PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: InTheSoup on November 11, 2016, 12:15:04 AM
-
I mean, none of us can agree on anything. We have really grown apart. Either left views or Right views. Not much middle ground anymore. Do we make red and blue states? Do we make it so you have to follow whatever laws you are registered to vote as? What otions are there? If we do red and blue states, will the blue states pay for our wall?
-
I started Shelby Foote's three-volume history of the Civil War about a month ago. It is utterly fascinating and very resonant with our current situation in some ways. So I would say we should not divide our country. But you are right, it seems we will never achieve consensus. It usually takes suffering, like after 9/11, to bring us together. But that was an outside aggressor. This is us.
-
We need to weaken the Federal government so state's rights matter again. That was the concept of the U.S. in the first place. United States not one big Oligarchy. Still, people can vote with their feet. If you want to live in La La land, move to CA, OR, WA, MA, CT, RI, HI, MD, NY, VT, IL, MN, etc. There are many ultra progressive states in which to choose. But, stay in the metro areas, as if you wander out, you are fair game, even in the Progressive states. :)
-
We need to weaken the Federal government so state's rights matter again. That was the concept of the U.S. in the first place. United States not one big Oligarchy. Still, people can vote with their feet. If you want to live in La La land, move to CA, OR, WA, MA, CT, RI, HI, MD, NY, VT, IL, MN, etc. There are many ultra progressive states in which to choose. But, stay in the metro areas, as if you wander out, you are fair game, even in the Progressive states. :)
These are key points.
It wouldn't immediately divide the country, but neither would it rip it apart. Allow States to tax or subsidize that which they feel is important. Allow States to regulate businesses and our lives as much as their residents feel prudent. States that choose wisely will grow and prosper and more people will move there.
We still need a Federal Government for inter-state policies and for national defense, but the function of the Federal Government should be more of an enabler for the various States and less of a controlling authority for them. As for financing the Federal Government, rather than taxing all individuals the Federal Government should collect fees from each State, but the States should be responsible for the method they choose to raise those funds.
We would see some States go the Socialist route, and some States go the Capitalist route, but most would choose policies somewhere in between (ie, the Bell Curve). Each system would be given teh chance to succeed or fail on it's merits and as a Citizen of this Union of States, I could choose to live and work under the system I prefer.
-
Easy, by football conference!
Pac-12, Big East, SEC, Big-10/12, etc. :P
More likely:
Left America, More Left America, and Middle America! ::)
-
We need to weaken the Federal government so state's rights matter again. That was the concept of the U.S. in the first place. United States not one big Oligarchy. Still, people can vote with their feet. If you want to live in La La land, move to CA, OR, WA, MA, CT, RI, HI, MD, NY, VT, IL, MN, etc. There are many ultra progressive states in which to choose. But, stay in the metro areas, as if you wander out, you are fair game, even in the Progressive states. :)
Without looking him up, do you know who John Hanson was? That's a rhtetorical question, he was the first president of the United States of America under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. You didn't recognize the name? That's because his position was pretty much irrelevant because the states had all the power. Specifically, the Articles stated that "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated." Pretty interesting wording and it was the source of the failure of the Articles.
it would be useful to study the faults of the Articles of Confederation, especially with regards to government limited to enumerated rights and see if you can figure out how restricting the US government to enumerated rights would affect it's ability to execute on anything.
-
The divide is mostly urban vs rural. I am coming to the realization that it's cultural more than ideological. The urban culture has become completely disconnected from people that live closer to the earth and in small communities. Paradoxically they claim to care about the planet, but they are now generations away from having to grow their own food. They don't actually have a relationship with nature yet they see themselves as protectors of their ideal vision of "the environment" (a vision based in fantasy). They do not supply their own energy, it comes to them over wires and they barely have any understanding of how it gets there. They feel superior to "country hicks" and "rednecks" and with every generation the separation becomes wider. The overwhelming majority of people have barely any understanding of the economy, couldn't give you a definition of "socialism" if their lives depended on it. They vote Democrat simply because they are surrounded by others who vote that way, and are steeped in media that paints conservatives as the Face of Evil.
This country is in reality a huge red mass with small spots of blue, but the small spots are so densely populated, and so ignorant of the people in the red areas, that they exist in a seething self important bubble. The big shock of the Trump win is that they were forced to recognize that real people exist in that empty "flyover country". These inferior "rednecks" forced them to take notice by denying them the assumed first female President. It's just taking a toy from a toddler is all. I'm convinced that the great majority of rioters and cry babies have no real clue about the policy differences between Trump and Hillary, they are simply shocked that people they so look down upon were able to take away their expected result. I don't even think they give a crap about Hillary. Their real problem is they feel like a parent swooped in and took something away from them, and that parent is the horrible, racist, unenlightened stupid person they have, until now, forgot existed. The cities don't like being reminded we exist because without us, they have no food and no energy. This is their deep subconscious fear. Their hatred of us is due to their dependence on us. Like a toddler resenting his dependence on mommy and daddy. But it's worse. It's more like masters who depend on slaves to work the plantation, or royalty in a medieval castle who have serfs that must turn over a large portion of their crops and goods. They are most comfortable pretending we don't exist, as long as they get their food and energy (and tax dollars). You can expect extreme efforts to overthrow the Electoral College, because the EC is what gives us large red areas power.
There is no possible way to divide the country. It will be the Big House with no fields or woods. The Castle with no hunting lands or tenants. The blue areas cannot separate and survive, even the blue states are mostly red when you look at it by county. For a long time now the trend has been for the population to move from rural to urban and as far as I can see, that imbalance will continue to grow. That may mean if Republicans continue to win by EC, the popular vote will go the other way more often, until even the EC won't be enough for Republican wins. As people move to the cities, their children are "absorbed" into the urban culture.
So I expect this nation will go Democrat again before long. If we're lucky we'll have eight years of Trump and an economic boom, but it will all be reversed again because Democrats don't grasp economics. They don't see the connection between lower taxes and individual prosperity; they vote on emotion and "causes" not based in fact and reality. We'll eventually decline into socialist Hell and probably break apart into fiefdoms, or be forced to stay together like the Soviet Union.
-
I believe you may be right. And this is why we all have to make reality a little more clear to others in our spheres of influence. I have to hold the belief that we as a nation will overcome this liberal delusionism. We have been given a fresh chance that we really didn't deserve. We all must work to make sure we don't find ourselves in the horrible position of 2016 again. We have momentum now and cannot be complacent. Also, the swamp will hopefully be drained, so the tentacles of corruption may be loosened and dysfunction exposed.
-
I believe you may be right. And this is why we all have to make reality a little more clear to others in our spheres of influence. I have to hold the belief that we as a nation will overcome this liberal delusionism.
Disagree, what is taught in schools, colleges, and universities makes it an almost certainty that the nation will swing back to the socialist side as the young displace the old.
-
We need to weaken the Federal government so state's rights matter again. That was the concept of the U.S. in the first place. United States not one big Oligarchy. Still, people can vote with their feet. If you want to live in La La land, move to CA, OR, WA, MA, CT, RI, HI, MD, NY, VT, IL, MN, etc. There are many ultra progressive states in which to choose. But, stay in the metro areas, as if you wander out, you are fair game, even in the Progressive states. :)
It sounds good at first glance, but the problem is that too many people want to control other people.
* control someone else having an abortion
* control someone else's right to own firearms
* control who others can marry
...and the list goes on.
We do need some federal oversight, but not nearly as much as what we have.
The solution isn't in the thread title, splitting up the country. Really, it's the opposite. There was a time opposing parties could work together through compromise, but that's no longer the case. I suggested on the original SZ that it benefits no one when neither party will give an inch and was flamed. Everyone else seemed to think it was great that their congressmen were holding firm in their beliefs and not yielding at all. That's a load of crap in my opinion. My wife and I disagree on quite a bit, yet we get along pretty well and have been married almost 30 years. The solution is that neither of us takes a "my way or the highway" stance. I'd like to see some maturity in this area when it comes to the executive and legislative branches.
