|
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. |
On December 08 2015 05:52 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2015 05:47 cLutZ wrote:On December 08 2015 05:20 zlefin wrote:On December 08 2015 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 08 2015 03:07 Mohdoo wrote:On December 08 2015 02:48 Plansix wrote:On December 08 2015 02:43 oneofthem wrote:On December 08 2015 02:37 Plansix wrote:
Americans are willing to accept voodoo as tax policy all the time, see the Republican tax plan since 2000. Powered by black magic. If they ask Trump if he going to raise taxes and he says "no", Sanders can respond by simply saying Trump is lying and being unrealistic. Its not like the last two elections were decided on that question. Raising taxes polls poorly, but its not a deal breaker for most voters. they are fine with voodoo in two directions, tax cut and spending cut. increased spending AND tax raise is about as toxic as it comes in the fiscal policy. sanders will likely be talking about raising taxes on the rich and such, but this makes him easily caricatured as a class warrior sort of dude. again, pretty bad. The voting public tends not like the rich, especially if they are not paying taxes. Politics on the internet are not reflective of real life politics. Obama ran on a very similar platform to what Sanders is running on, raises taxes on the rich and large business, close loop holes. I think you are underestimating the desire in the US to have these issues addressed. Free college is the one thing that I have seen basically no one agreeing with Sanders on irl. It has allowed many people I know to just write him off as a loon Spread across all tax payers it works out to around $1.30 a year per person (even with inflated university costs). Even if that cost were to triple it would be one hell of a bargain for a more educated populace (almost every college kid I've mentioned it to was on board and young parents, once explained how much it would cost, thought it sounded better then paying by themselves or burdening their children with that debt). Perhaps you should expand your irl circles. Sanders has been gaining consistently especially in the early states, Bernie will in all liklihood win in New Hampshire, and has a strong chance at winning in Iowa, if he wins both I suspect people will begin to change their tune on his chances. Of course our education system needs an overhaul bottom to top also so it's certainly not a magic bullet in itself. $1.30 a year per person? that doesn't sound right, I think you got a math error somewhere. Its not right. We spend about $250 billion in federal Student aid and loans alone, per year. Treasury Dept, the same study says higher ed had ~ $497 billion in total revenues in 2009, which would put the cost at $1562 per person, which includes children and the elderly. More realistically, there are ~ 122 million Americans who pay taxes or $4073 per taxpayer. That seems like a lot until you realize how much people pay on their student loans already. It's the same situation as health insurance where the additional taxes for single payer sound unbearable until you count in the pay increase from your work converting the health insurance benefit into a pay bump and then, for most Americans, you come out ahead. The American public is already paying for education, it's just a question of how it is structured.
Yes, and I didn't claim otherwise. I just showed the statistic was bullshit. And not, like, a little bullshit, total clownface level stuff.
|
On December 08 2015 05:47 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2015 05:20 zlefin wrote:On December 08 2015 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 08 2015 03:07 Mohdoo wrote:On December 08 2015 02:48 Plansix wrote:On December 08 2015 02:43 oneofthem wrote:On December 08 2015 02:37 Plansix wrote:
Americans are willing to accept voodoo as tax policy all the time, see the Republican tax plan since 2000. Powered by black magic. If they ask Trump if he going to raise taxes and he says "no", Sanders can respond by simply saying Trump is lying and being unrealistic. Its not like the last two elections were decided on that question. Raising taxes polls poorly, but its not a deal breaker for most voters. they are fine with voodoo in two directions, tax cut and spending cut. increased spending AND tax raise is about as toxic as it comes in the fiscal policy. sanders will likely be talking about raising taxes on the rich and such, but this makes him easily caricatured as a class warrior sort of dude. again, pretty bad. The voting public tends not like the rich, especially if they are not paying taxes. Politics on the internet are not reflective of real life politics. Obama ran on a very similar platform to what Sanders is running on, raises taxes on the rich and large business, close loop holes. I think you are underestimating the desire in the US to have these issues addressed. Free college is the one thing that I have seen basically no one agreeing with Sanders on irl. It has allowed many people I know to just write him off as a loon Spread across all tax payers it works out to around $1.30 a year per person (even with inflated university costs). Even if that cost were to triple it would be one hell of a bargain for a more educated populace (almost every college kid I've mentioned it to was on board and young parents, once explained how much it would cost, thought it sounded better then paying by themselves or burdening their children with that debt). Perhaps you should expand your irl circles. Sanders has been gaining consistently especially in the early states, Bernie will in all liklihood win in New Hampshire, and has a strong chance at winning in Iowa, if he wins both I suspect people will begin to change their tune on his chances. Of course our education system needs an overhaul bottom to top also so it's certainly not a magic bullet in itself. $1.30 a year per person? that doesn't sound right, I think you got a math error somewhere. Its not right. We spend about $250 billion in federal Student aid and loans alone, per year. Treasury Dept, the same study says higher ed had ~ $497 billion in total revenues in 2009, which would put the cost at $1562 per person, which includes children and the elderly. More realistically, there are ~ 122 million Americans who pay taxes or $4073 per taxpayer.
Well in fairness to getting the numbers better he's only talking about "tuition free" loans include things like room and board, books, transportation, etc... Important costs but that's not what Bernie is talking about when he says "tuition free", also it wouldn't include private colleges. So the number is closer to ~$70 billion per year. The Feds would pick up ~$50 billion and the states would come up with the rest.
It's also kind of a moot* argument since the actual pay for is with a transaction tax on Wall Street.
+ Show Spoiler +*posted that, went to take the Browns to the super bowl, and all I could think about was what post Kwark (or someone else) would make about it. That's what I get for not proofing before I post (and not taking my phone to the bathroom) haha.
|
So instead of just saying, "Can we afford it?", why don't we say, "How do we make it so that we can afford it?".
The reality is that it is 100% possible to offer free university-level education without society collapsing, the sky falling, etc. The problem is that our system here in the U.S. is awful. Ridiculous administration costs, absurd amounts of expansion (investment in shiny new buildings, etc.) that are entirely unnecessary, and bloated sports departments that (depending on who you talk to) may or may not fund themselves result in an incredible amount of money that's wasted on college campuses.
|
United States44203 Posts
Mute argument is a good one. I'll remember that for next time.
|
A transaction tax is never going to pass Congress though. I mean this half-jokingly, but saying Wall Street will pay for all college education is strangely similar to Trump's claim that the Mexicans will pay for a border wall.
I'd be down for cheap college education but uh... can I get about 50K back that I paid in tuition? Shit needs to be retroactive or something.
|
A Chicago police officer who shot and killed a black man who was running away from police will not be charged, Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez said on Monday.
The decision comes on the same day that the Justice Department announced that it was launching an investigation into the Chicago Police Department's use of force and deadly force.
During the press conference, Alvarez played a dash-cam video that showed Officer George Hernandez stepping out of his unmarked vehicle to join the pursuit for Ronald Johnson.
Hernandez fires five times quickly thereafter hitting Johnson twice, once in the back of the knee and another in the back of the shoulder.
Source
|
United States44203 Posts
On December 08 2015 06:28 ticklishmusic wrote:
A transaction tax is never going to pass Congress though. I mean this half-jokingly, but saying Wall Street will pay for all college education is strangely similar to Trump's claim that the Mexicans will pay for a border wall.
I'd be down for cheap college education but uh... can I get about 50K back that I paid in tuition? Shit needs to be retroactive or something.
That tax exists in the UK, just so you know. A one time 50 basis points hit doesn't really hurt buy and hold investors too badly.
https://www.gov.uk/tax-buy-shares/overview
It also excludes intermediaries in order to keep the market liquid so you don't need to find someone who wants the exact shares you have in order to sell, you can sell to a broker who will resell them and the tax will only be levied on the eventual buyer rather than on both.
|
WASHINGTON -- Republican presidential hopeful and real estate mogul Donald Trump is calling for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" following a series of deadly terror attacks involving Islamic jihadists in California and France.
"Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension," Trump said in a statement emailed to reporters on Monday.
"Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life," he added.
