2016 POTUS Election Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,455
This election feels like Hillary's for the taking. She's the only candidate who can sit and let the election come to her. Everyone else will be forced to burn themselves out, and will generate about a million damning sound bytes in the mean time.

I want Rand, but not as badly as I used to. I've soured a little on the guy. He's the best candidate. That just isn't saying anything.
I like Rand. He is finally a politician who isn't afraid to break away from all the stupid typical Republic bullshit. He's actually interested in doing the economic things that Republicans are supposed to stand for but never actually do.
 

BipolarFuk

Demoted
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
11,464
Rand is a fucking sell out or liar.

He has shifted most of his positions to establishment Republican.

And his speech in front of an aircraft carrier was nauseating for someone who supposedly wants to scale back defense spending and military action overseas.
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,701
This thread should get interesting.
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,488
Rand is a fucking sell out or liar.

He has shifted most of his positions to establishment Republican.

And his speech in front of an aircraft carrier was nauseating for someone who supposedly wants to scale back defense spending and military action overseas.
You elitist pig, you have no room to talk, you are a 1%er.

Also pretty much completely wrong as usual. Like, couldn't be more wrong if you were trying to be.
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,701
You elitist pig, you have no room to talk, you are a 1%er.

Also pretty much completely wrong as usual. Like, couldn't be more wrong if you were trying to be.
Yep.
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,488
I like Rand. He is finally a politician who isn't afraid to break away from all the stupid typical Republic bullshit. He's actually interested in doing the economic things that Republicans are supposed to stand for but never actually do.
He can't be his dad straight up; if he is, he loses the Republican primary in a landslide like his dad did, sadly.

He has to come towards the middle on some things to appease Republicans who aren't ready for the inevitable evolution of the country on defense, drugs, and social issues.

If he was a "sell out liar" though, you wouldn't have John McCain taking shots at him every chance he gets.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,455
He can't be his dad straight up; if he is, he loses the Republican primary in a landslide like his dad did, sadly.

He has to come towards the middle on some things to appease Republicans who aren't ready for the inevitable evolution of the country on defense, drugs, and social issues.

If he was a "sell out liar" though, you wouldn't have John McCain taking shots at him every chance he gets.
The sad part is the drugs, defense and social issues hurt him during the primary but they probably would help him win the general election. Republicans would still vote for him because he is the best Republican option. Yet those views would allow him to probably steal a lot of the young vote which could have him win in a landslide. It's what makes it a tough balancing act. The Republican party seems to have no idea what is good for itself.
 

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,470
Rand lost me by supporting a flat tax. I can't understand why that would be a good idea or beneficial to the majority of Americans.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,455
Rand lost me by supporting a flat tax. I can't understand why that would be a good idea or beneficial to the majority of Americans.
Really? To get rid of the million and one tax breaks and loopholes doesn't seem like a good idea? At minimum it would increase the efficiency of the tax system dramatically.
 

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,470
Really? To get rid of the million and one tax breaks and loopholes doesn't seem like a good idea? At minimum it would increase the efficiency of the tax system dramatically.
There are other ways to make the system more efficient. Maybe I don't understand the flat tax, but it seems to me like it would benefit a lot of rich people and corporations, and not so much the poor and middle class.
 

skidadl

El Presidente'
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2004
Messages
11,888
The flat tax would be totally awesome. Make poor people and rich people pay the same. It would rule.
 

Rev

Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
19,327
There are other ways to make the system more efficient. Maybe I don't understand the flat tax, but it seems to me like it would benefit a lot of rich people and corporations, and not so much the poor and middle class.
Arent the rich and corporations finding ways to get to the loopholes and wouldnt they not have that access with a flat tax?
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,455
Arent the rich and corporations finding ways to get to the loopholes and wouldnt they not have that access with a flat tax?
They are. I'm not sure what you guys consider middle class or what you all are paying for a tax rate but my tax rate would drop drastically under a flat tax. His plan literally calls for a flat tax of 14.5 %. You'd still get the standard deduction for the first $50,000.00. If someone is making a million dollars for example, they would actually have to pay that tax rate, which would be a significant amount of money. It would also shrink the IRS drastically (Smaller government? Can't think of a better thing because it then saves on the expense side of things).
 
