By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - PoliCHARTZ - Thread of U.S. Politics & the Presidential Election

Kasz216 on 16 October 2008
Final-Fan said:

Progressive taxes are pretty simple too. It's not the base form that's responsible for the state the tax code is in today, and I think that all the people (not you) who think that [insert hobby horse here] will never get byzantine the way the current system did are fooling themselves.

I'm all in favor of tearing down the absurd level of intricacy in our current tax code and building something simple out of the rubble.  But I'm less optimistic that it will stay that way.  CONSTANT VIGILANCE!

[edit:  and isn't your idea in fact a two-tier progressive tax?]

Not really.  It's more just a flat tax with food, and shelter provided. (More or less)

If your willing to leave those things up to the federal government.

I'm pretty sure nobody who makes around 9K a year pays taxes anyway do they?

 



Around the Network
Final-Fan on 16 October 2008
Kasz216 said:
Final-Fan said:
Kasz216 said:
Final-Fan said:
So Kasz216, you favor a Flat Tax?
Not as of yet.  However I don't favor raising the tax percentages either.  Doing that to the people who actually do a large portion of investing and job creating seems like suicide with the financial situation as it is.

I think a flat tax in the end is probably fair.  Yet not feasable considering how the government currently runs, and that if we cut back on a lot of the useless crap the government does and focus some money on other needs like healthcare and other needs.

I mean.... once everyone is taken care of by their basic needs... what's unfair about a flat tax?

Once the basic needs are taken care of on all what's wrong with having a flat tax?
Two basic comments:

What constitutes "basic needs"?  Food and shelter?  Food, shelter, and clothing?  Food, shelter, clothing, and video games?  College?  Opinions are going to differ.

I would argue that taking 20% of $20,000 hurts a lot more than taking 20% of $200,000.  That's why I don't favor the flat tax at all.

As far as taxing investments, I'm willing to get into this if you want, but preferably we might create a devoted Flat Tax discussion thread if we're really going to go at it.  But one thing I recently heard of is that in the past there has sometimes (in dire times such as this IIRC) been a very small (0.1%) tax on stock trades.  This would certainly cut down on market volatility, which I believe has been named as the biggest [edit:  current stock] market hazard.
Anyone who considers videogames or college basic needs are basically unreasonable.
Basic needs = what you need to live a healthy life.
The constitution above all else gives us three things.
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Life = Basic Needs
Liberty = Not restricting people unneededly.
Pursuit of Happiness = Not getting in peoples way in what they want to do.

But what is needed for a "healthy life"?  Is it sheer survival or is there anything more that is required for a "healthy life"? 

Anyway, have you no comment on the rest of it?  What do you think of the stock trade tax idea? 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Aiemond on 16 October 2008
halogamer1989 said:
Aiemond said:
halogamer1989 said:

Anyway guys, Gallup for today shows Obama down 1 pt to 49-43 McCain. Likely voter polls (expanded) shows a 51-45 race and LV (traditional) shows 49 Obama-47 McCain within a 2% margin of error.

Polls should tighten before election day so this is normal. The question is will Obama get a bump from the last debate win and from his 30 min speech on the 29th.

Also, going to Obama rally this saturday! Excited :)

 

Where at?

 

 

 Kansas City



Now Playing: The Witcher (PC)

Consoles Owned: NES, SNES, N64, PS1, PS2, Wii, Xbox 360, Game Boy, DS

Kasz216 on 16 October 2008
Final-Fan said:
Kasz216 said:
Final-Fan said:
Kasz216 said:
Final-Fan said:
So Kasz216, you favor a Flat Tax?
Not as of yet.  However I don't favor raising the tax percentages either.  Doing that to the people who actually do a large portion of investing and job creating seems like suicide with the financial situation as it is.

I think a flat tax in the end is probably fair.  Yet not feasable considering how the government currently runs, and that if we cut back on a lot of the useless crap the government does and focus some money on other needs like healthcare and other needs.

I mean.... once everyone is taken care of by their basic needs... what's unfair about a flat tax?

Once the basic needs are taken care of on all what's wrong with having a flat tax?
Two basic comments:

What constitutes "basic needs"?  Food and shelter?  Food, shelter, and clothing?  Food, shelter, clothing, and video games?  College?  Opinions are going to differ.

I would argue that taking 20% of $20,000 hurts a lot more than taking 20% of $200,000.  That's why I don't favor the flat tax at all.

