Political thread 2011

[DaveH]

Trafik Jamz;325330 wrote:
I could be wrong too, but based on the way his campaign as being portrayed as disorganized and unfocused in the early primary states I have a hard time seeing him surviving past the first couple of primaries. My opinion: 5 minutes of fame left out of his initial 15

I'm not sure what to think about the guy. Either he's a genius and is changing the way a winning campaign is done... or, he needs to hire someone that knows how to run a campaign.

[Rexwagon]

Eurofan;325323 wrote:
+1

not everyone is a racist bigot like you. Why the fuck would it matter if they were a minority or not? If they held ideals that were consistent with yours, had a good economic plan and all the other credentials that define a good candidate... you wouldn't vote for them because he/she is black/hispanic/(insert race here)??? That is fucked up beyond belief the same way that it is fucked up when people vote for people that are minorities just because they like the idea of a minority in the oval office.

you must listen to rap music, wear skinny jeans, and smell like a fruit stand from abercrombie

[Eurofan]

Rexwagon;325338 wrote:
you must listen to rap music, wear skinny jeans, and smell like a fruit stand from abercrombie

Lmao. Are you gracing us with more of your intelligence?

Still doesn't make up for your bigotry.

Lets keep the thread on topic and refrain from any personal attacks.

[Rexwagon]

Eurofan;325344 wrote:
Lmao. Are you gracing us with more of your intelligence?

Still doesn't make up for your bigotry.

Lets keep the thread on topic and refrain from any personal attacks.

but this is fargostreet

[Trafik Jamz]

Rexwagon;325338 wrote:
you must listen to rap music

Yes, daily.

[Eurofan]

Rexwagon;325354 wrote:
but this is fargostreet

[DaveH]

That explains it. /shakes head > Trafik Jamz;325357 wrote:

Yes, daily.

[Trafik Jamz]

DaveH;325359 wrote:
That explains it. /shakes head

Eh, it's what I grew up on mostly....that and metal.

I like most music though.

[torbs]

I want Ron Paul to win the nomination, but...

I'm gonna take a long shot and say Newt is going to ultimately be the nominee, if he can get some capital together. I say this because he is BY FAR the best debater of all of them (we live in the USoE, United States of Entertainment), and there are MANY debates left in this primary cycle. He's like the professor in the room who chimes in with history lessons and attempts to keep everybody's eyes on the ball, which is defeating Obama. His polls have been moving up, slowly but surely. Let's not forget that at this time in 2007 it was (correct me if I'm wrong, going by memory) Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson on top.

(the following is in no particular order)

Romney is NOT a long-run non-contender as his beliefs just depend on what day it is and who he's speaking to (or maybe that's why he'll win?). Either way, the man can't hold a steady belief to save his life.

Hermain Cain's 9/9/9 plan will ultimately be his demise because people will eventually realize it holds no teeth and has a large chance (it's Washington D.C...99.999999% chance) of being misused and changed without placing it as a Constitutional Amendment and repealing the 16th Amendment simultaneously. It gives Congress an open door to an entire new tax (national sales) without getting rid of the income tax. I'm all for a national sales tax (i.e. Fairtax, which Hermain states his 9/9/9 is a path to) if it replaces the entire federal tax system, but his plan doesn't do any such thing. It is nice that he opened up the debate for a restructuring of the tax code, however.

Ron Paul has the best messages, but he is a poor communicator. Same story for Gary Johnson.

Santorum is the only one really championing social issues important to social conservatives. There is one thing he took issue which I think he needs to push more about, and that's the breakdown of the American family...Divorce rates, single parents, sense of entitlement, etc.

Bachman is done.

Huntsman still has a shot, although a long one.

Perry is done. He'll be used by the other candidates to help take Romney down.

I could be wrong on this, but this is what my gut tells me.

[torbs]

Trafik Jamz;325325 wrote:
His economic plan is far from solid and does little to encourage growth since the incentive is to save vs spend. It's affect on the lowest wage earners in this country will be devastating as everything that you buy will now be 9% more expensive due to sales tax. It also lacks the ability to even come close meeting our current spending needs (which need to be cut, but will never get to the point where his tax would be feasible during his potential 8 years as president). Plus he'd never get the votes to pass it, even with a republican super majority.