Yes, there will be some areas that are non-negotiable, but that shouldn't be the case for every issue that arises, as it seems to have been for several years.
-
Great post Gerhardt.
There are certain things in which I will not compromise. They revolve around our Natural Rights as human beings. Some of them are upheld in the Constitution. Try to take those away, and I have a problem.
-
It sounds good at first glance, but the problem is that too many people want to control other people.
* control someone else having an abortion
* control someone else's right to own firearms
* control who others can marry
...and the list goes on.
We do need some federal oversight, but not nearly as much as what we have.
The solution isn't in the thread title, splitting up the country. Really, it's the opposite. There was a time opposing parties could work together through compromise, but that's no longer the case. I suggested on the original SZ that it benefits no one when neither party will give an inch and was flamed. Everyone else seemed to think it was great that their congressmen were holding firm in their beliefs and not yielding at all. That's a load of crap in my opinion. My wife and I disagree on quite a bit, yet we get along pretty well and have been married almost 30 years. The solution is that neither of us takes a "my way or the highway" stance. I'd like to see some maturity in this area when it comes to the executive and legislative branches.
Yes, there will be some areas that are non-negotiable, but that shouldn't be the case for every issue that arises, as it seems to have been for several years.
I agree with all of this.
My main comment is that we need to tell those folks that want to control others, that is fine. But work on controlling others within your own state. As long as they can't control who leaves their state, eventually the states with workable policies will succeed and those with unworkable policies will fail.
-
The divide is mostly urban vs rural. I am coming to the realization that it's cultural more than ideological. The urban culture has become completely disconnected from people that live closer to the earth and in small communities. Paradoxically they claim to care about the planet, but they are now generations away from having to grow their own food. They don't actually have a relationship with nature yet they see themselves as protectors of their ideal vision of "the environment" (a vision based in fantasy). They do not supply their own energy, it comes to them over wires and they barely have any understanding of how it gets there. They feel superior to "country hicks" and "rednecks" and with every generation the separation becomes wider. The overwhelming majority of people have barely any understanding of the economy, couldn't give you a definition of "socialism" if their lives depended on it. They vote Democrat simply because they are surrounded by others who vote that way, and are steeped in media that paints conservatives as the Face of Evil.
This country is in reality a huge red mass with small spots of blue, but the small spots are so densely populated, and so ignorant of the people in the red areas, that they exist in a seething self important bubble. The big shock of the Trump win is that they were forced to recognize that real people exist in that empty "flyover country". These inferior "rednecks" forced them to take notice by denying them the assumed first female President. It's just taking a toy from a toddler is all. I'm convinced that the great majority of rioters and cry babies have no real clue about the policy differences between Trump and Hillary, they are simply shocked that people they so look down upon were able to take away their expected result. I don't even think they give a crap about Hillary. Their real problem is they feel like a parent swooped in and took something away from them, and that parent is the horrible, racist, unenlightened stupid person they have, until now, forgot existed. The cities don't like being reminded we exist because without us, they have no food and no energy. This is their deep subconscious fear. Their hatred of us is due to their dependence on us. Like a toddler resenting his dependence on mommy and daddy. But it's worse. It's more like masters who depend on slaves to work the plantation, or royalty in a medieval castle who have serfs that must turn over a large portion of their crops and goods. They are most comfortable pretending we don't exist, as long as they get their food and energy (and tax dollars). You can expect extreme efforts to overthrow the Electoral College, because the EC is what gives us large red areas power.
