ADVERTISEMENT

POLITICAL THREAD

How will they rule ??!

  • YES - Qualified

    Votes: 41 82.0%
  • NO - Disqualified

    Votes: 9 18.0%

  • Total voters
    50
  • Poll closed .
Build a wall! We can have a war over which side gets Niagara Falls.
Meanwhile, back in the real world....

GZywqXaW4AAO5zw
 
Send them all back to their home countries. Vivek has the correct plan to do it. Do not need mass deportation teams to gather them up. Just cut off their taxpayer paid welfare and most will leave on their own.
Vivek is correct but the downside to it is that it would also lead to (IMO) a huge uptick in crime. A lot of these illegals look at the American people as rich and ripe for the taking.
 

Lol this is great and further shows how out of touch they are.

"Trump wants to secure the border, put criminals in jail, cut government, get rid of the swamp, end the neverending wars, return sanity to the gender nonsense!"

Voters - "oh? Tell me more because this sounds pretty good. Why was I repeatedly told he is worse than hitler?"
 
I have no idea what fair share means, so I can hardly push for it. Please explain fair share.

Trump's high tariffs are consumption based. Should really help those paying no income tax, LOL.
He said "fair share" is a myth, you moron.
Consumption based taxes, what an idea ... who consumes more? The rich person or the poor person, REGARDLESS of income.

You are truly terrible.
 
Has anyone studied up on the pros/cons of amendment 2 for KY schools? All I can get from the basics is that the general assembly will have the "option" of allocating funds to private schools, but nothing will be required. Parents are still on the hook for tuition and/or scholarships from the school itself. I get where the lower economic areas/counties may be hurt as they don't have the luxury of property tax benefits like FCPS does, for example, and they need all the funding from the state they can get. However, I have yet to see anything regarding rock solid facts against this amendment. Thoughts?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bigblueinsanity
It's making the interest tax deductible, not eliminating it. Jfc. Reading comprehension sorely lacking here.

And why in the world do you think a rich person is even going to pay 1% interest if they can just pay cash? 🤔

Make it make sense, old top.
If interest is deductible, they're no paying it. Duh.

Anyone with any sense knows a 1% loan for money is a great deal as you can invest at a greater return. So yes, the rich would/do pay 1% for a loan over cash. You have an investment problem.
 
Has anyone studied up on the pros/cons of amendment 2 for KY schools? All I can get from the basics is that the general assembly will have the "option" of allocating funds to private schools, but nothing will be required. Parents are still on the hook for tuition and/or scholarships from the school itself. I get where the lower economic areas/counties may be hurt as they don't have the luxury of property tax benefits like FCPS does, for example, and they need all the funding from the state they can get. However, I have yet to see anything regarding rock solid facts against this amendment. Thoughts?

Imo it will be a good thing. It isnt vouchers per se because the parents dont pay, but the funding is from the state based on attendance, so its the same functionality.

I saw alot of people claiming it will kill rural schools. Wrong because there is no competition there. So they will remain uneffected.

It will absolutely kill crappy schools in cities if they dont improve, which is a good thing. By introducing competition to the system, parents get more say in their kids' education and schools either come in line or die off.

The only people who will really suffer are the teachers union and the do nothing politicians/administrators if they dont get their public schools in line.
 
Vivek is correct but the downside to it is that it would also lead to (IMO) a huge uptick in crime. A lot of these illegals look at the American people as rich and ripe for the taking.
Round them up and send them to Dim controlled cities and cut off their federally funded cash and let the dim cities fund them. That will destroy those bastions of evil and corruption killing two birds with one stone.
 
Has anyone studied up on the pros/cons of amendment 2 for KY schools? All I can get from the basics is that the general assembly will have the "option" of allocating funds to private schools, but nothing will be required. Parents are still on the hook for tuition and/or scholarships from the school itself. I get where the lower economic areas/counties may be hurt as they don't have the luxury of property tax benefits like FCPS does, for example, and they need all the funding from the state they can get. However, I have yet to see anything regarding rock solid facts against this amendment. Thoughts?
Why would low income areas be hurt? They'd still get state funding for public schools.

I only see pluses. Parents deciding where to send their kids to schools vs. having one public choice is a great idea. Competition improves quality. And it must be good since school supers are lined up against it. What I can't imagine is that Trump will get 60%+ of the KY vote again, Pubs have super majorities in the Legislature, and people are going to turn around and vote against them? Crazy sh!t. Are Legislature members & US Senators & House members out campaigning for it? I've seen one ad by Rand paul for it, that's it. Anyone?
 
So if there is no cost of interest on a loan, why pay cash? I have a 1% car loan going to 2020. Why pay cash? Why would the wealthy pay cash?

You make it sound as if theyre getting a credit, which is a 1:1 reduction in tax owed. Thats not the case. The deduction is just a reduction of taxable income, which impacts the number to which they apply your tax rate. I know im not using specific terms of art but im fairly certain thats how its intended to work.

Furthermore, from a wealth perspective, with paying cash you still avoid the gap when your asset continues to rapidly decrease in value while your interest stays in the same..

Now if you are just hunting tax deductions because you make too much money, then still paying cash on a vehicle over a certain weight gives you that advantage.

So there are still advantages to paying cash.
 
If interest is deductible, they're no paying it. Duh.

