2016 Election -- Part II

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

I have no faith whatsoever that the American public, as a whole, has anything but the most tenuous grasp of the issues that affect their lives.

And what do you propose to do about that? Something to change it for the better, or nothing other than rail against everyone's stupidity?

Quote: MathExtremist

For someone who has been listening to Trump's supporters speak in exactly the same tones for over a year -- and decrying their positions -- it's highly ironic that you're parroting their attitudes. You don't have any compassion for someone who's gotten screwed over by events outside their control? You don't want our larger society to take any steps to mitigate their problems, or enact policy to help get them back on their feet again?

Welcome to the conservative movement, friend. Your GOP voter card is in the mail.

Edit: that was unfair. I know many conservatives that have more compassion for their fellow man than was displayed in the above quote.

Gee, another scolding from ME.

I thought you didn't like false equivalences. But when you get into sanctimonious mode, you tend to abandon your own logic. There's a HUGE difference between the people who need help because they are unable to support or care for themselves and those who need help because they have made bad decisions and failed to plan. I have advocated for the former, not the latter. My criticism of conservatives is aimed at their lack of compassion for the former. Please don't tell me that you don't understand the distinction.

I did say that I favored the provision of free vocational (re)-training for those in displaced industries. You glossed that over, I'm sure, since you only bother to read and comprehend what you wish to. OF COURSE, I sympathize with Joe Sixpack. What I disapprove of is his supporting a demagogue and believing his fake promises. Joe Sixpack should get up off the couch and enroll in community college, or learn how to weld or drive a truck, or something. But he'd rather blame others for his problems.

Quote: MathExtremist

And what do you propose to do about that? Something to change it for the better, or nothing other than rail against everyone's stupidity?

Would you like an actual answer to that question, or are you still in preaching mode and that question was purely rhetorical?

(I have lots of ideas. pretty carefully well thought out, including a couple of research papers I've done, but I have no particular desire to have you vomit all over them.)

Quote: ams288

If you truly have Joeshlabotnik blocked, you should not have been able to see the post by MathExtremist that you quoted in this post.

When you block someone, any posts that quote the blocked member should not appear. So you must be a masochist and clicked on "Show it to me anyway."

Yeah, for someone that professes as much white-hot Trump-style hatred for me as he does, he seems awfully engaged with my posts. You'd think he'd just do what he says he wants to do and block out my hateful ramblings.

The truth is, he and ME are having WAY too much fun scolding me for that ever to happen :)

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

Would you like an actual answer to that question, or are you still in preaching mode and that question was purely rhetorical?

(I have lots of ideas. pretty carefully well thought out, including a couple of research papers I've done, but I have no particular desire to have you vomit all over them.)

Given your tone throughout this thread, calling me sanctimonious and preachy is pretty hilarious. Pot, meet kettle.

But let's see whether you have any substance behind your blustery rhetoric. True academics publish papers for peer review. Publish yours.

Quote: ams288

If you truly have Joeshlabotnik blocked, you should not have been able to see the post by MathExtremist that you quoted in this post. When you block someone, any posts that quote the blocked member should not appear. So you must be a masochist and clicked on "Show it to me anyway."

What, you think I don't know how blocking works? I'm not interested in JLB's posts, but I'm sometimes interested in others' responses to him. (As you know, the system tells you whether a hidden post is from someone you've blocked or from someone who simply quoted them.) It's especially telling that he's garnered opposition from both sides of the aisle, and nobody is defending him. Does that sound like anyone who's been in the news recently?

Quote: MathExtremist

Given your tone throughout this thread, calling me sanctimonious and preachy is pretty hilarious. Pot, meet kettle.

But let's see whether you have any substance behind your blustery rhetoric. True academics publish papers for peer review. Publish yours.

I don't have any particular desire to make my writings available in an internet forum. However, I will be glad to synthesize my findings here. I'll assume that you're actually interested. Here are the ways I would recommend that a just society could be created, using existing resources. A not insignificant side effect would be a more informed electorate.

1. Families and individuals allocate their resources according to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (with exceptions, of course). There is no reason why we shouldn't do that as a society. Before we spend one dollar on anything else, we make sure that everybody has food, shelter, clothing, medical care, and access to education (including higher education). Everybody gets all this free of charge. No ifs, ands, buts, qualifications, reservations, or questions of who deserves it or not. You live in the richest country in the world. You get the basics. Free. Period.

2. My study (conducted in 2011) showed that this would consume 19% of GDP (Gross Domestic Product). Therefore, we tax ALL earnings (personal income, business profits, etc.) at 25%, to allow for the effect of "frictional loss" on wealth distribution (the government currently reports that five dollars collected confers four dollars in benefits). We need not support entitlement programs with any separate taxes.

