Investing 101

1.Stock

This picture represents the money that people invest in stock
2.Bond

This represents how people bought war bonds to invest in the country that would be repaid at a later date
3.Primary Market/Secondary Market

This picture represents the rise in money that we get from primary and secondary markets
4.Bulls/Bears

This picture represents how bulls are fast and bears sluggish when describing their attitudes market wise
5.Selling Short

This picture shows that there are some investors that sell short in order to make quick money
6.Franchise

This picture shows that many franchises that we have in this country
7.Underwrite/Underwriter/Going Public

This represents the public trading of companies that goes with the term "going public"



When I turned 30...

When I turned 30, things had gotten worse for the country. The government and it's officials had not agreed on any plan to change our course and lower our debt. I remember when I graduated high school, many of my friends planned on moving out, but I know many of them (including me) that haven't moved out. I went to college for a year, but because of the economy and the lack of money coming around, it was hard to stay in it. I have had a few good jobs, but I have been laid off and I am currently looking for another one.
With the price of medicare and social security, taxes have gone up to pay for the "baby boomer" generation that had started to retire. My parents and I have struggled to make enough money to survive, so that means doing odd jobs. There are not many "rich people" these days, just lower middle and poor people with the credentials to get high paying jobs. I know people who have lost their homes due to high mortgages and struggle to even pay rent now. Schools have been shut down and over population in classrooms cause a higher drop out rate. Things have gotten worse and if nothing get resolved, then it'll just get worse.

Manifesto 2.0

1. The government really has one or two jobs: to defend our country and it's people along with promoting justice peace. A governments job to protect the people, not cause rifts between social classes with taxes and other financial struggles.

2. I support the spending of Social Security and Social Insurance because that's helping the people of this country when they need it. Now funding corporate income is a bit of a hard thing to support or criticize. One reason why I wouldn't support it is cause this is money that we are spending on corporations who take that money and do whatever they want with it. But if we didn't help them, then it could make unemployment higher if the corporation can't take care of itself. I don't exactly understand what the "Other" category is, so it's hard to say if I were to support it or not.

3. The only things that I feel like we should spend money on are Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security, and defense. Without a proper explanation to the other parts of the chart, I don't think I am comfortable with my tax money going into them.

4. When I did my Federal Budget Challenge, I made sure that my defense and social security, Medicare, and Medicaid  were not cut. Though, with unneeded portions of the government and with a few major cuts, I managed to get it all the way down to a 2.40 deficit. I figured that keeping the country safe and healthy was better then sending troops to wars or helping other countries when we need as much help as we can get.

5. Metaphorical Image:

I think that this picture represents my manifesto simply because if we had adequate defense and healthcare, then our country will be able to move smoothly. If we get rid of sectors that we do not need, make it easier for people to receive jobs, make healthcare not so hard to receive, and bump up defense our country would be well on the way of being better. It'll help achieve better harmony and maybe when we get ourselves out of a deficit, we will be able to help others.

The Pros and Cons of Different Types of Taxes

National Sales Tax

•  Pro

Those who are for this tax argue that it would eliminate, what they claim are, distortions of the current income tax system."It would  get rid of the differential tax treatment of corporate and noncorporate businesses, since under the current system, corporate earnings are taxed twice-once when the corporation taxed on income, and again when dividends are provided to shareholders." In creating the national sales tax, it'll get rid of the IRS and provide an incentive for multinational companies to bring their businesses back to the U.S. 

• Con 

Opponents argue that it would "create a regressive tax system, meaning that low and middle income households along with individuals would pay a much higher percentage of their pay check. "That is because most Americans must spend most or all of their yearly incomes just to make ends meet, opponents claim, whereas wealthier people need spend only part of their incomes, and can save the rest." Many state that the tax would be way higher than 30%, in fact, it would have to be about 60% in order to replace all of the federal taxes with sales tax. Critics point out that it would also mean that home owners wouldn't have to pay a mortgage while those who rent would pay sales tax on rent every single month. Lastly, this change in taxes would put more burden onto to the older people who had already pain income taxes on their pay checks. With this new system, they would have to pay a second, much larger tax on their earnings by being taxed on all goods and services that they bought while they were retired. 

• Sentence: I do not support this tax because it taxes those who already don't have enough and older people.

VAT

• Pro

Those who are for it say that a VAT can help keep corporate tax down. "In Europe, most corporate taxes are well under 30%. While in France--33.33%-- that's still well below the U.S. where, at 39%, it is the second highest (after Japan) of the Orgaanization for Economic Cooperation and Development member countries and more than 10 percent higher than the OECD average." It could also relieve some domestic and corporate taxes with simply replacing or reducing it. A rather small VAT could replace a corporate tax, though it's inadvisable. 

• Con

VAT is a regressive tax, meaning that is unequal and pretty expensive for the low and middle class. "The lower a person's income, the greater the proportion of that income that goes into products and services. The higher one's income, the greater the proportion goes into savings and investments." Another con would be that the VAT system is that is less flexible, while the income tax system can be used to change the economy with consumers, etc. VAT discourages consumption while rewarding investment, which isn't exactly what the economy needs. 

• Sentence: I support this tax more, because it is flexible and can control corporate taxes

Progressive

• Pro

Supporters of the progressive tax system say that the wealthy must pay their fair share in taxes. It is argued that if you have enough money that you can pay higher taxes. "Many supporters argue that the tax system is not as progressive as it should be, with the rich get off relatively easy when it comes to paying their fair share." America is not getting the full advantage of taxing it's wealthier citizens, therefore not recieving advantages that it could get. It slows down the developement of a society if we tax the poor/middle class.

• Con

It is argued that this tax type would burden high income earning households. "The trouble with depending on so few people for so much government is that it doesn't work when the party stops." With the economy the way it is, we are running out of "rich people to tax." Making those who are "the few surviving millionaires" dooms them to fall on the same downfalls that we are going through. Critics point out that taxing the rich to benefit the poor is also an "unjust" practice. To have those people spend their hard earned money on things that don't even relate to them is "unfair" (such as Medicaid, unemployment, etc).

• Sentence: I do not support this tax because it's exploting the upper class and usingf them as a crutch

Flat

• Pro

Supporters of the flat tax say that by avoiding double taxation, it would provide a greater incentive to invest which would spark high economic growth. Americans would understand  that these taxes would be better in the long run. "There will be an explosion of new investment, new business, and new jobs (that) would transform the economic and social landscape of out country."

• Con

"Opponents of flat-tax proposals say that they abandone the governments  responsibilty to lessen deep disparities." Majority of economists believe that a flat tax that does not have any deductions for mortgages will ultimately raise the average taxes for many if not all of the poor/middle class families. Many supporters are, assumed, to be weathy Americans in which this tax would mot effect.

• Sentence: I do not support this tax because all it will do it raise taxes and make more lower class families poorer.

The Big Picture

From the looks of other taxing countries around us, we kind of have it easy. True our debt is continuing to grow, but there are serveral reasons for it. We spend so much on national defence, far higher than most other countries. The way we tax people is also fairly different; we have the rich pay higher taxes while in other countries they have their middle/lower class pay higher taxes. There is are a few simple idea that we need to take into account.
What about a budget? Where did that idea go? Whether we have little budgets for each sector or one larger budget for all, there needs to be one. Which taxes, there are a few ways we can go about it. Though, the one thing that seems to be the best idea would be to do the simple value tax system. It'll cost a little bit more money for the consumer, but it will try to help the economy get better.

What's a "Sequester"?

There is a stigma with the term Sequester, when really the term is quite simple and easy to understand when explained. The plain definition of a sequester is "Budget cuts that affect all government sections." Nobody likes the term sequester, especially since it does take away from all of the sectors of goverment, that does include national security. "I don't like the sequester. I think it's taking a meat ax to our government, a meat ax to many programs that will weaken our national defense," House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Wednesday. But, he added, "Americans do not support sacrificing real spending cuts for more tax hikes."
The cuts would split budgets in half in order to get a handle on the deficite which only grew since the recession. Though, along with the cuts, each sector will have to issue a plan to save money rather than spend more. These cuts will not affect the checks that are issued by Social Security, Veterans Administration, Medicare, food stamps, Medicaid, etc. But there are a lot of other organizations that will get cut. Though why is it so bad? In the article by ABC News it is argued that, "The sequester will mean such awful things because it forces agencies to cut indiscriminately, instead of simply stripping money from their overall budgets." Yet, a lot of people have assured that "federal agencies have plenty of flexibility to implement these cuts while avoiding the worst of the purported consequence."
But, there are many groups that have ideas on how to fix our situation. It is reported in the New York Times aritcle, "President Obama has been less specific than his colleagues in Congress on how he wants to see the sequester replaced, but he has suggested that, in lieu of a bigger deficit reduction deal, he wants to see the 2013 sequester replaced with a package of tax increases (including loophole closures and increases on the wealthy) and spending cuts." Meanwhile Republicans, "As part of John Boehner’s “plan B” approach to avoiding the fiscal cliff (embarked upon after initial talks with the White House broke down), the House on Dec. 20, 2012, passed the Spending Reduction Act of 2012. The plan would have replaced the 2013 defense sequester with a variety of spending cuts, including cuts to food stamps, the Affordable Care Act and Dodd-Frank (including eliminating the “orderly liquidation authority” at the center of the legislation). It would have reduced the size of the domestic sequester in proportion to the $19 billion in discretionary savings included in the bill." While Democrats feel that replacing the sequester with tax increases would be a good route. Nevertheless, there is something being done and will get fixed...eventually. Something of this magnitude can be a quick fix.

Manifesto Beta Version

If we lived in a nation where the government is not involved at all, eventually we will end up in little clans with their own governments. Despite many flaws in our government, it works though that doesn't mean we can't go for improvement. For example, taxes were only suppose to pull us out of the depression. Though, instead of getting rid of the IRS and taxes, we instead started to lean on to it. I am not trying to say that we we need to eliminate taxes, we instead need to figure out how to lower them and maybe even eliminate taxes on things that we do not  need.