Speakeasy forum

General discussion

A comparison question

by TONI H / December 29, 2012 7:08 PM PST

As of Jan 1, if no deal is made, the additional taxes on people and corporations is being called the 'biggest tax increase in history'.....totalling $500B.

That amount is spread out among millions of taxpayers and corporations.......

Now compare that with the same amount ($500B) that is supposed to be cut from the defense......a much smaller entity totally compared to millions of people and corporations.

If one is bad (the tax on the people), how can the second be a good thing when it comes to national security and contractors?

Post a reply
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: A comparison question
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: A comparison question
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Cutbacks in the military should be left to the military
by Roger NC / December 29, 2012 10:00 PM PST
In reply to: A comparison question

as far as where and when, even if they're given a goal to obtain by Congress, they should not be dictated where to cut and where to spend.

The biggest unnecessary cost to the military budget is military spending forced by Congress to benefit one or other of the congresscritters home district or industrial campaign contributor. Forcing them to buy something the military management doesn't really want or overruling the BRAC commission.

I'll grant in NC the state lobbies incessantly against any cutbacks when the BRAC studies are made. We make too much money off the bases here. It's the same in ever state and congressional district, everyone wants cuts elsewhere.

Collapse -
(NT) Amen
by Diana Forum moderator / December 30, 2012 10:36 PM PST
Collapse -
not exclusively
by James Denison / December 31, 2012 3:13 AM PST

but I would agree for the most part. Unfortunately there's more than just the military concerns involved in defense spending. Amount of taxes spent, areas that support military industry, locations of bases and effects on local economies, a big with me is proper soldier paychecks, transportation companies, and so many places that cutbacks in spending or loss of bases or hardware producton can hurt. An added concern is generals like big expensive equipment too often more than the needs of the troops. Maybe that's a big jaded opinion, but seems expensive new equipment which cost may not justify a limited need too often gets the money better spent elsewhere. Also consider all the money we spend and our troops spend in overseas markets where we have bases. Imagine if there were fewer of those bases, and those troops were spending their wages in our local economy instead.

It sounds great to say leave it to the military alone to make decisions, but without some balancing control on it, they'd screw things up just as bad in some other direction.

I agree that mission needs and soldier pay should be paramount considerations in the military budget.

Collapse -
Oversight sure
by Roger NC / December 31, 2012 3:21 AM PST
In reply to: not exclusively

but your comment about generals liking big expensive equipment, while true, I believe is doubled or tripled for congressmen with the manufacturers of such equipment in their home district. Also congressmen with huge campaign contributions from defense contractors even when the contractors aren't in their home districts.

Effects on local economies are always huge, but should that dictate national military policy?

I admit I'm like everyone else, I don't want any reduction in military spending in my state because it would hurt the entire state economy and budget.

Collapse -
(NT) Yes, I agree
by James Denison / December 31, 2012 3:37 AM PST
In reply to: Oversight sure
Collapse -
While I rather see a compromise
by Roger NC / December 29, 2012 10:43 PM PST
In reply to: A comparison question

let's not forget this "tax increase" is actually a lapse of a "temporary" tax reduction.

Collapse -
Actually it's not, Roger
by TONI H / December 29, 2012 11:31 PM PST

Granted, some of the tax 'credits' are from Bush, but a huge number of tax increases are in areas that hit capital gains, dividends, estates (remember how loudly Democrats cried over not getting any of Steinbrenner's estate when he died when it was still at zero?), in addition to all of the new Obamacare taxes that are coming.....and the extra fees and fines that are just now coming to light. Even if some the Bush tax credits are put back into place, the taxes on smaller incomed people and companies are still going to go up because of the rest of them that aren't being talked about. It's all kabuke money shuffling and lying to the people. The tax increases on only the Bush credits won't come anywhere near the $500B that is being talked about......that money all comes from the rest of the increases so it's giving a false sense of 'security' to the lower incomed people who will still get a hit no matter what happens in this 'deal'.