Source
|
Does Trump know that Muslims are not a utility? That he can't just shut them off nationwide like power or water. That the majority of them are American citizens and have these pesky things call rights?
|
On December 08 2015 06:39 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2015 06:28 ticklishmusic wrote:
A transaction tax is never going to pass Congress though. I mean this half-jokingly, but saying Wall Street will pay for all college education is strangely similar to Trump's claim that the Mexicans will pay for a border wall.
I'd be down for cheap college education but uh... can I get about 50K back that I paid in tuition? Shit needs to be retroactive or something. That tax exists in the UK, just so you know. A one time 50 basis points hit doesn't really hurt buy and hold investors too badly. https://www.gov.uk/tax-buy-shares/overviewIt also excludes intermediaries in order to keep the market liquid so you don't need to find someone who wants the exact shares you have in order to sell, you can sell to a broker who will resell them and the tax will only be levied on the eventual buyer rather than on both.
UK also has the NHS and a lot of other nice things America lacks though 
My thought is that Wall Street might be okay with Clinton's regulations since they come from a more macro regulatory angle. But if you're gonna slap a fairly substantial tax that is gonna kill a lot of their extremely profitable lines of business, they're gonna hem and haw so loud that they'll make Westboro Baptist Church look like the Saffron Revolution.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
sanders proposed transaction tax is quite a bit higher than what europe has
|
That's not the point you start with a high tax and let yourself get bartered down to the rate you wanted from the start. If you're doing hem and hawing on the numbers the battle is won.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
for a tax on financial transactions the rate is really important. it has a qualitative impact on the implications of the tax, both in for example making thin margin trade activities nonviable and also in driving these firms away from the country. these taxes are most effective only when internationally coordinated.
|
Stoked by evangelical and tea-party support, Ted Cruz has surged to first place in Iowa, according to the results of a Monmouth University poll released Monday surveying voters likely to participate in the Republican caucus on Feb. 1.
Cruz earned 24 percent of support among likely caucus-goers, with 19 percent opting for Donald Trump, whose polling advantage in the state has dwindled in recent weeks. In a Quinnipiac University survey conducted in mid-November, Trump held a slim 25 percent to 23 percent advantage over Cruz, while retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson finished with 18 percent.
In this survey, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio finished third with 17 percent, followed by 13 percent for Carson (a 19-point drop from October), 6 percent for former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, 4 percent for Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, 3 percent for former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina and 2 percent for New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. All other candidates finished with 1 percent or less support, with 4 percent undecided and 1 percent describing themselves as "uncommitted."
Cruz's advantage comes largely at the expense of Carson, who less than two months ago led the state's Monmouth poll by a 14-point margin over Trump.
This time, Texas senator commanded pluralities from evangelicals, with 30 percent supporting him, and 18 percent going for Trump. In October, Carson held a 36 percent to 18 percent advantage over Trump among that group. Cruz earned just 12 percent from evangelicals in the October Monmouth survey.
Source
|
United States44203 Posts
On December 08 2015 07:03 oneofthem wrote:
sanders proposed transaction tax is quite a bit higher than what europe has
He proposed a tax of 50 basis points on stock purchases. That's the exact number of basis points of stamp duty in the UK.
|
Winning Iowa on a platform that even slightly differs from the bible is impossible.
|
This is when we get into the nitty gritty realities of the primaries and Trump's lead has to be based on people that will vote.
|
Just realized jebbush.com redirects to donaldjtrump.com
what a god
|
On December 08 2015 06:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +WASHINGTON -- Republican presidential hopeful and real estate mogul Donald Trump is calling for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" following a series of deadly terror attacks involving Islamic jihadists in California and France.
"Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension," Trump said in a statement emailed to reporters on Monday.
"Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life," he added. Source
I don't even understand how he thinks this is possible. The terrorists will just lie and say they aren't Muslims, and people that want to get in but aren't terrorists will just lie and say they aren't Muslims, and you can't possibly afford to screen everyone flying into the U.S. for their religion anyway. Then again he doesn't seem to much care about proposing impossible things.
|
On December 08 2015 08:07 Deathstar wrote:
Just realized jebbush.com redirects to donaldjtrump.com
what a god
Haha, that's pretty awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
