Rdskns2000

Presidential Election 2020 - ManChild vs Adult

Recommended Posts

Starting to hear some conservative folks think it is good for Rs to see these presidential hopefuls come out so early on the D-side.   Do Dems think it's a good or bad thing?  Also can there be "too many" candidates, meaning could there be so many candidates that it actually helps the Republicans?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Can you explain a little more?  I think it would shut down a lot of loopholes the rich use.  It sounds pretty fair to me but I'm no expert.  And it's a something that all the candidates will be discussing (tax plans in general) as part of their campaigns.

 

Problem is you probably can’t make it work at 50k standard deduction or at 17%. I’d actually be interested to see how that math worked out at more like 30-40% (since that’s a legitimate increase on capital gains). Having trouble finding a calculator online. 

Edited by skinsfan_1215

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I think $100k is too low.  I was going to say over $500k.  PleaseBlitz numbers for 1% also would be a good starting point. 

 

I'd say somewhere in the middle.  I learned hard way growing up that $100k is two $50k salaries and the second one is gone you are down to $50k, that's nothing in area like DC. 

 

Same time 500k is too high if serious about not just balancing the budget but eating into that debt to lower these interest payments taking a chunk out our yearly budget as a country.

 

We should lower taxes for people that too high hurts the most and raise for people that can best handle it and actually get something out of it.  Only so much blood you can squeeze from a rock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Can you explain a little more?  I think it would shut down a lot of loopholes the rich use.  It sounds pretty fair to me but I'm no expert.  And it's a something that all the candidates will be discussing (tax plans in general) as part of their campaigns.

 

#1, you can close loopholes without a flat tax;

#2, even with loopholes, the ultrarich pay a higher effective tax rate than 17% because of the Alternative Minimum Tax;

#3, what all the candidates in the Dem primary will be discussing is how to increase taxes on the very wealthy, because taxes on the very wealthy have steadily declined from a 91% top marginal tax rate in the 1950s to a 37% top bracket now, and also how to decrease the tax burden on the poor, who may not pay income taxes per se, but still pay payroll taxes.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, superozman said:

Starting to hear some conservative folks think it is good for Rs to see these presidential hopefuls come out so early on the D-side.   Do Dems think it's a good or bad thing?  Also can there be "too many" candidates, meaning could there be so many candidates that it actually helps the Republicans?

 

Generally, entering this early fine, I wouldn't say it's good or bad.  The first Dem debate is in June, so everyone has to be in the pool in the next 3 months.  The people that have entered already (Warren, Harris and the other discount rack people) did so in order to get some free media attention to themselves before the main influx of people.  Others are waiting so they can get organized and save the time, money and energy of running for an extra 2-3 months.  Many of them have day jobs to attend to.  

 

I don't think there can be so many candidates that it helps the GOP.  16 Republicans ran in 2016 and that was fine.  Probably more Dems will enter this year, but a lot of them will get in and get out fast because they'll find there is no market for them.  Hell, Richard Ojeda entered and has already dropped out.  I think there will be roughly 8-10 top-tier candidates this year and that's probably just fine.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

#2, even with loopholes, the ultrarich pay a higher effective tax rate than 17% because of the Alternative Minimum Tax;

Just to be clear, is this just on "income" or other sources of money also?

 

To me setting a flat tax, as long as it is on all forms of compensation, seems the most fair.  Having a standard deduction though helps make sure the lower income folk aren't getting squeezed by it.  But I haven't seen a good calculator that will work this out.  At least one that includes more than just the persons paycheck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole "run gov't like a business" mantra is a bit weird to me because during the campaign all you hear from politicians are the virtues of small business/small business owners, but the businesmen that actually run for President are usually CEO's of multi-billionaire empires. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Just to be clear, is this just on "income" or other sources of money also?

 

To me setting a flat tax, as long as it is on all forms of compensation, seems the most fair.  Having a standard deduction though helps make sure the lower income folk aren't getting squeezed by it.  But I haven't seen a good calculator that will work this out.  At least one that includes more than just the persons paycheck.

 

I guess it depends on your definition of "fair."  

 

My definition of fair involves Danny Snyder paying more taxes so we can have schools and roads rather than him buying a ****ing boat with an IMAX.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, clietas said:

I love Elizabeth Warren but her campaign has fallen flat. Feels like she'll be out of the race in less than six months at this point.

 

Watched the Kamala Harris TH this morning. I still really like her. Strong progressive candidate. Like her stances on healthcare, criminal justice reform, education, immigration. Tho she's basically Californias answer to Bernie. Not a full on pinko commie but certainly far left of center.

 

Spot on assessment.  Bernie is going to win here without ever getting elected.

 

2 hours ago, clietas said:

Id advise Kamala lose that "Let me tell ya something" line she kept repeating. Sounded like she was cutting a promo with mean gene okerlund at one point.

 

She black you may just have to get used to that, like Obama saying "look" : )

 

2 hours ago, clietas said:

Im glad the Democratic party has contuined to embrace a capitalist socialisist hybrid type of platform. Deregulation and Voodoo economics has crippled a good portion of our population.

 

 

Think it's fair to call her a hybrid instead of social Democrat, but dems arent out the woods of drums for ending capitalism.  Guy in TH asked having billionaires was immoral and her answer shoulda been no and very clear, but she didnt.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

I guess it depends on your definition of "fair."  

 

My definition of fair involves Danny Snyder paying more taxes so we can have schools and roads rather than him buying a ****ing boat with an IMAX.  

Maybe some of the reason I like the idea of a flat tax is because I know so little about the system the rich people use.  Wasn't it Warren Buffett who said his tax rate is lower than his secretaries?  I assume that is because of all the loop holes and tricks the super wealthy use.  To my simplistic mind, make him pay 17% (or whatever) just like everyone else but close all the loop holes that he and others use to pay a lower rate at the end of the day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't a 50k deduction with 17% flat rate result in 1) massive reduction in tax revenue and 2) massive increase in tax for 50k to 100k earners?

 

In 2010, people with 1 million in income paid something like 20% effective rate and people with 50k to 100k paid less than 10%.  

 

Lastly, we value income differently.  Income from wages are treated better than income from gambling.  I think rightly so.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Maybe some of the reason I like the idea of a flat tax is because I know so little about the system the rich people use.  Wasn't it Warren Buffett who said his tax rate is lower than his secretaries?  I assume that is because of all the loop holes and tricks the super wealthy use.  To my simplistic mind, make him pay 17% (or whatever) just like everyone else but close all the loop holes that he and others use to pay a lower rate at the end of the day.

 

It's because Warren Buffet's income is entirely from capital gains because he is an investor, and his secretary's income is all wages, which are taxed at a higher rate.  See one of my earlier posts on this distinction.  

 

It's also a lot more complex than what you are remembering.  Forbes did a rebuttal to Buffett's original article on this topic.  https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/10/23/warren-buffetts-actual-tax-rate-is-31-while-his-office-workers-pay-21/#2834c65e3279

 

In any event, Buffett was arguing that HIS taxes should be higher, not that his secretary's taxes should be lower.  The article was titled "Stop Coddling the Super Rich."

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

I guess it depends on your definition of "fair."  

 

My definition of fair involves Danny Snyder paying more taxes so we can have schools and roads rather than him buying a ****ing boat with an IMAX.  

 

What you think of this "wealth tax" idea floating around?  Is it based on how much money somebody actually has regardless of the form it's in (liquid, property, etc) so we can get beyond stuff like capital gains tax (which we should keep but seems too low if I understand it correctly).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Maybe some of the reason I like the idea of a flat tax is because I know so little about the system the rich people use.  Wasn't it Warren Buffett who said his tax rate is lower than his secretaries?  I assume that is because of all the loop holes and tricks the super wealthy use.  To my simplistic mind, make him pay 17% (or whatever) just like everyone else but close all the loop holes that he and others use to pay a lower rate at the end of the day.

 

Warren Buffet pays lower taxes than his secretary because we reward capital gains more tham wages to encourage investing.  Also, Buffet holds his stocks forever, so all long term cap gains.  And he pays his secretarys well (for them to pay more than Buffet's effective rate, which I think was 17%).  Buffett isn't gaming the system.  In fact, I would say he's the model for capital gains tax benefit.

 

People like Mitt Romney, Trump, and hedge fund managers are the ones gaming the system.  I say a better answer than a flat tax is a massive simplification of the tax code to close the loop holes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, bearrock said:

Wouldn't a 50k deduction with 17% flat rate result in 1) massive reduction in tax revenue and 2) massive increase in tax for 50k to 100k earners?

 

In 2010, people with 1 million in income paid something like 20% effective rate and people with 50k to 100k paid less than 10%.  

 

Lastly, we value income differently.  Income from wages are treated better than income from gambling.  I think rightly so.

 

 

Well my plan would treat things like capital gains at same rate as income which would bring in more money.

 

Either way, I admit I'm not smart enough on this topic to argue it well.  

3 minutes ago, bearrock said:

I say a better answer than a flat tax is a massive simplification of the tax code to close the loop holes.

I could support this.  Probably would better meet my intended goal.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TheGreatBuzz said:

Well my plan would treat things like capital gains at same rate as income which would bring in more money.

 

Either way, I admit I'm not smart enough on this topic to argue it well.  

I think you're plenty smart and bring a valuable perspective.  I think there's a legitimate debate to be had on the preferential treatment we have for categories of income.  But I think most can agree that a simplification of the tax code and closing of loop holes is a laudable objective.  If we demand more of our lawmakers, maybe we'll get there eventually.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

What you think of this "wealth tax" idea floating around?  Is it based on how much money somebody actually has regardless of the form it's in (liquid, property, etc) so we can get beyond stuff like capital gains tax (which we should keep but seems too low if I understand it correctly).

 

So this is an Elizabeth Warren thing.  I haven't gotten into the weeds on it.  I'll just note that, since it came from Warren, it is probably EXTREMELY well thought out, because that is how she rolls.  Generally speaking, I think the ultra rich are vastly undertaxed right now.  As I noted earlier, the top 1% control 40% of the wealth in the US.  They were just given a $1.5 TRILLION tax cut which provided no benefits in workers.  I would like to see that repealed, and then some.  

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, bearrock said:

I think you're plenty smart and bring a valuable perspective.  I think there's a legitimate debate to be had on the preferential treatment we have for categories of income.  But I think most can agree that a simplification of the tax code and closing of loop holes is a laudable objective.  If we demand more of our lawmakers, maybe we'll get there eventually.

 

I do not agree that a simplification of the tax code is a laudable objective.  I think reworking the tax code in order to better address policy goals (which would include closing loopholes) is a laudable objective, and that might result in a simpler tax code, but simpler for simpler's sake should not be the goal.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i know less about this than buzz. basically i support massive tax increases for people with nicer cars than me.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

I do not agree that a simplification of the tax code is a laudable objective.  I think reworking the tax code in order to better address policy goals (which would include closing loopholes) is a laudable objective, and that might result in a simpler tax code, but simpler for simpler's sake should not be the goal.  

I think it should be simplified enough that 1) it isn't full of loopholes to get the rich out of paying a "fair" amount and 2) a reasonably intellegent person can understand it.

 

Reasoning for #2 is mainly so when a politician/candidate discuss changes or whatever, voters can understand it.  Just these last two pages have proven I don't know what the **** I'm talking about and I consider myself reasonably intelligent.  

2 minutes ago, Jumbo said:

 basically i support massive tax increases for people with nicer cars than me.

Before I can support this, I need to know what you drive (really only need to know if it nicer than my vehicles.)

Edited by TheGreatBuzz
spelling
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, PleaseBlitz said:

 

I do not agree that a simplification of the tax code is a laudable objective.  I think reworking the tax code in order to better address policy goals (which would include closing loopholes) is a laudable objective, and that might result in a simpler tax code, but simpler for simpler's sake should not be the goal.  

 

I would put it this way.  I think tax code is and should be a powerful driver of policy objective.  But if the policy objective can be achieved with reasonably comparable efficacy, than I would prefer the simpler and clearer version of the code.  Now, it's entirely possible that some objectives will require a massively complex code to avoid unintended consequences, but often times, we have intentional and unintentional loopholes that the rich and knowledgeable take advantage of while those in the dark don't get benefit for.  That's not to say I would necessarily say the tax code needs to be simple, but I would prefer simpler, if all things are equal.  The caveat being that the pursuit of simpler code doesn't end up sacrificing the desired policy objectives.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got a Hudson and it still runs good but it doesn't have any doors and you can't find ones that fit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just hope we can all realize that the 10k SALT deduction limit is a giant ****ing problem for anyone who lives in a progressive state. **** the GOP for using this to pay for the 1% tax reductions.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bearrock said:

 

I would put it this way.  I think tax code is and should be a powerful driver of policy objective.  But if the policy objective can be achieved with reasonably comparable efficacy, than I would prefer the simpler and clearer version of the code.  Now, it's entirely possible that some objectives will require a massively complex code to avoid unintended consequences, but often times, we have intentional and unintentional loopholes that the rich and knowledgeable take advantage of while those in the dark don't get benefit for.  That's not to say I would necessarily say the tax code needs to be simple, but I would prefer simpler, if all things are equal.  The caveat being that the pursuit of simpler code doesn't end up sacrificing the desired policy objectives.  

 

I think that is very well stated, and I agree with you completely.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Classic cars make it difficult to determine if yours are "nicer" than others.  

 

I'm just gonna assume your ES salary pretty much makes you a baller and therefore you should be taxed at the 90% rate.

 

@Jumbo

Edited by TheGreatBuzz
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.