Anyone with any sense knows a 1% loan for money is a great deal as you can invest at a greater return. So yes, the rich would/do pay 1% for a loan over cash. You have an investment problem.

Ok I take back anything nice I’ve said about you. You really think that money going 100% to a bank vs having additional investment income is bad? Money being invested is what runs our economy. You really are a low life socialist lefty.
 
You make it sound as if theyre getting a credit, which is a 1:1 reduction in tax owed. Thats not the case. The deduction is just a reduction of taxable income, which impacts the number to which they apply your tax rate. I know im not using specific terms of art but im fairly certain thats how its intended to work.
The words used that I've heard have been a tax deduction, not an income deduction as you suggest. Regardless, how does that help low income tax people anyway?

I've normally paid cash for non-leased cars. But 1% loan is a better deal than cash.
 
The poorer can't afford a car. Give them money over giving a deduction to those with a loan. If there's no interest cost on a loan, why pay cash?

Taxes were lowered as part of the removal of the salt taxes deductions.

I guarantee you 95% of people would be tickled with $250K AGI.

I told you what his SS policy is: Do nothing & let it run dry.

So waiters making $20/hr with tips shouldn't pay as much tax as $20/hr burger flippers ( That's not an insult to B-fers.)?

I have no idea what fair share means, so I can hardly push for it. Please explain fair share.

Trump's high tariffs are consumption based. Should really help those paying no income tax, LOL.


Yea you’re a clown. Off to ignore with the rest of the socialist trolls.
 
Ok I take back anything nice I’ve said about you. You really think that money going 100% to a bank vs having additional investment income is bad? Money being invested is what runs our economy. You really are a low life socialist lefty.
You think paying 1% for a loan to whomever to keep the cash to invest isn't a better deal for the investor? I really can't believe people think paying cash over 1% is the better idea. Any investor would jump all over all the 1% money they could get.

I scratch my head at people thinking others come here for positive personal comments back at them. I'm here for an exchange of ideas, that's all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: blubo
I guess they still exist. Same goes for Antifa. Yeah they'll probably show their ugly heads if Trump wins.
BLM still tries to claim some relevancy, but they have largely been called out for their BS, so they are far less prevalent now. Antifa though, those little punks are just waiting in the wings till November to mobilize in key cities and cause havoc and mayhem.
 
It's making the interest tax deductible, not eliminating it. Jfc. Reading comprehension sorely lacking here.

And why in the world do you think a rich person is even going to pay 1% interest if they can just pay cash? 🤔

Make it make sense, old top.
Would venture to guess a lot of rich people may even lease their vehicles
 
Kind of like my health insurance. Sure, I get to write it off for my taxes, but I'm still paying it every month. 🙃
They don't realize the people it actually helps the most are those who have poor credit and go to one of those used car lots that will give somebody like them a car with a high interest loan that stretches out over 6 years or so. They are the ones that benefit the most from a policy like that. My son who graduated from college last year and has himself a reasonably decent job, needed a new car to replace the 1997 Toyota Camry beater he was driving earlier this year. He budgeted how much he could afford monthly and got him self a 2020 Hyundai Ionic. he had some credit rating, but not great, ended up with an interest rate a little over 8% which was actually fairly reasonable, considering, but he is the kind of person who will benefit the most from that, Not me who is close to having my car paid off and only with about a 3% interest rate.

What needs to not happen though is like the mortgage interest deduction, too many people think having a mortgage payment is better than not because of that deduction. that's just ridiculous.
 
Imo it will be a good thing. It isnt vouchers per se because the parents dont pay, but the funding is from the state based on attendance, so its the same functionality.

I saw alot of people claiming it will kill rural schools. Wrong because there is no competition there. So they will remain uneffected.

It will absolutely kill crappy schools in cities if they dont improve, which is a good thing. By introducing competition to the system, parents get more say in their kids' education and schools either come in line or die off.

The only people who will really suffer are the teachers union and the do nothing politicians/administrators if they dont get their public schools in line.
So do I vote yes on this or is it going to be one of those oddly worded issues on the ballot meant to trick you into voting the opposite of what you really should.
 
Send them all back to their home countries. Vivek has the correct plan to do it. Do not need mass deportation teams to gather them up. Just cut off their taxpayer paid welfare and most will leave on their own.

They won't leave. They're here to fight, not to pick vegetables or collect welfare. The assaults you've seen randomly on the news are just pent up aggression that can't wait to come out. Just like the libs here. They're here for your house and your land, and for bloodshed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBUK and blubo
  • Like
Reactions: TheFrontRunner
The words used that I've heard have been a tax deduction, not an income deduction as you suggest. Regardless, how does that help low income tax people anyway?

I've normally paid cash for non-leased cars. But 1% loan is a better deal than cash.

A “tax deduction” is a deduction from income in arriving at your taxable income. At least that’s the way everyone in the tax and business world uses that term.

No one says “income deduction”.

A tax credit is a dollar for dollar reduction in the amount of tax owed.

Along these same lines, this is why I laugh every time Kamabla touts her start up cost tax deduction policy as something that’s going to spur economic growth. Would love to know how many small businesses actually capitalize their startup costs rather than just deducting them as professional expenses. Regardless, it’s not a $50k handout like she’s making it sound.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT