That was a set back. SC will tell us if he can recover. I read an article yesterday where he already has an eye toward a brokered convention, which I think is a real possibility.
POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
That was a set back. SC will tell us if he can recover. I read an article yesterday where he already has an eye toward a brokered convention, which I think is a real possibility.
I'm not sure if he can recover - but not for the reasons usually given. Everyone is looking at Rubio+Bush+Kasich and asking, who survives? I don't think it matters much. Unless Trump and/or Cruz self-destruct, it's hard to see much of a path.
Oops, Ted released a commercial with a porn star in it. Had to pull it (then pray it won't hurt him).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-ad-emerges-stars-softcore-porn-actress.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-ad-emerges-stars-softcore-porn-actress.html
And those persistent gay rumors.
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/bombshell-report-marco-rubios-gay-scandal-surfaces/
Would Jesus have pulled the ad? The woman claims she's a born again Christian conservative. Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future. Right? I guess not.Oops, Ted released a commercial with a porn star in it. Had to pull it (then pray it won't hurt him).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-ad-emerges-stars-softcore-porn-actress.html
What I want to know is who would more likely nail that chick, Hillary or Rubio.
This is false, unless income is taxed 100%.
Those who want to better their situation will always strive to do so if directly compensated for their efforts, whether they're receiving 10c on the dollar or 90c. No one turns down cash because they're entering a higher tax bracket. If they did, they're idiots. What happens is that those adding value which directly translates to compensation will increase their efforts to pay less taxes on the additional income.
This is true. It amazes me that low and middle class rubes lust after a flat tax, unless they really want to assume more of the tax burden. A dollar earned by someone sitting in the top tax bracket is worth more than a dollar earned by those in the lowest brackets. A much smaller % of a dollar earned for the top tax bracket is allocated to necessities, and their dollar has countless more investment options to increase their wealth, including but not limited to hedge fund and real estate opportunities as well as greater access to wealth management advantages. Add to all of this the non-taxable benefits given to the top tax bracket.
yeah, that's a blockbuster all right. Pretty convincing. By that logic, I too must be gay since I was in San Francisco once several years ago.....
The Dems fingered Rubio last summer as the one they had to be fearful of in a general. Who knows what kind of oppo research they have on file, real and manufactured.....
Youre missing the point. The entire time one is trying to climb the financial ladder, they have to earn income. Everytime they earn income, the government automatically takes a portion. Therefore, inhibiting the upward movement.
While the wealthy are allowed to sit on their piles of cash, buy things, take trips etc. The person working their way up is penalized every step of the way.
Well the Political Insider has a conservative slant so you know it's pretty reliable about the GOP.
BTW, in case any of you are in the mood for a book on presidential politics, I'm finally about to finish something called What It Takes, published in the early 90s about the 1988 race. Great reviews, supposedly one of the best books of its kind ever (which is why I got it). Nearly 1100 pages, which is killing me - I'm finding the net/monile devices are destroying my attention span, at least in some ways. Anyway, the author got embedded, no other way to put it, with Bush, Dole, Hart, Biden, Dukakis and Gephardt. Amazing access. Two interesting things. One, he treats all of them fairly. He actually like them, or most of them anyway. You'd never get that now, 25 years later - have to pick a side don't ya know. Two, the political press gets pretty rough, but honest, treatment - they don't come out looking so hot. Everyone from EJ Dionne down to the editor of the Des Moines Register. They are fickle, arrogant, play favorites, play dirty - in short, all the things you assume about reporters is confirmed.....
yeah, because there's never any sniping or dirty politics within a party......
Nope, not missing the point. Upward movement completely depends on your position relative to others. As long as others are subject to the same tax structure your position is entirely predicated upon wealth accumulation driven by increased income, no matter your marginal income tax rate.
A very simplistic and practical example, would you rather receive $1M per annum in which your income over $450K is taxed at 40% or receive 80K in which the majority of your earnings were taxed at 25%, assuming you had the ability to achieve either income? Obviously it's an easy question that you don't have to answer, but what would inhibit you from choosing the $1M salary? Nothing, unless you're a buddhist monk yearning to find inner peace through unworldly rewards.
And would an increase in income tax rates with your $80K wage inhibit your desire and opportunity for upward movement? It would not, unless you're the only person taxed at this rate in some odd experimental vacuum.
If income tax is abolished does everyone automatically move up the socioeconomic ladder? They do not, their purchasing power and relative wealth remains exactly the same.
Or I guess you could say I'm missing your point because that point doesn't make sense.
Last edited:
I previously have only heard about the incident in Miami's Wainwright park when Rubio was 18.
Pocket change with some Paddock posters.
My post has absolutely nothing to do with people intentionally underearning in an attempt to avoid taxation. Once you grasp that fact, then you may be able to understand the point being made.
Traveled through SC this week. My Lord, the amount of negative ads on TV is incredible. Guess I can see why they say SC is a political bloodbath election state. Funny enough, talked to a terrific guy (African American) at the hotel I was staying at and he is supporting Trump. He was pretty proud of it. Bought him a few drinks and just talked up politics and all. Great guy and had some interesting perspectives about Trump, the GOP, Dems, etc.
Yes it does, you're saying an income tax inhibits upward movement because people are taking home less pay. I'm saying that's completely untrue because the single catalyst for "upward movement" is a change in relative wealth, driven by an increase in income and/or value. Because you're not earning this income in a vacuum, you're mobility is predicated on that change of value relative to others subject to the same taxation method.
What you should be saying is that income tax inhibits taking home more money given the same gross wages earned, which has nothing to do with upward mobility, a concept completely dependent on purchasing power and relative wealth.
I understand the point you're trying to make, it's just wrong.
By taking home less pay, its increasingly hard to climb the ladder and gather financial status. Whereas the wealthy dont have the same obstacle, because their wealth isnt depending on earning.
A tax on wealth, would have the inverse effect. The income earner would gain wealth easier. The wealthy person is still free to rest on their laurels, but their total wealth would continue to be depleted, at a reducing rate, should they choose to do so.
This would reward the person fighting to move upward, and threaten the content person with downward mobility. Thus, being the much better economic policy.
I didnt just create the theory out of my head. Milton Friedman has some very interesting views on the impact of an income tax on upward mobility and capitalism. Of course he won a nobel prize in economics and is one of the most revered economists in history. So if you dont want to take my word for it, you may want to take his.
New post New Hampshire national poll has Trump support at 44%.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/12/trump-jumps-to-44-nationally-rubio-drops-to-10/
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/12/trump-jumps-to-44-nationally-rubio-drops-to-10/
I don't understand your post either. You said that the wealthy can sit on their wealth, vacation, live it up... Well, if they are spending their cash while not earning then they are sliding back down the ladder.
Otherwise, everyone had to accumulate wealth at some point other than those who inherit it and had to "overcome" taxation. Even if you inherit $1 billion and you don't grow it which results in income which gets taxed unless it's all tax-free muni's... but if you're spending more than you're earning then the till will eventually run dry.
You think there would be more opportunities to increase your status if income taxes were abolished, as if some arbitrage opportunity would be available to those in the lower and middle classes that those above you, or at your same relative position of wealth, wouldn't exploit? Your hypothetical is a fantasy.
If anything you'd have less purchasing power and relative wealth because the wealth accumulated by those in the former higher tax brackets would grow at a greater % than yours. If we abolished all income taxes you actually think it would be easier to carve out a bigger slice of the pie, which has only grown proportionally to your current position? In simple terms, you still have your 2% of the pie and remain in the same socioeconomic class.
With no income tax, those wealthier than you that are standing in the way of your upward mobility would actually benefit more as their incoming dollar is still worth more than yours given their investment opportunities and relative discretionary income after acquiring basic goods and services.
Your comment of an inverse effect is a non sequitur since, with or without an income tax in place, people obviously still have the incentive and would not be inhibited to upward mobility because they're actually competing against those in the same socioeconomic class.
Why would someone in the lower class be less likely to move up with a progressive income tax in place vs accumulating wealth through untaxed income, when the only way to accumulate wealth at this lower class is by increasing their income relative to others in the same situation by offering more value to the overall economy?
Plus, a wealthy person's total wealth wouldn't be depleted with a tax on wealth, it would just grow at a slower rate, which is then offset by the advantage of paying no taxes on income generated from that wealth.
I'm not arguing that taxing wealth is a bad idea, I'm arguing that income tax is NOT inhibiting upward mobility.
Milton Friedman never argued that an income tax inhibits upward mobility, he argued that a lack of wealth to cover basic needs inhibited upward mobility. He advocated for a hyper progressive income tax (called the Negative Income Tax) to create opportunity in wage earners below a certain (very low) income threshold in lieu of government handouts, while still keeping the income tax structure on middle and upper tax brackets.
But his most favored plan was a flat-tax on income, which you've already dismissed. Obviously Friedman openly supported cutting taxes in any way, shape, or form if our end goal was solely to strengthen the economy.
I will take his word for it though, thanks for bringing him into this.
Last edited:
How would you impose a wealth tax? I would think that would be very complicated.
Am I taxed based upon the market value of my securities/real estate and cash on some certain day? People who are highly leveraged in the market can see large swings in their net wealth day to day.
Isn't an inheritance tax that is a one time, end of life event...much simpler? Otherwise you are requiring that people stay liquid for $X of their worth. For someone who is a large land owner that could require that they sell part of their land every year.
I'm willing to listen to the plan...I just don't see how you would implement it.
Jessie Jackson was huge in that race, too. That is also the campaign that featured Lloyd Bentson destroying Dan Quayle with the most epic putdown of all time. Dukakis had a huge lead until the Bush team broke out Willie Horton and Bernie Sanders asked the most inappropriate question in modern debate history. Helluva campaign and I enjoyed it from start to finish.
I'll be so happy when the campaign gets done with South Carolina. The over-the-top pandering to try and out-religion each other is about the most nauseating thing imaginable.
Maybe any that force religion on a populous? Not the governments job to do that.
Odd a conservative would advocate more government intrusion, especially that of thought police.
Well, we have an entire world history that pretty much shows unequivocally that Theocracies are a disaster... not to mention current events.
My last post on religion for awhile. But Far Right Repubs are just as socialist as Dems. They both use big gov't to get their way. They have no problem using big gov't as a vehicle to force people to comply to their beliefs.
Absolutely would not want to force religion on anyone. What Christian law would be bad?
In some ways this is true. Take the issue of immigration. What a liberal may pursue from a sense of guilt or other motivation (future voter support) a religious conservative may also pursue on moral basis.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Can I cancel my trip on Expedia and get a refund?
- Latest: Taken_technics
-
-