Collapse -
But it is not a enactment of "new taxes"
by Roger NC / December 30, 2012 12:00 AM PST

its a relapse to a past standard.

I'll grant that the tax code needs drastic reform.

Whatever the cost of Obama care actually turns out to be, that's another subject than the "tax increase" going into effect if they don't make another deal before Jan 1.

Estates taxes might could be reduced or eliminated if we reduce the exemptions, loopholes, and legal tax shelters that so many large fortunes use to avoid taxes. You can argue about capital gains etc all you want, you can't deny that oft times the larger the income the actual lower the effective rate after all the bookkeeping.

You want a real stupid lapse? if the new farm bill isn't past milk support prices will more than double because they go back to 1950's support bill standard. The cost of production was higher then so the support was higher. That's just one extreme example of stupidity in legal procedures. How an a law that has been replaced with a newer laws can still even be a law is a good question.

I often think all laws should have expiration dates, if not voted to be renewed they should expire quietly. There are old laws that people don't want to be in the news for proposing to remove but they would just overlook the expiration with as little fanfare as possible.

Collapse -
Milk up here is 5.99 for 4 litres/less than a gallon
by JP Bill / December 30, 2012 12:04 AM PST

Some restaurants were smuggling cheese in from the states.

Collapse -
(NT) 4 liters = 1.05669 gallon
by James Denison / December 31, 2012 2:15 AM PST
Collapse -
You're getting short changed in YOUR gallon.
by JP Bill / December 31, 2012 2:40 AM PST

4.54 litres in my gallon

Collapse -
Must have different refrigerator doors there?
by James Denison / December 31, 2012 3:16 AM PST

So a larger bottle of milk will fit?

Collapse -
a gallon doesn't fit my door either
by Roger NC / December 31, 2012 3:22 AM PST

a quart or 2 litre will.

Collapse -
RE: So a larger bottle of milk will fit?
by JP Bill / December 31, 2012 3:26 AM PST

I don't know about the different doors....I bought my fridge in 91 in Calais Maine from Sears, Very few if any appliances made in Canada, and I doubt they would have different doors.

No glass milk bottles up here....Plastic Jugs, Cartons or I buy Bags of milk...3 bags of 1.333 litres in a larger 4 litre bag...$5.99

I noticed that, when the news is talking about the increase in milk prices in the US, they show glass bottles being filled with milk.

Collapse -
We get plastic gallons jugs here
by James Denison / December 31, 2012 3:39 AM PST

Fits my bottom door shelf perfectly. I know older refrigerators used to favor the half gallon sizes like Roger describes. When we had our "Brady Bunch" refrigerator for years, the Gallons had to go on a shelf, but like Roger's we could put the half gallon side in the door.

Collapse -
Perhaps they don't make them to hold Gallon jugs in the door
by JP Bill / December 31, 2012 4:11 AM PST

Because people might put too many...and the extra weight would put stress on hinges and make the door SLAM when it closes.

Collapse -
double door
by James Denison / December 31, 2012 5:36 AM PST

so the doors are a bit smaller for each than a single door, so less "slamming". Good idea about the hinges though, so I went to look and they seem heavier duty than those 18-20 cf single door boxes.

Collapse -
I'd like a french door style fridge
by Roger NC / December 31, 2012 7:44 AM PST

but with my house, like most, built in cabinets built to fit around a standard size, it would mean a kitchen remodel.

Collapse -
by James Denison / December 31, 2012 7:59 AM PST

that's what we did, and put a new cabinet in where the old frig was.

Popular Forums
Computer Help 49,613 discussions
Computer Newbies 10,349 discussions
Laptops 19,436 discussions
Security 30,426 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 20,308 discussions
Windows 10 360 discussions
Phones 15,802 discussions
Windows 7 7,351 discussions
Networking & Wireless 14,641 discussions


Big screens for the big game

Still looking for the best TV deals ahead of Sunday's game? Here are our top three big screen picks.