0.
Someone who makes $75k would pay $2.5k.
Someone who makes $100k would pay $5k.
Someone who makes $200k would pay $25k
Note that 20% of $200k would be $40k -- no one pays the top tax bracket on all of their income. So when you say,
It is completely unfair when certain people have to pay 36%+ of their wages to Uncle Same to pay for someone elses grandmothers prescription drugs.
You should realize that literally no one pays 36% on their wages because the top tax bracket is only 35%. Nor does anyone pay 35% (because of the way the brackets work).
Also be aware that the truly wealthy don't make their money from wages and aren't taxed as such. The top earners in the country pay closer to 5-10% of their earnings as taxes. In the United States, if you make $100,000/year from wages, you will pay more as a percentage of your income than someone who makes $10 million/year from other sources (capital gains, etc).
Moreover, while at face value it is true that 50% of Americans do not pay the federal income tax, it is not true that 50% of Americans do not pay any taxes. You can read more here: http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/americans-paying-no-taxes/
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