There is no possible way to divide the country. It will be the Big House with no fields or woods. The Castle with no hunting lands or tenants. The blue areas cannot separate and survive, even the blue states are mostly red when you look at it by county. For a long time now the trend has been for the population to move from rural to urban and as far as I can see, that imbalance will continue to grow. That may mean if Republicans continue to win by EC, the popular vote will go the other way more often, until even the EC won't be enough for Republican wins. As people move to the cities, their children are "absorbed" into the urban culture.
So I expect this nation will go Democrat again before long. If we're lucky we'll have eight years of Trump and an economic boom, but it will all be reversed again because Democrats don't grasp economics. They don't see the connection between lower taxes and individual prosperity; they vote on emotion and "causes" not based in fact and reality. We'll eventually decline into socialist Hell and probably break apart into fiefdoms, or be forced to stay together like the Soviet Union.
Rush, excellent post, and I agree with all
Except the last paragraph. There has not been significant movement in representation and thus EVs in decades. I think a reason for that is that Americans like their space, we like our pickups and SUVs, and we like our yards and green space.
Despite the urban planners' utopia of moving Americans into cities, relying on mass transit and light rail, many of us continue have massive commutes because we like where we live.
Even when I was out of college and many
of my friends lived in Lincoln Park in Chicago, 100% of them have left the city once they have had kids and wanted to raise their kids in a better environment.
I think American Exceptionalism will keep us flyover states valid and in play.
-
Rush, excellent post, and I agree with all
Except the last paragraph. There has not been significant movement in representation and thus EVs in decades. I think a reason for that is that Americans like their space, we like our pickups and SUVs, and we like our yards and green space.
Despite the urban planners' utopia of moving Americans into cities, relying on mass transit and light rail, many of us continue have massive commutes because we like where we live.
Even when I was out of college and many
of my friends lived in Lincoln Park in Chicago, 100% of them have left the city once they have had kids and wanted to raise their kids in a better environment.
I think American Exceptionalism will keep us flyover states valid and in play.
Good, I hope you're right about that. It makes me feel a little better.
-
... The solution is that neither of us takes a "my way or the highway" stance. I'd like to see some maturity in this area when it comes to the executive and legislative branches. ...
The main problm is that the left is never happy and wont ever be happy. They just want to keep taking more and more. That needs to be fixed before the right can compromise. Otherwise the right will lose, lose, lose bit by bit.
-
The far left is behaving about this and every other election, exactly as the muslim nations behave about Israel.
It makes no difference that the muslims have fifty times the land mass as compared to Israel, it's that Israel has any at all that makes them berserk.
It makes no difference to progressive liberals how many times republicans compromise where rights are concerned. What causes progressive liberals to go berserk is that citizens have any rights at all.
-
The far left is behaving about this and every other election, exactly as the muslim nations behave about Israel.
It makes no difference that the muslims have fifty times the land mass as compared to Israel, it's that Israel has any at all that makes them berserk.
It makes no difference to progressive liberals how many times republicans compromise where rights are concerned. What causes progressive liberals to go berserk is that citizens have any rights at all.
Well, that, and any non-Muslim is infidel to be purged.
-
The main problm is that the left is never happy and wont ever be happy. They just want to keep taking more and more. That needs to be fixed before the right can compromise. Otherwise the right will lose, lose, lose bit by bit.
You know that you can interchange the words left and right, back and forth all day, and this is exactly how both sides think. That's exactly why we are where we are.
-
Excellent post! A wonderful job of clearly explaining your thoughts! Do have some alternate views as below.
The divide is mostly urban vs rural. I am coming to the realization that it's cultural more than ideological. The urban culture has become completely disconnected from people that live closer to the earth and in small communities. Paradoxically they claim to care about the planet, but they are now generations away from having to grow their own food. They don't actually have a relationship with nature yet they see themselves as protectors of their ideal vision of "the environment" (a vision based in fantasy). They do not supply their own energy, it comes to them over wires and they barely have any understanding of how it gets there. They feel superior to "country hicks" and "rednecks" and with every generation the separation becomes wider. The overwhelming majority of people have barely any understanding of the economy, couldn't give you a definition of "socialism" if their lives depended on it. They vote Democrat simply because they are surrounded by others who vote that way, and are steeped in media that paints conservatives as the Face of Evil.
Do agree that the divide is more cultural rather than ideological. Believe that is more a matter of the evolution of our society. As we have grown and advanced technologically, more specialization is the result. While it is true that urban populations have become less “conversant” concerning life in the rural areas, I don’t see that most urban folks are somehow disrespectful of the rural population. I see it as more of a symbiotic relationship. While it is true that the folks in Augusta MT probably supply the beef to the folks in Lynn MA, there is a trade in the fact the folks in Lynn MA can manufacture the turbines that supply the electricity to Augusta MT. Neither rural or urban areas would have the level of success they now have without the other. While there is no doubt some city folks have the opinion that they are somehow superior to the “hick” rural folks, there are certainly folks in rural America that think city dwellers are stuck-up, condescending leeches. Neither opinion is entirely correct. Urban areas supply concentrated intellect and labor. These are necessary in today’s society.
This country is in reality a huge red mass with small spots of blue, but the small spots are so densely populated, and so ignorant of the people in the red areas, that they exist in a seething self important bubble. The big shock of the Trump win is that they were forced to recognize that real people exist in that empty "flyover country". These inferior "rednecks" forced them to take notice by denying them the assumed first female President. It's just taking a toy from a toddler is all. I'm convinced that the great majority of rioters and cry babies have no real clue about the policy differences between Trump and Hillary, they are simply shocked that people they so look down upon were able to take away their expected result. I don't even think they give a crap about Hillary. Their real problem is they feel like a parent swooped in and took something away from them, and that parent is the horrible, racist, unenlightened stupid person they have, until now, forgot existed. The cities don't like being reminded we exist because without us, they have no food and no energy. This is their deep subconscious fear. Their hatred of us is due to their dependence on us. Like a toddler resenting his dependence on mommy and daddy. But it's worse. It's more like masters who depend on slaves to work the plantation, or royalty in a medieval castle who have serfs that must turn over a large portion of their crops and goods. They are most comfortable pretending we don't exist, as long as they get their food and energy (and tax dollars). You can expect extreme efforts to overthrow the Electoral College, because the EC is what gives us large red areas power.
I suspect that the part about the “huge red mass with small spots of blue” comes from the voting results by county. While accurate, its use does require some caution. If a county voted 50.0001% Republican, it is red. Perhaps a better view might be a map that such as this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states#/media/File:Gastner_map_purple_byarea_bycounty.png
There are LOTS of areas of purple, where the differentiation between red/blue is much more muddled. There are very few areas where it is clearly red or blue.
As far as that “hatred” between the left and right, that certainly exists on both sides and the media does tend to highlight the events in urban/suburban areas. Understand your point of the “crybabies” and their ignorance of other people. The protests and whining by some on the left just shows their level of information, I agree with you in that they need to “grow up”. On the opposite side however, there are many people who professed belief (including our President-elect) that President Obama was born in Kenya and is a practicing Muslim. Lack of accurate information and critical thinking is not strictly a Democratic or Republican characteristic.
There is no possible way to divide the country. It will be the Big House with no fields or woods. The Castle with no hunting lands or tenants. The blue areas cannot separate and survive, even the blue states are mostly red when you look at it by county. For a long time now the trend has been for the population to move from rural to urban and as far as I can see, that imbalance will continue to grow. That may mean if Republicans continue to win by EC, the popular vote will go the other way more often, until even the EC won't be enough for Republican wins. As people move to the cities, their children are "absorbed" into the urban culture.
Believe that dividing the country would be a big mistake and won’t happen. Very few of us can survive and prosper on our own, we need the help and cooperation of others, that is particularly, but not exclusively, true in urban and suburban areas. The EC is a good idea and I support its use. The EC provides that balance geographically and mutes the effect of concentrated urban areas. Don’t believe it is going away. Over time, political power has swayed back and forth. At the moment the Republicans have the control; it will defiantly change in the future.
So I expect this nation will go Democrat again before long. If we're lucky we'll have eight years of Trump and an economic boom, but it will all be reversed again because Democrats don't grasp economics. They don't see the connection between lower taxes and individual prosperity; they vote on emotion and "causes" not based in fact and reality. We'll eventually decline into socialist Hell and probably break apart into fiefdoms, or be forced to stay together like the Soviet Union.
Time will tell if we have an economic boom, no one really knows. To say that economic boom times are strictly a Republican or Democratic event is not born out from history. Our economy is complicated, inter-related and increasingly global, I’m not a believer that lower taxes automatically equals prosperity, too many other factors involved, think that how taxes are levied is far more important than the actual rate. Certainly many people, on both sides of the aisle vote with emotion. However, I do believe most people vote based on their current well being and the hope things will get better.
-
Time will tell if we have an economic boom, no one really knows. To say that economic boom times are strictly a Republican or Democratic event is not born out from history. Our economy is complicated, inter-related and increasingly global, I’m not a believer that lower taxes automatically equals prosperity, too many other factors involved, think that how taxes are levied is far more important than the actual rate. Certainly many people, on both sides of the aisle vote with emotion. However, I do believe most people vote based on their current well being and the hope things will get better.
One thing is certain, if tax rates were cut, my personal prosperity looks much better.
-
I would like to see us stop taxing SS benefits. Taxing them just seems wrong to me.
-
Time will tell if we have an economic boom, no one really knows. To say that economic boom times are strictly a Republican or Democratic event is not born out from history. Our economy is complicated, inter-related and increasingly global, I’m not a believer that lower taxes automatically equals prosperity, too many other factors involved, think that how taxes are levied is far more important than the actual rate. Certainly many people, on both sides of the aisle vote with emotion. However, I do believe most people vote based on their current well being and the hope things will get better.
We had a economic boom under Reagan, then Clinton, so yes it is just not party. However, the Clinton boom came with a Republican Congress. We will have an economic boom under Trump. It is not a party thing, it I just time, and people want it. We are tired of stagnation.
-
We had a economic boom under Reagan, then Clinton, so yes it is just not party. However, the Clinton boom came with a Republican Congress. We will have an economic boom under Trump. It is not a party thing, it I just time, and people want it. We are tired of stagnation.
And, we have had recessions under both as well. The Republicans owned the President, House and Senate from 2001 through 2006 (although 2001/2002 was a bit funky with some party switching and a death), then came 2008 :'( :'(. No, I do not lay all the blame on the Republicans for the 08/09 crash, those seeds were planted long before that - it was a cooperative effort. We shall see if we get a boom, do hope so... With the rest of the world in a major funk, I have my doubts, more likely a slow 2-3% for a few more years. But, then again, all it takes is a crazy to assassinate a Saudi prince or other head of state and things will change overnight.
-
We had a economic boom under Reagan, then Clinton, so yes it is just not party. However, the Clinton boom came with a Republican Congress. We will have an economic boom under Trump. It is not a party thing, it I just time, and people want it. We are tired of stagnation.
\
A lot of pent up demand. Anyone with cash was holding on to it thru Obama years. Businesses wouldn't invest and hire because of uncertain costs (OCare).
-
But, then again, all it takes is a crazy to assassinate a Saudi prince or other head of state and things will change overnight.
Why would that be a problem for us? They have lots of princes.
-
You know that you can interchange the words left and right, back and forth all day, and this is exactly how both sides think. That's exactly why we are where we are.
Not really. The Right is trying to keep things, the left is trying to take things. Pretty stark differences
-
Not really. The Right is trying to keep things, the left is trying to take things. Pretty stark differences
No, you don't understand.
You pay taxes. They get benefits. If you don't pay enough taxes, then you are taking away their benefits.
-
No, you don't understand.
