Elon Musk now owns 9.2% of twitter...update.. will soon be the sole owner as Board of Directors accepts his purchase offer

Page 97 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Red Squirrel

No Lifer
May 24, 2003
68,531
12,648
126
www.anyf.ca
Ok great, what are those places?

As a start, how about this:


Then there's the WE scandal and many other scandals where billions were wasted. The arrivecan app cost millions, and a programmer built a clone copy for fun for pennies. This amount of waste is constant with the government. There is probably lot of stuff we don't hear about too. I recall a TEMPORARY skating rink being built for a couple million, and it never ended up working because of the weather. So many dumb little things like that add up to a lot.

Then just look at the amount of people that work for the government.

In 2010 there was 282,980 who worked for the federal government alone, that's not even counting provincial.

In 2021 there was 319,601! Who are these 36,621 new employees and what do they do? Why could the government function with less 10 years ago than now? Even the number 10 years ago is high. They brag about how they "added new jobs" but it's all government jobs, that's not actually good for the economy at all. It's a burden on everyone.

The entire government needs to be downsized and slimmed down. We would all benefit from that because we would have more money to buy more things that we work hard for, instead of it going to a vacuum.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,710
51,001
136
As a start, how about this:


Then there's the WE scandal and many other scandals where billions were wasted. The arrivecan app cost millions, and a programmer built a clone copy for fun for pennies. This amount of waste is constant with the government. There is probably lot of stuff we don't hear about too. I recall a TEMPORARY skating rink being built for a couple million, and it never ended up working because of the weather. So many dumb little things like that add up to a lot.

Then just look at the amount of people that work for the government.

In 2010 there was 282,980 who worked for the federal government alone, that's not even counting provincial.

In 2021 there was 319,601! Who are these 36,621 new employees and what do they do? Why could the government function with less 10 years ago than now? Even the number 10 years ago is high. They brag about how they "added new jobs" but it's all government jobs, that's not actually good for the economy at all. It's a burden on everyone.

The entire government needs to be downsized and slimmed down. We would all benefit from that because we would have more money to buy more things that we work hard for, instead of it going to a vacuum.
Just tell me the specific programs you want to cut. Why is this hard?
 

Heartbreaker

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2006
4,340
5,464
136
And yet you then launch into another idiot proposal to institute a flat tx, such that the wealthy then pay far far far far less in "barely any taxes, but without loopholes!"

holy shit you're just dumb.

I wonder how so many RWNJs get stuck on the peak of this mountain:
dunning-kruger-0011.jpg
 

Heartbreaker

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2006
4,340
5,464
136
Just tell me the specific programs you want to cut. Why is this hard?

To be fair, magical thinking is sometimes hard to explain.

Flat tax will magically remove loopholes for Rich people.
Conservative Governments will magically remove all waste and deliver all the same services at 10% the cost.

See, all problems solved, if you believe in magical thinking.
 

Red Squirrel

No Lifer
May 24, 2003
68,531
12,648
126
www.anyf.ca
Just tell me the specific programs you want to cut. Why is this hard?
Doesn't have to be a program, it's spending in general that needs to be cut.

But there are a lot of programs that could easily be cut or combined, or streamlined. There are so many programs to help people financially, but they are all very specific and only few people qualify. These all have huge administrative overhead. Get rid of all those programs, and replace with a single one. Or even better, tax people less and reduce inflation so they don't need those programs in first place.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: iRONic

Red Squirrel

No Lifer
May 24, 2003
68,531
12,648
126
www.anyf.ca
To be fair, magical thinking is sometimes hard to explain.

Flat tax will magically remove loopholes for Rich people.
Conservative Governments will magically remove all waste and deliver all the same services at 10% the cost.

See, all problems solved, if you believe in magical thinking.

I also said they need to get rid of the loopholes. It's not just the flat tax I said they need to do, but it also simplify the tax system, and also get rid of loop holes. This is more of a pipe dream as I know it will never happen, but I'm saying it should. We would all have way more money in our pockets, and the rich would also pay their share. Overall people would be happier. Well except for the rich.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,710
51,001
136
Doesn't have to be a program, it's spending in general that needs to be cut.

But there are a lot of programs that could easily be cut or combined, or streamlined. There are so many programs to help people financially, but they are all very specific and only few people qualify. These all have huge administrative overhead. Get rid of all those programs, and replace with a single one. Or even better, tax people less and reduce inflation so they don't need those programs in first place.
Ok, so what are those and what are your ballpark expected savings?

I am confident you have not thought this through as you have no answer. Once you look at the savings your proposed plan will achieve you’ll realize it’s a drop in the bucket.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

Red Squirrel

No Lifer
May 24, 2003
68,531
12,648
126
www.anyf.ca
Ok, so what are those and what are your ballpark expected savings?

I am confident you have not thought this through as you have no answer. Once you look at the savings your proposed plan will achieve you’ll realize it’s a drop in the bucket.

Well let's start with the 600 billion I posted about. That is about 15 thousand dollars per person in taxes. (in reality more because babies and very young children don't pay taxes) I could sure use 15k in my pockets instead of whatever the hell that 600 billion went. And that's only one incident.

This video puts it in a perspective that a liberal can understand:


And this is 2019, we're in even worse shape now!
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,165
30,117
146
There are tons of places to cut. The amount of waste and inefficiencies that happen in government is staggering. If you think the government works for the people, I have a lakefront property for sale in the Sahara desert. It also comes with a bridge.



10% is better than 0%. Most rich people pay way less than 10%. A flat tax, provided the system is actually implemented correctly, would mean they finally pay their fair share while rest of us pay less. It's win win. I don't know what is dumb about that. Maybe tone down on the personal attacks if you can't understand a simple concept.

You don't know what is dumb about that?

10% on 50k vs 10% on $1 million. What is left for each of those people, to cover their expenses? And you call this "fair." LOLOLOL

Who actually suffers more, from paycheck to paycheck? It's truly bizarre that you continue to refuse to understand the plain simplicity of your failure to do any real math here, but here you are. again and again failing to do the work and actually *think* about the reality of the situation you propose.

"Implemented properly." No one has any idea what you mean here, but best guess is that it is "lots of extra rules" and more regulation and more LOOPHOLES! to insure that, what you consider fairness, is actually happening. I mean, it's the only explanation, because a plain flat tax is universally understand, by anyone, to be the least fair model possible. This isn't even a discussion.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,710
51,001
136
Well let's start with the 600 billion I posted about. That is about 15 thousand dollars per person in taxes. (in reality more because babies and very young children don't pay taxes) I could sure use 15k in my pockets instead of whatever the hell that 600 billion went. And that's only one incident.

This video puts it in a perspective that a liberal can understand:


And this is 2019, we're in even worse shape now!
No, you want permanent reductions in revenue to the tune of about 80%.

WHAT PROGRAMS WOULD YOU CUT TO MAKE UP FOR THIS.
 

snoopy7548

Diamond Member
Jan 1, 2005
8,131
5,156
146
I also said they need to get rid of the loopholes. It's not just the flat tax I said they need to do, but it also simplify the tax system, and also get rid of loop holes. This is more of a pipe dream as I know it will never happen, but I'm saying it should. We would all have way more money in our pockets, and the rich would also pay their share. Overall people would be happier. Well except for the rich.

That's sort of the point of a progressive tax system - the rich pay more while the working class pays less, as a percentage of their income. A flat tax system goes against that idea.

$10k out of $100k hurts me more than $100k out of $1M. $90k covers all of my expenses twice over in a modest home with some left for savings, but $900k gets you a life of luxury no matter where you live and the ability to buy everything you can imagine; you could buy a modest home every year in cash and still have >10x of my expenses covered.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,165
30,117
146
Well let's start with the 600 billion I posted about. That is about 15 thousand dollars per person in taxes. (in reality more because babies and very young children don't pay taxes) I could sure use 15k in my pockets instead of whatever the hell that 600 billion went. And that's only one incident.

This video puts it in a perspective that a liberal can understand:


And this is 2019, we're in even worse shape now!


just to be clear: you think a simple flat tax is fair and that the Bible is TRUTH, and you also think you are smarter than liberals.

OK.
 

Red Squirrel

No Lifer
May 24, 2003
68,531
12,648
126
www.anyf.ca
You don't know what is dumb about that?

10% on 50k vs 10% on $1 million. What is left for each of those people, to cover their expenses? And you call this "fair." LOLOLOL

Who actually suffers more, from paycheck to paycheck? It's truly bizarre that you continue to refuse to understand the plain simplicity of your failure to do any real math here, but here you are. again and again failing to do the work and actually *think* about the reality of the situation you propose.

"Implemented properly." No one has any idea what you mean here, but best guess is that it is "lots of extra rules" and more regulation and more LOOPHOLES! to insure that, what you consider fairness, is actually happening. I mean, it's the only explanation, because a plain flat tax is universally understand, by anyone, to be the least fair model possible. This isn't even a discussion.

NEWSFLASH. Rich people make more money. Seems logical to me that they should still have more money left over after taxes. Just make them pay the same rate we do instead of basically zero. Get rid of all the loopholes.

This would mean that Trump and Elon, people which you guys hate, would actually pay more taxes! Why are you against this?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: snoopy7548

snoopy7548

Diamond Member
Jan 1, 2005
8,131
5,156
146
NEWSFLASH. Rich people make more money. Seems logical to me that they should still have more money left over after taxes. Just make them pay the same rate we do instead of basically zero. Get rid of all the loopholes.

This would mean that Trump and Elon, people which you guys hate, would actually pay more taxes! Why are you against this?

I'd much rather see people like Trump and Elon pay >80% of their income in taxes, and the government use that money to fund universal health care.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thilanliyan

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
23,156
21,281
136
Doesn't have to be a program, it's spending in general that needs to be cut.

But there are a lot of programs that could easily be cut or combined, or streamlined. There are so many programs to help people financially, but they are all very specific and only few people qualify. These all have huge administrative overhead. Get rid of all those programs, and replace with a single one. Or even better, tax people less and reduce inflation so they don't need those programs in first place.
This is sad. You simply refuse to name the programs you want to cut, and it sounds like you want to cut a shitload. It should be really simple to state a list. But when you are intellectually dishonest it becomes impossible as we see here

Even more sad is that you people have no shame Scot being completely intelligent dishonest. It's the lack of shame that is fucking up countries where conservatives are being conservatives.

I'm writing this on my phone while sitting in a women's restroom because liberals are forcing me to use a female restroom, as your have stated before
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,710
51,001
136
This is sad. You simply refuse to name the programs you want to cut, and it sounds like you want to cut a shitload. It should be really simple to state a list. But when you are intellectually dishonest it becomes impossible as we see here

Even more sad is that you people have no shame Scot being completely intelligent dishonest. It's the lack of shame that is fucking up countries where conservatives are being conservatives.

I'm writing this on my phone while sitting in a women's restroom because liberals are forcing me to use a female restroom, as your have stated before
This usually happens because people think foreign aid, or like volcano studies are meaningful government expenditures while in reality the huge majority of government spending is on pensions and health care, things people don’t want to cut.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

Red Squirrel

No Lifer
May 24, 2003
68,531
12,648
126
www.anyf.ca
I'd much rather see people like Trump and Elon pay >80% of their income in taxes, and the government use that money to fund universal health care.

If they actually had to pay that much they'd leave the country and move their businesses too. I'm all for making them pay but we still need to be realistic here. You need to look at the dollar amounts and not just the percentages. If you make 100k and pay 10% that would be 10k - way less than what you pay now. If someone that makes $1,000,000 pays 10% that's 100k - your entire salary. Way more than what they pay now.

If there is a way to encourage rich to pay their employees more that would be another way to go about it, but just taxing them more is simply removing money from the economy that could otherwise be spent and go in other businesses' pockets. We'd be naive to think it would go towards health care. We already pay lot of taxes as is, and our health care system is still crumbling.
 
Dec 10, 2005
25,097
8,382
136
This usually happens because people think foreign aid, or like volcano studies are meaningful government expenditures while in reality the huge majority of government spending is on pensions and health care, things people don’t want to cut.
RS is going to see rural and suburban services going to shit under his scheme, since those areas are already large sinks of money when it comes to taxes vs infrastructure costs.
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
23,156
21,281
136
If they actually had to pay that much they'd leave the country and move their businesses too. I'm all for making them pay but we still need to be realistic here. You need to look at the dollar amounts and not just the percentages. If you make 100k and pay 10% that would be 10k - way less than what you pay now. If someone that makes $1,000,000 pays 10% that's 100k - your entire salary. Way more than what they pay now.

If there is a way to encourage rich to pay their employees more that would be another way to go about it, but just taxing them more is simply removing money from the economy that could otherwise be spent and go in other businesses' pockets. We'd be naive to think it would go towards health care. We already pay lot of taxes as is, and our health care system is still crumbling.
So what programs would you cut to reduce spending 80%?

Just list in order the top 10 programs and how much. Here I'll help you out

Fill this in

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
23,156
21,281
136
RS is going to see rural and suburban services going to shit under his scheme, since those areas are already large sinks of money when it comes to taxes vs infrastructure costs.
Yep. Rural infrastructure has a much lower ROI than things near and in more populated areas. In fact many expenditures on rural areas are straight up losses of money. And those people think they are practically self sufficient.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tsinni Dave

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,710
51,001
136
So what programs would you cut to reduce spending 80%?

Just list in order the top 10 programs and how much. Here I'll help you out

Fill this in

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Yeah they always respond like ‘there’s so many things to cut I can’t list them!’

Then when you ask them to list them they can’t because they never thought beyond ‘they should cut spending’.
 

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
97,032
16,250
126
Last edited: