Republican Explained...

[DaveH]

tjamz wrote:
I still stand by my idea of a better tax code to ensure that everyone pays their fair share of the taxes so that some of the crazy loopholes get filled.

Flat tax, and no (or extremely few) deductions. Of course, I don't mean flat percentage, I mean everyone pays the same amount. I've yet to have anyone tell me what is more fair than that... we all share in this great country, we all pay the same amount of tax. Why should Chuck have to give the government more money than I do simply because he works hard and makes more money than me?

[91nbtsi]

DaveH wrote:
Flat tax, and no (or extremely few) deductions. Of course, I don't mean flat percentage, I mean everyone pays the same amount. I've yet to have anyone tell me what is more fair than that... we all share in this great country, we all pay the same amount of tax. Why should Chuck have to give the government more money than I do simply because he works hard and makes more money than me?

Agreed.

[Guest]

DaveH wrote:
Flat tax, and no (or extremely few) deductions. Of course, I don't mean flat percentage, I mean everyone pays the same amount. I've yet to have anyone tell me what is more fair than that... we all share in this great country, we all pay the same amount of tax. Why should Chuck have to give the government more money than I do simply because he works hard and makes more money than me?

IF that were the case and all existing gov't programs stayed in place and no new ones were ever created and we never went to war again or had to pay for the existing war (etc, etc, etc....) we would have to find a way to generate $2.6 trillion just to break even last year. We have 298,444,215 people in this country, including retired/children/nonworking people, etc...lets assume 2/3 of the population is capable of working (non-retired, etc..) I'm using this number as a base figure, I can look up specifics on how many people work here if the need arises. That leaves us with 198,962,810 people footing the bill. To make the number easier I will round up to 200,000,000. That means that each and every one of us will be required to pay $13,000 in taxes. That will put people out on the streets as for many of us (myself included not that long ago) we would have to pay in as much as we make annually ($6.50/hour is roughly equivalent to $13k/year). Figure it takes nearly that much a year just for living expenses (apt, car, food, etc...) and you've just successfully created the largest poverty class this country has ever seen.

Now tell me what is wrong with my idea Dave. I make $100, I pay $10 in taxes. I make $100,000 and I pay $10,000 in taxes (for example...using 10% just as a base...and its easy to calculate). That way every dollar that everyone earns is taxed exactly the same.

By your standards Dave, everyone who works hard at what they do should be paid the same amount of wages. Doesn't matter if they are milking cows or running the country. If they are in the top 1% of productivity in their careers they should all get paid the same, right? Wouldn't that be fair? I mean, they are all working hard to run a successful business and they all have to pay the same taxes so if they are the best at what they do, they should get the same pay as a CEO, President, Real Estate Tycoon, etc... That sounds more like Socialism than anything I've heard from the left. :icon_thumleft:

[DaveH]

tjamz wrote:
IF that were the case and all existing gov't programs stayed in place

So basically what you've pointed out in your first paragraph is that the wealthy people are paying for basically everything (governmentwise). I think the answer is to eliminate Govt spending, of course no politician seems to want to do that.

tjamz wrote:
Now tell me what is wrong with my idea Dave. I make $100, I pay $10 in taxes. I make $100,000 and I pay $10,000 in taxes (for example...using 10% just as a base...and its easy to calculate). That way every dollar that everyone earns is taxed exactly the same.

My problem with that tax structure is that you are basically redistributing wealth. That is not the governments job. How do you justify taking more money from some people and less from others? Use you and me again as a example, why should one of us be forced to give more money to the government than the other? It makes no sense.

tjamz wrote:
By your standards Dave, everyone who works hard at what they do should be paid the same amount of wages.

LOL at Chuck on this, what sort of analogy is that? People earn what they are worth, or what the company they work for feel they are worth (except with unions). Because they work hard doesn't mean they aren't non-productive or they make only a small profit for the company they work for. The government does not have the job of regulating wages.

[Tad218]

DaveH wrote:
Why should Chuck have to give the government more money than I do simply because he works hard and makes more money than me?
I kinda thought that too before...why should someone be punished for being successful? But there's some families that work their asses off for $50,000 a year or less and there's no way you can put them in the same tax category as a family making $100,000 plus. It seems unfair in ways but all types if employees are needed and you cant make unlivable conditions for people with below average incomes.

[Guest]

1. I agree, lets reduce gov't spending. Unfortunately, you are right, no one will cut programs that help their constituents.

2. But, everyone is paying the same percentage regardless of their profession/wealth class. The system you are suggesting is similar to the one that caused people to immigrate to the united states in the first place. They felt they were being taxed at an unfair rate in comparison with the "rich". Let's face it, its not unbelievably hard to make $100,000/year. Most successful sales people can do that fairly easily. But what separates those making 100,000 a year and 1,000,000+ a year as a CEO/executive of a fortune 500 company? Likely it is who you know, family name (Bill Ford anyone?), incredible luck, and severe ass kissing....some people rise to the top, but not as many as the other 4 ways. Working for a multi billion dollar corporation, I can tell you that the upper echelon of management will do just about anything to make sure that no one else will get promoted or warrant a huge promotion to upper management (insanely high quotas, cut in pay for top producers, etc...), instead there is a constant hiring from OUTSIDE the industry (see "who you know") It's not like you can take a class at NDSU/UND titled "CEO 101" or any other class that will tell you how to make it to the top of any given industry. This is kinda getting off topic, but what I'm getting at is that I don't understand why they shouldn't pay at least the same amount for every dollar they make as I do.

3. I agree with you there Dave, I mostly brought that up just to get a rise from you but also to point out why I think your version of the "Flat Tax" is crazy. I was demonstrating absurdity by being absurd....little something I learned from el-rushbo

[91nbtsi]

Dave for president!

[DaveH]

I don't think how people make money makes any difference. If they want to kiss butt, lay bricks, sell drugs, manage people, etc. it doesn't matter (ok, well as long as it's legal). If someone makes a million dollars a year, good for them. Anyway, we could go round and round on this.

I'm too lazy to figure this out, so maybe Chuck will. What would the flat tax rate have to be to make sure there is enough tax revenue to cover expenditures? 10%? 15%? 25%?

tjamz wrote:
2. But, everyone is paying the same percentage regardless of their profession/wealth class. The system you are suggesting is similar to the one that caused people to immigrate to the united states in the first place. They felt they were being taxed at an unfair rate in comparison with the "rich". Let's face it, its not unbelievably hard to make $100,000/year. Most successful sales people can do that fairly easily. But what separates those making 100,000 a year and 1,000,000+ a year as a CEO/executive of a fortune 500 company? Likely it is who you know, family name (Bill Ford anyone?), incredible luck, and severe ass kissing....some people rise to the top, but not as many as the other 4 ways. Working for a multi billion dollar corporation, I can tell you that the upper echelon of management will do just about anything to make sure that no one else will get promoted or warrant a huge promotion to upper management (insanely high quotas, cut in pay for top producers, etc...), instead there is a constant hiring from OUTSIDE the industry (see "who you know") It's not like you can take a class at NDSU/UND titled "CEO 101" or any other class that will tell you how to make it to the top of any given industry. This is kinda getting off topic, but what I'm getting at is that I don't understand why they shouldn't pay at least the same amount for every dollar they make as I do.

[StangerBanger96]

My joke thread turned into a political debate thread...who wouldn't have guessed?

[CivicEX7777777]

MethodlesS wrote:
Also, clinton is one of the best presidents to come through the white house.

Ever.

You should do your research.

Hell Ya!

[Guest]

DaveH wrote:
I'm too lazy to figure this out, so maybe Chuck will. What would the flat tax rate have to be to make sure there is enough tax revenue to cover expenditures? 10%? 15%? 25%?

The GDP of the US is $12,980,000,000,000 with a labor force of 151,800,000 (thanks wikipedia!!) and our gov't spent $2,600,000,000,000 last year.

so, 2,600,000,000,000 / 12,980,000,000,000 = 20% which is 5% lower than I paid this year.

I guess I didn't need the labor force total number for that equation, but I found it so I thought I'd post it.

[Guest]

I'm not 100% sure, but I think that the $12.98trillion number includes social security spending as well, which would be another tax break.

[AcesHigh]

It is interesting to note that liberals occur in the highest percentage in the highest tiers of education. With that being said, there is no prerequisite for intelligence in politics. I think Bush makes a fine example of this.