You pay taxes. They get benefits. If you don't pay enough taxes, then you are taking away their benefits.
nah, you don't understand.
If you don't pay enough taxes, then the liberals just borrow more money to pay their benefits.
-
I would like to see us stop taxing SS benefits. Taxing them just seems wrong to me.
Thank Hillary's husband for that move.
-
Thank Hillary's husband for that move.
Didn't know Hillary was married to Ronald Reagan. ;)
https://www.ssa.gov/history/1983amend.html
-
I would like to see us stop taxing SS benefits. Taxing them just seems wrong to me.
I can't imagine why what would be wrong. Income is income. Personally, I'd like to see all income taxed as regular income. No breaks because some of it came from capital gains, SS, etc. And everyone with income would pay taxes, obviously some much less than others. But everyone would contribute.
-
I can't imagine why what would be wrong. Income is income. Personally, I'd like to see all income taxed as regular income. No breaks because some of it came from capital gains, SS, etc. And everyone with income would pay taxes, obviously some much less than others. But everyone would contribute.
Capital gains comes from money already taxed at least once.
I'd like to see a return to 1912.
-
I can't imagine why what would be wrong. Income is income. Personally, I'd like to see all income taxed as regular income. No breaks because some of it came from capital gains, SS, etc. And everyone with income would pay taxes, obviously some much less than others. But everyone would contribute.
So it was okay for many years but suddenly needed to taxed. :o
-
So it was okay for many years but suddenly needed to taxed. :o
Had to be taxed to "save it"
-
Capital gains comes from money already taxed at least once.
I'd like to see a return to 1912.
Don't follow you there. If I buy an asset at $100 and later sell it for $200, that is a capital gain of $100. How has that $100 already been taxed at least once?
-
I can't imagine why what would be wrong. Income is income. Personally, I'd like to see all income taxed as regular income. No breaks because some of it came from capital gains, SS, etc. And everyone with income would pay taxes, obviously some much less than others. But everyone would contribute.
I'd be ok with that. Drop both the regular income tax rate and the capital gains tax rate to some lower number. Then make everyone pay that rate on all income. Create a standard deduction equal to the poverty level. Every thing above that is taxed at "the rate".
Also, how about instead of taxing social security, merely reduce the payout. Think of the paperwork and bureaucracy that would be eliminated.
-
Also, how about instead of taxing social security, merely reduce the payout. Think of the paperwork and bureaucracy that would be eliminated.
It would be totally racist to cut social security!
Much better to increase social security and then tax it at a higher rate. Hey, it's an increase! (But net decrease -- maths is hard)
-
I'd be ok with that. Drop both the regular income tax rate and the capital gains tax rate to some lower number. Then make everyone pay that rate on all income. Create a standard deduction equal to the poverty level. Every thing above that is taxed at "the rate".
Also, how about instead of taxing social security, merely reduce the payout. Think of the paperwork and bureaucracy that would be eliminated.
SS tax only comes into play of your income exceeds a certain amount, so not everyone is subject.
-
Don't follow you there. If I buy an asset at $100 and later sell it for $200, that is a capital gain of $100. How has that $100 already been taxed at least once?
Where did the money come from to invest?
-
Where did the money come from to invest?
Cool! ;) Be happy to play that game. Where does any money come from?
It's a circular argument, sorta like saying governments workers don't pay taxes.
-
Cool! ;) Be happy to play that game. Where does any money come from?
It's a circular argument, sorta like saying governments workers don't pay taxes.
Who says government workers don't pay taxes?
Money is earned from labor. You pay tax on the earnings. You take some of that taxed money and put it at risk. If successful and it produces a gain, you pay another tax on the proceeds. If you have a loss, even a complete loss of the principal invested, you don't get to subtract that from your overall tax burden.
Investing money makes it possible for other people to use it. That's why capital gains rates are lower, to encourage investment. Sticking it in the mattress doesn't do anything useful for the economy, like what Obama's buddies in Silicon Valley are doing with their companie's profits.