Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread

[saden1]

You don't have to be that smart to know that any flat tax is regressive towards the lower earners in the income bracket. If I were Cain I would have trouble explaining how the total taxes on goods would be around 17 percent to the largest segment of voters who consume most of their income.



TTF

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

You don't have to be that smart to know that any flat tax is regressive towards the lower earners in the income bracket. If I were Cain I would have trouble explaining how the total taxes on goods would be around 17 percent to the largest segment of voters who consume most of their income.



TTF

Well when you pay nothing and then pay something your going to take the largest hit.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Well when you pay nothing and then pay something your going to take the largest hit.

They pay nothing? They already pay sales tax, property taxes, and state income taxes. I mean, it's not their fault that when it's all said and done they make so little income and consume most of their income to live a normal life.

Screwing people who make 40K or less isn't a winning formula and will hardly generate any meaningful income for the government seeing how 16 million of those who pay no taxes are the elderly and the plan calls for no taxes on the elderly at all.

I hear under Cain's plan, Buffet would pay roughly 1% income tax plus a few thousand dollars for his food, lawn maintenance and travel expenses...oh and that big screen TV that will be charged at 17%. LOL...ludicrous!

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

They pay nothing? They already pay sales tax, property taxes, and state income taxes. I mean, it's not their fault that when it's all said and done they make so little income and consume most of their income to live a normal life.

Screwing people who make 40K or less isn't a winning formula and will hardly generate any meaningful income for the government seeing how 16 million of those who pay no taxes are the elderly and the plan calls for no taxes on the elderly at all.

I hear under Cain's plan, Buffet would pay roughly 1% income tax plus a few thousand dollars for his food, lawn maintenance and travel expenses...oh and that big screen TV that will be charged at 17%. LOL...ludicrous!

Screwing seniors was Bill Clinton when he added the tax to SS.

You will have to pay federal taxes on your Social Security benefits if you file a federal tax return as an individual and your total income is more than $25,000. If you file a joint return, you will have to pay taxes if you and your spouse have a total income of more than $32,000.
Use the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Notice 703 shown on the back of the Social Security Benefit Statement, SSA Form 1099, to determine if any of your benefits may be taxable.
Social Security has no authority to withhold state or local taxes from your benefit. Many states and local authorities do not tax Social Security benefits. However, you should contact your state or local taxing authority for more information.

Ludicrous, is the example you used and our current tax system.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Screwing seniors was Bill Clinton when he added the tax to SS.

You will have to pay federal taxes on your Social Security benefits if you file a federal tax return as an individual and your total income is more than $25,000. If you file a joint return, you will have to pay taxes if you and your spouse have a total income of more than $32,000.
Use the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Notice 703 shown on the back of the Social Security Benefit Statement, SSA Form 1099, to determine if any of your benefits may be taxable.
Social Security has no authority to withhold state or local taxes from your benefit. Many states and local authorities do not tax Social Security benefits. However, you should contact your state or local taxing authority for more information.

Ludicrous, is the example you used and our current tax system.

I agree with you...taxing people who have minuscule income that is distributed by the government itself is idiotic.

A lot of people seem to have remarkable faith in the market despite what has transpired the last few years...amazing!

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

I agree with you...taxing people who have minuscule income that is distributed by the government itself is idiotic.

A lot of people seem to have remarkable faith in the market despite what has transpired the last few years...amazing!

I have faith that an open and transparent free market that reacts to the general tenets of supply and demand and risk/reward on investments is the best form of economic system and is consistent with democratic/republican government (small d, small r).

At the same time, I would suggest that, w/out proper oversight of the process and private sector, we end up with a market that is not transparent and that does not adequately react to risk/reward. Specifically, when corporations can lose money but the individuals who manage those corporations can still profit, the "free market" does not create a proper check.

I don't really know the answer to this. Corporations, in and of themselves, are not evil any more than money, guns or government are innately evil. Corporations exists as legal entities to allow pooling of resources by protecting individuals within the corporation from personal liability. If not for this protection, business as we know it could not function - no one could gather the capitol necessary to research, innovate or otherwise invest in large capital projects. At the same time, this necessary protection insulates corporate decision makers from everything but outright fraud. Sure, the market punishes the corporation b/c it loses money - but the managers still profit.

Also, I disagree with those who think corporations should not be allowed to contribute to campaigns. Again, corporations as legal "persons" should be just a funnel for the will of the investors. If they have gathered the resources to lobby for their position, they should be allowed to do so - just as I am free to lobby against and to work with others to create a larger impact.

One of my problem with the "Occupy" movement is that, unlike the the Tea Party, the occupy movement is not actually organizing change it's just pouting about the problem. The Tea Party group - regardless of what you think of their message - organized, worked within the system, and elected numerous people who they believed would effect change. They were effective in that many politicians reflecting the "status quo" were defeated despite being backed by "the machine" (as it were). The Occupy folks have a clear and simple way to effect corporate change - buy in. Buy stocks and organize voting blocks within the corporations. It's hard, it's a lot of work, it would involve many setbacks, but there is a way for them to effectively change the structure. There is also, of course, the Tea Party route - identify an agenda, find individuals who support that agenda to run against machine politicians, and work like hell to elect those individuals -- or you can just sit in your own stench and whine. I am sure that will be effective too.

Sorry, not sure that this little rant belonged. I am frustrated that: (1) there seems to be no one able to create a cogent, compelling argument for a well regulated free market (meaning regulations that encourage and further the basic tenets of a successful FM, not simpy lots of regulations); (2) the right's answer is generally "government= bad" so regulate almost nothing and tax less; and (3) the left's answer is "free market/business = bad" so implement failed policies reflecting a warmed over neo-socialism.

Blechh. I need to find a mountaintop all my own.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

One of my problem with the "Occupy" movement is that, unlike the the Tea Party, the occupy movement is not actually organizing change it's just pouting about the problem. The Tea Party group - regardless of what you think of their message - organized, worked within the system, and elected numerous people who they believed would effect change. They were effective in that many politicians reflecting the "status quo" were defeated despite being backed by "the machine" (as it were). The Occupy folks have a clear and simple way to effect corporate change - buy in. Buy stocks and organize voting blocks within the corporations. It's hard, it's a lot of work, it would involve many setbacks, but there is a way for them to effectively change the structure. There is also, of course, the Tea Party route - identify an agenda, find individuals who support that agenda to run against machine politicians, and work like hell to elect those individuals -- or you can just sit in your own stench and whine. I am sure that will be effective too.7

Read my reply in the other threads to what Occupy Wall Street is about. Speaking of Tea Party.....lol

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I have faith that an open and transparent free market that reacts to the general tenets of supply and demand and risk/reward on investments is the best form of economic system and is consistent with democratic/republican government (small d, small r).

What use is having faith in a system if process it operates under is plagued by inequities and thievery for which there's no precaution taken or repercussion for the perpetrators? Saying it's the best system there is or could be is selling yourself short. From too big to fail, to we have a national emergency, to we didn't heed the warnings, to laws in the books that someone paid for that say you can leverage your business 30-1 to insane pension policies. It's all there because someone paid for it. If that's the best system I am all for it so long as I am getting paid. If I am losing I'd like to see and participate in some taring and feathering.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Also, I disagree with those who think corporations should not be allowed to contribute to campaigns. Again, corporations as legal "persons" should be just a funnel for the will of the investors. If they have gathered the resources to lobby for their position, they should be allowed to do so - just as I am free to lobby against and to work with others to create a larger impact.

There are legal definitions and then there are abstract definitions and concrete reality. My impression is people are persons, not a collection of people that make decisions on behalf of all the people they employ or all their shareholders. Lobbying is fine so long as it doesn't lead to pay-for-play and quid-pro-quo. Ultimately, the "person" with the most money wins and in this game you're as poor as they come. You're practically an invisible homeless person.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

One of my problem with the "Occupy" movement is that, unlike the the Tea Party, the occupy movement is not actually organizing change it's just pouting about the problem. The Tea Party group - regardless of what you think of their message - organized, worked within the system, and elected numerous people who they believed would effect change. They were effective in that many politicians reflecting the "status quo" were defeated despite being backed by "the machine" (as it were). The Occupy folks have a clear and simple way to effect corporate change - buy in. Buy stocks and organize voting blocks within the corporations. It's hard, it's a lot of work, it would involve many setbacks, but there is a way for them to effectively change the structure. There is also, of course, the Tea Party route - identify an agenda, find individuals who support that agenda to run against machine politicians, and work like hell to elect those individuals -- or you can just sit in your own stench and whine. I am sure that will be effective too.

I think they're just getting started...let the engine warm-up before you go on your drive-by.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by saden1

You don't have to be that smart to know that any flat tax is regressive towards the lower earners in the income bracket. If I were Cain I would have trouble explaining how the total taxes on goods would be around 17 percent to the largest segment of voters who consume most of their income.



TTF

Guy is not just a idiot. He's a ****ing idiot. Another rich businessman trying to pass off to the poor/middle class that somehow giving the rich guys a tax break is going to create jobs. One thing you do not want is some ex-corporate asshole who's most likely going to be looking out for corporate America. We've tried that since Reagan's era and look where it's got us. Didn't create shit. Jobs were STILL sent overseas all the while they enjoyed those luxurious tax breaks to make their pockets that much fuller.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Guy is not just a idiot. He's a ****ing idiot. Another rich businessman trying to pass off to the poor/middle class that somehow giving the rich guys a tax break is going to create jobs. One thing you do not want is some ex-corporate asshole who's most likely going to be looking out for corporate America. We've tried that since Reagan's era and look where it's got us. Didn't create shit. Jobs were STILL sent overseas all the while they enjoyed those luxurious tax breaks to make their pockets that much fuller.

I'd love to know your def. of an idiot because it seems like he has been pretty successful but I guess any ****ing idiot could accomplish what he has done.

Thats right I'd rather have a career politician that does not no a thing about business that thinks spending a trillion dollars will do something. Then when that fails he decides he now needs to spend another 500 billion to creat those same jobs that he never created with the first trillion.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I'd love to know your def. of an idiot because it seems like he has been pretty successful but I guess any ****ing idiot could accomplish what he has done.

Thats right I'd rather have a career politician that does not no a thing about business that thinks spending a trillion dollars will do something. Then when that fails he decides he now needs to spend another 500 billion to creat those same jobs that he never created with the first trillion.

Well, if you are still trying to peddle the "give us rich folk tax breaks and jobs will come", then that in my definition is a idiot. The bigger idiots actually believe it. It doesn't work, never has, and never will.

Nobody said keeping a career politician is the answer. I'm 100% for term limits to 4 years MAX. I'm 100% for ending any and all corporate (and business) donations to campaigns, and actually making them illegal. I'm 100% getting corporate America out of bed with our politicians, and he's just another asshole trying to keep the status quo.