2016 Presidential Campaign

[Burn-E]

1 hour ago, Kevin. said:

 

you have freedom of religion in this country until you use your religion as a reason to not allow someone to do something ie gay marriage

And that's basically the law given the majority decision in US v Windsor which declared the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional.  However, that only extends to public goods.  If a church rents their chapel for weddings then they can be obliged to rent it to any kind of couple who wishes to get married.  However, the religion / church is not obliged to perform weddings if the clergy does not do them for pay. And especially if the rites of marriage are recognized by that religion as only belonging to a certain orientation (male + female for instance) then they are free to declare that marriage is only between a man and a woman and are exercising their religious freedoms in doing so.

And those of differing religious beliefs have a right to speak publicly and disagree with a law that might have been passed and preach otherwise as well without being persecuted by the law.

[Burn-E]

1 hour ago, Commander Riker said:

Alain, why are you ok with tax policies that influence decisions outside of government?   Rather than removing those abilities to influence?  

 

That article you posted called a fair or flat tax "regressive", but I don't see how you can just call something regressive and not state how.

The word regressive means that a tax takes a proportionately greater amount of money from those with lower incomes.  Think about it, how much does someone who makes $40,000 spend proportionately on surviving (rent, clothing, food, transportation) vs how much does a 1% er who makes $1,000,000 per year spend on survival?  Depending on where they live that lower middle class income probably just scrapes by.  And they probably benefit greatly from a number of tax deductions that push them down into the 15% tax rate since they just break into the 25% rate which starts at $37k AGI.  Whereas the 1% er is hit with a 39.6% tax assuming they have no deductions and both people in this discussion take their salary direct rather than in stocks or other monetary vehicles that would shift over into discussions of short and longer term capital gains.

Now, the reality is that the 1% has a good accountant who helps them come up with all kinds of approaches to ensure they get dropped down into the 28 or maybe even the 25% tax bracket, especially if most of the salary gets paid not in a monthly check but in stock options.  And they also make significant donations to charities, might have a side business that is struggling and provides a means for applying losses to their tax rate.

Still in the current system, the 1% er is probably paying 10-15% more proportionally than the 99% er in our scenario.

But if you move to a flat tax with no deductions then your lower middle class are going to get slammed.  Proportionally they'll pay substantially more of the budget than any of the upper class earners.  Say you set it at 15%.  Then $6000 is going to come out of the $40k guy's paycheck.  And $150k is going to come out of the $1M guy's paycheck.

Is it fair?  Sure they're both paying equally.  But, the difference is wealthy guy does substantially better in this scenario than our current tax system.  This is actually why Republicans would prefer a flat tax.  Because it would substantially benefit their wealthiest donors.  And what are they going to do with all that money they save?  They're not going to spend it and they're unlikely to donate more to charities since there is no longer a financial incentive for them to do so.  No, they're going to save it and invest it and watch it grow and continue to benefit from low capital gains taxes (15%). And we'll see our income disparity levels continue to spread in this country.

A well structured tax system is not about wealth redistribution.  It's about fairly contributing back to society at greater levels that are proportional to your ability to do so without significantly impacting an average lifestyle that is comfortable.

[Commander Riker]

So I think there are a couple of competing concepts here.  "flat tax" is different then the "fair tax", I believe... and I'll share my (mis)understandings.

A few things also I want to touch on... deductions wouldn't be a thing under the fair tax, because end users would never "file" tax returns.  That whole process is abolished, along with it pieces of the IRS, tax lawyers, those companies that say "do you owe the IRS 10K in dept?" etc  Good.

Also, all corporate taxes in business to business purchases are removed to lower the cost of goods and offset the higher end user sales tax.  The ultimate price is relatively the same for goods to the end user, they are just paying for taxes at the end purchase, rather than paying for embedded taxes with a little extra sales tax.  Also, I would ask we stop re-taxing things like a vehicle every time they are sold, that policy is baseless and ridiculous.

This also removes tax lobbying, which is a scourge on our economy.  Also good.

