And there is also the required paid vacation in each country. In most countries, at least 2 weeks of paid vacation are required. Many countries require as many as 6 or 8 weeks of paid vacation. The USA stands alone as the ONLY country in the world that requires zero (0) days of paid vacation. It's left up to the employer to decide how many paid vacation days to offer, here.
Lang, it looks like you might be suggesting a national sales or VAT tax to fund the government. For that to work, and balance the federal budget, we'd need to charge a tax of about 20% on all corporate revenue, as well as all other components of the economy, including wages, and investment returns. That's because federal spending is about 20% of the national GDP. If any part of the economy (children's' clothes, food, church spending, government spending, contributions to non-profits, etc.) was to be excluded, then the tax rate on the rest of the economy would need to be higher to cover the budgeted spending.
We do need to rethink our tax rules, and make sure that the budgets can be balanced, that taxes can be collected, and thta loopholes are removed. The world has changed. Tax laws need to change, too.
The problem is that every company is different. For a company like Apple, 22% of their revenue is profit, while for a grocery store, the profit is closer to 1% of their revenue. If we just taxes revenue, I could easily see situation arise where a company would stop selling anything 2 months before the end of the year, because the realized that there would be no profit that year, stopping sales would be the only way to cut costs.
Lang, I think you completely misinterpreted and misunderstood my post. I was not talking about Florida or Massachusetts. I was not talking about Blacks (or Hispanics, or Native Americans, ..) I was talking about the concept of one man, one vote, in districts that are geographically and politically self-contained within existing natural and political boundaries, and specifically not created to contain people of a particular political view.
We can not hope to solve the problems that face us, unless we discuss them in some detail from every point of view in every Congressional district and state in the nation. Dividing the nation into districts that are made for particular points of view stops the discussion, and then works to create the situation that we now see in Washington, where no one is willing to talk with anyone else.
I hope they do the right thing!
I've always wondered why out congressional districts are shaped the way they are. Both are long, skinny districts that stretch from the southern end of the state to the far north. It's a 4 or 5 hour drive from end to end, but seldom more than an hour from east to west. The northern end of the state is rural and very Republican (or at least it was). In the south each district is more urban and suburban, and more Democratic. Issues and problems, north and south are quite different. I suspect that the then Republican legislature made those long, skinny district maps because it gave a better chance of sending 2 Republican Congressmen to Washington.
A much more rational set of districts would combine the urban south into one district, while making the rural north the second district. In any case, this bit of gerrymandering didn't work out so well for the Republicans as now both districts are represented in Washington by Democrats.
I can see how that was the case for you. You can easily get to the store every couple of weeks in your horse and wagon. :
What?? It's clear that you haven't driven for the past 5 years. Haven't had to change your route because of a closed bridge. Haven't had a flat or alignment problem because of a big pothole. Haven't been stalled in a mile long traffic jam.
A big upgrade to a major north-south route here is being postponed because the federal part of the funding has been pushed out for just this reason. The road is so narrow that no truck bigger than a pickup can use it. The town has bought the building that is 2 feet from the edge of the road, so it can be taken down to widen the road. State, local, and federal funding was all ready - until the feds pulled out, so we now need to wait another year.
The real problem that Congress needs to deal with is that gasoline use has dropped by more than 10% over the past decade. Gasoline taxes have remained constant, so gas tax funding for highways has dropped by more than 10% over the past decade, as well. The number of drivers increases. The miles of roads increases, but we are currently funding the maintenance of our roads with less and less money. The results are easy t see by anyone with a driver's license. It's just not working. Congress needs to get off their #$%$ and address the problem so our roods and bridges can be repaired, and again made able to support America's drivers.
Maybe you want a pretty corpse? But those who do succeed and commit suicide don't seem to care, as 3/4 of all suicides in the US are done with a gun.
Really: "You think maybe gun death rates in states might be because there is more hunting and therefore more guns and the population is lower? "
No. Hunting has nothing to do with it. The explicit statistics don't seem to be easily available, but, I strongly doubt that even 1 in 50 of the gun deaths in the US are done with a hunting rifle. Hunters are not the problem. It's all the others who own guns and who are not hunters, and not trained as a hunter who are the problems.
Betty, I would agree with you, except for one important thing.
Over the past 10 years the US GDP has grown by more than 40%. The DOW has grown by just 21% in the same time. US business has grown by a lot, but the stock market has not grown by nearly as much, so far. Certainly the recession has made things bounce around quite a bit, but I would still expect the market to grown at about the same rate as the national economy. The market has been growing more slowly because a lot of people have been scared away from the market, and they are not investing their money in equities. When they decide they can't keep their money under their pillow any longer, the market should take a good, long bounce up.
I'm with Heinlein on this one. Inflation (the price of goods, services, and wages) is barely at 2% now, and is not going much higher for a while. But the stock marker rising at a rate that is well north of 10%.
For most companies, labor is their biggest cost, but they don't need to hire so many people now to make a good profit, with ever increasing automation. Until we find something for the unemployed to do, as they are replaced by computers and robots, labor will be cheap, making profits higher.
In addition there is still a lot of "scared" money out there. that's money that was pulled out of the market during the crash, which remains uninvented so far. As that money begins to be put back into the market, and demand increases, prices will rise.
There is also another consideration. That is the many corporate buy back plans, where companies are buying back their own stock, as HPQ is doing. As shares are bought by the companies and taken off the market, there are fewer shares available for investor to buy. As the supply deceases, the price will increase.
Almost all the pointer are pointing toward a higher market, and higher stock prices. But, of course, I could be wrong, so be sure to do your own analysis first!
Lang, Montana IS at the top of the gun death rate list. Here are the top 10 in 2010, according to the Kaiser Foundation, a group which provided health care information to the media and insurance companies. The numbers are gun deaths per 100,000 population.
New Mexico 14.9
Compare these to the states at the bottom if teh list:
Rhode Island 4.6
New York 5.1
New Jersey 5.2
And in most cases, those states at the top of the list for gun deaths are at the top of the list because they are also at the top of the list for all three types of gun death: murder, accident, and suicide.
2/3 to 3/4 of all suicides are done with a gun. Suicides are often like the one that happened here fairly recently. A teen was depressed because he got dumped by his girlfriend. He got drunk, then picked up a loaded gun his parents had in a drawer for "protection". He put it in his mouth, and it was all over for him. If there had not been a loaded gun in the house,the next morning, when he was sober, and had talked with his friends a bit, he would probably not have even considered suicide. The one thing that ties together all the states with the highest suicide rates is few gun laws, and lots of homes with guns. These states include, southern states like Alabama, Florida, and Mississippi, but also Maine, Oregon, Colorado, West Virginia, and Vermont. States with fewer guns have fewer successful suicides. They also have fewer gun murders and fewer accidental gun deaths.
Springer may be right. Mandatory minimum incarceration for those who do not properly care for and use their guns may be a solution.
Oops, typo. It should say,
"So, Lang, which "certain demographic group" are you talking about IN those states at the top of the gun death list, such as Alaska, Montana, and Louisiana?"
So, Lang, which "certain demographic group" are you talking about, those states at the top of the gun death list, such as Alaska, Montana, and Louisiana? Blaming our big gun death problem on a "certain demographic group", but that does not help to fix the problem, it appears to be no more than a simple red herring that can never lead to any real solution.
I hope you are having a great day. It's a beautiful warm, sunny lawn mowing day here!
We seem to be at the logical conclusion of a do-nothing Congress right now. We have a huge collection of mammoth problems:
- A gargantuan national debt.
- An extensive terrorist threat, and 2 wars ongoing overseas.
- Millions of American in need of good jobs.
- Our schools in many districts in shambles.
- Our national infrastructure - roads, bridges, power lines, airports, power generation, and more, all crumbling.
- Climate and weather threats worse than we have seen in decades, or more.
- Immigration regulations and enforcement that is just not working.
- And still more...
Congress should be in session 10 hours a day, 6 days a week to discuss these problems, and to find solution that will keep our country strong and safe. So, what is the logical conclusion of a congress that completely ignores our problems and does nothing to address them, or even to discuss them.
I hope you are planing to ask your representatives in Washington why they have done nothing to address any of these huge problems. And also ask them and their opponents How many hours a day they plan to spend ni session to address these problems and do something to fix them. Our nation can't afford 2 more years of do-nothings!
Lang, you seem to be purposely avoiding the real issue that I bring up.. I am talking about gun deaths, and not just gun murders, but all gun deaths. You seem to want to explicitly change the focus from all gun deaths to just a select few of them.
In reality, every gun death happens when a gun is put in the hands of someone who is unable to use the gun correctly, so a death occurs. I'm asking whether Springer's mandatory sentencing guide lines. would help to keep those guns out of the hands of the many people in the high gun death states who are responsible for those high rates of gun deaths - states like Texas and Alaska.
If the issue is gun violence and deaths, then just dealing with murders, is no better than putting a bandaid on a cut on an injured man's arm, while ignoring the 2 inch deep gash on his side. Why are there 20 gun deaths per 100,000 in Alaska, 19 per 100K in Louisiana and 15 in Montana, but just 4 in Massachusetts, and 3 in Hawaii? How might the high gun death rates in Alaska, Montana, and Louisiana be related to the fact that more than half the households in those states own guns - some of which are clearly not properly maintained or cared for. States like Mass. and Hawaii with low gun death rates have guns in maybe 1 in 10 households, resulting in guns available to many fewer irresponsible folks. So, again, would your mandatory sentencing guide lines keep guns out of the hands of more of those irresponsible gun owners, whose guns result in needless deaths, especially in states like Alaska, Montana, and Texas?
That might be a possibility, Springer. That must be what is happening in those states with the lowest gun death rates, such as Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, and New Jersey., where the annual gun death rates are near 4 per 100,000.
Maybe you can help us, though. How do we make sure that the mandatory sentencing guide lines. are followed in those state where the gun death rates are well north of 10 per 100,000 annually, such as in the states of Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Louisiana, Alaska, and Mississippi? If we could just drop the gun death rates in those few stats with the highest rates, we could drop the national average by a lot in one fell swoop! So you think mandatory sentencing guidelines would work in those states where so many people are not using their guns properly? It might be a big win for the nation!
Lang, my numbers were gun deaths, not gun crimes. Many gun deaths are not classified as a crime, But, if you family member was shot and killed, it doesn't really mater whether it was crime or not, does it? Your family member is still gone because a gun was in the hands of someone who should not have had it. gun regulations keep guns out of the hands of many who really should not have one. And that's why the total number of gun deaths in New York is so much lower than in a state like Tennessee.
Yes, there are gun deaths in every state, but if you look at the actual statistics, it's clear that ths states with some regulations to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them, and the success of those regulations is pretty clear. Look it up. The numbers are available. Looking for the actual numbers is always better than making assumptions, especially ones that prove to be false.
Gun deaths, per 100,000 in states with few, if any, gun regulations:
South Carolina: 14.0
Gun deaths in states with some gun regulations, per 100,000:
New Jersey: 5.2
New York: 5.1
The evidence clearly shows that those states with some gun regulations do have gun death rates that 1/2 to 1/3 what they are in the states with no regulations to keep guns out fo the hands of those who can or won't use them safely. Some gun regulations can and do save lives.
No president can be impeached for either political disagreements, or for incompetence. We can all form our own opinions about whether that is a good thing or not, but according to our current Constitution impeachment is not a possibility.
Really? no one's tried to take away my water bottle. But it's a full quart, so maybe it doesn't count?