It's no secret that the base needs to be broadened in the tax system. Denying it will only make the issue worse. Nearly 50% don't pay in any income tax or actually gain money from the system. Personally, if you make $20K a year, you can afford to pay a maximum of ~$3438/year in directly visible (I say directly visible because the 9% business tax will be passed along to consumers as well) federal taxes (using 9/9/9), assuming you spend every penny you earn on brand new items and there are no taxes already built into the purchase of items. However, one can argue there's the possibility it would be less than a 9% net difference in cost of goods compared to the current tax system as there are several taxes already built into the price of goods that would be reduced, reducing the cost of the goods. Therefore, the ~$1638 of that amount will most likely be less. Also, think of it this way, a national sales tax (that repeals the 16th Amendment) which gets rid of the income tax, makes tourists and illegal immigrants federal taxpayers too. This is coming from somebody who has lived below the poverty line, but at the same time managed to not take handouts and have a pretty good standard of living.

To repeat, I'm not for 9/9/9 as it sits because there is no plan to repeal the 16th Amendment nor add it to The Constitution as an Amendment. I also don't like it for the fact it still has an income tax. Taxes at the point of where they are earned is not something the federal government should be doing, however, states have the right to do it if they so wish. Also, it's been far too long since I've argued with Chuck about something

[Trafik Jamz]

torbs;325366 wrote:
It's no secret that the base needs to be broadened in the tax system. Denying it will only make the issue worse. Nearly 50% don't pay in any income tax or actually gain money from the system. Personally, if you make $20K a year, you can afford to pay a maximum of ~$3438/year in federal taxes (using 9/9/9), assuming you spend every penny you earn on brand new items and there are no taxes already built into the purchase of items. However, one can argue there's the possibility it would be less than a 9% net difference in cost of goods compared to the current tax system as there are several taxes already built into the price of goods that would be reduced, reducing the cost of the goods. Therefore, the ~$1638 of that amount will most likely be less. Also, think of it this way, a national sales tax (that repeals the 16th Amendment) which gets rid of the income tax, makes tourists and illegal immigrants federal taxpayers too. This is coming from somebody who has lived below the poverty line, but at the same time managed to not take handouts and have a pretty good standard of living.

To repeat, I'm not for 9/9/9 as it sits because there is no plan to repeal the 16th Amendment nor add it to The Constitution as an Amendment. I also don't like it for the fact it still has an income tax. Taxes at the point of where they are earned is not something the federal government should be doing, however, states have the right to do it if they so wish. Also, it's been far too long since I've argued with Chuck about something

Sorry torbs, but I LOL when I hear "there are several taxes already built into the price of goods that would be reduced". Taxes seldom get reduced and would likely never do so across the board.

But let's look at the rest of your points. You've said over 50% of American's pay zero federal income tax. I can't argue with that. It is a fact. But it's a fact that will make my point in just a second. 52,000,000 working people had no tax liability in 2008 (latest numbers I could find in the 45 seconds I looked, of them about 1000 are millionaires bringing the total to 51,999,000 "non millionaires" without tax liability...is it ok if I use 52million for my calculations though? thanks!). By your calculations $3438/year in federal taxes (using 9/9/9) per person would be collected.

Simple math tells us that this means there would be $178,776,000,000 in new taxes being collected. This sounds great, right?

Well, maybe not. That also means that there is >$178BILLION that will not be spent at businesses which will decrease the amount of money spent at businesses. Guess what? Poor people shop too. I've been to Walmart, I can verify this. I don't think our economy can absorb an additional 178 billion in lost sales. Considering that 1/2 of American's have less than $2000 in savings I think it's fair to say that the average poor person spends almost every dollar they earn.

Then there is the other loophole in the 9/9/9 plan, it turns our Cain means 9/0/9 for the poor, or as Cain put it: If you aren't paying any income taxes now, you won't under my plan either. (paraphrased). This means that instead of $3438/year collected, the dollar amount drops to $93,600,000,000. So now we "only" take 93 billion out of the economy since they still have to pay the sales tax portion of it.

Point being: His business plan isn't good for the poor and it SUCKS for retail businesses as well.

