| 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. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On September 30 2015 08:43 Mohdoo wrote: I think Sanders will definitely be the vice president of whatever the democratic ticket ends up being. I don't think Clinton, O'Malley or Biden would choose him. | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On September 30 2015 08:42 ticklishmusic wrote: I've decided my dream ticket is crazy uncles Joe and Bernie. I think Biden would be the by far easiest way to victory for Democrats. iirc polls from about 1-2 months ago seemed to agree with that as well and it's just that he doesn't want to because he's not really up to it right now with his son and all? Has there been anything else on it or has that changed? You only hear about Hillary, sometimes Sanders and about the major GOP ones on the other side of the pond. So if someone could point me towards some up to date information on that that'd be nice  Gotta admit, the Trump show just plainly sells better in media so understandably little coverage on Democrats atm) | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On September 30 2015 08:54 kwizach wrote: I don't think Clinton, O'Malley or Biden would choose him. In Presidential Election RPG, picking Bernie the (Democratic) Socialist Champion gives your party +4 charisma though! | ||
|
LuckyFool
United States9015 Posts
| ||
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19384 Posts
| ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On September 30 2015 09:25 BisuDagger wrote: Remove your opinions of trump or party affiliation, do any of you like his tax plan? Please actually read it before relying. It takes five minutes to read through. No. Unrealistic, runs up a massive deficit while paying lip-service to the working class. It pretends to make a huge difference for them without actually doing much and instead makes huge tax cuts to the highest end of the income bracket. It would be nice in fantasy land, but in reality it just costs the federal government a crapton of money it sorely needs while not making a serious difference for the average person. Also, it still blows my mind that Elizabeth Warren didn't choose to run for president. I feel like she has the best of both worlds from both Hillary and Bernie as candidates. | ||
|
Mercy13
United States718 Posts
The Club for Growth loves his plan, which should tell you all you need to know. Now that he thinks he might actually have a chance at winning the nomination, I think he's trying to sell out to the GOP establishment. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46390 Posts
On September 30 2015 09:25 BisuDagger wrote: Remove your opinions of trump or party affiliation, do any of you like his tax plan? Please actually read it before relying. It takes five minutes to read through. Yeah we had a discussion on it a few pages ago... no idea how that tax plan is realistic or practical at all. | ||
|
LimpingGoat
898 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States44285 Posts
On September 30 2015 09:25 BisuDagger wrote: Remove your opinions of trump or party affiliation, do any of you like his tax plan? Please actually read it before relying. It takes five minutes to read through. I broke it down by the numbers with some pretty in depth analysis a few pages back. With 2013 figures it'd result in a 390m tax burden reduction for the 25% poorest in America and a 590,000m tax burden reduction for the 15% richest in America with 375,000m of that allocated to the 2.5% richest Americans. To put that in its most simple terms, for every $1 you receive in tax cuts as an average member of the bottom quartile one of the richest 2.5% gets a $10,000 tax cut. That's his plan. We're talking colossal wealth redistribution here. A huge reduction in money for government services which the poorest in society desperately need and a large return of capital to the very richest in society. I double posted on his plan to scrap the estate tax to return the American dream because it was so fucking dumb. On September 29 2015 00:55 KwarK wrote: I mean seriously, who would be the poster child for the estate tax ruining their American dream. "Well, I'm just a simple American. I drive a truck, I drink beer, I work hard and I always dreamed of owning my own business. However when my father died and left me 20 million dollars I had to pay 40% on the money in excess of 5.4 million. Now I can't hope to ever fulfill my dreams, no matter how hard I work. This isn't what my father put me through private education, bought me entry to Yale and hooked me up with a good job at one of his business partner's companies for. I may still have 14 million dollars but in a way, I've lost something even more valuable. Vote Trump to restore the American Dream!" On September 29 2015 01:00 KwarK wrote: Also the 5.4 million minimum always fucking gets me. Because people who receive 5 million would be impoverished if they had to pay some taxes on the money they didn't earn. We gotta think of those guys. I mean yeah, I get wanting to leave something to your kids but we're talking a minimum so high that the investment income on it alone would make them a 1% income family (with a lower rate of tax than everyone else pays because LTCG). If it was passively invested in index funds the amount deemed low enough to be vindictive if it were taxed would guarantee that your, your wife, your 2 kids, their 2 kids each (so 4), their 2 kids each (8 now) and so forth, for fucking ever, would never have to work a day in their lives. And if being born into that kind of aristocracy isn't the American Dream I don't know what is. Trump's plan is a blueprint for the entrenchment of an American aristocratic elite. That's not hyperbole, that's just an explanation of what it does. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On September 30 2015 09:25 BisuDagger wrote: Remove your opinions of trump or party affiliation, do any of you like his tax plan? Please actually read it before relying. It takes five minutes to read through. Decent pro-growth tax plan that would lose some tax revenue. I'm also very much for cutting/reforming unfunded entitlements--the loss in sticking-it-to-the-rich isn't as much of a deal for me. More than anything I'm disgusted at how passé everybody is at above-50% effective tax rates on the richest Americans in state and federal, but I digress. I've heard enough of the verbal acrobatics of the envious fair-sharers that justify current tax statistics and protest tax cuts for the rich. I'm a big supporter of elimination of AMT and Estate Tax. I'm undecided on the expansion of zero-tax citizens, particularly since he hasn't elaborated on EITC. In general, I'm undecided on the effects of increasing the zero-tax populace (yes, that don't research and utilize various deducations as Kwark points out) since they still vote on how to spend other people's money. I'm gut-instinct opposed to deferral of income from foreign controlled subsidiaries slash repatriation tax since I haven't completed reading up on the history of tax law and outcomes in that area. Net-review postive. He still supports protectionist trade policy and no-cost federally-subsidized health insurance that I find incredibly short-sighted policy and populist garbage. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46390 Posts
On September 30 2015 05:11 ticklishmusic wrote: The Planned Parenthood hearing just looked like a room full of wannabe alpha males beating up on a woman. I'll laugh my ass off if some of those jokers lose their seats next election because of all the women in their district that vote against them. PP ought to use some NRA-esque tactics or something. Between the fake smear videos by disputants, the unprofessional and caustic rhetoric by politicians, and the general dissemination of misleading, inaccurate, and absurd statistics toted at all levels of conservatism- from the most mindless layman to the most deliberate Congressman- the attacks on Planned Parenthood and women's rights and general health and reproductive health awareness and availability by Anti-Choice groups have been absolutely atrocious, despicable, and embarrassing, and they're going to be on the wrong side of history. Quite frankly, I'm hoping that more middle-of-the-road conservatives are embarrassed by the way that their party's attacks (and attacks by fringe conservatives) have been playing out. It's not just about abortion anymore. Maybe it never was. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On September 30 2015 12:04 LimpingGoat wrote: Lol its not like winning Presidency activates your tax plan anyway. Yes, but when all of your policies are unimplementable and/or shortsighted it kind of discredits you as a policymaker (and thus far Trump is batting 1000 in that regard). I mean when your tax plan of all things is less theoretically revenue neutral than the ACA and you're running in the party pitching fiscal responsibility you have a problem. Edit: I guess that's not quite true. It's really not a problem if it's not revenue neutral if you provide cuts in government services and tax loopholes. The problem is when you don't specify which ones because, inevitably, they don't happen or if they do happen don't do nearly enough. I mean, I'd be just as annoyed if someone said they were planning on raising my taxes to pay for "necessary government services." Even though I'm a filthy commie at heart it's always nice to know what additional tax revenue from the wealthy is actually going to be used for. | ||
|
LimpingGoat
898 Posts
On September 30 2015 22:25 TheTenthDoc wrote: Yes, but when all of your policies are unimplementable and/or shortsighted it kind of discredits you as a policymaker (and thus far Trump is batting 1000 in that regard). I mean when your tax plan of all things is less theoretically revenue neutral than the ACA and you're running in the party pitching fiscal responsibility you have a problem. Edit: I guess that's not quite true. It's really not a problem if it's not revenue neutral if you provide cuts in government services and tax loopholes. The problem is when you don't specify which ones because, inevitably, they don't happen or if they do happen don't do nearly enough. I mean, I'd be just as annoyed if someone said they were planning on raising my taxes to pay for "necessary government services." Even though I'm a filthy commie at heart it's always nice to know what additional tax revenue from the wealthy is actually going to be used for. Jeb Bush's plan is nearly the same as Donald Trump's and he is the "favorite" to be nominated so idk what the big deal is. Every single Republican running is going to say they want to cut taxes and at the same time not say how they plan to pay for it. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46390 Posts
On September 30 2015 22:46 LimpingGoat wrote: Jeb Bush's plan is nearly the same as Donald Trump's and he is the "favorite" to be nominated so idk what the big deal is. Every single Republican running is going to say they want to cut taxes and at the same time not say how they plan to pay for it. And we should call out and hold accountable every single politician who does exactly that. Also, Jeb isn't the favorite anymore. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/07/opinion/paul-krugman-trump-is-right-on-economics.html?_r=0 But now Trump has gone full black magic and just wants to cut taxes and then jobs will happen. Because more profits always means more jobs. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
corporate rate can be a bit higher like 20%, top individual rate can be 10% higher. estate tax should be redesigned to target monoplistic or land rent and making family owned businesses public without liquidation. the one time tax for overseas profit is really good, so is long term plan of taxing global corporate income. generally good ideas like simplifying the tax code, getting rid of reductions in favor of rate tweaks, and elimination of negative incentive to work at the lower end. i assume he also wants to eliminate carried interest and the like. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44285 Posts
On September 30 2015 15:17 Danglars wrote: Decent pro-growth tax plan that would lose some tax revenue. I'm also very much for cutting/reforming unfunded entitlements--the loss in sticking-it-to-the-rich isn't as much of a deal for me. More than anything I'm disgusted at how passé everybody is at above-50% effective tax rates on the richest Americans in state and federal, but I digress. I've heard enough of the verbal acrobatics of the envious fair-sharers that justify current tax statistics and protest tax cuts for the rich. I'm a big supporter of elimination of AMT and Estate Tax. I'm undecided on the expansion of zero-tax citizens, particularly since he hasn't elaborated on EITC. In general, I'm undecided on the effects of increasing the zero-tax populace (yes, that don't research and utilize various deducations as Kwark points out) since they still vote on how to spend other people's money. I'm gut-instinct opposed to deferral of income from foreign controlled subsidiaries slash repatriation tax since I haven't completed reading up on the history of tax law and outcomes in that area. Net-review postive. He still supports protectionist trade policy and no-cost federally-subsidized health insurance that I find incredibly short-sighted policy and populist garbage. I'm curious about support of scrapping the estate tax because to me the estate tax seems thoroughly American. Hell, it was the British estate tax that finally ended our feudal landed aristocracy through a few generations. My understanding is that Americans like the idea of getting where you are through your own merits and dislike aristocracy and the birth lottery of a class system. From that standpoint taking more money from the inter-generational transfer of unearned (by the recipient) wealth and less money from the day to day earned wealth (ie income taxes) of Americans would be pretty much a blueprint for success. I get if you want lower taxes overall, and that's fine, but if you want people to value their own labour more, to work harder and to invest more then take an extra dollar out of their inheritance and leave an extra dollar in their paycheck. And it's not like any of this is going to stop the rich making sure their kids are a little more equal than the kids of other people. They went to better schools, better colleges, were pretty much impervious to the law (see affluenza for example), have better connections, will look, sound and dress exactly like the world expects them to and will still get 5.4m dollars before the estate tax wants a penny from them. The cutoff for the estate tax is laughably high. I get that people want to give their kids a legacy but at a certain point the race has been won. And that's before we look at the ways around the estate tax through trusts and whole life insurance. The vast wealth gap in America may be a desirable outcome for some capitalists, rewarding and incentivising efficient markets and entrepreneurship but the intergenerational transfer of that wealth gap is both anticapitalist and antithetical to the American dream. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Buckyman
1364 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
CranKy Ducklings
WardiTV Invitational
Cure vs Zoun
SHIN vs Classic
ByuN vs MaxPax
Percival vs YoungYakov
AI Arena Tournament
OSC
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Invitational
Shopify Rebellion Sundays
Spirit vs Mixu
Clem vs TBD
RSL Revival
Serral vs Rogue
BlizzCon
IdrA vs MC
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
