c_hawkbob wrote:I disagree with the characterization of First Lady as "Co-President".
Old but Slow wrote:While I am not a big Hillary fan, I would vote for her if there is no better option. The republicans are not providing an option at this point. Do any of these yo-yos have an idea about international relations? Any of them have a better option than bomb Iran? Are there any better opinions than same sex marriage, abortion, or transgender rights? Any thoughts about the economy, for instance? Or dealing with the MIddle East? None of the Repubs have given any idea of a plan, so what are we supposed to support. "I'm a hot commodity, so I will lead the country" Give me a break.
Old but Slow wrote:While the Repubs want to give more free stuff to the rich and big corporations. And the Pentagon gets more while admitting that they can't account for $2.5 trillion.
While the Repubs want to give more free stuff to the rich and big corporations.
And the Pentagon gets more while admitting that they can't account for $2.5 trillion.
Old but Slow wrote:While the Repubs want to give more free stuff to the rich and big corporations. And the Pentagon gets more while admitting that they can't account for $2.5 trillion.
Name the Republican candidate whose platform includes increasing "free stuff" to "the rich" and big corporations, ObS.
Are you implying that none of the R candidates want to cut taxes for the wealthy
I voted for Richard Nixon (twice), and liked Governor Dan Evans very much, but the Republican party has moved too far to the right for me now.
Actually, I do look at what all the candidates have to say
burrrton wrote:[
Try to imagine JFK or Bill Clinton trying to get elected as a Democrat today. Hillary has been forced to reject virtually every position her husband held, and virtually every position *she* held even 7 years ago.
For the most part both parties have shifted to the right.
. Bill Clinton and JFK could win the Dem nomination quite easily
Also just as an aside, I'm not sure which republican tax plans you are reading because pretty much every one of them wants to cut taxes, with the biggest cuts going to the wealthy.
But pretty much every flat tax plan I've seen lowers the tax rate on the upper brackets. It's not a matter of opinion, it is a tax cut for the wealthy because they are paying less in taxes.
If you think the democrats are anywhere close to classic socialism you need to go do some research.
If you consider what the Democrats propose as socialism, then...
By providing enormous subsidies and tax breaks for corporations they are allowing companies to not pay "their fair share" as republicans are so fond of saying.
c_hawkbob wrote:While the problem is absolutely an inequity in who is paying how much taxes, but the solution isn't a flat tax. The solution is taxing spending instead of taxing earnings.
c_hawkbob wrote:While the problem is absolutely an inequity in who is paying how much taxes, but the solution isn't a flat tax. The solution is taxing spending instead of taxing earnings.
RiverDog wrote:
But there are a couple of big problems with it. One is that it is a tax on accumulated wealth, and for me being a guy about to retire, I have a significant amount of funds that I have already paid taxes on that's going to be taxed again when I use it to buy something. So essentially every fund I own is going to take a 23% hit.
RiverDog wrote:
There is a proposal out there that's been lingering for a couple of decades that does just that. It's called the National Retail Sales Tax, or "Fair Tax".
https://fairtax.org/about
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing ... ve/retail/
I haven't looked at it very closely for several years, but my understanding is that for all retail transactions, including business transactions, services, etc, a 23% tax would be levied at the cash register. The states would be responsible for collecting the tax, and given something like 1% to cover the cost of collection. It would get rid of the IRS and an entire industry of tax accountants. It's been successfully implemented in several other countries, but obviously none on the scale of the American economy.
But there are a couple of big problems with it. One is that it is a tax on accumulated wealth, and for me being a guy about to retire, I have a significant amount of funds that I have already paid taxes on that's going to be taxed again when I use it to buy something. So essentially every fund I own is going to take a 23% hit. What the government would be saying to you is that if you were smart, saved money rather than spend it, made some good financial decisions, we're going to penalize you by charging you another 23% on anything you buy or service you use. Not a great lesson to be teaching, not exactly "fair". There would also be a significant boom/bust in the economy as people would go on a spending spree to stock up on as many goods and services they could up to the date that the tax is implemented then there would be a huge slow down that would last for months, and depending on what else is going on at the time, almost certainly would trigger a major recession, perhaps a depression. Consumables like food and beverages wouldn't be hit for very long, less than a year before everyone used up their inventory, but major things like autos, boats, homes, etc, would experience a years long downturn as people generally don't have to buy a new home, car, or boat and can make do or go without for a very long time.
The only way this ever gets enacted into law is if a leading POTUS candidate adopts it as one of their major campaign issues, wins a general election, and has his/her party controlling both the House and the Senate. It would also require a constitutional amendment, repealing the 16th Amendment that created the income tax, which would mean that the issue would have to go to the states for a lengthy ratification process requiring 2/3's approval, so it's probably not going to occur in my lifetime.
Anyone who is actually knoweldgabe about the subject and is being intellectually honest about it recognizes that calling the Democrats socialists or even trying to link them to socialis is nothing more than propogandist bullshit.
You're gas tax example doesn't wash.
The U.S. may have the most progressive tax plan in the world in terms of tax burden but you also need to look at how the tax money is spent.
kalibane wrote:Yep Riv that's one of the problems with it. How do you deal with the wealth that people have alredy have taxed. I think the consumer tax makes the most sense but there are so many challenges in getting something like that ratified and we can't even get a budget done at the present time. How are we going to overhaul the tax code to that degree?
You can't find one instance of me saying the rich don't pay their "fair share" because I've never said it.
Look if you are wealthy and all you are doing is looking out for yourself I get why your philosophy is what it is.
You keep wanting to argue facts in a vacuum.
If Planned Parenthood has their funding pulled then hundreds of thousands of people who otherwise wouldn't get pregnant do. So yeah that 500 million comes off the federal balance sheet but because they don't have insurance that 30,000.00 per pregancy falls on us anyway. Maybe you won't see it on your tax bill but you'll see it on your insurance premiums. So would you rather us have to shoulder 500 million in tax liability to fund Planned Parenthood or would you rather shoulder 1.5 billion in added strain on the health insurance idustry? (And that is an EXTREMELY conservative estimate). If Planned Parenthood prevents just 17,000 pregnancies a year it pays for that funding and prevents added liability on us.
What it sounds like is you're playing the short game and you just don't want those poor people in your pocket by using entitlement programs and such.
Why don't you tell me more about arguing facts in a vacuum, Mr. "You must want infrastructure to crumble if you oppose Yet Another Social Program We Can't Afford".
Your premise is that if PP isn't providing free birth control, nobody is and it won't be available. Why?
[edit- Further, I suspect you know this, but the objection to Federal money going to PP is not fiscal- it's moral, and the objection has merit (which I can admit despite being rather pro-choice-ish as long as it's performed early enough).]
Nobody's trying to eliminate SS or Medicare/Medicaid, so give it a rest- it's just that some of us took math in college and can see that those programs, as currently configured and distributed, have *ZERO* chance of staying solvent. You won't be able to *begin* to pay for them simply by jacking tax rates on whoever you don't like this year- you *have* to make changes to them and stop demonizing the s*** out of every person that so much as mentions fixing them instead of endlessly expanding them.
Burrrton... you want me to have said rich people need to pay their fair share so you have projected it on me and choose to believe it because it makes it easier for you to dismiss what I've said.
It won't prevent all 3.6 million people from getting birth control but it will prevent a lot of people from getting it.
You really have just eaten up all the talking points haven't you?
Also the moral argument against planned parenthood is even flimsier than the fiscal. If you're one of those sting video truthers I don't even know what to say.
Something you decided to avoid talking about entirely but you have just decided that I'm a stereotypical tax and spend liberal.
No where did I say that I want to raise taxes
Our compromise, would say that no income taxes would be owed on the first $40,000 of income for all earners.
burrrton wrote:Anyone who is actually knoweldgabe about the subject and is being intellectually honest about it recognizes that calling the Democrats socialists or even trying to link them to socialis is nothing more than propogandist bullshit.
If you put a capital "S" on Socialism/Socialist, we agree, as I've stated. If you want instead to protest what I actually said rather than what you wanted me to say, ie. the lurch-left-toward-small-"s"-socialist-tendencies, sorry- you guys made your bed, enjoy sleeping in it.
You're gas tax example doesn't wash.
Oh nonsense- of course there are differences, but it illustrates how morally bankrupt the line of reasoning is that leads people to characterize an across-the-board tax cut as merely a "TAX CUT FOR THE WEALTHY!"
It's politics of envy BS meant to garner votes, not make anything more "fair".
The U.S. may have the most progressive tax plan in the world in terms of tax burden but you also need to look at how the tax money is spent.
Fine- argue for more social programs, or even go full Sanders and argue for taxing "the rich" at 90%, or 100%, or just confiscating all accumulated wealth if that's your thing.
Just quit bullshitting everybody and cut the tired baloney about successful people not paying their "FAIR SHARE". They pay *far* more than that already.
No, Kal- I'm pointing out that your strong objection to me (mistakenly) thinking you used the term "fair share" seems bizarre given your ridiculous implications and accusations.
Again, you made your bed there, chief. I won't attribute that phrase directly to you, but if it sums up your attitudes pretty tidily...
It would do no such thing, for heaven's sake. Dems could make the dmn pill OTC tomorrow (even subsidize the $10-20/mo it costs for lowest income, probably).
This is a good example why it's pointless to argue with you. You say "I NEVER SAID I WANT TAXES TO GO UP" right after you insultingly complain that I'm just a rich guy who wants to keep the "poor's" hands off my money, that taxes are SOOOOO low, etc ad nauseum.
Old but Slow wrote:Would you let Huckabee?
c_hawkbob wrote:I think the idea of any politician as a babysitter is pretty frightening.
burrrton wrote:Our tax system is already the most progressive in the industrialized world ("THE RICH" support WAY more of our system than their income should indicate).
Endlessly whining for us to shift more and more of the tax burden upward is counter-productive. Worse, though, it's adolescent 'politics of envy' claptrap. "Because he can!" is not a reasonable answer to "Why should he pay more?"
EmeraldBullet wrote:None of these candidates will actually change the tax law. The president doesn't have the authority, it would take an act of congress as well. Never gonna happen. Politicians are too busy using the power of their positions to line their own pockets to even give a rats @$$ about us common folk.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests