The 2017 General Political discussion thread, Part 2!

[Woobie]

Okay, I think I understand what you are suggesting: a federal consumption tax coupled with a federal tax subsidy to offset the cost to the poor. Am I correct so far?

I agree that, in theory at least, the subsidy would remove the bite from the regressive element of the tax. I also agree that it would probably be a better system than we have now.

But...

I have to admit, though, that I don't find this plan politically feasible in the least. Realistically, aren't we talking about scrapping and re-writing the entire federal tax code along with forcing substantial material changes at the state level as well? After 40 years of crony capitalism dressed up as "trickle-down" economics feeding both "sides" of our political landscape is it reasonable to think all those suckling at the teat of federal largess are going to vote to enact a systemic weaning?

I mean, I really don't...not with our current political status quo. I can't help but think "tax reform" is nothing more than the "ruling class" dressing upward income redistribution up in populist clothing.

I am in total agreement with your hoped result, but I don't think "fairtax" has a snowball's chance in hell when facing the current political reality in the US.

Also, I don't think there is any practical way to separate federal and state taxation in this discussion, the two are deeply intertwined...I don't think addressing one in a sense of the other will produce implementable results.

I agree with your opinion on the current chances of such a tax overhaul. My position is that, at least in theory, the current proposal is flatter and simpler than the monstrosity we have. It then becomes more feasible to make it even better in 10 or 15 years. Hopefully by the time I am dead, my grandkids won't have to be serfs. But incrementalism only works if you take the first step.

 

[BugI02]

What if you ended up actually paying less in taxes? I have no clue how the proposed changes would affect you overall, but it might be worth actually waiting to see the end result before you make a decision.

Well said. And he doesn't have to push back his retirement. They were not floating the idea of eliminating tax deferred contributions but of lowering the limit on what is tax deferred.

OC= old cap NC= new cap MR= marginal rate he need only increase his annual contribution by (NC + ((OC - NC) x (1 + X)))

 

[actaeon277]

While we're on the subject of "simplifying" the tax code.


There should only be
1 federal tax
1 state tax
1 county/local tax


No more having 1,000 different taxes, so that you don't know how much you really pay.
And no more having taxes withheld from pay.
Make everyone write out a check, or pay online.

 

[BugI02]

You do get the difference between potential collusion and opposition research? Especially research initially commissioned by someone in the same party.

Oh, we fully intend to use the swamp's definition of collusion lolz. They have given us so many recent fine examples of just how it can be used

 

[Woobie]

While we're on the subject of "simplifying" the tax code.


There should only be
1 federal tax
1 state tax
1 county/local tax


No more having 1,000 different taxes, so that you don't know how much you really pay.
And no more having taxes withheld from pay.
Make everyone write out a check, or pay online.

I don't know if that was by design or just a happy (for the powerful) side-effect to adding more and more taxes. But we need to undo it. I don't care how long it takes, but we need to unravel this mess.

 

[printcraft]

I don't understand.

If a court authorized the wiretapps, they are legal...part of an investigation the government is authorized to pursue (as evidenced by the FISA warrants.

Is it more upsetting to you that Obama lied, or that a court found cause to repeatedly sign off on an investigation into our current sitting president and his regime?

I am used to obama's lies...I am far more concerned that a court repeatedly found cause to wiretap Trump and his associates.

Who repeatedly asked the court for the warrants, were denied on several occasions for having too wide a net?
(a wide net means you don't have a specific named person in mind, just everybody) oh yes, that was the obama regime.

Does it make a difference to you that the basis of those wiretaps was the fake dossier that the Clinton campaign and the DNC sent over to obama?

 

[Alpo]

So, you have access to FISA warrant documentation?

 

[BugI02]

Actually Indiucky is mostly accurate. It's not really anyone's party. It's not all people's party, but it is many people's party. It's certainly not Trump's party. It's not McConnell's party. It's not Bannon's party. To say the party solely belongs to any one of those entities makes a monolith of something much more diverse.






I'm not a proponent of sales tax--I'm more of a proponent of a "low" flat rate mandatory income tax with no deductions, with the option of a volulntary put-your-own-money-where-your-virtue-signaling-mouth-is tax. You want to fund social programs with taxpayer funds? You write the check. But anyway...

[I would do that a bit differently, I would include on the flat tax form a list of ... oh, I don't know ... 20 or 30 checkboxs for broad, simple descriptions of areas of government expenditure (such as national defense, for example). The taxpayer could check as many boxes as they wished to indicate what they would wish to see funded with their tax money (the more boxes checked, the smaller the value each check would convey). At the end of the filing period the numbers of checks are totaled and the raw percentages form an upper limit on funding. EPA only got 3% check off by taxpayers, then the highest level that EPA can be funded at is 3% of revenues. I would love to have some sway over how the gov't spends my money]

WRT consumption tax, if the sales tax has some mechanism whereby lower income people pay progressively less sales tax (prebates or whatever), then it's not a regressive tax.

*.*

 

[BugI02]

Oh, you mean the [kangaroo] court ordered wiretap which required a [tame] judge to approve which was ordered on Manafort because of suspicious activity which just happened to catch Manafort speaking to his boss. That same Manafort who spoke to the authorities and the very next day received a visit from the FBI?

Also rare is for FISA warrant requests to be turned down. During the 25 years from 1979 to 2004, 18,742 warrants were granted, while only four were rejected. Fewer than 200 requests had to be modified before being accepted, almost all of them in 2003 and 2004. The four rejected requests were all from 2003, and all four were partially granted after being submitted for reconsideration by the government. Of the requests that had to be modified, few were before the year 2000. During the next eight years, from 2004 to 2012, there were over 15,100 additional warrants granted, and another seven being rejected. Over the entire 33-year period, the FISA court granted 33,942 warrants, with only 12 denials – a rejection rate of 0.03 percent of the total requests.

*.*

 

[femurphy77]

She sure does know where the butter for her toast comes from doesn't she?

 

[BugI02]

Example:

A wealth man buys $1000 worth of food for the month (big family/easy math...lol) from the same store and at the same time as a working-class man who also buys the same $1000 worth of food. Both men pay $250 in sales tax.

For a man that makes $2500/month that $250 imposes a much greater burden against the money available for living expenses...it is regressive because it effects the poor more immediately, thoroughly, and deeply than a man bringing home $10,000/month.

At higher income levels consumption taxes draw from funds that would otherwise be saved, invested, or spent on non-essential purchases. At lower income levels those taxes eat into the funds people need to survive day-to day at a basic level.

Also, sales tax is collected against used car purchases when registered with the state. All sales are supposed to be taxed, if not at the point of sale, then when filing an end of year return. In your example both cars would be taxed.

I see the problem as two-fold: 1) the federal government is already too expensive to be sustainable, and 2) the people that benefit the most from federal largess (the wealthy/"ruling" class) have an exaggerated ability to avoid paying their full share (whatever is actually appropriate).

[Ab.So.Lutely. The smaller the percentage of total income your irreduceable expenses are, the more ability you have to adjust your tax payment by adjusting discretionary spending. Those that are living paycheck to paycheck have a no such maneuvering room]

Make the government smaller and we all pay less, no matter how we pay. <==== THIS. You win the inter webs today, Paul!

*.*

 

[ghitch75]

Sorry, but I’m kind of busy right now. That new Tom Steyer Ad is playing.


https://action.needtoimpeach.com/ac...MIvqaAvdiO1wIVBxxpCh2Jmw6gEAAYASAAEgJiWPD_BwE

really??????.......more stupid ****.....

 

[ghitch75]

oh yes things are starting to come out......this is the tip of the ice burg with all of Obuma's shenanigans.....

Trump DOJ settles lawsuits over Tea Party targeting by Obama IRS | Fox News

 

[printcraft]

So, you have access to FISA warrant documentation?

Yes, but I can't divulge my sources. Sorry.


In Obama's final year, US secret court denied record number of surveillance requests | ZDNet

The report shows that 1,752 applications were made during 2016 to allow the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to intercept phone calls and emails. Breaking down that overall figure, the court said it permitted 1,378 requests in full, while 339 requests were granted after modification.

Roughly 20% had to be modified after being rejected in 2016. Something else was going on in 2016 but I can't seem to remember........

Historically compare that to the previous 3 decades combined ...... only roughly 9% overall were modified after being rejected.

Seems you can see a pattern of a larger push here but you know, I can't say.

 

[Alpo]

The problem is, mi amigo, that you don't link it to anything other than the time frame Obama was in office. So what? You fabricate an aura of surreptitious motivation based on NO evidence.

How many Obama affiliates have been under investigation by the FBI for acting as agents for Russia?

How many Trump associates?

 

[ghitch75]

The problem is, mi amigo, that you don't link it to anything other than the time frame Obama was in office. So what?

How many Obama affiliates have been under investigation by the FBI for acting as agents for Russia?

How many Trump associates?

just wait for it.....Clinton and the gang will be the ones under investigation not Trump....Dems are the ones that brought all of this on and it is now back firing on them.....

 

[Alpo]

Will be...that assumes that Trump's team isn't already.

Would you like to go double or nothing on your next remark. LOL

Personally, I would like to see Hillary behind bars. But, that's just me.

 

[printcraft]

The problem is, mi amigo, that you don't link it to anything other than the time frame Obama was in office. So what? You fabricate an aura of surreptitious motivation based on NO evidence.

No, read again, that covers the previous 3 decades prior.

How many Obama affiliates have been under investigation by the FBI for acting as agents for Russia?

LOL ...... That remains to be seen. Well, lets not look to closely at Uranium One.

House Republicans launch new probes into Obama-era Uranium One deal, FBI handling of Clinton case | Fox News

The Hill reported, however, that the FBI had evidence as early as 2009 that Russian operatives used bribes, kickbacks and other dirty tactics to expand Moscow’s atomic energy footprint in the U.S., related to a subsidiary of the same Russia firm. Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill quickly started asking questions about how the deal was approved the following year by an inter-agency committee.

Something, something, obama administration, something something, hitlary clinton secretary of state during that time, something something clinton foundation.

 

[Alpo]

No, read again, that covers the previous 3 decades prior.




LOL ...... That remains to be seen. Well, lets not look to closely at Uranium One.

House Republicans launch new probes into Obama-era Uranium One deal, FBI handling of Clinton case | Fox News



[QUOTEThe Hill reported, however, that the FBI had evidence as early as 2009 that Russian operatives used bribes, kickbacks and other dirty tactics to expand Moscow’s atomic energy footprint in the U.S., related to a subsidiary of the same Russia firm. Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill quickly started asking questions about how the deal was approved the following year by an inter-agency committee.

It's a spurious statistic. How relevant is any data 3 decades ago to a post-9/11 world. Drek.

 

[printcraft]

It's a spurious statistic. How relevant is any data 3 decades ago to a post-9/11 world. Drek.

It includes the bush years post 9-11........