Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sir Pseudonymous]

I think by "used" it means "under the table", more or less. Private transactions between individuals that don't get reported or taxed. But I could be wrong there.

[Leafsnail]

Wow, negative spendable income.  That's quite... interesting.

[Urist is dead tome]

I for one, think that they should bring back conscription, clear out most politicians, and get rid of political parties. But that's just me.

[Duuvian]

I for one, think that they should bring back conscription, clear out most politicians, and get rid of political parties. But that's just me.

I think a better solution in this case would be to remove deductions and the variety of other loopholes built into the income tax. It should have brackets and tax high income people at higher rates, but be not much more than "If you make x money, you pay y taxes."

The way it is now, you need to buy software or pay professional help to simply do your taxes so that millionaires can get away without paying theirs.

[Earthquake Damage]

I for one, think that they should bring back conscription, clear out most politicians, and get rid of political parties. But that's just me.

Yes, because we have such a shortage of troops fighting such an important war that we desperately need additional manpower.

Also, since we're in fantasy land (noting your second and third proposals), let's throw in world peace and rainbows and lollipops for everyone!

I think a better solution in this case would be to remove deductions and the variety of other loopholes built into the income tax. It should have brackets and tax high income people at higher rates, but be not much more than "If you make x money, you pay y taxes."

Relevant:  how you define "make money".  What about non-monetary assets?  Also, if you remove the tax incentive for charitable donations, how else do you plan to encourage them?

[Urist is dead tome]

Those beliefs are in there for a reason. 1. Since DADT is leaving the Marines may lose up to 40% of their force. And the army may lose up to 25%. We pretty much need the draft again. And since most politicians are completely incompetent and just want to get reelected I think cleaning out the house would be for the best. And I feel that political parties do nothing and just separate the nation.

[Aqizzar]

1. Since DADT is leaving the Marines may lose up to 40% of their force. And the army may lose up to 25%.

That's about the biggest steaming pile of bullshit I've ever heard.  You really think a third of the military is going to up and quit, even if that were possible, over it suddenly not being possible to fire each other by calling someone gay?

[Urist is dead tome]

When their enlistment is over. They don't reenlist. That simple. And those were the results of a Pentagon survey.

[Aqizzar]

When their enlistment is over. They don't reenlist. That simple. And those were the results of a Pentagon survey.

A) Saying you'd have a problem with DADT being repealed does not mean you're going to resign or refuse to reenlist.  B) I think anyone who would volunteer for the military but then threaten to take their ball and go home if they're not allowed to be institutionally homophobic, should watch out for the door when leaving.  C) Stop-Loss their asses, we've done it for worse reasons.

[Sowelu]

40% of Marines?  That's just not possible.  No, literally not possible.  See, that would be cowardice, and obviously no true Scotsman Marine would be a coward.

That said, I approve of a system like Israel's (X years of mandatory service, no saving throw).

I wonder what they spend per capita on military.  It would be very interesting to find out how much their mandatory-service program costs, compared to our volunteer military.

[Urist is dead tome]

DADT is NOT homophobia. It simply tells people to not openly discuss their homosexuality in a barracks full of mostly straight, testosterone filled, mainly conservative men. I'm against DADT but I still think that it was put in for reasons OTHER than homophobia.

[Aqizzar]

DADT is NOT homophobia. It simply tells people to not openly discuss their homosexuality in a barracks full of mostly straight, testosterone filled, mainly conservative men. I'm against DADT but I still think that it was put in for reasons OTHER than homophobia.

Then we'll just have to agree to disagree, because I think you disproved yourself right there by saying DADT is necessary for... some reason... because it's vital for... some reason... that a barracks always be indistinguishable from the locker room of a highschool football team.  Let alone that, by that same survey, a good 70% of enlisted men have no genuine problem with serving with openly gay fellow soldiers.  It's basically just some Marines (who are hyper-manly on a 300 level, if you catch my drift), and older officers who think it'll destroy morale or cohesion or whatever.  If you have an explanation besides homophobia, I'd love to hear it.

[Urist is dead tome]

DADT was only put in as a compromise. That's the reason.

[nenjin]

When their enlistment is over. They don't reenlist. That simple. And those were the results of a Pentagon survey.

Please post the survey where it directly asks the question: "Because of DADT, when your term of service is over, will you choose not to re-enlist."

I can think of about 1,000,000 reasons why Marines today don't want to re-enlist, and if DADT is one of those reasons, I'd guess it ranks at the very bottom. Or are you honestly saying that marines are cool with IEDs, kidnapping, year+ deployments.....but being with the gays, that's too much?

[Urist is dead tome]

Google "Pentagon survey" and the results are everywhere. And no, I didn't say that.