3. On top of that 25%, we have a graduated (progressive) tax to pay for all other government services and functions. Where possible, this is done so that those who benefit directly from a program are those who pay for it, such as gas taxes going to pay for road infrastructure improvements.

3a. I estimated that this would result in an effective tax rate for the middle class of about 57%. However, that's with food, shelter, medical care, etc. all included. It means that the average individual would have 43% of his/her income available for discretionary spending (like those hot AP opportunities!).

4. No one is allowed to vote without taking and passing a high school-level civics test. Once you pass, you are enfranchised for life. However, on propositions and public referenda, you must also pass a separate specific test that shows you know enough about the particular issue to be an informed voter.

5. All voter registration and voting to be done via the internet. This can easily be done using the same type of security protocols that are already in place in the banking industry. For electing officials, allow a period of one month to vote, with the votes irrevocable. All US citizens eligible (even convicted felons).

6. (Utopian idea.) Make representative democracy an actuality. Elected officials are constrained by law to only vote in accordance with the wishes of their constituents. Before voting on an issue, officials must post a detailed explanation of the bill, etc. under consideration and allow constituents to vote "yes" or "no." If 10% of eligible voters vote, then the official (Congressperson, Senator, etc.) must cast his vote in Congress/the Senate accordingly; if not, he/she must abstain.

7. Officials to be elected by direct popular vote only. No electoral college. Congressional districts to be balanced by population. Gerrymandered districts to be re-aligned.

8. KILL ALL REPUBLICANS!!!!! (Just kidding--but I had to give you something to get exercised about.)

Quote: MichaelBluejay

What, you think I don't know how blocking works. I'm not interested in JLB's posts, but I'm sometimes interested in others' responses to him. (As you know, the system tells you whether a hidden post is from someone you've blocked or from someone who simply quoted them.)

It's just a pet peeve of mine when members proudly announced they've blocked someone, then respond to posts they shouldn't see if that were true.

EvenBob does it to me all the time. He says he has me blocked, but responds to other members' posts that quote mine all the time. So either he's lying or a masochist.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Quote: beachbumbabs

Speaking of infrastructure and taxes

When DT talks about Hillary raising "your" taxes, he's talking to the .1% of you who make 143k +. Boo hoo.

Otoh, look at what he wants to give the people earning that or more, compared to the tax cut he's offering to the 99%. It's all about more for the rich with him, at the expense of the deficit (2nd graph). His increases it by 7.2T over 10 years, hers decreases it
1.6T over the same period.

Vote for that if you want, make the country poorer and the rich richer, but at least know what you're voting for.

Analysis by Tax Policy Center, independent specialists, published in Time Magazine this week. I hope you can read these charts; zoom should help.

Posted this yesterday, wanting to discuss an actual campaign issue that a large number of people say they care about. Best simple graphing yet of both candidates' tax plans and their effect by earning stratum.

Crickets..

The Tax Policy Center website provides much more with an in depth analysis of both plans.

Tax Foundation has a different point of view.

"According to the Tax Foundation’s Taxes and Growth Model, Secretary Clinton’s tax plan would reduce the economy’s size by 2.6 percent in the long run (Table 2). The slightly smaller economy would lead to 2.1 percent lower wages, a 6.9 percent smaller capital stock, and 697,000 fewer full-time equivalent jobs. The smaller economy results from somewhat higher marginal tax rates on capital and labor income."

"According to the Tax Foundation’s Taxes and Growth Model, the Trump tax plan would increase the long-run size of the economy by 6.9 percent under the higher-rate assumption, or 8.2 percent under the lower-rate assumption (Table 2). The larger economy would result in 5.4 percent higher wages and a 20.1 percent larger capital stock under the higher-rate assumption, or 6.3 percent higher wages and a 23.9 percent larger capital stock under the lower-rate assumption. The plan would also result in 1.8 million more full-time equivalent jobs under the higher-rate assumption, or 2.2 million more under the lower-rate assumption."


Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates

Tax Cuts not the Clinton Tax Hike Produced the 1990's Boom

As far as the 1% not paying their fair share, they pay 47.5% of all federal income taxes, and the top 5% pay 70% of all federal income taxes.

Hillary received $47 million in campaign contributions from Hedge Fund donors.

Does anyone actually believe they would do that if they expected her to raise their taxes?

Quote: ams288

It's just a pet peeve of mine when members proudly announced they've blocked someone, then respond to posts they shouldn't see if that were true. EvenBob does it to me all the time. He says he has me blocked, but responds to other members' posts that quote mine all the time. So either he's lying or a masochist.