As far as taxing investments, I'm willing to get into this if you want, but preferably we might create a devoted Flat Tax discussion thread if we're really going to go at it.  But one thing I recently heard of is that in the past there has sometimes (in dire times such as this IIRC) been a very small (0.1%) tax on stock trades.  This would certainly cut down on market volatility, which I believe has been named as the biggest [edit:  current stock] market hazard.
Anyone who considers videogames or college basic needs are basically unreasonable.
Basic needs = what you need to live a healthy life.
The constitution above all else gives us three things.
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Life = Basic Needs
Liberty = Not restricting people unneededly.
Pursuit of Happiness = Not getting in peoples way in what they want to do.

But what is needed for a "healthy life"?  Is it sheer survival or is there anything more that is required for a "healthy life"? 

Anyway, have you no comment on the rest of it?  What do you think of the stock trade tax idea? 

I've got nothing against taxing investments in a flat tax system.  Or rather the profits off said investments.  Just another part of "income" to me.

Any money made would be taxable if you ask me.  If I got to set it up you'd pay as much off of what you made off your stock margins as you did off of a paycheck.  At the time of sale though... otherwise you'd just constantly get hit everytime your stock price went up, and get no relief when it dropped.

As for argueing about taking 20% of 20,000 hurting more then 20% of 200,000.... isn't an arguement based on any numbers or anything so it's kinda hard to argue.  I could just as equally argue that 20% of 200,000 is more harmful because it's more money and the person could buy more stuff with said money.

20% is always 20% though.

 

 



halogamer1989 on 16 October 2008

Aiemond--KC is always a Dem stronghold with a rather mixed demographic. It stands to note, though, that although Kansas City is a large center of Kansas population, Kansas will be won by McCain.  It has gone Rep. every election since 1964 and that was only b/c of the Kennedy sympathy.



Around the Network
The Ghost of RubangB on 16 October 2008
Kasz216 said:
The Ghost of RubangB said:
Kasz216 said:
The Ghost of RubangB said:
39% of American homeless are kids.

Who are mostly homeless with their parents?

Aside from which... America doesn't have anymore of a problem with homelessness then Canada.

Despite the fact that it should be easier for Canada to deal with homelessness.

Yeah I haven't come up with a good solution for it yet either. (But I do think there are more people in prison for drug possession than there are homeless people, and I'd rather legalize the drugs and convert some prisons to homeless shelters and mental institutions, which would cost less.)

I just think the whole free market idea in America grew out of an outdated Puritan work ethic with an awkward reverse predestination argument that rich people are going to heaven and you can already tell because G-d made them rich because they were good people, and the poor are going to hell and you can already tell because G-d is already punishing them, so making rich people share is making G-d's chosen share G-d's rewards with sinners. In fact, the way some free market people (like an old roommate of mine) blame the homeless for opting out of capitalism because they're lazy and greedy almost sounds like a religious argument.

I think pure capitalism is impossible because it's unethical to force everybody to compete for everything, and I think pure communism is impossibe because it's unethical to force everybody to share everything, but if I had to pick between 2 impossible ideals, I'd pick the one based on sharing with the community over the one based on greed and individualism. I think a healthy blend of competition and sharing is better for everybody.

 

I'm just in a bad mood, 'cuz some LaRouche assholes cornered me at school today and tried to tell me they could solve the financial crisis.

I agree with that. I don't think the lack of homeless shelters are much of a problem though. I mean we have them here. I know plenty of homeless people who have used them. People are still considered homeless if they use homeless shelters. The larger problem is that the permanent homeless are by and large unhelpable... while the ones who largely can be helped... aren't homeless for very long. I'm just glad are homeless shelters are free. It was probably just a scam to get money but when i was in montreal a guy said it cost them a dollar to use their shelters. I mean what's that about? Montreal was depressing that way. Probably spent more giving money to the homeless then I did everything else. Every corner downtown there was a homeless person. Then some punk kids with dyed hair too... yeah i'm going to give YOU money when there is a starving guy one block away. What douchebags.

See I don't think you understand the arguement. The general arguement is

A. that the most important thing is that everyone is treated equally. When you tax someone a higher % because they make more money it's just another form of discrimination.

B. Those who don't have serious problems do get out of homelessness because of their ability to work hard. That part actually is true, those who stay chronically homeless aren't there by chance more often then not it's because of some kind of mental disease or other problem of which they should be cared for. Not because of the homelessness though, but because of the problem.

The arguement though is what is healthy... and what is fair. Making everyone compete over the necessities of life. Food, Healthcare, shelter etc... is wrong. However taxing people unequally is also wrong. Taking care of these needs and taxing everyone equally... now that is fair.

As for the LaRouche guys. Tell me about it. Every freaking day I would buy something to eat so i'd have a built in excuse to not deal with those dicks who park themselves outside of the main campus every day when i was leaving school. Every day they try and harrass you and go to one of there meetings and join their email list.

 

If the argument is between equal health and equal taxes, I have to side with equal health, since health problems kill people and taxes don't.  If we had a magical world where all basic needs could be handled by a flat tax, I guess I could go for a flat tax, but I don't think that's possible.  And even then, as Final-Fan suggested, a flat tax is unfairly harsh on the poor.  20% to a poor person is 20% of everything they have, but 20% to a rich person is just 20% of their income for one year, and they usually have a couple houses and yachts and are living off their wealth and investments instead of their income anyway.



twitter.com/evaneldeneller

Sunday Fundays

Kasz216 on 16 October 2008
The Ghost of RubangB said:
Kasz216 said:
The Ghost of RubangB said:
Kasz216 said:
The Ghost of RubangB said:
39% of American homeless are kids.

Who are mostly homeless with their parents?

Aside from which... America doesn't have anymore of a problem with homelessness then Canada.

Despite the fact that it should be easier for Canada to deal with homelessness.

Yeah I haven't come up with a good solution for it yet either. (But I do think there are more people in prison for drug possession than there are homeless people, and I'd rather legalize the drugs and convert some prisons to homeless shelters and mental institutions, which would cost less.)

I just think the whole free market idea in America grew out of an outdated Puritan work ethic with an awkward reverse predestination argument that rich people are going to heaven and you can already tell because G-d made them rich because they were good people, and the poor are going to hell and you can already tell because G-d is already punishing them, so making rich people share is making G-d's chosen share G-d's rewards with sinners. In fact, the way some free market people (like an old roommate of mine) blame the homeless for opting out of capitalism because they're lazy and greedy almost sounds like a religious argument.

I think pure capitalism is impossible because it's unethical to force everybody to compete for everything, and I think pure communism is impossibe because it's unethical to force everybody to share everything, but if I had to pick between 2 impossible ideals, I'd pick the one based on sharing with the community over the one based on greed and individualism. I think a healthy blend of competition and sharing is better for everybody.

 

I'm just in a bad mood, 'cuz some LaRouche assholes cornered me at school today and tried to tell me they could solve the financial crisis.

I agree with that. I don't think the lack of homeless shelters are much of a problem though. I mean we have them here. I know plenty of homeless people who have used them. People are still considered homeless if they use homeless shelters. The larger problem is that the permanent homeless are by and large unhelpable... while the ones who largely can be helped... aren't homeless for very long. I'm just glad are homeless shelters are free. It was probably just a scam to get money but when i was in montreal a guy said it cost them a dollar to use their shelters. I mean what's that about? Montreal was depressing that way. Probably spent more giving money to the homeless then I did everything else. Every corner downtown there was a homeless person. Then some punk kids with dyed hair too... yeah i'm going to give YOU money when there is a starving guy one block away. What douchebags.

See I don't think you understand the arguement. The general arguement is

A. that the most important thing is that everyone is treated equally. When you tax someone a higher % because they make more money it's just another form of discrimination.

B. Those who don't have serious problems do get out of homelessness because of their ability to work hard. That part actually is true, those who stay chronically homeless aren't there by chance more often then not it's because of some kind of mental disease or other problem of which they should be cared for. Not because of the homelessness though, but because of the problem.

The arguement though is what is healthy... and what is fair. Making everyone compete over the necessities of life. Food, Healthcare, shelter etc... is wrong. However taxing people unequally is also wrong. Taking care of these needs and taxing everyone equally... now that is fair.

As for the LaRouche guys. Tell me about it. Every freaking day I would buy something to eat so i'd have a built in excuse to not deal with those dicks who park themselves outside of the main campus every day when i was leaving school. Every day they try and harrass you and go to one of there meetings and join their email list.

 

If the argument is between equal health and equal taxes, I have to side with equal health, since health problems kill people and taxes don't.  If we had a magical world where all basic needs could be handled by a flat tax, I guess I could go for a flat tax, but I don't think that's possible.  And even then, as Final-Fan suggested, a flat tax is unfairly harsh on the poor.  20% to a poor person is 20% of everything they have, but 20% to a rich person is just 20% of their income for one year, and they usually have a couple houses and yachts and are living off their wealth and investments instead of their income anyway.