[StangerBanger96]

With education comes liberalism as 99% of teachers are liberal and shove liberal ideals down your throat from kindergarten up. It takes a real kid to try find his own opinion rather than being spoon fed everything their teachers tell them.

[MisterCMK]

AcesHigh wrote:
It is interesting to note that liberals occur in the highest percentage in the highest tiers of education. With that being said, there is no prerequisite for intelligence in politics. I think Bush makes a fine example of this.

Funny, seems to be that Bush graduated with a Bachelors from Yale in 1968 and then from Harvard with a Masters of Business Administration after serving in the military.

Next time do a little research before spouting off at the mouth.

Its funny how every time a political discussion comes up, those who cannot come up with any solid arguments end up trying to bash Bush. He may not be a slick mouthed democrat, but he sure as hell makes his point. I would rather have a man that is just like you or me than some slick talking sleezeball.

[AcesHigh]

I don't like to get into internet debates since it is unlikely either one of us will change our minds, but I will say a few things.

I was speaking about the highest tier of education - the doctorate. Doctorates often required to teach college level courses. Almost all of the doctoral professionals I have spoken to have been democratic, including most of those in even a conservative a state as North Dakota. There is a higher ratio of college educated professionals are democratic, and this percentage increases as education level increases. The more uneducated you are the more conservative you tend to be.

Now with that being said, most of the comparable Democratic candidates have doctorate degrees of some form or another, whether it be Ph.D or equivalent law school or business doctorate. As I recall Obama, Edwards, and both Clintons (Hilary and Bill) are all doctorates from law. Heck, Bill was a law professor down in Arkansaw.

And that is all I want to say about education.

It isn't about whether or not Bush has completed the highest level of graduate study or not. It's not about whether he can form a cognitive sentence without grammatical mistakes or not. There's basically a big bag of less than prudent things the Bush administration has done that is inexcusable and really makes him a terrible president. It's a big can of worms and I don't want to get into it as I have had my share of debates against North Dakotan conservatives already.

The point of all this is that some Democrats have really intelligent and progessive ideas that the typical uneducated person would interpret as bureacratic mumbo jumbo simply because they don't get it. The Democratic mindset is to think about others and not ourselves. Improving society together.

It seems to be a hard concept for some Republicans.

[DaveH]

AcesHigh wrote:
<snip> The Democratic mindset is to think about others and not ourselves. Improving society together. It seems to be a hard concept for some Republicans.

This is really going off on a tangent, but oh well.

The education thing is just silly, not worth discussing.

If Dems mindset is to think of others and not themselves, then how can you explain that conservatives give far more (as a percentage of income) to charity than the dems do?

This is my take on that statement. In general, Dems like to position themselves and may even believe that they are thinking of others more than themselves, but what comes out of their attempt to help others is just another step toward socialism. I like the usa the way the founding fathers set it up, it is what has made us the greatest country in the world.

[StangerBanger96]

If you honestly believe the Dems are concerned first and foremost with helping others you yourself are blind. Both parties want nothing more than to advance their ideals...Republicans use the "we don't tax the hell out of you" platform and democrats use the "we accept everyone and all ideas" platform. The truth is that both party says what they think the majority want to hear and then just use the public as a semi-guide to allow them to be re-elected.

Democrats supposedly are open to all ideas but are pretty closed minded on many issues.
Republicans supposedly lower taxes but thats just income tax (the one most people care about since they see the direct affect it has on them) but then raise other taxes to make up for that lost income.

Republicans and Democrats both suck, you need a mixture of both parties to run the country.

[AcesHigh]

DaveH wrote:
The education thing is just silly, not worth discussing.

It was more of an ethos assessment, if anything.

[24valvenotak]

MisterCMK wrote:
Funny, seems to be that Bush graduated with a Bachelors from Yale in 1968 and then from Harvard with a Masters of Business Administration after serving in the military.

Next time do a little research before spouting off at the mouth.

Its funny how every time a political discussion comes up, those who cannot come up with any solid arguments end up trying to bash Bush. He may not be a slick mouthed democrat, but he sure as hell makes his point. I would rather have a man that is just like you or me than some slick talking sleezeball.

i bet if he took osama's cock out of his mouth for two seconds he could speak a bit more clearly....:eek: