Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
When your business plan is based on a cartoon film...
#1
Posted 03 June 2012 - 10:03 AM
This is just sad. I honestly feel bad for my countrymen if this is what their plan for post-independence is based on. It's as if the fool thinks we're not in the middle of an appalling recession. Inward investment? From where? Why?
#2
Posted 03 June 2012 - 10:08 AM
#3
Posted 03 June 2012 - 10:32 AM
You're Scottish?http://www.bbc.co.uk...siness-18308335
This is just sad. I honestly feel bad for my countrymen if this is what their plan for post-independence is based on. It's as if the fool thinks we're not in the middle of an appalling recession. Inward investment? From where? Why?
#4
Posted 05 June 2012 - 01:38 AM
#5
Posted 10 June 2012 - 12:24 PM
#6
Posted 10 June 2012 - 12:59 PM
Edited by Morgoth, 10 June 2012 - 12:59 PM.
#7
Posted 10 June 2012 - 04:22 PM
#8
Posted 10 June 2012 - 05:47 PM
#9
Posted 10 June 2012 - 06:22 PM
So Scots are British but not English?Scotland is currently part of Great Britain, or what else do you mean?
So why did Wals call them countrymen? I'm very confused.
#10
Posted 10 June 2012 - 06:27 PM
Edit: Actually I have to correct myself, Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom but not part of Britain I believe.
Edited by Wrath of Dagon, 10 June 2012 - 06:29 PM.
#11
Posted 10 June 2012 - 06:56 PM
Which would leave "real America" in the same situation Scotland would find itself: out of money. If you look at the balance of payments between each state's citizens and the federal government in aggregate, the net of federal taxes, spending, and transfers is, in effect, a whole lot of money being taken from the Northeast and the West Coast and given to the states in between.I wish some of our more liberal states would declare independence.
#12
Posted 11 June 2012 - 04:32 PM
#13
Posted 11 June 2012 - 05:03 PM
On the other hand the change on the House of Representative and Congress could work out to our favor. Although that is hoping for much.Which would leave "real America" in the same situation Scotland would find itself: out of money. If you look at the balance of payments between each state's citizens and the federal government in aggregate, the net of federal taxes, spending, and transfers is, in effect, a whole lot of money being taken from the Northeast and the West Coast and given to the states in between.
I wish some of our more liberal states would declare independence.
#14
Posted 13 June 2012 - 01:52 PM
It's less a function of purely redistribution than it is of that higher incomes pay more tax, and per capita incomes are generally higher in the "bluer" states. Also, locations of major military installations make a big difference in terms of where money gets spent.I knew someone would bring that up eventually. I think we'd be fine without the redistributionist subsidies, they always do more harm than good anyway. The extra economic growth we'd get from sane economic policies would more than make up for that. Why is it the job of the Federal government to redistribute income between states?
As for the "extra economic growth" thing, well, good luck with that. Sounds like wishcasting to me.
#15
Posted 13 June 2012 - 04:49 PM
On the other hand the change on the House of Representative and Congress could work out to our favor. Although that is hoping for much.
Which would leave "real America" in the same situation Scotland would find itself: out of money. If you look at the balance of payments between each state's citizens and the federal government in aggregate, the net of federal taxes, spending, and transfers is, in effect, a whole lot of money being taken from the Northeast and the West Coast and given to the states in between.
I wish some of our more liberal states would declare independence.
Change is coming in November I suspect. And I daresay you will not like it when it does.
#16
Posted 13 June 2012 - 04:52 PM
you forgot Cornwall...England is part of Great Britain, so are Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. None of the latter are English, but all are British. Britain and England are not the same thing. Scots are Wals' countrymen because Great Britain is the country they belong to.
Edit: Actually I have to correct myself, Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom but not part of Britain I believe.
#17
Posted 13 June 2012 - 05:14 PM
Those taxes are for redistribution though, miltiary spending aside. I'm not gowing to retread the economic growth argument, but that would be one way to find out, if historical evidence isn't enough.It's less a function of purely redistribution than it is of that higher incomes pay more tax, and per capita incomes are generally higher in the "bluer" states. Also, locations of major military installations make a big difference in terms of where money gets spent.
I knew someone would bring that up eventually. I think we'd be fine without the redistributionist subsidies, they always do more harm than good anyway. The extra economic growth we'd get from sane economic policies would more than make up for that. Why is it the job of the Federal government to redistribute income between states?
As for the "extra economic growth" thing, well, good luck with that. Sounds like wishcasting to me.
#18
Posted 13 June 2012 - 06:17 PM
Those taxes are for redistribution though, miltiary spending aside. I'm not gowing to retread the economic growth argument, but that would be one way to find out, if historical evidence isn't enough.
It's less a function of purely redistribution than it is of that higher incomes pay more tax, and per capita incomes are generally higher in the "bluer" states. Also, locations of major military installations make a big difference in terms of where money gets spent.
I knew someone would bring that up eventually. I think we'd be fine without the redistributionist subsidies, they always do more harm than good anyway. The extra economic growth we'd get from sane economic policies would more than make up for that. Why is it the job of the Federal government to redistribute income between states?
As for the "extra economic growth" thing, well, good luck with that. Sounds like wishcasting to me.
Beware what you wish for. I think that is a near certainty in the not too distant future. I believe it is necassary, unavoidable and undesireable.
#19
Posted 13 June 2012 - 07:33 PM
Maybe i'm too jaded from the last 3 upcoming apocalypses but i'm not buying into this whole foretelling. I mean I still have a mix CD full of songs with end of the world themes, but i'm beginning to doubt I'll ever play it.
Those taxes are for redistribution though, miltiary spending aside. I'm not gowing to retread the economic growth argument, but that would be one way to find out, if historical evidence isn't enough.
It's less a function of purely redistribution than it is of that higher incomes pay more tax, and per capita incomes are generally higher in the "bluer" states. Also, locations of major military installations make a big difference in terms of where money gets spent.
I knew someone would bring that up eventually. I think we'd be fine without the redistributionist subsidies, they always do more harm than good anyway. The extra economic growth we'd get from sane economic policies would more than make up for that. Why is it the job of the Federal government to redistribute income between states?
As for the "extra economic growth" thing, well, good luck with that. Sounds like wishcasting to me.
Beware what you wish for. I think that is a near certainty in the not too distant future. I believe it is necassary, unavoidable and undesireable.
#20
Posted 14 June 2012 - 01:45 PM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
Sign In
Create Account



Back to top