Both of those conclusions are bad. I wanted to block *JLB*, not other members, but this forum doesn't give me that option. (If I block JLB, it winds up blocking others, also.) And I certainly don't see anything masochistic about reading others roundly criticizing JLB. If anything, that's validation, which is quite the opposite.

Quote: MichaelBluejay

What, you think I don't know how blocking works. I'm not interested in JLB's posts, but I'm sometimes interested in others' responses to him. (As you know, the system tells you whether a hidden post is from someone you've blocked or from someone who simply quoted them.) It's especially telling that he's garnered opposition from both sides of the aisle, and nobody is defending him. Does that sound like anyone who's been in the news recently?

Wow, the hate...

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

1. Families and individuals allocate their resources according to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (with exceptions, of course). There is no reason why we shouldn't do that as a society. Before we spend one dollar on anything else, we make sure that everybody has food, shelter, clothing, medical care, and access to education (including higher education). Everybody gets all this free of charge. No ifs, ands, buts, qualifications, reservations, or questions of who deserves it or not. You live in the richest country in the world. You get the basics. Free. Period.

2. My study (conducted in 2011) showed that this would consume 19% of GDP (Gross Domestic Product). Therefore, we tax ALL earnings (personal income, business profits, etc.) at 25%, to allow for the effect of "frictional loss" on wealth distribution (the government currently reports that five dollars collected confers four dollars in benefits). We need not support entitlement programs with any separate taxes.

3. On top of that 25%, we have a graduated (progressive) tax to pay for all other government services and functions. Where possible, this is done so that those who benefit directly from a program are those who pay for it, such as gas taxes going to pay for road infrastructure improvements.

3a. I estimated that this would result in an effective tax rate for the middle class of about 57%. However, that's with food, shelter, medical care, etc. all included. It means that the average individual would have 43% of his/her income available for discretionary spending (like those hot AP opportunities!).

I have a hard time believing that a tax rate of 57% could support a society that fully provides all the basic needs as you've defined them when tax rates in northern Europe, including income and VAT, are just about there but don't come close to providing food and housing for everyone. Also, Medicare alone is about 3.2% of US GDP, expected to grow to 3.9% in 10 years, and that covers less than 1/5 of the population. Granted, that won't scale linearly because Medicare patients are more costly than younger Americans but I don't see how you can expand health care to everyone and provide food, shelter, and education for just another 15.8% of GDP (to hit your target of 19%). I'd love to be wrong on that, but I don't think the numbers work. Can you demonstrate otherwise?

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

Let's see if I can parse out the timeline here...I express hatred and disgust for Trump and Republicans...a few insignificant board posters snarl at me (especially if I criticize the things they post)...you applaud...and now you're going to vote for Trump?

Ha! I'd sooner service you to completion, smiling the whole while, before I'd cast a vote for that jackass. I meant I'd vote for RonC / ME / Rigon / MBJ. Asterisk by MBJ until I can be sure he won't ban the V8 engine, but if he doesn't push it, I'd give him the nod.

"Vote for Trump". That's rich. Thanks for the smile =)

But since there's a bunch of lefties tuned in, I've a 2 part question for y'all that I suppose focuses on your sides' magnanimity...

Firstly, if any can be bothered, I'd like an explanation of it. I mean, I can understand compassion. I feel like I have quite a bit if not too much of it myself. I can understand helping your fellow man, or doing for those who cannot. I can even imagine doing for those who I may not agree with or who may be aligned against me. I know if this ammosexual was wandering around Clearwater, and hyper-anti terapined was here lamenting that his roof was leaking, I'd come right over and patch it up. Hard for him, easy for me, doesn't matter that we're opposed, I get it. He's part of my life, so the extension of effort is there.

Where y'all lose me is extending that nationwide. There are 337,748,398 (roughly) of you that I will never know, never meet, will never know exist. And some, I'm guessing a lot, are real pieces of s#$%. Some don't work. Some don't care. Some work and care but, again, they're just real POS. I guess I'm asking for insight into how your mind works. Is it that you just don't care, because the MAJORITY deserve it? Or is it a selfish thing, like at least YOU can sleep at night? I get compassion. I'm always pushing neighbors out of ditches or clearing debris from floods or a number of random acts of kindness for "my people", those I live near, those I know. But why would I, or why do you, give a squat about some 4 person family in Clarks, Nebraska? I sincerely don't understand it.

And if you can explain that, I've got a doozy for pt2. Have any of y'all dealt with .gov? Have you not served, not mailed a letter, not obtained driving privileges? Every single instance of .gov work is a complete f#$%arow. EVERY ONE. So much waste and idiocy it boggles the mind. So why is it THERE where you put your faith in compassion? Can there not be a better way?

Quote: Face

Ha! I'd sooner service you to completion, smiling the whole while, before I'd cast a vote for that jackass.

*shudder*

Quote: Tanko

As far as the 1% not paying their fair share, they pay 47.5% of all federal income taxes, and the top 5% pay 70% of all federal income taxes.

Thank you for the entire post. I am sure Clintoners like ams and BBB and JS will say 'my study is better than your study!'. As much as I detest DJT, I do believe that his tax plan/economic concepts are far superior to the government expansion progressive Democrats'.

I always find it amazing to hear "The rich don't pay their fair share". I guess that there are Americans who believe that if the top 5% of earners "only" paid 2/3 of all taxes then that isn't their "fair" share. As a high earning New Yorker, I am presently paying well over 50% of every dollar I earn in some form of tax. I generally only complain about it when someone says I am not paying "my fair share" in taxes.

The Democrats would say that if the top 1% were paying 45% of all taxes that they are not paying 'their fair share". Preposterous.

Quote: SOOPOO

Thank you for the entire post. I am sure Clintoners like ams and BBB and JS will say 'my study is better than your study!'.

No. I have no study. Don't put words in my mouth.

I also don't care about your views on who pays what, and I hope to see a significant tax increase on the top 1% during the next Clinton administration.

Quote: SOOPOO

. As a high earning New Yorker, I am presently paying well over 50% of every dollar I earn in some form of tax. I generally only complain about it when someone says I am not paying "my fair share" in taxes.

Given the option to make 25k a year and pay only 5% which would you prefer?

Personally, I don't think the system will work very well with a flatter rate, so I prefer that reason than to say it's about fairness. It's really about what works, not what's fair. Could be wrong though.

Quote: SOOPOO

I always find it amazing to hear "The rich don't pay their fair share". I guess that there are Americans who believe that if the top 5% of earners "only" paid 2/3 of all taxes then that isn't their "fair" share. As a high earning New Yorker, I am presently paying well over 50% of every dollar I earn in some form of tax. I generally only complain about it when someone says I am not paying "my fair share" in taxes.

People who are richer than you are paying less, even on a marginal basis (and I assume you don't mean your total tax burden is 50%). Donald Trump himself pays far less than 50% tax on a marginal basis. He's exploiting the tax code and you're not.

Edit: Warren Buffet paid 16% in federal tax last year on an AGI of about 11.5M:
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20161010005859/en/Tax-Facts-Donald-Trump


There is lots of room to debate what's a fair tax policy, but not if you start from a premise that a constant percentage is "fair." It's a constant percentage, that's all. The marginal utility of money changes based on income, so the marginal cost of taxation also changes. Suppose two people earn their last $1 for the year on December 30th. If the first person earned $9,999 prior to that, and the second person earned $999,999 prior to that, what do you suggest the tax rate be on that last dollar for both people. The same?

Quote: rxwine

Given the option to make 25k a year and pay only 5% which would you prefer?

Personally, I don't think the system will work very well with a flatter rate, so I prefer that reason than to say it's about fairness. It's really about what works, not what's fair. Could be wrong though.

I'm not understanding your post here. I don't think SOOPOO is complaining about being taxed at 50%+, but when someone says he isn't paying his fair share, then he'll complain AT the person making the absurd statement he isn't paying his "fair share".

Any analysis that says the economy grew or shrank as a direct result of tax increases or decreases is a flawed analysis. The short answer is...it's complicated. For every flawed "study", or opinion pieces, that the conservative think tank Heritage foundation puts out, we can find another study, or opinion piece, that counters its fundamental findings.

For example, while it may not be a study, here's an article, or an opinion piece, that makes a completely different argument for the economic boost in the Reagan era.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/09/18/the-obama-economy-vs-the-reagan-economy-its-literally-no-contest/2/#37c3451cdf0a

What was responsible for the economic boom in the 80s? Was it tax cuts? Or was it the painful medicine Paul Volker (Carter appointee) and the Fed put up to fight inflation? I imagine the argument will only continue.

That being said, there is not a shred of evidence that says tax increases or decreases ALONE spur economic growth. It's complicated.

Quote: MathExtremist

I have a hard time believing that a tax rate of 57% could support a society that fully provides all the basic needs as you've defined them when tax rates in northern Europe, including income and VAT, are just about there but don't come close to providing food and housing for everyone. Also, Medicare alone is about 3.2% of US GDP, expected to grow to 3.9% in 10 years, and that covers less than 1/5 of the population. Granted, that won't scale linearly because Medicare patients are more costly than younger Americans but I don't see how you can expand health care to everyone and provide food, shelter, and education for just another 15.8% of GDP (to hit your target of 19%). I'd love to be wrong on that, but I don't think the numbers work. Can you demonstrate otherwise?

Well, first of all, you can't really compare the US to northern Europe in terms of how much it costs/should cost to keep people alive and kicking. We have much more food and energy production, and our climate is (generally) more temperate. Plus, we benefit from economies of scale in several aspects. The more valid comparison is, does the average American family spend 57% of its income on the basics/necessities? If you average out those for whom the number is more like 97% and those who spend more like 3%, it still forms a nice bell curve centered on between 50-60%, depending on whose data you use and the criteria you posit. Unscientifically, that's my personal experience as well. After I pay my bills and expenses, I've got about 45% of my paycheck left to blow on video poker, or whatever.

There wouldn't be any Medicare under the JS Plan. It's medical insurance, not medical care, and it's by definition for-profit. Simply provide care rather than insuring people and letting providers make a profit from it, and you lower your net costs drastically. Add in savings from lower cost of prescription drugs, etc. and you can actually get there--medical care that costs about half what it does today. I don't know what the aggregate annual profit of hospitals, drug companies, doctors, etc. is, but I'll bet it's a healthy slice of that 3.2%. There's no societal reason why medical care has to be a for-profit industry, and in many countries, it isn't. The frictional loss from moving healthcare through so many hands creates inefficiency and waste (one of the strongest arguments for a single-payer system).

I could reproduce about fifteen pages of my study here (and I'm not sure that I have them in Word form any more), but I already said I'm reluctant to do that, because of the agreements I have with my former school. In any case, the numbers would be different now. Anyway, do the exact numbers matter? Clearly, one way or another, we do spend x% of our GDP on keeping everybody alive and kicking. Also clearly, there is no shortfall--if anyone goes without, it's not from a lack of resources per se. Kill and gut one billionaire and feed a thousand people :)

If we had any problem with providing the basics, we wouldn't be able to support our immensely bloated military without there being food riots in the streets. The fact that we have the luxury of all that waste suggests to me that we could meet the 19% goal with room to spare. If you can't make the numbers work in a given scenario, just cut military spending by 20%--meaning that we won't be able to blow up EVERYBODY we want to blow up--and you're there easily.

Quote: Face

Firstly, if any can be bothered, I'd like an explanation of it.

Have any of y'all dealt with .gov?

The explanation I have to offer you is the simple one that if you stop caring for people once they are on the other side of the river or border or whatever, then you're simply engaging in tribalism. That "all men are created equal..." shtick applies to even those folks over there, the ones that talk funny or look funny or have sex in ways of which you don't approve. Human rights--and yes, compassion--have to apply universally, otherwise they're meaningless concepts--they're only "US rights."

As far as dealing with government, well, you and I deal with government hundreds of times a day, And the vast majority of those interactions are successful. I drive on government-constructed and -maintained roads. I eat food that isn't poisonous, and I take medications that won't kill me. That guy up the street who keeps mumbling to himself and fondling his guns leaves me alone because there are government institutions that would punish him if he acted out his fantasies. I put a letter in the mailbox with every confidence that it will get there. Etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. You notice when things go wrong precisely because those events are unusual. But you're not giving credit to the unspectacular things that government does for you every hour of every day (which kind of echoes why people don't appreciate Hillary BTW).

Quote: SOOPOO

Thank you for the entire post. I am sure Clintoners like ams and BBB and JS will say 'my study is better than your study!'. As much as I detest DJT, I do believe that his tax plan/economic concepts are far superior to the government expansion progressive Democrats'.

I always find it amazing to hear "The rich don't pay their fair share". I guess that there are Americans who believe that if the top 5% of earners "only" paid 2/3 of all taxes then that isn't their "fair" share. As a high earning New Yorker, I am presently paying well over 50% of every dollar I earn in some form of tax. I generally only complain about it when someone says I am not paying "my fair share" in taxes.

The Democrats would say that if the top 1% were paying 45% of all taxes that they are not paying 'their fair share". Preposterous.

First of all, I'm not a "Clintoner." I believe that Hillary is a far better choice than Trump. I also think my cat would be a better choice than Donald Trump. I'm not a fan of hers. But I do acknowledge her competence and willingness to do hard work.

You might be surprised to learn that I view the "fair share" liberal mantra as nonsense. A fair share would be 1/347,000,000th of all federal revenue. Man, woman, child, infant. Everybody should pay the same exact amount. Objectively, that would be quite fair. The only problem is that it would never work, for obvious reasons. The fact of the matter is that the system has to be unfair to work at all. Taxes have to be progressive (in the sense that the rich pay more) or the whole mess collapses.

There's another riff on this, which is the "you didn't build that" philosophy. Essentially, it says that the rich prosper through the efforts of society as a whole. The guy who cleans Mark Zuckerberg's bathroom contributes in some small way to his overall economic well-being. So does the guy who runs the espresso stand downstairs, relieving him of the necessity to make his own coffee. Et cetera. So if you get behind this idea, you say that progressive taxes are fair, because the rich wouldn't have gotten where they are without the efforts of thousands of other people.

I am equivocal about that idea. On the one hand, I reject the cherished self-made man Horatio Alger model, because it's stewed horsecrap. Ask any rich person how he got his stash and odds are he'll tell you he did so by being smart and courageous and yada yada blah blah. On the other hand, I don't agree with separating people into the "fortunate" and "less fortunate" categories, either. Not when "less fortunate" means "too stupid or lazy to make anything of yourself." Ultimately, the existing dog's breakfast of tax law might be the best compromise we can come up with.

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

The explanation I have to offer you is the simple one that if you stop caring for people once they are on the other side of the river or border or whatever, then you're simply engaging in tribalism. That "all men are created equal..." shtick applies to even those folks over there, the ones that talk funny or look funny or have sex in ways of which you don't approve. Human rights--and yes, compassion--have to apply universally, otherwise they're meaningless concepts--they're only "US rights."

But... isn't tribalism exactly what you've been proselytizing? Baffin Island, all that?

I wasn't talking about stripping rights or creating classes of greater and lesser. I THINK I'm pretty good about that. I don't wish to strip people of their freedoms. I don't wish to withhold opportunity from anyone. I'm talking about support. Like your post earlier for your Really Big Thing. Sure, medical coverage for all would be swell. But as I rip and pound my way from one hospital to the next, gaining 7 stars in every ER in the entire tri-county region, why should YOU be responsible for paying it? Maybe I tore myself up saving kittens from fires, and you'd gladly support that. But maybe I tore my rotator lumping up a bunch of "queers" that came into "my bar". Still for it?

Maybe you just like people more, I dunno. I can't seem to shake what ME calls my "Leave me the f#$% alone" attitude.

Quote: Joe

As far as dealing with government, well, you and I deal with government hundreds of times a day, And the vast majority of those interactions are successful. I drive on government-constructed and -maintained roads. I eat food that isn't poisonous, and I take medications that won't kill me. That guy up the street who keeps mumbling to himself and fondling his guns leaves me alone because there are government institutions that would punish him if he acted out his fantasies. I put a letter in the mailbox with every confidence that it will get there. Etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. You notice when things go wrong precisely because those events are unusual. But you're not giving credit to the unspectacular things that government does for you every hour of every day (which kind of echoes why people don't appreciate Hillary BTW).

I dunno what's funnier, but both your belief that I don't shoot you simply "because illegal" and your confidence in the USPS have me fit to split XD

I don't deny that .gov does stuff and that I benefit and enjoy their efforts. I'm not an anarchist, after all. But... ah forget it. I'm far too anti-gov to have any real convo about this.

Keep in touch. I've a job for you come the revolution.

Quote: MathExtremist

Is there a credible proposal from anyone on that topic? Even Kotlikoff seems to be starting with the baby step of "let's just account for it officially, then figure out to do with it later." His proposed INFORM act was presented (by, among others, Tim Kaine) but died in Congress about 3 years ago.

http://www.theinformact.org/

Kotlikoff has said that to address it with taxes alone would require a 54% increase in federal revenue. If cuts alone it would mean 34% decrease in spending. He advocates a completely new tax plan based on VAT tax and consumption tax as well as health care, Social Security and energy reform on the spending side. He's running for POTUS as a write in candidate. Details at :
https://kotlikoff2016.com/

Quote: Face

But as I rip and pound my way from one hospital to the next, gaining 7 stars in every ER in the entire tri-county region, why should YOU be responsible for paying it? Maybe I tore myself up saving kittens from fires, and you'd gladly support that. But maybe I tore my rotator lumping up a bunch of "queers" that came into "my bar". Still for it?

For me, yes! For the second one, we'll fix you right up and throw your butt in jail afterwards.

Quote: Face

I meant I'd vote for RonC / ME / Rigon / MBJ. Asterisk by MBJ until I can be sure he won't ban the V8 engine, but if he doesn't push it, I'd give him the nod.

I wouldn't ban the V8 engine per se, but I'd require vehicles to meet a minimum standard MPG. Cars with V8 engines would have to make use of other methods to improve efficiency, like the Prius does (e.g., shuts off when stopped, aerodynamic shape, more efficient engine, regenerative braking). I'd consider a carve-out for hobbyists who don't put lots of actual miles on their cars.

Quote: Tanko

As far as the 1% not paying their fair share, they pay 47.5% of all federal income taxes, and the top 5% pay 70% of all federal income taxes.

So what? Of course we pay most of the taxes, because we're also getting MOST OF THE INCOME. Duh. The better question is, what effective RATE are the rich paying compared to everyone else? You guys never cite those numbers. For obvious reasons. It doesn't help your argument if you have to try to mislead in order to make it.

Quote: SOOPOO

Thank you for the entire post. I am sure Clintoners like ams and BBB and JS will say 'my study is better than your study!'. As much as I detest DJT, I do believe that his tax plan/economic concepts are far superior to the government expansion progressive Democrats'.
.....
.

Do not put words in my mouth, please. I asked an honest question. I got a few worthy answers. I presented facts as I found them. Other folks presented facts in opposition. Very annoying of you to speak for me, besides being wrong about what I think or would say. Thanks.

Quote: SOOPOO

Thank you for the entire post. I am sure Clintoners like ams and BBB and JS will say 'my study is better than your study!'. As much as I detest DJT, I do believe that his tax plan/economic concepts are far superior to the government expansion progressive Democrats'.

I always find it amazing to hear "The rich don't pay their fair share". I guess that there are Americans who believe that if the top 5% of earners "only" paid 2/3 of all taxes then that isn't their "fair" share. As a high earning New Yorker, I am presently paying well over 50% of every dollar I earn in some form of tax. I generally only complain about it when someone says I am not paying "my fair share" in taxes.

The Democrats would say that if the top 1% were paying 45% of all taxes that they are not paying 'their fair share". Preposterous.

I often hear this, but no one ever says what percent of income they receive.
Are they receiving 45% of the overall income? Are we only talking income taxes?
Over 95% of Americans pay payroll taxes on their entire incomes. Billionaires pay it only on the first $78,000 of income.

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Quote: Tanko

As far as the 1% not paying their fair share, they pay 47.5% of all federal income taxes, and the top 5% pay 70% of all federal income taxes.

So what? Of course we pay most of the taxes, because we're also getting MOST OF THE INCOME. Duh. The better question is, what effective RATE are the rich paying compared to everyone else? You guys never cite those numbers. For obvious reasons. It doesn't help your argument if you have to try to mislead in order to make it.

Well said. MBJ. I've been proud to pay taxes every year since 1978. I get great benefits from what I pay, and for about 2 decades I paid more than 50% of my income in taxes and retirement accounts, about 40% taxes and 15% to retirement (extra so i could retire at 50). I still pay taxes in retirement. And I think I get great value in return.

This is, in many ways, a great country. Together, we make it one. Do we argue about the best way to do that? Absolutely. But only recently have the wheels ground to a halt with the Republicans putting party before country. Disgusting, and as a 40 year Republican (registered 40 years ago today, in fact, the day after my 18th birthday ) I'm voting straight Democratic ticket. That's my version of a middle finger to this Congress, this government.

The Republicans in power are solely responsible for Trump. They deserve him. And he's going to take a bunch down with him. No tears from me.

Quote: MathExtremist

There is lots of room to debate what's a fair tax policy, but not if you start from a premise that a constant percentage is "fair."

Some people believe a flat tax is fair. That is not what I am looking for. I understand that as a high earner I will pay both a substantially higher percentage and an even more substantially higher actual dollar amount than an 'average' taxpayer. I just find the rhetoric that if I feel I should pay what 30 average families pay instead of 31 that I am not 'paying my fair share'.

And please, change the tax laws that allow people like Warren Buffet the opportunity to structure their business so that they only pay capital gains at a lower rate than if the companies were forced to actually distribute the money they make as dividends. Warren Buffet has used that loophole to not pay BILLIONS in dollar in taxes had Berkshire Hathaway been paying dividends all these years. Just like DJT.... only better at it!

As far as how good or badly government programs perform, one day I hope we do provide more eyeballs from the public itself (perhaps through internet access) to actively watch government at work, not just in legislative chambers but out in the buildings and communities where action is going down whether it is the transportation arena, health, infrastructure or whatever.

I'd much rather we have thousands of cameras watching all of them, then them watching all of us. If they don't like it, too bad.

What is it called when they use the public for its capability to provide thousands of eyeballs? That's the thing.

(obviously, elements of defense are problematic or impossible, but we could definitely do a lot more observing than we do)

Quote: billryan

I often hear this, but no one ever says what percent of income they receive.
Are they receiving 45% of the overall income? Are we only talking income taxes?
Over 95% of Americans pay payroll taxes on their entire incomes. Billionaires pay it only on the first $78,000 of income.

I think it is up to the first $115,000 now, but not sure. Also the government recently changed the Medicare part to no cap on that 1.45%. And also an extra 0.9% penalty for those making more than $500,000 or so.
Interesting you use the phrase 'payroll tax'. Some consider it not a tax but a contribution either to your retirement or Social Security.

Without quoting BBB's last post, I too am happy for the 'return' I get from my tax dollars. Roads, security, museums, schools, etc.... When I donate to a charity I always get a thank you. When I support my fellow Americans via my taxes I get 'you should pay more!'

What's it look like around UNLV tonight? Roadblocks, people with guns? Protestors?

Quote: rxwine

What's it look like around UNLV tonight? Roadblocks, people with guns? Protestors?

A wall of giant tacos. Also, a kiosk where you can sign up for Trump's slot club, assuming you're not Mexican or Muslim or female or disabled or LGBT.

Quote: boymimbo

Trump is a footnote in history.

Win or lose, love him or hate him. I highly doubt Trump will just be a footnote in history.

Trump said Roe v Wade will be overturned "automatically" if he becomes President.

As if his problems with women voters weren't deep enough...

Barely heard Donald sniff. Must have laid off the coke tonight.

They might be actually talking more policy positions than usual.

"Nobody has more respect for women than I do."

*audience laughs*

Ouch.

Yeah, he's probably not improving his women vote total so far. Dodging is his best strategy here. No upside, that I can see.

She's killing him again.

Maybe not quite the blowout the 1st debate was, but close.

Chris Wallace is *gasp* doing a good job.

Quote: ams288

Chris Wallace is *gasp* doing a good job.

He asked hard questions
kudos to Wallace
Trump isn't used to this
He lost his cool
interrupted Clinton with "such a nasty woman"
wow

I loved at the very end when Chris Wallace announced the surprise closing statement that they hadn't prepared for, and you could see the "Oh s**t!" moment in Trump's eyes and then he furiously started scribbling on his notepad.

Quote: ams288

I loved at the very end when Chris Wallace announced the surprise closing statement that they hadn't prepared for, and you could see the "Oh s**t!" moment in Trump's eyes and then he furiously started scribbling on his notepad.

What're you talking about?

The biggest headline by far will be Trump saying he won't necessarily accept the election results, that he'll decide at the time.

That's almost treason. Goes to the heart of this country. Peaceful transition in respect of the people's will is intrinsic.

Quote: ams288

I loved at the very end when Chris Wallace announced the surprise closing statement that they hadn't prepared for, and you could see the "Oh s**t!" moment in Trump's eyes and then he furiously started scribbling on his notepad.

Yeah, Chris Wallace telegraphed the opportunity to "end on a positive note". Clinton prepared at least a trimmed stump speech that was positive. Trump just kind of whiffed on making a positive affirmation; spent as much time dissing Hillary as saying anything good about himself.

Well, no surprises. Trump repeated his third-grader-on-the-playground mantra of "Cheaters! Cheaters! Cheaters!" and threatened to take his ball and go home. There was some discussion of policy, but it was mostly idiotic crap from Trump like his statement that he would instantly overturn Roe v. Wade--as if a President has the power to nullify Supreme Court decisions!

And yet, we still have people in this country--and on this forum--who think that Trump is a viable choice, or that both Trump and Clinton are bad choices. Even if you had never watched either of those two in action, tonight showed that one candidate is a composed statesman while the other is a whiny, out-of-control man-child. There is no equivalence, and no comparison; even if you're consumed with Hillary-hate, you have to admit that she's a better choice than Trump (I mean...DUH.).

Unfortunately, this third debate won't change very many people's minds. Trumpers will be Trumpers. Clinton probably won it, but at this point, it's like a team that's ahead 10-1 in the bottom of the eighth scoring an extra run.

Quote: beachbumbabs

The biggest headline by far will be Trump saying he won't necessarily accept the election results, that he'll decide at the time.

That's almost treason. Goes to the heart of this country. Peaceful transition in respect of the people's will is intrinsic.

So the question is: when Trump loses and starts whining about how the election was rigged, will anybody (other than Trumpers, who don't count) give a crap? About that, or anything else he says or does from then on?

A delicious irony is that foot traffic in his casinos and hotels is down 20% since he won the nomination. Apparently a lot of people don't want to be associated with him in any way. I wonder how many of those TRUMP signs in my neighborhood are coming down five minutes after CNN declares Hillary the winner of the election. The shame attached to being an identified Trumper might just be too great.

Quote: ams288

I loved at the very end when Chris Wallace announced the surprise closing statement that they hadn't prepared for, and you could see the "Oh s**t!" moment in Trump's eyes and then he furiously started scribbling on his notepad.

Trump's finest moment of the campaign may have been at the end of the second debate, when he was asked to say something positive about Hillary and actually did so, behaving oh so briefly like a human being. That may not seem like much, but you have to hold Trump to a very low standard. Him being civil for thirty seconds is like a toddler making it to the toilet before pooping. You praise him lavishly, knowing how much of an accomplishment it was for him.

Of course, this time, he pooped in his diapers.