FA+
Shop
Better forget about it!
13 years ago
General
Anyone who has ever bought a book directly from me in Australia and had it mailed to them in America knows how expensive air mail is. It's gotten worse. The US government has now imposed a "Security Fee" of $9 for all packages weighing 500 grams or more. That's about 1.1 pounds for those of you who are metric-impaired. It's also the weight over which most of my book packages go. "Life's Dream" is the biggest that can scrape under that limit. I had to post a package a few days ago that weighed 550g and the postage plus the extra fee came to $33.00!!! So unless you really want to pay a ridiculous amount of money, I suggest you forget about it.
I'm also wondering how it can possibly cost $9 to scan a parcel.
{{{EDIT}}}
It has now been determined that the fee seems to have been imposed solely by Australia Post who are happy to have people imply that the US government is responsible.
NO MORE COMMENTS PLEASE!
I'm also wondering how it can possibly cost $9 to scan a parcel.
{{{EDIT}}}
It has now been determined that the fee seems to have been imposed solely by Australia Post who are happy to have people imply that the US government is responsible.
NO MORE COMMENTS PLEASE!
This is going to mess up my plans considerably.
*Some service charges may apply.
At least I'll be able to buy them off you at the con.!
The Bush tax cuts.
Two wars.
The economic downturn.
Stimulus spending.
Notice how two of those are revenue reductions?
As for what works, lets look at which party does better.
Wage growth? The Democratic Party delivers higher real term income growth across the board.
Economic growth? The best Republican President, (Reagan), since WWII barely did better than the worst Democratic President, (Carter).
The markets? Almost all of the real term stock market growth over the past half-century was under Democratic Presidents.
Did you know that the US currently has the _LOWEST_ tax rates since World War Two? Did you think Reagan or Bush the Elder had reasonable taxes? If so, you think taxes higher than any actual proposal are reasonable.
TOO many taxes
too much regulation
too much government spending
entitlements
currently we are among the highest, with france soon to beat us. The Dems have never brought economic growth, they tax it to death, conservative repubs do promote it. In Chicago they are demolishing blocks because people don't live their any more, why taxes and regulation. They most likely fled to Texas that promotes business there. the stimulus money would have been better used in OUR pockets were it came from then the government. Solyndra anyone.
the Democratic party today is nothing more than a socialist/communist party now and will lead to ruin the way socialist/communist go.
And yes, the Bush tax cuts are one of the main causes of the current deficit, go check with the Congressional Budget Office.
Again, since you missed it: Taxes in the US are at their lowest level in over _HALF A CENTURY_. The US also has rather low taxes for a developed nation, (while some base rates are high, the effective rates are much lower due to the large number of deductions and credits).
While your at it, go and look up things like actual growth rates, (constant dollars, net annual rates).
Truman (D) (Postwar term): 4.7%
Eisenhower (R): 3.2%
JFK/LBJ (D): 4.6%
LBJ (D): 5.0%
Nixon (R): 3.0%
Nixon/Ford (R): 2.6%
Carter (D): 3.2%
Reagan (R): 3.4%
Bush I (R): 2.2%
Clinton (D): 3.9%
Bush II (R): 2.0%
That's every full term since WWII, notice something about it? There is a _reason_ an old saw about US politics is "Democrats bring war and Republicans bring recession". Although that has been breaking down recently, with the Republicans deciding they want to be the ones who bring both.
You may be entitled to your beliefs but you are not entitled to your own facts. It is quite clear that your beliefs do not reflect the facts.
(One more thing you should do is to go look up which administration was really pushing Solyndra and appointed most of the board that approved the loan guarantees. Free hint: They were trying to rush the approvals in January 2008.)
[1] NB: Arguments based on the Laffer curve will be laughed at. Even if you were to assume it was correct, (and it has been shown that the key assumption is not necessarily true), _low_ estimates of the maximum are at taxes of over 50% of GDP.
I warned you that Laffer curve arguments would be laughed at. Here is a _FACT_ for you: The Bush tax cuts _REDUCED_ revenues by over $400 million a year. That isn't a projection, it's how much tax revenues actually went down.
And I will ask you again: Did you think the taxes under Reagan were reasonable?
Balanced budgets: Perhaps you should spend a bit more time checking into reality and learning about how the federal budget works. First, Clinton not only balanced the budget in 1998 he was running a surplus, (a surplus which Bush threw out in his very first budget). Second, you are assigning the FY2009 budget, (which ran Oct08 through Sep09[1]), to the wrong President.
As for cutting your way to recovery: How well did that work for the UK? Or Greece? Or Spain? What's that? It didn't work and made things worse?
(I do think the Democratic Party has a large chance of splitting again. It is a likely secondary outcome if the Republican Party cannot survive the end-game of the Southern Strategy they are going through.)
[1] Fiscal years and calendar years often do not line up. The US federal government uses an October to September year, partly due to the timing of elections.
and the pres budget thing, that was proven false but the lame stream media is desperate to defend the WORST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY they will continue the lie no matter what.
Once again: No one is talking about imposing high taxes, just ending the historic low that US taxes are currently at.
No, to get that number you have to include FY2009: Which started over a month before Obama was elected and almost four months before he took office. The FY2009 deficit is from a budget with the signature "George W. Bush" at the bottom.
As for being a big spender, perhaps you should actually look at those spending numbers again: Obama is actually one of the lightest spenders in ages, (although that is partly because of Republicans willing to do things like trade 1-2 million private sector jobs[1] for stopping something Obama supports).
Now, 13% of what, exactly? Do you mean a 13% flat income/corporate tax rate[2]? Does that include Social Security payments?
Now, some more things you need to look up: Greece, Spain and the UK have all been passing fairly harsh austerity budgets. The UK was even seeing a fairly strong recovery until the austerity budgets started.
(BTW: It must suck to be on the Tea Party fringe. Looking at a choice between someone who brought in restrictive environmental laws and mandatory insurance health care reforms while posting lousy economic numbers and re-electing Obama.)
[1] The estimated impact of the American Jobs Act had it been passed a year ago. NB: That's from groups like Moody's, not a government estimate.
[2] Which would be a massive increase for most people.
That you did not respond to most of my post, including a request for you to clarify a position you had taken, and instead just dropped back to spouting mindless slogans just goes to show that you have no actual understanding of reality.
I'd also love go know where you would get a trillion in rapid cuts. Total discretionary spending, (and that includes things like keeping the Interstate highways functional and the military), is only about $1.3 trillion.
Meanwhile, Clinton's 1993 tax increases were followed by 4+% growth and unemployment falling to 5%.
My challenge stands: Name a year when US taxes were lower than they are now. If you continue to hide from it, I will take it as a concession that you _CAN'T_ come up with such a year[1].
My request for clarification about your tax plan also stands. Is it really that hard to answer such simple questions about your own opinions?
[1] Such years do exist. Mind you, bringing them up might just give me grounds to tell you about the Long Depression.
Here's another fact for you: Congress returned budgets with _LOWER_ spending than Regan requested.
More bad news for you: When surveyed, only about 10% of businesses in the US list regulations as a reason they are not hiring, the vast majority do consider lack of demand to be the primary reason. Not having the money to hire people is also not the reason, businesses in the US have been setting record highs for their cash reserves.
Once again I ask you to clarify your suggested tax levels. Or would you rather simply admit that they are as mindless and ill thought out as Cain's SimCity inspired plan?
Cain's plan, while it sounded superficially appealing, was actually a massively regressive plan that would have seen most Americans faced with a large tax increase. And don't forget, that 'low attack' was multiple women coming forward to reveal that he was half a step short of being a rapist. Besides, the Democratic Party would have _loved_ to run against Cain: He'd have torpedoed the Republican's chances almost as much as Bachmann or Perry would have.
You still don't know history, and are still relying on the piece of garbage known as the Laffer Curve. Heck, you are relying on a pathetic misunderstanding of the Laffer Curve, (even Laffer himself would say that lowering taxes will often lower revenue), thinking that it always has a negative slope.
The relationship between tax rates and economic growth isn't a trivial one. The overall amount of taxes is actually a minor factor when compared to how the tax burden is distributed and how the government spends the money. For instance, $1 in taxes from someone living near the poverty line will reduce GDP by ~$1.40, while that same $1 from a large corporation will only reduce GDP by ~$0.30[1]. On the spending side, you can go from an extreme of $1 spent on untied foreign aid[2] bringing effectively no GDP, to things like infrastructure construction, (e.g. roads), generating $1.60 per dollar spent and food-only aid to the poor generating $1.80 in GDP per dollar.
Again: Go and look at the _ACTUAL_ growth rates. Name just one Republican President in the past 75 years that got a better growth rate than Truman, JFK, LBJ or Clinton. Heck, name one other than Reagan that did better than Carter! If you want an exercise, go find out the growth rate under FDR, (inter-war period only, for obvious reasons).
Once again, you should pay a bit more attention to the real numbers. Yes, there was a sizable budget increase in Obama's first budget, (although about half of that was 'booking' of off-budget spending passed in 2008, and much was also on programs that amounted to loans which have since been paid back[3]). However, spending has been largely flat since.
Even with that large jump in the 2010 budget, budget growth under Obama is still less than that under Bush the Younger. Without that initial jump, it's barely been keeping up with inflation and that leaves nothing to account for population growth[4].
[1] The reason for the difference is that money socked away in a bank account or invested overseas generates little to no GDP. Unsurprisingly, the poor spend a larger portion of their money than do the rich.
[2] Most nations require their foreign aid money to be at least partly spent on products/services from the donor nation.
[3] e.g. How much did it cost the US government to save GM? Answer: Less than nothing. As with Chrysler 30-odd years ago, the government turned a profit on the deal.
[4] A government's budget suffers two 'invisible' automatic cuts. Inflation, which makes each dollar worth less, and population growth, which increases the inherent cost of most government activities. This typically isn't a big deal, as most government revenue sources see near-automatic increases from the same causes.
Yes, Reagan had the best economic growth for a Republican for a long time, (once he backtracked on his tax cuts). He was so good he did a whole 0.2% better than Carter and actually got the stock markets to grow[1]. However, being great for a Republican is is equivalent to being lousy for a Democrat, (the growth rates are upthread).
Since you keep harping about 'cutting spending' how about you actually list some cuts[2]. Note that if you want rapid cuts, you have to restrict yourself to the ~$1.3T of discretionary spending. Also, you should actually list dollar amounts: Don't say things like 'eliminate program X' but rather 'cut $Y from X, eliminating the program'. I point this out because it is all too common for people to think something is a major cost when it is actually lost in rounding errors.
My request for clarification on your suggested tax levels still stands.
[1] While every Democratic presidential term since 1960 has seen stock market growth, only Regan and Bush the Elder saw such growth for the Republicans, (with Bush the Younger wiping out all the gains seen under his father).
[2] I'll give you a free start: ~$50B/yr from defense has already been signed off on by the Pentagon.
I even pointed out why you should do so, so that you avoid making yourself look foolish by including relatively minor grant programs that not only don't warrant a line item in the $15B State Department budget, but the entire category of grant programs it's part of doesn't rate one.
Now the Department of Education does have a significant budget. However, large portions of that budget would have to be assumed by the states as it consists of grants, with poor states getting the worst of it. (So if you really want to screw the south....)
Getting rid of the TSA would save how much again? That's right, you didn't say. Here's a hint: Homeland Security gets less than $50B in total with just over half of that going to the Border Patrol, the Coast Guard and FEMA.
Next we move on to non-discretionary spending. Note that you generally cannot make rapid changes in these costs, so any reforms would take a decade or more to come into effect.
Social Security operates as a separate budget with independent funding and expenditure streams. It also has been able to loan large amounts of money to the federal government. There are some reforms which are needed, one of which has been covered, (increasing the retirement age), the other being to preform a long-overdue adjustment for inflation, (SS has seen about a decade of de facto premium cuts, all for upper-income earners).
Now, I will agree with you that there are large savings to be had on the health care side of things. Far more than the $50B or so that the ACA saves per year. But somehow I don't think you would like it, given that is involves things like going to a single-payer system[1].
Again, no matter how much you want to rant, the facts remain: When Reagan cut taxes in 1981, the economy tanked, when he raised them in 1982, the economy recovered, and Reagan asked for more money than Congress gave him.
[1] One of life's great ironies is that the US has one of the highest per-capita government expenditures on health care. (The last time I checked, it was a close second to Switzerland.) It's ironic because it covers the smallest portion of its population of any developed nation.
To put it bluntly, the relationship between taxation and the economy isn't as simple as you seem to think. Partly because taxing different people/organizations has a variable impact, (compare someone for whom $1 less means buying $1 of food with another for whom it means not putting $1 in a Swiss bank account and forgetting about it), and partly because government spending is itself part of the economy. Even government spending isn't simple in its impact on the economy: Giving money to an already profitable company often isn't going to do much while building a needed bridge will have a magnified impact from both immediate, (e.g. the workers spending their pay), and ongoing, (hey, new bridge!), effects.
That you have no coherent response to what I said is noted, would you care to try again. You might also want to respond to my request for clarification on your suggested 'reasonable' tax levels.
(BTW: It's a bad idea to try and insult someone's education when you can't even do so without serious grammar and spelling errors. To give you a start, do=take an action while due=caused by.)
I also accept your concession on all the points you continue to refuse to address and I also accept your admission that you didn't have a clue what you meant when suggesting a taxation level.
[1] Some advice: Remember that Fox has admitted in court that they lie and blogs are only as good as their author[2] and/or their sources.
[2] e.g. A guy with a PhD in developmental biology can probably say a thing or two about animal reproduction.
Bright Blessings
femm
Perhaps it is Australia-related, or maybe you or someone else would have a link regarding this?
Here's the screen cap - http://www.chakat.com/Temporary/Aus.....ost-charge.jpg
I suppose it is entirely possible they are as you say "stealth charging" you, I do know that for whatever reason, you've got some ridiculous taxes and high prices on things that can be obtained relatively cheap in the rest of the world (games and consoles being an instance of not being reasonably priced). I suppose it is also possible the fee exists because air mail is not usually done using a specialized cargo plane, but is actually transported in the cargo hold of a passenger plane. I don't know if this is the case, but I use FedEx for my shipments from Japan, and everything they transport is of course on their own planes... meaning they may not be inspected by the TSA (which seems particularly focused on passenger planes) and FedEx and UPS handle their own inspections.
... now even if there is a legitimate fee for shipments going into the US, I can't say if it's actually going to the TSA or not. I did a little poking around on the Australia Post website to see what would trigger this fee... and as you say it does mention the 500g weight and all that: https://contactus.auspost.com.au/ap.....WmRCMlVFWms%3D though all it says is that it is to cover 'increased inspection requirements'. Now for the hell of it, I decided to check the Royal Mail website to see if I could get a US security surcharge to appear. If it's there, it's not itemized, and a shipment from the UK to Australia costs a little more than a shipment from the UK to the US via airmail... so I would have to guess that charge is not present via the Royal Mail.
I would recommend seeing if FedEx or UPS have any better rates for international shipments, and whether or not they have this surcharge. The only downside is, I know both are usually more expensive than the regular mail anyway, so it may make no difference and cost just as much anyway.
(I don't mean you, Goldfur; you got hit by an unexpected charge and were understandably upset about it when you posted. I'm talking about all the commenters who immediately piled on with the political wanking of blaming "the enemy" -- whichever political party they dislike, or just the USA in general -- without even trying to determine the facts of the matter.)
After doing some more Googling around, plus actually speaking to a couple of people here at my local post office about this, here's what it seems to come down to:
(1) Yes, US Customs is requiring increased security for packages weighing over 1lb entering the States. It appears to apply specifically to packages entering via air shipment (thus, surface mail from Canada or Mexico wouldn't fall under this regulation). This is in response to, among other things, various plots revolving around attempts to stuff otherwise-innocuous items such as printer cartridges full of C4 explosive and then mail them into the US for various nefarious ends.
(2) This regulation has actually been in place, near as I can tell, since 2010. However...
(3) No, U.S. Customs is not charging $9 for each foreign package entering the country. Neither is the US Postal Service. The Customs service has simply stated what kind of screening needs to be performed on air-shipped packages before they will be allowed in; it's up to the sending country's shipping services to determine how to implement the requirements -- and, in this case, whether or not to charge extra for doing it.
(4) I can't find any evidence of any other country's postal service charging $9 "security" fees (or the equivalent) for packages mailed to the USA. A google search shows this issue has popped up on numerous forums over the last few months, and near as I can tell it is only people in Australia who have posted about having had to pay this. (Which, of course, hasn't stopped everyone else on the internet from piling on, since U.S.-bashing is seemingly second only to soccer as an international sport, but so far I'm not seeing anyone from Europe or Asia claiming to have actually been hit with this charge when they send stuff to the USA.)
And finally, (5), I've bought several things off Amazon.UK and Amazon Japan in the last few months, plus some stuff from eBay sellers based on England, and no one's made any mention of having to add a $9 fee to the shipping for US-based buyers.
Conclusion: the available evidence strongly suggests that Australia Post is the one to blame for this, not us.
sometimes my country is freaking retarded
A mere two entries above yours, I already addressed this yesterday -- the USA is not the ones charging the $9-per-package fee. Try actually reading a message thread next time.