Bass Pro Shops   Daveys Locker Sportfishing  Newport Landing Sportfishing   The Fishing Syndicate  Carver Covers  Tight Lines Guide Service  Bob Sands Fishing Tackle 
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 30 of 30

Thread: Should the Republicans Dump Trump at the Convention?

  1. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by etucker1959 View Post
    Marley first and foremost I want to say, "I think you're are one of the more popular members on this board." You are always quick to offer useful fishing advice to anyone who ask's for it. (I respect that a lot) When it comes to politics on this board, I know there is a fair amount of people who really don't follow it and might actually learn something by reading our comments. Which further illustrates that point is the lurkers to members ratio. I use to say it was a 7/1 ratio lurkers to members. In the last few days when I've checked that number, it is now a 20/1 ratio in favor of the lurkers. What I'm getting at is this, "I don't think I'm going to change your mind on anything." But some lurker out there after hearing both sides of an argument will hopefully then be able to make up his own mind what he thinks the truth really is.

    You bring up the point of sensible tax reform. Where everyone is paying the same percentage of Tax's. This is the old flat tax argument over the graduated Income tax scale. For those of you who don't know the dynamics of what that argument is, "here's go nothing." Everyone would pay 15% of everything they earned instead of the top earners pay up to 50% of what they make. The system where the top earners pay up to 50% of everything they earn is called the Graduated Income Tax system. (the one we currently have in place.) I've always wondered why the average Joe believes so much in that system. (flat tax system) The big winners in that system would be the super rich and the big losers would be the poor. The middle class might have a slight advantage in that system, but it is totally unfeasible. It try's to get money from the poor who don't have it and then let the Rich get totally richer. Would that system even work????? Noooooooo!!! It would not allow the Federal government to collect enough tax revenue to do much of anything. So what would they then do???? Totally Gut popular social programs???? (probably) Yet they would still want a big military budget. Guess who that sounds like????? The former USSR right before it all fell apart!!!! I'm not kidding!!!!!!!! Even though we hoped Obama could have done more. These crazy Republicans want to turn our whole system on top of itself to the point it may all fall apart!!!!! I'm not kidding!!!!!! Plain and simple their idea's just wouldn't work!!!!!!! If you don't believe that, think of some of the things Trump said, "do you really think deporting 11 million people is remotely possible????" Or building a border wall and make Mexico pay for it!!!! These Republicans and their ideas are nothing more then snake oil salesman and are you going to buy into that?????????
    Thanks. Who knows who those lurkers really are? Trump campaign workers? Sanders campaign workers, Hillary campaign workers (oh ****!)
    But I see no reason to soak the rich because I like to think there is some incentive to working hard, doing the right things and becoming my idea of rich. The two issues I have with soaking the rich is that (1) it becomes an income re-distribution system where the rich are taxed to pay for the leeches at the bottom, which is what we have with so very many of the social programs. Obamacare hasn't been around long enough for a large fraud network to develop but just give it a little more time. And (2), the income definition of "rich" drops dramatically to the point that $70K in net annual income suddenly makes you a tax target because you have that exorbitant income. Everyone should pay income taxes, and they're not.
    All this creates class envy, which is as divisive as bigotry and discrimination (though not nearly as destructive). A FAIR progressive/graduated tax is fine but only if everyone but the truly destitute pays it, if only Congress could agree on the definition of "fair", which helps bring us right back to gridlock.

    Deporting 11 million people? Not possible unless they leave on their own because it's no longer comfortable for them to live here. If it is desirable to make them leave, and the cost of the social programs alone that they consume would make me say that it is, then stop the social programs, repeal the 14th amendment and make citizenship relative to the parent's citizenship. That would remove much of the incentive for them to stay. At the same time, make employing someone who is here illegally a crime with steep monetary penalties and enforce the penalty. There would be no need for a tangible wall at all, perhaps what Trump is actually talking about.



    I think I need to kill some fish.

  2. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marley View Post
    At the same time, make employing someone who is here illegally a crime with steep monetary penalties and enforce the penalty. There would be no need for a tangible wall at all, perhaps what Trump is actually talking about.
    Unfortunately, the Republicans and the US Chamber of Commerce are totally against any employer penalties. Only having (corporate welfare) la migra take out the poor employees is acceptable. How many companies just happen to get raided on "pay day" and employers get free labor? Urban legend, or not?

    Levying fines on corporations for anything unethical, much less criminal, is virtually verboten. Look at the huge settlement reduction in New Jersey.

    So much for the concept that "corporations are people." You or I would be making big rocks into small rocks, for a long time.

    John
    Last edited by John Harper; 03-22-2016 at 04:41 PM.

  3. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Harper View Post
    Thanks etucker1959, for explaining the downside of a flat tax. Some ideas sound simple, but just won't balance the books considering the fixed costs of a stable government and society. I really don't think anyone envisions Somalia as a "small government" utopia. We all want to drink clean water, breathe good air, work in a safe environment, have good roads, schools, hospitals, etc. Not to mention our national defense. And social safety net programs. It all costs money. What's wrong with accepting that fact?

    Taxing poor people will just make them poorer, and more dependent on government help, food assistance, shelter, etc. This is where some Republicans even favor an increase in the EIC. It would be great if everyone was rich (and thin, and beautiful, and smart), but not even Jesus was able to change that situation. Income inequality has existed pretty much forever. Unfortunately, everyone needs food, shelter, healthcare, education, and security. Maslow's hierarchy of needs in action.

    I actually took a couple classes in finance from Dr. Arthur Laffer at USC in the 1980's. He never promoted his theory (The Laffer Curve) as a panacea. Only to illustrate how increasing tax rates would eventually produce less revenue. This was derived from sustainable fisheries theory, aka environmental economics. Just like overfishing, there is a point where you begin to destroy the resource.

    Of course, determining what "too high rates" actually are is the hard part. We know there were marginal rates at 90% or more in the 1950's, yet our economy was not stifled. And, continuing to lower upper tax rates since St. Reagan has not ever been shown to produce any boost of jobs. Only deficits. Hmm.

    Capital gains rates are out of whack in a lot of areas as well. Mitt Romney pays lower tax rates than most middle class families, cause all his (investment) income is taxed at 15% IIRC. That's why his tax returns showed about 13% overall taxes paid. I'm sure he makes substantial contributions to charity, he seems like a decent fellow. The hedge fund guys use the "carried interest" laws to pay almost no taxes. Is that fair? They churn money and pay no taxes. Hmm.

    Once again, complex issues require complex solutions, often involving.................compromises.

    John
    John that was one of the best posts I've seen in quite awhile. I'm sure many people after reading it will walk away with a little bit better understanding of what the issues are that we all face.

  4. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by etucker1959 View Post
    John that was one of the best posts I've seen in quite awhile. I'm sure many people after reading it will walk away with a little bit better understanding of what the issues are that we all face.
    I have a really good brain. It's huge.

    John

  5. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marley View Post
    Thanks. Who knows who those lurkers really are? Trump campaign workers? Sanders campaign workers, Hillary campaign workers (oh ****!)
    But I see no reason to soak the rich because I like to think there is some incentive to working hard, doing the right things and becoming my idea of rich. The two issues I have with soaking the rich is that (1) it becomes an income re-distribution system where the rich are taxed to pay for the leeches at the bottom, which is what we have with so very many of the social programs. Obamacare hasn't been around long enough for a large fraud network to develop but just give it a little more time. And (2), the income definition of "rich" drops dramatically to the point that $70K in net annual income suddenly makes you a tax target because you have that exorbitant income. Everyone should pay income taxes, and they're not.
    All this creates class envy, which is as divisive as bigotry and discrimination (though not nearly as destructive). A FAIR progressive/graduated tax is fine but only if everyone but the truly destitute pays it, if only Congress could agree on the definition of "fair", which helps bring us right back to gridlock.

    Deporting 11 million people? Not possible unless they leave on their own because it's no longer comfortable for them to live here. If it is desirable to make them leave, and the cost of the social programs alone that they consume would make me say that it is, then stop the social programs, repeal the 14th amendment and make citizenship relative to the parent's citizenship. That would remove much of the incentive for them to stay. At the same time, make employing someone who is here illegally a crime with steep monetary penalties and enforce the penalty. There would be no need for a tangible wall at all, perhaps what Trump is actually talking about.



    I think I need to kill some fish.
    Even the poor pay some tax's (state sales tax's) and hidden fees which are really tax's anyway. Remember the 1% they own 24% of all of our nations wealth and that number keeps increasing. So if all of our nations wealth keeps going into fewer and fewer hands, it only makes sense for them to carry more of the burden to actually pay the tax's.
    Last edited by etucker1959; 03-22-2016 at 05:19 PM.

  6. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by etucker1959 View Post
    Even the poor pay some tax's (state sales tax's) and hidden fees which are really tax's anyway. Remember the 1% they own 24% of all of our nations wealth and that number keeps increasing. So if all of our nations wealth keeps going into fewer and fewer hands, it only makes sense for them to carry more of the burden to actually pay the tax's.
    Yes, it's probably more an issue of wealth inequality than income inequality. The only way to climb the ladder in America is to be able to build some net wealth, and then build on that. That's what Herr Donald (loan/inheritance) did, as well as most of us lucky enough to be prudent with our income, build a business, or inherit some money. On the other hand, we all know someone who had it all and blew it all. There is no law against stupidity, even banks got away in 2008.

    Unfortunately, people need income, from jobs, that pay enough, to gain any net wealth. Where's the jobs growth ideas, Republicans? Silence? Tax cuts?

    It appears that the 1% are on the way to owning more than 50% of the worlds wealth. And now more than 34% of the US wealth. Hmm.

    John
    Last edited by John Harper; 03-22-2016 at 08:23 PM.

  7. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Harper View Post
    I have a really good brain. It's huge.

    John
    "My brain is leading in the polls. Ask anybody."

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Yo' couch!
    Posts
    2,807

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DarkShadow View Post
    "My brain is leading in the polls. Ask anybody."
    I'm gonna build a wall around John's brain, and make the conservatives on this forum pay for it!

  9. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lady Quagga View Post
    I'm gonna build a wall around John's brain, and make the conservatives on this forum pay for it!
    I'm gonna round up all the Johns!

    And send them back where....well wherever John comes from.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rat Beach
    Posts
    7,272

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by etucker1959 View Post
    Even the poor pay some tax's (state sales tax's) and hidden fees which are really tax's anyway. Remember the 1% they own 24% of all of our nations wealth and that number keeps increasing. So if all of our nations wealth keeps going into fewer and fewer hands, it only makes sense for them to carry more of the burden to actually pay the tax's.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •