randomness

[Da6onet]

I got another understudy offer at Folger Shakespeare Library. It's not much cash ($250), but I'd get enough EMC points so join the Actors' Equity Association (the actors' union).

Am I ready to join, though? I've been in a lot of shows, but in terms of high profile Equity theatres, I've mainly done understudy work (this role will mark my EIGHT understudy gig). This also brings up issues of if I should move to NYC or try to be Equity in DC.

Oh well. If you aren't moving forward, you're moving backwards!

If you think DC is pricey, double to triple the price on everything and you'll be ready for NY.

Normally you get paid double though, so it balances out, but I'm not sure that holds true for actors.

[Lits]

I have a lot of friends who keep out of SAG and Equity for the exact reason that they won't be able to lower seated shows, but as you said, not moving forward means you're moving backward. It just may take a bit to get you settled into that next tier.

That being said, there's always 99 Equity Waiver shows. Do they have those in DC? The pay is usually crap, but they keep you working. I was doing ONLY EW shows when I was SMing in LA. Sometimes I'd be paid $320/wk and sometimes I'd be paid a $100 stipend for a three month run. It's a gamble.

[Fuse]

Saw this coming a year ago.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/05/news/economy/downgrade_rumors/index.htm?iid=Lead

"The downgrade reflects our opinion that the ... plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics." ... “our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2001"

They originally said we would have had to cut 4 trillion to keep the rating - our congress couldn't do it. So this is no surprise to me.

An aside to a note earlier, if the GOP had gotten what true fiscal conservatives wanted over the last 2 years, this could have been saved. Unfortunately, even the GOP has their heads in their asses - just not as far as the left.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and this gem is a little bit of a warning for those who think we shouldn't be cutting programs...
"– The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. We could lower the long-term rating to ‘AA’ within the next two years if we see that less reduction in spending than agreed to, higher interest rates, or new fiscal pressures during the period result in a higher general government debt trajectory than we currently assume in our base case."

[likwidtek]

[Anamodiel]

I'm going to quote this:

Look: the United States has been running up big debts for the past couple of years because we’re trying to climb out of an epic recession. That’s perfectly justifiable. And our focus on reining in our long-term debt is, literally, less than a year old. Pretending that our political system is fundamentally broken because we haven’t solved our long-term problems in a few months is staggeringly panicky and ahistorical, and S&P’s obsession with hitting a $4 trillion target for medium-term deficit reduction is economically vacuous. If we still can’t get our act together in four or five years, then fine. We deserve a downgrade. But a few months? That’s crazy. It’s the kind of hair-trigger reaction that belongs on cable shoutfests, not in the boardroom of a sober, 150-year-old financial firm.

[Subb]

Sap in your chest hair is very uncomfortable.

[Subb]

Sorry for double post but: I hope your Seals rest in peace and that the others go out there to give the olde Taliban a bad fucking day.

[NoCry]

Here here.

[Lithium]

Saw this coming a year ago.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/05/news/economy/downgrade_rumors/index.htm?iid=Lead

This is unfortunate and was avoidable if it weren't for the 'status quo'.

I hear this argument, "the debt ceiling has been raised for the last 15 years with no problems--but now it's a problem, WHY?" Easy answer, because the credit agencies have been warning about this for a long time. This time they made us an ultimatum; $4 trillion or lose it. It's not something to be proud of when GDP can be matched dollar for dollar with Debt with no credible future fiscal plan enacted.

Again, it's like beating a dead horse to get these facts out and recognized. Congress passed a balanced budget, a balanced budget amendment, and at least 2 debt ceiling plans with $4+ trillion in cuts. They are the only part of government serious about fiscal reform and recovery. But yet they are vilified for following their campaign promises of which their constituents voted for.

Reagan walked into his Presidency in a recession and went into the mid-terms as a full recovery. Face it, his policies worked; they created an atmosphere that enabled small business and entrepreneurs to start the next boom.

The current recovery is far into the longest recovery ever since WWII with no end in sight and all the stats pointing toward slowing down. Face it, these policies aren't working; they are stagnating small business, large business is stashing cash and shifting it overseas.

In a free market society boom and bust are cycles. Some on both sides are simply trying to create a free market with no boom or bust (totalitarian regulation)... a forever stagnate market that will continue to ever slowly decline into obsolescence. Policy has to adapt in times of boom and in times of bust without ever getting too big.

2012 I think will prove as a crossroads for America. One road leads to national and personal economic responsibility and the other is the continued emphasis that social responsibilities are more important than any economic responsibly.

[Fuse]

I would say we've had a few of those crossroads, and we continue to vote in politicians on all sides that aren't serious about not spending what we don't have. I have hope that next year will be different, but don't expect it.

At least I understand the economic cycle, and am currently well employed, even if we are struggling - this gives me done comfort knowing that when it bounces back I can prepare now to be stronger than most. Get your fiscal house in order-it won't be better for at least three years I suspect, and that's if big changes start next year.

[Tbone]

Indeed, it's time for a balanced approach with both spending cuts and tax revenue. Anything else is just a half-assed approach.

[Fuse]

I would replace your "tax revenue" with "tax reform". With over %50 of people not paying any taxes at all, and a completely incorrect view of the phrase "fair share" being tossed around in order to tax the rich more, I don't see this government getting it done - too many people to piss off, or look like your favoring (which isn't that most of politics anyways?). "Tax revenue" should only be considered if you mean by taxing that %50. I still don't see how it's "fair" that I pay a lower amount than rich folks, or that I pay more than those less fortunate than I. Do politicians understand what a percentage means? What definition of "fair" are they using?

Two ways to make it fair:
Consumption tax excluding food items, and adjustment of the corporate tax rate to compensate the jump in wholesale costs initially is the way to go. How much more fair can you get? A struggling gas station clerk pays the same exact tax if he decides to buy the same exact items that bill gates buys. Fair. It guarantees that no one eludes paying their taxes - even the rich, and even the politicians who are some of the worst offenders. Food items should not be part of it, but the government should also get out of subsidies. Not taxing food products would have a few effects - 1, it would eliminate the need for subsidies - that's basically what not taxing it would do. 2, it would encourage companies to invest and develop more on America food resources. 3, there would be no government roadblock to the poorest of us to get sustenance.
Another great thing about the consumption tax is that you take the taxing body (IRS) out of the people's pockets for the most part. It is no longer the person that is the focus of the tax, it's an item. This increases personal freedoms, decreases government oversight, and all at the same time increasing revenue.

Flat tax.
Tax everyone the same percentage across the board. No exceptions. No welfare excuses, and no loopholes for the rich. If you make $20,000 a year and you're taxed 10%, feel comforted knowing that the guy making $500,000 is getting the same rate. There's so many issues with this (even logistically) that I won't go into it as much as the consumption tax, but briefly it is much more likely to be abused and manipulated. This still involves the individual as the focus of the tax and relies on each individual to handle the process. This is more fair than what we have now though.

[Mharz]

Flat tax.
Tax everyone the same percentage across the board. No exceptions. No welfare excuses, and no loopholes for the rich. If you make $20,000 a year and you're taxed 10%, feel comforted knowing that the guy making $500,000 is getting the same rate. There's so many issues with this (even logistically) that I won't go into it as much as the consumption tax, but briefly it is much more likely to be abused and manipulated. This still involves the individual as the focus of the tax and relies on each individual to handle the process. This is more fair than what we have now though.

This has been a dream of mine for a long time.  Consider how much additional savings our country would realize if we did this.  

1.  IRS staffing reduction of >90%.  I joke about this as being 2 guys.  The guy that runs the database and the guy that signs the report for Treasury.

2.  Tax code legislation.  All that time our elected officials waste debating, rewriting and administrating the laws for an overly complex and oppressive tax code can be repurposed to something more useful.

There are other savings as well if you just think about it.  Flat, fair and simple.

Sure you would have financial impacts.  Tax focused accountants would have to learn to do something useful and give up on finding loopholes and such.  Tax lawyers would have to learn to be parasitic in some other sector.  My eyes are welling up with tears here.. let me pause to wipe my tears.

The problem with the flat tax is it takes away Washington's ability to socially engineer via financial incentives ie.. People should own houses so lets give tax breaks for people who buy homes. etc.  Certain groups believe this is not only a preferential way to run a government but that it's irresponsible to not do this.

Naturally, this group doesn't include me.

[Da6onet]

A few points:

1. Reaganomics, or Supply-Side Economics, actually didn't work as intended. It is true that real GDP and tax revenues did go up after top marginal income tax rates on earned income were cut from 50 to 28 percent by the 90s. However, the Reagan tax cuts, coming at a time of severe recession, helped boost aggregate demand and return real GDP to its "full-employment" output and normal growth path. As the economy expanded, so did tax revenues despite the lower tax rates. The rise in tax revenues caused by economic growth swamped the declines in revenues from lower tax rates. In essence, the Laffer curve shifted, increasing net tax revenues. But the tax-rate cuts did not produce extraordinary shifts of the long-run aggregate supply curve. Actually, saving fell as a percentage of personal income during that period, productivity growth was sluggish and real GDP growth was not extraordinarily strong. Today most economists agree the US economy is operating at a point in the lower half of the Laffer curve - meaning personal tax-rate increases raise tax revenue and personal tax-rate decreases reduce tax revenues. However, one thing we did learn from supply-side economics in practice, other things equal, cuts in tax rates reduce tax revenues in percentage terms by less than the tax-rate reductions and tax-rate increases do not raise tax revenues by as much in percentage terms as the tax-rate increases. Changes in marginal tax rates do alter taxpayer behavior and thus affect consumption in aggregate demand. Although these effects seem to be relatively modest, they need to be considered in designing tax policy.



2. A flat tax would actually increase the divide between the richest and poorest in the country even more than our current tax system does.

This is where the history course would come in handy. Go back and study the populist movement of the 1890s.

Say that in order live, to pay bills, buy food and shelter costs $1200.

Now lets take three different incomes, and charge a 20% flat tax.
A. 2,000
B. 20,000
C. 200,000

A pays $400 in taxes and now has $400 in Disposable Income (DI)
B pays $4,000 in taxes and has $14,800 DI
C pays $40,000 in taxes and has $158,800 DI
Total tax revenue is $44,400

Lets also throw in that you have 100 people in your country, 80% are group A, 18% group B, and 2% group C. This means there is 32000+266400+317600 = $616,000 DI to spend (or save).

Fair right?

Lets look at it another way. The burden to foot the bills for the US government by this tax system now has the greatest effect on the lowest income earner. You say, "but the government can help out those low income earners with social programs, paid for by everyone including themselves." This advocates that the government knows how to spend money better than private citizens (arguable), and that if low income earners paid less in taxes, you wouldn't need as much funding in social programs to begin with.

What if you graduate the income tax but the government wants to keep the tax revenue the same? 0-10000 taxed at 10%, 10001-20000 taxed at 20%, 20001 and higher taxed at whatever it takes to get to 44,400.

A pays $200 in taxes and has $600 DI 50% increase
B pays $2200 in taxes and has $16,600 DI 12% increase
We need $42,000 more in taxes to reach our revenue goal.
So, that means C pays $42,000 in taxes, meaning the marginal rate for 20001+ needs to be 22%
C pays $42,000 in taxes and has $156,800 DI a 1.3% decrease

When compared to the flat tax system, taxes still greatly affect the low income earner and the paltry amount of money they earn, however now the effect is lessened, increasing their DI 50% as well as the middle income earner's DI by 12%. The top income earner loses a very small percentage of disposable income and the government gets what it needs to run everything.

As a result of having more cash on hand, the lowest income earner doesn't need as much government assistance, thus actually increasing money the government has to spend on other things, such as national defense.

As well, lets take that 100 person population and see how much money is available to spend (or save). 48000+298800+313600 = $660,400, an increase of more than 7%



3. In simplest terms, the reason we are where we are now is because we borrow in fat times when we should have been saving (you could argue S&P and others only complain about it during recessions, so their credibility is shot). I expect that kind of fiscal irresponsibility from Democrats, but Republicans should know better. There is a reason the Tea Party movement has risen to such prominence. However, just as all politicians are, even Tea Party'ers are short-sided and only trying to do things that will get them elected. Sadly, I don't ever see this mindset changing in my lifetime.

[Lithium]

Happy Belated-Birthday Mr. President!

Dow: -634.76 (-5.55%)
Nasdaq: -174.72 (-6.90%)
S&P 500: -79.92 (-6.66%)

...I couldn't resist