Grr;325712 wrote:
(Hold on to your chair chuck, your gonna love this)

To tell you the truth Dave, I would rather vote for paul and have obama re-elected than to put newt or romney in there, purely for the fact that if BO does indeed stay in office, we can just sit here and either
A, watch it all come down and start over. or
B, watch him do absolutely nothing on account we should have a gain in the house and IMHO a majority senate, and let him drag the Democrat party straight to the gates of hell.

I fear electing one of those clowns instead is just simply not going to turn this ship around, maybe slow it a little, but I for one just wnat to get this shit over with, hit bottom already and get to the rebuilding process. Whereas I beleive Ron may be the only one to put us back on the right track. Now a Paul/Huntsman ticket is where I'm at, cant see santorum grabbing on to the VP, but Huntsman is IMHO the most conservative person on the stage otherwise if you simply go by their records, not to mention his ability to work with china would be a big plus

i'm on board with this...

It doesn't matter though, he looks like a dweeb and will never get elected.

Fiscally I'd say I fit the conservative profile 90% of the time. Interestingly, MOST of the politicians (even the Republican ones) fit this less than 25% of the time if we are being honest about it.

Socially....man this one is tough, but if you are truly small government you can't say that either party is good at this. They both want to limit what you can/can not do based on a religious/personal/purchased view that not everyone can agree on and I think it is better addressed at the state/local levels than at a federal level.

From a military standpoint I just want other countries to fight their own damn wars and if we are attacked, I'm all for immediate retaliation. The problem (as I see it) is that wars are no longer fought between different countries but rather we are fighting against "ideas". By that I mean we are in a war in Afghanistan, but we are not at war with Afghanistan. We are fighting against "Al-Qaeda" but al-qaeda has no official means to declare themselves defeated or to surrender as a whole. Sanctions can not be imposed on them because...well, they are not the officially receiving money/aid/supplies from us or our allies anyway because they aren't a nation. It would be like declaring a war on atheists. They are everywhere and by killing them because they don't follow the rules of your God would do nothing more than create more anger and a further move towards their beliefs.

Basically, I have no faith in the Government as a whole, regardless of political party. I do believe that Ron Paul is the only one who will at least try to do what he says he will as he has a history of this.

To tell you the truth Dave, I would rather vote for paul and have obama re-elected than to put newt or romney in there, purely for the fact that if BO does indeed stay in office, we can just sit here and either
A, watch it all come down and start over. or
B, watch him do absolutely nothing on account we should have a gain in the house and IMHO a majority senate, and let him drag the Democrat party straight to the gates of hell.

I fear electing one of those clowns instead is just simply not going to turn this ship around, maybe slow it a little, but I for one just wnat to get this shit over with, hit bottom already and get to the rebuilding process. Whereas I beleive Ron may be the only one to put us back on the right track. Now a Paul/Huntsman ticket is where I'm at, cant see santorum grabbing on to the VP, but Huntsman is IMHO the most conservative person on the stage otherwise if you simply go by their records, not to mention his ability to work with china would be a big plus

I don't know, Ron Paul is obviously a Tea Party favorite, but he also recently said he is in favor of the "99%" and thinks that Wall Street and the Government are too closely tied to each other "They got the bail out, you got stuck with the bill" (paraphrased). I see him as the only candidate that can possible bridge the TEA Party and OWS movements and gain BOTH of their votes in the upcoming election.

overall it would be a net gain. Some years significantly less than others, but still a net gain in tax revenue.

Trafik Jamz;325438 wrote:
last year was a great year to be in the market Dave. I made money on all of my investments in 2010 (401k, UL Insurance, Stocks, Bonds, etc..) Cumulatively I was +28% on the year. The DJIA was within 10% of all time highs. There would have been money made on taxes that year. Also, just because a stock goes down doesn't mean that everyone lost money. Some people short stocks and make money on the decline.I didn't say "last year".

Trafik Jamz;325435 wrote:
well, I just read it a bit and it limits out at $3000. I guess to be fair if you have a capital loss you should be able to deduct 15% of it from your taxes since if you have a gain you should have to pay 15% on your taxes.Yeah, $3k is a joke.With cap loss deductions, there would have been a LOT less taxes collected since the market took a dump.

however IF capital gains via hedge funds, etc... were taxed like they SHOULD be at the time they were received/earned there would be a big influx of revenue there as well, the last number I recall being thrown around was $2trillion sitting in hedge funds. If taxed at even a 15% capital gains rate that would generate $300,000,000,000 in tax revenue. Now, there's a good likelihood that not ALL of that money will sit there forever and that some will be paid out to the hedge fund owners, but even if it is 1/2 that stays in, that would be $150 billion that is sitting there as money people have made but are not taxed on.

But yes, we absolutely need to cut spending in this country, but that alone will not get us out of the financial mess we are in. We NEED to increase revenue with it...and everyone should be asked to pay a bit more, at least in the short term.

Trafik Jamz;325429 wrote:
Many times that answer is going to be yes, the rich DO get more government benefits (I'm defining "benefits" as any source of revenue or incentive received) than the poor. Whether it is the ability to earn money tax free (until the money is taken out of the fund anyway) on their investments in hedge funds and then borrowing money against the earned interest of those funds so that it looks like they are actually losing money every year, even though they are worth millions.You can't call out capital gains taxes and ignore entitlements. Entitlements make up a HUGE portion of our budget, and have a vastly bigger impact on our economy than money made on income that's already been taxed in the first place.

I do hear an underlying agreement here on simplifying the tax code.

Trafik Jamz;325429 wrote:
To say the poor don't pay "any taxes" (you didn't say it, but it's an argument I always here) is crazy as well. .You're absolutely right, I didn't. You can't breathe in this country without being taxed.> Trafik Jamz;325429 wrote:
Many don't though. A lot do, but many don't pay their "fair share". I can look to my own father for this one (who is by no means rich, but I never went hungry growing up either). He started farming in 1970 and bought the farm from my grandpa in 1972. I remember in 2001 him telling me that this was the first year that he ever had to pay federal income tax, and that was only because my mom went to work at a nursing home as a low wage CNA (to this day she still makes under $11/hour, which is the norm for Rugby, ND). Never mind that from 1995 to 2010 he has received almost $527,000 in subsidies.

So, do I think my own father paid his "fair share" of taxes? No. He doesn't think so either. I don't pay my fair share most years either. Yes, I have it taken out of my paycheck like most of the rest of us, but at the end of the year I get the majority of the money back because of my write offs. Just because I don't think I'm paying enough doesn't mean that I'm not going to do everything in my power to ensure that I get as much money back as is possible at the end of the year. Why? Because legally I have a right to get it back.I ran the numbers last year and very generally speaking, anyone making under $100k is not paying enough federal taxes to cover the per-capita spend. Spending is out of control - reign that in and you can ease the burden for everyone.

tl@altimas.net;325427 wrote:
Not many people seem to grasp that this is what a "Fair tax" would look like. I like to ask these 99%ers, "Do the rich consume more government resources than the poor?" Any tax based on a percentage is inherently UNfair. And any progressive tax is DOUBLY unfair.

Many times that answer is going to be yes, the rich DO get more government benefits (I'm defining "benefits" as any source of revenue or incentive received) than the poor. Whether it is the ability to earn money tax free (until the money is taken out of the fund anyway) on their investments in hedge funds and then borrowing money against the earned interest of those funds so that it looks like they are actually losing money every year, even though they are worth millions.

To say the poor don't pay "any taxes" (you didn't say it, but it's an argument I always here) is crazy as well. While it is true that up to 50% don't pay any federal income tax, they are still required to pay payroll taxes which pay for social programs such as medicare and social security. Every single wage earner in this country pays those taxes and at the exact same rate....unless you make more than $106,800/year, that is the cap after which you are no longer required to pay any additional money into Social Security/Medicare. You can make the argument that the poor take more benefits from SS/Medicare than the rich perhaps, but I don't know of a single person who has ever turned down SS/Medicare once they've retired. Keep in mind that statistically you have a >67% chance to have either cancer or heart disease regardless of income level and lifestyle (some things raise that rate of course...) so MOST people will have to use Medicare at some point in their lives, not just the poor...and when they do it will be costly.

With that said, those who make more money are generally willing to pay a little more as part of an unwritten "social contract" to use a lefty term. But to claim that the rich don't pay their "fair share" is ridiculous. Add that to the fact they they are our employers, and it's easy to see why they're a little pissed off.

Many don't though. A lot do, but many don't pay their "fair share". I can look to my own father for this one (who is by no means rich, but I never went hungry growing up either). He started farming in 1970 and bought the farm from my grandpa in 1972. I remember in 2001 him telling me that this was the first year that he ever had to pay federal income tax, and that was only because my mom went to work at a nursing home as a low wage CNA (to this day she still makes under $11/hour, which is the norm for Rugby, ND). Never mind that from 1995 to 2010 he has received almost $527,000 in subsidies.

So, do I think my own father paid his "fair share" of taxes? No. He doesn't think so either. I don't pay my fair share most years either. Yes, I have it taken out of my paycheck like most of the rest of us, but at the end of the year I get the majority of the money back because of my write offs. Just because I don't think I'm paying enough doesn't mean that I'm not going to do everything in my power to ensure that I get as much money back as is possible at the end of the year. Why? Because legally I have a right to get it back.

A flat tax is the definition of a fair tax.

DaveH;325376 wrote:
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. :DNot many people seem to grasp that this is what a "Fair tax" would look like. I like to ask these 99%ers, "Do the rich consume more government resources than the poor?" Any tax based on a percentage is inherently UNfair. And any progressive tax is DOUBLY unfair.

People need to understand that mathematical truth before negotiating up from there.

With that said, those who make more money are generally willing to pay a little more as part of an unwritten "social contract" to use a lefty term. But to claim that the rich don't pay their "fair share" is ridiculous. Add that to the fact they they are our employers, and it's easy to see why they're a little pissed off.