All basic needs can be handled by a flat tax.  It just involves the government not wasting a bunch of money on stuff that doesn't need to be there... there are whole branches of the government that are just completely unneeded... and there isn't a government plan out there that couldn't afford to do some trimming among the useful ones.

When all basic needs are taken care of poor people aren't taxed "Everything they have" beacuse they have their basic needs taken care of.

When your needs are taken care all you have left is expendble money.

That's the basis behind the current tax system even where people who make up to a scertain amount aren't taxed because that's what is seen as needed to provide food and shelter. (of course the problem being with allowing it like this is that prices differ at different places and not everyone makes even the minimium.)

 



HappySqurriel on 16 October 2008
The Ghost of RubangB said:

If the argument is between equal health and equal taxes, I have to side with equal health, since health problems kill people and taxes don't.  If we had a magical world where all basic needs could be handled by a flat tax, I guess I could go for a flat tax, but I don't think that's possible.  And even then, as Final-Fan suggested, a flat tax is unfairly harsh on the poor.  20% to a poor person is 20% of everything they have, but 20% to a rich person is just 20% of their income for one year, and they usually have a couple houses and yachts and are living off their wealth and investments instead of their income anyway.

What do you mean by "Equal"?

Do you mean equality of opportunity or equality of outcome?

I think most people (including most Republicans) are willing to discuss ways to provide "Equality of Opportunity" ... If you're talking about "Equality of Outcome" I would ask how it is fair for someone who smokes, drinks, eats excessive quantities of unhealthy fast-food, has unprotected sex with multiple partners, and uses hard drugs should receive expensive healthcare to attempt to bring their level of health to the level of someone who lives an (excessively) healthy lifestyle.



Aiemond on 16 October 2008
halogamer1989 said:

Aiemond--KC is always a Dem stronghold with a rather mixed demographic. It stands to note, though, that although Kansas City is a large center of Kansas population, Kansas will be won by McCain.  It has gone Rep. every election since 1964 and that was only b/c of the Kennedy sympathy.

 

 Yes, Jackson county typically is a stonghold. This is part of the strategy of racking up the numbers in the city to offset the rural areas. Now, we have a couple interesting things this election. First, Obama is beginning to pick up Suburban voters. I have seen Obama signs going up in Blue Springs lately. Second, the rally will get ample time in the KC star and the local news channels. This will promote Obama exposure. So, it helps him rack up those numbers in the metropolitan areas. Plus, it will be fun. :)

Campaign events are meant to excite people, and give exposure. This is exactly what it will do. Blue , Blue ;)

Kansas, you are right, they will go republican. There is a 0% chance that it will flip. And even this number is too high :P

 



Now Playing: The Witcher (PC)

Consoles Owned: NES, SNES, N64, PS1, PS2, Wii, Xbox 360, Game Boy, DS

Kasz216 on 16 October 2008
Aiemond said:
halogamer1989 said:

Aiemond--KC is always a Dem stronghold with a rather mixed demographic. It stands to note, though, that although Kansas City is a large center of Kansas population, Kansas will be won by McCain.  It has gone Rep. every election since 1964 and that was only b/c of the Kennedy sympathy.

 

 Yes, Jackson county typically is a stonghold. This is part of the strategy of racking up the numbers in the city to offset the rural areas. Now, we have a couple interesting things this election. First, Obama is beginning to pick up Suburban voters. I have seen Obama signs going up in Blue Springs lately. Second, the rally will get ample time in the KC star and the local news channels. This will promote Obama exposure. So, it helps him rack up those numbers in the metropolitan areas. Plus, it will be fun. :)

Campaign events are meant to excite people, and give exposure. This is exactly what it will do. Blue , Blue ;)

Kansas, you are right, they will go republican. There is a 0% chance that it will flip. And even this number is too high :P

 

I'm not sure i'd let signs sway results.

I mean... Ohio is in Obama's camp right now yet i haven't seen a single Obama sign anywhere... and I live in the most democratic district in the state.  The 10th district.  Home of Dennis!

A lot of the county doesn't even like him... which shows in the fact that his toughest opponents are the democrats that occasionally run against him in the primaries.

Yet there are a few McCain signs and i even saw someone wearing a McCain shirt.  In public.

Brave man that one.  The election officials tend to not be pleasent to people they expect to vote republican.