Last edited:

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
There are other ways to make the system more efficient. Maybe I don't understand the flat tax, but it seems to me like it would benefit a lot of rich people and corporations, and not so much the poor and middle class.
Actually the rich would love to see a flat tax if it was done with equality.
 

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,470
The flat tax would be totally awesome. Make poor people and rich people pay the same. It would rule.
My thoughts exactly.

There's a reason people with money seem to back it the most. Steve Forbes basically based his campaign on it a few years back.
 

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,470
Arent the rich and corporations finding ways to get to the loopholes and wouldnt they not have that access with a flat tax?
I could be wrong but I'm assuming things like the earned income tax credit and deductions for dependents would also be eliminated, which help lower income families significantly. All in the name of lowering the upper class tax percentage significantly.
 

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,470
http://www.economics21.org/commentary/rich-pay-fair-share-tax-foundation-income-2015-1-09



The Rich Pay More than Their Fair Share of Taxes
Jared Meyer | 1/09/2015 |

This article originally appeared in Townhall.com.

The Tax Foundation recently released its annual analysis of federal income taxes, based on data from the Internal Revenue Service. The report, authored by Kyle Pomerleau and Andrew Lundeen, finds that in 2012, the top five percent of income earners paid a majority (59 percent) of federal income taxes and earned 37 percent of total adjusted gross income. The effective tax rate for this group was 21 percent. These findings are echoed by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

These data make it possible to fact check the claim that in 2012, the rich skimped on their tax responsibilities at everyone else’s expense.*

It seems so long ago, but the central point of contention in the 2012 presidential race was over the question of whether the rich pay their fair share of taxes. As President Obama argued, “Those who have done well, including me, should pay our fair share in taxes to contribute to the nation that made our success possible. *We shouldn’t get a better deal than ordinary families...”

The top one percent of income earners, who paid 38 percent of federal income taxes, faced an effective tax rate of 23 percent. This was nearly seven times higher than the effective rate of 3 percent paid by the bottom half of income earners. The bottom half of income earners paid only 3 percent of federal income taxes and earned 11 percent of total adjusted gross income.*

Do the rich really not pay their fair share?*

As the graphic below shows, the top half of income earners paid 97 percent of all federal income taxes in 2012.*



The tax rates paid by those with higher incomes do not result in increased government benefits for this group. Data from the CBO report show that those in the highest quintile of earners received just 19 cents of federal benefits for every dollar they paid in federal taxes. Those in the lowest quintile received $18.20 in federal benefits for every dollar they paid in federal taxes. The rich are subsidizing middle-income as well as low-income Americans—the middle quintile of earners received $2.23 in benefits for each dollar they paid.*

When state and local taxes and benefits are taken into account, the difference is less dramatic—but the same trend holds. Other Tax Foundation data compiled by Gerald Prante and Scott Hodge show that families in the upper quintile of income earners received 29 cents back through government spending for every dollar they paid in federal, state, and local taxes. Those in the bottom quintile received $5.28 in government spending for each tax dollar they pay. Those in the top one percent received just 6 cents.

When the progressive income tax was implemented 101 years ago, the initial rates were laughably low by today's standards. In 1913, after exemptions, Uncle Sam levied a 1 percent tax on incomes over $20,000 (around $475,000 today). The marginal rate increased steadily to what seemed then an intolerable 7 percent for incomes over $500,000 (about $12 million today).

Over 99 percent of the population was not directly affected by the income tax when it first began. Similar to most government actions, the scale and scope of the income tax quickly escalated.*

Over the last 101 years, the government's ability to collect its citizens' incomes has permeated America's political fabric. With that, the government’s willingness to expand into other aspects of citizens' lives increased as well.*

Today, to help the government fulfill its new roles, federal tax collections are approaching 20 percent of GDP. Before the income tax started, that number was below three percent.

Despite the data, accusations that the rich are not paying their fair share continue. This rhetoric is based more on perception than reality, or on a mistaken belief that the government needs more funds to become further entrenched in Americans’ lives. While this rhetoric may work as a populist rallying cry, the data show that a central tenet of the political left’s platform is simply incorrect.

*
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
http://www.economics21.org/commentary/rich-pay-fair-share-tax-foundation-income-2015-1-09



The Rich Pay More than Their Fair Share of Taxes
Jared Meyer | 1/09/2015 |

This article originally appeared in Townhall.com.

The Tax Foundation recently released its annual analysis of federal income taxes, based on data from the Internal Revenue Service. The report, authored by Kyle Pomerleau and Andrew Lundeen, finds that in 2012, the top five percent of income earners paid a majority (59 percent) of federal income taxes and earned 37 percent of total adjusted gross income. The effective tax rate for this group was 21 percent. These findings are echoed by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

These data make it possible to fact check the claim that in 2012, the rich skimped on their tax responsibilities at everyone else’s expense.*

It seems so long ago, but the central point of contention in the 2012 presidential race was over the question of whether the rich pay their fair share of taxes. As President Obama argued, “Those who have done well, including me, should pay our fair share in taxes to contribute to the nation that made our success possible. *We shouldn’t get a better deal than ordinary families...”

The top one percent of income earners, who paid 38 percent of federal income taxes, faced an effective tax rate of 23 percent. This was nearly seven times higher than the effective rate of 3 percent paid by the bottom half of income earners. The bottom half of income earners paid only 3 percent of federal income taxes and earned 11 percent of total adjusted gross income.*

Do the rich really not pay their fair share?*

As the graphic below shows, the top half of income earners paid 97 percent of all federal income taxes in 2012.*



The tax rates paid by those with higher incomes do not result in increased government benefits for this group. Data from the CBO report show that those in the highest quintile of earners received just 19 cents of federal benefits for every dollar they paid in federal taxes. Those in the lowest quintile received $18.20 in federal benefits for every dollar they paid in federal taxes. The rich are subsidizing middle-income as well as low-income Americans—the middle quintile of earners received $2.23 in benefits for each dollar they paid.*

When state and local taxes and benefits are taken into account, the difference is less dramatic—but the same trend holds. Other Tax Foundation data compiled by Gerald Prante and Scott Hodge show that families in the upper quintile of income earners received 29 cents back through government spending for every dollar they paid in federal, state, and local taxes. Those in the bottom quintile received $5.28 in government spending for each tax dollar they pay. Those in the top one percent received just 6 cents.

When the progressive income tax was implemented 101 years ago, the initial rates were laughably low by today's standards. In 1913, after exemptions, Uncle Sam levied a 1 percent tax on incomes over $20,000 (around $475,000 today). The marginal rate increased steadily to what seemed then an intolerable 7 percent for incomes over $500,000 (about $12 million today).

Over 99 percent of the population was not directly affected by the income tax when it first began. Similar to most government actions, the scale and scope of the income tax quickly escalated.*

Over the last 101 years, the government's ability to collect its citizens' incomes has permeated America's political fabric. With that, the government’s willingness to expand into other aspects of citizens' lives increased as well.*

Today, to help the government fulfill its new roles, federal tax collections are approaching 20 percent of GDP. Before the income tax started, that number was below three percent.

Despite the data, accusations that the rich are not paying their fair share continue. This rhetoric is based more on perception than reality, or on a mistaken belief that the government needs more funds to become further entrenched in Americans’ lives. While this rhetoric may work as a populist rallying cry, the data show that a central tenet of the political left’s platform is simply incorrect.

*
Yeah. I get tired of people who hate the rich as they rake in entitlements from the taxes that their hate is directed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom