2016 Presidential Campaign

[Fudge_Brownie]

23 hours ago, Burn-E said:

If you think the government needs taxes in order to fund its activities then you're going to make bad decisions on how and what to tax.

I think I might have too many questions about the majority of what you said - so I'm gonna skip to the closing line. I think the government needs taxes in order to fund its activities. I don't understand how else they're going to pay for those activities. I suppose they could print money or take loans until no one will lend to them, but those aren't long term plans. What am I missing? I get that who pays can be used to influence the economy. But that's not it's primary purpose.

Encyclopedia Britannica says it better: " Taxation, imposition of compulsory levies on individuals or entities by governments. Taxes are levied in almost every country of the world, primarily to raise revenue for government expenditures, although they serve other purposes as well."

[Burn-E]

I'm sorry but sticking to basic encyclopedia definitions is not going to help you.  They reflect the common viewpoint which I've already said falls on its face. Yes, taxes raise revenues but that is their secondary rather than their primary purpose.  Taxes are a tool for encouraging actors in the economy to pursue certain economic activities and discourage them from pursuing other activities.  Think on that for a second.  Why do we allow people to take deductions on their taxes?  Take the biggest examples, specifically the deductions against donations and deductions against mortgage interest. Why are those there?

Why would you increase or decrease those deductions?

Think about another example, why would you tax gasoline or cigarettes?  What are the driving purposes for those taxes?

You have to break free from the thought that taxes are about government income and understand why they can be effective as a lever and their true purpose.

I'll give you one last example.  Consider the Tobin Tax.  In the discussion of encouraging businesses to better invest their capital in an era where many are sitting on vast sums of cash and refusing to make bets but instead seeking returns through financial transactions, Clayton Christensen offered this thought:

"One way to repurpose capital is through tax policy. Our alumni had a spirited exchange on the wisdom of imposing a Tobin tax on financial transactions to reduce high-frequency trading, which would increase illiquidity and therefore (it is thought) investment in innovation. Such a tax would be anything but simple to devise and enforce, but a growing body of academic and empirical evidence suggests it could be effective at repurposing capital by lengthening shareholder tenure."

See the problem that Christensen correctly observed is driving corporations to sit on their hands while cutting costs (good for the business in the short term but terrible for creating jobs and growing the long term prospects of the business) is because they have a large number of "tourist" institutional investors who are only interested in the company as a vehicle for a quick return rather than encouraging the corporate officers to make good bets in innovations that will create new markets and increase customer satisfaction. But if you tax high frequency trading then you could force investors to take a longer view and encourages what Christensen termed "resident" investors.  Think of a community he says, to whom does the village board listen most closely when it comes to decision making?  Those with a vested interest in the success and health of the community or those who drop in for a quick stay?

This Tobin tax is an excellent example of thinking about taxes in the proper light.

The point is, there are a wide variety of avenues that a government can pursue in order to collect revenues.  The right question is what tax vehicles will encourage the right economic activities given the current macro economic environment and the immediate needs of the country and its citizens?  Once you answer those questions then you can examine who and what to tax at what rates.

You have to figure this part out Alden before you can even begin to grasp why any particular 501(c)(3) is worthy of receiving those benefits.

[Commander Riker]

Alain is very correct on this.  Taxes do serve as a motivational purpose.  For example, having kids.

 

This is why I feel our taxation system in it's current form is completely fucked.  There is no representation of the people, just rather the will of government.  

Was and still am a proponent of the fair tax, because I feel we should be voting with dollars instead of ballot boxes now that the corporate world has merged with government.  

Fuck tax lobbyists.  Fuck the government using taxes to influence a person's decisions.  When are we going to return control to the people?

 

 

PS..  Also, fucking fuck this presidential election.  It's mind numbingly retarded.

 

./end_rant

[Kevin.]

On 10/19/2016 at 6:51 AM, Burn-E said:

Keep trying Alden.  I think your arguments as they stand are extremely half baked.

There's little room between the points I made and the letter encouraging members to vote against assisted suicide and marijuana legalization.  Religion has long held a role of teaching and speaking out on moral issues as a voice within society.

 

half baked? Come on Alain, I see this shit every single day. The religious want special treatment but don't want others to receive that same treatment. Great example is Satanic temples not being allowed to pass out information at a public event because the local churches cried about it. Religious freedom is religious freedom, and that includes religions that aren't your own. Go figure.

 

Makes me laugh that the religious people in this country are blindly following Trump solely because he is Republican. Guess it's ok if he gropes people because he is a Republican

1 hour ago, Commander Riker said:

 

Fuck tax lobbyists.  Fuck the government using taxes to influence a person's decisions.  When are we going to return control to the people?

 

 

lobbying is literally legal bribing. Shit is fucked up. The people have to take the country back, mainly by voting out shitty old congressmen/senators and bringing in a new wave of fresh minds. John McCain has been in the Senate longer than I have been alive, think about that for a minute

[Fudge_Brownie]

On 10/21/2016 at 1:02 PM, Burn-E said:

I'm sorry but sticking to basic encyclopedia definitions is not going to help you.  They reflect the common viewpoint which I've already said falls on its face. Yes, taxes raise revenues but that is their secondary rather than their primary purpose.  Taxes are a tool for encouraging actors in the economy to pursue certain economic activities and discourage them from pursuing other activities.  Think on that for a second.  Why do we allow people to take deductions on their taxes?  Take the biggest examples, specifically the deductions against donations and deductions against mortgage interest. Why are those there?

The point is, there are a wide variety of avenues that a government can pursue in order to collect revenues.  The right question is what tax vehicles will encourage the right economic activities given the current macro economic environment and the immediate needs of the country and its citizens?  Once you answer those questions then you can examine who and what to tax at what rates.

You have to figure this part out Alden before you can even begin to grasp why any particular 501(c)(3) is worthy of receiving those benefits.

I used something as basic as Britannica because it seemed like you were trying to present your viewpoint as if it was the understanding most people educated on the topic had. But it sounds like you're really defending what is the minority or alternative view. That's fine, and we can agree to disagree on whether it should be viewed that way. I don't think there's anything I'm missing though. I fully understand, and have from the start, that taxes can be used to influence the economy. And why it is theoretically beneficial to give certain groups a pass. Or to tax heavily another.

So to the original question, of whether religious groups should get that benefit, I still don't see what's wrong with allowing them to spend all they want on social services while considering money spent on advertising and lobbying as taxable income. 

That's probably my compromised view. My idealistic view is a flat tax. I don't like the idea of giving mortgage and child deductions either.

[Commander Riker]

50 minutes ago, Kevin. said:

 

John McCain has been in the Senate longer than I have been alive, think about that for a minute

12 years isn't that long.  lol

 

jk  <3

[Kevin.]

1 hour ago, Commander Riker said:

12 years isn't that long.  lol

 

jk  <3

 

:'( 

[Burn-E]

3 hours ago, Fudge_Brownie said:

I used something as basic as Britannica because it seemed like you were trying to present your viewpoint as if it was the understanding most people educated on the topic had. But it sounds like you're really defending what is the minority or alternative view. That's fine, and we can agree to disagree on whether it should be viewed that way. I don't think there's anything I'm missing though. I fully understand, and have from the start, that taxes can be used to influence the economy. And why it is theoretically beneficial to give certain groups a pass. Or to tax heavily another.

So to the original question, of whether religious groups should get that benefit, I still don't see what's wrong with allowing them to spend all they want on social services while considering money spent on advertising and lobbying as taxable income. 

That's probably my compromised view. My idealistic view is a flat tax. I don't like the idea of giving mortgage and child deductions either.

A minority view?  No my friend.  Take it from the perspective that a majority of the populace barely understand the basics of economics.  I'm talking about understanding what tax policy is. What every single economist in the country recognizes it to be.

So yes, if you want to make it the minority view as in, how the general public understands it, then sure. But they're also the same people who think evolution is a lie. 

Try looking up the term: "Tax Policy" and see what you find.  In fact, I'll make it easy for you.  Here's what wikipedia has to say:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_policy

Or better yet, we can go back to your article and read a little further down the page from the Britannica:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/taxation

"Purpose of Taxation:

During the 19th century the prevalent idea was that taxes should serve mainly to finance the government. In earlier times, and again today, governments have utilized taxation for other than merely fiscal purposes. One useful way to view the purpose of taxation, attributable to American economist Richard A. Musgrave, is to distinguish between objectives of resource allocation, income redistribution, and economic stability. (Economic growth or development and international competitiveness are sometimes listed as separate goals, but they can generally be subsumed under the other three.) In the absence of a strong reason for interference, such as the need to reduce pollution, the first objective, resource allocation, is furthered if tax policy does not interfere with market-determined allocations. The second objective, income redistribution, is meant to lessen inequalities in the distribution of income and wealth. The objective of stabilization—implemented through tax policy, government expenditure policy, monetary policy, and debt management—is that of maintaining high employment and price stability.

