Well that's not so different, is it? Won't the richest Americans pay 39% now?

Also, do you pay state and local taxes in Australia? Hard to make apple to apple comparisons. I don't know how sales tax vs VAT compares, etc.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Richest Americans will still be taxed lower than the highest marginal rate in Australia of 45%. Of course, we get services.

replying to the last poster: IT looks like you and-or your org is more on the GW-CC denier side or , as I read in an article, think that humans s/ engage in activities that wd ADAPT to the (presumed) inevitable global warming. That it wd be folly to try to affect such inevitable processes.

This thinking is lead by the first part - the lack of belief that GW CC is occurring primarily due to man's emitting carbon into the atmosphere that last few hundred years. If this is in doubt, then indeed the best thing to do is to try to adapt, However, if this is true, then we should try to change our carbon emitting ways. But the Koch Brothers ,Exxon, the richest company on the planet, and billions of dollars have another say about this - they will not go gently into the night, even if the night is blistering hot and sweaty. Why would entities such as these just willingly change everything they do, all the success and power they have ?


the following article says that the International Climate Science Coalition recvs funding from the conservative HEartland Institute which is for the status quo.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/web-leak-shows-trail-of-climate-sceptic-funding-20120217-1tegk.html

Further, the following page says that the Coalition just mentioned is virtual only and does not occupy a place.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=147

>> ^artician:

By the gods, someone finally broke through the bullshit. I am so thankful. I am sick of people arguing with me that the problem with healthcare being too expensive is that "it just is".


You should tell them that in the United States it is way more expensive than it needs to be and has some of the worst outcomes.

When you look at how we're rated for infant mortality and even mothers living after birth, there are 3rd world countries ahead of us. It's a joke, we're the richest country on the planet and we can't provide good healthcare for our people. It is also needlessly expensive, the reason it is expensive is because of it's heavy amount of bureaucracy and paperwork. Also we can't even negotiate drug prices, drugs in Canada are WAY cheaper simply because they can negotiate prices.

So no it's not "cause it just is" it's way too expensive in America, it could be done much more efficiently but it isn't. People don't do research, they listen to the news...which is full of idiots.

>> ^Trancecoach:

Too bad for him (and you) that "flying the plane" involves diplomacy and charisma.>> ^quantumushroom:
I don't care if the pilot of the 747 I'm on isn't the World's Most Interesting Man/Media Creation, I only care that he's sober and can fly the damned thing.
ROMNEY LANDSLIDE 2012.



And, incidentally, caring about the interests of more than just the richest 1% of the county.

It's a scary and stupendously stupid mindset. There is the rich, greedy shit way of looking at it:

* I can get impoverished countries to work for me for pittance, making me even more stinking rich. I don't give a fuck if that means I'm paying those workers essentially slave labour costs. They'll do it for that, so I'll use them.

VS the sensible, rational, compassionate way of looking at things:

* You know, I can STILL make obscenely huge profits WHILE paying people a good wage and giving them good working conditions here in Australia. My companies will STILL be worth BILLIONS I will still become more disgustingly wealthy, BUT I will also be providing good lives for thousands of people.


That a person can have zero need for money. ABSOLUTELY ZERO need for any more money, be the RICHEST IN THE WORLD and yet not think "I'm in a position I can mike life better for thousands of people, I could probably afford to give these people raises". But instead think "Why are these fuckers not working harder to make me richer for less money, fuck them all"

Absolutely, utterly, disgusting piece of rubbish she is.

Although that was made very evident during her battles with her children to stop them getting any of her money, she's bred vile creatures, and doesn't want them to get any of 'her' money.

"Message received loud and clear. Now what answer do you want to hear?"

Did this guy go from an alcoholic to a tea-totaller based upon what would make him the most popular or was it for a more authentic reason like one we would look for in the leader of the richest and most powerful nation in the world?

Oh, and feel free to ignore all the other points in the video. Best stick to the most basic and oversimplified premise you can find.

>> ^lantern53:

I knew a guy who was an alcoholic. Now's he a teetotaler. What a flipflopper!
Anyway, 'economic stimulus' for one, is not the same as Obama's Economic Stimulus Plan.
We definitely need stimulus, but all we got was debt, $50,000 for every man, woman and child in the US.
Romney ain't the anointed one, like Obama, but I think he's gotten the message from people that realize Obama's plan has failed.

I thought you were joking about her wealth. I didn't know her father was a billionaire. Jerry made more money for himself. She came into it by way of birth. >> ^deathcow:

>> ^zombieater:
Julia Louis Dryfus is adorable!

And the richest of them all !

>> ^zombieater:

Julia Louis Dryfus is adorable!


And the richest of them all !

On that same note, why are these workers staying with these employers.
After the first check is missed, they should be "Out the door"

I've been there where my employer's check bounced. when I got a replacement check. the bank phoned it in before cashing it it, only to find out there were insufficient funds to cover that check as well. The company had to have their accountant come and pay me out of their petty cash.

