POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
![[eyeroll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/rolleye/rolleye0011.r191677.gif "Eye roll [eyeroll]")
he just won a blowout victory in New England
but yeah, ignorant southerners have all the racism and that kind of stuff....
Any plan that cuts income taxes is going to benefit mainly the wealthy. This is because only the top half of earners pay any income tax. Further the top 10% pay 68% of all income tax. Looking at it another way, any income tax cut has zero direct benefit for the bottom half other than as a stimulant for the overall economy.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data
30% of the vote WITH independents buffing his numbers...
he just won a blowout victory in New England
but yeah, ignorant southerners have all the racism and that kind of stuff....
The Clinton Foundation is now under investigation by the State Department. The Clinton's raised over $2 Billion for their own personal slush fund (only about 10% of the money goes for charitable grants) from countries that had matters pending before Hillary's State Department. This makes the 3rd open investigation against Hillary by the Obama Administration.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ry-clintons-week-just-went-from-bad-to-worse/
http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/27...0-percent-of-its-budget-on-charitable-grants/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ry-clintons-week-just-went-from-bad-to-worse/
http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/27...0-percent-of-its-budget-on-charitable-grants/
How not? To be clear, I agree perfectly with what you wrote about income tax placing fundamental restriction on upward mobility. I stand by my previous statement forever. Tax productivity not. However, property owned - in the general sense - is typically in a proportion to the wealth obtained. The wealthier the individual is the more valuable his home/estate is, the more land he possesses, the more valuable the working properties of his businesses / industries. These things are subject to valuation and are taxed on an annual basis. Those taxes are paid. A man living in a home valued at a million point five pays more property tax than a man living in a home valued at 150k. Wealth is being taxed. This IS the discussion.
This is tax. This is not "taking." If you are wanting to conjure a form of taking from the wealthy and call it a tax then that is a corrupt form of socialism. From each according to his ability to each according to his need. That is not tax. That is theft.
First, saying that value of property is a good indicator of wealth is largely true. But the converse isnt true. Wealthy people dont always own real estate. So overall, its not a good indicator.
All taxes are "takings". Its just how they work. The government comes in, and takes money from you because they say you owe it. It sucks, but thats reality. So, the issue isnt "will we be taxed", its "whats the most fair tax". An income tax inhibits upward movement. A flat tax lets the rich off way too easy, while disproportionately effecting the poor.
That leaves us with basically a consumption tax and/or a wealth tax. I prefer the combination of both I discussed earlier. If you tax consumption only, then people may be hesitant to spend and therefore effecting the economy. But when you accompany that with the alternative wealth tax, it would prevent the wealthy from just sitting on their cash.
This would allow upward mobility. It proportionally effect all economic classes. It would promote spending, which would help boost the economy. It would remove capital gains, which would promote investment into companies (both public and private) and real estate.
Taxes suck. But since we will be taxed, this is the most fair I can think of.
Debate moderator last night was a contributor and for some reason the foundation topic did not come up.
I do not assume that there is no upward/downward mobility and I'm not sure how you think that plays into the argument. What we do know is that if you are born wealthy the chances are high that you will remain wealthy. Largely because you are born into privilege...if you are born poor the chances are high that you will remain poor.
Your income tax claim is flawed in that everyone who is now wealthy has had to pay that same tax.
Again I want to get away from this premise that anyone is going to "take" money. If you know that you can only pass say $10 million to your children then you are going to make plans for that wealth you own over and above $10 million. Maybe you give it to your church or your favorite charity. Perhaps if you are CEO of Acme Inc instead of asking for a $10 million salary you "settle" for $1 million allowing the company to either sell their product for less making them more competitive or all of your employees make a bit more. Point being that it would change behaviors.
Bottom line is your bloodline shouldn't guarantee you privilege for generations into the future. Add the effect of 25% of the nation's wealth being put back into circulation. Trillions of dollars that would create jobs and opportunities for others.
Gawker uncovered emails from HRC assistant Reines giving instructions to The Atlantic on how to frame coverage of a meeting, which were followed to a T. Color me as shocked as the time I heard that liberals like the liberal late night host that skewers republicans.
1) You in your own voice describe [the speech] as “muscular”
2) You note that a look at the CFR seating plan shows that all the envoys — from [Richard] Holbrooke to [George] Mitchell to [Dennis] Ross — will be arrayed in front of her, which in your own clever way you can say certainly not a coincidence and meant to convey something
3) You don’t say you were blackmailed!
1) You in your own voice describe [the speech] as “muscular”
2) You note that a look at the CFR seating plan shows that all the envoys — from [Richard] Holbrooke to [George] Mitchell to [Dennis] Ross — will be arrayed in front of her, which in your own clever way you can say certainly not a coincidence and meant to convey something
3) You don’t say you were blackmailed!
Bottom line: life isnt fair. There exists no perfect system which will allow for an concept of fairness which includes preventing later generations from benefiting from the riches of previous ones. Although I do think its important to note that inheritance isnt a guarantee. The wealthy could choose to leave it to whomever, including non family.
There exists no such thing as a perfectly fair system. What Ive proposed is the closest to fair that I can think of.
So Trump calling Mexicans rapists, and vowing to ban all Muslims after the Paris attacks isn't a calculated play on Americans fear......right.
Hillary's 362 super-delegates are equal to her getting all the delegates from Texas and Virgina (assuming winner take all). They also give her 15% of the number of delegates that she needs to secure the nomination. It will be very hard for Bernie to overcome this advantage. She is currently up 394-44 with 2,382 needed to win.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-results.html
He's only stating the obvious.
How many thousands of Americans would still be alive today if Muslims were banned?
Try telling the families who have lost loved ones due to attacks by Islamic terrorists that Muslims aren't a threat. I had a client who lost a son on 9-11 in NYC: if you ever meet any of these families, you'll get a reality check real fast.
That anger is exactly what Trump is tapping into and its real.
As for the illegal Mexicans (that's who Trump is talking about): "That would give a murder rate for illegal aliens of 52 per 100,000 (5,639 in a population of 10.8 million) – about 10 times that of U.S. citizens."
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/arti...r_rate_than_us_citizens_do.html#ixzz3zy6NaoAS
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
How many would still be alive if Christians were banned? Or Republicans? Or paper boys? I had a friend killed by a gas station attendant. Most murders are committed by someone the victim knows. Usually its the spouse. So ... ban marriage?
Today is Lincoln's birthday. Elected with just 40% of the vote, I don't know how he held the country together during that time, crazy wife and all. His 2nd inaugural is a great, great speech.
Carry on.
Carry on.
The older I get, the more amazed I am that our country survived that (not just the war, but the entire pre- and post-war eras). I really don't know how Lincoln and the rest of the power players pulled it off.
Like I said, it's a message that will be a hit in the SEC states, probably more so than anywhere else.
The scene at Appomattox courthouse was just as amazing IMO. Helped the set the tone, I think, for the healing process for the country. Kudos to both Grant and Lee.
Last time I checked Christians/Republicans/paperboys/married folks weren't indiscriminately slaughtering innocent people... by the thousands.
Maybe I missed a headline.
Maybe.
Below is a list of Islamic terrorist attacks since 1-1-15 (I have no way to screen out the overseas attacks, and to be fair, the vast majority of them are overseas).
Edit: its too long to post!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks
we are in agreement much more than not. Taxes on consumption live with the economy. They occur as. It is the one form of tax prone to natural economic balance. I sense you and I might have a long, boring yes, yes, yes on that view.
I also favor the combination. I too made earlier statements. Mine about taxing only what man consumes and what man possesses. Yet here is where you and I appear to trend into disagreeing terms. While I may agree that the wealthy do no always own real property, you may struggle to identify specific examples of high wealth individuals and multi-million trust families where large revenues are not generated from taxing real properties owned. Even the Walton empire - wealth of the family- must pay huge sums annually for the enormous property values estimated for the many thousands of Super Wal-Marts spread across North American. This is not avoided.
Agree again, the flat tax is a dream come true for the rich. Almost any tax on income is. You clearly understand this. It should not be necessary to explain to even sub-ordinary people why this statement is fact: rich people do not have to volunteer to show a taxable profit (particularly on personal basis).
I think I should allow you the winning margin on taking vs. taxing. Lord knows the various forms of consumption tax run the full moral gamut. I really liked your post, btw. Look forward to reading more of your thoughts.
So when do you suggest we should have started banning Muslims and how would you know that someone was Muslim? Wouldn't someone who had an evil intent simply lie about their religion? Or are you going to ban all people from one of our allies, Saudi Arabia from entering the US? What about Muslims who already live here? Are you going to tell them that they must leave?
Your stats on murder rates for illegal aliens are highly disputed...and even if we accepted them you are saying because 0.052% are bad apples we should paint the 99.948% of illegals who are here working their asses off for substandard wages. What about the 100% of employers who hire illegals to work? Where is the hatred and rhetoric aimed at them? Notice in that graph below that following the 2007 recession that the growth of the illegal population pretty well halted. That means that as many were going back home as coming looking for work. When jobs dry up, they go home.
This isn't discussed like it should be IMO. I have no use for employers who employee illegals, undermining legal citizens looking for work. Tackle this problem, from this angle, and a big chunk of this problem starts getting solved. IMO.
Last edited:
I'm going to add one more post to this discussion, with the intention of hopefully inspiring the minds of the younger people who read and post here. I'll back out of the discussions related to tax for a while. I'll just start by making this statement that people have probably heard:
A million dollars is not a lot of money.
If you are a young man in your 20s and early 30s please do everything possible to participate in whatever savings programs are available through your employer. Yes, there is risk. Otherwise, for the self-employed, please save whatever money you possibly can (SEP). Have an investment adviser you trust. Seek somebody 25 years older than you who has succeeded. Don't take advice from people who have struggled all their lives. Don't let people who have failed tell you "what not to do." They will not help you any better than somebody who has been divorced 3 - 5 times help you understand how to stay married for 50 years. Seek advice from somebody who knows how to do it.
Own your home. Get it paid for by the time you are 40 if at all possible. Have a mortgage you can handle and live below your means. Nothing will help you get a leg up than having your home paid for free and clear at a young age. By the time you are 65 you will need probably 1.5 million in order to generate enough annual income off that money to live comfortably (perhaps more). There will likely be people who depend on you still. Do not let ANYBODY tell you that this cannot be achieved. Take advantage of your annual ROTHs. DO NOT expect social security to be your safety net, or even your government pension.
Preparing for your own financial existence is YOUR responsibility. Do not wait for politicians to conjure tax programs against the rich to solve your problems for you. This answer will never come. Engineer your own future. Fall in love with it. When you are in your mid 50s, pour your heart out on the internet for the sake of young men, because their world will be more difficult that the one you knew in your 20s and early 30s. Encourage them. Tell them not to let any man interfere with their right to believe in their ability to achieve on their own.
A million dollars is not a lot of money.
If you are a young man in your 20s and early 30s please do everything possible to participate in whatever savings programs are available through your employer. Yes, there is risk. Otherwise, for the self-employed, please save whatever money you possibly can (SEP). Have an investment adviser you trust. Seek somebody 25 years older than you who has succeeded. Don't take advice from people who have struggled all their lives. Don't let people who have failed tell you "what not to do." They will not help you any better than somebody who has been divorced 3 - 5 times help you understand how to stay married for 50 years. Seek advice from somebody who knows how to do it.
Own your home. Get it paid for by the time you are 40 if at all possible. Have a mortgage you can handle and live below your means. Nothing will help you get a leg up than having your home paid for free and clear at a young age. By the time you are 65 you will need probably 1.5 million in order to generate enough annual income off that money to live comfortably (perhaps more). There will likely be people who depend on you still. Do not let ANYBODY tell you that this cannot be achieved. Take advantage of your annual ROTHs. DO NOT expect social security to be your safety net, or even your government pension.
Preparing for your own financial existence is YOUR responsibility. Do not wait for politicians to conjure tax programs against the rich to solve your problems for you. This answer will never come. Engineer your own future. Fall in love with it. When you are in your mid 50s, pour your heart out on the internet for the sake of young men, because their world will be more difficult that the one you knew in your 20s and early 30s. Encourage them. Tell them not to let any man interfere with their right to believe in their ability to achieve on their own.
This intro to a review of the new Michael Moore film made me chuckle....
"If you think the idiocy quotient in public life is insufficient; if you revel in cheap shots and smarmy innuendo, or cherish a quick fix of distortions diluted only slightly by painful facts, then Michael Moore is your man and “Where to Invade Next” is your go-to documentary."
Good thing to know some things you can just count on......
"If you think the idiocy quotient in public life is insufficient; if you revel in cheap shots and smarmy innuendo, or cherish a quick fix of distortions diluted only slightly by painful facts, then Michael Moore is your man and “Where to Invade Next” is your go-to documentary."
Good thing to know some things you can just count on......
Pretty good advice. I would add to it or modify it slightly as follows:
1.) Have your house paid off before you retire.
2.) Avoid any non-mortgage debt (especially credit card debt)
3.) Buying used cars will save you tens of thousands over a lifetime. Cars are a terrible investment.
4.) Invest in the stock market using regular contributions to diversified mutual funds/ETFs. Trying to pick your own stocks is hard and timing the market is a fools game.
5.) Work hard at your job. Don't leave a job unless you have another equal or better lined up.
6.) Divorce is incredibly expensive. If you have some assets going into marriage, strongly consider a pre-nup.
7.) Do not risk your financial security trying to help support grown family members.
Last edited:
Bernie can't get into office soon enough...
CNNMoney @CNNMoney 5m5 minutes ago
U.S. families are $1,268 poorer than they were when Obama took office, via @christineromans http://cnnmon.ie/1Ll6Sxf
CNNMoney @CNNMoney 5m5 minutes ago
U.S. families are $1,268 poorer than they were when Obama took office, via @christineromans http://cnnmon.ie/1Ll6Sxf
Agree. Sounds like we were saying the same thing, just in a different way.
Excellent point. If someone waits for government to fix any problem for them, they may be waiting forever.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Football UK's Top Players Ahead of 2024: No. 3 Maxwell Hairston- Latest: KentuckyDC
-
-