There are likely to be conflicts among these three objectives. For example, resource allocation might require changes in the level or composition (or both) of taxes, but those changes might bear heavily on low-income families—thus upsetting redistributive goals. As another example, taxes that are highly redistributive may conflict with the efficient allocation of resources required to achieve the goal of economic neutrality."

Hmmm, sounds an awful lot like my argument. Go figure.

[Burn-E]

6 hours ago, Kevin. said:

 

half baked? Come on Alain, I see this shit every single day. The religious want special treatment but don't want others to receive that same treatment. Great example is Satanic temples not being allowed to pass out information at a public event because the local churches cried about it. Religious freedom is religious freedom, and that includes religions that aren't your own. Go figure.

 

Makes me laugh that the religious people in this country are blindly following Trump solely because he is Republican. Guess it's ok if he gropes people because he is a Republican

Dear God do you even think before you type?

Let me list out how you might be possible be wrong here.  Let's start with Trump.

How is he doing in Utah?  What's that? You mean a third party candidate is leading both Clinton and Trump and it's apparent that Evan McMullin is likely to take that State and be the first third party candidate to actually win electoral votes since John Hospers did in 1972? Hmm, I wonder why Trump is doing so poorly in Utah?  Oh, that's right, because everyone's talking about how Mormons are leading the way as Christians who reject Trump while many of the Evangelical Christians are still supporting him. Huh, that must mean that you can't actually lump religious people into one single category for how they behave. Fascinating how that works.

Trump's Utah problem (an article I linked earlier): http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-evan-mcmullin-could-win-utah-and-the-presidency/

McMullin leads in Utah: http://www.sltrib.com/news/4485415-155/evan-mcmullin-takes-the-lead-in

Mormons embarrassing Christians in the Religious Right as they abandon Trump: https://thinkprogress.org/mormons-embarrass-religious-right-a84f0fd78b85#.h8wrhruhv

(Oh and it also mentions how Catholics - hmm, they wouldn't be religious now then would they? - are supporting Clinton).  

What about Jews?  Who do they support? They're not religious at all are they?

http://religionnews.com/2016/09/14/poll-jewish-voters-support-clinton-over-trump-by-3-1-ratio/

Huh, they support Clinton at a 3 to 1 ratio.

You know what, I'm going stop there.  Go get some education Kevin.  You continue to spew nonsense and do not even understand what the difference is between Free Speech and Freedom of Religion.

[Fudge_Brownie]

21 minutes ago, Burn-E said:

A minority view?  No my friend.  Take it from the perspective that a majority of the populace barely understand the basics of economics.  I'm talking about understanding what tax policy is. What every single economist in the country recognizes it to be.

So yes, if you want to make it the minority view as in, how the general public understands it, then sure. But they're also the same people who think evolution is a lie.

Almost none of what you posted is being debated. You're nearly arguing about semantics. You asked what taxes are for, Kevin (and I) both responded with the text book version of the primary purpose. I still don't see a good case to support your point, but I'm also not sure it matters relative to the original point regarding whether a church should be taxed. I think we're all in agreement that taxes can be used to have economic impact. I already explained my view on that in the previous post.

[Burn-E]

3 hours ago, Fudge_Brownie said:

So to the original question, of whether religious groups should get that benefit, I still don't see what's wrong with allowing them to spend all they want on social services while considering money spent on advertising and lobbying as taxable income. 

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

12 minutes ago, Fudge_Brownie said:

Almost none of what you posted is being debated. You're nearly arguing about semantics. You asked what taxes are for, Kevin (and I) both responded with the text book version of the primary purpose. I still don't see a good case to support your point, but I'm also not sure it matters relative to the original point regarding whether a church should be taxed. I think we're all in agreement that taxes can be used to have economic impact. I already explained my view on that in the previous post.

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

[gmsgltr]

Im voting for this guy^

 

Lets start a pool for who is gonna win and by how much...

[Commander Riker]

2 hours ago, gmsgltr said:

Im voting for this guy^

 

Lets start a pool for who is gonna win and by how much...

Depending on who you're voting for, I suspect your vote may be taxed differently.

[Kevin.]

On 10/24/2016 at 2:23 PM, Burn-E said:

You continue to spew nonsense and do not even understand what the difference is between Free Speech and Freedom of Religion.

 

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

[Commander Riker]

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.