[torbs]

Chuck, 9/9/9 replaces taxes businesses currently pay. Therefore, by its very definition, it would lower business tax burdens (at least it appears to on the surface). Also, I used $20K per year on taxes as an example. Please do not assert that it is an average for all individuals in that ~50% that don't pay taxes; I did not at all state that. You're playing a political word game in an attempt to make me look incompetent. Valiant effort, however.

Keep in mind I'm for minimal taxation on all individuals, I believe every person should be paying the same percent(ages) for each type of federal tax. A booming economy leads to more jobs, more taxpayers, and an overall larger pie. If somebody moves from making $20K to $30K, even at having to pay 9% both on the income and sales side when they didn't before, they are at a net gain from the 9/9/9 system. They will therefore have more money to spend and put into the economy. I'm not saying 9/9/9 will work, but it's at least something and in its concept may work.

[DaveH]

Trafik Jamz;325367 wrote:
Point being: His business plan isn't good for the poor and it SUCKS for retail businesses as well.

It seems like you are making the typical conservative argument, that you can't take more money from people in taxes because then they have less money to spend. Interesting.

[Trafik Jamz]

Yes Dave, I've always been in favor of moderately low taxes, especially on those who spend 99.99999% of their income to live.

I can make one statement with a fair amount of certainty, shifting to the 9/9/9 plan is regressive in that the working poor will shoulder a higher percentage of their wages as taxes vs the middle class vs the rich. Once you reach a certain point (and it's different for everyone admittedly) you are able to save more and spend less thereby lowering your percentage of income lost to taxes (under this plan). It puts the heaviest weight on those who can afford it least. I'd much rather see a tax rate of say 13% FLAT across the board except for those below the poverty line (progessive tax up to the poverty line, flat after that). No business deductions, no personal deductions, nothing. You make a dollar you pay thirteen cents. You make $1,000,000 you pay 130,000. And I KNOW that isn't a popular idea anywhere, but it is the most fair.

And Torbs, I used your numbers just for the sake of having a number. I know that some people make $5000/year and won't be taxed at that amount. I also know that some people will make $50,000/year (and pay no taxes currently) but will pay more than what you stated. You are trying to make an argument out of me using the average number that you presented. I thought it was a fair number and a close approximation of what reality may be).

[torbs]

Trafik Jamz;325371 wrote:
Yes Dave, I've always been in favor of moderately low taxes, especially on those who spend 99.99999% of their income to live.

I can make one statement with a fair amount of certainty, shifting to the 9/9/9 plan is regressive in that the working poor will shoulder a higher percentage of their wages as taxes vs the middle class vs the rich. Once you reach a certain point (and it's different for everyone admittedly) you are able to save more and spend less thereby lowering your percentage of income lost to taxes (under this plan). It puts the heaviest weight on those who can afford it least. I'd much rather see a tax rate of say 13% FLAT across the board except for those below the poverty line (progessive tax up to the poverty line, flat after that). No business deductions, no personal deductions, nothing. You make a dollar you pay thirteen cents. You make $1,000,000 you pay 130,000. And I KNOW that isn't a popular idea anywhere, but it is the most fair.

And Torbs, I used your numbers just for the sake of having a number. I know that some people make $5000/year and won't be taxed at that amount. I also know that some people will make $50,000/year (and pay no taxes currently) but will pay more than what you stated. You are trying to make an argument out of me using the average number that you presented. I thought it was a fair number and a close approximation of what reality may be).

Chuck, you may want to look into Newt's economic plan. One can either use the current system or use an optional 15% flat income tax. It's very similar to what you outlined, and I think it would actually be very popular, contrary to what you believe. I would also like to see a system similar to it. Here's that part of Newt's plan:

Move toward an optional flat tax of 15% that would allow Americans the freedom to choose to file their taxes on a postcard, saving hundreds of billions in unnecessary costs each year. This optional flat tax system will preserve deductions on charitable giving and home ownership, and create a new personal deduction of $12,000 for every American. This deduction is well above the current poverty level, ensuring that this new system does not unfairly target the poor. Source: http://www.newt.org/solutions/jobs-economy

My point is that the number I presented was not presented as an average number. It was used as an example of a single person's income, not meant to be an average. It's not a big deal. There are bigger and better things to talk about.

[63vette]

Trafik Jamz;325371 wrote:
I also know that some people will make $50,000/year (and pay no taxes currently).

Can you name one person making 50k and paying no takes. I cant, its almost impossible unless the person is getting the 50k already from the government in aid, grants, etc..

[DaveH]

Trafik Jamz;325371 wrote:
especially on those who spend 99.99999% of their income to live.Why does that matter?> Trafik Jamz;325371 wrote:
I can make one statement with a fair amount of certainty, shifting to the 9/9/9 plan is regressiveI haven't researched the 999 deal much, but from just looking at the basics it is anything but regressive. You can make "what if" senarios where the "rich guy" doesn't buy anything and bypasses the sales tax completely, but that is just silly. The "rich guy" has to spend at least as much as the "poor guy" to on the basics to live, most often times way more I would guess (nicer clothes, better food, etc). > Trafik Jamz;325371 wrote:
I'd much rather see a tax rate of say 13% FLAT across the board except for those below the poverty line (progessive tax up to the poverty line, flat after that). No business deductions, no personal deductions, nothing. You make a dollar you pay thirteen cents. You make $1,000,000 you pay 130,000. And I KNOW that isn't a popular idea anywhere, but it is the most fair.A flat tax is ok too, altho I don't really see the end numbers really being much different than the 999 plan. Lets not talk about "fair". "Fair would be everyone paying the same amount. You are an american, you pay $3000 in tax, I'm an american, I pay $3000 in tax, torbs is an american, he pays $3000 in tax, baller fontaine is an american, he pays $3000 in tax. :DI would mainly just like to see that everyone has some skin in the game, the fact that ~43% don't pay income tax is just rediculous.

[Trafik Jamz]

63vette;325375 wrote:
Can you name one person making 50k and paying no takes. I cant, its almost impossible unless the person is getting the 50k already from the government in aid, grants, etc..

Me, 2 years ago....paid zero taxes, made decent money between my wife and I (way more than $50,000) but I have cattle and other write-off's that I get to depreciate on my father's farm. Last year I made too much on the cattle and paid in a bit. Don't ask me to explain how, I have an accountant that does my taxes for me.

[Trafik Jamz]

DaveH;325376 wrote:
Why does that matter?I haven't researched the 999 deal much, but from just looking at the basics it is anything but regressive. You can make "what if" senarios where the "rich guy" doesn't buy anything and bypasses the sales tax completely, but that is just silly.

Never said they wouldn't buy anything, just that they don't spend ALL of their extra income each paycheck like most of the poor do. Let's say they put away 10% of their money. If that is $100,000 per year (on a millionaire) then they are paying a lower rate than the ones who put away $0/year. The regressive part about it is that the poor will almost always spend all of their money every year whereas each level up from them will save a larger portion.

The "rich guy" has to spend at least as much as the "poor guy" to on the basics to live, most often times way more I would guess (nicer clothes, better food, etc).

I agree, he will spend more, but not a higher percentage of his income. No doubt, the dollar amount will be higher for nicer things but he will still pay a lower percentage vs what he earned.

A flat tax is ok too, altho I don't really see the end numbers really being much different than the 999 plan.

Except it's based on income, not consumption purchasing.

Lets not talk about "fair". "Fair would be everyone paying the same amount. You are an american, you pay $3000 in tax, I'm an american, I pay $3000 in tax, torbs is an american, he pays $3000 in tax, baller fontaine is an american, he pays $3000 in tax. :DI would mainly just like to see that everyone has some skin in the game, the fact that ~43% don't pay income tax is just rediculous.

I agree with the last sentence (it's 52% now I believe), and while I agree with the CONCEPT of everyone paying X amount, I don't think the reality is there for that EVER happening. So the next most fair thing is to have everyone taxed at the same rate as that is the most likely to happen (though still slim)

[DaveH]

It must be the same accountant that Wesley Snipes uses.:D> Trafik Jamz;325377 wrote:

Me, 2 years ago....paid zero taxes, made decent money between my wife and I (way more than $50,000) but I have cattle and other write-off's that I get to depreciate on my father's farm. Last year I made too much on the cattle and paid in a bit. Don't ask me to explain how, I have an accountant that does my taxes for me.