2016 POTUS Election Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Deuce

Guest
Can someone please explain to me how Trump would use his business knowledge to craft policies to affect the economy.

How exactly does that work?

How does he get congress on board and what has he done as a business man that could be ported over and used as a president?
Duh, he would make great deals. Now how you do that, idk.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
Did you type that on your Obamaphone?
Don't you mean your Bushphone?

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/

This specific program, SafeLink, started under President George Bush, with grants from an independent company created under President Bill Clinton, which was a legacy of an act passed under President Franklin Roosevelt, which was influenced by an agreement reached between telecommunications companies and the administration of President Woodrow Wilson.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
:ezTrump'$ continued success in the primaries is taking its toll on some folks.
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,488
The problem with Democrats is they are completely disingenuous when they talk about "gaming the system." Propose a flat ten percent tax with no loopholes -- meaning all corporations will now pay tax and can't scheme their way out of it since there are no more deductions -- and watch how quickly the little liars do an about face.

The truth is that their aims aren't about fairness, it's about making the rich people pay for EVERYTHING and the poor people pay for nothing. That's why they are indignant when you suggest a flat tax that would make taxes go up on the poor, since most poor people now pay little or nothing in taxes.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
The problem with Democrats is they are completely disingenuous when they talk about "gaming the system." Propose a flat ten percent tax with no loopholes -- meaning all corporations will now pay tax and can't scheme their way out of it since there are no more deductions -- and watch how quickly the little liars do an about face.

The truth is that their aims aren't about fairness, it's about making the rich people pay for EVERYTHING and the poor people pay for nothing. That's why they are indignant when you suggest a flat tax that would make taxes go up on the poor, since most poor people now pay little or nothing in taxes.
So your saying the only possible solution to ridiculous tax breaks, is an equally ridiculous flat tax? 10% is what people below the poverty threshold pay in income tax.

Now you are definitely correct that we want rich people to pay for more. That's just the nature of economics, somebody who makes 10,000 a year can't afford to lose 2k as easily as someone who earns 200,000 can afford to lose 35K. So much more of a poor person's income goes to essentials that it doesn't make sense to expect them to pay the exact same percentage as someone who makes exponentially more than them. If you tax someone's rent away, their tax revenue is going to drop to 0 anyway.

And before you call me a liberal pinko marxist or whatever after all the rich peoples gold, I've earned an average of 85k over the last 3 years, as a single with no dependents, so I've paid some taxes.
 

BipolarFuk

Demoted
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
11,464
So your saying the only possible solution to ridiculous tax breaks, is an equally ridiculous flat tax? 10% is what people below the poverty threshold pay in income tax.

Now you are definitely correct that we want rich people to pay for more. That's just the nature of economics, somebody who makes 10,000 a year can't afford to lose 2k as easily as someone who earns 200,000 can afford to lose 35K. So much more of a poor person's income goes to essentials that it doesn't make sense to expect them to pay the exact same percentage as someone who makes exponentially more than them. If you tax someone's rent away, their tax revenue is going to drop to 0 anyway.

And before you call me a liberal pinko marxist or whatever after all the rich peoples gold, I've earned an average of 85k over the last 3 years, as a single with no dependents, so I've paid some taxes.
"Well he's a friend of them long haired, hippy-type, pinko fags!
I betchya he's even got a commie flag
Tacked up on the wall inside of his garage."
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,465
Now you are definitely correct that we want rich people to pay for more. That's just the nature of economics, somebody who makes 10,000 a year can't afford to lose 2k as easily as someone who earns 200,000 can afford to lose 35K.
To be fair in your example you have the poor person paying a higher percentage than the rich person. I assume you're either really bad at math or were being sketchy with your numbers intentionally.

Both people recieve the same benefit of government. Why should one person pay so much more for the same benefit?
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
To be fair in your example you have the poor person paying a higher percentage than the rich person. I assume you're either really bad at math or were being sketchy with your numbers intentionally.

Both people recieve the same benefit of government. Why should one person pay so much more for the same benefit?
I was over thinking it. Your income gets taxed differently at different tiers so I was showing that in the math. So as to imply that even if 10k guy paid a lower percentage and 200k Guy paid 20% that he wouldn't actually be paying 20% of his whole salary.
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,488
To be fair in your example you have the poor person paying a higher percentage than the rich person. I assume you're either really bad at math or were being sketchy with your numbers intentionally.

Both people recieve the same benefit of government. Why should one person pay so much more for the same benefit?
Actually no, the rich person doesn't get the same benefits. There are countless programs available to low income earners that are not available to higher wage earners.

And it's still disingenuous because a flat system is FAIR. It doesn't play favorites. If we are all part of a social contract then why are some people exempt from having to pull any weight? What, they have no responsibility for the federal budget?

If you want to say no tax on the first 10k in income, as in Townsend's extreme example, fine. But take someone who makes 30k a year and pays 3k in taxes (which is, you know, more or less what actually happens) and compare it to a rich person who makes 300k a year, there is no reason why the rich person should pay 100k instead of 30k. That's not fair, that punitive and confiscatory.

That's a judgement that people who are successful have to carry everyone who isn't. This same imbalance is found for people making 100, 150 a year as well. These people aren't super rich billionaires. They are people doing well, trying to save, trying to have a little more, usually working a shitload harder than someone making 20k at McDonalds. They are subject to the same unfair confiscatory tax rates.

It also doesn't end there -- the rich person will pay more in property tax because he owns land while the poor person doesn't. That's another 7%. The rich person will spend more money thereby incurring more sales tax, there's another 6%. Have a business? He will pay payroll taxes and employment taxes. That's another huge percent.

So don't talk about fairness.

The problem is that by implementing a flat tax, revenue would decrease and therefore spending would decrease. But no democrats ever want to talk about that, so they take a fair flat tax off the table.

But fairness would be treating everyone the same, cutting corporate loopholes, and charging the same rate.
 
Last edited:

Clay_Allison

Old Bastard
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
5,488
Actually no, the rich person doesn't get the same benefits. There are countless programs available to low income earners that are not available to higher wage earners.

And it's still disingenuous because a flat system is FAIR. It doesn't play favorites. If we are all part of a social contract then why are some people exempt from having to pull any weight? What, they have no responsibility for the federal budget?

If you want to say no tax on the first 10k in income, as in Townsend's extreme example, fine. But take someone who makes 30k a year and pays 3k in taxes (which is, you know, more or less what actually happens) and compare it to a rich person who makes 300k a year, there is no reason why the rich person should pay 100k instead of 30k. That's not fair, that punitive and confiscatory. That's a judgement that people who are successful have to carry everyone who isn't. This same imbalance is found for people making 100, 150 a year as well. These people aren't super rich billionaires. They are people doing well, trying to save, trying to have a little more, usually working a shitload harder than someone making 20k at McDonalds. They are subject to the same unfair confiscatory tax rates.

It also doesn't end there -- the rich person will pay more in property tax because he owns land while the poor person doesn't. That's another 7%. The rich person will spend more money thereby incurring more sales tax, there's another 6%. Have a business? He will pay payroll taxes and employment taxes. That's another huge percent.

So don't talk about fairness.

The problem is that by implementing a flat tax, revenue would decrease and therefore spending would decrease. But no democrats ever want to talk about that, so they take a fair flat tax off the table.

But fairness would be treating everyone the same, cutting corporate loopholes, and charging the same rate.
I'd support a flat tax if everyone (including the rich, so it would be fair) got a set generous individual deduction to separate disposable income from survival income.
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,488
I'd support a flat tax if everyone (including the rich, so it would be fair) got a set generous individual deduction to separate disposable income from survival income.
Well I said if you want to make it no tax in the first 10k, that's fine. How much bigger do you want it?
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
Actually no, the rich person doesn't get the same benefits. There are countless programs available to low income earners that are not available to higher wage earners.

And it's still disingenuous because a flat system is FAIR. It doesn't play favorites. If we are all part of a social contract then why are some people exempt from having to pull any weight? What, they have no responsibility for the federal budget?

If you want to say no tax on the first 10k in income, as in Townsend's extreme example, fine. But take someone who makes 30k a year and pays 3k in taxes (which is, you know, more or less what actually happens) and compare it to a rich person who makes 300k a year, there is no reason why the rich person should pay 100k instead of 30k. That's not fair, that punitive and confiscatory.

That's a judgement that people who are successful have to carry everyone who isn't. This same imbalance is found for people making 100, 150 a year as well. These people aren't super rich billionaires. They are people doing well, trying to save, trying to have a little more, usually working a shitload harder than someone making 20k at McDonalds. They are subject to the same unfair confiscatory tax rates.

It also doesn't end there -- the rich person will pay more in property tax because he owns land while the poor person doesn't. That's another 7%. The rich person will spend more money thereby incurring more sales tax, there's another 6%. Have a business? He will pay payroll taxes and employment taxes. That's another huge percent.

So don't talk about fairness.

The problem is that by implementing a flat tax, revenue would decrease and therefore spending would decrease. But no democrats ever want to talk about that, so they take a fair flat tax off the table.

But fairness would be treating everyone the same, cutting corporate loopholes, and charging the same rate.
Pretty much my sentiments. If the taxation is purpotionatly equal then is is discriminatory to seek out a certain group and create an unequal penalty on them. This is the same mantra that has been used by every group that feels they are not treated fairly. Why is it different for this one specific group to be discriminated against?
 

Clay_Allison

Old Bastard
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
5,488
Well I said if you want to make it no tax in the first 10k, that's fine. How much bigger do you want it?
That would be fine. I might want to change it over time as the cost of living went up.

BTW, I mean a true flat tax, where capital gains are taxed as income, not at a lower rate.
 

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,486
I don't get why anyone would think a flat tax would be a good thing for the country or the economy.

I'm also not convinced fairness is what we should be striving for in our tax system. Especially considering the economic playing field is nowhere near fair in the first place.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
I don't get why anyone would think a flat tax would be a good thing for the country or the economy.

I'm also not convinced fairness is what we should be striving for in our tax system. Especially considering the economic playing field is nowhere near fair in the first place.
That sentiment could be used to justify any bias. I was under the impression that fairness was one of the basic tenants to freedoms.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom