EPTEdit: oh. Lol didn't notice the name and post count.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1858
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
Edit: oh. Lol didn't notice the name and post count. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28797 Posts
On April 16 2015 08:02 Yoav wrote: Yeah. Well, technically I know it because I read BBC, the Economist and (to be fair to US media) Politico, all of which actually cover things to some extent. BBC is limited by being super brief; the Economist is limited in that it's more analysis than news, though it has plenty of that; Politico is limited in that it focuses almost exclusively on Washington politics. But them plus NYT/WSJ gets you a decent survey. I really do kinda want to like Rand Paul. Being the only politician of note seriously opposed to drone strikes, warantless wiretapping, and the incarceration state gets you enough cred in my eyes to cover over a lot of sins. I'm not sure it's enough, but I definitely give him a lot of credit. On the other hand, I really want to hate Jeb Bush and he keeps insistently saying sensible things. Not sure which of the two is winning at the moment honestly. it's funny. I've never before seen an election where the same person made several statements that I agree the most with out of any candidate's statement on some topics, and several statements that I agree the least with on other topics. Although I guess it makes perfect sense that a libertarian would appear that way to someone like me who is extremely socially liberal but very pro economic regulation. ;p In Norway, the party that claims to be under some libertarian influence is actually less socially liberal than the 'political mainstream'. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18857 Posts
 | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On April 19 2015 12:36 zlefin wrote: I didn't realize huckabee had so much crazy, watching part of the republican leadership summit on cspan. Some "fair tax" nonsense that would remove the income tax entirely, and so many other things that just don't stand up to scrutiny at all. I really wish all our politicians had to speak under oath at all times (under penalty of perjury). That'd help clean up the discourse some if they couldn't blatantly knowingly lie without consequence. You know you're a bad candidate when 2012 Herman Cain makes more sense than you. | ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
On April 19 2015 22:13 farvacola wrote: There's something to be said for the fact that a political platform consisting exclusively of "Leave us alone!" ends up being about half right and half wrong implying that norwegian political understandings are the standard for right and wrong | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28797 Posts
| ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
not sure how so many people can find such a holier-than-thou authoritarian asshole to be likable | ||
Falling
Canada11512 Posts
On April 19 2015 12:36 zlefin wrote: I didn't realize huckabee had so much crazy, watching part of the republican leadership summit on cspan. Some "fair tax" nonsense that would remove the income tax entirely, and so many other things that just don't stand up to scrutiny at all. I really wish all our politicians had to speak under oath at all times (under penalty of perjury). That'd help clean up the discourse some if they couldn't blatantly knowingly lie without consequence. That's not out of keeping for Huckabee at all. In 2008, he also ran on abolishing the IRS and income tax and replacing it with a fair tax, which I believe is just a sales tax. | ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
On April 20 2015 01:12 Falling wrote: That's not out of keeping for Huckabee at all. In 2008, he also ran on abolishing the IRS and income tax and replacing it with a fair tax, which I believe is just a sales tax. Which isn't really that crazy tbh. If expensive luxuries are taxed heavier than lower-end items, it'll basically function like an income tax. You'd pay more in taxes the more you purchased expensive stuff, meaning you'd pay more if you had higher income. Except it wouldn't tax money spent on entrepreneurship. Rich people could invest all they wanted into start-up businesses. There's also fewer tax loopholes, since there'd be no taxes to file. There isn't really any way to cheat a sales tax. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22359 Posts
I would also bet that it would result in a major tax income loss because the difference in how much is spend on luxury items just isn't big enough. It is yet another measure that will not grow the economy, will hurt the middle class and will benefit the rich. | ||
|
Aveng3r
United States2411 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
To me Hillary feels like a competent reasonable choice, but kinda meh. | ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
On April 20 2015 01:31 Gorsameth wrote: Sigh thinking rich people will invest more if there were less taxes is an utter fallacy. I would also bet that it would result in a major tax income loss because the difference in how much is spend on luxury items just isn't big enough. It is yet another measure that will not grow the economy, will hurt the middle class and will benefit the rich. How will it benefit the rich? They'll pay higher taxes on all the stuff they buy. If you heavily tax stuff rich people want, there is no net loss of tax income. I'm talking 15-20% taxes on new mansions, high-end sports cars, private jets, things like that. And like I said, there's no tax loopholes to cheat with in a sales tax, because it happens at check-out, and has no exemptions. Keeping money in off-shore accounts will do no good, because the sale happens in the US. You CAN curb investment with taxes. If you tax too much, there simply is no money left to invest. You want to tax money that is obviously not going to investment, i.e. money that's spent on stuff. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22359 Posts
And yes ofc super high taxes will curb investment but if you think the US is currently anywhere near those levels then your delusional. This isnt ww2 with 90% taxes. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On April 20 2015 01:46 Millitron wrote: How will it benefit the rich? They'll pay higher taxes on all the stuff they buy. If you heavily tax stuff rich people want, there is no net loss of tax income. I'm talking 15-20% taxes on new mansions, high-end sports cars, private jets, things like that. And like I said, there's no tax loopholes to cheat with in a sales tax, because it happens at check-out, and has no exemptions. Keeping money in off-shore accounts will do no good, because the sale happens in the US. You CAN curb investment with taxes. If you tax too much, there simply is no money left to invest. You want to tax money that is obviously not going to investment, i.e. money that's spent on stuff. There's quite a bit of research on the effect of various tax types. I'm not sure of the effects if the sales tax on luxuries is significantly higher than the regular sales tax. Sales taxes in general tend to be somewhat regressive (affecting the poor more than the rich). as to loopholes, sales tax is just as vulnerable to having loopholes as income tax, or at least that's my impression, do you have citations to the contrary? obviously a no exceptions sales tax might not, but the same would apply to a no exceptions income tax. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28797 Posts
Frankly I'm more leaning the other way, remove sales taxes completely, at least for groceries and other necessities, because they are the taxes least suited for redistribution. And the purpose of taxation is essentially redistribution. Everyone has to buy food, and working minimum wage leaves you paying the same tax for bread as a billionaire does. Note, I don't think that bread should be less expensive if you have less, but sales tax goes against the idea of progressive taxation. From my perspective, the problem with the American tax system is that for the top levels, it's not progressive at all, billionaires pay a smaller % of their income than lower middle class, and that makes no sense to me. My impression (from Norway) is that sales tax if anything function as a way of concealing the real taxation level from the public, because even though we don't have very high income taxes (for a large majority of people income taxes are between 27% and 35%, I've been paying less than 20% for the past 5 years), real taxation levels have been estimated to be more in the 60-70% ballpark, with everything added together. | ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
On April 20 2015 01:41 Aveng3r wrote: I still say I would vote for Jon Stewart if he ran just vote for bernie sanders, dude's the only person on the left actually trying to get shit done. | ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
On April 20 2015 02:04 zlefin wrote: There's quite a bit of research on the effect of various tax types. I'm not sure of the effects if the sales tax on luxuries is significantly higher than the regular sales tax. Sales taxes in general tend to be somewhat regressive (affecting the poor more than the rich). as to loopholes, sales tax is just as vulnerable to having loopholes as income tax, or at least that's my impression, do you have citations to the contrary? obviously a no exceptions sales tax might not, but the same would apply to a no exceptions income tax. A sales tax doesn't have to be a flat tax though. You can charge much higher taxes on things rich people buy, so as to prevent it from being regressive. Poor people aren't buying private jets, mansions, or Kobe beef. So you heavily tax the high end stuff, and it is effectively the same as variable income tax. Instead of "make more money, pay higher taxes" it's "buy more expensive stuff, pay higher taxes". There are no loopholes if the taxes are done like they are in Europe. Sales taxes are figured in to the total price of the item. Unlike in the US, where an 8% sales tax on an item with a sticker price of $100 means you actually pay $108, in Europe the sticker price includes the sales tax and in this case would be $108. The only loophole I can see is importing stuff. Unless you pay tariffs, any purchase outside the country wouldn't be taxed I guess. Other than that though, I can't see any loopholes because there's no paperwork to cheat on. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22359 Posts
And again I think you vastly overestimate how much "rich stuff" someone actually buys your not going to cover the loss of general taxes off that since you (I assume anyway) want to not increase taxation for the middle class. edit-to expand a little: I understand what your trying to get at but I am pretty sure it will result in less tax income and favor the rich in the end. Its also going to take a ton of constant work to classify what is what kind of item and what the tax on that should be. You might aswell spend all that time & afford in simplifying the tax code and close loop-holes that way. | ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
On April 20 2015 02:16 Gorsameth wrote: What decides what is a rich person item. what makes something a middle class item. And again I think you vastly overestimate how much "rich stuff" someone actually buys your not going to cover the loss of general taxes off that since you (I assume anyway) want to not increase taxation for the middle class. edit-to expand a little: I understand what your trying to get at but I am pretty sure it will result in less tax income and favor the rich in the end. Its also going to take a ton of constant work to classify what is what kind of item and what the tax on that should be. You might aswell spend all that time & afford in simplifying the tax code and close loop-holes that way. There's no classification involved essentially. It can be done based on the price of the item. The more expensive the item is pre-taxes, the more you tax it. You don't need some committee going around classifying things as a rich person item or a poor person item if the tax is just based solely on the cost of the item. It can be figured mathematically. No need for human judgement. Obviously you need a little classification, you can't have the same tax rates on housing purchases that you do on food, but you don't need to further classify within the item type. So you pay less taxes on a trailer than you would on a mansion, simply because the trailer cost less to begin with. Not because some committee decided poor people buy trailers and rich people buy mansions. The middle class will probably break even. They'll end up paying less taxes on common stuff like food and clothing, but more on entertainment (TV's and computers), housing, and probably transportation. | ||
| ||
