"Citizens who wish to make a general donation to the U.S. government may send contributions to a specific account called "Gifts to the United States." This account was established in 1843 to accept gifts, such as bequests, from individuals wishing to express their patriotism to the United States. Money deposited into this account is for general use by the federal government and can be available for budget needs. These contributions are considered an unconditional gift to the government. Financial gifts can be made by check or money order payable to the United States Treasury and mailed to the address below.
Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782"
Go for it.
I am not saying go after them but it is important for everyone to contribute as a citizen and as someone who uses infrastructure built and maintained on the tax payers dollar.
It's about paying in, even if it's a small percentage of your check.
The other thing that kills me is that people act like if Bill Gates would just pay an extra $100 in taxes, there would be 10 fewer starving babies. Or something.
In reality, Gates paying $100 more means the gov't would blow about $95 more on something completely stupid. Paying more taxes is like giving in to your heroin addict son's request for more money; he's already blowing through your money on stupid isht, why would you give him MORE? Does anyone really, truly believe the federal government is a good steward of their money, or do they just want rich people to pay more out of spite and envy?
There's a pretty big fallacy in the... "we need to shrink government" argument. Operating budgets of entire departments can be paid for in a few days of military deployment. I recently read an article supporting the expansion of free education. You could send every college bound high school student to college for ~50 billion. That's basically our military presence in the Middle East for about a week.
I'm not saying we need a reduction in forces, just that keeping them deployed is incredibly expensive. In my mind it's difficult to argue for a reduction in services provided by the government when most of what's being argued is a proverbial drop in the bucket. Until we unfrack ourselves regarding multiple front endless conflicts and spiraling health care costs, everything else is kind of moot.
As for a progressive tax system, I'm with Egilbe. The relative cost of living is so much higher as you approach the poverty line and practically insignificant as you approach Mitt Romney. As a moderately well paid, actually middle class individual who's finally made it past living month to month, I can understand why people who make less than me should pay a lower effective tax rate. I find it a little harder to understand why people who make 20x what I make sometimes also pay a lower effective rate.
Now, was Al Gore exrtemely stingy with his money (ie: gave almost none to charity) but still called for higher taxes or not?
Then, what is wrong with directing your wealth to the programs you want to help out others as opposed to giving it to the government to split many different ways with so much of it going to waste?
I think corp taxes should be low but higher personal taxes (especially for the rich).
As far as working for cash I have made the equivalent of 10-12 dollars an hour for a position that should be 8 because no taxes were taken.
The same thing can be partially applied to medical care. We have a ludicrously complicated system of reimbursement. You could streamline the payment system while still maintaining the same staffing of healthcare providers.
My argument is that before we talk about shrinking government or cutting funding to relatively small programs, we need to remember that we're hemorrhaging money in a few very specific places. Sorting them out will have a much bigger affect than bailing out auto, supporting venture clean energy firms or changing rates on student loans.
1) Reducing spending
2) Reducing government interference in what they consider to be private matters.
I don't think anyone cares how many millions of people are involved, unless it's tied to one of the two things I just mentioned.
Streamlining is going to cause less people. Unless again, you are argueing for keeping people on to just sit around and take space.The same thing can be partially applied to medical care. We have a ludicrously complicated system of reimbursement. You could streamline the payment system while still maintaining the same staffing of healthcare providers.
Your arguement does not make sense. When a business streamlines unfortunately it means less people. You are argueing that the government should keep people on to do basically nothing IMO.My argument is that before we talk about shrinking government or cutting funding to relatively small programs, we need to remember that we're hemorrhaging money in a few very specific places. Sorting them out will have a much bigger affect than bailing out auto, supporting venture clean energy firms or changing rates on student loans.
But please, I'm willing to listen to where I have your arguement wrong.
FDR was a great war president. Not so much a great peacetime president.
But, that aside.........if we were going to go into debt we would have been better off building bridges than giving people money to buy cars.
Dude, I have a 401k, just like you. Not a pension. Pensions were phased out about 10 years ago. And FYI, I'd make quite a bit more in the private sector than in gov... i just happen to love the mission of my agency and enjoy my work, so I've chosen to stay here.
As for unionization, well - I don't support the union. But I will say this... like every corporation there is the potential for abuse of the workforce in the government too. Employees (public and private) should be able to expect certain levels of fairness in treatment. The unions are there because the workforce has been abused in the past. Do they hinder a crap ton of work though? You betcha.
The rest of your post was worth a serious chuckle though.
"We'll not risk another frontal assault... that rabbit's DYNAMITE!"
The working poor are the easiest to track, all their income and money can be easily traced to their bank accts and their employers. Making it extremely easy to tax, levy new taxes, and audits. How many avg Joe can afford a tax attorney to represent them?
There's no easy solution to the pay imbalances. Simply upping the tax rates of the rich would actually hurt the economy. When the rich cuts back, jobs will be lost and economy will slow down. The rich can also easily manipulate the economy by speculating on commodities such as energy.
Military spending for FY 2012 is only 19% of the budget, while entitlement spending is 62%.
Here's a hint: Zero. Plus, TSP's operating funds are partially funded by non vested separations - a move that would put a private fund operator behind bars.
.Not a pension. Pensions were phased out about 10 years ago
Again, No - new pensions (100% defined benefit) were dumped, but current employees & pensioners will still get theirs - for many years to come - and in some cases, for longer than they were employed. Trust me, I know - I play golf w/more than a few.
[QUOTE]And FYI, I'd make quite a bit more in the private sector than in gov../QUOTE]
Not on this planet - Fed. Employees have decent security & pay hikes - something most of us in the private sector haven't had for a half decade or so.
Swell. Seriously - glad you like the job - but don't pretend it's some hair shirt. You've got it good, especially compared to the private sector over the past 1/2 decade. Plus, there's what, 180,000 new Federal employees in 3 years? Sounds rough....I just happen to love the mission of my agency and enjoy my work, so I've chosen to stay here.
so, a more realistice argument is that military spending is 19% and entitlement spending (you know, congressmen and the like) is also 19%.