A person who earns 40K per year is going to spend most of their money, and someone who earns 400K may not.  I get that argument.  Yet, proportionately, they are going to be expected to pay the same tax rate.  If a person earns 40K per year, and decides to save some, they have the ability to do so.  Same with the person who earns 400K.  Government shouldn't attempt to influence the behaviors of either party.   If both are paying the same 20% sales tax on items... one is likely buying a car for 10K, while the other is buying a car for 100K.  They are taxed depending on the decisions they make.  It's their choice.  Not the government's.

I would also like to point out that you gain equal taxation from everyone, regardless of their immigration status, and you do not have losses from those who simply don't file taxes yearly, but owe under the current system.  So instantly you have 10s of millions of people paying taxes just from tourism and illegal immigration. 

Those in the poverty bracket would get a rebate on taxes they would be expected to pay on the basic necessities of life.  This is important to try and provide upward mobility to those in poverty.

The government using tax breaks to influence the decisions of people and businesses only invites corruption.

 

The fair tax, or something like I believe DUMP is proposing, is a one time tax... or just a flax tax across the board per year, but keeping the current tax filing system, etc.  No.  That's all dumb.

 

Under our current system, the more money you make, you eventually get to a point where you don't pay taxes at all if you hire the right lawyers or stash it overseas.  It's a fucking shell game, and you know it.  If you have enough money to pay someone to hide your money, you aren't paying taxes.

 

Lastly, I would state that maybe the fair tax has changed from what I learned 10 years ago.  I get it that it probably would never be allowed by current businesses because it would sever their influence on government.

[Fudge_Brownie]

On 10/24/2016 at 2:31 PM, Burn-E said:

Funny thing is most of that is taxed when it's spent.  We're not talking about expenditures, we're talking about income.

It's hardly semantics Alden.  Why does the government collect taxes?  That's exactly what I asked.  You went simplistic while the very article you quoted provides the answer.  While taxes are used to fund the government it's the policy of taxation that is critical here.  If you cannot understand that tax policy is a legal lever used to drive economic behavior then you're completely ignoring the reason why some organizations and people, depending on their circumstances, are taxed differently.

And if you cannot understand why the important question of examining tax policy matters as to the impact on the economy then that very easily explains why you believe a flat tax is the answer to everything.  On the surface it seems fair.  But the question to ask is whether it would actually help improve our economic situation. Most economists say no.  That it's a really bad idea because it unfairly impacts the lower class and offers a massive tax break to the top 10 percent because as a percentage of income they consume substantially less.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/418604/flat-tax-questionable-economics-bad-politics-reihan-salam

It's semantics. I don't dispute the effects, or the possibilities that tax policy introduces. I think I've made it pretty clear that I understand why that's significant.

I agree that a flat tax has a serious economic risk, but I'm interested in a flat tax fee, not a rate. I also think that introduced today, yes it would unfairly impact the lower class. I see that eventually, incomes would stabilize to match. Unfortunately, I can see how it'd be difficult to ever implement.

[Burn-E]

6 hours ago, Fudge_Brownie said:

It's semantics. I don't dispute the effects, or the possibilities that tax policy introduces. I think I've made it pretty clear that I understand why that's significant.

I agree that a flat tax has a serious economic risk, but I'm interested in a flat tax fee, not a rate. I also think that introduced today, yes it would unfairly impact the lower class. I see that eventually, incomes would stabilize to match. Unfortunately, I can see how it'd be difficult to ever implement.

There is no way incomes would ever equalize with a flat tax.  Your hope is just a dream under that scheme. There is no mechanism that even begins to facilitate that.

It seems not even worth discussing this with you.

14 hours ago, Commander Riker said:

So I think there are a couple of competing concepts here.  "flat tax" is different then the "fair tax", I believe... and I'll share my (mis)understandings.

A few things also I want to touch on... deductions wouldn't be a thing under the fair tax, because end users would never "file" tax returns.  That whole process is abolished, along with it pieces of the IRS, tax lawyers, those companies that say "do you owe the IRS 10K in dept?" etc  Good.

Also, all corporate taxes in business to business purchases are removed to lower the cost of goods and offset the higher end user sales tax.  The ultimate price is relatively the same for goods to the end user, they are just paying for taxes at the end purchase, rather than paying for embedded taxes with a little extra sales tax.  Also, I would ask we stop re-taxing things like a vehicle every time they are sold, that policy is baseless and ridiculous.

This also removes tax lobbying, which is a scourge on our economy.  Also good.

A person who earns 40K per year is going to spend most of their money, and someone who earns 400K may not.  I get that argument.  Yet, proportionately, they are going to be expected to pay the same tax rate.  If a person earns 40K per year, and decides to save some, they have the ability to do so.  Same with the person who earns 400K.  Government shouldn't attempt to influence the behaviors of either party.   If both are paying the same 20% sales tax on items... one is likely buying a car for 10K, while the other is buying a car for 100K.  They are taxed depending on the decisions they make.  It's their choice.  Not the government's.

I would also like to point out that you gain equal taxation from everyone, regardless of their immigration status, and you do not have losses from those who simply don't file taxes yearly, but owe under the current system.  So instantly you have 10s of millions of people paying taxes just from tourism and illegal immigration. 

Those in the poverty bracket would get a rebate on taxes they would be expected to pay on the basic necessities of life.  This is important to try and provide upward mobility to those in poverty.

The government using tax breaks to influence the decisions of people and businesses only invites corruption.

 

The fair tax, or something like I believe DUMP is proposing, is a one time tax... or just a flax tax across the board per year, but keeping the current tax filing system, etc.  No.  That's all dumb.

This too is utopic thinking.  Fair according to whom?

You stripped everything out and then you started reallocating according to various principles that are immediately susceptible to subjective decisions.

I have no idea what a fair tax is.  (I understand what Johnson thinks it is but his approach is highly problematic). Sounds great and probably has lovely talking points but seems no different from a flat tax which I already explained why it fails.

I will say that if you wanted to turn the US into Greece at the fastest pace possible this would be one of the better approaches. Consumption taxes are the most regressive possible because the rich accumulate and do not spend.  

[Commander Riker]

The rich still accumulate and do not spend.  That can't be solved with either tax structure.  One forces them to pay, while another gives them an out via our implicitly complicated tax system.

 

The flat tax, to my knowledge is a taxing a flat percentage of income, keeping in place the existing yearly tax filing system.

The fair tax is a consumption tax.  For sure.  I feel by eliminating tax lobbyist, you could return power to individuals and let them vote with their dollars.  

 

Yeah, Johnson's delivery apparently of everything, including himself, is problematic.  If I were attempting to say where my view were, they are probably close to the libertarian camp, but damnit if they don't try to pick the kookiest motherfuckers every time.  lol    

 

All I'm saying is that sometimes less is more.  Often with these intentionally complicated systems are to keep uneducated people out, and a select few (usually rich white guys) in.  Like our shitty tax system.

[gmsgltr]

Where is Gary? Not Johnson.

I had some democrats show up at the door this weekend... they asked if my wife and I are voting... I said I am not but my wife is and they asked for who and why. I was surprised they asked because this could spark a little front door debate... (We are both registered as undecided in PA) So I told them all about her infatuation with Donald Trump and I just didn't understand what it was about him that she liked so much. They were wide eyed and jaws to the floor and left haha. The end. For the record my wife isn't voting either.  

[Kevin.]

you really should vote Greg

[Kevin.]

tomorrow is the day, god help us all

[gmsgltr]

we should all have the day off and just party all day

[flyfishing3]

i agree in that it should be a national holiday and voting is mandatory.

[Commander Riker]

2 hours ago, flyfishing3 said:

i agree in that it should be a national holiday and voting is mandatory.

National holiday, I would agree with.  Mandatory?  What does that solve?

[flyfishing3]

If everyone is off then its mandatory.  It's a given right that should be enforced/ forced.

 

it might be a waste of time in the end but, you want rights, then do your part. 

[Fudge_Brownie]

1 hour ago, flyfishing3 said:

If everyone is off then its mandatory.  It's a given right that should be enforced/ forced.

 

it might be a waste of time in the end but, you want rights, then do your part. 

I'm not sure you understand how rights work. Just as a right can be exercised, it can be waived. That's the whole point of protecting individual's freedom to choose. By making it a compulsory vote, it's no longer a right.

[flyfishing3]

If its mandatory you won't have the suppression that's prevalent now