Free trade

[WTJ]

The concept of embedded "hidden" taxes is simple and straightforward and I understand it completely. What I'm saying is that ANY time a small business owner faces reduced income because he/she must pay the bill to Uncle Sam, then he/she has been taxed. There is a reason that most companies use a measure called EBITDA "Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization to analyze/predict profitability. Profitability forecasts are estimates (by necessity since not all costs are fixed and you can't predict exact sales) whereas a year end tax bill is a precise amount based on actual year end profitability. When this number is decreased due to taxes, the business owner has been taxed. Businesses cannot accurately predict the financial impact of taxes before the tax bill comes due any more than they can accurately predict precise profitability. By making the argument that businesses don't pay taxes because all cost increases are passed to the consumer, you are ignoring the very concept of variable costs.

If you don't like that logic consider this. U.S. tax law views the LLC and the sole proprietorship as the same entity as the owner(s) and at the end of the year, the government says they've been taxed. Since the government consists of officials elected by the people (the true power holders) and their appointees, the people also say that these owners have been taxed. If the true and rightful power holders (the people) say that they've been taxed, who are we to argue. Sorry....I couldn't pass that up.



There's a reason they didn't set a fixed percentage or dollar amount. They understood that science/technology would develop and that costs of maintaining infrastructure and defense would change. Again, assuming that the government collected 1% of GDP (optimistic estimate since actual income or sales available for taxing is less than GDP since the economy is not 100% efficient), we'd be looking at revenues between $125 billion and $150 billion on the high side. I don't know about you but I like interstates. Over the years, I've also become quite fond of the FAA and the nation's aviation based infrastructure. The states and private industry do not pay for GPS satellites or ground based navigation aids that enable extensive efficient air travel nor should they. I believe that our nation needs a robust defense that is capable of taking the fight to the enemy when needed and when it is right to do so. Science and technology have rendered the concept of a "stay at home" military obsolete. These things are all constitutional expenses and $150 billion won't scratch the surface. 10% would be realistic as it would yield $1.5 trillion (on the high side...probably closer to 1.2-1.3 trillion). To put this in perspective, the United States takes in $2.1 trillion right now but SPENDS about $2.5-2.6 trillion. This tax rate with a balanced budget amendment (to include paying more than just interest on federal debt every year) would result in government expenditures will ensure that the government is effectively reduced to less than half its present size.

How is a percentage of a number variable? Because it is a 'progressive' (their word used in Newspeak context) tax and the business gross is variable? Again, this system penalizes productivity. While the costs may not be passed on in the current tax period, they would be in the next period projection, and will take increasingly longer to recover because of the 'progressiveness' of the taxes, adding more recovery costs, and so on.

The "People" are no longer the master.

The DoD does not need overly complex, expensive, and unreliable systems to defeat an enemy only a few generations from being archers and lancers. That was the argument during the Cold War that Ike warned us about. I deal with the FAA daily, and it is not what you may think it is. GPS was funded by DoD and had nothing to do with the FAA until recent development of WAAS, DGPS, and GPS-enabled precision approaches. Ground based NAVAIDs, as they currently exist, are going away due to the cost of replacing vacuum tube systems and maintenance. The Military-Industrial complex (Science and Technology) pushed the complexity of war fighting systems, but now, in great measure, Off-the-shelf systems are often more than competitive with the DoD procurement process at substantially lower costs, including adaptation. For reference see the COTS programs and the the newest COIN aircraft program. Compare the unit cost of each COIN platform to an F-22A or F-35 acquisition.

Providing war fighters with mission needs instead of supporting 'toys', ridding payment of 'entitlements' for votes, and stopping support of spurious third, second, and first-world governments, the UN, and NGOs would likely get us below 10%.

 

[soonerwings]

The DoD does not need overly complex, expensive, and unreliable systems to defeat an enemy only a few generations from being archers and lancers

What if it needs to defeat a nation sporting state of the art soviet hardware? Or worse...what if it needs to defeat an adversary sporting hardware that we sold them?

GPS was funded by DoD and had nothing to do with the FAA until recent development of WAAS, DGPS, and GPS-enabled precision approaches.

The point still remains that they are Federally funded. No one else has the means.

Ground based NAVAIDs, as they currently exist, are going away due to the cost of replacing vacuum tube systems and maintenance.

1. I'll believe it when I see it, my job (Navigator) has been "going away" for a decade as have the weapon systems that use them. If there's one thing I've learned about things going away or appearing, it's that you shouldn't believe it until it actually happens. I've been hearing that NAVAIDS are going away for several years now.Whether it's a lack of money or lack of consensus, our government moves at a glacial pace.

2. I'll be sad to see them go when they finally do. It's a tragic mistake (from a strategic if not fiscal perspective) to put all your eggs in one basket.

How is a percentage of a number variable? Because it is a 'progressive' (their word used in Newspeak context) tax and the business gross is variable? Again, this system penalizes productivity.

To clarify what I meant was that the founders didn't set a fixed limit (percentage or total dollar) as to how much money could be raised as a proportion of GDP. I agree, all income based taxation, be it progressive or flat rate, punishes economic activity. If it were up to me I'd implement the Fair Tax immediately.

The Military-Industrial complex (Science and Technology) pushed the complexity of war fighting systems, but now, in great measure, Off-the-shelf systems are often more than competitive with the DoD procurement process at substantially lower costs, including adaptation. For reference see the COTS programs and the the newest COIN aircraft program. Compare the unit cost of each COIN platform to an F-22A or F-35 acquisition.

Does this mean that the COIN system isn't complex or that the government procurement methods are flawed? I'm betting it's the latter. I HATE our procurement process.

The "People" are no longer the master.

I think they're still the master. The problem is that the master these days is asleep....or perhaps mentally diminished.

 

[WTJ]

The 2A does mention the individual, "... the right of the people to keep..."

The Founders were not the only ones wary of a professional military force. The citizenry did not hold the military in high regard until the last half of the 20th Century.


I recall a story, and I am unsure of the accuracy, that several drafts of the Second Amendment addressed reliance on militia instead of a "Standing Military", even to the point of prohibition. This, I am sure, was due to a recent experience with a 'Professional Military' force.

It was certainly the driving issue concerning 'quartering of troops' addressed elsewhere. It was not until WW II that the US Military and Naval forces were historically held in high regard by the citizenry. The US Army in 1930 was in 17th place. In 1935 an Army private made 18.00 a month. A CCC recruit was paid 30.00.

There is also the Bonus Marchers incident.

The same opinions prevailed in much of the world. I refer you to Kipling's poem "Tommy".

 

[WTJ]

What if it needs to defeat a nation sporting state of the art soviet hardware? Or worse...what if it needs to defeat an adversary sporting hardware that we sold them?



The point still remains that they are Federally funded. No one else has the means.



1. I'll believe it when I see it, my job (Navigator) has been "going away" for a decade as have the weapon systems that use them. If there's one thing I've learned about things going away or appearing, it's that you shouldn't believe it until it actually happens. I've been hearing that NAVAIDS are going away for several years now.Whether it's a lack of money or lack of consensus, our government moves at a glacial pace.

2. I'll be sad to see them go when they finally do. It's a tragic mistake (from a strategic if not fiscal perspective) to put all your eggs in one basket.



To clarify what I meant was that the founders didn't set a fixed limit (percentage or total dollar) as to how much money could be raised as a proportion of GDP. I agree, all income based taxation, be it progressive or flat rate, punishes economic activity. If it were up to me I'd implement the Fair Tax immediately.



Does this mean that the COIN system isn't complex or that the government procurement methods are flawed? I'm betting it's the latter. I HATE our procurement process.



I think they're still the master. The problem is that the master these days is asleep....or perhaps mentally diminished.

Did you use "state-of-the -art" and "Soviet" in the same sentence? Just kidding, sir. To address your comment concerning 'hardware that we sold them' (a veiled reference to Slick Willy?) take the GPS system. It was not that long ago (2000) that DoD removed the SA signal degradation feature from the system. How about a precision guidance system you can buy off the webnet? Ever heard of CONELRAD? Did DoD reactivate the SA when the war started? I assume from your job and location that you are assigned to a specific platform that does not have an anchor attached. Given the capabilities of the F-22, and the PRC aside, how long is that platform viable?

I am with you on the Fair Tax, or flat tax, or any system that isn't progressive. Taxes are necessary to fill the primary aims of the Constitutional mandates.

The COIN program, which is like on the third or forth try, as BG Aderholt's ideas recycle, regularly dies as it is not a keel, Fighter Mafia-sponsored mission. The Navy, of all groups, was in on it this time. It will die because it's not aerospacey enough and the procurement mission-creep system will, along with the fighter guys, kill it. I surprised that UAVs are still alive, so I could be wrong.

LMAO at the 'mentally diminished'. Gov schools, anyone?

 

[soonerwings]

Did you use "state-of-the -art" and "Soviet" in the same sentence? Just kidding, sir.

Come on now, they have some bright spots. Their SA-20 are just as capable (if not more so) than our own patriot system and their SA-18 is as good (again if not better) than our best Stinger variant. Their "super" flanker variants are as capable as any fighter we have fielded (minus the F-22). Given the fact that the F-22 fleet is grounded every other week for some problem or another, I'm giving the reliability edge to the ruskies. It's a good thing they can't afford to field large numbers.

It was not that long ago (2000) that DoD removed the SA signal degradation feature from the system

It CAN be turned back on if a credible enough threat arises. Personally, I've always wondered what threat would be countered by a degraded (100m). If by CONELRAD you're referring to the predecessor to EBS and EAS that was used in the 1950's, I'd hardly call it a precision navigation system. RDF systems are sketchy at best.

Given the capabilities of the F-22, and the PRC aside, how long is that platform viable?

Depends on your definition of viable. I've always maintained the platform is only truly viable against a large modern adversary and then only for a week or two until the fighter/bomber boys clear the skies and the grunts can clear enough ground to set up ground based stations. Until then, you don't want waste a dozen or so F22 crews' availabilities when the fat kid can provide 24 hour coverage with a deep look that allows them to go gill the bad guys. Also, there's little/no fuel advantage in using 3 fighters flying a rotating pattern to provide the same coverage. Against a pissant country there's very little need for my particular current platform, but should we go to war with someone real, it's valuable.

I am with you on the Fair Tax, or flat tax, or any system that isn't progressive. Taxes are necessary to fill the primary aims of the Constitutional mandates.

Agreed, and thanks to the freaking huge hole we're in, we need more taxes than usual to try to dig our way out. That being said, I think our current POTUS is WAY too high by proposing $1.5 trillion. You've got to be freaking kidding me. A flat tax would be better than what we have now, but I believe that our economy would operate more efficiently if we switched to a consumption based tax. As it stands right now, productivity is taxed.

The COIN program, which is like on the third or forth try, as BG Aderholt's ideas recycle, regularly dies as it is not a keel, Fighter Mafia-sponsored mission.

LMAO at the 'mentally diminished'. Gov schools, anyone?

They are partially to blame, but so are parents that don't raise their kids properly.

One of the better articles I read during good old SOS claimed that America needs two Air Forces (a strategic one designed for high tech adversaries and a more tactical one designed to handle insurgency type conflicts). It condemned the current practice of buying HUGE numbers of jack of all trades airplanes (think F16 or F35) and in my opinion was spot on.