When I handed them my notice right after that (because I couldn't continue to work for an unstable company) I was taken into the office and brow beaten. I was told that dedication was part of the job and by not being part of the solution for the company, I was part of the problem. Then they invited me back and told me they would excuse my indiscretion of deciding to quit if I put in extra hours to help turn the company around. In fact, I was unwilling to quite my other job which was a guaranteed full time position and was told, my lack of dedication was an issue. This from a company who couldn't afford to pay their employees. (I wasn't the only one). On top of that. The guy running the company on investors money was living in the richest hotel penthouse in town and was always away on guiding hunting trips with his wife, the secretary of the company. Spending the investor's money on himself, instead of the business overhead. (It was an internet design company and we weren't even allowed to have internet access at our desks and wereexpected to bring in or own computer equipment from home.)

Ya right, needless to say, I was out the door.

I have to admit...I was kinda against just funding NASA for innovations and this idea that we should dream big. I felt that we have real problems that we need to fix and we need to address those first.

After that speech though I feel more behind Neil deGrasse Tyson. He cited some examples not as many as I would like but he pointed out that we can help ourselves by inspiring new generations of clever people to become serious scientists. Now I do think we should be redirecting military funds for education and programs for the betterment of society. Listening to Neil though I realize thinking longer term is also what is needed.

Invest in science, and education and NASA. Pull us out of our dive, stop giving the richest all our money so they can just horde it and turn us into a new form of a 3rd world nation.

Unemployment has went down some, but they don't qualify that. Some people haven't found work in years, and they may not be counted. Some people may be employed, but at half their previous wage. Etc. The measurement for this may even be the same, but on the whole while the numbers are going down it doesn't appear that the people who've been affected by the initial crash are actually recovered from it. Whether due to unemployment, partial employment, or that they were so damaged by the crash that they are going to take a lot longer to recover to some kind of sustainable living, or at least behave like they expect the living to be sustainable.


On the reverse side of the coin, the rich were telling everyone how they need low tax rates to create jobs. They kept sticking to that message and still are. Evidence of rather high unemployment and people getting by with less than they used to earn shows that while taxes are low, they are not creating jobs. And here we have evidence that they are actually earning substantial amounts more than the rest during the recovery. No matter what the reason for this is, the plan is not working if the richest people in the country get 93% of the recovery...that least 7% for the rest of the 99%.....that's RECOVERY from a crash, not in addition to reaching the old levels and then more on top..it's not even back to where it was and they are getting 93% of it.


The bailout may factor into their gains, but that just shows that the government should have done something different. Showing a gain in the market that virtually no one in the market actually gets is not helping the country. The rich can not possibly circulate as much money as regularly as a bunch of normal people living pay check to pay check. Yet the programs that showed the most growth, which was coincidentally unemployment was hated by near everyone. It generated 1.6 dollars for every dollar spent into it. I haven't seen numbers on showing what the bail out generated for each dollar spent into it, I would assume it was all gobbled up and squirreled away before anyone could record it.

Arguably the nation had the best results following WW2, everyone was generally earning more. The rich had to invest back into the company or face losing most of their earnings to taxes, meaning employees of worth earned more in line with the CEOs and such. Tax rates were high, but people could also live on one salary and raise 2-3 kids often more quite easily. We are steadily moving away from that mindset and moving into the mindset of "the people with the money know what to do" but they leave off the ".......to earn themselves more money no matter the cost."

To Protect [Their own asses] and Serve [Their Richest Masters]

>> ^longde:

Not all colleges in California are as expensive and exclusive as Florida. You have many community colleges or 2nd/3rd tier regional universities. So, while it is not free, college is accessible for all.
Choose a prudent field of study, and your investment will go far.>> ^Yogi:
>> ^Peroxide:
Not everyone should go to college.
But NO ONE should not be able to go because it's too expensive.

http://videosift.com/video/Noam-Chomsky-Education-For-Whom-and-For-What


Here Chomsky talks about how going to a City college in Mexico is free. In California, one of the richest places in the world it totally isn't.



No I'm sorry this just isn't true. I am well versed on this because I just had to move from Southern California to Washington just to get the classes I need to finish my degree. I was stuck for two years not able to get classes cause they cut them in half. There's not enough classes because all they're looking at now is the bottom line.

So college isn't accessible to ALL, and in the wealthiest nation on earth it should be FREE...it isn't, not even close.

EDITED for spelling cause I haven't finished college

Not all colleges in California are as expensive and exclusive as Florida. You have many community colleges or 2nd/3rd tier regional universities. So, while it is not free, college is accessible for all.

Choose a prudent field of study, and your investment will go far.>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Peroxide:
Not everyone should go to college.
But NO ONE should not be able to go because it's too expensive.

http://videosift.com/video/Noam-Chomsky-Education-For-Whom-and-For-What

Here Chomsky talks about how going to a City college in Mexico is free. In California, one of the richest places in the world it totally isn't.