2016 Fall Off Topic Thread AKA Football or Politics

[snow_wizard]

On another note, I see CNN is hosting a McCain and Graham townhall in 3 days. Just keeps getting better.

 

I almost think those two were secretly hoping Trump would win all along. They knew as two vocal "Republican" anti-Trumpers they would get a lot of air time during a Trump presidency. Ridiculous.

You may onto something. This could be signing their death warrant as to being re-elected though..

[Jesse]

What's wrong with passing a flat tax and getting rid of all the stupid loopholes? Don't you believe everyone should pay the same percentage?

Getting rid of loopholes/simplifying the tax code is great, but a flat tax rate is just silly. It allows for an enormous concentration of wealth at the top, which is precisely what we have seen over the last 30+ years even without a flat tax rate.

 

Do you really think it's far that someone struggling on minimum wage should have to pay the same percentage of their income in taxes as someone taking home several million or more in bonuses every year? If you do you must be in favor of the continued atrophy of the middle class and continued concentration of wealth among the enormously rich.

[snow_wizard]

What's wrong with passing a flat tax and getting rid of all the stupid loopholes? Don't you believe everyone should pay the same percentage?

I really like the flat tax idea. There would be a certain amount everyone can make tax free and then a flat rate applied to the rest of what they make. It makes a ton of sense and would get rid of so much confusion when people prepare their tax returns.

[snow_wizard]

Getting rid of loopholes/simplifying the tax code is great, but a flat tax rate is just silly. It allows for an enormous concentration of wealth at the top, which is precisely what we have seen over the last 30+ years even without a flat tax rate.

 

Do you really think it's far that someone struggling on minimum wage should have to pay the same percentage of their income in taxes as someone taking home several million or more in bonuses every year? If you do you must be in favor of the continued atrophy of the middle class and continued concentration of wealth among the enormously rich.

Every flat tax plan I've seen allows for people to make a certain amount tax free. People who make less than $20,000 or whatever the number is would pay zero.

[Jesse]

My understanding is that with rich individuals he is going to cut the tax rate, but close the loopholes. Even many conservatives agree the rich shouldn't be able to end up paying nothing due to loopholes.

Closing loopholes sounds great. A little ironic though since Trump has bragged about using the same loopholes to avoid paying taxes for years.

 

I don't see how lowering their tax rate even more would help anything, though. It's like we keep hearing this narrative that if we just give big businesses a little more power, deregulate them a little more, cut their taxes just a few more notches we will suddenly enter some sort of economic utopia where we are swimming in jobs and everyone is doing great. Considering big business has basically had their way with us the last 30+ years, and still overall things have gotten much harder for the lower and middle class I call bullsh*t on this narrative. It's a pied piper-esque lie.

[Jesse]

Every flat tax plan I've seen allows for people to make a certain amount tax free. People who make less than $20,000 or whatever the number is would pay zero.

That's technically not flat then.

 

And even if someone is making 40-50k a year, do you really think it is fair that they pay the exact same percentage in tax as a CEO of Time Warner or whatever who is taking in billions hand over fist? I don't know how they've managed to convince you guys to defend what essentially amounts to theft from the average American worker, but they have clearly been very successful in their campaign.

[Money]

Getting rid of loopholes/simplifying the tax code is great, but a flat tax rate is just silly. It allows for an enormous concentration of wealth at the top, which is precisely what we have seen over the last 30+ years even without a flat tax rate.

 

Do you really think it's far that someone struggling on minimum wage should have to pay the same percentage of their income in taxes as someone taking home several million or more in bonuses every year? If you do you must be in favor of the continued atrophy of the middle class and continued concentration of wealth among the enormously rich.

 

Let's say you have a flat tax of 10%. Why shouldn't someone pay 1 M in taxes while another person pays 2K (who makes 20K) Isn't that a fair and balanced system?

[Money]

That's technically not flat then.

 

And even if someone is making 40-50k a year, do you really think it is fair that they pay the exact same percentage in tax as a CEO of Time Warner or whatever who is taking in billions hand over fist? I don't know how they've managed to convince you guys to defend what essentially amounts to theft from the average American worker, but they have clearly been very successful in their campaign.

 

It's a fair system. I don't think it's fair that we tax the hell out of the rich while people don't pay any who are poor. 

[Phil]

He has only been president for a little over a month. What has he actually done that would even have a direct affect on the economy at this point?

Not much, save some deregulatory measures. The market is responding to what they *think* he'll do, and it's not a guarantee that he follows through on anything.

 

The point is, so long as his approval rating(s) on the economy remain high, he'll probably stick around.

[Jesse]

Let's say you have a flat tax of 10%. Why shouldn't someone pay 1 M in taxes while another person pays 2K (who makes 20K) Isn't that a fair and balanced system?

No, it isn't. Making things linear like that is not fair. Paying 2,000 dollars in taxes would be absolutely crushing to someone making 20,000 a year. Whereas even paying 5 million in taxes if you are making 30 million a year is nothing.

 

If you are not smart enough to figure out why there's a difference I am not going to waste my breath trying to explain it any further.

[Money]

Making progress:

 

[Money]

No, it isn't. Making things linear like that is not fair. If you are not smart enough to figure out why I am not going to waste my breath trying to explain it.

 

liberals hate the rich and they hate business. 

[snow_wizard]

Let's say you have a flat tax of 10%. Why shouldn't someone pay 1 M in taxes while another person pays 2K (who makes 20K) Isn't that a fair and balanced system?

With the caveat there are no loopholes. It would be a huge win for our economy.

 

BTW...there is no need for low income people to pay anything. There should be a certain amount everyone can make tax free before the flat rate kicks in.

[Jesse]

Not much, save some deregulatory measures. The market is responding to what they *think* he'll do, and it's not a guarantee that he follows through on anything.

 

The point is, so long as his approval rating(s) on the economy remain high, he'll probably stick around.

Alright. Well he's barely been president for over a month.

[Jesse]

liberals hate the rich and they hate business.

You are a moron, sir.

[Money]

With the caveat there are no loopholes. It would be a huge win for our economy.

 

BTW...there is no need for low income people to pay anything. There should be a certain amount everyone can make tax free before the flat rate kicks in.

 

I disagree. I think everyone regardless of how much you are making pay a certain percentage. Everyone should chip in. 

[Guest happ]

California puts the tax burden on the wealthy who drive the economy recirculating investment in public housing.  Interesting that Reagan still holds the record of highest taxes of any governor in California? 

[Jesse]

California puts the tax burden on the wealthy who drive the economy recirculating investment in public housing. Interesting that Reagan still holds the record of highest taxes of any governor in California?

California only has the 7th biggest economy in the world so clearly something isn't working.

[snow_wizard]

Another thing about the Correspondent's Dinner President Trump has bowed out of...One thing that makes me feel bad about this is it has become a tradition and has been for almost 100 years. I am a sucker for tradition so it gives me an almost sad feeling he won't be attending. On the other hand it was obvious from the start the liberals were never willing to give Trump a chance (no way on Earth to dispute this), so I don't really blame him.

[snow_wizard]

California only has the 7th biggest economy in the world so clearly something isn't working.

Once again...this in spite of horrible debt and a horrible tax burden. They could be even better. No real surprise that stat is true given their huge population and all of the agriculture in that state. The climate has something to do with that also.

[Guest happ]

snow_wizard, on 26 Feb 2017 - 1:56 PM, said:

Another thing about the Correspondent's Dinner President Trump has bowed out of...One thing that makes me fell bad about this is it has become a tradition and has been for almost 100 years. I am a sucker for tradition so it gives me an almost sad feeling he won't be attending. On the other hand it was obvious from the start the liberals were never willing to give Trump a chance (no way on Earth to dispute this), so I don't really blame him.

 

I did not know that

[Jesse]

Another thing about the Correspondent's Dinner President Trump has bowed out of...One thing that makes me fell bad about this is it has become a tradition and has been for almost 100 years. I am a sucker for tradition so it gives me an almost sad feeling he won't be attending. On the other hand it was obvious from the start the liberals were never willing to give Trump a chance (no way on Earth to dispute this), so I don't really blame him.

I'm glad to see you have moved on from our economic discussion to your latest tabloid outrage of the week. I actually put some thought and work into some of my replies to you.

[Jesse]

Once again...this in spite of horrible debt and a horrible tax burden. They could be even better. No real surprise that stat is true given their huge population and all of the agriculture in that state. The climate has something to do with that also.

Tax "burden" seems like it might be a misnomer when their economy is an absolute powerhouse.

 

Maybe they should look to great conservative stronghold states like Mississippi and Alabama for economic tips. I bet state taxes are really low there. The economy should be booming!!

[Guest happ]

Once again...this in spite of horrible debt and a horrible tax burden. They could be even better. No real surprise that stat is true given their huge population and all of the agriculture in that state. The climate has something to do with that also.

 

And those ranchers are desperate that Trump cool it with immigration. This is where Republicans and Democrats agree in California and strongly oppose ICE activity if it means employment problems.  

[Front Ranger]

And those ranchers are desperate that Trump cool it with immigration. This is where Republicans and Democrats agree in California and strongly oppose ICE activity if it means employment problems.  

 

I thought they were all laughed out of CA years ago?

[Jesse]

It's a fair system. I don't think it's fair that we tax the hell out of the rich while people don't pay any who are poor. 

 

That's probably because you don't have a very high IQ.

[Jesse]

I thought they were all laughed out of CA years ago?

 

Let's all keep focused on the issues!!

[Front Ranger]

And those ranchers are desperate that Trump cool it with immigration. This is where Republicans and Democrats agree in California and strongly oppose ICE activity if it means employment problems.  

 

As long as they aren't employing many criminals, they shouldn't have much to worry about.

[Deweydog]

You are a moron, sir.

Productive!

[Front Ranger]

With the caveat there are no loopholes. It would be a huge win for our economy.

 

BTW...there is no need for low income people to pay anything. There should be a certain amount everyone can make tax free before the flat rate kicks in.

 

I would be in favor of a flat tax from maybe $20k-$200k. And then a graduated tax scale after that.

[Jesse]

Productive!

 

No less productive than attempting to explain it to him and have him continue to barrage me with regurgitated conservative talking points without daring to think outside the box would have been.

 

Sometimes you just need to cut your losses and move on.

[Jesse]

I would be in favor of a flat tax from maybe $20k-$200k. And then a graduated tax scale after that.

 

This sounds a lot more reasonable. Maybe $150k?

[Jesse]

Are you for a flat tax rate Matt?

[Guest happ]

Front Ranger, on 26 Feb 2017 - 2:14 PM, said:

I thought they were all laughed out of CA years ago?

 

It is one of the contradictions. A Central Valley congressman, criticized for stalling on Russian/ Trump investigation, spoke out against immigration round-ups. Republicans walk a fine line in California.

[Deweydog]

No less productive than attempting to explain it to him and have him continue to barrage me with regurgitated conservative talking points without daring to think outside the box would have been.

 

Sometimes you just need to cut your losses and move on.

If only we all struck the perfect balance of f*cking and awesome as you. Productivity would be rampant!

[Jesse]

If only we all struck the perfect balance of f*cking and awesome as you. Productivity would be rampant!

 

[Deweydog]

Are you for a flat tax rate Matt?

That's an oversimplified question, especially considering it's not a realistic possibility.

[Jesse]

That's an oversimplified question, especially considering it's not a realistic possibility.

 

So no?

 

Some oversimplified minds here seemed to consider it a very realistic possibility.

[Deweydog]

So no?

 

Some oversimplified minds here seemed to consider it a very realistic possibility.

I would have to see what exactly is proposed. I think some aspects could be very beneficial.

 

Realistically, I think it would be "easier" to simplify existing tax code although even that would be an incredibly monumental task given the current state of partisanship.

[Jesse]

I would have to see what exactly is proposed. I think some aspects could be very beneficial.

 

Realistically, I think it would be "easier" to simplify existing tax code although even that would be an incredibly monumental task given the current state of partisanship.

 

Sounds like we essentially agree.